Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    God includes us all; we may choose to exclude ourselves.

    Jesus said that the gateway was a narrow one. I agree with .1, however,
    that it is not God that excludes us. Jesus says that we must keep
    the commandments along with having faith in Him. Those who prefer the
    darkness rather than the light in this life will have that same
    darkness in the next life by their choice.
    
    Mary
    

How can the one God, who is essentially everything due to omniscience, 
be anything but all-inclusive?  In agreement with the previous replies, 
I think *we* become exclusive in our (as yet feeble) attempt to express 
the will of God.  We then create God in our image to ensure our 
correctness.  

To believe that God's love is conditional, to me indicates that God 
isn't being given enough credit as an omniscient, omnipotent Being.

Jeff

    Yes, God has revealed Him/Herself to me as inclusive - always.
    Through divine grace (which also has its 'divine humor' side), 
    I continue to see the ways in which I exclude myself from God.
    
    Karen

    God loves us all.
    
    From here proceeds that catalog of actions that glorify Him, and the
    actions and the failures to act that offend Him.  It's our choice.

    O.K. , SOMEONE HAS TO THROW A CURVE HERE. I HAVE TO SAY THAT GOD IS
    EXCLUSIVE. 
    
    ONE OF THE MAIN TENETS OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY IS, THAT GOD IS
    "OTHER".
    
    IN OTHER WORDS, TO KEEP THE CHRITIAN FAITH DISTINCT FROM RANK
    PANTHEISM, THE ELDER THEOLOGIANS WERE CAREFUL TO ALWAYS MARK THE
    DIFFERENCE BETWEEM GOD AND HIS CREATION. 
    
    GOD CREATED ALL THINGS
    BY VIRTUE OF OMNIPRESENCE, GOD IS PRESENT IN ALL THINGS
    YET ALL THINGS ARE NOT GOD
    AND GOD IS NOT ALL THINGS
    
    LATER,
    LISA

    To my fellow noters,
    
    Someone was kind enough to let me know that my note above, (313.6),
    appeared to take on a rather harsh tone due to its having been in caps.
    
    If in fact that did offend anyone, please accept my apologies. This was
    merely an oversight, and upon completion I was too lazy to go back and
    correct it. The type face was in no way meant to communicate in and of
    itself.
    
    I look forward to a fruitful discussion.
    
    Lisa
    

    
    God Is.  Why?  Be-cause!
    
    Cindy

    I do not consider myself a pantheist.  And yet, at the same time,
    I know God to be not simply transcendent and remote, but also
    imminent and ineffably present.
    
    I know this from both experience and Scripture.  I also believe God
    bestows grace and love on non-Christians as well as Christians.
    Its difficult to believe that such a God would exclude all the
    non-Christians from salvation.  Equally astounding to me is some
    of the ones who are supposedly going to make it! 8-}
    
    Richard

Re: .6 (Lisa)

>    O.K. , SOMEONE HAS TO THROW A CURVE HERE. 

Yes, and someone has to catch it.  :-)

>    I HAVE TO SAY THAT GOD IS EXCLUSIVE. 

Well you don't *have* to, but since you choose to, I'll respond. :-)
    
>    IN OTHER WORDS, TO KEEP THE CHRITIAN FAITH DISTINCT FROM RANK
>    PANTHEISM, THE ELDER THEOLOGIANS WERE CAREFUL TO ALWAYS MARK THE
>    DIFFERENCE BETWEEM GOD AND HIS CREATION. 

Well I think that is a questionable motive, if that is the case, but 
regardless, this seems to be a difference marked (as you say) by 
theologians and not necessarily by God.  It may be that this is a human, 
separative differentiation, rather than something of the Divine.
    
>    GOD CREATED ALL THINGS
>    BY VIRTUE OF OMNIPRESENCE, GOD IS PRESENT IN ALL THINGS
>    YET ALL THINGS ARE NOT GOD
>    AND GOD IS NOT ALL THINGS

Does the idea of the inclusive nature of God imply to you that "all 
things are God?"  If God is present in all things it would imply to me 
that all things are *part* of God, not that all things are God.  To say 
something *is* God is to say that that something has the same 
omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of God.  So God can be in 
everything without everything being all knowing, all powerful, and 
everywhere.  

