What motivates you to serve the Lord?

[BobRyan]

Before I answer, I want to clarify that just because someone disagrees with you on what Scripture teaches does not mean that they reject Scripture. What Scripture teaches I accept, but I cannot grant you the same level of authority as the written Word of God. I do not recognize anyone's claim to inerrancy on religious matters, regardless of who s/he is -- including the pope or you.;/quote]

I agree that very few people will come out and say "I reject that scripture" they will just complain whenver it is quoted. As we showed in those threads - we got complaints EVEN at the level of a simple quote.

In Mark 7 when Christ accuses the Jewish leaders of invalidating scripture none of them "claimed they were invalidating scripture".

But in general I agree with you - those who promote OSAS do not themselves claim that they are rejecting scripture.

Now, for your answer: no BobRyan. As I have repeatedly indicated, this is not about the disagreement over one can lose salvation or not. The religious tenets themselves, as I have said multiple times, are not the subject of discussion.

You mentioned that the statements were "nasty" if you don't apply that to the differences of opinion - what are you applying it to?

What is an example of it?

NASTY`A belief that one cannot lose salvation is a belief that we do not need to concern ourselves with staying out of sin. Any such belief is a condoning of sin. People have these beliefs because they want to sin.'

The first type of statements goes to a disagreement over what Scripture teaches, and stops there. The second type of statements impugns moral character of people.

Agreed.

But it is also required that we admit to the two kinds of OSAS... one that accepts perseverance of the saints and the other that totally rejects that Bible doctrine.

In all honesty those who reject the Bible doctrine on perseverance to cling to OSAS -- have a much better case that they can make for assurance than anyone who argues in favor of the Bible doctrine on Perseverance.

Surely we can both admit that obvious fact - even though we may not be a part of that 4-point Calvinist group.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[charles_creech78]

What motivates me is to love him. When I see him for myself and not another then I will be satisfied.

 

[Darron Steele]

...You mentioned that the statements were "nasty" if you don't apply that to the differences of opinion - what are you applying it to?

What is an example of it?

NASTY`A belief that one cannot lose salvation is a belief that we do not need to concern ourselves with staying out of sin. Any such belief is a condoning of sin. People have these beliefs because they want to sin.'

The first type of statements goes to a disagreement over what Scripture teaches, and stops there. The second type of statements impugns moral character of people.

Agreed.

The way you quoted this was potentially misleading. I am not saying that was your intent here.

Here is what I actually wrote:

...NOT NASTY`These passages of Scripture state that one can lose salvation. Because of this, I believe that the people who teach otherwise are wrong.'

NASTY`A belief that one cannot lose salvation is a belief that we do not need to concern ourselves with staying out of sin. Any such belief is a condoning of sin. People have these beliefs because they want to sin.'

The first type of statements goes to a disagreement over what Scripture teaches, and stops there. The second type of statements impugns moral character of people.

I have clarified this to you multiple times as you have tried to divert the thread off of the subject of personal motivation.

The disagreement itself over whether or not people can lose their salvation in itself is harmless. As I have said multiple times, there is no problem with Christians arguing the merits of their respective positions when the conduct remains consistent with standards fitting followers of Christ.

The problem is often whenever one side starts smearing the other. The objection that I have to SOME of those debates is the way SOME on one side tend to start advancing their viewpoints -- using smear tactics.

To say that "OSAS" people believe what they do because they want to sin is saying that they are bad people. It is that simple. When such accusations are bogus -- which they typically are -- the sinfulness of such conduct doubles.

As the poll demonstrates, most Christians serve the Lord out of their genuine desires. There are at times frequent claims that "OSAS"-type views are held by people who
1) do not want to live pleasing to the Lord,
2) and hold the views because it helps them not worry about Hell.
These poll numbers show that Hell has nothing to do with why most Christians registering opinions here serve the Lord; most Christians registering opinions here serve the Lord because they want to please Him.

This goes for both sides of the disagreement over whether or not Christians can lose salvation, so the religious tenets themselves are irrelevant in this discussion. Whether a Christian thinks s/he can lose salvation or not, most Christians serve the Lord because they genuinely desire to.

 

[Darron Steele]

What motivates me is to love him. When I see him for myself and not another then I will be satisfied.

Praise the Lord. :thumbs:

This is exactly what the thread's topic is about.

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed.

But it is also required that we admit to the two kinds of OSAS... one that accepts perseverance of the saints and the other that totally rejects that Bible doctrine.

In all honesty those who reject the Bible doctrine on perseverance to cling to OSAS -- have a much better case that they can make for assurance than anyone who argues in favor of the Bible doctrine on Perseverance.

Surely we can both admit that obvious fact - even though we may not be a part of that 4-point Calvinist group.

Looking for the response.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the "pick and choose" approach here regarding a message of assurance in john 6 vs a message of warning in John 15 -- some seem to prefer that we read chapter 6 - but not 15.

 

[Darron Steele]

Looking for the response....

The question was off-topic, like all but a smattering of your comments on this thread have been.

The topic of this thread is about personal motivations to serve the Lord.

 

[BobRyan]

Lately, I have seen some pretty nasty stuff over "Once-Saved-Always-Saved"/Eternal Security/Perseverance of the Saints.

Some people seem to believe that if salvation was not subject to being lost, it somehow makes sin okay, and lives of wanton disobedience to the Lord will follow. They then revile Christians who believe any of the above as simply wanting to revel in wanton sin -- which is usually an inaccurate accusation.

If my question about this OP is "off topic" then innexplicably the OP itself is "off topic" according to the self-conflicted statements of it's author.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the "pick and choose" approach here regarding a message of assurance in john 6 vs a message of warning in John 15 -- some seem to prefer that we read chapter 6 - but not 15.

