Suicide and God

[Tears]

Do xtians still get to go to heaven if they suicide?

What about non xtians who tried to be a xtian but couldn't?

[GoDRulZ]

I believe Christians still go to heaven. If not then it works that get us there and not grace. If non Christians commit suicide then no they don't, even if they tried to be a Christian. You are either saved or you are not. This argument will go both ways, always has always will

[Vader]

Yes, I believe that if a Christian commits suicide, they still go to heaven. The second part of your post said something to the effect of "tried to be a Christian but couldn't". Christianity isn't something you "earn". Its obtained by believing that Jesus is your Lord and Savior and accepting that fact as truth. Our salvation is absolutely not earnable by us nor can we be good enough to get into heaven. The Bible is very plain about that fact.

[BloodDrift]

I don't know ... I haven't spoken to a christian that has done it (duuh)
I'll just see it in heaven,

[Vader]

Its just another in a long line of sin. Sin is what God doesn't approve of. There's only one sin that keeps us out of heaven, not accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Suicide is essentially murder. The murder is perpertrated on ourself.

[pauleth]

Why are you asking this question? Is there something that has happened to someone close to you?

[Tears]

no not really

[IronGuardian]

is it not mentioned in the bible that we are not to harm ourselves?

[kwjones]

There's a lot of things mentioned in the Bible that we aren't supposed to do, but we do them anyway because of our sin nature (Romans). I wouldn't expect any Christians to be pefect in obedience on this side of Heaven.

[benj]

Here are a few things you can ramble on about:

- Killing yourself is like destroying the temple of God (The Holy Spirit lives in us)

- "You shall not murder"; suicide is murder of yourself.

- Normally when you commit suicide you are doing it as revenge for something that has upset you (excluding terminal illnesses). Isn't revenge bad, and after you're dead, you can't forgive them. (Unless while you're half way down the cliff you ask for forgiveness)

- God has a plan for everyone, if you end your life, you can't forfill God's plan for you can you?

By the way this is coming from a Christian who's attempted suicide... so I have thought about it a lot...

[LadyRocker]

As for suicide, I think God knows each situation. For example, some people think that they have too much for God to handle, so they try to take their own lives. It still doesn't make it right, but at least, we can say that God's grace is sufficient.

Now, I normally get very vexed when someone says, "Well, I tried Jesus once, and I didn't like it." Someone mentioned that you don't "try" Jesus like you try on a garment that you can discard later on. Christianity is a wonderful relationship with God. His blood has made us clean, and when we think about the most generous sacrifice He has made, how could we resist Him calling us to be His servants? He wants that relationship with us. When it all comes down, that's basically what it's all about. A relationship is never one-sided. It takes both parties to make it work.

[Via Crucis]

It all depends on mental state and ones culpability.

[benj]

God said there will be hard times and good times... and he's always with us... Ending your life is one stupid (I can say that, because I know the consequences of a failed attempt aka destroyed life/family/friends), secondly after coming out of weekly attempts to where I am now, the thought rarely (if not never) passes my mind, and I want to live as long as I can. I'm prefectly happy with my life now.

This is one point I wanna make (you can discuss it): Comitting suicide to get to heaven rather then life your days on earth is just stupid. I would think God would punish you for that.

All I can say is, if you're suicidal, get yourself help... it's better help coming from a counciler then from the back of an ambulance... trust me.

[jafa kree]

i agree with Benj.
i really have no ides if you will go to heaven or not, but i do not beleave that suicide is an answer to anything.

[Via Crucis]

Suicide is forbidden according to the fifth commandment. It is contrary to Christian virtue. If you kill yourself sans some kind of severe psychological disturbance, then more likely than not you aren't going to Heaven.

EDIT: I cannot say for sure that this person is damned to hell, but I can say with certainty that they will be putting their soul at risk.

[Vader]

If you kill yourself sans some kind of severe psychological disturbance, then more likely than not you aren't going to Heaven.


I'm not certain how you can support that stance. Breaking one of the 10 Commandments isn't grounds for exclusion from heaven, that I can see.

[Via Crucis]

I'm not certain how you can support that stance. Breaking one of the 10 Commandments isn't grounds for exclusion from heaven, that I can see.
As I said, it depends a lot on your psychological and mental state, but in general, committing suicide is a gravely sinful act.

[Vader]

Yes, it is a sinful act. And its mortally grave, but I see no scriptural basis that it is SPIRITUALLY grave. Only rejecting Jesus is spiritually grave.

[Via Crucis]

In Catholicism, suicide is considered one of the gravest of sins. It is essentially self-murder (without possibility of repentance) and therefore creates the risk of eternal damnation. This isn't contrary to the belief of the majority of conservative Christianity.

[Stricken]

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Sin is equal. What makes suicide different from lying?

[GoDRulZ]

Christians suffer depression too (for what ever reason). And if a Christian was to avoid (either on purpose or by accident say medication) and the result was to self harm, I do not see a God who is "love" reject this person outright and damn them to hell.

All of us sin in one way or another, how dare anyone say that someone elses sin will not get them into heaven.

[5minutes]

Do xtians still get to go to heaven if they suicide?

Yes.

What about non xtians who tried to be a xtian but couldn't?

Trick question: no one can "try to be a Christian, but couldn't make it". You're either saved by grace or you're not. There is no try.

[Vader]

In Catholicism, suicide is considered one of the gravest of sins. It is essentially self-murder (without possibility of repentance) and therefore creates the risk of eternal damnation. This isn't contrary to the belief of the majority of conservative Christianity.

I can accept that. What is that position based on?

[Atlas]

I won't provide the link to the site I pull this from only because it has some rather unChristian links on the page.
Feel free to google Circumcellions or Donatist to read more. I think these early Christians "spoiled" it for the rest of us with their obsession that involved violence against others. They became a kind of despised laughingstock heretic.

So while I'm sure that there is good Christian reason for disallowing suicide, the faith has danced with the idea and it kinda proved itself completely devoid of light.

... The Circumcellions were a Christian suicide cult of the fourth and fifth centuries. Their religious practice consisted of delivering random beatings to strangers along the road, with the purpose of goading the strangers into killing them. If that didn't work, they just threw themselves off a cliff instead.
...
Based in Northern Africa, at the edge of the decaying Roman empire, they spun off from a more conservative anti-Roman sect to become one of the more peculiar footnotes in the history of Christianity.

Sociologically, the Circumcellions were the Roman equivalent of trailer trash -- rural, uneducated and less-than-notable in terms of contribution to the gross national product.
...
Its parent cult, the Donatists, was founded on the basis of an extremely complex stand that generally extolled the virtues of Martyrdom.

The Circumcellions took the premise to lemming-like proportions (literally) and decided that martyrdom was the ultimate Christian value. They set out to accomplish it... by any means necessary.
...
Since they were destined to be martyrs, the Circumcellions didn't trouble themselves with such virtues as chastity and poverty. Frequently drunk, they cavorted with women and often robbed those victims who failed to assist their martyrdom with a sufficiently violent counterattack.

Frequently, their enthusiasm outstripped their common sense. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, a much-discussed historical incident along the highway illustrated this point:

A number of these fanatics, fattened like pheasants, met a young man and offered him a drawn sword to smite them with, threatening to murder him if he refused. He pretended to fear that when he had killed a few, the rest might change their minds and avenge the deaths of their fellows; and he insisted that they must all be bound. They agreed to this; when they were defenceless, the young man gave each of them a beating and went his way.


When faced with such setbacks, the Circumcellions opted instead simply to drown themselves or jump off cliffs. Men and women alike embraced "martyrdom" in this way.

Their parent sect, the Donatists, disavowed the Circumcellions in short order, because they were quickly becoming the laughingstock of the heretical community. The Donatists specifically forebade jumping off cliffs, to no avail. Crowds of Circumcellions and their supporters would flock to the streets to honor the cliff-jumpers' deaths.

Ironically, the Donatists died off before the Circumcellions, who refocused on tormenting Catholic priests and bishops with beatings, torture and even occasionally rebaptizing them as Circumcellions. They would sometimes set on caravans of wealthy merchants and free their slaves, forcing the masters to pull the carriage behind them.

The Circumcellions eventually suffered the same fate that befalls most suicide cults -- it died out due to excessive death. Contributing factors included the anarchist tendencies of attacking both religious and civil authority figures, which demanded a forceful government response, combined with the pressures that arise from persecuting the wealthy, combined with their predeliction for hurling themselves off cliffs in the absence of any other way to die.

If you're a Catholic, however, thir legacy lives on. You can thank the Circumcellions for the doctrine of the "just war" and your inability to invoke "conscientious objector" to get out of military service.

You see, it was in response to the wacky shenanigans of the Circumcellions that St. Augustine wrote the first major theological justification for the use of violence by Christians -- so that they could defend themselves against the club-wielding morons.
...

[Vader]

Very interesting information. To call them "Christian" would be borderline at best based on that info. In a roundabout way, they remind me of the Nazi/White Seperatist groups. They're only Christian in ways that it suits them without actually embracing any of its core teachings and beliefs.

[Atlas]

... In a roundabout way, they remind me of the Nazi/White Seperatist groups. ...
I think of militant jihadists. "We want to be martyrs. Kill us or you will die."

