GraceConversation.com

grace7Todd Deaver has posted a response to Phil Sander’s first post.

Advertisements

27 Responses

  1. Jay,

    When might we expect yours?

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  2. Maybe after Phil’s or Greg’s next post. There’s no sense in duplicating Todd’s work.

    I’m also wondering whether Phil means all error damns or only that rebellious error damns.

  3. Jay,

    I look forward to your entry.

    Rather than duplicate Todd’s effort, I would hope that you could resolve some of the growing ambiguity and reduce the verbosity as to the fundamental points of disagreement that need serious attention.

    I suspect that it is neither that Phil means “all error damns” or “only that rebellious error damns”.

    However, before the discussion takes off down that road, I would like to see what it takes for all four of you to simply agree, officially, as you seem to from what is being buried in the commentaries, that:

    > 1. Doctrinal error can damn.

    > 2. Not all doctrinal error will damn.

    In any case, I hope that the four of you can figure out a way to get “to the point” without all the ambiguity Todd makes reference to and without losing us “stupid” folk!

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  4. We all four stipulated at the beginning that lack of faith in Jesus damns. If you deny Jesus is the Son of God, that’s a doctrinal error that damns you. We all agree that doctrinal error damns.

    And as Todd wrote, if someone persistently refuses to obey God’s commands, their salvation is in jeopardy. We all agree on that.

    Whether Phil believes all doctrinal error damns even if innocently held, we’ll have to see.

  5. I’ve already seen what Phil has had to say and concluded that Phil believes that:

    > 1. Doctrinal error can damn.

    > 2. Not all doctrinal error will damn.

    I didn’t frame the discussion. I’m just trying to provide that feedback that was requested, based on how the discussion, so far, has been framed.

    If it be that the four of you agree on the above two points that have been made quite ambiguous by all the premature discussion, it seems like one of you, followed by the other three, could easily resolve the matter and then frame up the substance of what it is you really think you need to resolve; and then go to talking about it.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  6. Jay/Robert,

    If, as you quoted Todd Deaver,” if someone persistently refuses to obey God’s commands, their salvation is in jeopardy. We all agree on that.”

    Why should anyone believe that anyone who “persistently refuses to obey God’s commands” ever had salvation in the to begin with?

    Not every person who in our view does all the right stuff is saved. Only those who exemplify obedience to God and unselfesh love for others should be considered Christians. A person can say yes to the question “Do you believe Jesus is the Son of god” and be baptised in water after a brother says it is “for the remission of sins”, become a member of the local church, attend every time the doors open, take communion, and participate in everything in the week to week activities of the church and be as lost as a the town drunk. To deny that there are “make believers” among the “believers” is folly. We should never decide how to apply the Word of God against the back drop of human experiences or tradition. I believe those who leave the faith and the church and never come back never were in. They might have had a form of godliness, leaned to act like a Christian, but those who are truely born from above will not deny the Lord and live like hell.

    Royce

  7. > “I (Royce) believe those who leave the
    > faith and the church and never come
    > back never were in.”

    I figured from some of your postings that such might be your position.

    So, as it relates to the four-way discussion beginning, you, Royce, would propose that, for a child of God, neither doctrinal or moral “sin” can or will cause one to be lost.

    Right?

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  8. Robert B

    According to Jesus all one needs to do to be lost is nothing. Those who do not do what Jesus told Nicodemus to do, Believe on Him, are ALREADY condemned. He also said those who do depend on him “Will not (some translations say “shall not” come into condemnation.

    Rejecting Jesus in favor of man made rules, religeous rites and exercises, and self righteousness, and any other thing people trust other than Jesus causes lost people to stay lost and condemned.

    “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” (John 10:28)

    Jesus said that, do you believe it?

    Royce

  9. Royce, I don’t agree with the doctrine of once saved, always saved. I find Hebrews in particular quite clear on this, and so is Jesus. (He talks about hell quite a lot.)

    I’ve written on this a number of times, such as http://oneinjesus.info/2008/01/26/classes-on-grace-now-that-were-saved-the-hebrews-lesson/.

    On the other hand, I don’t think we quickly or easily fall away. God is patient with us. His Spirit strives with us. But we can so rebel and become so hardened that we fall away.

    The same Paul who exulted in Romans 8 in the certainty of our salvation declared some in Galatians as fallen from grace. God never expels us. God never quits on us. God never refuses our penitence. But we can quit on God.

