Redemption: Being saved or born again

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You merely view a system the enables purposeful, continuous, and unrepentant sin as humble.



I have no stones to throw.

The belief in salvation and of getting into heaven was the particular point at issue.

[Sparko]

There are two ways to repent of sins. The first is to repent of specific instances. The second is to repent of everything that might conflict with God's desire. The latter is the more appropriate course, and the more important of the two methods. I don't know of a protestant denomination that doesn't consider that to be the case. Once a sin has been repented, it is forgiven and past. While a sin is unrepented, it remains in an ongoing present - not forgiven.

That's not how it works. You sound like a Catholic. What if you forget one? Not "I didn't know that was a sin" but "Yep I sinned but I got busy and forgot to ask for it to be forgiven/forgot to repent?"

Repenting and confessing is what you do as a Christian if you want your relationship to God to be a good one. But God already knew of all of your future sins when he accepted you as part of his family. And he accepted you anyway. Because of what Jesus did on the cross.

Romans 8:¹⁴ For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. ¹⁵ The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba,Father.” ¹⁶ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. ¹⁷ Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

[whag]

It is not the least bit surprising that one who pretty much makes a sport of mocking Christianity would prefer the Catholic version of salvation/heaven.

Why’s that?

[whag]

Have you ever actually read the Bible? I'm thinking not.

Scripture Verse: 1 John 2

1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. ² He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: 1 John 1

⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

© Copyright Original Source

You really need to read the Bible.

I wouldn’t tell others to read the Bible when you avoid its eschatological parts. It’s a lame pose to pretend someone else’s alleged misunderstanding of a collection of documents that even Christians argue about means she’s biblically illiterate.

[whag]

That's not how it works. You sound like a Catholic. What if you forget one? Not "I didn't know that was a sin" but "Yep I sinned but I got busy and forgot to ask for it to be forgiven/forgot to repent?"

Repenting and confessing is what you do as a Christian if you want your relationship to God to be a good one. But God already knew of all of your future sins when he accepted you as part of his family. And he accepted you anyway. Because of what Jesus did on the cross.

Romans 8:¹⁴ For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. ¹⁵ The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba,Father.” ¹⁶ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. ¹⁷ Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

[Cow Poke]

I wouldn’t tell others to read the Bible when you avoid its eschatological parts.

Well, that's you. By the way, I evidently "avoided" the whole book of Psalms.

It’s a lame pose to pretend someone else’s alleged misunderstanding of a collection of documents that even Christians argue about means she’s biblically illiterate.

It's been showing up over a period of time, not just this one incident.

[Cow Poke]

Who is to say they are false? It is only a matter of opinion.

And my opinion matters.

[Cow Poke]

So do you still confess your sins and repent of them?

When appropriate, absolutely. It's one of the reasons I'm MUCH nicer to you than I used to be.

[tabibito]

That's not how it works. You sound like a Catholic. What if you forget one? Not "I didn't know that was a sin" but "Yep I sinned but I got busy and forgot to ask for it to be forgiven/forgot to repent?"

Repenting and confessing is what you do as a Christian if you want your relationship to God to be a good one. But God already knew of all of your future sins when he accepted you as part of his family. And he accepted you anyway. Because of what Jesus did on the cross.

Romans 8:¹⁴ For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. ¹⁵ The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba,Father.” ¹⁶ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. ¹⁷ Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

ったく

You didn't even bother to read what I posted. What did you think the second way of repenting was about?

[NorrinRadd]

While I would agree, liberal "Christianity" is far more concerned with affirming and blessing sin so much that it has already fractured the Anglican and Methodist communions and is rapidly doing the same to the Roman communion.

The Baptists in America are somewhat lagging but has already fractured on women in the pulpit which preceded the current developments in the Anglican and Methodist communions. Some cooperations already have unqualified individuals living in sin in the pulpit. ...

The "Methodist communion" had "women in the pulpit" from its origins in the 1700s.

The AG and Foursquare churches have had "women in the pulpit" for a hundred years or more, and AFAIK have not slid down the supposed slippery slope.

The C&MA has bounced around a bit on the issue. Under Simpson, men and women had similar if not identical ministerial status. Later they went very much into male leadership. Recently, they have allowed more liberty, albeit inconsistently; women may hold the title of "pastor" but not "elder," if I understand correctly, and I think individual congregations can decide whether or not to allow women in leadership.

I think to at least some extent the alleged slippery slope depends on the basis of the denomination or communion allowing women in leadership (or "in the pulpit") in the first place. If it's "Wah! It's so unfair!" then they are more likely to slide further. But if it's an honest desire to reconcile apparently competing passages of Scripture, not so much.

[whag]

Well, that's you. By the way, I evidently "avoided" the whole book of Psalms.



It's been showing up over a period of time, not just this one incident.

If we’re to be honest, many parts of the Bible are esoteric and boring, hence why you avoid its eschatology.

[tabibito]

Come, on, Tab - this isn't like you.... you were addressing me and the SBC....

The underscored section in the article by Cardinal News is wrong?

The convention voted overwhelmingly at its annual meeting to uphold the decision to expel two congregations — California megachurch Saddleback and smaller church Fern Creek Baptist in Louisville, Kentucky — for having female pastors. The nearly 13,000 voters pointed to the denomination’s 2000 statement of faith, Baptist Faith and Message, which states that only qualified men can serve as pastors.
Some Baptist congregations such as Antioch and others in the area adhere to a 1963 version of Faith and Message, which does not exclude female pastors.

It matches the circumstances mentioned in the letter from the Japanese Baptist Convention just after the 2000 decision.

Or per Religion News - short sharp and direct:

(RNS) — During their annual meeting in New Orleans, Southern Baptists drew a clear line in the sand: Give a woman the title of “pastor” and your church no longer fits in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.

Articles such as that by the Baptist Churches of New Zealand also repeat the claim that women are excluded as pastors by the SBC. This and some articles like it might have served their cause better with an article on cake recipes than what has been presented. However, if it not a fact that having women as pastors is prohibited by the SBC, the fact was not driven home to other Baptist cooperatives.

The SBC (and me as a member) are NOT "claim[ing] that other congregations are in the wrong if they disagree".

An apology would be appropriate now.

I tried to word things so as to prevent the interpretation that I was targetting the SBC with that particular comment. I failed ... but why that is so isn't clear to me.
Still - if the claims are true that the SBC has declared the appointment of female pastors to be unscriptural - the SBC has indeed declared other churches to be in the wrong.

[whag]

The SBC leadership, and the majority of the membership, have seen, quite often, that the first step in going squishy on the Word of God is the selection of a female as lead pastor..

You might wanna examine that. Most moms are female and are expected to teach their kids the Word of God.

[Cow Poke]

You might wanna examine that. Most moms are female

"Most moms"?

and are expected to teach their kids the Word of God.

And they do a marvelous job without having to be lead pastor.

[whag]

"Most moms"?

Yea, isn’t it funny how you missed that moms are women tasked with teaching? Did you think they just did the dishes?

And they do a marvelous job without having to be lead pastor.

So many male lead pastors are doing absolutely terrible jobs. I don’t think quality of teaching is your issue.