Who is the One New Man Created on the Cross?

[Samie]

It's almost midnight here in the Philippines. See you early tomorrow morning

Just now, Wingnut said:

You know me by now.  I am a very "absolute" seeker.

And my first yardstick for a Christian, is whether they have manners, or are rude.  I fall down at this first hurdle often myself.

But you clear this hurdle with flying colours  

No, I fail many times, too.  I still need to overcome this, by God's grace.

[Wingnut]

Sleep well

 

[Wingnut]

Here are some of my biggest unsolved questions relating to this discussion.

 

1. We seem to be debating a philosophy, not a religion.

2. I believe we have to be consistent, teaching one lifestyle/set of beliefs for ourselves and the same for others.

3.  We have to decide whether the God of the Bible advocates one belief and lifestyle for all.

4.  All roads may lead to Rome, but do all religions/lifestyles lead to salvation?

5. Can we accept Christ as Lord and Saviour, and believe this is not necessary for others?

6. Does the whole world know the things of God?

7. The role of conscience in judgement is central to this discussion but is it central to determining our judgment as fit for eternal life?

8. The absence of belief in a very specific God.

9. The absence of absolutes, thou shalt, shalt not

10. Playing the "overcomer" card whenever we talk about a winner, and the "non-overcomer" card whenever we speak of losing.

11. The lack of clarity as to how can folks in the world seem so far from God, when they all supposedly know the things of God.

12.  If one points to Heb 11, these will be labeled "overcomer".  Judas will probably be labelled as "failing to overcome".  The playing of the "overcomer" card.  It makes for a very simple classification into "overcomer" or not, but is it a false classification?

13.  A better classification may be "in darkness from birth", "called and beginning to respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit", "those filled with the Spirit to one degree or another", "those who had the Spirit and are now backslidden, needing to stir up the Spirit", "those who having tasted the Spirit have now rejected it in an act called the unpardonable sin".

14.  The central role of conscience being our spiritual guide when "the heart (including conscience) is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked".

15. The notion that the default setting to start with is saved or written in the BOL.

16. The inability to explain why if written in the BOL God seems to label the whole world as evil, and every intent of the thoughts of the heart as being desperately wicked.

17.  If God concludes all as "desperately wicked" does this sound as if they are written in the BOL?.

18.  Try to explain spirituality without using "overcome".  Overcome is not the be-all and end all.

19.  The failure to explain terms like "the elect", calling, chosen, believers, saints, grafted in, children of the light, and terms such as these which imply a change from their original status being bad.  I cannot see their unchosen, unbelieving, ungrafted in original state as being because they failed to overcome.

20.  The belief that the kingdom will eventually be inhabited by folks so different because they all "overcame" to no particular standard, just in line with their conscience.

21.  The overcoming being by their own efforts, not through Christ.  One cannot use chicken-and-egg argument that those who did overcome were powered by Christ without them calling to Him in prayer.

22.  The idea that Christ died for all mankind (not believers only).

23.  Only believers are listed by God in Heb 11.  Yet we are expected to believe that Buddhists, Muslims, animists, shamanists who "overcome" will make it.

24.  Only friends of God are in the kingdom.  Are all kinds of religions with divergent "god" ideas admitted into the kingdom? Are all religions somehow in the background God-of-the-Bible based.  

Even though these religious folk all overcome in completely different ways, they are expected to somehow live together for all eternity.

25.  We would look at most of the people of the world and see them as needing to repent for being completely off track, not having found God, needing their names to be written in the BOL.  Jesus would tell them to "start again" or be "born again".

26.  Being born again means that nothing we have done in the past (before finding Christ) is acceptable.  We don't need "tweeking", we need a complete overhaul.

27. Cornelius came to Jesus for a tweek in John 3.  Christ stopped him in mid sentence and told Cornelius that he had to start from scratch, or be "born again".