[Vader]

Yeah, that's a good analogy too.

[IronGuardian]

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Sin is equal. What makes suicide different from lying?
Which book is Jas? I don't read my Bible anywhere near as often as I should, so I didn't recognise that verse.

[Tears]

Yes.



Trick question: no one can "try to be a Christian, but couldn't make it". You're either saved by grace or you're not. There is no try.

Ok but what about people who God hasn't chosen as part of his elect?

[slamdancer777]

There's a lot of things mentioned in the Bible that we aren't supposed to do, but we do them anyway because of our sin nature (Romans). I wouldn't expect any Christians to be pefect in obedience on this side of Heaven.


Welcome back KWJONES. If you are truly saved then there is no where else you can go.

[Architeuthis]

I think these early Christians "spoiled" it for the rest of us with their obsession that involved violence against others. They became a kind of despised laughingstock heretic. ...
Atlas, that was the single most awesome thing I have ever read on the internet about church history. Thank you. I believe I must share that with my pastor. I think he could forge a great illustration out of it.

[IronGuardian]

Its a shame how ignorance and liberal interpretation of the bible has lead to soo much pain and suffering

[5minutes]

Ok but what about people who God hasn't chosen as part of his elect?

If they're Elect, then they go to Heaven. There is no "trying to be a Christian". You're either saved by grace or you're not.

[graybeardheadbanger]

I won't provide the link to the site I pull this from only because it has some rather unChristian links on the page.
Feel free to google Circumcellions or Donatist to read more. I think these early Christians "spoiled" it for the rest of us with their obsession that involved violence against others. They became a kind of despised laughingstock heretic.

So while I'm sure that there is good Christian reason for disallowing suicide, the faith has danced with the idea and it kinda proved itself completely devoid of light.

Interesting part on Augustine. Anyway, it may be of interest to note that an early intervention byu the Pope in the affairs of another church is that when the North African Bishops waffled on Donatism on two other points, the Popes intervened. The Donatists who had said that anyone who renounced the
faith during persecutuon had committed an unforgivable sin. They also said that anyone who was baptized by someone who was a "heretic,' or not sufficiently moral (that is, if the BAPTIZER was immoral) , had an invalid baptrized. The Pope declared that any sin could be forgiven, and that those who generally repented and did penance should be reinstated to the Church. He also said that anyone baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was truly baptized, regardless of the correct theology or moral standing of the baptizer (unless it can be shown that Father Son and Holy Spirit are understood in a clearly unChristian way). So, this is an example of how Popes acting with authority (although papal primacy was not clearly acknowledged at this point in history, even within hte formal teaching of the Roman church)
actually exercised authority to guard against oppression to the ordinary person, and did not use their own authority oppressively. It helps to have this perspective.

graybeardheadbanger

[Tears]

If they're Elect, then they go to Heaven. There is no "trying to be a Christian". You're either saved by grace or you're not.
How do you know if you are elect or not?

[jafa kree]

Which book is Jas? I don't read my Bible anywhere near as often as I should, so I didn't recognise that verse.

james

[jafa kree]

Christians suffer depression too (for what ever reason). And if a Christian was to avoid (either on purpose or by accident say medication) and the result was to self harm, I do not see a God who is "love" reject this person outright and damn them to hell.


Phillipians 4:13
i dont beleave it is Gods plan for any of us to commit suicide. or to be depressed. i beleave a primary cause of depression is lack of faith.

[IronGuardian]

Phillipians 4:13
i dont beleave it is Gods plan for any of us to commit suicide. or to be depressed. i beleave a primary cause of depression is lack of faith.
I'm not sure about that.... I've been very depressed before, especialy last year, yet I have rarely lacked faith.

Hmm, there is a difference between believing and having faith though isn't there.. you might be onto something...

[jafa kree]

well i beleave God can do anything, if we pray and put our hearts to it, we can all overcome depression and many other things. i know this because i have been in massive states of depression, iv even struggled with suicidle thoughts.

[IronGuardian]

well i beleave God can do anything, if we pray and put our hearts to it, we can all overcome depression and many other things. i know this because i have been in massive states of depression, iv even struggled with suicidle thoughts.
suicidal thoughts suck.... its surprising though, jsut how many chrisitians still struggle with this problem though

[jafa kree]

it really is, i dont think this is how God wanted it to be. i dont think alot of things are how God wanted them to be.

[IronGuardian]

it really is, i dont think this is how God wanted it to be. i dont think alot of things are how God wanted them to be.
as Refractorhead would say.. I agree with you 1000%


(he's said it once that I can remember)

[Atlas]

How do you know if you are elect or not?
If, after you die, you hear a great booming voice say, "Well done, Good and Faithful Servant" that's a good sign.

If, on the other hand, you smell roasting goat meat and it's coming from you - that's um... not so good.

[Vader]

How do you know if you're one of the elect? Romans 10:9-10.

[mrsbates]

How do you know if you're one of the elect? Romans 10:9-10.

and if you aint, may as well get it over with?

that makes christianity seem very dark.

[5minutes]

Only to people who harp on the concept of God being God.

[Tears]

I don't get it

[Tears]

how do you know if you are elect or not?

[slamdancer777]

Ok but what about people who God hasn't chosen as part of his elect?

Then they are not saved.

[Tears]

what if they want to be saved but he didn't choose to save them?
can they do anything?

[IronGuardian]

God wants to save us all. We have to choose him, he doesn't choose us.

[Tears]

In the bible it says he chooses us.. that's what being 'elect' means...
or am i totally wrong? :(

[IronGuardian]

I don't know my bible tht well, so im not sure on that point sorry. Does it say he has chosen "us" meaning everyone, or is it made clear that he on chooses a few of us?

John 3:16, says "whoever belives will be given eternal life" suggesting that God wasnt everyone to be saved.

[Tears]

I think it says that he only chooses some people. They are called the 'elect.'
But im not sure if that means the people he hasnt chosen have no hope of getting saved???
I'm kind of trying to find out what it all means.

[IronGuardian]

I'd love to help out, but I don't really know about the 'elect'. Sorry.
I will be watching this thread though, as I'm finding this all very interesting.

[mrsbates]

I think it says that he only chooses some people. They are called the 'elect.'
But im not sure if that means the people he hasnt chosen have no hope of getting saved???
I'm kind of trying to find out what it all means.

actually it says that God wills ALL people to come to salvation. if you believe in God and obey his commandments then you got it.

[5minutes]

Actually... it says that God DESIRES for all to be saved, but only some are elect.

But all of this is off topic.

[Tears]

5minutes is right.. it says desires. I really really want to know answers to my questions (above) about the elect though....

[Stricken]

Christians suffer depression too (for what ever reason). And if a Christian was to avoid (either on purpose or by accident say medication) and the result was to self harm, I do not see a God who is "love" reject this person outright and damn them to hell.

All of us sin in one way or another, how dare anyone say that someone elses sin will not get them into heaven.


Love is only one of God's qualities. He is also Wrath, Anger, and Hatred.

But I maintain that sin is equal, and while I don't believe a christian would commit suicide, if he indeed was saved, he would go to heaven.

[Stricken]

Calvinist? Wonderful...

2Pe 3:9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If God were only to choose a few why wouldn't He choose everyone?

If indeed God only chooses some people wouldn't that mean He doesn't love the others?

[Stricken]

Love is only one of God's qualities. He is also Wrath, Anger, and Hatred.

But I maintain that sin is equal, and while I don't believe a christian would commit suicide, if he indeed was saved, he would go to heaven.


Not that those are God's only qualities. I just chose them so you'd see that's He isn't just Love.

[Simen]

Do xtians still get to go to heaven if they suicide?

Good question, Tears. It's not good when people take their lives,
but I don't see it as a sin. I think they probably will go to Heaven.

[Stricken]

well, it is a sin. Thou shalt not kill doesn't mean, thou shalt not kill some one else, but suicide is ok. thou shalt not kill.

[slamdancer777]

Actually it is more like thou shalt not murder. Killing is not always murder and is not always forbidden. Suicide is a sin. If some one is saved then they will go to heaven. there is no alternate location for the elect.

[Tears]

I think so, yeah

[imza shmo]

what about samson? he was in a bad spot at the end of his life, and he prayed that god would let him avenge himself (and the name of the lord) by slaughtering a bunch of philistines. god said that was a great idea. *separately*, samson asked that he die instead of surviving the destruction of the structure he himself was to pull down. that to me seems like a death wish/suicide. this was fine with god, and it happened as such. what do you guys think about that sorta thing?

[mrsbates]

samson....

i dont think suicide is a sin when it is done to prevent a gretaer evil or if youre going to die anyways. like i read about these christian girls in the early church who killed themselves rather than get raped and all by their captors, and theyre saints. as for samson, i mean he was going to get executed or whatever anyways. like its not suicide for soldiers to fight out to the end even though theyre going to die obviuosly.

[IronGuardian]

samson....

i dont think suicide is a sin when it is done to prevent a gretaer evil or if youre going to die anyways. like i read about these christian girls in the early church who killed themselves rather than get raped and all by their captors, and theyre saints. as for samson, i mean he was going to get executed or whatever anyways. like its not suicide for soldiers to fight out to the end even though theyre going to die obviuosly.
thats a good point. Jesus himself gave himself up to die. There is a difference between suicide and sacrifice

[Simen]

Yeah, Jesus didn't take suicide.

