PDA

View Full Version : Urban Missionary/ PP Debate Peanut Gallery



TrustingFollower
Aug 7th 2008, 04:03 PM
Anyone who wishes to make comments about the debate please do so in this thread.

Slug1
Aug 7th 2008, 04:31 PM
I'll be BBQing behind the bleachers as I listen to the discussion ;)

Whispering Grace
Aug 7th 2008, 05:10 PM
I'll be BBQing behind the bleachers as I listen to the discussion ;)

I'll be whipping up some of PP's death dogs if anyone is interested. :lol:

Only there will be NO mustard. Within a 2 mile radius.


I've got my giant foam finger ready!

ProjectPeter
Aug 7th 2008, 05:23 PM
I'll be whipping up some of PP's death dogs if anyone is interested. :lol:

Only there will be NO mustard. Within a 2 mile radius.


I've got my giant foam finger ready!
Oh don't that sound so goooood!!! :lol:

Firefighter
Aug 7th 2008, 05:28 PM
Is that BBQ lexington style???:D

HisLeast
Aug 7th 2008, 05:32 PM
I've got my giant foam finger ready!

Just remember to use the one with the INDEX finger.

Slug1
Aug 8th 2008, 11:42 AM
I just clicked the "Add Subscription" to the debate thread and I see that it was the 380th thread that I'm subscribed to... I REALLY need to do some clean up :rofl:

humbled
Aug 8th 2008, 11:57 AM
How many times have I seen the "conditional" used as a defense of NOSAS?

Ohh ... about a billion. 'specially when Ken is posting ;)

Project Peter quotes Jesus: "you are my friends IF you do what I command you."

He takes it to mean that Jesus is giving a conditional clause to His gift which He is purchasing for His elect. If one does NOT do what Christ commands, he is not Christ's friend, having once BEEN His friend. And thus, will having once been alive, be dead again (and summarily need to be re-born-again)

I'd like to put another perspective on it by use of an analogy.

"You are behind the wheel of the car IF you are driving it."

Simple statement. What does it mean? Does it mean you MUST drive the car in order to be behind the wheel? Or does it mean that the PROOF of you being behind the wheel is the fact that it is moving down the road?

Just another perspective to show that the conditional clause shown here does not necessarily mean salvation is threatened if one does not perform accordingly. The statement could very likely mean that "this is how you will know who follows me .. by the ones who keep my commands"

The question is ... who keeps God's commands to the degree that He demands? Paul says none but Christ.

Dang ... guess nobody is truly a friend of Christ. Thank God for His mercy and His befriending of us even while we were His enemies! Oh, how much more now that we are His adopted children will He protect us! (paraphrase from Romans 5.10, which says that once we are reconciled by Christ's death, we are saved [the idea being continually] by Christ's life, not our own performance)

Two disclaimers:

1. Look at my sig. It explains that one who believes their own performances will preserve them is setting up themselves as a false savior.

2. I do NOT believe in antinomianism. I fully agree with PP's sig as well. Obedience is falling away from the "visible" church to the point that many believe a "true" Christian can lose salvation. Enter in 1 John 2.19

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 8th 2008, 01:15 PM
How many times have I seen the "conditional" used as a defense of NOSAS?

Ohh ... about a billion. 'specially when Ken is posting ;)

Project Peter quotes Jesus: "you are my friends IF you do what I command you."

He takes it to mean that Jesus is giving a conditional clause to His gift which He is purchasing for His elect. If one does NOT do what Christ commands, he is not Christ's friend, having once BEEN His friend. And thus, will having once been alive, be dead again (and summarily need to be re-born-again)

I'd like to put another perspective on it by use of an analogy.

"You are behind the wheel of the car IF you are driving it."

Simple statement. What does it mean? Does it mean you MUST drive the car in order to be behind the wheel? Or does it mean that the PROOF of you being behind the wheel is the fact that it is moving down the road?

Just another perspective to show that the conditional clause shown here does not necessarily mean salvation is threatened if one does not perform accordingly. The statement could very likely mean that "this is how you will know who follows me .. by the ones who keep my commands"

The question is ... who keeps God's commands to the degree that He demands? Paul says none but Christ.

Dang ... guess nobody is truly a friend of Christ. Thank God for His mercy and His befriending of us even while we were His enemies! Oh, how much more now that we are His adopted children will He protect us! (paraphrase from Romans 5.10, which says that once we are reconciled by Christ's death, we are saved [the idea being continually] by Christ's life, not our own performance)

Two disclaimers:

1. Look at my sig. It explains that one who believes their own performances will preserve them is setting up themselves as a false savior.

2. I do NOT believe in antinomianism. I fully agree with PP's sig as well. Obedience is falling away from the "visible" church to the point that many believe a "true" Christian can lose salvation. Enter in 1 John 2.19

And how many times have we seen the "unconditional" used in defense of OSAS??:P

Ken lays it out there the way it is. Like it or not there are conditional statements made throughout the Bible. Ken also uses the "IF you abide (remain) in Me" scripture from John 15. So in your understanding what happens IF you don't abide (remain) in Him? I'll give you a clue the answer is in...verse 6.

6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

Firefighter
Aug 8th 2008, 01:21 PM
Humbled, may I ask what is the definition of apostasy?

Slug1
Aug 8th 2008, 01:27 PM
And how many times have we seen the "unconditional" used in defense of OSAS??:P

Ken lays it out there the way it is. Like it or not there are conditional statements made throughout the Bible. Ken also uses the "IF you abide (remain) in Me" scripture from John 15. So in your understanding what happens IF you don't abide (remain) in Him? I'll give you a clue the answer is in...verse 6.

6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.Amen !

To be one of those branches means you were once saved and now are not anymore and thus removed.

Branches will get removed as we grow so we can be more useful to God but if all branches are removed... what then?

humbled
Aug 8th 2008, 04:09 PM
And how many times have we seen the "unconditional" used in defense of OSAS??:P

Ken lays it out there the way it is. Like it or not there are conditional statements made throughout the Bible. Ken also uses the "IF you abide (remain) in Me" scripture from John 15. So in your understanding what happens IF you don't abide (remain) in Him? I'll give you a clue the answer is in...verse 6.

6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.1 John 2.19 :)
...........

Friend, if salvation is conditional, it is simply a salvation by works. Christ is superfluous.

humbled
Aug 8th 2008, 04:14 PM
Humbled, may I ask what is the definition of apostasy?
Wikipedia: Apostasy is the formal abandonment or renunciation of one's religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), especially if the motive is deemed unworthy.


It is one who abandons Christianity. Scripture makes it clear that they abandon THE faith ...not THEIR faith.

I believe the apostasy is when the tares are sifted out of the visible church. The pretenders.

Firefighter
Aug 8th 2008, 04:32 PM
I noticed you left off this part...

From Wiki:

Apostasy in Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian apostates are previously Christian individuals who have renounced Christianity.

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 8th 2008, 04:33 PM
1 John 2.19 :)
...........

Friend, if salvation is conditional, it is simply a salvation by works. Christ is superfluous.

I posted a little more so you could get the context of the passage...

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.

How were they to know that it was the last hour? By the antichrists coming.

Who was John speaking of? Antichrists

And what were these antichrists doing? Denying that Jesus was the Christ...verse 22

Don't you see that John was countering false teachers that were teaching another gospel which was no gospel at all...mainly that Jesus was not the Christ.

You are quick to quote verse 19 but fail to continue to read to verse 24. And there it is again "IF it remains".

If what remains? What they had heard from the beginning...that Jesus was the Christ.

He was warning them not to exchange what they had heard and believed in for a lie...a false gospel. He was warning them of the act of apostasy.

Firefighter
Aug 8th 2008, 04:42 PM
It is one who abandons Christianity. Scripture makes it clear that they abandon THE faith ...not THEIR faith.


I really hate to point out the obvious, but... THE faith is based soley upon YOUR faith. You cannot abandon one without abandoning the other, or salvation is no longer by FAITH. You pick.

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 8th 2008, 04:45 PM
1 John 2.19 :)
...........

Friend, if salvation is conditional, it is simply a salvation by works. Christ is superfluous.

Do all men go to Heaven?? Yes or no

I will assume that you will answer no...then by that fact are there not certain conditions that one must meet to gain salvation through Jesus Christ? Must we believe...must we confess and IF we don't meet these conditions then what? We will not get that salvation. So IF these conditions are true then why can't there be more conditions that one must do as a believer?

humbled
Aug 8th 2008, 07:16 PM
I really hate to point out the obvious, but... THE faith is based soley upon YOUR faith. You cannot abandon one without abandoning the other, or salvation is no longer by FAITH. You pick.One cannot be part of a church, claim to be a Christian and decide to leave for 'X' reason unless they are truly regenerated, eh?

humbled
Aug 8th 2008, 07:19 PM
Do all men go to Heaven?? Yes or no

I will assume that you will answer no...then by that fact are there not certain conditions that one must meet to gain salvation through Jesus Christ? Must we believe...must we confess and IF we don't meet these conditions then what? We will not get that salvation. So IF these conditions are true then why can't there be more conditions that one must do as a believer?
We are saved by God's grace. Nothing more. Faith -- enduring faith -- is evidence of regeneration.

There are absolutely no conditions to be met by men. Pharisees believed such things and were rebuked for the corruption of their hearts by the Lord Jesus.

I should rephrase that ... men CAN make it into heaven by meeting conditions ... those conditions are the Law of Moses. Obey it 100% and you're in.

Otherwise you'd better rely upon the perfect righteousness of Christ, for even your faith is flawed.

humbled
Aug 8th 2008, 07:24 PM
I noticed you left off this part...

From Wiki:
[color=black]I didn't leave it off. I skimmed the article quickly. Besides, wiki can be edited by anyone ... do you have an account with wikipedia? ;)

no need to yell ...

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 8th 2008, 08:50 PM
We are saved by God's grace. Nothing more. Faith -- enduring faith -- is evidence of regeneration.

There are absolutely no conditions to be met by men. Pharisees believed such things and were rebuked for the corruption of their hearts by the Lord Jesus.

I should rephrase that ... men CAN make it into heaven by meeting conditions ... those conditions are the Law of Moses. Obey it 100% and you're in.

Otherwise you'd better rely upon the perfect righteousness of Christ, for even your faith is flawed.

I know that it is by God's devine grace that we can be saved through faith in Jesus. That is the foundation but let us go on to perfection, not laying again these things...Hebrews 6.