28.  Nothing in our life before Christ is salvageable.  Overcoming only begins when we repent, accept Christ, are baptised and receive the Holy Spirit. 

[pnattmbtc]

 

Quote

 

A corporate manager delegates a responsibility to one he knows is capable of doing the job.  The given responsibility is commensurate with the person's ability. God knows Paul is capable of the preaching job and set him apart for it. And this He did BEFORE Paul personally believed in Christ on the way to Damascus.

So with our overcoming. Because of Christ, we already were made capable of overcoming BEFORE we even heard of and believed in Him.  The OT men of faith overcame because of Christ, but they were not aware of this fact.

 

I agree with this.  I don't agree with your conception of how you think this works, but I do agree with what you wrote, except for the last sentence.  The OT men of faith *were* aware that they overcame because of Christ, at least some of them (e.g. Abraham spoke to Christ face to face, as did Moses; Hebrews talks about Joseph bearing the reproach of Christ, David obviously knew a lot about Christ, as evidenced by the Psalms he wrote; so they *did* know Christ, to varying degrees, at several of them far better than we do).

[pnattmbtc]

5 hours ago, Wingnut said:

 

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Wingnut: And a page 638/563 fabrication.  It goes against the whole theme of the Bible.

Previous empty post due to software funkiness.  

What's the 563 reference?

Quote

Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. (DA 638)

To me this reads just like Romans 1.  Romans 1 says that all are without excuse because what can be known of God is made evident to them by God, so they should be thankful and honor Him as God.  Clearly they have the ability to do so, or else they wouldn't be without excuse.  So Romans 1 reads to me the same as DA 638.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Samie:I will patiently wait until you succeed. But I'm afraid I'll be waiting forever.

I succeeded.

Quote

two of the above are problem texts from one who had been corrected of his wrong notion, just like Peter.

The two were 1 John 1:9 and John 1:12.

Quote

Samie: Both from John. And he was corrected in Revelation by the Father and the Son.

 

 Like this

[Wingnut]

26 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Previous empty post due to software funkiness.  

What's the 563 reference?

To me this reads just like Romans 1.  Romans 1 says that all are without excuse because what can be known of God is made evident to them by God, so they should be thankful and honor Him as God.  Clearly they have the ability to do so, or else they wouldn't be without excuse.  So Romans 1 reads to me the same as DA 638.

Paul must have been a university lecturer.   

Even Peter who had been with Christ, after reading Paul would go "Huh?"

 

Rom chapter 1 is proving that mankind IS WITHOUT EXCUSE.

God gave man a conscience.  Even pagans know when when they are depraved.

Knowing one is a sinner does not mean that God revealed to them the cure.

Only Israel in the OT had a clue as to the "cure" for sin.

And Paul is certainly not saying that He will judge mankind by each person's conscience.

This verse says how they will be judged, by The Book.

Revelation 20:12

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

 

Paul is building a case, like a State Prosecutor...

First he has to prove you are guilty, and without excuse...

[Wingnut]

Romans has to be read from start to finish to get Paul.

Paul is making a case.  If we just read the early chapters of Romans, we don't get his full argument.

Here is my skim of Romans to get the logic thread

Chapter...

1.  Jews and Gentiles are equally guilty of sin even though Gentiles lacked the law.

2.  Jews and Gentiles will get the punishment they deserve.  The law is what they will be judged by, whether they had it formally, or just in their conscience.

3.  Does a Jew have any benefit knowing the law?  No, all are equally sinners.  But Jesus is the solution for Jew and Gentile.  Both are justified by faith (NOT THEIR CONSCIENCE'S)

4.  Abraham and David etc. had righteousness imputed to them by faith.  This was a precursor to all having sins forgiven through same means.

5.  Christ died for all sinners.  As universal and easily as sin entered the world, so universal is God's grace (comparison of Adam 1 with Adam 2).