[jafa kree]

what about samson? he was in a bad spot at the end of his life, and he prayed that god would let him avenge himself (and the name of the lord) by slaughtering a bunch of philistines. god said that was a great idea. *separately*, samson asked that he die instead of surviving the destruction of the structure he himself was to pull down. that to me seems like a death wish/suicide. this was fine with god, and it happened as such. what do you guys think about that sorta thing?

good point.


samson....

i dont think suicide is a sin when it is done to prevent a gretaer evil or if youre going to die anyways. like i read about these christian girls in the early church who killed themselves rather than get raped and all by their captors, and theyre saints. as for samson, i mean he was going to get executed or whatever anyways. like its not suicide for soldiers to fight out to the end even though theyre going to die obviuosly.


hmmmm, well in a scence then we are all already going to die someday.

[imza shmo]

i dont think jesus' death is analogous to samsons, or suicide in general. he did willingly let others take his life, but they did it in a forceful manner, and it was ultimately NOT at his own hand, unlike samson and the most common forms of physician assisted suicide. though christs sacrifice (act and death) was noble, samsons act (alone) was noble. his death added nothing to it, was not required, and is not self-sacrificing because it was unnecessary.

the two big distinctions im trying to draw are these: (1) jesus had to die for the act to be ultimately meaningful, samson did not, and (2) samson died at his own hand while jesus did not.

this means that excusing/dismissing samsons suicide as a "noble death" is not as accurate as it could be, seeing that his death was not an intrinsic part of the working plan, and its just something he added in because he felt he was finished with life. it isnt even perfectly described as a "noble last act" sort of arrangement because it didnt have to be his last act (it meaning his killing of the philistines.....theres always the idea that he didnt have to do either, of course, but thats not what were talking about).

i conclude, with plenty of room for error and misunderstanding, that taking ones life is not inherently sinful.

[kmbach]

well, suicide isn't good, no. But, seeing as how I know someone who's brother supposedly commited suicide I've thought about it alot. I myself think that there are..certain circumstances in during which suicide is..ok. In most cases it is irrational and moronic, but it really does depend on the case and the person. The instance itself should determine whether or not it is wrong.

Just like thou shalt not kill. Well..if you strike out at someone who has done you no harm, that's bad. But if you strike out in self defense it's different. Get it?

[mrsbates]

suicide is never ok. suicide is the murder of your own body, and because theres (usually) no time to repent then suicides will probably go to hell.

of course, if one believes that their fated already to either heaven or hell, suicide is an excellant test- if you succeeed, you must be damned, if you cant, you must be saved. what a happy and joyous belief yall have.
enslaved to a tyrannical God and you must obey his every command, you do not have the power to resist.

[5minutes]

and because theres (usually) no time to repent then suicides will probably go to hell.

Only if there weren't grace. That's the concept you keep screwing up on.

[imza shmo]

suicide is never ok. suicide is the murder of your own body, and because theres (usually) no time to repent then suicides will probably go to hell.
suicide isnt a form of murder. murder implies a lack of willingness. the only actor in suicide is yourself, and you are not taking your life against your own will. if youd like to make the claim you do despite that fact, please address the death of samson and explain how god was pleased with his killing himself.

and as 5 minutes clearly stated, theres no such thing as a sin you go to hell for if you dont repent of it (aside from rejecting christ).

[Miyu]

Actually, suicide is murder...since murder is unlawful killing. A murder victim doesn't have to be unwilling for it to be murder.

If killing oneself is against the law, then it is murder. If not, well, perhaps you could argue that it isn't...but it is still a sin against God.

[cmkev]

According to the bible there are two sins God will not forgive Suicide and Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit I hope that this Helps

[kmbach]

what is thr exact scripture that that is stated in?

[mrsbates]

suicide isnt a form of murder. murder implies a lack of willingness. the only actor in suicide is yourself, and you are not taking your life against your own will. if youd like to make the claim you do despite that fact, please address the death of samson and explain how god was pleased with his killing himself.

no way. if someone says, kill me and you do, you know what? youll be charged with murder. samson died in the same way that soldiers die sometimes, killing their enemies... i mean he asked God for the strength to push those pillars down, so he had to give it the ok.

[5minutes]

what is thr exact scripture that that is stated in?

(Pats on head...) Attagirl.

[Vader]

According to the bible there are two sins God will not forgive Suicide and Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit I hope that this Helps

I'm afraid you're going to have to prove that suicide part. I don't recall any scripture that explicitly says that. The blasphemy, there is.

[mrsbates]

i heard that the sin against the holy spirit is despair/presumpting God wont forgive you.

[5minutes]

That's not what Blasphemy against the HS is, tho.

Suicide is not mentioned as a damnable offense in scripture. Period. It is, however, bad behavior rooted in SIN. The GOOD NEWS is that we are freed from the curse of the law. In other words: all our bad behavior and all our sin was nailed to the cross with Christ - including suicide.

That's not to say suicide is good. It's a horrible, selfish event that is the single worst thing a person can do to themselves. Anyone contemplating suicide or thinking about death needs to go talk to someone - a pastor, a counselor, a parent.

[mrsbates]

The GOOD NEWS is that we are freed from the curse of the law. In other words: all our bad behavior and all our sin was nailed to the cross with Christ - including suicide.

so is it okay? seriuosly.

[kmbach]

(Pats on head...) Attagirl.


See 5? I am learning a little something from watching you post! :D

[Via Crucis]

Actually, suicide is murder...since murder is unlawful killing. A murder victim doesn't have to be unwilling for it to be murder.

If killing oneself is against the law, then it is murder. If not, well, perhaps you could argue that it isn't...but it is still a sin against God.
We need not even go into legal definitions to know intuitively that suicide is wrong and a definite offense before the Almighty.

It is patently absurd to assert that Scripture is silent on suicide when we clearly have 'thou shall not kill'. In light of this commandment, it should be obvious that suicide is a grave sin. As I mentioned in an earlier post, psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

At this point, I think it is crucial to examine the fallacious teaching of eternal security.

[graybeardheadbanger]

Let me throw awrench in the works. I quote from Romans 13:9-11:

The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10
Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.
11
3 And do this because you know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed


+++
What do we have here? A claim that salvation is NEARER now than when we first believed. This suggests that salvation does not occur at the moment of "belief"; that seems to be a starting point, but salvation is discussed as a process moving toward completion. And note, the completion of this is accomplished through the perfecting of LOVE, which fulfills the law. And it specifically mentions not killing (along with adultery, etc.)

There are many, many things here to discuss. Those who say we are not bound by the law must also say that we are therefore not bound by Love," if "love" is the whole of the law. But obviously, this is wrong. So, we may to distinguish "laws." One interpretation is that "law" refers specifically to the
Jewish dietary, etc. laws. Paul writes, I beleive in Colossaisns, that the adminitions to "not touch," "not eat," etc. do not give us any real strength against the temptations of the flesh. What does this suggest? It suggests that he speaks of specific jewish laws, and the general moral (natural0 law. They are not equivalent. One is not in fact saved by adherence to the specifixally Jewish laws, but salvation may in fact require perfection of the moral law (exemplified ultimatley by love).

Love is not an option. Christ is clear--he who does not love does not know God. So this sounds like a "law" to me--but it is the perfect law. Ultimately, if we violate it, we are not saved--or to be precsise, if we do not come to complete it, we will not be saved.

I could take this many, many more places. i suspect that the "elect" view is built on a kind of nominalism (as opposed to realism), but I don't know enough to know for sure. Here is te basic idea: nominalism is the view that there is no reality apart from what reality is declared ("named") to be. Therefore, if God "names" one as righteous, it is as if he/she is righteous, because God says so. Realism would state that one is not righteous unless, well, unless he or she is actually (really) righteous.

Another way to put it is, when God "judges," God does not create reality by what He declares, but rather, God declares what is real by discerning what is real. It is like judging one stick to be longer than another--I am not making it longer, I am simply pronouncing a fact. Therefore, when God "judges,' God simply declares whether we ARE righteous. he who does not love, is not righteous. (I know all of the counter arguments--od sees Christ's righteousness, as though it is ours, etc.--but this is just to say we are "named" rihgteous).

God is a God of truth. Nominalism basically wants to preserve God's sovereignty by declaring that God can will anything--therefore, there is no problem in willing that some are damned, and otehrs are saved. It is not "unjust," because God defines "justice.'

I would say that God does not "declare" justice, but justice reflects what God IS. Therefore, he who is NOT loving is not just--and God can no more name him orher as just, than He can say that He is unjust. (BTW, the claim that God "desires" salvation for all, but only "elects" some strikes me as odd--
does this mean that God elects to do that which does not perfectly accomplish what He desires? Or are you bringing antecedent and consequent will into this? That's a move I'm more inclined to associate with Arminius and possible some in Cathtolic tradition).

