"It sure is nice weather...," which prompted the immediate (canned) response of, "Yes, it's a gift of God..." which was the second time for what struck me between the eyes as... way, Way, WAY too pious for me to continue with.
I can relate. Sometimes it's difficult to overcome the effect of a particular action or speech or whatever, because it is so entrenched in some nauseating thing from the past. I've had that many times, and a failed marriage because of it also. It can take many years to hammer that down to where it doesn't poke you anymore. That response you received reminds me of the Mormons when I visited their HQ in Utah. Ugh.
Is anything ever said (or thought) to be lost if you have never had it (or have never thought you had it)?
How can or do you loose something that you may have never had?
Maybe this thread is premature in asking whether something can be lost, when there appears to be such a struggle knowing (much less understanding) what it is that's supposedly "found."
I recently read (on the Internet, naturally) where righteousness is said to be the "state of moral perfection" that is required by God to enter heaven. And while that might not be the most complete or best definition for it, it doesn't appear to me to be far off. Perhaps if it said that righteousness is the state of moral perfection required for salvation, it'd be right on target. Anybody think otherwise?
Perhaps if it said that righteousness is the state of moral perfect required for salvation, it'd be right on target. Anybody think otherwise?
It says in the bible that God knows our frame, that we are not perfect, and that's why He gives us a way out of the messes we get ourselves into. I'm paraphrasing, of course. So I don't see how righteousness could mean moral perfection of any sort. Rather, I see it as our feeble attempt to live as God would have us to live, even though we fall short of it, so that we can end up in heaven.
I definitely don't see it as a requirement for being saved (rescued, set free, given a clean slate, bought back) because in Rom 10:9 it says for that we only have to believe, whereas righteousness implies how we live.
Rather, I see it as our feeble attempt to live as God would have us to live...
What does "it" refer to in your sentence? Righteousness ?
(The sentence doesn't actually make much sense to me, so I'm trying to read into it what I think it might mean.)
If you're saying that you see righteousness as "our feeble attempt to live as God would have us to live," perhaps it helps illustrate that this is the crux of issue. How (or what) we define (and attain to, or acquire) righteousness casts the basis for our soteriology.
What does "it" refer to in your sentence? Righteousness ?
Yes, absolutely. My understanding is when we believe Rom 10:9 we are then righteous, as an instant state of being.
However, to maintain righteousness going forward takes effort on our part. I certainly can't live like I used to and think God will look at me as being righteous, that would be ridiculous. But by the same token, as I had noted, He knows we are just humans, far from perfect. So righteousness MUST pertain to our attitude toward life, striving, albeit imperfectly, to live as God would have us live.
Yes, absolutely. My understanding is when we believe Rom 10:9 we are then righteous, as an instant state of being.
20 hours ago, Taxidev said:
I definitely don't see it as a requirement for being saved (rescued, set free, given a clean slate, bought back) because in Rom 10:9 it says for that we only have to believe, whereas righteousness implies how we live.
Okay, let's see if I have this right. You don't think that salvation is the result of righteousness, you think that righteousness is the result of salvation. And, if salvation can be (or is) is a state of flux (i.e., if salvation can be lost), then righteousness comes or goes right along with it. So, if you think (as you said) that righteousness implies how we live... hmmm.... (thinking...)
Well, shoot. Who ever sees themselves righteous all the time? And when that "not righteous" view strikes... better get myself saved (again.)
Am I missing something from your perspective on this?
Okay, let's see if I have this right. You don't think that salvation is the result of righteousness, you think that righteousness is the result of salvation. And, if salvation can be (or is) is a state of flux (i.e., if salvation can be lost), then righteousness comes or goes right along with it. So, if you think (as you said) that righteousness implies how we live... hmmm.... (thinking...)
Well, shoot. Who ever sees themselves righteous all the time? And when that "not righteous" view strikes... better get myself saved (again.)
Am I missing something from your perspective on this?
Yes, you are missing something, but I think it's due to my weak explanation. I'll try to clarify.
By believing, as it states in Rom 10:9, we are saved and attain a state of righteousness, because we are given a clean slate.
