Clarity of Scripture

wil said:
Typically by perceived evidence that negates erroneous belief.... but you knew that...happens all the time...in all beliefs.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself. when perceived evidence seems to negate what I believe. I dig in with some serious study and prayer. If I find out I what I believed was wrong, I change my mind, thank God for showing me my error and keep on trucking, but I never lose my faith because I have an incorrect interpretation. I never expect to have perfect theology., and I have had to chip many things out of the cement I set them in.
 
Thomas said:
I pray you never find out
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question.

Think about this---Phil 1:6 says What God started in me, He will perfect until the day of Christ Jesus.

Heb 12:2 says basically the same thing.

Jn 6:37-40 says God gave me to Jesus and Jesus says He will not cast me out. Then it says it is God's will that Jesus not lose any He has been given. If it God's will, nothing can change it, especially me. So answer the question, or admit you can't--- how can I lose my faith?
 
omega2xx said:
That doesn't answer the question.
Click to expand...
It wasn't an answer. It was a statement.

Man can lose his faith in an instant ... you may think otherwise, but my experience is then perhaps is broader than yours.
 
Thomas said:
It wasn't an answer. It was a statement.

Man can lose his faith in an instant ... you may think otherwise, but my experience is then perhaps is broader than yours.
Click to expand...

I doubt if your experience is broader than mine, but our experience is irrelevant. If the Bible doesn't say we can lose our faith, and it doesn't, then you have no basis for what you say, it is only your personal opinion.
 
I believe Thomas was probably referring to his own struggle and then reclamation of faith...

We all have our own basis for our thoughts and words and yes they are mostly opinions...including yours...hence 3000 or 30k denominations and dozens of religions
 
wil said:
I believe Thomas was probably referring to his own struggle and then reclamation of faith...


We all have our own basis for our thoughts and words and yes they are mostly opinions...including yours...hence 3000 or 30k denominations and dozens of religions
Click to expand...

You may be right, but it doesn't sound like to me.
 
wil said:
I believe Thomas was probably referring to his own struggle and then reclamation of faith...


We all have our own basis for our thoughts and words and yes they are mostly opinions...including yours...hence 3000 or 30k denominations and dozens of religions
Click to expand...

You may be right, but it doesn't sdoun like to me
 
Thomas said:
Why, d'you think?
Click to expand...

They had not been converted. The listened but did not believe(6:64). Many people go to church looking for some spiritual truth to help them. When the saying are difficult they stop listening(6:60).

It is interesting to me, that the only verse in the Bible with 3 6's says "they withdrew and walked away."
 
omega2xx said:
They had not been converted.
Click to expand...
LOL. I challenge that all-too-easy assumption.

It's very easy and convenient; gratifying and comforting to tell ourselves that those who fall away never believed in the first place, but it's a delusion. It's simply a failure to confront the real world, where real-world things happen. I know that kind of response only too well, I met it often in my own congregation.

My belief in Christ is not a magic wand, it doesn't make all the nasty things go away. The Holy Spirit is not a fairy godmother ... and the Middle Way is narrow, and we all walk along thinking we are on the narrow way to the gate, and everyone else is wandering about in the countryside.

There are those who believe and never question, and there's nothing wrong with that. It annoys those who question no end.

I'm staggered at how critical even here at IO we are of those who do not possess our intellectual resources; how casually we are elitist and dismissive of 'the simple believer', ready to fall back on cheap and easy stereotypes to massage our egos ...

But really, you're misreading the text. If they had not been converted, they would not be called 'disciples'. The fact is, they had converted, they had been baptised.

omega2xx said:
The listened but did not believe(6:64).
Click to expand...
They did hear and believe, but when they were initiated into a deeper teaching, then their faith faltered, and then they ceased to believe. That is what the text is saying. If you don't see that, you're fooling yourself. You're interpreting the text to make it less frightening.

omega2xx said:
Many people go to church looking for some spiritual truth to help them. When the saying are difficult they stop listening(6:60).
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. We're discussing those whom Christ and His community called His disciples.

These were not mere passers-by, these were disciples, members of the community that travelled with Him, of whom the Twelve comprised an inner circle.

Yes, He knew that some would fall away, but that is not the point: The point is that we should face up to that challenge in ourselves. He turns to the Twelve as says "Will you also go away?" (v69). So it is clear that the option to go is there. So the departure of the disciples was not something inconsequential, it was significant. (And it was because of His teaching on the Eucharist). So much so that Christ questions the Twelve.

"And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God."
This is staggering — to whom shall we go? Not the the Temple. Not to the Tradition of their fathers. It's a statement of faith. But remember that Peter's faith failed him at the arrest, and he disowned Christ ... as Christ said it would, and so Christ brings him back into the fold, as it were, and places a greater burden on him than before.

If faith, once received, cannot be lost, then the Church would have remained one communion from the outset, there would be no disputes, no schisms, no Reformation, no Luther nor Calvin nor Zwingli with a revised version of the Gospel to suit the time and place ... but the letters of Paul demonstrate their was dissent and a falling away from the very beginning.
 
Thomas said:
LOL. I challenge that all-too-easy assumption.
Click to expand...