6.  Because Christ takes away sin, does this give us an excuse to break the law?

7.  The new man does not walk in (habitual) sin.  Is the law bad for pointing out sin?  No.  

8.  There remains a struggle between my new mind and my old flesh.  But Christ in the new you is more than up to the task of saving you.

9.  I Paul feel vexed for my fellow Jews who are going about seeking righteousness the wrong way, not by faith.

10.  They are zealous for the law, which only leaves the best keeper dead.  Only the Jew or Greek calling on Jesus can be saved.

11.  For now God has given Jews the spirit of slumber, while Gentiles are awake to Christ through faith and belief.

12.  A whole lot of advice on ways to not conform to the world.

13.  A whole lot of advice on ways Christians must interact with others in love.

14.  Don't judge others who's conscience forbids certain things you find acceptable.

15.  Don't judge Gentile believers either.

16.  Greetings to a whole lot of early Gentile believers all over the Gentile world.

 

Now, having an overview of all of Romans, it is clear that God is going to save ALL by exactly the same method He used from OT times.  They will collectively be saved by having righteousness imputed to them because of their faith in Christ.

There is no back door into the kingdom without faith in Jesus.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Samie:I will patiently wait until you succeed. But I'm afraid I'll be waiting forever.

I succeeded.

Quote

two of the above are problem texts from one who had been corrected of his wrong notion, just like Peter.

The two were 1 John 1:9 and John 1:12.

Quote

Samie: Both from John. And he was corrected in Revelation by the Father and the Son.

 

 Like this

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding Romans 1, the point I was making is that if there is enough evidence to condemn, there must be enough evidence to not be condemned.  Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to say they are without excuse, because this would be false.  If you cannot not do something, then you *do* have an excuse for doing that thing, which is simply that it was impossible for you not to do it.

I think everyone needs Christ, and everyone needs to be converted, which is John 3:16 in a nutshell.  However, I think it's possible for some to be saved along the lines that The Desire of Ages lays out (and Roman 1), but by logic, this must be a rare event.  But the fact that it's possible would make Paul's statement in Roman 1 accurate.

Regarding ourselves, and the Gospel imperative, logically it has to be much, much, much, much more probably that someone hearing explicitly the Good News about Jesus Christ is more likely to be saved than someone who isn't.  So that fact that some few souls might make it would hardly be an excuse to let the vast majority of others die.  Plus even if someone were in this small group, wouldn't there lives be better by knowing the Scriptures?  So there's every reason to spread the Good News.

E. J. Waggoner said the same gospel that converts unbelievers reconverts believers (my paraphrase).  So preaching the Gospel is good for everybody!

[pnattmbtc]

Sorry for the duplicate post.  Didn't notice it was already there.

[pnattmbtc]

Wingnut, not a bad summary.  Reminds me of the guard scene from "Life is Beautiful".  This part does:

14.  Don't judge others who's conscience forbids certain things you find acceptable.

15.  Don't judge Gentile believers either.

 

Don't know if you know what I'm talking about or not.

 

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

28.  Nothing in our life before Christ is salvageable.  Overcoming only begins when we repent, accept Christ, are baptised and receive the Holy Spirit. 

This is an interesting one.  This would imply that conversion is always a one-time thing; i.e. a dramatic experience, where before/after are night and day.  How about children raised in Christian homes?  They could be converted without knowing exactly how or when.  The process for them could be more gradual.  Seems to me.  Seems to me there could be other examples of the Spirit already moving in people's lives (for example, saving someone from alcoholism; God could do this without the person being converted, and that could lead the way to becoming converted, now that the mind is clear and can accept Christ).

Actually I know of a couple of cases where this sort of thing happened.

Anyway, I agree that nothing without Christ is salvageable. but that doesn't necessarily begin at a specific point in time.  Actually, it seems like the point in time it would start would be at birth.  Something interesting to think about.