To continue in righteousness takes a conscious decision, and keeping our mind set on how God would have us live. Yes, we may not be righteous at any given point, but that doesn't mean we have lost our salvation. God knows we are just humans, and He gives us a way out of the stupidness we may put ourselves in. As long as we genuinely want to be righteous - and God knows our heart - then even when we fall short we are good with God, even if we are lacking in our spiritual power due to our own ineptness.
As long as we genuinely want to be righteous - and God knows our heart - then even when we fall short we are good with God, even if we are lacking in our spiritual power due to our own ineptness.
Then, according to this, anyone:
1) is saved, as long they genuinely want to be righteous...
and (or)
2) won't lose their salvation as long as they genuinely want to be righteous.
1) is saved, as long they genuinely want to be righteous...
and (or)
2) won't lose their salvation as long as they genuinely want to be righteous.
Is this your position? Or... not?
Pretty much. Initially saved because we believe and confess Jesus as our lord, the Rom 10:9 part, and continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous. That second part implies some serious attitude, but yes, I think you've summarized my view very well.
Pretty much. Initially saved because we believe and confess Jesus as our lord, the Rom 10:9 part, and continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous. That second part implies some serious attitude, but yes, I think you've summarized my view very well.
Then it appears to me that the difference between thinking one can, or can't, lose their salvation, probably resides in how we view righteousness.
Is it uncommon, or a surprise, to see most people going about to establish their own righteousness? I think not. We can "genuinely want to be righteous" a lifetime. But where does that lead to? Well, according to Romans 3 (and elsewhere), there is none righteous, all have sinned, and all come short of the glory of God. The genuine recognition and acceptance of that (i.e., one's own shortcoming and failure) seems to be a prerequisite for recognizing and accepting the need for a savior. And once past that hurdle, it's a short distance to realizing and believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. It suddenly makes sense. It's not my own righteousness that even matters anymore. Not right then (at the time of salvation)... nor ever after. Why? Because the righteousness of God is a gift. And as such, simply put, it is not our own righteousness. It's a gift.
Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that we will never again go about trying to establish our own righteousness. Perhaps it's just something bred into man, to "genuinely want to be righteous." And, like as always happens, that path is a dead end. So, I find myself somewhat in disagreement with the statement that we are "continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous." Because I no longer cared to find or think of myself measuring up to it. Maybe that's not a great thing - I don't know. But, never again did I ever doubt my own salvation - not even for a second - in the last 45+ years.
Pretty much. Initially saved because we believe and confess Jesus as our lord, the Rom 10:9 part, and continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous. That second part implies some serious attitude, but yes, I think you've summarized my view very well.
Perhaps you can answer a question concerning this statement (which, I presume you agree with.)
Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a "heart of unbelief," the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God.
Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
And I trust that you realize merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart. (Which is just as true for any change of heart.)
Perhaps you can answer a question concerning this statement (which, I presume you agree with.)
Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a "heart of unbelief," the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God.
Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
And I trust that you realize merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart. (Which is just as true for any change of heart.)
I have some questions for clarification sake:
does this usage of “promise” mean the assurance that a particular thing WILL happen?
What is the difference between “mind” and “heart”?
is saying “I’ve changed my mind on the matter” any different from saying “I’ve had a change of heart on the matter”?
Can you explain exactly how this works: “merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart.”
== ==
Oh yeah - forgot to add another thing I would like clarified:
you said: “Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?” Can you please explain why you think a person cannot change one of their own particular beliefs?
Perhaps you can answer a question concerning this statement (which, I presume you agree with.)
Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a "heart of unbelief," the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God.
Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
First, you are only paraphrasing half of the verse in Romans: Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
So, if one no longer accepts Jesus as Lord, why would that person continue to have salvation?
Plus, it seems you are supposing someone can't have a change of belief. I find that to be starkly untrue. When a person takes in an abundance of worldly (sorry for the TWI term, but it fits) information, culminating in a complete adoption of that into their belief system, then the truth of God and Jesus are pushed aside in PREFERENCE of the world. Colossians has something to say about that:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
So, if one rejects Christ, how can they be complete?
Yes, I completely agree with the statement you reference.
And I trust that you realize merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart. (Which is just as true for any change of heart.)
I suppose you infer "in your heart" to be more emphatic than "in your mind". I can see where this could be the case, as in I am considering in my mind something that in my heart, which is what I am currently completely convinced of, is the opposite. Until what my mind is considering becomes my new full belief, then it is merely in my mind.
