Judy wrote  >   However, we are supposed to grow out of it (that's if we are part of the real Church); contrary to what some claim we are not just sucked up into Christ because we have not refused the incarnation.

 

If this is a backhanded reference to me, Judy, you have missed the point. Please observe the terms I use more closely, and then have the integrity, when referencing me, to apply them the way I do. I have never said anything about the Church being populated by "osmosis," exclusion coming only to those who have refused our Lord. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, but the world was not made the Church in the atonement: Paul says, "therefore be reconciled to God." The Church universal is made up of those who have not only not rejected Jesus Christ but have themselves believed the good news of their salvation and received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Local churches may be frequented by "non-believers" of varying degrees, and this for different reasons, but the "Church" itself is populated by believers.  

Bill

 

 

Excuse me, Bill, but I think it would do us well to drop all the backhand reference accusations.  Love is not testy. (I forgot what verse that is. J) When Judy said that it made me think of the Torrance theology stuff, but not specifically of you.  Which is why I am writing: Do you really mean that you don’t think everyone is saved if they have not refused Christ?  This is real news to me.  I thought you believed that everyone was universally saved UNLESS they refused Christ after hearing the gospel.  That’s why I asked you some time ago why on earth you would want to preach the gospel to anyone if that’s the only thing that could condemn them to hell.  So about what are we disagreeing?  Are you more “orthodox” than I think? Like you agree that we need to hear the gospel and receive Christ as our Lord and Savior by repenting of our sins and following Him? Tell me it’s true…….Izzy

Reply via email to