I am in every cell of my body, in every emotion I experience, and every 
thought I create, but none of these elements alone could be considered 
to be *me*.  If a single cell within my body had the capacity for 
thought it could very easily conclude that I am omnipresent, and I 
would be from the standpoint of the cell.  But using this example, how 
could it be said that I am exclusive and separate from all of the 
aspects of my being?  You can very easily say that this is just an 
example and doesn't accurately reflect the nature of God, and I'm not 
saying it is accurate.  But if we are created in the image of God, might 
we not learn something of God by examining ourselves?

Jeff

    To elaborate on Jeff's point, the view that God is in everything, and
    that everything is in God, expresses the doctrine of panentheism.  This
    is *not* the same as pantheism.
    
    -- Mike

(Note 9.1001 KINSELLA)

>    conservatives receive is because of the message of the gospel...which
>    lets face it is definitely exclusive by nature. 

I disagree utterly and completely, though I know some, perhaps many, would
prefer that Christianity was indeed exclusive by nature.

In fact, it grated on the nerves of Jesus' detractors that he was so inclusive.
My guess is that it still goes against the grain of those who believe they
have the correct handle on God, and that anybody who is out of sync is a
deceiver.

Be aware that the inclusive nature of Christianity is inherent to my belief
system (Christian) and it is not meant to offend.

Richard

PS  The notion of exclusivity is the main reason I cannot get enthused
  about the resurrection of the dead.  I mean, if only the people there
  are the ones who are sure they're going to be there, I'm not so sure
  I have any reason to want to be there with them.

re .-1

Jesus was very inclusive -- of people.

	Wide embrace of all the world.

Jesus was very exclusive -- of ideas -- of the way to the kingdom of heaven.

	Narrow road to heaven.

/john

re Note 313.13 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Jesus was very exclusive -- of ideas -- of the way to the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> 	Narrow road to heaven.
  
        When Jesus was saying the road is narrow, was he talking
        about "ideas" (doctrine), or was he talking about himself
        (God)?

        Certainly when Jesus was saying "I am the way" he meant that
        it was through his efforts that we reach God (heaven).
        Otherwise it would have been very easy for him (or the sacred
        writers) to say "believe on the Scriptures and be saved" (or
        "believe on Church doctrine and be saved").

        I know I've said this before and it doesn't persuade
        conservatives:  if JESUS IS THE ONE TRUE GOD then ANYONE WHO
        RELIES UPON THE ONE TRUE GOD RELIES UPON JESUS.

        The road is indeed "narrow" (reject God and you've rejected
        that which is God's -- no alternative) but very accessible.

        Bob

    >if JESUS IS THE ONE TRUE GOD then ANYONE WHO
    >RELIES UPON THE ONE TRUE GOD RELIES UPON JESUS.
    
    Who is the ONE TRUE GOD?
    

  >if JESUS IS THE ONE TRUE GOD then ANYONE WHO
  >RELIES UPON THE ONE TRUE GOD RELIES UPON JESUS.

God == Jesus

Total agreement.

Now if we would only put our faith and belief and trust
in Jesus, we would be saved.  But will we?

Collis

Note 313.15

>    >if JESUS IS THE ONE TRUE GOD then ANYONE WHO
>    >RELIES UPON THE ONE TRUE GOD RELIES UPON JESUS.
    
>    Who is the ONE TRUE GOD?

A strange question for a God-fearer to ask.  Is not the answer contained
in the very statement which provoked the question?

Richard

      >>    Who is the ONE TRUE GOD?

  >A strange question for a God-fearer to ask. 

I think Nancy has the answer.  She was not asking in
hope of seeking truth, but in discerning what was being
shared.

But you knew that, didn't you, Richard.