Most of what you're asking for was intentionally left vague, so as not to inadvertently skew or otherwise taint a genuine and heartfelt answer to my question.
First, you are only paraphrasing half of the verse in Romans: Rom 10:9
Intentionally so, mind you, so as not to complicate the issue.
(as does other scripture, such as 1Cor.15:1-4 or 2Tim.2:8.)
12 hours ago, Taxidev said:
So, if one no longer accepts Jesus as Lord, why would that person continue to have salvation?
That doesn't directly address and answer the question. You're merely skating around it with a different question.
12 hours ago, Taxidev said:
Plus, it seems you are supposing someone can't have a change of belief. I find that to be starkly untrue. When a person takes in an abundance of worldly (sorry for the TWI term, but it fits) information, culminating in a complete adoption of that into their belief system, then the truth of God and Jesus are pushed aside in PREFERENCE of the world.
I restricted a change to one specific issue. You redirected it with a supposition and are now refuting your own supposition.
Most of what you're asking for was intentionally left vague, so as not to inadvertently skew or otherwise taint a genuine and heartfelt answer to my question.
Well thanks for acknowledging my post…but frankly I’m disappointed in the departure from your usual Socratic method…this may be a very critical point on the topic of salvation – so maybe you could clear up the matter when you have the chance sometime.
…this may be a very critical point on the topic of salvation
agreed.
2 hours ago, T-Bone said:
…but frankly I’m disappointed in the departure from your usual Socratic method
haven't actually veered much (if at all) from it (as evidenced in the effort to keep it focused on what thoughts and presumptions specifically relating to believing in his resurrection might be.)
haven't actually veered much (if at all) from it (as evidenced in the effort to keep it focused on what thoughts and presumptions specifically relating to believing in his resurrection might be.)
sorry - your answer is unacceptable- you’re still avoiding my questions that very much relate to one’s thoughts / beliefs regarding his resurrection;
please reread my post - I asked you five SPECIFIC questions - and if I’m not mistaken the Socratic method is based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking...maybe it’s just me but your replies over my mention of your departure from the Socratic method - where you said: - “intentionally left vague” and “haven't actually veered much (if at all) from it “ seem to be contradictory.
So if you (or anyone else )would like to take another crack at my 5 questions feel free to do so anytime.
you asked 5 questions, without so much as trying to answer my one question.
why accuse me of something you yourself appear to be guilty of?
but, as an effort appease your (rather irrational, from my perspective) indignation:
On 7/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:
does this usage of “promise” mean the assurance that a particular thing WILL happen?
I don't know. Perhaps you can ask the person that first stated it (and that I was only quoting from.)
On 7/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:
What is the difference between “mind” and “heart”?
Opinions on this vary. I thought it plain enough in my previous post that I see believing being an issue of the heart, not the mind. What difference might you think or see there is between them?
On 7/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:
is saying “I’ve changed my mind on the matter” any different from saying “I’ve had a change of heart on the matter”?
Maybe not. Might depend on whether you (or the person saying it) meant something different with each. I suppose you would need to ask them. Personally, I don't think I've ever used the phrase "I've had a change of heart on the matter." However, if I were to use it, I would be intending to tell you that I changed what I believe about something. (Although, whether I actually did or not might be another matter.) Do you think there's a difference between them?
On 7/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:
Can you explain exactly how this works: “merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart.”
Probably not very well. How do you think it works? (Which ties back into my initial question, which you avoided.) Or, have you never thought about this before?
On 7/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:
Can you please explain why you think a person cannot change one of their own particular beliefs?
I don't think that, nor did I ever say that.
Now... care to try answering the one question from my earlier post?
you asked 5 questions, without so much as trying to answer my one question.
...
...
Now... care to try answering the one question from my earlier post?
Was this your question?
“Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?”
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
26
72
50
Popular Days
Jun 4
31
Jun 3
17
Jun 8
13
Jun 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TrustAndObey 32 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 72 posts
Taxidev 50 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2018
31 posts
Jun 3 2018
17 posts
Jun 8 2018
13 posts
Jun 7 2018
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he cert
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering
Taxidev
I can relate. Sometimes it's difficult to overcome the effect of a particular action or speech or whatever, because it is so entrenched in some nauseating thing from the past. I've had that many times, and a failed marriage because of it also. It can take many years to hammer that down to where it doesn't poke you anymore. That response you received reminds me of the Mormons when I visited their HQ in Utah. Ugh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I knew there was better...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Is anything ever said (or thought) to be lost if you have never had it (or have never thought you had it)?