  10. Royce,

    I don’t think you answered my question?

    Looks like you changed the subject instead!

    I believe everything Jesus said, but I don’t believe everybody’s interpretation of what Jesus said.

    As for the reference you gave, I think I dealt with that in a recent post under another article; to which there was no reply.

    Maybe I’ll try to look that up and see what the score was over there on that matter.

    Of course, you don’t have to answer my question. It was rather rhetorical, wasn’t it; unless you intended to dispute the implied response.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  11. The folly of trying to know every Bible doctrine right, and teach everything right, is that it is simply impossible. Any man who claims to be right about everything the Bible teaches is a liar. If being right and teaching right about doctrine is a requirement for us to keep our salvation, all of us will be lost because none of us can do it perfectly. Paul makes it crystal clear that when you decide to be justified by rule keeping the standard becomes “keep it all”, which no man can do.

    Jesus not only gave his body and blood to pay for my sins (because I had sinned and couldn’t keep from it), He also presented a perfect life on my behalf (because I couldn’t live perfectly). So now God can declare me “not guilty”, and declare that I am “righteous” based on what Jesus has accomplished and not compromise His holiness or His justice.

    I have been judged and I was guilty, I had offended a Holy God and was appointed to wrath. I was helpless and hopeless. Some say there is God’s part and man’s part in salvation. I say Jesus did man’s part by living a perfect sinless life and paying the penalty in full for sin and I am justified, freed from the curse of the law (death), Christ now lives in me and I can’t die unless He does.

    In view of the covenant God has made with those who put their trust in Jesus, how could I ever want to follow another? How could I not want as many people as possible to know His love and mercy demonstrated in Jesus? And why would I ever consider rebellion against Him?

    Royce

  12. Jay,

    Of course I will not change your mind and you will not change mine. We agree that the only way men are saved is by trusting Jesus in obedient faith. (biblical faith always obeys).

    Lets assume brother A for some reason crosses the line and looses his ( “soul” ) salvation. Is he really lost? Will he really perish? If he is really lost can he be saved the 2nd time?

    If he is really lost, and if he can be saved again, does he have to be baptised again? And, finally how many times can this be repeated?

    By the way Jay, I don’t agree with the doctrine of “once saved always saved” either the way it is usually taught. Someone says a “sinners prayer” and can then live like the devil and still be saved. No, I too reject that.

    I don’t believe there are nearly as many people saved as most people do. I don’t believe that anyone, Baptist, church of Chist, or town drunk, is saved who does not love others and otherwise lives in habitual sin.

    I do believe that God will finish what he started in me, not because of me, but in spite of me. I am justifed because of what Jesus accomplished on my behalf and not because of any goodness in me.

    Royce

  13. That’s kinda funny!

    After Jay puts a label on what Royce has been proposing, “once saved always saved”, Royce tries to change the subject yet again and offer up an interpretation other than what “once saved always saved” “plainly means” in the context of just what Royce has been proposing.

    Royce still didn’t, as far as I can tell, take any exception to the implied answer to my question to him which was:

    > Yes, I, Royce, don’t believe that once
    > a person is saved he can ever be lost.

    Short form: “once saved, always saved”.

    Royce and Jay are better prepared to discuss the merits of their respective positions on that, if they had the time and interest.

    I just think it is nice, in the context of the four-party “grace” discussion that is beginning, to have folks fundamental positions really, “plainly stated”.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  14. That kinda gets to a point I was trying to make in earlier comments here and elsewhere regarding Royce’s positions.

    Royce says:

    > “I (Royce) say Jesus did man’s part.”

    I say:

    > “The scriptures say man has a part to do.”

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

    P.S. Yes, I notice that Royce, with a degree of inconsistency, elsewhere is proposing there is a part for man to do; agreeing with me.

  15. Bro’ Baty,

    My purpose of interacting with Jay was not for your entertainment but if that is a side effect ,cool.

    This forum is not the first time the topic we are discussing has been bantered about. Devout followers of Jesus have had differences of opinion on this subject for hundreds of years.

    For Jay and I, and for others down through the years, what we agree on far out weighs what we disagree on.

    We mutually agree that Jesus alone paid for the sins of mankind and only He gives eternal life to those who trust Him. And we further agree that everyone who names Christ as Lord should be careful for good works, live pious lives marked by unselfesh love for others, and avoid sinful acts as much as is possible.