Collis

    .18  That is certainly another possibility.
    
    	In the movie "Shadowlands," it is said that C.S. Lewis never asked
    a question for which he didn't already have the answer.  Lewis found out
    in the end all his answers were empty.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    (.13 Covert)
    
    I'm in agreement with Bob Fleischer on this.  The way may be narrow,
    but it is quite accessible.
    
    Richard
    

In his book "Mein Kampf," Hilter had no use for inclusiveness and
cosmopolitan outlooks.  He demanded of his followers intolerance,
exclusivity, and a strength of sheer will.  Hilter considered pacifists
limp, like dishrags.

Hilter's genius was his ability to reach down into the heart of a nation
and to touch the psychic wounds of the people.  With this insight, he was
able to rally the power of both fear and anger of an otherwise average
people.

Shalom,
Richard

    What is yer point?  Many lunatics have lead a people to destruction by
    virtue of hope.

    It's self-explanatory.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

The Bible speaks both of exclusivity and of inclusivity.  It is ambiguous
and calls the reader not into doctrine or formula, but into thinking and
soul-searching.

Shalom,
Richard

    Salvation of all is inclusive in the inclusivity is based on free
    will...the freedom to choose eternal life.  Judgement is inclusive to
    all who choose to reject God's plan of redemption.
    
    Enter in the narrow gate!
    
    -Jack

    .25
    
    	Yes, I'm aware of that particular dogma.
    
    Richard
    

    Jack,
    
    what about the predestination crowd.  Are they spouting false
    theologies then?
    
                                 Patricia

.25 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    Salvation of all is inclusive in the inclusivity is based on free
    will...the freedom to choose eternal life.  Judgement is inclusive to
    all who choose to reject God's plan of redemption.

Jack,

This is one of the aspects of Christianity I understand the least. 

Worship me or die. This sounds like the decree of the villian in a third
rate horror flick, not the pronouncement of an all-powerful creator of
the universe. How can you admire such a creature?

Steve

    Very good question Patricia.  This is an area I am still nebulous over.  
    I personally have a hard time putting free will and predestination in
    harmony with one another.  
    
    "Do not eat of the fruit of this tree, for the day you eat of it you
    shall surely die".  I believe Adam and Eve had free will, yet at the
    same time, I believe God was prophesying here the outcome.  I believe
    God knew what would happen here.  Predestination and free will is a
    fascinating topic of discussion and we could spend musch time on that
    alone.  To answer your question, I simply don't know!
    
    -Jack

Z    Worship me or die. This sounds like the decree of the villian in a third
Z    rate horror flick, not the pronouncement of an all-powerful creator of
Z    the universe. How can you admire such a creature?
    
    I see the relationship of mankind with God similar to a marriage. 
    Mankind acted as the harlot and has left it's first love.  I see God
    over the past thousands of years as a God of Love, constantly trying to
    reconcile us to himself.  Even to the point of sacrificing Jesus on the
    cross.  Even to the point of allowing me to ask forgiveness constantly
    because I constantly stumble.  What a God of love and patience!
    
    I do not see God in the light you have described him.  "Come all of who
    are weak and heavy laden and I will give you rest"  "Come let us reason
    together says the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be
    white as snow."  I see a good of love, mercy, and kindness.  But I also
    see a sovereign God of holiness.  I believe the two can work in harmony
    together.
    
    ack

    The key to freewill vs. predestination is Biblical balance.  any
    man-made extreme, like Calvinism and Arminianism, is Biblically false.
    
    Mike

    Re .31 
    
    No mike, it one or the other.
    
    Either God offers salvation to a select group or God offers salvation
    to everyone.  The only balance could be the size of the select group.
    
    Does God create some of humanity only for Damnation with no hope for
    salvation.  That is the predestination position taken by Orthordox
    Protestants for centuries.  I believe that that position is not longer
    orthordox, or at least no longer a majority opinion among the
    orthordox.
    
