How do you know you are saved?

[church mouse guy]

Adam was not born in sin but chose loyalty to his wife rather than trusting God to resolve the trickery. There in he sinned, and took what was forbidden. He chose what we might even (in our sinful flesh) consider the noblest of choices. He chose to die with the one whom he loved rather than choosing the relationship of love with the creator.

Did not Jesus say that unless one hates (a relative term) father, mother, brother, sister...?

Judas of course was born a sinner.

Both became a slave to sin, hiding from God. Judas hiding that which God already knew of him. "Son of perdition (ruin, loss)" the Lord called him.

Christ protected them all except He purposefully did not protect Judas, but such was that the Scriptures were to be fulfilled.

Does not that show the specific and irresistible grace in which one is called, preserved, and presented in comparison to those who are not?

Well, I think that Bundy was born a sinner. Environment is immaterial because Adam was in the Garden of Eden, which was better than this world, when he sinned and Judas Iscariot was right next to God in human flesh when he sinned so everyone is born a sinner.

 

[Ziggy]

And what then of Bundy's post-conviction "conversion" as claimed by Dobson? If false, it doesn't much matter; but if real what then?

 

[agedman]

Well, I think that Bundy was born a sinner. Environment is immaterial because Adam was in the Garden of Eden, which was better than this world, when he sinned and Judas Iscariot was right next to God in human flesh when he sinned so everyone is born a sinner.

Never said differently. Except for Adam.

 

[church mouse guy]

And what then of Bundy's post-conviction "conversion" as claimed by Dobson? If false, it doesn't much matter; but if real what then?

Thanks. Do you think that it was Bundy's heart or his surrender to pornography that led to his crimes/sins?

James 2:10 (KJV) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

1 John 2:1-2 (KJV) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

 

[agedman]

And what then of Bundy's post-conviction "conversion" as claimed by Dobson? If false, it doesn't much matter; but if real what then?

Good question.

My difficulty comes from knowing the typical narcissist mind set of which Bundy fit the full spectrum.

God knows his heart, however, my experience is that such a conversion is totally for personal self interest.

But again, God knows.

 

[agedman]

Thanks. Do you think that it was Bundy's heart or his surrender to pornography that led to his crimes/sins?

James 2:10 (KJV) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

1 John 2:1-2 (KJV) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

Both.

Born a sinner, he confirmed his sinfulness by rebellion and selfishness. He compounded his greed with ever increasingly dark pornography seeking to satiate the lust of flesh by indulging the lust of eyes.

He, even as a young teen, had so seared his “heart with God’s law,” that the ability to prevent wrong from overtaking him was barely controlled by the mutilation of animals.

He relied on ever more skillful use of deception until he was caught. He could read people without a problem, and use their own willingness to be friendly to his benefit. Some thirty women suffered, horribly.

A lady I know, who dated him, said that he not once caused her to question his integrity, nor did he present himself as dangerous.

Yet, she now recognizes that even as a young teen he was a highly skilled manipulative narcissist.

 

[church mouse guy]

Both.

Born a sinner, he confirmed his sinfulness by rebellion and selfishness. He compounded his greed with ever increasingly dark pornography seeking to satiate the lust of flesh by indulging the lust of eyes.

He, even as a young teen, had so seared his “heart with God’s law,” that the ability to prevent wrong from overtaking him was barely controlled by the mutilation of animals.

He relied on ever more skillful use of deception until he was caught. He could read people without a problem, and use their own willingness to be friendly to his benefit. Some thirty women suffered, horribly.

A lady I know, who dated him, said that he not once caused her to question his integrity, nor did he present himself as dangerous.

Yet, she now recognizes that even as a young teen he was a highly skilled manipulative narcissist.

Where I differ with you very slightly is that I see it all as a bad heart. For example, can we say that Germans can blame their belief in evolution and Darwin for their holocausts? And, for example, can Muslims blame their 1400 years of murder on Allah/Satan?

 

[agedman]

Where I differ with you very slightly is that I see it all as a bad heart. For example, can we say that Germans can blame their belief in evolution and Darwin for their holocausts? And, for example, can Muslims blame their 1400 years of murder on Allah/Satan?

Oh, I do agree.

However, just as the believer matures and grows in wisdom of God and what is typically called “progressive sanctification (I disagree with the term not the concept) so that they ever greatly are a type of Christ, so too does that heart and life of the unbeliever spiral down into greater depravity.

The heart is wicked (who can know it is the Scripture).

However, humankind generally do not present themself socially unacceptable because the Decalogue is written on every heart, and often it does regulate the so called the conscience.

As Romans 2 states:

...in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
​

It would seem even Muslim folks fit that scripture.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

1 John 5:11 - And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

^^This^^

If the question at hand is truly about knowing you are saved it is a simple matter of taking God at his word...I can't imagine the question being any more complicated. Either we believe him or we don't .

I suspect the question was posed in order to begin a rant against all things perceived as "modern" in Churches, but if it's a satisfactory answer to the O.P. question that was solicited....

Mailman answered the question perfectly and exhaustively.

 

[agedman]

^^This^^

If the question at hand is truly about knowing you are saved it is a simple matter of taking God at his word...I can't imagine the question being any more complicated. Either we believe him or we don't .

I suspect the question was posed in order to begin a rant against all things perceived as "modern" in Churches, but if it's a satisfactory answer to the O.P. question that was solicited....

Mailman answered the question perfectly and exhaustively.

Nope, no rant intended.

However, a systematic dismantling in attempting to bring change also took away some basic presentations and scholarship.

The question of the OP concerned other items, areas, and so forth in which the basic presentation of salvation being fixed upon the Word (Christ) has been relegated to unimportant.