    While one man’s resolve might be the fear of loosing his salvation and the other’s motovation might be gratitude for eternal pardon, the outcome is exactly the same, both want to live for Christ and honor Him as the only way to God.

    Finally, the idea that I am trying to hide what I believe is just silly. I have presented my views to the world on http://gracedigest.com for several years now and in the last 24 hours have had readers from several countries around the world and many cities in the U.S.

    I would hope that anyone who loves and serves Jesus would also be able to love those with whom they disagree on some Bible passages. Just as Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached I have chosen to do the same, even when I disagree with some of what they teach.

    Royce

  16. Royce you said:
    “The folly of trying to know every Bible doctrine right, and teach everything right, is that it is simply impossible. Any man who claims to be right about everything the Bible teaches is a liar.”

    Amen! I think that the churches of Christ pride themselves in an instatiable need to be right on everything. I fear things like the graceconversation as they bring memories of the great debates within our brotherhood in the middle part of the last century. they did nothing but bring deep division and waste a lot of time and money. Let’s say for the sake of arguemnt no irony ineted there but that the graceconversation actually led to a majority consensus. Not that it has a sonaw balsl chance in Hades but hypthetcialy spekaing. Then what would we argue about. You know buddy of mine who I grew up with went to the indepcnat Christian church once told me that without something to argue about the churches of Christ would not know what to do they would have no identity. Well I think there is some validity to what he said.

  17. > “They did nothing but…”

    Sounds like a little hyperbole and misdirection to me.

    I’m glad to have access to the historical accounts of some of those great debates and even not-so-great debates.

    One might be hopeful, but from the start it appears the Phil, Greg, Todd, Jay discussion will not be able to rise to the level of past great debates.

    That, of course, is no reason for us “mere mortals” not to engage in such exercises to the extent of our time, talent and ability.

    That’s what keeps these blogs in business and “doing nothing but bringing deep division and wasting a lot of time and money”, right?

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  18. Sorry here is the post less the typo errors.

    Royce you said:
    “The folly of trying to know every Bible doctrine right, and teach everything right, is that it is simply impossible. Any man who claims to be right about everything the Bible teaches is a liar.”
    Amen! Now there are people (I will not name names or quote them) who admit that they aren’t right on everything but they won’t specifically admit things that they aren’t sure of and still struggling to understand. They say they are open to being shown where they are wrong but I have never read publicly how any of them have changed their mind on some issue especially in regards to the work worship and organization of the church. This is why they are quickly losing credibility. I think traditionally speaking that the churches of Christ pride themselves in an insatiable need to be right on everything. I fear things like the graceconversation.com ; as they bring memories of the great debates within our brotherhood in the middle part of the last century. They did nothing but bring deep division and waste a lot of time and money. Let’s say for the sake of argument (no irony intended there) but that the graceconversation actually led to a majority consensus. Not that it has a snow ball’s chance in Hades but hypothetically speaking. Then what would we argue about. You know buddy of mine who I grew up with went to the independent Christian church once told me that without something to argue about the churches of Christ would not know what to do they would have no identity. Well I think there is some validity to what he said.

  19. Joe,

    That was more than just correcting for the typo’s!

    However, since you thought it was worth repeating, I’ll offer my commentary thereof again, without taking up your new material.

    Joe wrote regarding the “great debates”:

    > “They did nothing but…”

    Sounds like a little hyperbole and misdirection to me.

    I’m glad to have access to the historical accounts of some of those great debates and even not-so-great debates.

    One might be hopeful, but from the start it appears the Phil, Greg, Todd, Jay discussion will not be able to rise to the level of past great debates.

    That, of course, is no reason for us “mere mortals” not to engage in such exercises to the extent of our time, talent and ability.

    That’s what keeps these blogs in business and “doing nothing but bringing deep division and wasting a lot of time and money”, right?