    So what is orthordox today!

    the Biblical presentation is one of balance.  It's not God's fault if
    people misinterpret it.

    Actually the problem is when the Bible support both antagonistic points
    of view and then those invested in showing that the bible is consistent
    turn their logic upside down to make it consistent.
    
    Jeff, states he wants to see us using orthordox theology as our
    standard.  
    
    so in this critical matter.  Perhaps the most critical in the whole
    Bible, what is the orthordox position.  
    
    
    Does God offer salvation to all, or does God offer salvation to a
    select group?
    
    
                                     Patricia

    
    I say this gently and with some trepidation but most American
    Christians of the Protestant stripe are ignorant of their Bibles and the 
    roots of the Christian religion, particularly the Protestant Reformation.  
    It was not always so. And it is not necessary.  But it is true. 
    Regardless  of this fact, there is a rich written history of Protestant 
    thought and orthodoxy for those willing to invest the time to know it.
    
    The most biblical, spiritual, comprehensive, and intellectually vigorous 
    representation of Protestant orthodoxy may be found in the Westminster 
    Confession of Faith.  It is based solely upon Scripture (which was the
    rallying cry of the Reformers) and is a summary of the major doctrines of 
    the Bible. 
    
    jeff
    
    

    So Mr Expert,
    
    What's the orthordox position?
    
    Does God offer salvation to all or does God offer salvation to a select
    group?    It's your standard!  What's the answer?

.30 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    because I constantly stumble.  What a God of love and patience!

To me, the examples that I can see, day to day, argue far more eloquently
against a truly loving God than words ever could.

    white as snow."  I see a good of love, mercy, and kindness.  But I also
    see a sovereign God of holiness.  I believe the two can work in harmony
    together.
    
    ack

Something caught in your throat? :^)

How do you reconcile an omnipotent God of Love with what you see in the 
world. And for me, the free will argument simply does not cut it. This belief
in a loving God despite countless examples to the contrary and with only one
example to prove it (providing you believe the Bible to start with) will
always remain a mystery to me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.33 OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1"
(If your title was trying to annoy me congratulations, you succeeded :^(

    the Biblical presentation is one of balance.  It's not God's fault if
    people misinterpret it.

Of course it is. A divinely inspired inerrant book by an omnipotent being should
be, at the least, clear, unambivelant and non-contradictory to even the most 
severe scrutiny.

Steve

    Steve,
    
    I agree with you.

    ZZ    I agree with you.
    
    Patricia:
    
    you just answered no to this being a Christian community.  The God I
    believe in is gracious, compassionate and slow to anger.  The God I
    serve is also Holy and sovereign.  This is the point I was making to
    Steve.  Steve disagrees with me, you agree with Steve.  Therefore, you
    are either an atheist as Steve is or you serve a different God than I
    do.  Therefore, we are a community but it seems we are not a Christian
    community!
    
    -Jack

>    So Mr Expert,
    
>    What's the orthordox position?
    
>    Does God offer salvation to all or does God offer salvation to a select
>    group?    It's your standard!  What's the answer?
    
    The doctrine of predestination is a secret for the saints.  It must be
    handled carefully.  It would serve no *good* purpose to discuss it
    here.
    
    jeff

>    the Biblical presentation is one of balance.  It's not God's fault if
>    people misinterpret it.

>>Of course it is. A divinely inspired inerrant book by an omnipotent being should
>>be, at the least, clear, unambivelant and non-contradictory to even the most 
>>severe scrutiny.

>>Steve
    
    Hi Steve.  In general I agree with your statement and so does the
    Bible.  The Bible presents itself as completely adequate as a rule for 
    faith and life.  And I testify that this is true.  So would Mike and
    others here I'm sure.
    