Perhaps this is the "smattering" that ALSO goes without substantive response -- that you are referring to -

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

“If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine” (NASB).
Darron Steele: The verse suggests that if they did not continue, they never really started.

HP: You fail to address the issue of continuing. To continue you have to have started, otherwise the text would have said “if you begin in My Word,” which it does not state or imply. You are reading into the text notions not even remotely associated with it.
:

DS: "Continue" means to extend an action into the future.

HP: How can you ‘extend’ an action that you say has never been started?

DS: Some people seem to believe that if salvation was not subject to being lost, it somehow makes sin okay, and lives of wanton disobedience to the Lord will follow.

HP: If it does not matter how much one sins, and nothing one can do will have any affect on ones standing before God, how is that not making sin a mute question in regards to salvation? How is this not changing the penalty for sin, i.e., according to Scripture eternal separation from God, into something Scripture never says of it, i.e. the penalty for sin is the ’loss of rewards?’

If sin is not OK, why would those holding to OSAS be so quick to tell us that it is impossible to live without sin? How can you not believe sin is OK if it is absolutely impossible to avoid? Can one have remorse for something that is nothing more than the unavoidable necessitated results of being human? Is it not ‘OK’ to be born with brown or black hair? Are you to suggest that one should feel shame or remorse for ones necessitated hair color? Are you to suggest that sin, which I believe you suggest is unavoidable, just as ones natural hair color, is not OK, yet any other necessitated trait is? Necessitated traits are necessitated traits. If one is OK all are OK. To condemn any man for simply following the unavoidable necessitated traits of humanity is unconscionable as it is absurd in light of any semblance of justice. To suggest that if it is unavoidable that it is not OK is likewise absurd in light of reason and justice.

 

[Darron Steele]

As I have said numerous times before, "OSAS" is not the subject of this thread. It is not relevant to the subject of this thread.

There are multiple threads active right now to debate that religious tenet. I am not interested in doing it here.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DS: It is not relevant to the subject of this thread.

HP: I was simply responding to the comments you posted on this thread. So it is OK for you to make comments concerning how you perceive others to believe about those that hold to OSAS, but when challenged you say that responses to your comments are not relevant to the subject of the debate. If that is the case, why did you bring the subject to the thread by your comments?? That is certainly an interesting way to ‘debate.’

 

[Darron Steele]

HP: I was simply responding to the comments you posted on this thread. So it is OK for you to make comments concerning how you perceive others to believe about those that hold to OSAS, but when challenged you say that responses to your comments are not relevant to the subject of the debate. If that is the case, why did you bring the subject to the thread by your comments?? That is certainly an interesting way to ‘debate.’

Hi HeavenlyPilgrim. I believe I was very specific that I only had some people in mind. I did not say that EVERYONE who rejects "OSAS" maligns those who accept "OSAS." I said that some do. You have quoted or alluded to posts that indicated I had only a handful in mind.

You seem to be trying to create something as an excuse to debate something you know is off-topic. "OSAS" is not the subject of this thread. Primary personal motivation is.

If you want to `debate,' which of the two poll options is CLOSEST to YOUR personal PRIMARY motivation to serve the Lord? Why? Do you think it is the only legitimate primary personal motivation in Scripture?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DS: Hi HeavenlyPilgrim. I believe I was very specific that I only had some people in mind. I did not say that EVERYONE who rejects "OSAS" maligns those who accept "OSAS." I said that some do. You have quoted or alluded to posts that indicated I had only a handful in mind.

HP: I am not a mind reader, and when something is brought up by another I feel it is well within the bounds of a debate to challenge those remarks.

DS: You seem to be trying to create something as an excuse to debate something you know is off-topic. "OSAS" is not the subject of this thread. Primary personal motivation is.

HP: There is only one objective in my remarks and that is the pursuit of truth.

DS: If you want to `debate,' which of the two poll options is CLOSEST to YOUR personal PRIMARY motivation to serve the Lord? Why? Do you think it is the only legitimate primary personal motivation in Scripture?

HP: It would be my opinion that love for God would have to be at the heart of ones motives if one is to please God, yet no man is able to divide between love and fear in any final sense in this world. If there was ever two sides to a coin, love and fear would be a good example of such a coin.

Take simple belief. What if I asked you whether or not you believe that belief is most closely motivated by love or fear? What might be your answer? Does love necessarily have to be antecedent to belief? Could fear lead one to belief? We know that God counted belief as righteousness. As I see it, fear might well be the first motivation on the road to pleasing God. Simply believing that God will punish those the wicked well might be the beginning of wisdom. “Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:” So let me ask you, can you love God without wisdom? Does love necessarily have to precede wisdom or can fear?

My point is that I do not believe you can necessarily separate love from fear. Just as I believe Scripture that fear is the beginning of wisdom, I believe that love to God must be subsequent to wisdom, and therefore it of necessity involves fear.

 

[BobRyan]

As I have said numerous times before, "OSAS" is not the subject of this thread. It is not relevant to the subject of this thread.

There are multiple threads active right now to debate that religious tenet. I am not interested in doing it here.

This thread is about the pick-and-choose model of Bible study where you either ACCEPT the bible warnings about losing salvation as "a motive" for perseverance or you reject them.

This thread is about the carrot and the stick (while apparently trying to deny that defining "what the stick is" should be understood when choosing between these two messages in scripture. They deny that knowing about THE OTHER motivator is a key part of this discussion IF they are choosing to REJECT the "OTHER" motivator to start with because they only want to ONLY think about the Carrot)

So while one group wants "ONLY the Carrot"

The other group freely admits that the Bible uses BOTH and that BOTH must be accepted.

Seems simple enough.

in Christ,

Bob