1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3And this will we do, if God permit.
4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


So God's grace and nothing more...then ALL men will be saved and go to Heaven. So all the verses in the Bible about believing, repenting and confessing that Jesus is Lord is not necessary. I thought that we have to make a decision to follow Christ or not but I must be wrong.:rolleyes:

humbled
Aug 8th 2008, 09:22 PM
I know that it is by God's devine grace that we can be saved through faith in Jesus. That is the foundation but let us go on to perfection, not laying again these things...Hebrews 6.


1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3And this will we do, if God permit.
4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


So God's grace and nothing more...then ALL men will be saved and go to Heaven. So all the verses in the Bible about believing, repenting and confessing that Jesus is Lord is not necessary. I thought that we have to make a decision to follow Christ or not but I must be wrong.:rolleyes:You are wrong. We don't have to make a decision. The decision is made .. before the foundation of the world. Can you display a verse which states "make a decision for Christ"?

The passage you quote is speaking to Hebrews (Jews) who are leaning BACK toward works salvation ... as in the Pharisaical understanding of salvation. The author says that if you disregard the sacrifice of Christ as SUFFICIENT IN AND OF ITSELF, you are again crucifying Him (by rejecting Him outright).

Sounds vaguely familiar :hmm:

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 8th 2008, 09:44 PM
You are wrong. We don't have to make a decision. The decision is made .. before the foundation of the world. Can you display a verse which states "make a decision for Christ"?

The passage you quote is speaking to Hebrews (Jews) who are leaning BACK toward works salvation ... as in the Pharisaical understanding of salvation. The author says that if you disregard the sacrifice of Christ as SUFFICIENT IN AND OF ITSELF, you are again crucifying Him (by rejecting Him outright).

Sounds vaguely familiar :hmm:

Oh I see...thanks for letting me know I'm wrong!;)

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Now does this seem like a "forced" action by God upon us or is it a choice or decision that we make?

And I'll give you one more...

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

"Taken your stand"...now if it was God's stand then why would Paul tell them that it is THEIR stand?...choice maybe:hmm:

"Believed in vain"...now how could we who have nothing at all to do with it believe in vain? Is that possible?

TrustingFollower
Aug 9th 2008, 12:41 AM
The way I see it is that God has given us the choice to believe in him or not. That does not go against his sovereignty in any way. God does know all and still he allows us to make the choice. Look at it this way. I am a parent and I have told my children to not touch matches or they will get burned by the match. Will my kid ever use a match and will they ever get burned with the match? Yes more than likely they will get burned. I know this and except this as a fact of the way things work. Now did I take the match and burn my kid with it so that they know that I made the decision for them to not play with matches. No, I would not take a match and burn my kid, just like God would not force any of us to love him. Just like I know before hand how the match thing will work out in my kids life, God also knows some of us will chose him and some of us will not chose him. But because we have the knowledge does that change the matter in any way? No as a parent I allow my kid to make the choice whether to get burned or not, when they are old enough they have to make the decision as to believe what I have told them about matches or not to believe me. God also allows us to make the decision whether we are going to believe in him or not. He knows our heart, but he does not force our decision. Because what is forced love, forced love is rape and God would not do that.

Mograce2U
Aug 9th 2008, 01:41 AM
I think the parable of the 4 soils makes it the most clear. The seed is sown in the heart of all who believe, but it only grows up into a fruit bearing plant in the one who digs deep and removes all hindrances to give it room to grow. The devil, the world and the lusts of the flesh all work against this sprouting seed. The fruit that must come is that of a full grown plant reproducing the life of the seed it contains. If the seed dies because it failed to get into the heart/soil by the way of understanding, or if it fails to gain a foothold and put down deep roots, or if the weeds of worldly cares & lust for riches causes sin to grow up and choke the life out of it, then that soil/soul will not make it to eternal life.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the seed that was sown, nor is the One who sowed the seed at fault. Because it was given to Adam to tend the garden, therefore he is the one response-able for how his garden thrives. The sun, the water and the food are all provided for him for the needs of the seed to grow, all he need do is a little regular maintenance to get the intended crop. (And there is even help for that at the throne of Christ). The one who neglects his garden however will find it is ruined before very long.

When the Sower returns to the garden to make an account with the tenants, it is fruit He expects to find. And like the parable of the talents, the one who did nothing will find himself in outer darkness with the hypocrites. Or the door shut to the marriage supper like the 5 foolish virgins. Salvation cannot be lost but it certainly can suffer from an unrecoverable death when the Holy Spirit has been grieved.

If the life that is planted in you gets quenched so that no fruit comes - where will you get more seed? Only from the fruit which the plant the seed bore must produce. Therefore the Seed we have been given is precious indeed, and ought to receive our utmost care to see it flourish. The tares will be few and of no consequence if we have tended our garden well in the first place to prevent their taking root. We may have been instructed to leave them be, but this does not preclude that we can prevent them from being established at all!

Gardening has taken on a whole new meaning for me - can you tell?

A placard give to me by a friend:

He who plants a seed
beneath the sod
and waits to see
believes in God.

Adages being what they are (incomplete), the waiting we do is not in idleness, but in diligence. We have not been saved to then do nothing, rather our salvation in this life is all about learning to love and doing right. Here is the training ground that we might know what this life is about that we have been given to have forever. Which will not fail us if we follow the instructions and trust God for the crop. The quality of the firstfruits (us) is the sign of whether our crop at the harvest will be a good one or not.

So how does your garden grow?

ProjectPeter
Aug 9th 2008, 01:13 PM
Wikipedia: Apostasy is the formal abandonment or renunciation of one's religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), especially if the motive is deemed unworthy.


It is one who abandons Christianity. Scripture makes it clear that they abandon THE faith ...not THEIR faith.

I believe the apostasy is when the tares are sifted out of the visible church. The pretenders.
2 Peter 2 is a perfect biblical definition (better than Wiki) example of apostasy.

Here is how it begins in describing this person.

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Brother Mark
Aug 9th 2008, 01:17 PM
If the life that is planted in you gets quenched so that no fruit comes - where will you get more seed? Only from the fruit which the plant the seed bore must produce. Therefore the Seed we have been given is precious indeed, and ought to receive our utmost care to see it flourish.

This is why in some of the seed sowing parables Jesus said "To him who has more will be given, but to him who has not, that which he has will be taken away". When the seed is sown, if it bears fruit, we are given more. If however, it does not, the very seed that was sown is now gone, or taken away.

To me, that is a fearful verse. It simply means what is indicated in Hebrews... that if we hear God, we can harden our hearts. The soil changes and the seed is no longer received with joy and the evil one comes and snatches it away.

ProjectPeter
Aug 9th 2008, 01:19 PM
1 John 2.19 :)
...........

Friend, if salvation is conditional, it is simply a salvation by works. Christ is superfluous.So Christ died so that you could do everything contrary to Scripture and it still be "all good!" Do you really believe that?

humbled
Aug 10th 2008, 02:03 AM
2 Peter 2 is a perfect biblical definition (better than Wiki) example of apostasy.

Here is how it begins in describing this person.

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.Read this article:

http://www.the-highway.com/agorazo_Ellis.html

Master who bought them does not mean Saviour who died for them.

Here's the skinny of that article -- the word "redeem" (which is typically used in context with the sacrifice of Christ) is the greek word "lutrőő" while the word "bought" is the greek word "agoraző" (which speaks of ownership, as in God owns the cattle on a thousand hills -- God OWNS all creation). Both words mean something completely different ... it is the idea of purchasing that confuses the issue.

Read the article to understand my point better -- and don't give me the "I can spend five minutes on a good internet connection and find a contrary position" -- that's not what this is about. This is about the GREEK VERBAGE. Nothing more :)

humbled
Aug 10th 2008, 02:08 AM
So Christ died so that you could do everything contrary to Scripture and it still be "all good!" Do you really believe that?You KNOW I don't believe that, Sir. ;)

I've never condoned antinomianism. What I firmly believe is that Christ WILL sanctify His elect so they will learn more and more to refrain from sinning ... those who do not remain never were His to begin with.

ProjectPeter
Aug 10th 2008, 02:29 AM
Read this article:

http://www.the-highway.com/agorazo_Ellis.html

Master who bought them does not mean Saviour who died for them.

Here's the skinny of that article -- the word "redeem" (which is typically used in context with the sacrifice of Christ) is the greek word "lutrőő" while the word "bought" is the greek word "agoraző" (which speaks of ownership, as in God owns the cattle on a thousand hills -- God OWNS all creation). Both words mean something completely different ... it is the idea of purchasing that confuses the issue.

Read the article to understand my point better -- and don't give me the "I can spend five minutes on a good internet connection and find a contrary position" -- that's not what this is about. This is about the GREEK VERBAGE. Nothing more :)
That is nothing more than doctrinal opinion redefining a word that fits the doctrine. One... I don't believe that Jesus paid the "ransom price for even those that deny Him." If you deny Him... He's going to deny you. That is plain Scripture and all the "misdefining on the planet" isn't going to get away from that biblical truth. ;)

ProjectPeter
Aug 10th 2008, 02:31 AM
You KNOW I don't believe that, Sir. ;)

I've never condoned antinomianism. What I firmly believe is that Christ WILL sanctify His elect so they will learn more and more to refrain from sinning ... those who do not remain never were His to begin with.
So then let's again cut through the chase. It is ultimately got something to do with obedience and that dreaded WORKS word. You guys just go through a different door to get there... but you get there. Your problem is... you have to figure a way around it because the word WORKS scares the pudding out of you. If Calvinist could ever understand that it is speaking of WORKS OF THE LAW OF MOSES... they'd actually get it. ;)

Firefighter
Aug 10th 2008, 03:18 AM
Master who bought them does not mean Saviour who died for them.

:o:o:o

1Co 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

1Co 7:23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

humbled
Aug 10th 2008, 03:12 PM
:o:o:o

1Co 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

1Co 7:23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
Did you read the article?

humbled
Aug 10th 2008, 03:19 PM
So then let's again cut through the chase. It is ultimately got something to do with obedience and that dreaded WORKS word. You guys just go through a different door to get there... but you get there. Your problem is... you have to figure a way around it because the word WORKS scares the pudding out of you. If Calvinist could ever understand that it is speaking of WORKS OF THE LAW OF MOSES... they'd actually get it. ;)What is the Law of Moses?

What is the crux of the Law of GOD?

Love the LORD with ALL your heart ...

Love your neighbor as yourself.

do you do these two things perfectly?

If not, then you're breaking the Law.

For those who think that once they're saved, all they have to do is obey the Law, don't understand the full impact of the Law.

The Law brings knowledge of sin (Romans 3.20) .. justification by faith UPHOLDS the law in that you cannot be justified by the law (Romans 3.31).