So, in respect to suicide, it seems clear that one who willfully kills him or herself is in danger of acting in an unloving way. we cannot know for certain the real state of this person, but there is real reason for concern. It would be horrible if someone decided to take their life because they were convinced by a particular theological position that "assured" them that ultimately they would be saved in spite of this. In this case, those who raised such assurances will themselves have to answer to God--as we all must. We can hope that such things were not said out of a disregard of love.

Of course, it cuts both ways. One holding this view may counter by saying that one who believes that one can "ruin" his or her own salvation actually denies the sovereignty of God, ad that he who does this is not saved, since one must acknowledge absolute sovereignty in order to truly have faith that God is capable of electing him or her in spite of his or her sin. So, either approach we take seems to involve risks. But even here, there is an inconsistecy--if God COULD name anyone "righteous" without condition, then God COULD name one as righteous even if he or she lacks faith, or denies God's sovereignty. Otherwise, one is saved by works (prioper belief about God's sovereignty). Thus, it seems arbitrary to me that one would place salvation in proper belief. (It goes even further--one may do this by appealing to Scriptrue, butn if God is absolutely sovereign, why must God be bound even by His own word? Wouldn't it be POSSUIBLE for him to disregasrd it? if we say, NO, then it must be that God's nature demands cionsistency with truth, and in that sense, reason--but this brngs ust o the REALISM position (God's being must reflect what IS). In this case, we are bakc to stating that God cannot declare 'as true" what is not truie, and God cannot decalre one to be "righteous" who is not, in fact, righteous.

Here is what brings me back to Romans 13:9ff. Paul seems to place the completion of salvation more in ligth of perfecting love, which perfects the law, than in belief, which is only the beginning of salvation. The enarness of salvation has to do with works--works, presumably ,rooted in prior beliefs, but works nonetheless 9and works, we must say, made possible for ALL by grace, if they accept God's love). All said, then, suicide puts one in grave jeopardy of acting against love,. and therefore of fulfilling salvation. But, only God can see the heart, and we can hope that such a person did not really intend what they did, or that they repented even in the last instant.

graybeardheadbanger

[graybeardheadbanger]

VC may be uncomfortable here, but I actually glossed over something that may actually contribute to the problems discussed in this thread. I erred in saying that salvation occuirs through perfecting the mroal law. Unfortunately, someone like Aquians would maintain that actually, theological virtues exceeding natural virtues are needed for salvation, and the perfection of these is charity, or love.

In my view, this is potentially problematic. I've struggled with aquinas on this for some time. It seems to hinge on the idea that people are "naturally" mortal, but rednered immortal, even in original creation, by a special supernatural grace. But this opens the door to the C alvinist position. If this grace is purely "gratuitous" to nature, then there is no rule of natural reason dictatng how it may be distributed. Thus, since "death" is the "natural" condition for all, there is nothing unjust about allowing "nature" to be the final say for some, but not others--for any reason whatsoever.

Certainly, aquinas will link salvation to one's actual condition, and not merely to a "covering" of righteousness, so this is a difference. But who receives this condition seems to be a matter of sheer, unnecessitated grace. And this therefore opens the door to something like strong predestination. (Of course, this way of looking at it would stll render suicide as evidence that one may not have received the grace).

A more appealing approach,. for me, is to think of immortality as being natural (and aquinas comes closer to this in places, i think). In this case, "death" is the result of an unnatural falling away of God through sin. In this case,
God cabn choose (albeit graciously) to offer restoring grace to brng things back to their intended condition. In this sense, salvation is not a "special gift" over and above creation, but a gift implicit with creation itself. Thus, if God wiashes to extend the possibility ofthis restoring grace to one,
the possiiblity is restored to all. But one still must agree to be transformed by it, and brought back to his or her "natural" condition.

In this way of looking at it, there is not real distinction between "antural alw" and "theological charity." we are naturally created for such charity. Iwould arguie, in fact, that this is a necessary implication of what it means to be "person." this is especially clear if we think of "persons" nterms of the persons of Trinity, and if we think of Trinity not as some kind of "rational divine substance," but as the relation of love between the divine Persons.
In this sense, to be "person" is to be created in, and for, perfect love. But, such love must still be freely chosen. THIS helps me makes sense of the view that God DESIRES salvation for all, but only "elects" some--though "election" here must be understood as God's "welcoming back" of those who CHOOSE to return. He does not "elect" anyone, but welcomes them back, like prodigal sons. But they are 'elected' (or not) by virtue of tbeir own acceptance, or rejection, of this love.

This is a radical concession. It means that we must redefine "sovereignty" in terms of love. God's sovereignty can never "override" the "desire" that all be saved. But God's love also demands that this be free. God's strength, in other words--His sovereignty--is in the "inability," implicit in His nature, to not welcome back those who return to Him. But this inability is not do to any restraint placed on Him by another--it is due to the perfection of His own nature, which is love. This also shows what makes killing--fundamental destruction--so cotnrary to the nature of God. it is the decision to "blot out" rather than embrace--rather than be assimilated lovingly into the existence of Another. Human power is understood in terms of an annihilation--but this is actually a weakness, since it is a power that can only exert itself through emptiness. God's power exerts itself by affirming life--it is creative. Thus, election for God cannot be fundamentally exclusionary--though we can be excluded by our own decision of refusing to re-enter into this love.

I'm not sure i would stand by all of this with further reflection, bt it is how I am trying to work idea of "grace," "election," and so forth out now. But, the main point is that the distinctionm between "natural virtue" and "grace/supernatural virtue" might be what puts us into these quandaries to begin with (though I'm not sure).

graybeardheadbanger

[imza shmo]

samson died in the same way that soldiers die sometimes, killing their enemies... i mean he asked God for the strength to push those pillars down, so he had to give it the ok.the point isnt that he died, the point is that he asked to die when the situation didnt necessitate him dying. he could have killed all his enemies without dying. his request to die in the act was a separate request from his asking to avenge himself and god. god said both were fine.

[Tears]

We need not even go into legal definitions to know intuitively that suicide is wrong and a definite offense before the Almighty.

It is patently absurd to assert that Scripture is silent on suicide when we clearly have 'thou shall not kill'. In light of this commandment, it should be obvious that suicide is a grave sin. As I mentioned in an earlier post, psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

At this point, I think it is crucial to examine the fallacious teaching of eternal security.

If someone has diminished responsibility for it would God let them into heaven if they were a xtian?

[Atlas]

We are all of diminished capacity if we need help to get into heaven.

Likewise for responsibility. There is, as it's told, One and only One responsible for Salvation. All TRUE Christians get in.

[Argus]

We can't know for sure, but the question I ask myself is would a true believer in Jesus Christ do such a thing. It certaintly isn't fruitful. I don't see how a person could claim Jesus as their Lord and saviour and then proceed to inflict death on the vessel that God has created for their very soul. Ultimately I don't know, but its not our right to take our own lives.

[blessedchild]

hopefully if you're saved, you would look to christ before death. what's the point of believing in JC, if your just gonna kill yourself. kinda stupid. " hey, JC i believe in you now, ok later i'm gonna go kill myself.. thanks for the help." ya, i think he'd like that.

[IronGuardian]

Jesus told us all to go out and spread the Word, to bring people to Him. How can we do this if we end our own life?

[5minutes]

so is it okay? seriuosly.

No. It's not "OK". You're STILL caught up on the concept that every single sin needs to be punished. And you're STILL wrong.

Under grace - all the sin HAS been punished already. Christ took it on His back at Calvary. Go read Romans 8.

[mrsbates]

No. It's not "OK". You're STILL caught up on the concept that every single sin needs to be punished. And you're STILL wrong.

Under grace - all the sin HAS been punished already. Christ took it on His back at Calvary. Go read Romans 8.

really? so sin isnt punished anymore? Jesus made up for it all, yes, but read

John 5:29 "...those who have done good deeds is the resurrcetion of life, but to those who have done wicked deeds is the resurection of condemnation."

its still punished. Jesus may have died for our sins- but that aint no liscnce to go sin.

[Lunkwill]

Jesus may have died for our sins- but that aint no liscnce to go sin.

That is a strawman. No one has said that we have a *license to sin*, but you seem insistent that this is what anyone who believes in perseverence of the saints means. It couldn't be further from the truth. Every Christian who sins after being saved greives God, but it doesn't mean that those sins aren't covered by Jesus' blood.

[mrsbates]

i dont know what a strawman is nor what is perseverence of the saints means, but yes Jesus coverd all our sins. we can still get punished tho

[Lunkwill]

we can still get punished tho

I haven't seen anyone claim that we won't suffer the ill effects of our sin. God does definately chastise his own children, Scripture is very clear about that. That does not however include sending his children to eternal punishment.

[mrsbates]

hmmm... people send themselves to hell by commiting sin. God wants everyone to go to heavne, but not all of them cooperate.

[Lunkwill]

hmmm... people send themselves to hell by commiting sin.

People send themselves to hell by not accepting Christ's sacrifice on the cross and his resurrection.

[mrsbates]

people can accept Jesus and still be murderers, etc. christians can go to hell.
Matt 16:27 "...He [God] will repay everyone according to his conduct."

[slamdancer777]

people can accept Jesus and still be murderers, etc. christians can go to hell.
Matt 16:27 "...He [God] will repay everyone according to his conduct."

Christians can NOT go to hell.

