Christianity: What's the 'catch'?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

1. He said that ALL that the Father had given to Him would come to Him and 2. anyone who called upon Him He would in "no wise cast out".

So according to you was Jesus wrong about point 1 or point 2, or both?

Your quoted sayings seem to be a sort of parallel to the Good Shepherd saying in John 10

14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me –

Jesus is presenting himself as the agency between God and those who will be saved.
Jesus recognized at the time that not everyone believed in him and would not follow him.
So the promises that follow are dependent on following Jesus to the end, then the results will be made known to that person upon being raised from the dead.

reply to post by jmdewey60


No, I was referring to John 6:37. And in an extension in Christ's high priestly prayer of John ch. 17 i think He mentions that one aspect of His mission was to lose "none" of the sheep the Father had given to Him save the son of perdition and the only reason Judas was lost was so that "prophecy might be fulfilled".

If He loses a single person other than Judas whom the Father had given to Him He would have failed. And He gives His assurance in John 6 that He would in no wise cast out anyone who called upon His Name. So based on your earlier attack on those of us who trust in His word please explain which aspect of John 6:37 Jesus was wrong about.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So based on your earlier attack on those of us who trust in His word please explain which aspect of John 6:37 Jesus was wrong about.

You're doing one of your favorite tactics which is making a straw-man.
If you think you are presenting the mainstream view on how to interpret John 6:37, then you should be able to quote a mainstream Bible commentary on the Book of John supporting your view.
As it is, there isn't and you probably picked this up from one of your cult YouTube videos.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Not a straw man at all you said people cannot have assurance or know they are redeemed right now. Jesus says otherwise in John 6:37. If He says He will "in no wise" cast out someone who called upon Him then there is a contradiction with what you're preaching. So explain the esoteric meaning behind Christ's two affirmations in John 6:37. The floor is your's. I was taught long ago regarding studying scripture:

"If the plain sense makes sense then seek no other sense.". Go on, explain the discrepancy between we cannot know and Jesus assuring us in John 6:37.

Edit: And just so we are clear, the last time I quoted "mainstream" Bible commentary (Matthew Henry) you mocked his interpretation as illegitimate.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Not a straw man at all you said people cannot have assurance or know they are redeemed right now.

The straw-man I meant was you setting up this hypothetical person who does not agree with some unclear claim you make on what is the proper interpretation of some vaguely defined group of verses. Then define this hypothetical person as someone who does not believe in the Bible, something your undefined group of people do.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Okay, so moving on, explain the error in my understanding of John 6:37 and why I cannot rest on the affirmations Christ set forth therein.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Edit: And just so we are clear, the last time I quoted "mainstream" Bible commentary (Matthew Henry) you mocked his interpretation as illegitimate.

You were probably using it to claim that it was authoritative, which does not work because you can go commentary shopping to find different opinions.
What I mean is to use a commentary to show that what you are claiming is even in the mainstream discussion and not just something held by UFO and magic Bible code promoting YouTube videos from your favorite cult.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Not a straw man at all you said people cannot have assurance or know they are redeemed right now.

The straw-man I meant was you setting up this hypothetical person who does not agree with some unclear claim you make on what is the proper interpretation of some vaguely defined group of verses. Then define this hypothetical person as someone who does not believe in the Bible, something your undefined group of people do.

And furthermore let it be known that it's impossible to straw man a "hypothetical person". ^^^

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Okay, so moving on, explain the error in my understanding of John 6:37 and why I cannot rest on the affirmations Christ set forth therein.

Jesus had a bunch of people following him for one reason or another so he thinned them out by claiming the only way to God was through him.
He was describing his job description, not what you are trying to attach to it, some sort of free ride to keep on sinning because it is so much fun.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Edit: And just so we are clear, the last time I quoted "mainstream" Bible commentary (Matthew Henry) you mocked his interpretation as illegitimate.

You were probably using it to claim that it was authoritative, which does not work because you can go commentary shopping to find different opinions.
What I mean is to use a commentary to show that what you are claiming is even in the mainstream discussion and not just something held by UFO and magic Bible code promoting YouTube videos from your favorite cult.

Its not a bit hypocritical in your opinion to demand "mainstream Bible commentary" for a verse someone provides when you yourself provided zero scriptural references let alone a "mainstream Bible commentary" when you attacked people for believing we can know right here and now if we are the redeemed elect? Isn't that the epitome of a special pleading fallacy?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Okay, so moving on, explain the error in my understanding of John 6:37 and why I cannot rest on the affirmations Christ set forth therein.

Jesus had a bunch of people following him for one reason or another so he thinned them out by claiming the only way to God was through him.
He was describing his job description, not what you are trying to attach to it, some sort of free ride to keep on sinning because it is so much fun.

I never said anything about sin, continuing to sin, or any of that sort. You just complained about a straw man a couple posts back. You simply cannot expect others to follow a standard you yourself arbitrarily ignore.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . when you attacked people for believing we can know right here and now if we are the redeemed elect?

You seem to have a low tolerance for criticism and I would suggest you find a different hobby that does not cause you so much pain. You can say I am hypocritical but you can't sit there and claim an exemption from disagreement and then call it attacks. Christianity is not for cry babies. If you can't bear your cross, then you need to find a different religion.

[reply to post by NOTurTypical


reply to post by jmdewey60



Man you guys really need to get your own TV show or something lol

Every time we get to the back end of a religious thread, there you guys are, battling it out…

It’s like pay per view, except it’s free…




JC

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I never said anything about sin, continuing to sin, or any of that sort.