How can or do you loose something that you may have never had?
Maybe this thread is premature in asking whether something can be lost, when there appears to be such a struggle knowing (much less understanding) what it is that's supposedly "found."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I recently read (on the Internet, naturally) where righteousness is said to be the "state of moral perfection" that is required by God to enter heaven. And while that might not be the most complete or best definition for it, it doesn't appear to me to be far off. Perhaps if it said that righteousness is the state of moral perfection required for salvation, it'd be right on target. Anybody think otherwise?
Edited by TLCclairification
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
It says in the bible that God knows our frame, that we are not perfect, and that's why He gives us a way out of the messes we get ourselves into. I'm paraphrasing, of course. So I don't see how righteousness could mean moral perfection of any sort. Rather, I see it as our feeble attempt to live as God would have us to live, even though we fall short of it, so that we can end up in heaven.
I definitely don't see it as a requirement for being saved (rescued, set free, given a clean slate, bought back) because in Rom 10:9 it says for that we only have to believe, whereas righteousness implies how we live.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
What does "it" refer to in your sentence? Righteousness ?
(The sentence doesn't actually make much sense to me, so I'm trying to read into it what I think it might mean.)
If you're saying that you see righteousness as "our feeble attempt to live as God would have us to live," perhaps it helps illustrate that this is the crux of issue. How (or what) we define (and attain to, or acquire) righteousness casts the basis for our soteriology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, absolutely. My understanding is when we believe Rom 10:9 we are then righteous, as an instant state of being.
However, to maintain righteousness going forward takes effort on our part. I certainly can't live like I used to and think God will look at me as being righteous, that would be ridiculous. But by the same token, as I had noted, He knows we are just humans, far from perfect. So righteousness MUST pertain to our attitude toward life, striving, albeit imperfectly, to live as God would have us live.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay, let's see if I have this right. You don't think that salvation is the result of righteousness, you think that righteousness is the result of salvation. And, if salvation can be (or is) is a state of flux (i.e., if salvation can be lost), then righteousness comes or goes right along with it. So, if you think (as you said) that righteousness implies how we live... hmmm.... (thinking...)
Well, shoot. Who ever sees themselves righteous all the time? And when that "not righteous" view strikes... better get myself saved (again.)
Am I missing something from your perspective on this?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, you are missing something, but I think it's due to my weak explanation. I'll try to clarify.
By believing, as it states in Rom 10:9, we are saved and attain a state of righteousness, because we are given a clean slate.
To continue in righteousness takes a conscious decision, and keeping our mind set on how God would have us live. Yes, we may not be righteous at any given point, but that doesn't mean we have lost our salvation. God knows we are just humans, and He gives us a way out of the stupidness we may put ourselves in. As long as we genuinely want to be righteous - and God knows our heart - then even when we fall short we are good with God, even if we are lacking in our spiritual power due to our own ineptness.
Is that a better explanation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Then, according to this, anyone:
1) is saved, as long they genuinely want to be righteous...
and (or)
2) won't lose their salvation as long as they genuinely want to be righteous.
Is this your position? Or... not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Pretty much. Initially saved because we believe and confess Jesus as our lord, the Rom 10:9 part, and continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous. That second part implies some serious attitude, but yes, I think you've summarized my view very well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Then it appears to me that the difference between thinking one can, or can't, lose their salvation, probably resides in how we view righteousness.
Is it uncommon, or a surprise, to see most people going about to establish their own righteousness? I think not. We can "genuinely want to be righteous" a lifetime. But where does that lead to? Well, according to Romans 3 (and elsewhere), there is none righteous, all have sinned, and all come short of the glory of God. The genuine recognition and acceptance of that (i.e., one's own shortcoming and failure) seems to be a prerequisite for recognizing and accepting the need for a savior. And once past that hurdle, it's a short distance to realizing and believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. It suddenly makes sense. It's not my own righteousness that even matters anymore. Not right then (at the time of salvation)... nor ever after. Why? Because the righteousness of God is a gift. And as such, simply put, it is not our own righteousness. It's a gift.
Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that we will never again go about trying to establish our own righteousness. Perhaps it's just something bred into man, to "genuinely want to be righteous." And, like as always happens, that path is a dead end. So, I find myself somewhat in disagreement with the statement that we are "continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous." Because I no longer cared to find or think of myself measuring up to it. Maybe that's not a great thing - I don't know. But, never again did I ever doubt my own salvation - not even for a second - in the last 45+ years.
Edited by TLCmust be getting old...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
That's awesome!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Perhaps you can answer a question concerning this statement (which, I presume you agree with.)
Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a "heart of unbelief," the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God.
Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
And I trust that you realize merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart. (Which is just as true for any change of heart.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I have some questions for clarification sake:
does this usage of “promise” mean the assurance that a particular thing WILL happen?
What is the difference between “mind” and “heart”?
is saying “I’ve changed my mind on the matter” any different from saying “I’ve had a change of heart on the matter”?
Can you explain exactly how this works: “merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart.”
== ==
Oh yeah - forgot to add another thing I would like clarified:
you said: “Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?” Can you please explain why you think a person cannot change one of their own particular beliefs?
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
First, you are only paraphrasing half of the verse in Romans: Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
So, if one no longer accepts Jesus as Lord, why would that person continue to have salvation?
Plus, it seems you are supposing someone can't have a change of belief. I find that to be starkly untrue. When a person takes in an abundance of worldly (sorry for the TWI term, but it fits) information, culminating in a complete adoption of that into their belief system, then the truth of God and Jesus are pushed aside in PREFERENCE of the world. Colossians has something to say about that:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
So, if one rejects Christ, how can they be complete?
Yes, I completely agree with the statement you reference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I suppose you infer "in your heart" to be more emphatic than "in your mind". I can see where this could be the case, as in I am considering in my mind something that in my heart, which is what I am currently completely convinced of, is the opposite. Until what my mind is considering becomes my new full belief, then it is merely in my mind.
True? If so, then I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Most of what you're asking for was intentionally left vague, so as not to inadvertently skew or otherwise taint a genuine and heartfelt answer to my question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Intentionally so, mind you, so as not to complicate the issue.
(as does other scripture, such as 1Cor.15:1-4 or 2Tim.2:8.)
That doesn't directly address and answer the question. You're merely skating around it with a different question.
I restricted a change to one specific issue. You redirected it with a supposition and are now refuting your own supposition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Well thanks for acknowledging my post…but frankly I’m disappointed in the departure from your usual Socratic method…this may be a very critical point on the topic of salvation – so maybe you could clear up the matter when you have the chance sometime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
agreed.
haven't actually veered much (if at all) from it (as evidenced in the effort to keep it focused on what thoughts and presumptions specifically relating to believing in his resurrection might be.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
sorry - your answer is unacceptable- you’re still avoiding my questions that very much relate to one’s thoughts / beliefs regarding his resurrection;
please reread my post - I asked you five SPECIFIC questions - and if I’m not mistaken the Socratic method is based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking...maybe it’s just me but your replies over my mention of your departure from the Socratic method - where you said: - “intentionally left vague” and “haven't actually veered much (if at all) from it “ seem to be contradictory.
So if you (or anyone else )would like to take another crack at my 5 questions feel free to do so anytime.
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
you asked 5 questions, without so much as trying to answer my one question.
why accuse me of something you yourself appear to be guilty of?
but, as an effort appease your (rather irrational, from my perspective) indignation:
I don't know. Perhaps you can ask the person that first stated it (and that I was only quoting from.)
Opinions on this vary. I thought it plain enough in my previous post that I see believing being an issue of the heart, not the mind. What difference might you think or see there is between them?
Maybe not. Might depend on whether you (or the person saying it) meant something different with each. I suppose you would need to ask them. Personally, I don't think I've ever used the phrase "I've had a change of heart on the matter." However, if I were to use it, I would be intending to tell you that I changed what I believe about something. (Although, whether I actually did or not might be another matter.) Do you think there's a difference between them?
Probably not very well. How do you think it works? (Which ties back into my initial question, which you avoided.) Or, have you never thought about this before?
I don't think that, nor did I ever say that.
Now... care to try answering the one question from my earlier post?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Was this your question?
“Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.