[slamdancer777]

People send themselves to hell by not accepting Christ's sacrifice on the cross and his resurrection.

Actually hell is everyones destination. God chose some to be saved.

[Dave1973]

I believe that if a person (Christian or non) commits suicide, that they go to Hell. Suicide is still murder, no matter how you view it. "Thou shalt not kill" includes killing yourself. If you kill yourself, that is murder. If you die from suicide, how can you repent of that sin? You can't, you're dead, so you die with an unforgiven sin. Just my view on the subject.

[imza shmo]

"murder" can be plenty of different things, and not all definitons include suicide. the ten commandments dont ban killing of all kinds......murdering your neighbor is covered, shooting someone in a military situation is not. without corroborative scripture, i wouldnt be too sure whether or not suicide is covered by that, especially given the actions of samson. forgiveness for sin does not come at the time of your specific request, but rather forgiveness for all your sins, previous and future, is granted at your point of repentence and salvation. im sure plenty of christians die with unconfessed sins, and they are all no less forgiven than they would have been if they got to pray one last time. furthermore suicide isnt always an instantaneous thing, and someone can cause their own inevitable demise but still have time to reconsider and repent/ask for forgiveness for their past (unchangeable) decision.

[IronGuardian]

You are right on that last point Imza Shmo, one can drink themselves to death, and its not thought to be suicide.


Everyone just stop for a moment.... What do you really belive? Do you think God wants you to kill yourself?


We are told that nothing we come up against will be to hard for us with the Spirits help. Isn't killing ourselves (to escape our problems) showing a sever lack of faith (as Jafa Kree has said earlier)?

If all we need to do to be saved is to believe in Christ (as LunkWill seems to be saying), then how is killing ourselves showing that belief? Are we to belive He dies for our sins, but not belive that He can help us through anything at all? If he is more poweful than somethign as final as death, just think what He can do to against more trivial.

If persecuted christians around the world are willing to die for their faith, how does suicide reflect on our own faith? It doesn't reflect well does it.

I'm not saying christians never contemplate suicide, as I myself have considered it. Just think for a moment though what suicide is implying about our faith in Jesus.


(I'm really sorry if I've misinterperated anyone here)

[mrsbates]

Christians can NOT go to hell.


they most certainly can along with the rest of the people. where in the bible does it say christians cant go to heaven?

a christian by definition is someone who believes in Jesus. there are plenty of murderers, etc who believe in Jesus- and how could that work out when murderers will not enter the kingdom of heaven? for not all who say, "Lord" to Jesus will enter the kingdom of heaven.

[5minutes]

really? so sin isnt punished anymore? Jesus made up for it all, yes, but read

John 5:29 "...those who have done good deeds is the resurrcetion of life, but to those who have done wicked deeds is the resurection of condemnation."

its still punished. Jesus may have died for our sins- but that aint no liscnce to go sin.

Yeah, and? That doesn't mean that every sin is punished against the person who committed it. The punishment was borne by Christ on the Cross.

Romans 8
3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Unless you accept this, you cannot be a part of the Christian faith.

Romans 8
8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

[5minutes]

they most certainly can along with the rest of the people. where in the bible does it say christians cant go to heaven?

If you mean "where does it say they can't go to Hell", then try John 3:16.

a christian by definition is someone who believes in Jesus. there are plenty of murderers, etc who believe in Jesus- and how could that work out when murderers will not enter the kingdom of heaven? for not all who say, "Lord" to Jesus will enter the kingdom of heaven.

They aren't Christians.

[graybeardheadbanger]

Yeah, and? That doesn't mean that every sin is punished against the person who committed it. The punishment was borne by Christ on the Cross.

Romans 8
3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Unless you accept this, you cannot be a part of the Christian faith.

Romans 8
8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

It seems this verse can be interpreted differently. In fact, if you just read it through, it sounds as if it is saying that apart from Christ, we could not fulfill the lawm, but with Him, we can. ("The requirement of the law might be fulfilled IN us"--it doesn't say "FOR us.") One could read this, then, as though the law (perfected by love) is made acheivable for us because of grace thorugh Christ. Accordign to this interpretation, we would still have to fulfill the law (I would distinguish the Judaic law from the natural law, based on other verses), but that this is only possible for us because of Christ. (Something like synergism--grace supplies us with the possibility of completing the works to reap the benefit of salvation).

graybeardheadbanger

[5minutes]

And doing so would read it wrongly.

Yes, Christ enables us to please God, but a part of the point of the crucifixion was that the penalty of the law was taken on his back. Sin has already been paid for. Bad behavior has already been covered.

Saying that Christ's sacrifice doesn't cover our current sin is to cheapen His sacrifice.

[graybeardheadbanger]

And doing so would read it wrongly.

Yes, Christ enables us to please God, but a part of the point of the crucifixion was that the penalty of the law was taken on his back. Sin has already been paid for. Bad behavior has already been covered.

Saying that Christ's sacrifice doesn't cover our current sin is to cheapen His sacrifice.

I realize that a Calvinist (and others) would answer along these lines. My point is that the verse itself does not clearly suggest this. It is read along these lines with a particular theology in place--one which can find Biblical support, yes, but Biblical support that is also embedded with various extra-biblical reasoning. (Not that this is bad--i think it is inevitable). To say it "cheapens" grace depends upon certain conception of God--say, certain conceptions of divine sovereignty. My deep suspicion is that this view of sovereignty ultimately relies upon a kind of nominalism which was gaining momentum in the late Middle Ages, and which I suspect may have influenced Calvin (as it is alleged to have Luther). On a realist notion, which prevailed prior to this (though even then perhaps with predestinarian implications), the idea that Christ's sacrifice can permit what remains in fact as unrighteous to be regarded as righteous would be incoherent. Denying incoherence to God does not compromise sovereignty. And i suspect that this is ultimately the difference between our positions--the fact that God cannot regard something as "righteous" which is still sinful does not compromise God's sovereignty, but rather reinforces that He is truth.

This, in turn, ends up pointing to deep differences in how we understand the relation of nature and grace. I can say more later.

BTW, the idea of paying the penalty, while alluded to in Scripture, receives its first extensive systematic treatment in St. Anselm. It is not clear that Anselm has been clearly appropriated correctly here; some have found ways to read him in a more synergistic light. You can insist that your view has only to do with Scripture, but I'm sure it is a view which has been influenced by
certain people, books, etc. which oriented you toward taking these things in Calvinist ways. The problem with a "plain reading" account of Scripture is that so many people seem to read in a way that doesn't fit what is "plain."

Reading occurs through some set of influences--a tradition, if you will. And you can probably guess where i am going with this. Anyway, our differences rest in the issues addressed above. (By the way, what does Paul mean when he says we must WORK out our salvation with fear and trembling? And what does he mean in Romans 13 when he says we are NEARER our salvation than when we first believed? Does this not imply that salvation does not occur in a moment, and that it is the result of a process which involves work of some sort (though a work certainly only made possible by grace).

We can explore how our views of grace and nature differ, if you'd like.

graybeardheadbanger

[5minutes]

Actually, yeah - the passage DOES suggest this. Sorry if that tosses your theology on its fanny.

[Tears]

And doing so would read it wrongly.

Yes, Christ enables us to please God, but a part of the point of the crucifixion was that the penalty of the law was taken on his back. Sin has already been paid for. Bad behavior has already been covered.

Saying that Christ's sacrifice doesn't cover our current sin is to cheapen His sacrifice.

Does it cover our own unforgiveness though? After reading Matthew 6 and asking a ton of christians, I don't think it does...

Matthew 6:14-15
14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

And.. Does that mean we won't get to heaven if we don't forgive others?

[mrsbates]

Jesus' sacrifice covers all sins.
but we still get punished for them.

[Via Crucis]

Reading occurs through some set of influences--a tradition, if you will. And you can probably guess where i am going with this. Anyway, our differences rest in the issues addressed above. (By the way, what does Paul mean when he says we must WORK out our salvation with fear and trembling? And what does he mean in Romans 13 when he says we are NEARER our salvation than when we first believed? Does this not imply that salvation does not occur in a moment, and that it is the result of a process which involves work of some sort (though a work certainly only made possible by grace).

We can explore how our views of grace and nature differ, if you'd like.

graybeardheadbanger
Indeed. I considered responding with Paul too, since it suggests that our salvation does not occur in a moment, but that it is something that we must work out throughout our time on earth. Also, I have to reject the assertion that we are merely covered, since this suggests a kind of deception, that is, God needs to fool himself if you will, by looking at us through a kind of 'Jesus lens'. That seems contrary to the nature of God in respect to His mercy and justice. God requires that we are sinless when we enter into his presence; being simply covered sinners just doesn't comply with His divine justice.

This divide is due to the 'total depravity' doctrine that is accepted by many Protestants. It seems to me to be an open door to hypocrisy. It can give rise to a disconnect between how one lives and what one believes, that is, if it is impossible for me to overcome sin, and through my faith I am assured salvation, then what keeps me from living a blatantly duplicitous life? We have a fallen nature, but as Paul said, we make up for what is lacking in the suffering of Christ. When we offer these struggles and good works to Christ, they unite with His and help to build up the body of Christ, which is the Church, and multiply. Our cooperation with God's grace then nurtures the soil to produce 'good fruit'.