[Wingnut]

48 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Regarding Romans 1, the point I was making is that if there is enough evidence to condemn, there must be enough evidence to not be condemned.  Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to say they are without excuse, because this would be false.  If you cannot not do something, then you *do* have an excuse for doing that thing, which is simply that it was impossible for you not to do it.

 

Richard Dawkins and Kalahari Bushmen know not to cheat on their wives.  They know not to steal, kill etc.

They may not know every sin in the Bible.  Every pagan society in every age has had a very good idea of good and bad.

Every time they stole or cheated, their consciences convicted them "so they are without excuse".  It is almost built into humans to have SOME idea of right and wrong.  This is the point Paul has to first establish.

And even if they are not condemned by say adultery, at some time in their lives they will be convicted of say stealing or lying, or taking too big a slice of pie.  Now that all, both Jew and Gentile stand guilty and know it, now lets look at where Paul is going in the first 3 chapters of Romans.

1.  Jews and Gentiles are equally guilty of sin even though Gentiles lacked the law.

2.  Jews and Gentiles will get the punishment they deserve.  The law is what they will be judged by, whether they had it formally, or just in their conscience.

3.  Does a Jew have any benefit knowing the law?  No, all are equally sinners.  But Jesus is the solution for Jew and Gentile.  Both are justified by faith (NOT THEIR CONSCIENCE'S)

Having skimmed the whole of RomansI am even more convinced that Paul is saying the exact opposite of there being a back door into the kingdom.

Paul even closes the door which the Jews were relying on, viz. their law keeping.

If Paul throughout Romans goes to great pains to lump Jew and Gentile together as no different, I see it as totally contrary to his whole theme to be saying that Gentiles however can get in to the kingdom on a clear conscience.  NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!

Paul says for Jew and Gentile, for OT believer and NT believer it was, is and shall forever be true that we all get saved like Abraham.  Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness.  Rom 4:22

 

Ellen, when asked if she was infallible said "No, no man is infallible.  Only God is".  Could Ellen be wrong on p638 of DA.  I say "yes".

And I will tell you why.  She taught as strongly as anyone can the exact opposite in all her teachings.  She taught very high standards for the believer.  It is a thing which attracted me to the SDA's.  They take living righteously seriously.  

But on this page she does a 360 saying that others can get into the kingdom living the opposite of how she has lived and taught the church to live.  She is trying to provide hope for those who do not know God ever in their lives.  She was trying to justify God, that He is fair, much the same way as Job's friends did.  And Job's friends were equally wrong in saying God was too fair to bring trouble on Job unjustly - Job must have sinned and deserved his trouble.

Samie is also trying to justify God as best he can. Samie lives the Christian life like Ellen, and preaches the exact opposite viz. that others can enter the kingdom on clear consciences alone (a method utterly anathema to God).

We all justify God at times, but that does not make us right.

God has another plan for all those who lived and died not knowing God.  And they too will be given a chance to trust God, and have it imputed to them for righteousness in the 8M.

 

You wrote "the point I was making is that if there is enough evidence to condemn, there must be enough evidence to not be condemned."  That is not how it works.  They may not be condemned on say lying, but SOMETHING will condemn them sometime.  Man only has to sin once to earn the wages of sin.  And all know they have sinned once.  Even pagans feel guilt.

[Wingnut]

48 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Wingnut, not a bad summary.  Reminds me of the guard scene from "Life is Beautiful".  This part does:

14.  Don't judge others who's conscience forbids certain things you find acceptable.

15.  Don't judge Gentile believers either.

 

Don't know if you know what I'm talking about or not.

 

Sorry, its been too long since I saw the movie  

I vaguely remember a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp trying to cheer up a kid - the most unlikely plot I ever could have thought up.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Ellen, when asked if she was infallible said "No, no man is infallible.  Only God is".  Could Ellen be wrong on p638 of DA.  I say "yes".

I'll respond to this part for now.  I see people quote this all the time, but it's fuzzy thinking at best to use this as an excuse to reject something she wrote just because we don't agree with it. 

