saving individuals or nations?

[journeyman]

I suppose that is what we must do until the messiah comes. Or returns, if you're correct. Or maybe we're both wrong and its the Mahdi.

Yes, we can all agree how great God is!

Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Isa.60:1-3

I love to read about myself in the scriptures.

[CONSPICILLUM]

I suppose that is what we must do until the messiah comes. Or returns, if you're correct. Or maybe we're both wrong and its the Mahdi.

Yes, we can all agree how great God is!

Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Isa.60:1-3

I love to read about myself in the scriptures.

Arians, Unitarians, and anti-Messianic Jews cannot agree how great God is because Jesus Christ is homoousios divinity, as is the Holy Spirit. Agreeing how Great the Father alone is doesn’t cut it for redemption and atonement as salvation.

In fact, most of these would need to at least tremble to come up to the level of demons who both believe and tremble. It’s not salvific for them, but believing and trembling demons are far superior to those named above who deny the Son (and/or the Holy Spirit).

[Athanasius]

Arians, Unitarians, and anti-Messianic Jews cannot agree how great God is because Jesus Christ is homoousios divinity, as is the Holy Spirit. Agreeing how Great the Father alone is doesn’t cut it for redemption and atonement as salvation.

In fact, most of these would need to at least tremble to come up to the level of demons who both believe and tremble. It’s not salvific for them, but believing and trembling demons are far superior to those named above who deny the Son (and/or the Holy Spirit).

Is a demon who acknowledges the reality of God, but doesn't live a life of faith, superior to the human who worships God out of faith, according to his or her understanding, even if incomplete, and lives a life of that faith accordingly? I'm not so sure about that.

[RabbiKnife]

Perhaps off topic, but just a result of my reflections and contemplation this morning.

Although blessed(?) with some degree of intellectual acumen, at times like this discussion -- and perhaps even more so as I have contemplated the last year in retrospect and the coming (current) year in prospect, I find myself weeping at my own self-aggrandizement and self-importance.

I am reminded that I come to the Father only because The Man on the middle cross; He said I could come.

As only Alistair Begg could communicate it...

[journeyman]

Arians, Unitarians, and anti-Messianic Jews cannot agree how great God is because Jesus Christ is homoousios divinity, as is the Holy Spirit. Agreeing how Great the Father alone is doesn’t cut it for redemption and atonement as salvation.

I disagree,

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Mic.6:8

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Lk.1:5-6

In fact, most of these would need to at least tremble to come up to the level of demons who both believe and tremble. It’s not salvific for them, but believing and trembling demons are far superior to those named above who deny the Son (and/or the Holy Spirit).

Just a few things. Believers in the one true God share a holy reverence of him. Also, "believing" demons are in no way superior to humans. And finally, people who "deny the Son" are people who don't do what Jesus told them to do.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Arians, Unitarians, and anti-Messianic Jews cannot agree how great God is because Jesus Christ is homoousios divinity, as is the Holy Spirit. Agreeing how Great the Father alone is doesn’t cut it for redemption and atonement as salvation.

In fact, most of these would need to at least tremble to come up to the level of demons who both believe and tremble. It’s not salvific for them, but believing and trembling demons are far superior to those named above who deny the Son (and/or the Holy Spirit).

Is a demon who acknowledges the reality of God, but doesn't live a life of faith, superior to the human who worships God out of faith, according to his or her understanding, even if incomplete, and lives a life of that faith accordingly? I'm not so sure about that.

Faith cometh by hearing (the noun) and hearing by the Rhema of God. If it’s another rhema and another message, then it isn’t THE faith (once delivered to the saints).

Wrong belief is another faith from another gospel, and there is not another.

There may be a few more people enduring everlasting hellfire than most are willing to concede.

The problem isn’t a lack of faith, it’s faith in the wrong rhema.

That which is not of faith is sin. Most people bring forth most of their action from the source of sin, not faith. It’s an epidemic within the church.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Perhaps off topic, but just a result of my reflections and contemplation this morning.

Although blessed(?) with some degree of intellectual acumen, at times like this discussion -- and perhaps even more so as I have contemplated the last year in retrospect and the coming (current) year in prospect, I find myself weeping at my own self-aggrandizement and self-importance.

I am reminded that I come to the Father only because The Man on the middle cross; He said I could come.

As only Alistair Begg could communicate it...

Yes, it often seems like I’m arrogant because I speak so plainly and directly, so I get your implications. The real problem in this regard is that our culture has produced hearts and minds that depend upon their false concepts for identity, value, and worth; so everything that comes against their ideology is taken extremely personally.

I’m not important at all except the finite local reach of that to which I’m called. But I do have a hard time switching out of teaching mode into discussion mode, especially if the discussion includes a lot of non-orthodox topics.

Ecumenism is an epidemic. There’s far more pride in that than I suffer from being too zealous at times

[CONSPICILLUM]

Arians, Unitarians, and anti-Messianic Jews cannot agree how great God is because Jesus Christ is homoousios divinity, as is the Holy Spirit. Agreeing how Great the Father alone is doesn’t cut it for redemption and atonement as salvation.

I disagree,

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Mic.6:8

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Lk.1:5-6

In fact, most of these would need to at least tremble to come up to the level of demons who both believe and tremble. It’s not salvific for them, but believing and trembling demons are far superior to those named above who deny the Son (and/or the Holy Spirit).

Just a few things. Believers in the one true God share a holy reverence of him. Also, "believing" demons are in no way superior to humans. And finally, people who "deny the Son" are people who don't do what Jesus told them to do.

Those 2 examples are from the Old Covenant(s). Contrary to popular misunderstanding, the Mosaic Law COULD be kept. There was provision within the Law for not keeping the Law and making sacrifice to atone. That was still keeping the Law even while failing to observe it.

The Gospel is about us being translated into Christ and having put on Christ because of His finished work on the cross and His resurrection. Works of the Law and works of the flesh aren’t going to save anyone, then or now.

Since that which is not of faith is sin, merely engaging in action without it coming from the proper source is irrelevant and futile. Faith and the works therefrom are all that matter. If the source is not faith, the works are dead.

Faith requires a specific object. That thing believed is faith (the noun). Faith is not believING. Faith is also not actING. Doing is no litmus test for the source OF the doing. Most are doing many things, and it’s mostly of sin and not of faith. Even the allegedly “good” things.

[Athanasius]

Faith cometh by hearing (the noun) and hearing by the Rhema of God. If it’s another rhema and another message, then it isn’t THE faith (once delivered to the saints).

Wrong belief is another faith from another gospel, and there is not another.

There may be a few more people enduring everlasting hellfire than most are willing to concede.

The problem isn’t a lack of faith, it’s faith in the wrong rhema.

That which is not of faith is sin. Most people bring forth most of their action from the source of sin, not faith. It’s an epidemic within the church.

That's all very academic but what is the existential reality for the individual (or person, perhaps, if you also think people are tasked with becoming individuals)? Are you suggesting that God speaks to all people such that they might enter into a relationship with Him, holding to the tenets of orthodoxy? Or reject Him in favour of their own rhema? Of the demonic? Or that it's messier? Does hamartia preclude a life of faith where the Rhema of God has not yet been heard?

Reminds me of that song:

[CONSPICILLUM]

Faith cometh by hearing (the noun) and hearing by the Rhema of God. If it’s another rhema and another message, then it isn’t THE faith (once delivered to the saints).

Wrong belief is another faith from another gospel, and there is not another.

There may be a few more people enduring everlasting hellfire than most are willing to concede.

The problem isn’t a lack of faith, it’s faith in the wrong rhema.

That which is not of faith is sin. Most people bring forth most of their action from the source of sin, not faith. It’s an epidemic within the church.

That's all very academic but what is the existential reality for the individual (or person, perhaps, if you also think people are tasked with becoming individuals)? Are you suggesting that God speaks to all people such that they might enter into a relationship with Him, holding to the tenets of orthodoxy? Or reject Him in favour of their own rhema? Of the demonic? Or that it's messier? Does hamartia preclude a life of faith where the Rhema of God has not yet been heard?

Reminds me of that song:

As regards (alleged) faith… what about the “existential reality” of Muslims? Or Hindus? Or Buddhists? Or Bahai? Or Mormons? Or JWs? Or Arians? Or Unitarians? Or Sabellians? Or Pneumatomachians? Or Nestorians, Apollinarians, or Eutychians? Or Monophysites? Or Pantheists? Or just the plain old primitives? Are they all candidates for salvation because of their “faith”? They “believe” something that includes God, with or without a Son. Many “believe” in the Son improperly. Do they all receive salvation for “a” faith of some kind?

At what point is the message and the thing believed NOT salvific versus salvific in any or all of the above? Or with other gradients of false doctine or complete ignorance and vague, illegitimate concepts?

What’s the threshold or perimeter of salvific faith? Is the presence of some kind of belief in some incomplete or insufficient message the nebulous arbitrage point for redemption? Are there many ways? Many truths?

Aren’t these comparable and disparate forms of your questions? Just exactly what can one believe and not believe and still ultimately be saved? Can one believe that those adamantly endorsing sexual immorality and perversion are believers? What about those who are advocates for abortion? Can someone have an entirely anti-Christian morality and ethicity in place in their lives and still be saved?

Repentance is metanoia. It’s a noun. It’s not merely the verb that comes from it in action. Metanoia is the changed condition and state of being of the mind beind brought amidst God’s for moral reflection and agreement with His standards for inward character and outward conduct. That’s the lexical definition, which many reject for trivial phrases like “making a 180º turn-around and going the other way”, etc. (That’s the verb, BTW. It’s repentING, not repentANCE. The latter is the “thing” granted by God. No one can repent without having been given repentANCE from God. The noun has the verb within it.)

If someone hears the message and frustrates grace to hold onto their false doctrines, it’s a demonstration of impenitence. To what degree is that a salvation issue. Well… since we’re both already saved and not yet saved (no one has received the end of their faith, which is the saving of their souls), I’d suggest it’s really important to have a heart for truth rather than one’s own internal production of ideology and philosophy in lieu of actual theological truth.

The JWs aren’t going to be avoiding the lake of fire. Why? Because of their wrong belief from a wrong source, and their stubbornness and rebellion to hear anything beyond what they think they know. They don’t have to murder, rape, steal, and other heinous acts. They’ll be facing judgment without hope because of what they both have and haven’t believed. It’s the quality of faith and its object that matters, not just that some kind or degree of faith is present. Everyone believes lots of things. Few (none?)are devoid of belief. It’s the object OF belief that matters. It’s the message that is crucial.

Mercy rejoices against judgment, so ultimately all of this is above my pay grade. But it does matter what one believes and if one is authentically penitent or not. The invalid external can be manufactured to mimic the valid internal. Works and the outward appearance won’t necessarily tell the story here.

When someone resists Christological truth or other primary things, it’s cause for concern not reason to gloss it all over for “fellowship”. I won’t pretend that the Christian faith does anything but anathematize non-Messianic Jews or cultists, etc. Anathema is anathema. The problem today is no central spiritual authority to determine such things. It’s everyone’s individual subjective opinions against all others.

Lexicography and grammar of the original languages are the Philological foundations for knowing and proclaiming the truth, even if you perceive I’ve done it in an undesirable manner. It doesn’t change that sin is a privation and that Cappadocian and Chalcedonian core doctrines aren’t just a guideline for today’s Modernists to submit approval for and pass judgment upon. If someone isn’t Trinitarian, it’s not a small matter. If someone doesn’t understand it, that’s different than reformulating it and becoming the source for alleged acceptable terminology.

The truth stands if no one believes it. Philology’s demise as the primary discipline for knowing truth is an unfortunate casualty of the rise of Empiricism and dozens of others -isms. The real question ought to be “How can God still save anyone when everyone’s epistemological foundations are so corrupted in every way and they can’t/don’t/won’t admit it because they refuse to give up their own godhood status from indoctrination far preceeding any religious kind from doctrinal divergence?”

For a professing Believer, it’s far more important to rid oneself of wrong thought and belief than it is to gain knowledge (gnosis) of theology. Building on an old foundation (including hows and whys, not merely whats) means Christ is not the only foundation.

Correct belief is far more crucial than just believing whatever. How can that not be true? It can’t be an Ecumenistic free-for-all. Oprah’s god doesn’t save. Vishnu, alone or in company, doesn’t save. Neither does the “Father” God of a created son. Tell me when absolute objective truth doesn’t matter?

[journeyman]

Those 2 examples are from the Old Covenant(s). Contrary to popular misunderstanding, the Mosaic Law COULD be kept. There was provision within the Law for not keeping the Law and making sacrifice to atone. That was still keeping the Law even while failing to observe it.

The observation of OT sacrifice has led us to our Lord Jesus. The Lamb of God shows us how all sin is against God, and he patiently endures our sins. The Son of God perfectly displayed Gods' endurance when sinners mistreated him in horrible ways and he forgave it, because he loved his enemies,

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Mt.5:48

The Gospel is about us being translated into Christ and having put on Christ because of His finished work on the cross and His resurrection. Works of the Law and works of the flesh aren’t going to save anyone, then or now.

Since that which is not of faith is sin, merely engaging in action without it coming from the proper source is irrelevant and futile. Faith and the works therefrom are all that matter. If the source is not faith, the works are dead.

Faith requires a specific object. That thing believed is faith (the noun). Faith is not believING. Faith is also not actING. Doing is no litmus test for the source OF the doing. Most are doing many things, and it’s mostly of sin and not of faith. Even the allegedly “good” things.

Jesus hasn't finished his work yet. He's at work in believers, demonstrating Gods'love toward all. He conqueres all evil this way, along with judgement day.

[Fenris]

The NT can be believed based upon Philological truth alone.

I don't know what this means.

[Athanasius]

I don't know what this means.

Since our conspicuous friend may have already flown the coop, I would have to imagine that 'philological truth' means the language of the NT, when properly studied, understood, applied, and recognised to be not just the Logos of God, but the Rhema of God as well. If so, there's an interesting set of assumptions in this schema, not least of which is the almost Platonic notion of why some believe and others don't (ignorance). Well, it's not almost Platonic is it?

Perhaps our φιλόλογος κοινωνός (?) will return with a nice, respectful attitude to confirm. Or maybe not. Either way, it's an untenable claim if one is to properly respect the myriad ways people engage with a text, the different things different people find compelling, and so on.

[Fenris]

Since our conspicuous friend may have already flown the coop, I would have to imagine that 'philological truth' means the language of the NT, when properly studied, understood, applied, and recognised to be not just the Logos of God, but the Rhema of God as well. If so, there's an interesting set of assumptions in this schema, not least of which is the almost Platonic notion of why some believe and others don't (ignorance). Well, it's not almost Platonic is it?

Ah. Indeed not.

φιλόλογος κοινωνός

Google translate tells me that this means "philological guinea pigs". I love this place! Even the rebukes are highbrow.

[RandyPNW]

I don't know what this means.

Since our conspicuous friend may have already flown the coop, I would have to imagine that 'philological truth' means the language of the NT, when properly studied, understood, applied, and recognised to be not just the Logos of God, but the Rhema of God as well. If so, there's an interesting set of assumptions in this schema, not least of which is the almost Platonic notion of why some believe and others don't (ignorance). Well, it's not almost Platonic is it?

Perhaps our φιλόλογος κοινωνός (?) will return with a nice, respectful attitude to confirm. Or maybe not. Either way, it's an untenable claim if one is to properly respect the myriad ways people engage with a text, the different things different people find compelling, and so on.

My brother is a big text guy, and admits he avoids the "theological" controversies. I, on the other hand, love to face the theological controversies, and always want to find a systematic theology resolving all of the issues.

I see nothing wrong with entertaining different ideas, because if anybody is going to come to the truth, he is going to have to begin with a set of ideas, true or not. We have to begin where we're at.

But viewing the text as a sword to separate brothers isn't the way to go, in my opinion. Jesus separated the sheep from the goats. But he went after the one lost sheep, right? That is also in the text!