    Mike's point about misinterpretation is also valid (though I disagree
    with his immediate context) but is a different point.  People misinterpret 
    the Bible as Mike has said. But not because it is impossible to interpret 
    correctly but largely out of ignorance, or sinfulness, or immaturity, or 
    for reasons of self-interest.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    the only reason for your equivocation on the issue of to whom does God
    offer salvation is that your answer would either
    
    1.  One make you unpopular with the bulk of conservative christians(at
    least as identified in Yukon) who tend to agree with the premise that
    God offers salvation to everyone and humanity itself chooses to either
    accept or reject that offer and the Orthordox Calvanistic answer that
    God offers salvation to a select few who are not able to reject God's
    offer and the rest of humankind is subjected without any alternative to
    damnation.
                                or
    
    
    2. Prove that what was orthordox at the time of the Protestant
    Reformation is no longer orthordox today.
    
    I wouldn't be so upset with you Jeff if you were not so self righteous
    about what was orthordox and what was not.
    
                                             Patricia
    

    
>    the only reason for your equivocation on the issue of to whom does God
>    offer salvation is that your answer would either
 
    I have not equivocated I have hesitated.
       
>    1.  One make you unpopular with the bulk of conservative christians(at
>    least as identified in Yukon) who tend to agree with the premise that
>    God offers salvation to everyone and humanity itself chooses to either
>    accept or reject that offer and the Orthordox Calvanistic answer that
>    God offers salvation to a select few who are not able to reject God's
>    offer and the rest of humankind is subjected without any alternative to
>    damnation.
 
    I think my participation here and in many other conferences would
    demonstrate that I don't value my popularity too much.
    
                                   or
    
    
>    2. Prove that what was orthordox at the time of the Protestant
>    Reformation is no longer orthordox today.
    
     It would be better if you simply accept my reasoning.  I think I have
    been forthright and provide no reason for you to doubt that my reasons
    are sincere.
    
    >I wouldn't be so upset with you Jeff if you were not so self righteous
    >about what was orthordox and what was not.
    
    >                                         Patricia
    
    There you go using the word "self-righteous" as a stone to throw at me. 
    Pharaisaic Jews and anyone else who seeks to establish merit before God
    based upon their own deeds or works are self-righteous.  I am a sinner
    and I know it.  I am saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ's
    work on my behalf.  Without Christ's atoning death on my behalf, for my
    sins, I haven't a chance at all of being righteous before God.  In fact
    I have an extraordinarily wicked past (as far as humans measure such
    things) so I, least of all, could ever expect to be "self-righteous".
    
    What you're really saying is that certainty bothers you. You're hardly
    alone. Indeed you're in the majority.  But I can't be stupid and
    illogical just 'cause so many others are.  Jesus Christ is the truth. 
    For those who are born again into the kingdom of God, the riches of the
    inheritance in Jesus Christ are unfathomable, including wisdom and
    knowledge, both spiritual and temporal.  It is marvelous to plumb the
    depths of Christ!  So do not be surprised that I can be certain about
    many things.
    
    jeff

    This is more the story of personal experience rather than any kind of 
    answer, because I don't know what the answer is when it comes to the
    predestination/free-will, calvanism/wesleyanism debate.

    For a long time I was bothered very much by the whole idea of 
    predestination by which I mean the idea that God preordained which
    people would have salvation from the effects of sin, and would be
    granted eternal life, and which people would reject God, and be
    condemned to bear the effects of sin which would exclude them from
    the joys given to those who received eternal life.  This seemed to me
    to be completely unfair, unjust, and unloving.

    Oops, gotta go ... I'll come back and finish this later by extracting,
    editing, deleting, and replacing.

    Leslie

.39 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    believe in is gracious, compassionate and slow to anger.  The God I
    serve is also Holy and sovereign.  This is the point I was making to
    Steve.  Steve disagrees with me, you agree with Steve.  Therefore, you

Actually, Jack, I don't disagree with you per se. I believe (taken on 
faith ?:^) that you see God as you describe. It is my inability to see
any evidence of the God that you take as an obvious given that fascinates
me.
------------------------------------------------------
.41 USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

Jeff,

And I can see its use as a guideline, subject to the same problems as all
guidelines, different points of view. My reply was aimed at the claims of
inerrency. It seems to me that if God wanted and inerrent Bible that was
not open to thousands (millions?) of different interpretations, that is 
what we would have. Obviously we don't.