 Yes, of course, only God is infallible, but Paul is as human as Ellen White, and if we're going to throw out Ellen White because she's human, then by the same logic, we should throw out Paul and every other Bible writer.  There is simply no logical way to take this quote of Ellen White's and use it as an excuse to selectively pick and choose whatever we want from what she wrote, which is what so many do (not accusing you of this, I'm addressing to something I've seen that what you are writing reminds me of).

Dealing with inspiration is a tricky subject, for the very reason Ellen White pointed out.  All inspired writers are human, and thus fallible.  But is God speaking through these writers?  How should we deal with what they wrote if we disagree?  Personally, I try to keep an open mind.  I might not understand something at the present time, but it's difficult for me to pronounce the inspired writer "wrong" because they are fallible.  I'm fallible too.  Why can't I be wrong?  Or maybe it's more nuanced than that.

I'll discuss Romans 1 more when I have more time, but, even before reading what Ellen White wrote on the matter, I was of the opinion that she expressed, so she was simply writing out how I was reading Paul (and other places in Scripture too; e.g. John 1:9 comes to mind).

 

[Wingnut]

4 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

I'll respond to this part for now.  I see people quote this all the tie, but it's fuzzy thinking at best.  Yes, of course, only God is infallible, but Paul is as human as Ellen White, and if we're going to throw out Ellen White because she's human, then by the same logic, we should throw out Paul and every other Bible writer.  There is simply no logical way to take this quote of Ellen White's and use it as an excuse to selectively pick and choose whatever we want from what she wrote, which is what so many do (not accusing you of this).

Dealing with inspiration is a tricky subject, for the very reason Ellen White pointed out.  All inspired writers are human, and thus fallible.  But is God speaking through these writers?  How should we deal with what they wrote if we disagree?

I'll discuss Romans 1 more when I have more time, but, even before reading what Ellen White wrote on the matter, I was of the opinion that she expressed, so she was simply writing out how I was reading Paul (and other places in Scripture too; e.g. John 1:9 comes to mind).

 

There are times when I think Paul was fallible - and a bit of a misogynist.  God allowed the biases of Bible writers to enter the Bible IMHO.

[pnattmbtc]

1 minute ago, Wingnut said:

There are times when I think Paul was fallible - and a bit of a misogynist.  God allowed the biases of Bible writers to enter the Bible IMHO.

I agree (except the misogynist thing).

[pnattmbtc]

Jesus Christ is the light, which is the light of men, which lightest everyone who comes in the world.  Why cannot this light save?

[Samie]

4 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Here are some of my biggest unsolved questions relating to this discussion.

 

1. We seem to be debating a philosophy, not a religion.

We are discussing God-Man relationship best pictured in a family relationship.  That’s why He is our Father.

2. I believe we have to be consistent, teaching one lifestyle/set of beliefs for ourselves and the same for others.

In a family, all children do not exhibit the same lifestyle. Nevertheless, they all are members of the same family.

3.  We have to decide whether the God of the Bible advocates one belief and lifestyle for all.

The Father advocates one lifestyle, and that lifestyle is the lifestyle of Christ. This is why we have to grow up in Christ. Be patient with others. God is not finished with them yet.

4.  All roads may lead to Rome, but do all religions/lifestyles lead to salvation?

Only the lifestyle of Christ.

5. Can we accept Christ as Lord and Saviour, and believe this is not necessary for others?

It is necessary for others. But there are among these others that are yet infants. What do you expect from an infant?  Act like an adult? Even some adults act like infants.  And Scripturs tell of infants in Christ in the church of God at Corinth (see 1 Cor 3:1).

6. Does the whole world know the things of God?

No. But everyone was given the knowledge of God. Just like a baby who feels the need for her mother, even though the baby does not know the names of her parents.

7. The role of conscience in judgement is central to this discussion but is it central to determining our judgment as fit for eternal life?

