Comments on: Was I ever saved in the first place?

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:44:04 +0000

20For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.

21For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.

22It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire."

You can argue semantics all you want. I guess your point is that the people in question knew about Jesus, but they weren't truly saved. I've heard the argument that knowledge isn't enough before, but that doesn't address what the verses say.

These people are said to have escaped the defilements of the world through this knowledge, so it is doubtful that the passage is meant to indicate that having knowledge is insufficient. The analogy in verse 22 also supports my case: once dirty, then clean, then dirty again.

By: Wes Widner

Wes Widner — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:00:16 +0000

There's a big difference between knowing (cognitive knowledge) and accepting (placing one's trust in). I believe (though I know there is division on this point) that 2 Peter 2:20-21 is referring to Jews who have been exposed to the truth of the gospel but were, instead, looking for another messiah other than Jesus.

By: Phil

Phil — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:37:14 +0000

And what about 2 Peter 2:20-21?

By: BigHouse

BigHouse — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:24:41 +0000

In addition, J.J.E., addthe option : historical man, embellished powers and purpose attributed to him by human writers.

By: portwes

portwes — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:16:36 +0000

Yes, and CS Lewis' famous postulate assumes that the reported words and actions of Jesus as reported in the 4 gospels are guaranteed historical fact, witnessed and notarized. In fact nothing could be farther from the truth. Anyone who has studied the formation of the NT canon seriously cannot be unaware of the many, many direct contradictions between these four biographies. The likeliest scenario would be that there may have been a charismatic itinerant teacher that the bios were based on, but that the miracle stories, etc, were added as the oral tradition ballooned out of control in the next 40-60 years, before the first words were first put down on parchment. So yes, the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is at the very least partly fictional. Otherwise, we have to give the story of Joseph Smith the same amount of respect!

By: J.J.E.

J.J.E. — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:07:00 +0000

Notably absent is any acknowledgment that mutually exclusive alternatives to Christians also claim that "facts cry out for explanation" for their kooky beliefs too. This displays the same willfully obtuse logic that the false dichotomy of Pascal's wager does. Why does neither Wes nor Pascal's wager acknowledge that some "facts" are just as supportive of Islam or Mormonism or Zoroastrianism as others are of Christianity? (That's rhetorical. We all know why.)

And Mark Twain had a pithy response to such wrong-headed thinking:

"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."

By: BigHouse

BigHouse — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:49:59 +0000

Because facts cry out for explanation and the grave of Christ, the last time I checked, is still empty.

This is a weak retort. Just because you are not comfortable with "I don't know" doesn't mean that filling that void with supernartural hooey is a better alternative.

And really, an empty grave is enough for your supernatural theory to be true? Talk about chasmic leaps of conclusion.

By: Wes Widner

Wes Widner — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:27:29 +0000

Allow me to tweak your formula a bit:
"True" believer = _will_ never de-convert = freely chosen = loving and loved by God

If you follow any of my previous posts on the matter you'll find that I am a very big proponent of the notion of limited free will given to us by God so the charge of turning men into robots is truly novel. By definition a robot has no free will and can neither choose nor refuse to choose to accept any evidence whatsoever.

By: portwes

portwes — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:20:59 +0000

Logical conclusion from Wes' and Shfengoli's statements:

"True" believer = can never de-convert = no free will = robot

By: Wes Widner

Wes Widner — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:38:02 +0000

Yes, I believe Paul is right when he states in Romans 1 that the truth of God is made known plainly and I believe that James is right in chapter 1 when he says that anyone who asks "expecting to receive an answer" will find it.

The claims of Christianity are not only verifiable after death. Since they depend on real events in a real historical timeline they are open for investigation even now.

Doubt in itself is not the probably, it's how that doubt is dealt with that may or may not prove to be problematic. Doubt, however, is actually quite helpful as it provides an opportunity to grow.