>    The most biblical, spiritual, comprehensive, and intellectually vigorous 
>    representation of Protestant orthodoxy may be found in the Westminster 
>    Confession of Faith.  It is based solely upon Scripture (which was the
>    rallying cry of the Reformers) and is a summary of the major doctrines of 
>    the Bible. 
    
    Jeff, your bias is showing.  OSAS is not scriptural.

re Note 313.40 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     The doctrine of predestination is a secret for the saints.  It must be
>     handled carefully.  It would serve no *good* purpose to discuss it
>     here.
  
        Sounds like some sort of cult (or occult or gnostic) thing!

        (One should not be surprised to find that the same kinds of
        radicalism that are so evident in what are normally
        considered "cults" also exist, but in less visible form, in
        "mainstream" human activities, including mainstream churches
        and orthodoxies.)

        After all, it's human nature.

        Bob

re Note 313.43 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     There you go using the word "self-righteous" as a stone to throw at me. 
>     Pharaisaic Jews and anyone else who seeks to establish merit before God
>     based upon their own deeds or works are self-righteous.  I am a sinner
>     and I know it.  I am saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ's
>     work on my behalf.  

        I think that Patricia may be using the term "self-righteous"
        a bit imprecisely.  She is not talking about your salvation
        or your righteousness before God.

        She is talking about your arrogant assumption that because
        you, Jeff Benson, believe that what you are saying to her is
        based upon the Bible that you, Jeff Benson, cannot be erring
        and can confidently pronounce that she is erring.

        This is precisely the attitude of the Pharisees, whom as
        every conservative is proud to tell were very well studied in
        the Hebrew scriptures.

        Bob

<<< Note 313.48 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>

>        She is talking about your arrogant assumption that because
>        you, Jeff Benson, believe that what you are saying to her is
>        based upon the Bible that you, Jeff Benson, cannot be erring
>        and can confidently pronounce that she is erring.
    
    	But in believing and following that faith convention one is
    	NOT wrong (within the bounds of that faith convention) in doing
    	this.  Others see it as arrogant only because they do not follow
    	that faith convention.  And if they do not follow it, why should
    	they be concerned when confronted with it?  I am not affected
    	when I am told I am wrong per a viewopoint I do not espouse.

>        This is precisely the attitude of the Pharisees, 
    
    	Were all Pharasees identical in their behavior?  Were all wrong?

    Mike:
    
    ZZZ    Jeff, your bias is showing.  OSAS is not scriptural.
    
    Once saved always saved for those who aren't familiar with the acronym.
    I must respectfully disagree with the above.  I believe OSAS is
    scriptural based on the following.
    
    1. To lose ones salvation would presuppose that a persons sins are
    simply too great for God to forgive.  Hence the power of the cross is
    minimized.
    
    2. Unlike the Old Testament times when The Holy Spirit would come upon
    a person; and could also leave a person such as happened to King Saul,
    a regenerated believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise as
    stated in Ephesians 1.  A seal is a mark of ownership and hence a
    believer receives the mark of righteousness by God.  The Holy Spirit
    dwells WITHIN a believer and the believer is redeemed.
    
    3. There are many verses in the New Testament which support the Once
    Saved Always Saved idea.  1st John 5: 11,12 states, "And this is the
    testimony, that He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His
    Son.  He who has the Son hath life.  He who does not have the Son hath
    not life.  These things I've written unto you who believe in the name
    of the Son of God, that you may Know you have eternal life."
    
    I believe OSAS does apply to those who have made a GENUINE conversion. 
    If you look at the parable of the sower and the seed, you can see there
    are many to who receive the message and profess Christ, but they do not
    possess Christ.  They are choked by the worries of life and are
    consumed by the riches and worldly affairs which take preeminence over
    their relationship with God.  So the question isn't did they lose
    their salvation.  The question is, did they ever have it in the first
    place?
    
