I am sorry but I do not see how this adds to 1 Cor 13? Love supersedes enmity or disagreement. It is not about what the person believes, or even what you believe about a person, it is about unconditional love. Is there a goal other than to be what God requires of us?
Richard
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
That is the preface to Lewis’ argument in Mere Chrostianity, as well.Mere C.S. Lewis: Jesus meant what he said: Be perfect
Mere C.S. Lewis: What Jesus meant when he said, “Be Perfect”
I think you need to understand people and scripture.
Oh, and ‘election’, ‘predestined’, ‘foreknew’, ‘chosen’, etc. are all in God’s word, unless they’ve been cut out. Maybe ignored?
Or just maybe, like with human origins, devout Christians can read the same passages and come to different conclusions?
Not without changing the meanings of the words – they’re pretty explicit. I guess I would refer you back to the other conversation:
Hmm. Not sure that’s a standard “essence of Christianity” description. That makes a mess of atonement theology, in my humble opinion. Christianity is about where your identity is found, and that is what determines your relationship with God, not your confessed/unconfessed sin status. If you are in Christ, you are right with God.
We are still Father’s children, regardless of the status of our ‘confessedness’. We may not have his smile, but we have not been abandoned. It seems likely to me that we more or less sin continuously, unaware, compared to Jesus’ righteousness. Is our attention always where it ought to be and our attitude perpetually thankful? Mine isn’t.
I suppose you might infer from that that I am perpetually feeling guilty. Not at all, because all my guilt has been absolved at the cross. Neither is it a license to sin, however, because if we have truly been transformed and our hearts belong to God, we will not want to cause grief to the Lord whom we love.
Maybe there is a difference between practical and theoretical / intellectualTheology?
Richard
Context is important for developing theology. Ripping a selection of words out of context and defining them does not force them to mean a certain thing in context or create one particular big picture, and that is what Christians often disagree on.
No ripping required – the meanings are not changed and are quite clear in context. The Good Shepherd finds his lost sheep, he knows who they are and they were his ‘from the beginning’.
In the Bible, faith is not just “believing” the right doctrines. It is an active allegiance to God, demonstrated by obedience.
I have known Christians who have deconverted, so saying certain verses are just hypothetical does not go with what I have seen with my own eyes. Personally I think it’s pretty insulting to say they were never really Christians. Sure they were, by every definition I can find in the Bible. They confessed Jesus as Lord. They lived their lives in accordance with Christian ethics and values. But at this point, they also have clearly changed their mind and no longer confess Jesus as Lord and no longer live according to Christian ethics and values, so I also think it is pretty insulting to insist that God keeps them in the flock against their will, and they are just “backslidden” but still “saved.” They have clearly switched their allegiance from Christ to other loyalties.
I don’t think any Christians ever need to worry about losing their salvation. It’s never in jeopardy because you mess up or have doubts or struggle to believe certain things. Grace is big and expansive for everyone who wants it. But if you want to walk away from it all, you can. But it’s a willful act of rejection, not a failure to live up to some standard of faith or righteousness.
That, and more.
I am my Father’s child – I have no choice. And what could I want more and what possible reason could I have for rejecting him?
I have, too, and no one is trying to insult anyone. But it is evidence that their Christianity was all in their heads and that their hearts were lying to them. Hearts are deceptive, you know. 
I’m glad you’re a Christian and am certainly not going to try and convince you otherwise! 
But this isn’t just about you. Like Christy I have also known people who have deconverted, despite being devoted followers of Christ. If they were just “never really saved” to begin with then I’m not sure how anyone has confidence of salvation, especially those of us who doubt or who are told (essentially) that our entire faith is in jeopardy if we believe the Earth has been around longer than 6,000 years.
That’s nice. Clearly not everyone shares the same experience.
No, it’s not. And you have no idea what was in their heads and hearts. If someone says they used to believe and used to love and used to obey, I’m not going to insist they are wrong about their own internal state, that’s just ignorant. Why in the world would I know better? Because… a Bible verse I memorized?
Frankly, arguing that deconversions can’t really happen to real Christians undermines its theological intent. The intent, I believe, is to have this very high view of the security of believers and the efficacy of grace. But, when you have a bunch of people who clearly were believers and aren’t any more, and you have to claim they were never really Christians to uphold some theological commitment to a human theological construct, and the effect it has on people whose faith is struggling is to make them feel even more insecure. Because if so and so (insert favorite fervent worship leader/pastor/Christian author who deconverted) was never really a Christian, than how am I supposed to know I really am one? If hearts and minds and actions are such good liars and all, we can never be secure in our salvation.
Read the list.
Those who put stumbling blocks in front of others will diminish their reward. Doubt is not the opposite of faith, fear is.
From the externals. You are claiming to have known their hearts. (I am just claiming scripture.)
I am claiming their own testimony about their own minds is trustworthy. You are saying you know their hearts and minds better than they do themselves, based on some kind of theological logic or reasoning process. I don’t think logic is the appropriate epistemological tool here for determining the state of someone else’s mind, especially if it directly contradicts the experience of the one person with actual access to the mind in question.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.