"Bonum certamen certavi cursum consummavi fidem servavi"

"I have fought a good fight: I have finished my course: I have kept the faith."

I've worked to build virtue and called upon Christ to help me with my struggle toward holiness. I've persevered until the very end. I have kept the faith.

[graybeardheadbanger]

Actually, yeah - the passage DOES suggest this. Sorry if that tosses your theology on its fanny.

The passage only "suggests" this if you read it with a theology already in place. Looking at it by itself (not that one should ever take Scritprue in isolation), I believe it just as easily, and probably more so, lends itself to the interpretation that I suggest.

Let's look at it:

Romans 8
3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,

+++Okay, note that it says that the law is fulfilled IN us. It does not say fulfilled FOR us.

....who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

This suggests that when we allow this work to be fulfilled IN us by Christ, we are operating by the Spirit, and not our own sinfulness. Your interpretation would make it much more plausible to say Christ fulfilled the law FOR us, but here it is saying that the fulfillment of the Law is really IN us. "Covering" implies outside, "in" implies inner. Yes, it does not say "by" us, and that makes the reading ambiguous. But one could clearly read this in light of hrist making it possible for us to fulfill the law. This is ambiguous, but this is at least as close to what the text says as interpreting it as saying He fulfills the law "for" us.

graybeardheadbanger

[5minutes]

Jesus' sacrifice covers all sins.
but we still get punished for them.

No, we don't. If that were true, Hitler would have been paddled relentlessly before his suicide.

Does it cover our own unforgiveness though? After reading Matthew 6 and asking a ton of christians, I don't think it does...

Matthew 6:14-15
14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

And.. Does that mean we won't get to heaven if we don't forgive others?

Who's the audience of Matthew 6? Who is Jesus speaking to?

[Atlas]

The timeless act of forgiveness as He gave up the ghost after uttering "It is finished" still stands before us. Though God reaches across time each man realizes his sin in the present moment and seeks forgiveness there.

If sin is a blemish on the soul before God - I've heard it described so - surely the blemish you did not seek forgiveness for will be dealt with, somehow, before, or perhaps when, you stand in the presence of God for judgement.

Catholics call it Purgatory, you may call it - The moment before meeting Jesus.

How different is the mechanism of sin/forgiveness is yours, 5?

[5minutes]

It's this different: the blemish of sin died with Christ on the Cross. While we may still have some level of temporal responsibilty for our behavior, the spiritual price has been paid in full by the God Who Is There.

The same God you deny. Repent and believe the Gospel, Atlas.

[Atlas]

That will happen 5, if I ever accept it as truth.

[LadyRocker]

You know what, Atlas, you're getting a lot closer than you think.

[Atlas]

:p ;)

[Tears]

Who's the audience of Matthew 6? Who is Jesus speaking to?

I don't know... please tell me?? Does it apply to us or was it for someone else?

[5minutes]

The concept applies, but the specifics referred to a bunch of people who lived under the curse of the law. A good chunk of Jesus' ministry was to demonstrate the law's weakness without faith, and this was one of those things.

Kinda like the "pluck out your own eye" passage.

[Tears]

So does that mean that we still get to heaven even if we don't forgive?

[Tears]

if we are a xtian i mean

[Atlas]

If you are an 'xtian' who loves God with your whole heart, whole mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself you get the ticket.

Not forgiving those you love is an odd concept. And holding grudges is like embracing the darkness - forgiveness is a key to holiness.

Nobody is perfect, but if you want to exist in perfection eternally, you'll naturally incline toward goodness while you live. If a person knows not how to forgive or what forgiveness has done for them they've kind of missed the Christian ideal and message.

[mrsbates]

faith without works is dead. thers more than just passively accepting grace- you have to act upon it or you will lose your faith which wont mean anything anyways.

[Tears]

Why don't I understand any of that Atlas?
I must need somebody to really dumb it down for me.. so many xtians have tried to explain it but it's like everyone is talking in a foreign language :(

[Vader]

Let me take a stab at it. Forgiveness of others isn't a condition of salvation. The Bible is clear on this about forgiveness though, if you won't forgive other people of the things they've said and done to you, God CAN NOT forgive you of your sins. Does that keep you out of heaven? No. But, it limits what God can do for you and through you because you've placed those things others have done as being higher and more important than Him. That is idolatry.

[mrsbates]

God could still forgive you. he wont, but he could.

[Tears]

But I've always thought that in order to get into heaven, we have to ask God to forgive us of our sins. So if he can't forgive us, how do we still get into heaven??? I don't get it

[Vader]

If He said that He won't forgive you if you won't forgive others, then there's no "could, but won't". God never changes. Playing the philosophy game with things (If God could do this or Could God make something so....xxx....they he couldn't.....) is senseless is a waste of time. Its in His Word, so that's end of story.

[Vader]

But I've always thought that in order to get into heaven, we have to ask God to forgive us of our sins. So if he can't forgive us, how do we still get into heaven??? I don't get it


When we accept Jesus as our Savior and choose to follow Him, our forgiveness of sins is part of that.

[Tears]

Then why does it say God won't forgive us if we don't forgive others???
Sorry.. am I the only one who doesn't get this?

[mrsbates]

you do have to forgive. your right.

[Tears]

otherwise you go to hell even if youre a xtian?

[mrsbates]

yup.
course you have to behave too.

[Tears]

So you and Vader disagree? Why?

[Vader]

No, you won't go to Hell. Salvation, in the life of a Christian, it just the first step. Our job as Christians is first, to do the Great Commission (go into all the world and preach the Gospel). After that, we're supposed to renew our minds (change our thinking, actions, lives) to conform to the mark, that is Jesus. Our job is to become as much like Jesus, on this Earth, as we can. We never make it in this life. But we're supposed to strive for that goal every day. Why? To be salt and light on the Earth. Our lives should reflect Jesus so others can see what He has done and they desire to have what we have. To add more "souls" to the Kingdom of God so they too can spend eternity with him as opposed to eternity seperated from Him.

[Vader]

otherwise you go to hell even if youre a xtian?

yup.



Can you support that position with scripture?

[mrsbates]

because we are of different religons babe.

it says in the bible, those-who-commit-certain-sins will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

also he is of the sith. i am in training with a jedi next door.
that causes some conflict.

[Vader]

it says in the bible, those-who-commit-certain-sins will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

.

You might want to revisit that. It says those who commit certain sins won't INHERIT the kingdom, not won't enter. Too totally different things.

[mrsbates]

hmm. different transalations i guess.
meaning: same.

you dont actually think i can sin my donkey off and not get punished for it?

[Tears]

what does 'inherit' mean when its talking about the kingdom?

[mrsbates]

inherit the kingdom: you will go there.

[Vader]

Sure, you get punished for it. You almost always get it here. Sin, time and harvest. You reap what you sow, good and bad. God set that law up here on Earth and we live by it everyday. Its in the Bible. Mark 11.

[mrsbates]

and christians thus can go to hell. God is just.

[Vader]

inherit the kingdom: you will go there.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Here's an example. Let's say you're a part of the family Smith. Your dad puts you in the will. He asks you, don't do this and this and this because bad things always happen when you do them. Let's say dad Smith dies and he puts you in his will. Based on that will, you INHERIT what was put in there because the law says its yours. Now, because you did the things dad told you not to, did that make your inheritance null and void (excepting he took you out before he died)? No. The Truth (law) says what was left to you is yours, regardless of your actions. Now, if you break the laws, you're subject to the consequences, but your inheritance is yours until you give them up.

[Tears]

what? christians can go to hell???????? what???!!

[mrsbates]

yes, you will inherit heaven unless you give it up by sinning.

[Tears]

what???
you are kidding, right? you don't seriously believe that??

[Vader]

Unless you can back that up with scripture from the Bible mrsbates, you're dead wrong. Frankly, you can't support that position. We aren't saved by works. Its grace. We SHOW our salvation by our works, but we are not saved by them.

[graybeardheadbanger]

and christians thus can go to hell. God is just.

This debate won't be resolved between a certain kind of Protestant and a Catholic (which I believe Mrs/ Bates is) because the word "Christian" means different things to each. For a "faith only" Protestant, one is a Christian if he or she acknowledges Christ's sacrifice for his or her sins, etc. For a Catholic, there is a sense in which one is not completely a Christian until he or she actually becomes as righteous as Christ (through grace). On this view, one can be a "Christian" in the sense of having begun this process, participating in the sacraments, etc. Once one is a Christian entirely (the next life), he or she cannot lose salvation--but prior to that, anyone who has begun the process can
decide to quit this process, and then they will not reach salvation.

The key difference is that for Catholics salvation is not in a moment--thus, one who has completed the process cannot lose it, but one can fail to complete what has been started (where such a person likely would identify themselves as "Christian") and thus not be saved.

These debates involve many, many other issues. The result is, the word "Christian," "salvation," etc. are used much differently, and thus the sides using these words are arguing past each other, really using a different language in a sense.