That's fine, so let's use Scripture instead of opinion to try and make our point. Mt 7:21-23 tell of some who thought they had faith because of what they did in the name of Jesus, but Jesus tells them He never knew them, indicating they never knew Him, indicating they had never put the faith in Him

Heb 11:1 tells us that faith is assurance of things hope for. No one loses what they have assurance of. God as given us the faith that we have(Rom 11:3). Those who understand that, would never lose it.

Finally, Phil 1:6 tells us that God started our salvation and He will perfect it. That would mean He will not let us lose our faith in him. If our faith waivers as it will from time to time, God will strengthen it like He did Peter when his faith failed.

Your turn. give me one verse that indicates someone can lose their faith in God.

It's very easy and convenient; gratifying and comforting to tell ourselves that those who fall away never believed in the first place, but it's a delusion. It's simply a failure to confront the real world, where real-world things happen. I know that kind of response only too well, I met it often in my own congregation.
Click to expand...

This discussion is not a matter of easy and convenience, etc. It is a matter of what God says. Some people in one congregation is not a large enoujgh sample to make what you say statistically valid.

My belief in Christ is not a magic wand, it doesn't make all the nasty things go away. The Holy Spirit is not a fairy godmother ... and the Middle Way is narrow, and we all walk along thinking we are on the narrow way to the gate, and everyone else is wandering about in the countryside.<<

First of all the subject is not you and your faith. It is also not about some wandering about in the countryside. I don't think I am on my way to the narrow gate, I have already passed thru it because of my faith. Since you mentioned the Holy Spirit, lets look at something He does for true believers.
When we believe the gospel of our salvation, the Holy Spirit seals us in Him(Eph 1:13). This sealing last until the day of redemption. That indicated we can't lose what we were sealed in until Jesus returns.

There are those who believe and never question, and there's nothing wrong with that. It annoys those who question no end.
Click to expand...

Irrlevent to this discussion.

I'm staggered at how critical even here at IO we are of those who do not possess our intellectual resources; how casually we are elitist and dismissive of 'the simple believer', ready to fall back on cheap and easy stereotypes to massage our egos ...
Click to expand...

This discussion is not about the simple believer. It is about can one lose there faith in God.

But really, you're misreading the text. If they had not been converted, they would not be called 'disciples'. <<

Not true. A disciple is only a learner. To be converted the learner must accept what the teacher says. When the sayings got hard they left; they did not accept what Jesus said; they had not put their faith in Him

The fact is, they had converted, they had been baptised.
Click to expand...

If they had been converted, they would not have left and water baptism does not save.

They did hear and believe, but when they were initiated into a deeper teaching, then their faith faltered, and then they ceased to believe. That is what the text is saying. If you don't see that, you're fooling yourself. You're interpreting the text to make it less frightening.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no indication they had ever put the faith in Jesus. If you don't see that you're fooling your self. No one who puts the faith in Jesus abandons His teachings, that is absurd. It is not frightening to lose something one never had. It is your interpretation that is frightening--what good is my faith if I can lose it when the teaching becomes hard?

Irrelevant. We're discussing those whom Christ and His community called His disciples.
Click to expand...

No wew're not. We are discussing if one an lose their faith.

These were not mere passers-by, these were disciples, members of the community that travelled with Him, of whom the Twelve comprised an inner circle.
Click to expand...

A disciple is not necessarily convert.

Yes, He knew that some would fall away, but that is not the point:
Click to expand...

That is exactly the point. Those who fall away did not have faith in their teacher.

The point is that we should face up to that challenge in ourselves. He turns to the Twelve as says "Will you also go away?" (v69). So it is clear that the option to go is there. So the departure of the disciples was not something inconsequential, it was significant. (And it was because of His teaching on the Eucharist). So much so that Christ questions the Twelve.
Click to expand...

That's right, the option is there.,

"And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God."
This is staggering — to whom shall we go? Not the the Temple. Not to the Tradition of their fathers. It's a statement of faith. But remember that Peter's faith failed him at the arrest, and he disowned Christ ... as Christ said it would, and so Christ brings him back into the fold, as it were, and places a greater burden on him than before.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my point. The did not leave because they had not lost their faith. If theones who left had had dtrue faith, they woudl hahved also stayed. Peters faith did fail, as our will do from time to time, but if he has lost it completely, Jesus would not have restored him at all, let alone to a position of prominence.

If faith, once received, cannot be lost, then the Church would have remained one communion from the outset, there would be no disputes, no schisms, no Reformation, no Luther nor Calvin nor Zwingli with a revised version of the Gospel to suit the time and place ... but the letters of Paul demonstrate their was dissent and a falling away from the very beginning.
Click to expand...

The FACT that there were disputes and schisms points to the "FACT that some never had faith to begin with. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did not revise the gospel to suit the time. They did the same thing theologians do today. They accurately reformed the doctrines the Catholic church has invented.
Click to expand...
 
omega2xx said:
That's fine, so let's use Scripture instead of opinion to try and make our point.
Click to expand...
But your point is based on your opinion.

Your opinion is based largely, I assume, on a weak Calvinism. Catholicism would refute this on the basis that it's a too-literal and a too-narrow interpretation of Scripture, underpinned by a pessimistic outlook on the nature of man. As I do not accept Calvin's TULIP propositions nor any by-products of them, we are not about to agree any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top