    -Jack

.50 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    1. To lose ones salvation would presuppose that a persons sins are
    simply too great for God to forgive.  Hence the power of the cross is
    minimized.

Apparently the sin of 'non-belief' is too great for God to forgive.

Question: If a person believes in God, but does not worship him (i.e. "yeah,
O.K., you are the creator of the universe, now leave me alone") are they
saved or damned? 

Steve

Z    Question: If a person believes in God, but does not worship him (i.e."yeah,
Z    O.K., you are the creator of the universe, now leave me alone") are
Z    they saved or damned? 
    
    This is a tough question to answer because it has some ambiguity within
    it.  First, in my opinion there are many on this earth who believe in
    God, and yet they will die in their sin and face eternal separation
    from God.  This is supported by scripture, i.e. Jesus said until them,
    'Not all who say to me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven.'
    
    I believe one who has truly converted and has become a new creation in
    Jesus Christ will be saved.  Now there are many times in the life of a
    believer where the attitude of, leave me alone, is evident.  As an
    example, Job was one of the great faith examples of the Old Testament.
    And yet in his pain and sorrow, he pleaded with God to leave him alone
    that he may die in peace.  What an amazing dichotomy.
    
    A relationship with Jesus Christ is not a perpetual existence of feet
    kissing Steve.  There are many times where one may stumble in faith and
    there are many times when one will walk closely with Him.  A Christian
    walk still involves all the choices in life everybody else makes...and
    it involves alot of independent reflection just as everybody else does.
    I do, however, use the Word of God to help mold my
    decisions...particularly in the areas of raising children and trying to
    keep a Christlike home...which can be a challenge!
    
    -Jack

    Re: Jack, Jeff - OSAS
    
    2 Timothy 2:12 says "if we deny Him, He also will deny us."  Hebrew 3:12 
    says, "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of 
    unbelief, in departing from the living God."  Can true believers 
    ("brethren") depart from the living God?  1 Timothy 4:1 says that "in the 
    latter times, some shall depart from the faith."  2 Thessalonians 2:3 speaks
    of "a falling away" or an apostasy.  2 Peter 2:20-21 makes these remarkable
    statements: "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world 
    through knowledge of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, they are again 
    entangled in it, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the 
    beginning.  For it had been better for them not to have known the way of 
    righteousness than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy 
    commandment delivered unto them."

    It is no wonder that Peter says in 1 Peter 1:10, "Wherefore the rather, 
    brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure; for if 
    ye do these things, ye shall never fall."  We thank God for the 
    encouragement of Jude 24 - "Now unto Him that is able to keep you from 
    falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory 
    with exceeding joy."
    
    Mike

.52 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    it.  First, in my opinion there are many on this earth who believe in
    God, and yet they will die in their sin and face eternal separation
    from God.  This is supported by scripture, i.e. Jesus said until them,
    'Not all who say to me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven.'

Why? I thought the only criteria was belief. Is it actually a certain kind
of belief, or acceptance, or what? What is the difference between 'truly 
converted' and mere belief? And why is it that your actual actions have no
bearing?

Steve

 The term "belief" as used in the New Testament connotes placing one's
 trust in, or a total reliance upon someone, rather than an intellectual
 assent..

Z    Why? I thought the only criteria was belief. Is it actually a certain kind
Z    of belief, or acceptance, or what? What is the difference between 'truly 
Z    converted' and mere belief? And why is it that your actual actions have
Z    no bearing?
    
    Great question.  The answer is a resounding Yes.  It is a certain kind
    of belief and acceptance.  Jesus in the gospels made this very clear to
    the people.  He said things like "I am the resurrection and the life. 
    He who believes in me shall never die"...or "He who believes in me
    shall not be condemned but he who does not believe in me is condemned
    already because he has not believed in the only begotten son of God."
    Clear, sussinct, precise!  
    
    "You say that you believe and this is well with you.  The demons also
    believe and shudder!"
    
    -Jack