One of the kickers for me for the Catholic position is the clear statement that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will be saved. The Protestant can respond to this by saying that one who SAYS it may not be saved, but one who really BELIEVES it will be. To me, this is hard to square with other Scriptrues. Paul writes that "Whosever believes in his hear that Christ is risen from the dead, and confesses this with his tongue shall be saved," so there is a tendency to equate "saying" with "believing." In this case, Paul's verse SEEMS to go against the claim that not all who say "Lord" are saved. But in fact, they are compatible on the Cahtolic view. Here's why:

paul says all who believe and confess WILL BE saved. He does not say ARE saved. This to me suggests the start of a process--one who believes this and says it, and continues to do so, will in fact eventually be saved. However, one who merely says it, but does not believe it (and act on that belief) may not be. That's why Christ divides alleged believers into sheeps and goats according to their ACTIONS. (Not to mention the comments that one who does certain sins will not "inherit" the kingdom of God--and it is pretty clear to me that "inherit" implies "go to.")

The bottom line is, one who STAYS the course ("runs the race," and "Fights the good fight") as Paul, suggests, will have the completion of salvation. These suggest an enduring, and a reward at the end of a process. Paul says these things-even Paul seems to be alluding to a process, even though he is often held up as the clearest example of salvation in a moment. Paul also writes in Romans 13 that today we are NEARER to our salvation than when we FIRST BELIEVED. These suggest a process.

graybeardheadbanger

[Tears]

What are the sins that people can't go to heaven if they commit?
Is there a list?
The only one I really know is blasphemy.
I think mrsbates said murder was one too.
Are there others?

Does it really mean that anyone who has done those sins in the past can never, ever, ever be saved, even if they want to be?

[Vader]

Here's the list of sins that keep you out of heaven. Rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, the only Son of God.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only sin unforgivable by God. From the Protestant position, grace covers ALL sin (except blasphemy of course) of the believer of Jesus as the Messiah. Meaning, saved Christians are forgiven when they ask. Outside of blasphemy, the Bible makes no difference in level or severity of one sin over another (i.e. lying and murder).

[Lunkwill]

You forgot liking the Bee Gee's, if you like the Bee Gee's your doooomed!!!

:p

[mrsbates]

the 10 commandmenys are a good guide as to what and what not to do.

We aren't saved by works. Its grace. We SHOW our salvation by our works, but we are not saved by them.

true. we are saved by grace.... as for works, sin does damn us. in all the lists of those who wont go to heaven, nowhere does it say, except if theyre christian.

[Tears]

how does sin damn you if Jesus died for your sins... washed them away so that you would be acceptable for God?

[mrsbates]

Jesus has died for our sins, so that we could be saved. he gives us grace in order that we can be saved.
sin is a rejection of God and his grace and often enough results in damnnation.
hell is our own choice by sinning.

[Atlas]

how does sin damn you if Jesus died for your sins... washed them away so that you would be acceptable for God?

First, regarding sin and damnation, from my point of view: Sin damns you when it takes over your life.

Many Christians go a lot further, they believe that God has man on autodamn, but it all ties back to sin.

And secondly, when you argue that Jesus died for all men's sins (which I hope is not an unfair characterization of your words), then why does it make a difference if one is Christian or not. Sin is no longer a factor.

Few believe that. They believe instead that He died so that sins might be forgiven. Something occurs to the soul who acknowledges his sin before God and asks forgiveness. What? You know what it feels like? It feels like you get forgiven. You lead us to think, 'that's nice but not necessary, it's probably a nice feeling for little girls and sensitive men, but that namby-pamby everyday groveling is for those who don't already know they're saved.'

It's more than just being about Christ dying for your sins - a real key to LIFE is in knowing you're forgiven. It's a place every Christian should visit often. If it makes a difference to your eternal life that you have drunk of forgiveness when another has not, surely unforgiven sin is a danger.

Jesus blood has the capacity to cover all your sins but isn't your acknowledgement of your sin part of the equation of receiving forgiveness? Atheists don't acknowledge their sin.

[5minutes]

Christians can go to hell.

No, they can't. You are wrong, and are ultimately rejecting the Gospel of Christ. Go read some Paul and educate yourself. For once.

Galatians 2
15 (http://bible.cc/galatians/2-15.htm) "We, being Jews by nature, and not Gentile sinners,

16 (http://bible.cc/galatians/2-16.htm) yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.

17 (http://bible.cc/galatians/2-17.htm) But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a servant of sin? Certainly not!

18 (http://bible.cc/galatians/2-18.htm) For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a law-breaker.

19 (http://bible.cc/galatians/2-19.htm) For I, through the law, died to the law, that I might live to God.


20 (http://bible.cc/galatians/2-20.htm) I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.

21 (http://bible.cc/galatians/2-21.htm) I don't make void the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing!"

[5minutes]

Have some more Paul. Study it before you reply again.

Romans
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Let me spell this out for you: THERE IS NO CONDMENATION ANYMORE FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS.

In other words, Christians cannot go to Hell. You are believing a false doctrine.

[Atlas]

... Let me spell this out for you: THERE IS NO CONDMENATION ANYMORE FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS.

In other words, Christians cannot go to Hell. You are believing a false doctrine.

You're forcing a restricted meaning here on Christian... there's a whole wing of presbyterianism that dances with heresy - yet they call themselves Christian. mrsbates was obviously using 'Christian' in the inclusive sense (people who say Lord, Lord) - we're pretty sure not all of them will make it.

[Atlas]

You know, one of the things that I like about the Catholics here is that their philosophy forces them to aim high. A life of Christ is required - the action of belief. Aim high because you need a trajectory that will carry you in even though you all fall short.

The Reformed seem to minimize the soul's earthly life to a decision made last year at summer camp. Now sin can't hurt me, I'm saved. I can't get past what feels like such a trivialization of what life is - when the reward you seek is life... eternal.

Why strive for goodness if it makes no difference?

It is much more logical and Biblical to picture yourself moving closer to God in love and moving away in sin. It's so obvious in life that people's sin ruins them. To argue that it leads not to destruction is foolish.

And even when you say faith will lead to good works, it's still a pretty passive statement, it still aims low when compared to the Catholics. I couldn't resist God's grace... now he's making me drive screaming kids to soccer. You revel in the idea that there is nothing good you can do before God so you don't push it. I almost said you don't even try.

Catholics use hell to spur themselves on, to try to be pleasing in the eyes of God, to do good things. The Reformed, being under no threat, use hell like Muslims use videocams, to send scary images into the minds of unbelievers. Ok, Catholics do that too but they live with the knowledge that He will have mercy on whom He will - there are no guarantees. They are energized in their faith (from Romans) in the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works...

[graybeardheadbanger]

Here's the list of sins that keep you out of heaven. Rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, the only Son of God.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only sin unforgivable by God. From the Protestant position, grace covers ALL sin (except blasphemy of course) of the believer of Jesus as the Messiah. Meaning, saved Christians are forgiven when they ask. Outside of blasphemy, the Bible makes no difference in level or severity of one sin over another (i.e. lying and murder).

I used to hear this too, but I believe it is only partly true. (Actually, blaspheny against the Son IS forgivable, but not blasphemy against the Spirit. I have an idea of what this means, but it is an important distinction). The idea behind what you say is something like: since God is perfect, any sin separates us infinitely from God (or falls absolutely short of matching God's perfection, or something like that). This is true. However, it is not the case that all sin affects our attitude equally--some sins are more conducive to a hardening of the heart against God than others. Thus, while any sin needs to be forgiven, some sins require a greater "changing of one's ways" than others.

Keep in mind, Paul speaks of the sin that leads to death, and those that don't. We may assume he is referring to blasphemy of the Holy spirit, but he doesn't specify this. Others take it to mean that a sin that results in your dying cannot be forgiven, because you are now dead--this would seem to apply in the case of suicide. Catholics tend to think that Paul here is alluding to the difference between "venial" and "mortal" sins. (What Catholics call "venial" sins, Protestant are inclined to call non-sinful weaknesses that are subject to improvement and growth).

graybeardheadbanger

[graybeardheadbanger]

You know, one of the things that I like about the Catholics here is that their philosophy forces them to aim high. A life of Christ is required - the action of belief. Aim high because you need a trajectory that will carry you in even though you all fall short.

The Reformed seem to minimize the soul's earthly life to a decision made last year at summer camp. Now sin can't hurt me, I'm saved. I can't get past what feels like such a trivialization of what life is - when the reward you seek is life... eternal.

Why strive for goodness if it makes no difference?

It is much more logical and Biblical to picture yourself moving closer to God in love and moving away in sin. It's so obvious in life that people's sin ruins them. To argue that it leads not to destruction is foolish.

And even when you say faith will lead to good works, it's still a pretty passive statement, it still aims low when compared to the Catholics. I couldn't resist God's grace... now he's making me drive screaming kids to soccer. You revel in the idea that there is nothing good you can do before God so you don't push it. I almost said you don't even try.

Catholics use hell to spur themselves on, to try to be pleasing in the eyes of God, to do good things. The Reformed, being under no threat, use hell like Muslims use videocams, to send scary images into the minds of unbelievers. Ok, Catholics do that too but they live with the knowledge that He will have mercy on whom He will - there are no guarantees. They are energized in their faith (from Romans) in the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works...