Leave that to God. He alone knows who the overcomers and non-overcomers are.

8. The absence of belief in a very specific God.

There is only one God. But because of different languages and varied cultural differences, there are different names used for Him and varied descriptions as well.

9. The absence of absolutes, thou shalt, shalt not

And we’re back to the family again: A good father never asks his 1 year old daughter to go to the city and buy stuff for the week.  The absolutes you speak of are applicable to those capable of doing them. And in this one BIG Family of God, there are always infants in Christ.

10. Playing the "overcomer" card whenever we talk about a winner, and the "non-overcomer" card whenever we speak of losing.

Nonetheless, “overcomer”or “one who overcomes” was used by Christ Himself in Revelation to describe one who will finally make it to heaven.

11. The lack of clarity as to how can folks in the world seem so far from God, when they all supposedly know the things of God.

That’s why we are calling for these folks to overcome evil with good.

12.  If one points to Heb 11, these will be labeled "overcomer".  Judas will probably be labelled as "failing to overcome".  The playing of the "overcomer" card.  It makes for a very simple classification into "overcomer" or not, but is it a false classification?

If it is false, would Christ have used it at least 7 times in Revelation? To him that overcometh . . .

13.  A better classification may be "in darkness from birth", "called and beginning to respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit", "those filled with the Spirit to one degree or another", "those who had the Spirit and are now backslidden, needing to stir up the Spirit", "those who having tasted the Spirit have now rejected it in an act called the unpardonable sin".

Well, I don’t have any problem with that. I just wonder what it is with “overcoming” that you are not comfortable with.

14.  The central role of conscience being our spiritual guide when "the heart (including conscience) is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked".

That’s why we need the HS to guide us, and God gave us the HS.

15. The notion that the default setting to start with is saved or written in the BOL.

Because if not, then, the Father would be like the father in my analogy who just simply sits back watching many of his children who did not hear his instructions, drown.

16. The inability to explain why if written in the BOL God seems to label the whole world as evil, and every intent of the thoughts of the heart as being desperately wicked.

The labelling as evil is because people tend to live their lives in the non-overcomers way of life.

17.  If God concludes all as "desperately wicked" does this sound as if they are written in the BOL?.

They are written. They are His children. Did the prodigal cease to be the  child of his father?

18.  Try to explain spirituality without using "overcome". Can you? Overcome is not the be-all and end all.

If one responds positively to the leading of the HS, then he is an overcomer.  And overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL, said Christ Himself. See Rev 3:5.

19.  The failure to explain terms like "the elect", calling, chosen, believers, saints, grafted in, children of the light, and terms such as these which imply a change from their original status being bad.  I cannot see their unchosen, unbelieving, ungrafted in original state as being because they failed to overcome.

Those written in the BOL are the elect, chosen, saints, grafted in, children of light, etc. But many were, are, and will be blotted out for not overcoming evil with good.

20.  The belief that the kingdom will eventually be inhabited by folks so different because they all "overcame" to no particular standard, just in line with their conscience.

There is a particular standard: Christ. And only God knows who live their lives in conformity with the standard. Those who do will not be blotted out from the BOL. They are what Christ call the overcomers. Even in a family the children don’t exhibit the same lifestyle. And we are one big family of God.

21.  The overcoming being by their own efforts, not through Christ.  One cannot use chicken-and-egg argument that those who did overcome were powered by Christ without them calling to Him in prayer.

Not one single soul can overcome apart from Christ.  To call Christ in prayer necessitates that one knows the name of Christ. But then again, many of God’s children do not yet know the name Christ, just like an infant who does not yet know the name of her parents. But is the infant not a member of the family?

22.  The idea that Christ died for all mankind (not believers only).

Scriptures say so:

^NKJ 2 Corinthians 5:14-15   ¹⁴ For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;  ¹⁵ and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

^KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

23.  Only believers are listed by God in Heb 11.  Yet we are expected to believe that Buddhists, Muslims, animists, shamanists who "overcome" will make it.