Not just now, but knowing your history, like a couple days ago making a comment something like, "When Jesus was crucified, how many of your sins were yet committed?" This is probably something you learned from a Mark Driscoll video, that I see as an excuse to go ahead and sin all you want and you can always ask for forgiveness later, since you already hit the salvation lottery, otherwise, how would you know to ask for forgiveness. Apparently the asking is just a formality since you already have your free ticket to the Rapture.

You just complained about a straw man a couple posts back. You simply cannot expect others to follow a standard you yourself arbitrarily ignore.

I like to "complain" when I see you doing a straw-man probably because you like to accuse other people so much, and then usually not bother explaining how it is in your opinion a straw-man. When it is really blatant, like the one I pointed out above, then I think you need to have a wake-up regarding how it is often used, even by yourself.

reply to post by jmdewey60


No, my statement was "How many of your sins were yet future when Christ hung on the cross?". And the answer for everyone is "All of them were."! So now I am in the Mark Driscoll cult? I thought it was the Chuck Missler cult? Which is it? To be honest, I listen to Damon Thompson more than anyone. I listen to and read from Baptists like Dr. Ron Phillips, Pentecostals like Perry Stone, and Reformed guys like Driscoll. I hate denominationalism and that's rather remarkable for for a "cult member" to listen to something from one end of the spectrum to the other. I read from both Spurgeon and Finney, from Edwards to David Jeremiah.

So are you done yet personally attacking and slandering me? Can we get to the question i asked? It's just one single verse. Tell why we cannot know or have assurance of our redemption when Christ affirms we can.

Edit: for like the 4th time guy I don't feel like i am sufficiently sanctified to go in the rapture, and for the 4th time I'd rather not go to help others whom I love who are not saved. Do you need either of those explained to you a 5th or 6th time? It's like talking to an Alzheimer's sufferer.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . when you attacked people for believing we can know right here and now if we are the redeemed elect?

You seem to have a low tolerance for criticism and I would suggest you find a different hobby that does not cause you so much pain. You can say I am hypocritical but you can't sit there and claim an exemption from disagreement and then call it attacks. Christianity is not for cry babies. If you can't bear your cross, then you need to find a different religion.

edit on 11-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

No no no... I have no idea what the key for success is, but I know for sure the key to failure is trying to make everyone happy. I'm the last person who cares what you or anyone else thinks of me, you aren't my wife nor does your signature appear at the bottom of my paycheck. I'm just trying to get a simple answer out of you and I know why you refuse to answer.

You say we cannot rest in assurance, but Christ affirms otherwise. You don't have the pair to call Christ wrong and you have too much pride to admit you were wrong.

Originally posted by Joecroft
[reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Man you guys really need to get your own TV show or something lol

Every time we get to the back end of a religious thread, there you guys are, battling it out…

It’s like pay per view, except it’s free…

JC

It boils down to my support for Israel and his hatred for it. All other conversations are a secondary consequence.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Tell why we cannot know or have assurance of our redemption when Christ affirms we can.

Ok, if you think so, then quote where he says that.
Of course he never does, and you have just created a theory in your own mind, that that was what he meant when he was describing himself as whatever it is that the Good Shepherd is analogous to.
Now, I just got a commentary the other day, from the Word Biblical Commentary Series, on Ephesians and studying the first chapter of that letter, it seems clear that the writer is saying that just as the Jews could have confidence in their position in Israel, then the believer in Jesus Christ can have confidence in God's establishment of the Church and how those who will end up being found in Christ will be saved.
It is the effectiveness of God and Jesus and the reality of the Church which we can rest our assurance in, not in ourselves, so we are not what we trust in, but that reality as spelled out which is that there is a way that has been made for us to travel in.

No, my statement was "How many of your sins were yet future when Christ hung on the cross?". And the answer for everyone is "All of them were."! So now I am in the Mark Driscoll cult?

Here is the post you made in the "Jesus Christ keeps us saved forever" thread; www.abovetopsecret.com...
This was in response to a question: "How EXACTLY is our salvation retained? By what we do or by our relationship? "
So in that context, it looks like the way we have salvation is we can keep sinning forever and God has us covered by having known exactly how many sins you were going to commit and having proper payment made in advance. With the idea being, you can sin all you want and you don't have to worry because they were already taken care of a long time ago.
Well, that is a dream religion that you adopted, I guess freely by you and maybe because it is appealing in the sense that you can keep enjoying your life any way you please and it is ok to stay in a state of sinfulness because Mark Driscoll told you so on YouTube.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . I don't feel like i am sufficiently sanctified to go in the rapture, and for the 4th time I'd rather not go to help others whom I love who are not saved.

You might want to explain this since this is about the weirdest thing I've heard yet.
It sounds like you have sunk into an abyss of fantasy with no way out of your delusional world.
Look, there is a real Rapture in 1 Thessalonians but what it is describing is how you get to heaven.
There is no other way to get there, sorry to have to tell you, you can't start hiking up a high mountain and get there, that was shown to be a fallacy back with the tower of Babel.
My suggestion is to overcome whatever is holding you back and to ask God for the victory and not settle for second best.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You say we cannot rest in assurance, but Christ affirms otherwise. You don't have the pair to call Christ wrong and you have too much pride to admit you were wrong.

If you have never read Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan, I suggest you read it because it seems you have a serious lapse in your Christian experience which I account to your getting your ideas from popular culture instead of classical Christian literature.
You are part of the Me generation that thinks everything exists for you so you adopt a religion which suites you, who you are, and makes no demands from you to change, and you see self absorption and wanting things as being a spiritual virtue, well it's not, it's the road to damnation.