The Law of God is more than just a bunch of rules to be followed. It is an explanation of the corruption of the HEART of man. I'm truly saddened by the ones who believe they go an entire day without sinning. It tells me they believe that in the eyes of God, one sins ONLY if they outwardly perform a sinful action ... but what did Jesus say to the pharisees? They performed the law outwardly, but inwardly were full of dead mens bones and all uncleanness (Matt 23.27) .. right?

Sad indeed.

humbled
Aug 10th 2008, 03:23 PM
That is nothing more than doctrinal opinion redefining a word that fits the doctrine. One... I don't believe that Jesus paid the "ransom price for even those that deny Him." If you deny Him... He's going to deny you. That is plain Scripture and all the "misdefining on the planet" isn't going to get away from that biblical truth. ;)
of course :rolleyes:

So even you admit that "Master who bought them" does not mean "savior who died for them" ... otherwise you would say that Christ's ransom paid the price for the ones who will end up denying Him.

What you're also saying is that Christ's ransom DIDN'T pay the price for the ones who will end up denying Him.

I mean after all, if they deny Him, they will again be under condemnation, right? But if Christ's death atoned for their condemnation, they are not under condemnation ... oh, how confusing is the idea of unlimited atonement!

The truly disheartening aspect of your idea is that you believe (genuinely, I'm sure) that Christ's death was partially successful. It "made a way" for one to be saved. But if they fail AFTER "accepting Jesus into their heart", then His death is meaningless, for it only applies to those who fully succeed in obedience. There is no grace in your doctrine, Ken.

Where sin abounds, grace all the more abounds ... Romans 5.20 (http://www.spurgeon.org/all_of_g.htm)

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 10th 2008, 03:54 PM
What is the Law of Moses?

What is the crux of the Law of GOD?

Love the LORD with ALL your heart ...

Love your neighbor as yourself.

do you do these two things perfectly?

If not, then you're breaking the Law.

For those who think that once they're saved, all they have to do is obey the Law, don't understand the full impact of the Law.

The Law brings knowledge of sin (Romans 3.20) .. justification by faith UPHOLDS the law in that you cannot be justified by the law (Romans 3.31).

The Law of God is more than just a bunch of rules to be followed. It is an explanation of the corruption of the HEART of man. I'm truly saddened by the ones who believe they go an entire day without sinning. It tells me they believe that in the eyes of God, one sins ONLY if they outwardly perform a sinful action ... but what did Jesus say to the pharisees? They performed the law outwardly, but inwardly were full of dead mens bones and all uncleanness (Matt 23.27) .. right?

Sad indeed.

But we as Christians are the opposite of the Pharisees. We have the inward "spiritual" cleansing first and then we have the outward "physical" cleansing second. They had the "physical" but lacked the "spiritual" and that is what Jesus was saying. They didn't have the indwelling of the Spirit but we do. The Spirit enables us to deny the flesh and abstain from sinful desires. Only through the Spirit can this be done...it is the only way. If we sin as believers then we are not walking after the Spirit and we have quenched or grieved the Spirit. For as long as we walk after the Spirit we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh...For the Spirit wants what is contrary to the flesh and the flesh wants what is contrary to the Spirit and these 2 are at war with each other.

ProjectPeter
Aug 10th 2008, 05:31 PM
of course :rolleyes:

So even you admit that "Master who bought them" does not mean "savior who died for them" ... otherwise you would say that Christ's ransom paid the price for the ones who will end up denying Him.

What you're also saying is that Christ's ransom DIDN'T pay the price for the ones who will end up denying Him.

I mean after all, if they deny Him, they will again be under condemnation, right? But if Christ's death atoned for their condemnation, they are not under condemnation ... oh, how confusing is the idea of unlimited atonement!

The truly disheartening aspect of your idea is that you believe (genuinely, I'm sure) that Christ's death was partially successful. It "made a way" for one to be saved. But if they fail AFTER "accepting Jesus into their heart", then His death is meaningless, for it only applies to those who fully succeed in obedience. There is no grace in your doctrine, Ken.

Where sin abounds, grace all the more abounds ... Romans 5.20 (http://www.spurgeon.org/all_of_g.htm)Uh... that isn't what I mean at all and you know it. It did pay the price. They simply didn't endure. Remember... I don't have to change it into something else. I'm not OSAS. ;)

Firefighter
Aug 11th 2008, 01:59 AM
Did you read the article?

Yep, and I am not drinking the kool-aid. Further that pesky thing called the Bible keeps overriding articles I read...

humbled
Aug 11th 2008, 02:22 PM
Yep, and I am not drinking the kool-aid. Further that pesky thing called the Bible keeps overriding articles I read...
Oh .. you read the bible? Maybe I should try that :rolleyes:

Everyone says they take their interpretations from the "plain reading of Scripture" U.M. -- that excuse doesn't trump accurate exegesis, which is why I presented to you that article for your consideration.

Think about it ... if the Master who bought them meant "Savior who died for them and purchased their salvation", then why would Peter say later in the very same chapter:

2 Peter 2.19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

And before you claim they were saved according to v20, keep in mind .. it is not knowledge which saves. It is FAITH in that knowledge ...

But back to v19 -- if they are overcome by corruption, then they never were freed by Christ! If they were at one time purchased by JESUS CHRIST (rather than owned by God the Father, which is the point of the article) then Christ was mistaken when He stated that He would lose none of His, and by purchasing them with His blood, they would most certainly be considered His.

Again I assert -- Master means God the Father, and bought means owns due to creation.

That makes the most sense when considering the context of the chapter. Your interpretation insists on improper eisegesis and stubborn affixation to a preconceived doctrinal position.

humbled
Aug 11th 2008, 02:30 PM
But we as Christians are the opposite of the Pharisees. We have the inward "spiritual" cleansing first and then we have the outward "physical" cleansing second. They had the "physical" but lacked the "spiritual" and that is what Jesus was saying. They didn't have the indwelling of the Spirit but we do. The Spirit enables us to deny the flesh and abstain from sinful desires. Only through the Spirit can this be done...it is the only way. If we sin as believers then we are not walking after the Spirit and we have quenched or grieved the Spirit. For as long as we walk after the Spirit we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh...For the Spirit wants what is contrary to the flesh and the flesh wants what is contrary to the Spirit and these 2 are at war with each other.I do agree with you here. To a degree. I simply disagree that the idea of sanctification will be completed in this life. "He who began a good work in you will complete it on the day of Christ Jesus" ... We WILL be glorified according to Romans 8, but not until that glorious day.

Those who are in this life and slip and fall due to the woes of this world, have an Advocate. There is no condemnation for us. And once one is IN Christ, he/she will not be OUT OF Christ. When does the Spirit who dwells within the believer leave, even though He said He would NEVER leave nor forsake us?

humbled
Aug 11th 2008, 02:32 PM
Uh... that isn't what I mean at all and you know it. It did pay the price. They simply didn't endure. Remember... I don't have to change it into something else. I'm not OSAS. ;)I'm not OSAS either :)

If endurance determines salvation, then what is the ultimate determination of our own salvation? To whom does the credit belong -- ultimately? Think about it and give me a genuine answer. For if you claim that it is still Christ, then you are inconsistent with your own belief system, my friend. For you are claiming that it is the endurance of the individual which ultimately determines the salvific condition of the individual.

ProjectPeter
Aug 11th 2008, 03:00 PM
Oh .. you read the bible? Maybe I should try that :rolleyes:

Everyone says they take their interpretations from the "plain reading of Scripture" U.M. -- that excuse doesn't trump accurate exegesis, which is why I presented to you that article for your consideration.

Think about it ... if the Master who bought them meant "Savior who died for them and purchased their salvation", then why would Peter say later in the very same chapter:

2 Peter 2.19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

And before you claim they were saved according to v20, keep in mind .. it is not knowledge which saves. It is FAITH in that knowledge ...

But back to v19 -- if they are overcome by corruption, then they never were freed by Christ! If they were at one time purchased by JESUS CHRIST (rather than owned by God the Father, which is the point of the article) then Christ was mistaken when He stated that He would lose none of His, and by purchasing them with His blood, they would most certainly be considered His.

Again I assert -- Master means God the Father, and bought means owns due to creation.

That makes the most sense when considering the context of the chapter. Your interpretation insists on improper eisegesis and stubborn affixation to a preconceived doctrinal position.
Then what did they escape from?

humbled
Aug 11th 2008, 03:25 PM
Then what did they escape from?Very good question. I am curious about that myself. I confess I do not have a good defense regarding that.

However, the truth of the matter is that if they were freed from corruption, they would not have been overcome by it. If Christ set them free, they would have been free indeed.

Can you explain how they were overcome by the corruption they were supposedly freed from when Peter explains that they were enslaved to it all along?

ProjectPeter
Aug 11th 2008, 04:10 PM
I'm not OSAS either :)

If endurance determines salvation, then what is the ultimate determination of our own salvation? To whom does the credit belong -- ultimately? Think about it and give me a genuine answer. For if you claim that it is still Christ, then you are inconsistent with your own belief system, my friend. For you are claiming that it is the endurance of the individual which ultimately determines the salvific condition of the individual.2 Peter 1: 1-11 man... it is absolutely consistent! Think of it John. God equips us to live godly here in the nasty now and now. Who is required to use that equipment? That's Peter's point. :) We add to our faith virtue and to virtue we add knowledge. Peter doesn't say that God gives it to us automatically just because.... we add to it and if we do... we're blessed. If we don't we are shortsighted. ;)

humbled
Aug 11th 2008, 04:37 PM
2 Peter 1: 1-11 man... it is absolutely consistent! Think of it John. God equips us to live godly here in the nasty now and now. Who is required to use that equipment? That's Peter's point. :) We add to our faith virtue and to virtue we add knowledge. Peter doesn't say that God gives it to us automatically just because.... we add to it and if we do... we're blessed. If we don't we are shortsighted. ;)Peter does NOT say if we do, we're blessed. He says if we do, we will be fruitful and effective in our knowledge of Him. Hence, what is the 'consequence' of not adding these things, according to that very same passage? The words themselves tell you what happens ... it keeps you from being fruitful and effective.

Pure and simple there ... it is NOT speaking of salvation. Peter is speaking of effectiveness in our Christian walk!

ProjectPeter
Aug 11th 2008, 05:05 PM
Peter does NOT say if we do, we're blessed. He says if we do, we will be fruitful and effective in our knowledge of Him. Hence, what is the 'consequence' of not adding these things, according to that very same passage? The words themselves tell you what happens ... it keeps you from being fruitful and effective.