I knew a very well-versed Calvinist who was somewhat of an exception among Calvinist, by trying to deal with this problem by holding that there was higher levels of heaven which were determined by works, though salvation in general was not. This is the only way he could really find a reason as to why one should strive to live a holier life if they were covered/saved either way.
(He also believed that there could be various levels of Hell among the unsaved.)

graybeardheadbanger

[graybeardheadbanger]

Have some more Paul. Study it before you reply again.

Romans
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Let me spell this out for you: THERE IS NO CONDMENATION ANYMORE FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS.

In other words, Christians cannot go to Hell. You are believing a false doctrine.


But the whole question is, what does it mean to be "in" Christ Jesus? And as before, it says Christ makes it possible for the law to be fulfilled IN us--he doesn't say FOR us. What this suggests, what it looks like to me, is that without Christ the law is unto death because we cannot meet it apart from grace, but through Christ, it becomes possible to fulfill the law--in which case, Christ allows us to fulfill the law, so that we might be saved.
Notice he says that the law cannot save BECAUSE we cannot fulfill it, since we are weakened by the sin. This suggests that the law would save IF we could fulfill it, but we can't without Christ. But it is ultimatley Christ, and not the law, that saves, because we could not fulfill the law without Christ.

If one reads Romans 13 in this context they will see something similar, I'd say.

graybeardheadbanger

[slamdancer777]

Actually, I find that Calvinists tend to be amongst the most well versed. This is what peaked my interest initially in reformed theology. they tend to be more Berean in nature than most.

[slamdancer777]

If Mrs Bates is speaking of the visible church, she should have said so. She did not. therefore she is wrong. Those that are His He will lose not one. A Christian (one of the elect) CAN NOT GO TO HELL.

[Tears]

So if you are interested in God then it means you're one of the elect?
Is that right?

[IronGuardian]

Here's the list of sins that keep you out of heaven. Rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, the only Son of God.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only sin unforgivable by God. From the Protestant position, grace covers ALL sin (except blasphemy of course) of the believer of Jesus as the Messiah. Meaning, saved Christians are forgiven when they ask. Outside of blasphemy, the Bible makes no difference in level or severity of one sin over another (i.e. lying and murder).
I've read that Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was denying that Jesus was the Son of God when He as on earth, and instead saying he was demon possessed. The article explained it in a way such that the end result was that as Jesus is no longer on earth as a human, we can no longer commit the unforgivable sin.

I did a search on it and came up with these sites.... I havent read them all fully sorry.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/unpardonablesin.html
http://net-burst.net/guilty/sin.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~robertwells/unforgivable.html <--this one has a different idea on what the sin is

[Tears]

That doesn't sound right.. the Bible says that blasphemy against God the Father and the Son can be forgiven.
I'm pretty sure it says that anyway.. correct me if I'm wrong.

[IronGuardian]

That doesn't sound right.. the Bible says that blasphemy against God the Father and the Son can be forgiven.
I'm pretty sure it says that anyway.. correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah you are right. Is blasphemy against the Spirit which is unforgivable. What I was saying was that some scvholars belive that blasphemy against the Spirit was saying that the Jesus didn't have the Spirit but was instead posessed by a demon. Other scholars think (like the last link) that that form of blasphemy is denying the Spirit even unto death, that is refusing to let the Spirit into your heart.

[mrsbates]

If Mrs Bates is speaking of the visible church, she should have said so. She did not. therefore she is wrong. Those that are His He will lose not one. A Christian (one of the elect) CAN NOT GO TO HELL.

thats ridiculous. are you suggesting that christians cannot go to hell no matter what they do?

because that is nonsensical. God does not force salvation on anybody.

as st. clement of alexandria once said,

"...Indeed, God conspires with willing souls. But if they abandon their eagerness, the spirit which is bestowed by God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is to exercise compulsion; but to save the willing belongs to Him who bestows grace."

[blessed_cursed]

I read a verse years ago in a councilling session on this topic which suggested that ...

Christ DIED for me, to empower me to LIVE for him.

[mrsbates]

that is true, God died for us and he gives us his grace to go to heaven....

but if we sin and do not cooperate with that grace, then we are rejecting his sacrifice and damning ourselves.

[Atlas]

Actually, I find that Calvinists tend to be amongst the most well versed. ...

I agree they are very well versed, their head knowledge seems to lead to harsher appreciations of spiritual realities.

I've said before that I'm not a big fan of Christian hell. I like the way 'Once saved, Always saved' takes it off the table. They do not live under the same threat of hell as other Christians.

Had I tried to predict how this would affect the faithful I would have imagined them as happy-go-lucky, lovey-dovey types - more like I picture Mormons. Instead, their reputation (or stereotype) is that of a prickly pear. Their sweetness is hidden beneath a hard thorny exterior.

When the Muslims attack I hope the hard headed Calvinists are on the front lines fighting back. They provide our best matchup.

[graybeardheadbanger]

Actually, I find that Calvinists tend to be amongst the most well versed. This is what peaked my interest initially in reformed theology. they tend to be more Berean in nature than most.

In general and on average, I would agree. The average believer from a Calvinist-influenced denomination generally shows much more knowledge of Scriptrue than those from other backgrounds, whether Protestant or non-Protestant (Catholic, Orthodox, or whatever). That is unfortunate for those other groups (though I believe there are some explanations that somewhat jusitfy this in the case of the more sacramental groups, but I can discuss this later). I will say, however, that the position of the more sacramental groups can be shown to be better supported by Scripture overall, though much fewer adherents to these groups are able to discuss their faith Scriptrually than what one finds among Calvinists. But that is more an indictment on their ability to defend their faith than it is on the Biblical support for their faith itself.

(For example, I read a chapter in a book once by a former Baptist minister who had become Catholic that was called--the chapter--"The Bible Made Me Do It" when speaking of his entry into Catholicism.) One finds similar tales from Fr. Peter Gilquist, who used to be among the highest ranking officials for Campus Crusade for Christ (I believe he was from Calvinist background, but I may be wrong) who back in the late 70s/early 80s entered into the Eastern Orthodox church, along with about 20 other Campus Crusade officials. Gilquist since then has been among those working on the Orthodox Study Bible, which I believe has now been completed in both the Old and New Testaments.

graybeardheadbanger

[5minutes]

thats ridiculous. are you suggesting that christians cannot go to hell no matter what they do?

It's not ridiculous. It's scripture. And you keep denying it.

because that is nonsensical. God does not force salvation on anybody.

Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 disagree.

as st. clement of alexandria once said,

"...Indeed, God conspires with willing souls. But if they abandon their eagerness, the spirit which is bestowed by God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is to exercise compulsion; but to save the willing belongs to Him who bestows grace."

I'll let you know when that outweighs scripture as a standard. My advice: don't hold your breath.

[mrsbates]

yeah, and most of the calvisnists not only know the bible well, they also know their websites proving that the pope is the antichrist of babylon and aint afriad to use em.

i would have to say that all the calvisnits ive conversed with, only one could respectfully discuss religon.

i dont know, maybe its something in their religon.

[5minutes]

But the whole question is, what does it mean to be "in" Christ Jesus?

If you don't know that, then you aren't part of the church of Christ.

And as before, it says Christ makes it possible for the law to be fulfilled IN us--he doesn't say FOR us. What this suggests, what it looks like to me, is that without Christ the law is unto death because we cannot meet it apart from grace, but through Christ, it becomes possible to fulfill the law--in which case, Christ allows us to fulfill the law, so that we might be saved.
Notice he says that the law cannot save BECAUSE we cannot fulfill it, since we are weakened by the sin. This suggests that the law would save IF we could fulfill it, but we can't without Christ. But it is ultimatley Christ, and not the law, that saves, because we could not fulfill the law without Christ.

If one reads Romans 13 in this context they will see something similar, I'd say.

graybeardheadbanger

No, they won't. Not unless they're heavily influence by a works-based gospel. Lowercase "g".

Yes, the Law has been fulfilled IN us. Big whoop. The point you seem to be heartily and happily skipping over is that THE LAW IS FULFILLED. It's done. Past tense.

[mrsbates]

It's not ridiculous. It's scripture. And you keep denying it.



Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 disagree.



I'll let you know when that outweighs scripture as a standard. My advice: don't hold your breath.


lol, great. dude youve just disproven my entire religon!

no seriuosly, how could someone -nonelect- be only able to do evil? such a person would have no good nor potential for it. God who is all good cannot make evil.

and also, how could someone -elect- be forced by God to do good? believing in Jesus is a choice, just like beliving in aliens is a choice. why would someone be free to choose their beliefs in everything except that which matters most?

[5minutes]

yeah, and most of the calvisnists not only know the bible well, they also know their websites proving that the pope is the antichrist of babylon and aint afriad to use em.

Most Calvinists don't use those sites.

i would have to say that all the calvisnits ive conversed with, only one could respectfully discuss religon.

i dont know, maybe its something in their religon.

Or, maybe, you're just not very observant. PS: Our religion is "Christianity". Yours, since you deny the plain teachings of scripture, may not be. You certainly don't believe the Gospel as far as I've seen. You're still busy trying to sacrifice your cows and sheep to God in an effort to appease His forthcoming wrath upon you.

Again - if you're still sacrificing (to whatever extent), then Christ's death has no purpose (for you).