Replies

Woody, you may want to go back and read the entire thread in context and also place the 'quoted' post in context of the post itself.

There was a situation where things eternal, of the spirit, were being discerned and one party had argued that truthfully a situation arose (yet from the spirit would not be considered true) speaking from a soulish perspective, not paying attention or perhaps not even aware of things of the spirit.

There's only 2 options to explain this if the person was truthful.

One option is that the person who sincerely believes something is true, but not cognizant of the spirit, is indeed perhaps not yet saved.

The second option is that they are saved, but have fallen in sin and not yet confessed or repented that sin, consequently, although indwelt by the Holy Spirit, not filled with the Spirit. Again, the person's perspective of truth might also omit things of the spirit.

The remainder of post #395 on that thread explained that. Numerous other posts on that thread tried to explain that and were written with attempt after attempt not to condone contrived argument or repay evil with evil.

I haven't judged anybody elses salvation.

Even if a man does that (Other than Christ in His Divinity), it would be immaterial, without effect, lacking any force, impotent, and mute. So even if somebody sincerely believes they have been affronted, if indeed saved or in fellowship with Him, there would be no impact or affront or offense even received.

This is why those words were chosen. If I had suggested he was fallen away, he naturally from a soulish perspective would have taken the defensive.

I could have assumed he was lying, but that I felt was unneccessary and perhaps a false assumption, so I gave a benefit of doubt that he was truthful. One option he would reject and I would only give him cause to remain reprobate. The only other option was to remark a possibility, which if saved, he obviously would understand to not be true, but would query how such a position could be held. The only answer would be the recognition of a degenerate state and a Spirit led desire to return to Him.

If this doesn't happen, that's always between him and God. Nobody else.

Now why would any other person attempt to encourage any other behavior?

There's only 2 options to explain this if the person was truthful. One option is that the person who sincerely believes something is true, but not cognizant of the spirit, is indeed perhaps not yet saved. The second option is that they are saved, but have fallen in sin and not yet confessed or repented that sin, consequently, although indwelt by the Holy Spirit, not filled with the Spirit. Again, the person's perspective of truth might also omit things of the spirit.

You missed an option: Option three, the other person is wrong, and it is their theology that is defective, not the person in option 1 or 2. That is the option you are unwilling to consider, and is in fact, the true dynamic of what is transpiring here. You are judging me by your defective theology vis-a-vis free will and the nature of fallen man. In your view, my response to you can only be viewed as, (a) I am not saved, or (b) I may be saved, but not in right standing with God due to unconfessed sin. Your whole spectrum is skewed, because you do not allow for the possibility that there may be option (c), that your view is wrong, and your understanding of free will is faulty, and therefore (a) and (b) could not and do not apply, and that you have impuned my standing before God unjustly and without due cause.

In all this, you will not consider the one thing that would bring peace and put an end to the misunderstanding. Even if you believe yourself to be blameless, what is the harm in apologizing sincerely for the offense that is perceived, not only in my heart, but in the minds of those who also interact here? It is not only I who feels I have been wronged, but others as well, feel and perceive that you have wronged me. Only you can correct that, and in only one way.

I was there when it happened. I even interacted with you on the subject. I have no plan on going back.

Woody.

BTW, I am giving serious thought to continuing to completely ignore you in the future. Your refractory spirit and your unrepentant nature seem to clearly reveal that you are not currently submitting to the Lord. You seem dead set against a peaceful co-existence with the saints. So, where does that leave you? Well, I'll happily leave you to wallow in the middle of these idiotic doctrines you have been spamming us with.