Pure and simple there ... it is NOT speaking of salvation. Peter is speaking of effectiveness in our Christian walk!
Sure it is... what does Jesus say about those that bear no fruit?

Mograce2U
Aug 11th 2008, 05:07 PM
I do agree with you here. To a degree. I simply disagree that the idea of sanctification will be completed in this life. "He who began a good work in you will complete it on the day of Christ Jesus" ... We WILL be glorified according to Romans 8, but not until that glorious day.

Those who are in this life and slip and fall due to the woes of this world, have an Advocate. There is no condemnation for us. And once one is IN Christ, he/she will not be OUT OF Christ. When does the Spirit who dwells within the believer leave, even though He said He would NEVER leave nor forsake us?It has to do with abiding in faith. If one allows sin to harden his heart he is in danger of turning back to idolatry and unbelief.

That is why a sinning Christian is an oxymoron, because they have not found how to walk in the faith and liberty they profess to have by the Spirit. When chastening comes upon them it is to turn them back. But if they do not turn back and continue in their own willful ways - that is where they will end up - numbered with the hypocrites.

This is what will happen to the one who looks upon the blood of Christ shed for him as some common thing when it was offered for him for his salvation. If repentance is not the fruit of his salvation, then he is denying that the Lord delivered him at all. And manifests instead that the Lord's power to sanctify is not greater than his love for his sin, because he won't avail himself of the power of God by faith.

Many will reflect their remorse when sin brings trouble, but not near as many actually seek the Lord for the remedy to find their deliverance. The Judge will hear our defense, but mercy is only for the repentant. The one who foolishly continues in his sin when he had a Redeemer given to him, will face the rightful judgment upon that sin in the end, and he will not be forgiven for his foolishness nor will he remain free to continue on in that path. That's what jail is for.

The captives are not set free so they can go back to what enslaved them. The Lord leads His sheep, and those who stay near will hear His voice and say "Here am I" when He calls to them. And they will not stumble in the way. But those who depart to go some other way have left off the safe place in which the Lord is guiding them. They will find His rod is what goes out to pull them back. But the wolf is waiting on the perimeter to catch those who stray too far. And he looks for those who are lame because they wouldn't let the Lord heal them. Had they drawn closer by faith to receive His touch, they would have found what they desired and the Lord would have carried them in His arms.

(Hosea 6:2-3 KJV) After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. {3} Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.

If you haven't yet partaken of His death - for forgiveness of sin, it will be hard to partake of His life and follow the Lord. The blood of Christ was offered to provide us forgiveness. Yet some look upon the cross as if it were merely a get out of jail free card. True forgiveness if it is received in faith takes our sin away and cleanses us of it. But some prefer to play in the mud... and they do so at the foot of the cross.

Firefighter
Aug 11th 2008, 05:38 PM
Very good question. I am curious about that myself. I confess I do not have a good defense regarding that.

However, the truth of the matter is that if they were freed from corruption, they would not have been overcome by it. If Christ set them free, they would have been free indeed.

Can you explain how they were overcome by the corruption they were supposedly freed from when Peter explains that they were enslaved to it all along?

When men are led away by thier own lusts...

humbled
Aug 11th 2008, 06:06 PM
It has to do with abiding in faith. If one allows sin to harden his heart he is in danger of turning back to idolatry and unbelief.

That is why a sinning Christian is an oxymoron, because they have not found how to walk in the faith and liberty they profess to have by the Spirit. When chastening comes upon them it is to turn them back. But if they do not turn back and continue in their own willful ways - that is where they will end up - numbered with the hypocrites.

This is what will happen to the one who looks upon the blood of Christ shed for him as some common thing when it was offered for him for his salvation. If repentance is not the fruit of his salvation, then he is denying that the Lord delivered him at all. And manifests instead that the Lord's power to sanctify is not greater than his love for his sin, because he won't avail himself of the power of God by faith.

Many will reflect their remorse when sin brings trouble, but not near as many actually seek the Lord for the remedy to find their deliverance. The Judge will hear our defense, but mercy is only for the repentant. The one who foolishly continues in his sin when he had a Redeemer given to him, will face the rightful judgment upon that sin in the end, and he will not be forgiven for his foolishness nor will he remain free to continue on in that path. That's what jail is for.

The captives are not set free so they can go back to what enslaved them. The Lord leads His sheep, and those who stay near will hear His voice and say "Here am I" when He calls to them. And they will not stumble in the way. But those who depart to go some other way have left off the safe place in which the Lord is guiding them. They will find His rod is what goes out to pull them back. But the wolf is waiting on the perimeter to catch those who stray too far. And he looks for those who are lame because they wouldn't let the Lord heal them. Had they drawn closer by faith to receive His touch, they would have found what they desired and the Lord would have carried them in His arms.

(Hosea 6:2-3 KJV) After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. {3} Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.

If you haven't yet partaken of His death - for forgiveness of sin, it will be hard to partake of His life and follow the Lord. The blood of Christ was offered to provide us forgiveness. Yet some look upon the cross as if it were merely a get out of jail free card. True forgiveness if it is received in faith takes our sin away and cleanses us of it. But some prefer to play in the mud... and they do so at the foot of the cross.So would you say that the fact that someone walks away from Him would be evidence that the Spirit of Christ never did dwell in them to begin with? Since, after all, the Spirit is Who gives empowerment and ability ... if one does not have said ability (shown by the lack of completion) they must not have been indwelt.

Otherwise, we're back to self performance to "earn" a place with God.

humbled
Aug 11th 2008, 06:24 PM
Sure it is... what does Jesus say about those that bear no fruit?
What type of fruit are we talking about here? Is the fruit Jesus spoke of in John 15 the same fruit Peter spoke of in 2 Peter 1? Is it the same fruit Paul spoke of in Galatians 5? Is it the same fruit Jesus spoke of when speaking about false prophets?

Is all fruit the same? Is all fruit in reference to salvation?

Is that your stand, Ken?

I'm standing on the contextual argument that Peter is speaking of effectiveness in the Christian walk in that passage ... in the sense of victory over sin in the everyday Monday morning practical walk of the ordinary you and me.

That fits the best, imho.

humbled
Aug 11th 2008, 06:26 PM
When men are led away by thier own lusts...Yes ... they will be led away by what they are enslaved to.

One who is enslaved to his own lusts (in that whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved) was never freed from his lust was he?

Firefighter
Aug 11th 2008, 06:31 PM
That works great until you look at it in context...

2Ti 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Turn away... Wander off... Hmmmmm.... From what???

Mograce2U
Aug 11th 2008, 06:53 PM
So would you say that the fact that someone walks away from Him would be evidence that the Spirit of Christ never did dwell in them to begin with? Since, after all, the Spirit is Who gives empowerment and ability ... if one does not have said ability (shown by the lack of completion) they must not have been indwelt.

Otherwise, we're back to self performance to "earn" a place with God.No, it shows that they allowed the seed planted in them to die because of the world, the flesh and devil. Because they didn't take care to cultivate that seed which was planted which was to bear fruit unto life. God's gift makes man responsible for what he does with it. And He even provides all that is needed to grow the seed. But the lazy farmer will find his crop ruined in the end and he will not partake of the fruit that should have come to him. Not because he lost it, but because it didn't mean enough to him that he was willing to work towards the prize. God gave Adam dominion in the garden so that he could have a part in what it produced. The relationship... by which the man's faith is exercised. By his careful stewardship of what he has been given because it is as precious to him as it is to His Lord.

humbled
Aug 11th 2008, 08:40 PM
That works great until you look at it in context...

2Ti 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Turn away... Wander off... Hmmmmm.... From what???

The truth.

What does this have to do with what Peter said about being enslaved to whatever overcomes you? If we were to interpret Scripture with Scripture, I would say that PAUL was saying the same thing ... that PAUL meant that those who turned away from the truth were, in fact, never saved to begin with ... they were overcome by false teaching because they were enslaved by it. They HEARD the truth, but it was never united with faith within them (Read in Hebrews end of ch 3 or 4 I think).

One can have a KNOWLEDGE of truth without ever having faith in it. Agreed?

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 11th 2008, 10:17 PM
Those who are in this life and slip and fall due to the woes of this world, have an Advocate. There is no condemnation for us. And once one is IN Christ, he/she will not be OUT OF Christ. When does the Spirit who dwells within the believer leave, even though He said He would NEVER leave nor forsake us?

No condemnation for us...Let's look at this a little deeper.

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

No condemnation for whom? Those which are in Christ Jesus.

Those who are in Christ Jesus who do what? Walk not after the flesh.

But walk after what? The Spirit.

Is it possible for a believer to sin? Yes

How? By walking after the flesh

Is it possible to sin IF we are walking after the Spirit? No...unless you say the the Spirit can sin

We can only sin when we are not walking after the Spirit...this is the only way.

What you say would be true IF Paul would have ended this sentence with a period after "Christ Jesus". But we see that he didn't.

So, for the no condemnation scenario we must walk after the Spirit but IF we walk after the flesh then we will find condemnation.

ProjectPeter
Aug 12th 2008, 12:08 AM
What type of fruit are we talking about here? Is the fruit Jesus spoke of in John 15 the same fruit Peter spoke of in 2 Peter 1? Is it the same fruit Paul spoke of in Galatians 5? Is it the same fruit Jesus spoke of when speaking about false prophets?

Is all fruit the same? Is all fruit in reference to salvation?

Is that your stand, Ken?

I'm standing on the contextual argument that Peter is speaking of effectiveness in the Christian walk in that passage ... in the sense of victory over sin in the everyday Monday morning practical walk of the ordinary you and me.

That fits the best, imho.It is the best fit for your doctrine sure. But that isn't what it says.

And that is my stand here. Simple. If you do these thing you ain't going to stumble. You'll make it. If you don't... you're going to stumble and there is nothing at all sure about your call... much less election. Peter writes a perfect example of this in the next chapter. They come to know Christ and yet turn back to sin. It will be worse for them. This was a letter. No chapters and verses. It flows very well when one reads it as such.

ProjectPeter
Aug 12th 2008, 12:10 AM
The truth.

What does this have to do with what Peter said about being enslaved to whatever overcomes you? If we were to interpret Scripture with Scripture, I would say that PAUL was saying the same thing ... that PAUL meant that those who turned away from the truth were, in fact, never saved to begin with ... they were overcome by false teaching because they were enslaved by it. They HEARD the truth, but it was never united with faith within them (Read in Hebrews end of ch 3 or 4 I think).

One can have a KNOWLEDGE of truth without ever having faith in it. Agreed?
No way man... :lol: You can't fall away or turn away from a place you've never been. It really is that simple.

Firefighter
Aug 12th 2008, 01:35 AM
The truth.

And Jesus said I am the way, the _______ and the life....

Firefighter
Aug 12th 2008, 01:36 AM
No way man... :lol: You can't fall away or turn away from a place you've never been. It really is that simple.

Yeah, the other night I fell off the table, but I was never REALLY on the table to begin with...:lol:

humbled
Aug 12th 2008, 11:51 AM
It is the best fit for your doctrine sure. But that isn't what it says.

And that is my stand here. Simple. If you do these thing you ain't going to stumble. You'll make it. If you don't... you're going to stumble and there is nothing at all sure about your call... much less election. Peter writes a perfect example of this in the next chapter. They come to know Christ and yet turn back to sin. It will be worse for them. This was a letter. No chapters and verses. It flows very well when one reads it as such.And about the fruit, Ken?

Is all fruit pertaining to salvation?

By the way ... ch 2, even tho there are no chapter divisions, is not about men who were saved. For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved. If the world overcomes, you are enslaved to the world. If corruption overcomes, you are enslaved to corruption. One who is enslaved to corruption was never freed from it, correct? For if the Son sets you free ... you are free indeed.

That point never gets addressed by you, either ... interesting.

humbled
Aug 12th 2008, 11:52 AM
And Jesus said I am the way, the _______ and the life....
You dismissed part two of that post.

humbled
Aug 12th 2008, 11:55 AM
No way man... :lol: You can't fall away or turn away from a place you've never been. It really is that simple.Depends on your perspective. If you KNOW the truth, yet have no FAITH in the truth, you will fall away from it.

C'mon guys! Knowledge doesn't save! You guys seem to believe that if one KNOWS the truth ... satan knows the truth ... they are saved :rolleyes:

You guys are not thinking this through.

humbled
Aug 12th 2008, 11:59 AM
No condemnation for us...Let's look at this a little deeper.

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

No condemnation for whom? Those which are in Christ Jesus.

Those who are in Christ Jesus who do what? Walk not after the flesh.

But walk after what? The Spirit.

Is it possible for a believer to sin? Yes

How? By walking after the flesh

Is it possible to sin IF we are walking after the Spirit? No...unless you say the the Spirit can sin

We can only sin when we are not walking after the Spirit...this is the only way.

What you say would be true IF Paul would have ended this sentence with a period after "Christ Jesus". But we see that he didn't.

So, for the no condemnation scenario we must walk after the Spirit but IF we walk after the flesh then we will find condemnation.I will try to address this post a bit later. But I will start off by saying the KJV is the ONLY translation to my knowledge which puts that verse in that order. In all other versions it reads like this:

(ESV) Romans 8.1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

This is much more fluid and consistent with the passage (and the rest of scripture imo). It is speaking of evidence and not a requirement to be fulfilled.

Guys ... don't you know what the gospel means??

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 12th 2008, 12:37 PM
I will try to address this post a bit later. But I will start off by saying the KJV is the ONLY translation to my knowledge which puts that verse in that order. In all other versions it reads like this:

(ESV) Romans 8.1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

This is much more fluid and consistent with the passage (and the rest of scripture imo). It is speaking of evidence and not a requirement to be fulfilled.

Guys ... don't you know what the gospel means??

I had a feeling you were going to say something about the placement in the different versions.:P

Whether it is verse 1 or verse 4 it means the same. Paul says it and if you look at it in context of everything else within these few verses the placement doesn't change the meaning.

Firefighter
Aug 12th 2008, 12:38 PM
We are saved by grace through faith, right? That is how we enter into a covenant with God, correct? Salvation is by grace through faith alone and nothing more, right?

ProjectPeter
Aug 12th 2008, 01:34 PM
And about the fruit, Ken?

Is all fruit pertaining to salvation?

By the way ... ch 2, even tho there are no chapter divisions, is not about men who were saved. For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved. If the world overcomes, you are enslaved to the world. If corruption overcomes, you are enslaved to corruption. One who is enslaved to corruption was never freed from it, correct? For if the Son sets you free ... you are free indeed.

That point never gets addressed by you, either ... interesting.Oh come now John! I've addressed that passage many times. Likely one of the passages that I have addressed the most on this message board. :rolleyes:

It is about men who were saved.

The master that bought them. That certainly don't work with Calvinism John because come on man... you don't believe He purchased anyone save the elect right? So if this person spoken about is purchased by the master then turns on that master then who do you think it means by master in that passage?

You focus on a tree (enslaved) and you miss the forest (again overcome). They are AGAIN overcome with sin. That means they were not overcome with it for a time but they are AGAIN overcome. You will freely admit that folks are born overcome by the world. If you are AGAIN overcome by the world that means at some point you were free of it. There is the answer to the question that you struggle with and you struggle with it for a reason. It says what it says and it sticks you and look... no getting around what it actually says. Doctrine gets in the way sure... but that's what it says... right?

ProjectPeter
Aug 12th 2008, 01:38 PM
Depends on your perspective. If you KNOW the truth, yet have no FAITH in the truth, you will fall away from it.

C'mon guys! Knowledge doesn't save! You guys seem to believe that if one KNOWS the truth ... satan knows the truth ... they are saved :rolleyes: You guys are not thinking this through.There ya go! Not thinking it through!!! Remember dude... you have a snag on this passage and you already said so. ;)

Tell me something John... if you have no knowledge of God... gospel... sin... can you be saved?

ProjectPeter
Aug 12th 2008, 01:39 PM
I will try to address this post a bit later. But I will start off by saying the KJV is the ONLY translation to my knowledge which puts that verse in that order. In all other versions it reads like this:

(ESV) Romans 8.1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

This is much more fluid and consistent with the passage (and the rest of scripture imo). It is speaking of evidence and not a requirement to be fulfilled.

Guys ... don't you know what the gospel means??
No man... no clue what the gospel means. :rolleyes: This is where the conversation goes from decent to just plain weird.

Firefighter
Aug 12th 2008, 03:38 PM
While debating Peter in another thread, I happened to notice this verse...


1Co 9:27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Why would Paul worry about that? Let's look at what that word means...

adokimos - not standing the test, not approved, unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate.

Not approved, unfit, rejected from what???

Verse 24 gives us insight into this...

1 Co 9:24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.

What was Paul's prize? And how on earth could he be found "not standing the test, not approved, unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate" the prize AFTER knowing God? AFTER being filled with the Holy Spirit? AFTER being an apostle?

Honestly ask yourself these questions with an open mind and see where it will take you...

Buck shot
Aug 12th 2008, 05:43 PM
Is there a direction to this debate? Looks like it's going everywhere...

Who is on first? :P

ProjectPeter
Aug 12th 2008, 06:32 PM
Is there a direction to this debate? Looks like it's going everywhere...

Who is on first? :P
I am on first dude! :lol: You don't know that!!! :lol:

Buck shot
Aug 12th 2008, 07:07 PM
:rofl:

Thanks for the laugh!

humbled
Aug 13th 2008, 02:07 AM
There ya go! Not thinking it through!!! Remember dude... you have a snag on this passage and you already said so. ;) For one to never admit to struggling with a passage means they are allowing preconceived doctrines to dictate their interpretations. I think it shows integrity that I am honestly considering the passages ... and admitting that I personally struggle with a passage in no way indicates fault with my position, now does it?


Tell me something John... if you have no knowledge of God... gospel... sin... can you be saved?Of course you can't. That still dismisses the fact that knowledge has VERY LITTLE to do with salvation. Satan KNOWS the bible 100% ... in fact, he knows which of us is right, and I doubt anyone in this conversation would take the position that he is saved because of that knowledge. What must one have in accord with knowledge?

humbled
Aug 13th 2008, 02:16 AM
Oh come now John! I've addressed that passage many times. Likely one of the passages that I have addressed the most on this message board. :rolleyes:

It is about men who were saved.

The master that bought them. That certainly don't work with Calvinism John because come on man... you don't believe He purchased anyone save the elect right? So if this person spoken about is purchased by the master then turns on that master then who do you think it means by master in that passage?

You focus on a tree (enslaved) and you miss the forest (again overcome). They are AGAIN overcome with sin. That means they were not overcome with it for a time but they are AGAIN overcome. You will freely admit that folks are born overcome by the world. If you are AGAIN overcome by the world that means at some point you were free of it. There is the answer to the question that you struggle with and you struggle with it for a reason. It says what it says and it sticks you and look... no getting around what it actually says. Doctrine gets in the way sure... but that's what it says... right?
Men who were saved, you say?

Let's look at something very interesting I noticed this morning ...

2 Peter 1.1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

What does that say, Ken? Their condemnation ... FROM LONG AGO. Now combine this verse with what our Lord says in John 3 regarding faith in people who are told (given a knowledge of) that Jesus is the Christ ...

John 3.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

So I am telling you that Peter is echoing Christ's own words here! He is saying that these false prophets -- who had a knowledge of, but did not believe that Jesus is the Christ -- were DENYING Him and were under condemnation due to their UNBELIEF. There is absolutely NO indication whatsoever that they ever DID believe! That's faulty eisegesis, Ken.

And as for "the Master who bought them" ... do we really have to rehash that? I've explained (as did an article I supplied) that "Master" - being the greek despotes - does not mean "Lord" as in Christ, but is a word that is in reference to the FATHER rather than the Son, and the word "bought" - being the greek agorazo - is not a word that is used with salvation, but rather is a word used with OWNERSHIP .. as in creative ownership. You simply disagree, and assert that your interpretation (without any exegesis whatsoever) is the correct one because you insert a faulty definition of the word while dismissing the commonality of the words in their typical usages.

And you never did answer me about the different types of fruit represented in Scripture (I missed it if you did, my friend), so do you believe that all fruit is the same? That all fruit is in regards to salvation?

Firefighter
Aug 13th 2008, 02:43 AM
What about Paul, Humbled? He was OBVIOUSLY saved, the elect, chosen by God...

humbled
Aug 13th 2008, 10:51 AM
What about Paul, Humbled? He was OBVIOUSLY saved, the elect, chosen by God...It makes no sense to jump around from text to text and change topics. Let's finish with Peter .. then we can move on, if you so desire. I will say, however, that I believe Paul was merely practicing his own instructions of "examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith" ... for living a life of idolatry (ch10 continues in 1 Cor) will display evidence of a life not dedicated to Christ. Paul is adamant and self controlled for his own peace of mind.

I've been asserting that the risk of not adding to your faith all those things is not losing your salvation, but rather becoming ineffective and unfruitful in your Christian walk. Ken has commented that Jesus stated in John 15 a lack of fruitfulness is a losing of salvation .. it is evidence of becoming disconnected from the vine. I've asked if they are indeed connected .. if all fruit is the SAME fruit in Scripture.

I've also claimed that the false prophets in 2 Peter 2 were never saved to begin with, and I've used their condemnation and the fact that they were overcome by corruption (indicating they were enslaved to that corruption) showing they were never freed from their corruption because Christ said "if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed".

None of those points have been sufficiently addressed in my opinion ... merely touched on and dismissed.

Just trying to avoid any further rabbit trails here, guys.

humbled
Aug 13th 2008, 11:08 AM
I had a feeling you were going to say something about the placement in the different versions.:P

Whether it is verse 1 or verse 4 it means the same. Paul says it and if you look at it in context of everything else within these few verses the placement doesn't change the meaning.I believe the placement is key. But as I stated to U.M., I believe it is unproductive to continue jumping around from passage to passage with pieces of text. I do not think Romans 8 says what you think it says, and therefore do not see any correlation with the topic whatsoever. In fact, I see Romans 8 as a major supporter OF eternal security ... the "golden chain" of 8.29-30 for example.

Your choice passage at the beginning is, in my mind, a strong affirmation of justification by faith and has nothing to do with keeping your salvation, but is merely an indication of evidence of salvation. Those who walk in the flesh do not possess the Spirit, as Paul states in verse 9.

humbled
Aug 13th 2008, 11:10 AM
No man... no clue what the gospel means. :rolleyes: This is where the conversation goes from decent to just plain weird.Ok, Ken ... what is the gospel?

humbled
Aug 13th 2008, 11:19 AM
1 Peter 1.6In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ

What does this mean, guys? What does "genuineness of faith" mean? Does it not mean that there is also a false faith? A merely professed faith? And how is that shown? According to Peter, it is shown by going through trials .. NOT by one's performance.

Peter is saying here (in the FIRST letter to the SAME group of people) that faith is proved by endurance through trials (various forms of persecution), NOT by performance according to a set of rules or benchmarks.

What are rules and benchmarks if not works? And what is the purpose of the Law in Scripture -- any law?

humbled
Aug 13th 2008, 11:23 AM
Guys, you'll have to be patient with me. I'm working 13 and 14 hour days right now, so I don't really have much time to post. I'm having a real tough time keeping up with the three of you when you post ONE post each, much less three and four. Could you guys try to keep it simple for me .. at least for now? I doubt I'll be able to even look at this site before tonight or even tomorrow morning, much less formulate any sort of responses.

I'm really enjoying this exercise (it's been a long time), so it's not a lack of desire. It's simply a lack of time. Thanks :)

humbled
Aug 13th 2008, 11:39 AM
Oh, and Ken ... regarding the false prophets and what they escaped from ... do you agree that an unbeliever can escape the defilements of the world for a time?

I think the more poignant part of that passage is the very end of ch2:

20For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

They were showing the evidence of who they TRULY were. Peter interpreted the true proverb with a real world example right here. What else could it mean?

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 13th 2008, 12:56 PM
Humbled,

You are getting hung up on 2 Peter 2. It is not speaking of the false teachers at the end of the chapter. Yes, the whole chapter does speak of false teachers but right about verse 18 it shifts to the people who are led astray by these false teachers. Take a look...

17These men (false teachers) are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they (false teachers) mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they (false teachers) entice people (HERE IT SHIFTS TO THOSE WHO ARE ESCAPING...NOT FALSE TEACHERS)who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They (false teachers)promise them freedom, while they themselves (false teachers) are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20If they (BACK TO THOSE WHO HAVE ESCAPED...NOT FALSE TEACHERS) have escaped (this is not speaking of the false teachers but those who are lead back into the world by false teachers) the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they (those who escaped...not those teaching) are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

So I agree that the false teachers are a key here in chapter 2 but the end is about those who are led back into the corruption by the false teachers. This is the biggest warning passage for believers...IMO. It tells us to test the spirits so we are not led astray by the error of men. It tells us reject any other gospel other than the one they first heard and believed on. It tells us that we can be deceived. If you will see that it is speaking to who are led rather than who are leading then it should change your understanding of this passage. The knowledge to be able to escape the world can ONLY be a TRUE knowledge of Christ. Peter, through the Spirit, would no doubt have known this and if he was alluding to a knowledge like that of the devil then I believe he would have excluded the "escaped" part of the passage. He, through the Spirit, would not be fooled by these so called "escapers" if it was false.

And just because you think that Romans 8 is not the same topic is not my fault...it is.

ProjectPeter
Aug 13th 2008, 03:49 PM
Guys, you'll have to be patient with me. I'm working 13 and 14 hour days right now, so I don't really have much time to post. I'm having a real tough time keeping up with the three of you when you post ONE post each, much less three and four. Could you guys try to keep it simple for me .. at least for now? I doubt I'll be able to even look at this site before tonight or even tomorrow morning, much less formulate any sort of responses.

I'm really enjoying this exercise (it's been a long time), so it's not a lack of desire. It's simply a lack of time. Thanks :)
Hey... I'll even type slower. :lol:

Buck shot
Aug 13th 2008, 05:49 PM
17These men (false teachers) are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they (false teachers) mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they (false teachers) entice people (HERE IT SHIFTS TO THOSE WHO ARE ESCAPING...NOT FALSE TEACHERS)who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They (false teachers)promise them freedom, while they themselves (false teachers) are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20If they (BACK TO THOSE WHO HAVE ESCAPED...NOT FALSE TEACHERS) have escaped (this is not speaking of the false teachers but those who are lead back into the world by false teachers) the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they (those who escaped...not those teaching) are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."
.

Hey Brother!

Do you think it's possible that they were escaping and understood the way to righteousness but had not chosen it?

P.S. Did you notice i left it non-kjv :lol:

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 13th 2008, 10:29 PM
Hey Brother!

Do you think it's possible that they were escaping and understood the way to righteousness but had not chosen it?

P.S. Did you notice i left it non-kjv :lol:

It's about time you joined us:P

I look at it like this...I grew up going to Sunday school and my dad is a preacher and my grandmother is one of the strongest prayer warriors you will find. So I knew ALL about Jesus and I knew what He did...I knew the gospel but didn't "understand" the gospel. I say didn't understand for a reason and I'll explain. If we go to the parable of the sower you can see that in Matthew's account it says...

12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear and does not understand it then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

That knowledge didn't help me "narry" bit to escape the corruption of the world. I was lost and on my way to hell. I even knew enough to know that I was going to hell.

However, many years later I came to "know" Jesus as Lord and that gave me the way to escape the corruption of the world by KNOWING our Lord. I say that there is only one way to escape the corruption of the world and that is through a TRUE knowledge of Christ. I believe this passage is speaking of those "babes in Christ" just as Paul was speaking to those in Corinth. They were new to the Lord and that left them open to false doctrines/teachings being taught by these false teachers.

So for them to escape any at all they had to choose it...

And thanks for leaving it...NON-KJV:lol:

Firefighter
Aug 14th 2008, 02:23 AM
I will say, however, that I believe Paul was merely practicing his own instructions of "examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith" ... for living a life of idolatry (ch10 continues in 1 Cor) will display evidence of a life not dedicated to Christ. Paul is adamant and self controlled for his own peace of mind.



... and you really think that fits into the context of running the race??? The greek does not bear that out. The phrase autos adokimos genōmai Literally translates to "I myself should become rejected."

humbled
Aug 14th 2008, 04:16 AM
Humbled,

You are getting hung up on 2 Peter 2. It is not speaking of the false teachers at the end of the chapter. Yes, the whole chapter does speak of false teachers but right about verse 18 it shifts to the people who are led astray by these false teachers. Take a look...

17These men (false teachers) are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they (false teachers) mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they (false teachers) entice people (HERE IT SHIFTS TO THOSE WHO ARE ESCAPING...NOT FALSE TEACHERS)who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They (false teachers)promise them freedom, while they themselves (false teachers) are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20If they (BACK TO THOSE WHO HAVE ESCAPED...NOT FALSE TEACHERS) have escaped (this is not speaking of the false teachers but those who are lead back into the world by false teachers) the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they (those who escaped...not those teaching) are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

So I agree that the false teachers are a key here in chapter 2 but the end is about those who are led back into the corruption by the false teachers. This is the biggest warning passage for believers...IMO. It tells us to test the spirits so we are not led astray by the error of men. It tells us reject any other gospel other than the one they first heard and believed on. It tells us that we can be deceived. If you will see that it is speaking to who are led rather than who are leading then it should change your understanding of this passage. The knowledge to be able to escape the world can ONLY be a TRUE knowledge of Christ. Peter, through the Spirit, would no doubt have known this and if he was alluding to a knowledge like that of the devil then I believe he would have excluded the "escaped" part of the passage. He, through the Spirit, would not be fooled by these so called "escapers" if it was false.
You know what? I think I agree with your take here. I think it is speaking about those under false teaching rather than the teachers themselves (in the parts you indicated).

However, I'm not convinced that they ever had a saving faith in the knowledge they received. There are two key verses which come to mind that deter me from thinking you're correct in this assumption.

1. Jesus said "false prophets would be able to deceive if it were possible (implying that it is not) even the elect" (Matt 24.24)

2. The author of the Hebrews said "For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard." (Heb 4.2)

Now ... Jesus was speaking of false prophets deceiving people. Peter is speaking of false prophets deceiving people. Jesus said "the elect" would not be deceived, Peter is writing to "the elect". Very clear correlation, if you ask me.

The author of Hebrews states that the gospel can be preached, which gives knowledge, but not profit the hearer unless it is united by faith. Where is the faith if one does not believe in spite of hearing a false doctrine?

Two very compelling reasons I cannot believe this verse is speaking of elect, regenerated Christians being once saved yet now losing salvation. Especially the words of Jesus Himself.

I do appreciate your new take on that passage, tho .. and it did redefine my view of that passage to a degree (although it actually redefined it in the opposite direction you intended ... it reminded me of the words of our Lord ... oops) ;)

humbled
Aug 14th 2008, 04:21 AM
... and you really think that fits into the context of running the race??? The greek does not bear that out. The phrase autos adokimos genōmai Literally translates to "I myself should become rejected."
Brother, I gave you my take on that passage even though I believe it to be a rabbit trail to the current conversation. I'd rather not continue down this path, if you don't mind. I'm sure curious to hear what a few of you have to say about some points previously raised in my recent posts, tho ...

Once we get some of that ironed out, perhaps the conversation will take the route you suggest here ... but I'm trying to stay focused :)

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 10:43 AM
You know what? I think I agree with your take here. I think it is speaking about those under false teaching rather than the teachers themselves (in the parts you indicated).

However, I'm not convinced that they ever had a saving faith in the knowledge they received. There are two key verses which come to mind that deter me from thinking you're correct in this assumption.

1. Jesus said "false prophets would be able to deceive if it were possible (implying that it is not) even the elect" (Matt 24.24)

2. The author of the Hebrews said "For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard." (Heb 4.2)

Now ... Jesus was speaking of false prophets deceiving people. Peter is speaking of false prophets deceiving people. Jesus said "the elect" would not be deceived, Peter is writing to "the elect". Very clear correlation, if you ask me.

The author of Hebrews states that the gospel can be preached, which gives knowledge, but not profit the hearer unless it is united by faith. Where is the faith if one does not believe in spite of hearing a false doctrine?

Two very compelling reasons I cannot believe this verse is speaking of elect, regenerated Christians being once saved yet now losing salvation. Especially the words of Jesus Himself.

I do appreciate your new take on that passage, tho .. and it did redefine my view of that passage to a degree (although it actually redefined it in the opposite direction you intended ... it reminded me of the words of our Lord ... oops) ;)
New? :lol: You and I have had that discussion more times than I can remember!!! ;)

You say that Matt 24:24 implies they can't be... but then it well could imply it possible too. Moreso likely that is the implication hence Jesus' next words laying it out.

Matthew 24:24 *"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
25 *"Behold, I have told you in advance.
26 *"If therefore they say to you, `Behold, He is in the wilderness,´ do not go forth, or, `Behold, He is in the inner rooms,´ do not believe them.
27 *"For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
28 *"Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

If Jesus was implying it not possible... then Jesus could have stopped there. Nothing else need be said. He didn't do that however. After this Jesus paints a picture of what it will be like when He does return. Then that chapter ends with this.

Matthew 24:44 *"For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
45 *¶"Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46 *"Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
47 *"Truly I say to you, that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
48 *"But if that evil slave says in his heart, `My master is not coming for a long time,´
49 *and shall begin to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards;
50 *the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know,
51 *and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth.

Again... good if you do this... bad if you don't.

Jesus is not in any way implying they can't be deceived if one takes context into consideration.

Firefighter
Aug 14th 2008, 11:52 AM
Humbled,

There is not much since in continuing. Paul was concerned about becoming rejected if he did not continue the race and not obtaining the prize. That is absolutely devastating to anything that remotely suggests OSAS. Without a plausible answer to that, there is really not much of a point.

humbled
Aug 14th 2008, 12:05 PM
Humbled,

There is not much since in continuing. Paul was concerned about becoming rejected if he did not continue the race and not obtaining the prize. That is absolutely devastating to anything that remotely suggests OSAS. Without a plausible answer to that, there is really not much of a point.Thanks for the conversation, then.

I said I was willing to discuss it, just not right now. I don't see the point of merely answering all the objections you raise from every random passage in Scripture if you're unwilling to remain in the passages we've been discussing thus far.

Take care :)

humbled
Aug 14th 2008, 12:10 PM
New? :lol: You and I have had that discussion more times than I can remember!!! ;)

You say that Matt 24:24 implies they can't be... but then it well could imply it possible too. Moreso likely that is the implication hence Jesus' next words laying it out.

Matthew 24:24 *"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
25 *"Behold, I have told you in advance.
26 *"If therefore they say to you, `Behold, He is in the wilderness,´ do not go forth, or, `Behold, He is in the inner rooms,´ do not believe them.
27 *"For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
28 *"Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

If Jesus was implying it not possible... then Jesus could have stopped there. Nothing else need be said. He didn't do that however. After this Jesus paints a picture of what it will be like when He does return. Then that chapter ends with this.

Matthew 24:44 *"For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
45 *¶"Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46 *"Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
47 *"Truly I say to you, that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
48 *"But if that evil slave says in his heart, `My master is not coming for a long time,´
49 *and shall begin to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards;
50 *the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know,
51 *and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth.

Again... good if you do this... bad if you don't.

Jesus is not in any way implying they can't be deceived if one takes context into consideration.Then why the words "if possible"?

I fully disagree that his admonition to not believe is in any way an admission that they would be deceived. The words themselves indicate that He is saying it is NOT possible, but the false prophets will be very deceptive and convincing.

I think we're gonna be at an impasse on this passage because I simply don't see it from your angle. I think you're inputting your doctrine (eisegeting the text) here to make the passage say what you want it to say, to be honest.

What about the other points, guys? C'mon now .. don't leave me in suspense! :lol:

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 12:21 PM
Then why the words "if possible"?

I fully disagree that his admonition to not believe is in any way an admission that they would be deceived. The words themselves indicate that He is saying it is NOT possible, but the false prophets will be very deceptive and convincing.

I think we're gonna be at an impasse on this passage because I simply don't see it from your angle. I think you're inputting your doctrine (eisegeting the text) here to make the passage say what you want it to say, to be honest.

What about the other points, guys? C'mon now .. don't leave me in suspense! :lol:I will take my troops (the most elite) and set up a perimeter around our objective and we will guard it. The enemy will send in their own dressed as civilians, if possible, to fool even the elite group of troops that I send.

It doesn't at all imply impossibility.

And it isn't inserting my doctrine at all. That's why I posted the rest of the text to show in context that Jesus wasn't implying impossibility. He showed it was in fact possible.

As to the other points... help me out there because apparently I missed something.

humbled
Aug 14th 2008, 12:32 PM
Don't see it. Even in your analogy, although it breaks down (as all do) because there is no evidence in your story of divine intervention to "open the eyes" of the elite troops with the truth (a field guide, let's say), spiritually discerned via the aid of a Governing Agent (a Holy Spirit if you will) indwelling the elite. ;)



1 Peter 1.6In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ

What does this mean, guys? What does "genuineness of faith" mean? Does it not mean that there is also a false faith? A merely professed faith? And how is that shown? According to Peter, it is shown by going through trials .. NOT by one's performance.

Peter is saying here (in the FIRST letter to the SAME group of people) that faith is proved by endurance through trials (various forms of persecution), NOT by performance according to a set of rules or benchmarks.

What are rules and benchmarks if not works? And what is the purpose of the Law in Scripture -- any law?


Oh, and Ken ... regarding the false prophets and what they escaped from ... do you agree that an unbeliever can escape the defilements of the world for a time?

I think the more poignant part of that passage is the very end of ch2:

20For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

They were showing the evidence of who they TRULY were. Peter interpreted the true proverb with a real world example right here. What else could it mean?


And about the fruit, Ken?

Is all fruit pertaining to salvation?

By the way ... ch 2, even tho there are no chapter divisions, is not about men who were saved. For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved. If the world overcomes, you are enslaved to the world. If corruption overcomes, you are enslaved to corruption. One who is enslaved to corruption was never freed from it, correct? For if the Son sets you free ... you are free indeed.

That point never gets addressed by you, either ... interesting.


Men who were saved, you say?

Let's look at something very interesting I noticed this morning ...

2 Peter 1.1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

What does that say, Ken? Their condemnation ... FROM LONG AGO. Now combine this verse with what our Lord says in John 3 regarding faith in people who are told (given a knowledge of) that Jesus is the Christ ...

John 3.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

So I am telling you that Peter is echoing Christ's own words here! He is saying that these false prophets -- who had a knowledge of, but did not believe that Jesus is the Christ -- were DENYING Him and were under condemnation due to their UNBELIEF. There is absolutely NO indication whatsoever that they ever DID believe! That's faulty eisegesis, Ken.

And as for "the Master who bought them" ... do we really have to rehash that? I've explained (as did an article I supplied) that "Master" - being the greek despotes - does not mean "Lord" as in Christ, but is a word that is in reference to the FATHER rather than the Son, and the word "bought" - being the greek agorazo - is not a word that is used with salvation, but rather is a word used with OWNERSHIP .. as in creative ownership. You simply disagree, and assert that your interpretation (without any exegesis whatsoever) is the correct one because you insert a faulty definition of the word while dismissing the commonality of the words in their typical usages.

And you never did answer me about the different types of fruit represented in Scripture (I missed it if you did, my friend), so do you believe that all fruit is the same? That all fruit is in regards to salvation?

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 14th 2008, 12:46 PM
You know what? I think I agree with your take here. I think it is speaking about those under false teaching rather than the teachers themselves (in the parts you indicated).

However, I'm not convinced that they ever had a saving faith in the knowledge they received. There are two key verses which come to mind that deter me from thinking you're correct in this assumption.

1. Jesus said "false prophets would be able to deceive if it were possible (implying that it is not) even the elect" (Matt 24.24)

2. The author of the Hebrews said "For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard." (Heb 4.2)

Now ... Jesus was speaking of false prophets deceiving people. Peter is speaking of false prophets deceiving people. Jesus said "the elect" would not be deceived, Peter is writing to "the elect". Very clear correlation, if you ask me.

The author of Hebrews states that the gospel can be preached, which gives knowledge, but not profit the hearer unless it is united by faith. Where is the faith if one does not believe in spite of hearing a false doctrine?

Two very compelling reasons I cannot believe this verse is speaking of elect, regenerated Christians being once saved yet now losing salvation. Especially the words of Jesus Himself.

I do appreciate your new take on that passage, tho .. and it did redefine my view of that passage to a degree (although it actually redefined it in the opposite direction you intended ... it reminded me of the words of our Lord ... oops) ;)


New? :lol: You and I have had that discussion more times than I can remember!!! ;)

You say that Matt 24:24 implies they can't be... but then it well could imply it possible too. Moreso likely that is the implication hence Jesus' next words laying it out.

Matthew 24:24 *"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
25 *"Behold, I have told you in advance.
26 *"If therefore they say to you, `Behold, He is in the wilderness,´ do not go forth, or, `Behold, He is in the inner rooms,´ do not believe them.
27 *"For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
28 *"Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

If Jesus was implying it not possible... then Jesus could have stopped there. Nothing else need be said. He didn't do that however. After this Jesus paints a picture of what it will be like when He does return. Then that chapter ends with this.

Matthew 24:44 *"For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
45 *¶"Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46 *"Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
47 *"Truly I say to you, that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
48 *"But if that evil slave says in his heart, `My master is not coming for a long time,´
49 *and shall begin to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards;
50 *the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know,
51 *and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth.

Again... good if you do this... bad if you don't.

Jesus is not in any way implying they can't be deceived if one takes context into consideration.

As usual Ken sums it up in a nutshell...;)

I will add this to the mix...

Galatians 1
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people (false teachers) are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Here we see that the Galatians were leaving the TRUE gospel and following after a false gospel, which was no gospel at all. Paul is warning the same way as he does in 1 Corinthians and Peter does in 2 Peter. These were "babes in Christ"...they were still on milk and were not established enough to discern the true from the false. It is a warning to be aware that these people will creep in and bring destructive heresies.

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 12:46 PM
Um... alrighty then.

I was trying to keep the post to one at your request but since you now ask for multiple replies... I'll break it down individually. Otherwise the post would be crazy long.

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 01:20 PM
1 Peter 1.6In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ

What does this mean, guys? What does "genuineness of faith" mean? Does it not mean that there is also a false faith? A merely professed faith? And how is that shown? According to Peter, it is shown by going through trials .. NOT by one's performance.

Peter is saying here (in the FIRST letter to the SAME group of people) that faith is proved by endurance through trials (various forms of persecution), NOT by performance according to a set of rules or benchmarks.

What are rules and benchmarks if not works? And what is the purpose of the Law in Scripture -- any law?Uh... sure it is about "performance" if you want to use such a word what with it being the big buzzword now days. That's what tested by fire is. Enduring... the outcome of your faith is the salvation of your soul. The "performance" is the result which brings praise, glory and honor at the appearing of Christ.

What is the therefore there for?

1 Peter 1:13 ¶Therefore, gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance,
15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;
16 because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."
17 And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each man's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth;
18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers,
19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
21 who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
22 ¶Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,
23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God.
24 For, "ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS, AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF,
25 BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ABIDES FOREVER." And this is the word which was preached to you.

That direction (performance) is pretty much what the rest of that letter is about. The proof of your faith.

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 01:22 PM
Oh, and Ken ... regarding the false prophets and what they escaped from ... do you agree that an unbeliever can escape the defilements of the world for a time?

I think the more poignant part of that passage is the very end of ch2:

20For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

They were showing the evidence of who they TRULY were. Peter interpreted the true proverb with a real world example right here. What else could it mean?
I already responded to this and the answer to your question was a resounding NO. As well I saw that 2 Peter already corrected who it was written to and you were sort of swamped so figured no need for me to just add another post saying the same thing.

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 01:24 PM
And about the fruit, Ken?

Is all fruit pertaining to salvation?

By the way ... ch 2, even tho there are no chapter divisions, is not about men who were saved. For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved. If the world overcomes, you are enslaved to the world. If corruption overcomes, you are enslaved to corruption. One who is enslaved to corruption was never freed from it, correct? For if the Son sets you free ... you are free indeed.

That point never gets addressed by you, either ... interesting.I answered this as well. It doesn't matter "all fruit" because we are talking specific fruit in a specific passage with a specific context. As to Chapter 2 of second Peter... it is about men who were saved hence what I have been responding to the last few post just to hear you say I haven't responded. :rolleyes:

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 01:37 PM
Men who were saved, you say?And yet you said... I still didn't respond. Yet here you answered my response... I really do hope you are picking up on that fact. ;)




Let's look at something very interesting I noticed this morning ...

2 Peter 1.1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

What does that say, Ken? Their condemnation ... FROM LONG AGO. Now combine this verse with what our Lord says in John 3 regarding faith in people who are told (given a knowledge of) that Jesus is the Christ ...John,

He goes on to explain what that means by giving examples of judgment meted out "long ago."

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds),
9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,
10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,
11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.


Peter is letting us know... God ain't changing. Hasn't, won't, period. God judged this long ago and God will judge it the same.


John 3.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

So I am telling you that Peter is echoing Christ's own words here! He is saying that these false prophets -- who had a knowledge of, but did not believe that Jesus is the Christ -- were DENYING Him and were under condemnation due to their UNBELIEF. There is absolutely NO indication whatsoever that they ever DID believe! That's faulty eisegesis, Ken.Uh... not it isn't. Read above. I didn't take a phrase and then insert doctrine and ignore the context. That would be faulty would it not?


And as for "the Master who bought them" ... do we really have to rehash that? I've explained (as did an article I supplied) that "Master" - being the greek despotes - does not mean "Lord" as in Christ, but is a word that is in reference to the FATHER rather than the Son, and the word "bought" - being the greek agorazo - is not a word that is used with salvation, but rather is a word used with OWNERSHIP .. as in creative ownership. You simply disagree, and assert that your interpretation (without any exegesis whatsoever) is the correct one because you insert a faulty definition of the word while dismissing the commonality of the words in their typical usages.yeah, yeah, yeah. Peter was talking about God and not Jesus and ownership and not being purchased because Peter didn't understand that this ultimately meant nothing. Naturally if it didn't suit you elsewhere you'd be hollering that JESUS is God. ;)


And you never did answer me about the different types of fruit represented in Scripture (I missed it if you did, my friend), so do you believe that all fruit is the same? That all fruit is in regards to salvation?Sure I did. I said in this passage we're discussing it does as context shows. Doesn't matter if it is talking about a grape to eat or drink the juice (literally) or if it talking about a grape with some spiritual meaning. Context tells us. Context here is speaking of salvation.

Buck shot
Aug 14th 2008, 04:30 PM
And thanks for leaving it...NON-KJV:lol:

I did that just for you Brother! I have knowledge of your view...:rofl:

humbled
Aug 14th 2008, 05:01 PM
Um... alrighty then.

I was trying to keep the post to one at your request but since you now ask for multiple replies... I'll break it down individually. Otherwise the post would be crazy long.lol ... I appreciate that, but the only reply you gave yesterday was "I'll type slower" :lol:

I was giving you the option, for each of those posts were missed or dismissed. It wasn't a challenge to pack 'em all down on me today!

I'll try to make some time to consider what you've said above and get back to you by this weekend (Lord willing)

Thanks

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 05:04 PM
Take your time. We're moving on up to Tennessee tomorrow so I'll be pretty busy too for a few days once I get there. Have the laptops and mobile connection so I'll be in and out as I can.

humbled
Aug 30th 2008, 06:10 PM
Sorry it's taken so long for me to get back to these points, but they were a bit daunting since there was so much to cover. I doubt I hit on every point you raised, but I want to take it piece by piece. Look forward to hearing back from you, brother.

Uh... sure it is about "performance" if you want to use such a word what with it being the big buzzword now days. That's what tested by fire is. Enduring... the outcome of your faith is the salvation of your soul. The "performance" is the result which brings praise, glory and honor at the appearing of Christ. I think it's the word "testing" that is confusing to some. When they "tested" gold in the fire, do you think they were just hoping the gold would survive? Or perhaps the "testing" was to PURIFY the gold and remove the dross ... That is why Peter uses the analogy. Those tested by trials are being purified.



That direction (performance) is pretty much what the rest of that letter is about. The proof of your faith.hmm .. when a Reformer uses this phrase, it's not valid. But you are right here .. the perseverance is indeed PROOF of their faith. What does that say about those who don't persevere? No faith. Or at least no GENUINENESS to their faith.


I already responded to this and the answer to your question was a resounding NO. As well I saw that 2 Peter already corrected who it was written to and you were sort of swamped so figured no need for me to just add another post saying the same thing.If an unbeliever cannot escape for a time, then what does that proverb mean? They were genuine saved Christians, and also a dog returning to their vomit? A pig returning to wallow in the mire? How can this be? What is the point of that proverb, if not to show that their confession was simply a ruse to cajole people into following them?

THAT is the point of 2 Peter 2. Don't believe everything you hear.




I answered this as well. It doesn't matter "all fruit" because we are talking specific fruit in a specific passage with a specific context. As to Chapter 2 of second Peter... it is about men who were saved hence what I have been responding to the last few post just to hear you say I haven't responded. :rolleyes:Sorry ... I didn't really see this as an answer. More of a dodge. John 15 is used as evidence that fruitlessness means no salvation (regardless of whether they had it in the first place, that's not the argument for the moment). But when I say "what kind of fruit was being spoken of" you argue specifics? All fruit is not the same. The fruit here is very clearly stated to be KNOWLEDGE of our Lord Jesus Christ. NOT faith. One can have faith that Christ has atoned for their sins, yet be very ignorant of Christian things (see 1 Corinthians for evidence of that). They were quite clearly unfruitful in their knowledge of Christ. But Paul exhorted them as babes IN CHRIST.

The type of fruit here is very telling. It is not salvific fruit, but rather sanctifying fruit ... growing fruit. As you see this passage, salvation is by faith, virtue, knowledge, self control ... and a bit of grace as long as these conditions are met, right?

I just don't see any understanding of the gospel in your preaching, Ken. Please tell me where the good news is in your view.



yeah, yeah, yeah. Peter was talking about God and not Jesus and ownership and not being purchased because Peter didn't understand that this ultimately meant nothing. Naturally if it didn't suit you elsewhere you'd be hollering that JESUS is God. ;)Ken, did Jesus pray to Himself in the Garden? Can someone speak of the Father without speaking of the Son? You know that I'm not denying the deity of Christ, so why would you say something like this? I said Peter was speaking about the FATHER and not the SON .. not about God and not Jesus.

But I will concede that Peter, like Jude (both letters are nearly identical), was speaking about our Master and Lord Jesus Christ (Jude 4). But agorazo is still not in reference to redemption. It is in reference to possession, Christ created them, and as such owns them. He bought them by creating them, not by bleeding for them.


Sure I did. I said in this passage we're discussing it does as context shows. Doesn't matter if it is talking about a grape to eat or drink the juice (literally) or if it talking about a grape with some spiritual meaning. Context tells us. Context here is speaking of salvation.How can you see context as being salvation when it clearly speaks of KNOWLEDGE and not faith? Do you really believe that a Christian will be unsaved unless they GROW in knowledge? Really, Ken?

paidforinfull
Nov 15th 2008, 01:59 AM
Wow - this is a long thread, and I simply don't have the time to read all the posts for/against OSAS, but would like to add my :2cents:

John 10:28-29 - And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

and

Ro 8:38-39 - For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,
39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
-----------------

Well, the way I see it, I am also someone. This means that even I cannot pluck myself from God's hand. He simply won't allow that to happen.

I am of the opinion that truly saved Christians cannot fall away. They can backslide, yes, but they cannot fall away.

Those who fall away have never really been saved to begin with. (This principle is explained in the parable of the sower.)

I know without a doubt that I am saved, that I will go to heaven, and that nothing, not even myself, can ever take me out of my Father's Hand.

God bless.

TrustingFollower
Nov 18th 2008, 02:50 AM
This debate is over and the thread is being locked.