Believing is overcoming the evil of unbelief. The heroes of Heb 11 are all overcomers. And overcomers Christ said will not be blotted out. And blotting out signifies names were written in the first place, otherwise there is nothing to blot.

24.  Only friends of God are in the kingdom.  Are all kinds of religions with divergent "god" ideas admitted into the kingdom? Are all religions somehow in the background God-of-the-Bible based.  

God’s friends are all overcomers. They have overcome the evil of being friends of the world.

Even though these religious folk all overcome in completely different ways, they are expected to somehow live together for all eternity.

Infants do not live like his older siblings, yet they all belong to one family.

25.  We would look at most of the people of the world and see them as needing to repent for being completely off track, not having found God, needing their names to be written in the BOL.  Jesus would tell them to "start again" or be "born again".

All people need repentance, and repentance (Gr meta,noia metanoia) is change of mind.  Whereas one decides to do evil, he changes his mind and does what is good instead. Repentance is overcoming evil with good.

26.  Being born again means that nothing we have done in the past (before finding Christ) is acceptable.  We don't need "tweeking", we need a complete overhaul.

Correct. And when are people born again? When they decide to be? No. Here’s Scriptures:

^NAS 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

27. Cornelius came to Jesus for a tweek in John 3.  Christ stopped him in mid sentence and told Cornelius that he had to start from scratch, or be "born again".

You meant Nicodemus. And that was before Jesus died. Nicodemus, just like us, was born again when Christ resurrected.

28.  Nothing in our life before Christ is salvageable. Correct. Apart from Jesus Who is our Life (Col 3:4), we are dead, spiritually dead. Overcoming only begins when we repent, accept Christ, are baptised and receive the Holy Spirit. And the verbs you used are doable only by the spiritually alive. Meaning we don’t accept Christ to be spiritually alive, instead, we can accept Christ because we already are spiritually alive.

 

[Wingnut]

21 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Jesus Christ is the light, which is the light of men, which lightest everyone who comes in the world.  Why cannot this light save?

You and I know this Light can and does save.  

John 8:12

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John 12:46

I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

But it requires that us humans follow, believe and abide in that light, past, present and future.

 

 

[Samie]

1 minute ago, Wingnut said:

. . .

But it requires that us humans follow, believe and abide in that light, past, present and future.

Agree. And that's overcoming evil with good.

[pnattmbtc]

11 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

You and I know this Light can and does save.  

John 8:12

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John 12:46

I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

But it requires that us humans follow, believe and abide in that light, past, present and future.

 

 

Given that Jesus is the light which saves and is given to everyone, then I don't see why everyone could not be saved.  Indeed, to be lost involved rejecting light.  All anyone needs to do to not be lost is to not reject light.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie, I didn't read everything you responded to in the long post of Wingnut's, but a good portion of it.  I agreed with a lot of it.  As long as you don't quote Scripture, or try to apply Eph. 2 to mean that by the cross everyone is attached to the body of Christ, it seems in spirit, there are quite a number of things we see philosophically similarly; this is how it appears to me.  

However, one thing I find either puzzling or bothersome has to do with your use of the word "overcoming".  To me, overcoming is the fruit of faith, or believing in Christ, and that's the horse (overcoming is the cart).

Overcoming is mentioned around 35 times in the New Testament it looks like vs. over 500 times for "faith" or "believe", so it's clear that this is where the emphasis in Scripture is.  If we perceive that overcoming is the fruit of faith, then that leads us to the question of what faith is, or what it means to believe, and this is the emphasis I see missing in what you're saying.  But again, I think from a philosophical perspective, we're close (in terms of how God is trying to save others, etc.) at least, in terms of those who have reached the age of accountability.

I think before the age of accountability, your idea that everyone will be saved is illogical (especially in respect to the importance of character).