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  20. Robert, I was sincerely trying to correct my mistakes not make light of your comment. Did any of the great debates help you overcome sin? Did they give a deeper love for your brother and those without faith? Did they move you to serve the homeless or the orphans? Did they produce any personal transformation at all? Not for me, I think most of them were about whether or not we could support Children’s’ homes, instruments, intercongregational support of missionaries and a never ending list of “issues”. I too have read many of these transcribed debates and they start off with propositions (Very similar to the graceconversation) and one side argues on the positive and the other argues the negative in attempt to “prove” the other wrong as if we were debating empirical science. The only memory I have of actually attending one of these debates was one of people arguing with each other afterwards telling the other they were in danger of losing their souls and my Grandfather telling people they could no longer fellowship those who were wrong. Are you suggesting we need to bring this environment back? I pray that is not the case. You said “That, of course, is no reason for us “mere mortals” not to engage in such exercises to the extent of our time, talent and ability.” I wish we could get as excited about feeding the hungry and taking care of orphans and widows as we do doctrinal debates. When we get to heaven and we tell God that we spent most of our time money and energy arguing over every little doctrinal issue what do you think he would say? Jesus told the Pharisees that many would come to Him on that day saying oh Lord didn’t we do a lot of good things for you. Jesus replied I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, naked and you didn’t clothe me, and was without shelter and you did not invite me in. The Pharisees were consumed with being right they were so religious and so consumed with having every little detail “right” that they largely ignored what Jesus really cared about “taking care of others”. Jesus eventually tells the Pharisees to get away from Him because he didn’t know them and they would go with those who practice lawlessness. Now we think that Jesus was only talking to the Pharisees but I believe he was teaching a greater principle. Te principle is that too much religion can extinguish actual faith and love to the extent they one may lose their salvation as did the Pharisees in this story. I don’t mind the inane posturing of every little doctrinal issue as long as it doesn’t get in the way of personal transformation and the greater missions which the Pharisees and other super religious people seem to always miss. I am not suggesting you are one of these people Robert I am speaking to a principle.

  21. You go Joe! Well said.

    Royce

  22. Joe,

    I don’t think I indicated that you were making light of my comments.

    From my perspective, you are simply doing what you criticize regarding the “great debates”; though, obviously, according to your own talents and available venues.

    Matthew 7:1,2 & James 3:1!

    It’s kinda funny in that Royce has now even added his small part to the analogy, quite understandably, as to how those you criticize would rally behind the “great debaters” against their foes.

    In this case, Royce taking joy in your effort to “get Baty”!

    So, Joe, let us know when you are going to shut down your blog and quit your ramblings on places like this! You don’t measure up to the “great debaters” and I’m sure you don’t really want to settle for a lesser demonstration.

    Maybe Royce will even follow your good example in so doing?

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  23. Robert,

    I didn’t think Joe’s remarks were intended to “get” you. He only made some valid points asking pointed questions.

    We must keep in mind that this is Jay’s blog and we are guests. He never intended this to get ugly and unloving. Lets remain calm and civil with the understanding that every man has an absolute right to be wrong.

    Royce

  24. “Plausible deniability” seems to come to my mind!

    I was the one making “valid” points in contrast to the “invalid” points to which I was responding.

    I don’t consider my part in such discussions either “ugly” or “unloving”. To those who wish to raise such issues, I would again remind them of Matthew 7:1,2 and James 3:1!

    I was, am and will endevaor to remain calm and, while respecting your right and the right of others to be wrong, might have somewhat to say about the errors from time to time; subject to interest of the owner.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  25. So, Royce, just to clarify what it is you don’t want to “hide”, what you “believe and present to the world” may, as noted by Jay, be “plainly” described as “once saved, always saved”.

    Right?

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  26. Absolutely! Just allow me to define what that means.

    I am waiting for someone, anyone to explain what Jesus meant when He over and over again promised that those who come to Him in faith would “never perish” and would be raised from the dead. He made no qualifying statements, but plain promises that are either true or false.

    Should I believe those promises made by Paul that the blessed Holy Spirit given to live in me is God’s “guarantee” of my salvation. If God goes back on His word and counts my sin against me after saying He wouldn’t that “guarantee” is not guarentee at all is it?

    The inheritance “reserved in heaven” for me that Peter spoke of is not to sure according to some but it is to me. I believe God’s promises. If I can’t believe what God told Nicodemus I can’t trust anything He said.

    Call it once saved always saved it you want. I’ll call it God’s truth is always true, and God’s promises can always be trusted.

    Royce

  27. Royce, you had me at “absolutely”!

    You had previously provided enough commentary to “define” the position.

    “Once saved, always saved” is much “plainer” in “stating” your position!

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: