BigBert

Hi; are you saying if we have faith, then our prayer is assured to be aligned with what God's will is? Thanks

Thanks, Ascot. Not sure they affirmed Jesus' teachings in Mark 11:24, but I appreciate your efforts a lot.

Thanks, One Light. I'm not sure if that answered my request in the sense of praying for something specifically, but maybe it did. They're good thoughts either way, and I will dwell on them.

To me, this is the nut cutting, so to speak. If we cannot determine clarity regarding prayer, then we're in a hurt, IMO. I'm currently in a huge bind in my life, and I sometimes lack the conviction of my prayers being answered. Let me explain, please: I read a very uplifting piece from the famous 19th century preacher Charles Spurgeon on Mark 11:24, where Jesus says, "

That's great to hear, DawnAnnette. It's helped provide me a lot of peace, in addition to further researching other scriptures that appeared conflicting to me at one point.

Amen. While I don't mean any disrespect toward those disagreeing, I think many belief systems (and they're a matter of personal conclusions more than we think, I feel) inevitably blur the focus of God's love to one degree or another. The link I provided above for the google review of the book "Experiencing Father's Embrace" tells a story of a man who gave his all to his church, growing it, and appearing to all on the outside to be a highly successful, deeply devout man of God. But inside he was dying, as was his family. Searching God in a way he never had before, he found the Priceless, unconditional love he'd been seeking all his life. He now walks far more closer and energized with God and his family than he ever thought possible.

What I am saying has nothing to do with post-modern or convenience or whatever one wishes to term it. It's a historical reality that Christians have been deeply divided over many areas, including the most pertinent ones, such as salvation. That's something I don't see changing. For instance, other believers view the "narrow way" to mean that only through Christ can we be saved, that His death took care of it all, which contrasted greatly in those times as well as today with the myriad of people's beliefs on attaining heaven.

OneLight--I agree that we need to be very, very careful in doing anything to indirectly "encourage" someone to commit suicide. As with a number of critical areas in the Bible, there are obviously various interpretations, and only God knows for certain the result. I do become concerned when I see so many seemingly condemning scriptures trotted out, which actually can have the opposite effect of what you intend. It can create a feeling of helplessness, that there's no way to live up to what God seems to demand, which can certainly push someone suicidal to the brink as well. So there's a balance. There are many other scriptures that, in fact, tell of boundless, non-judgmental pure love from God. If we believe He's apt to strike us down in some fashion (especially eternally) for failing to meet standards only Jesus has and ever will manage to meet, then that's a danger in itself, I believe. Let's also preach John, Chapter 3: 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (shortly after in the same chapter): 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. The word "obey" here means believe in the Greek. In fact, the obeying in Jesus' comments elsewhere as well often refers to "believe" (in Him as the sole source of our salvation). Moving not long at all after, to Chapter 5, we read this reassurance: 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. The "honor" being required in v 23 is clarified if there is any doubt by the requirement laid out in v 24 that we "believe." There are many more such passages in the Bible, and I think the works are merely a result of that faith, and they come in different paces according to each believer. Far more important than anything, I believe, is that we remember and be encouraged by God's unconditional love, which exceeds His judgment, as He alone figured a way to encapsulate the latter inside the former by placing all the punishment on Jesus. Even His judgment became the ultimate expression of His love. As we're reminded in 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. Maybe it's that very thing--God's perfect love--that will actually encourage the deeply despondent onto renewed energy and hope even on this earth. He knows better than anyone how to uplift the inner being of man (woman). On that note, may I recommend a book I'm currently reading (per google books) and aim to buy very soon called "Experiencing Father's Embrace." It's something I'm way overdue to read myself. http://books.google.com/books?id=FV8vWWvmf...p;q=&f=true

Jeremiah, I appreciate your post and you have some good thoughts that deserve further reflection. I do find it interesting, for lack of better word, that Bill Bright, in his book The Holy Spirit, mentioned the case of a Christian acquaintance who believed he had reached the point where he literally was without sin anymore in his life. He soon suffered some severe pains, leading Pastor Bright to tell him to repent of that belief quickly (that the physical attack was a satanic one that God allowed). The man did as told, humbled himself to God, and the pain subsided. It's certainly possible the pain was coincidental, but I read a passage in the Bible just yesterday (would have to look it up, as I don't recall the verse now) that seemed to indicate we are not capable of leading a sinless life, even though we can sure come a lot closer than we ever even imagined so without the Spirit. Christ was indeed without sin, though He was not born into it either, so the dual nature was not in Him. (though I see the other side, too, in that He was still tempted, meaning He obviously had the choice. ) As to not criticizing others' sins because we ourselves are not perfect, Christ of course told us to take the log out of our own eye first. Even so, I imagine there's a distinction in that anyone preaching in something remotely approaching self-absorption (rather than pure love toward others) had better be sure to have his life in order compared to those he's preaching at. On the other hand, those who, out of love, ask a brother or sister to consider what they're doing because they love and care about them are not necessarily under the same kind of spotlight. It's akin to a loving parent or sibling warning out of love to the child or other sibling about something that could harm them. It's understood the caring advice comes from someone with flaws of their own.

I am still not understanding what you are saying That may be why I'm also having trouble perhaps answering clearly.

you have a point, nebula. And I hope not to have gotten too far off the path considering the immediate need. As to specifics, I noted at least three separate viewpoints on the Hebrews chapter. But, yes, the main thing is to do all we can to comfort and ensure the individual considering suicide is loved. Through us, Jesus' love can show and provide some encouragement to the emotionally wounded.

Yeah, that is the problem. People take scripture and "reason" it out to mean anything but what it is meant to be. Why can't people just read the word and take it at face value anymore? Ok. But sometimes the problem is doing that very thing--taking it at "face" value, because we all bring certain preconceived ideas into what we read. If the Church has taught something all the years someone has grown up, he/she is going to perceive a verse a certain way even if it may actually not be the truth. I'm not saying that's always the case, but if we look at specifically who was being talked to, the surrounding scriptures and other passages from the same individual, it can change the meaning in some cases. And it would not necessarily have anything to do with trying to make excuses or rationalize away something. You were referring to the scripture I posted from Hebrews 6. What have you been taught about this scripture that is different then what it says? Nothing before or after changes the meaning of the scripture. I answered in a general way because that was the way I perceived your prior comment. I'll get back to you in a bit on the other.

Yeah, that is the problem. People take scripture and "reason" it out to mean anything but what it is meant to be. Why can't people just read the word and take it at face value anymore? Ok. But sometimes the problem is doing that very thing--taking it at "face" value, because we all bring certain preconceived ideas into what we read. If the Church has taught something all the years someone has grown up, he/she is going to perceive a verse a certain way even if it may actually not be the truth. I'm not saying that's always the case, but if we look at specifically who was being talked to, the surrounding scriptures and other passages from the same individual, it can change the meaning in some cases. And it would not necessarily have anything to do with trying to make excuses or rationalize away something.

thanks, smalcald. I'll comment maybe in a bit. OneLight--true, though I've read a lot in recent days about that scripture and many have a different take on that. However, one thing's for sure, regardless of where someone is in life---it's very dangerous to deny Christ!

Hmmm...not sure, because the first thing that pops to mind is how Jesus went well beyond even the commandments and statutes by taking it to the level of thoughts that needed to even be pure. Granted, much of this was to prompt people to realize they absolutely need Jesus for salvation and cannot in any way rely on themselves. However, I also think it more than hints at just how incredibly holy He is, that He is of course absolute perfection in every sense. Does that make sense, or do you view such verses differently?

I am not sure what you mean by that? it sounds like you are saying sinless by our standards and not by Gods Have to admit that's the way I read it too. It becomes confusing to me.

see, now that's where the problem lies. do you honestly believe that Jesus dying on the cross and your acceptance of that means you should spend eternity in heaven? does that make sense to you?? it doesn't to me, but i believe it to be true. it boggles my mind when people can accept the illogical means of salvation, but then reject the idea of eternal security because it doesn't make sense to them. i believe that at salvation, my sins were forgiven: past and future. otherwise, where would my "unforgiven" sins go when i die? Jesus was pretty clear about how easy it is to sin. and my God tends to take sin pretty seriously. so having a wrong heart attitude when one is driving crazy and getting into that wreck and dying means one dies with sin in their life. what happens to that sin? do you think God just says, "oh well. it was 'unintentional'. we'll let that one go into the dead-sin pile"? i don't think so. i think if one sin will take a person to hell (the whole if you've broken one part of the law you've broken the whole law thing), God must take a strong stance on even one sin. hence, the beauty of the Cross and the whole salvation experience. you've accepted the Gift--but only part of it! Well said. Butero, in addition to my other question above, I do wonder what level of "walking in the Spirit" and submission to the will of Christ is acceptable for salvation, and related to that Charitow brings up the example I had mentioned about driving, crashing, and dying with a spirit of hatred in you. It's all part of our sin nature which God put on the cross and already paid for, according to Scripture.

Butero, Regarding salvation with our initial faith in Christ, we receive salvation as God's full provision for our sins as something we cannot earn--that we agree on. Does not the standard for being saved remain the same? "What must I do to be saved?" asked the Phillipian jailer in Acts 16:30, and Paul replied in verse 31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Or John 3:35-36: "The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." As I'm sure you're aware, there are literally loads of scripture imparting the equation of faith equaling salvation. If that's true initially, does it in any way change after that, and why?

I guess we will have to agree to dissagree on this point, because I think the Calvanists are right about it being a work. In order for God to be 100 percent in control of your salvation, it has to be entirely God's doing. By requiring you to make a confession of faith, you are partially involved. The doctrine of unconditional eternal security is just watered down Calvanism. The only difference is that they had a hard time believing God would create some people to be lost, so they reject that part of it and just latch on to the eternally saved side of the doctrine. There are some biblical subjects that somewhat require a "weighing of the evidence," in my belief. While most apparent contradictions or conflicts can be remedied by deeper study, there may be some items that require weighing, at least in current absence of rock solid consistency across the spectrum of passages. Perhaps this subject is one of those, as I believe in the free will covenant, though I acknowledge some passages sound at odds with that. I do, though, believe as well in the Holy Spirit's work in this matter, supposed free will or not. Without the Spirit, we obviously wouldn't possess even the ability to see the possibility we're living sinfully and the need for salvation.

well, then, i guess I disagree with Calvinists' philosophy of that being works. It's not works, it's no different than "working" to receive a free gift by acknowledging you want, need, and are ready to accept and appreciate it. Simple stuff, in my opinion.

Butero, I think you give some good food for thought, and I'm going to go back and study these verses and surrounding scriptures again as well. I will say that I think you're nitpicking on the area of prayer/confession in trying to call it works. I see such as merely part of the response needed by anyone to accept the gift of salvation. Do we all not grab, reach out, acknowledge a gift when we receive it from someone? Isn't that what acknowledgment and a prayer to God for His ultimate gift is?

Prime example of taking scripture out of context. I would be very careful with that. ahem...false teaching. If you were to read the entire chapter, these particular verses are directed only towards the Unmarried and Widows. Anyone else have any scriptures on remarriage? ? These are consecutive verses; how is the 'thou' in verse 28 not the same person as the 'thou' in verse 27? I beg to differ. The first part of verse 27 says 'Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed.' In other words, if you are married (bound) to a wife, don't seek to be divorced (loosed) from her. This is plainly not speaking to someone who is unmarried or widowed. The next part of verse 27 says 'Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.' In other words, if you are divorced (loosed), don't seek to marry again. The next verse then says (and keep in mind that the original as Paul wrote it was not divided up into separate verses) 'But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned'. In other words, if you do marry, you have not sinned. Who then is the 'thou' or 'you' in this verse? Plainly, it is the same 'thou' as the previous sentence - the 'thou' who is loosed (divorced) from a wife. I would add the reason here for Paul's particularly strong recommendation to "remain unmarried" if you're in such a state is because he was fully convicted the persecution was near and therefore time was very short in working for the Lord to save souls. Certainly that should be a priority always for believers and it's natural to desire strongly to see others become saved. It's a natural outgrowth of one's faith and the Spirit's residing. But circumstances also aren't always quite so urgent (though we could argue they are today with many believing the end times are drawing close).

JCISGD--I always appreciate your sincerity, as you know fully. Sorry, though, God clearly stated He divorced Israel, giving her a certificate and the whole bit (Jeremiah 3:8). He uses the same Hebrew word for divorce as the OT scriptures in Deuteronomy 24: 1-4 for conditions that made divorce acceptable (if not ideal). The reason of relentless unfaithfulness is given. As to Malachi 2:16, the prophet does not use the word for divorce used in the instances cited above, but rather the word meaning "to put away," in which wives were tossed out without protection of a divorce. Since they were rarely self-sufficient in such a male dominated culture, this was a death knell, as they could either be forced to remain single and figure hot to fend for themselves or literally be considered adulterers for remarrying due to officially still being married to their former husbands who punted them out. God hated that treatment of the women (Mal 2:16), and the surrounding text in that book indicate the context to be just that. I know that your experience hugely affected your outlook, and understandably so. I just don't think that means it should be applied to as many circumstances as you do, that's all. With respect, Bert

a basic "amen" to DawnAnnette and appreciate your post. Will add that Hebrews 6:4-6 indeed is a difficult scripture for many. For one, though, we need to keep in light all the scriptures promoting Christ's death as fully sufficient for our salvation, meaning it's a strange stance to dismiss all of them even if the Hebrews passages indicate the possibility of actually losing it. But, as we see, there are alternative analyses of what this scripture means. This link provides two considerations and is a brief read: http://www.gotquestions.org/Hebrews-6.html