PDA

View Full Version : Eternal Security (Once Saved Always Saved)



lordzboy
Apr 5th 2007, 02:46 AM
I was a Christian for 17 years before i started understanding the eternal security message and now for the life of me i can't see how anyone can see it any different. The funny thing is, most (not all) of the scriptures that people use to support a "maintained" salvation is the same scriptures people use to support eternal security. What say you?

The Parson
Apr 9th 2007, 02:34 PM
Good start but this one actually belongs in Bible Chat due to the nature of the subject.

OneStep
Apr 9th 2007, 03:21 PM
I was a Christian for 17 years before i started understanding the eternal security message and now for the life of me i can't see how anyone can see it any different. The funny thing is, most (not all) of the scriptures that people use to support a "maintained" salvation is the same scriptures people use to support eternal security. What say you?

Share please, if you will, the scriptures you speak of.

jiggyfly
Apr 9th 2007, 04:45 PM
Share please, if you will, the scriptures you speak of.
I too am very interested in the scriptures you speak of.

taddy
Apr 9th 2007, 08:54 PM
I don't believe in "Once saved, always saved".

MARK 4:5 (from the sower)

"And some {seed} fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth".

MARK 4:16-17

" {16}And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who when they have heard the Word, immediately receive it with gladness; {17} And have no root in themselves, and so endure for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth, immediately they are offended".

These verses clearly tell us that these people have been born again. (IMMEDIATELY RECIEVE IT, ENDURE FOR A TIME), and then fell from grace when bad times come.

GALATIANS 5:4

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law; you are FALLEN FROM GRACE.

Clearly states that Salvation can be lost. You can not fall from grace, unless you have been saved by grace.

1 TIMOTHY 4:16

"Take heed unto yourself, and unto the Doctrine; CONTINE IN THEM: for in doing this you shall save yourself and them who hear you"

Notice the phrase "CONTINUE IN THEM". This implies that a person can indeed DISCONTINUE in the Doctrine. If once saved always saved is true, then this verse would not need to be in the Bible!

HEBREWS 10:26

"For if WE sin willfully after that we have recieved the knowledge of the Truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins".

Notice Paul included himself in this verse ( if WE sin...). Paul was indeed saved. In this verse, Paul is admitting that he and all other Christians are capable of sinning and leaving their salvation. Also notice that it says "RECIEVED the knowledge of the Truth". Any translation of the Bible that says "BELIEVED" instead of "RECIEVED" is not an accurate version. To recieve the knowledge of the Truth clearly means to get saved. The message of this verse is the same as Galatians 5:4.

2 PETER 3:17

"You therefore, beloved, seeing you know these things before, BEWARE LEST YOU ALSO, BEING LED AWAY WITH THE ERROR OF THE WICKED, FALL FROM YOUR OWN STEADFASTNESS".

This verse clearly disprooves once saved, always saved.


REVELATION 22:19
"And if any man {or worman} shall take away from the words of this Prophesy, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART IN THE BOOK OF LIFE, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are wriiten in this Book {The Book of Revelation}".

"GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART IN THE BOOK OF LIFE". A person's name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life at SALVATION and only at Salvation. This definately disprooves "Once saved, always saved".

If you have lost your salvation, the good news is that Jesus will forgive you and bring you back to Salvation.

1 JOHN 1:9

"IF we confess our sins, He {JESUS} is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness".


I hope this helps. I know that this a very controversial topic. I would have never have started this topic, but since it was here, I felt like sharing my views.

GOD bless, Tad.

Centurionoflight
Apr 9th 2007, 09:15 PM
taddy



I don't believe in "Once saved, always saved".

MARK 4:5 (from the sower)

"And some {seed} fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth".

MARK 4:16-17

" {16}And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who when they have heard the Word, immediately receive it with gladness; {17} And have no root in themselves, and so endure for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth, immediately they are offended".

These verses clearly tell us that these people have been born again. (IMMEDIATELY RECIEVE IT, ENDURE FOR A TIME), and then fell from grace when bad times come.


They did take root..
The seed did grow.
Produce fruit; No;
Take root; yep

That is salvation



GALATIANS 5:4

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law; you are FALLEN FROM GRACE.

Clearly states that Salvation can be lost. You can not fall from grace, unless you have been saved by grace.


One shouldnt Add salvation to a passage that is not about salvation.

They didnt lose salvation; rather they used works to justify them self rather than grace {Which cant be earned or kept.}.



1 TIMOTHY 4:16

"Take heed unto yourself, and unto the Doctrine; CONTINE IN THEM: for in doing this you shall save yourself and them who hear you"

Notice the phrase "CONTINUE IN THEM". This implies that a person can indeed DISCONTINUE in the Doctrine. If once saved always saved is true, then this verse would not need to be in the Bible!


If one isnt in truth; then how do they know if they are saved.

This is the plea of Paul for us to stay in true doctrine.

This is not about losing salvation.



HEBREWS 10:26

"For if WE sin willfully after that we have recieved the knowledge of the Truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins".

Notice Paul included himself in this verse ( if WE sin...). Paul was indeed saved. In this verse, Paul is admitting that he and all other Christians are capable of sinning and leaving their salvation. Also notice that it says "RECIEVED the knowledge of the Truth". Any translation of the Bible that says "BELIEVED" instead of "RECIEVED" is not an accurate version. To recieve the knowledge of the Truth clearly means to get saved. The message of this verse is the same as Galatians 5:4.


Salvation isnt mentioned here; why add it to fit a dogma.

There is no more animal sacrifice for sins; because of Christs work.
We turn to him over sin; not some alter with a burning beast on it.





2 PETER 3:17

"You therefore, beloved, seeing you know these things before, BEWARE LEST YOU ALSO, BEING LED AWAY WITH THE ERROR OF THE WICKED, FALL FROM YOUR OWN STEADFASTNESS".

This verse clearly disprooves once saved, always saved.


Steadfeastness; not salvation is the subject.




REVELATION 22:19
"And if any man {or worman} shall take away from the words of this Prophesy, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART IN THE BOOK OF LIFE, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are wriiten in this Book {The Book of Revelation}".

"GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART IN THE BOOK OF LIFE". A person's name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life at SALVATION and only at Salvation. This definately disprooves "Once saved, always saved".


Take away his part;

And take away his life.

If one is adding or removing from that book they can lose their life; and their {part} reward




1 JOHN 1:9

"IF we confess our sins, He {JESUS} is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness".


That isnt salvation; that is the point of HEBREWS 10:26; we turn to Christ when we sin.

This is done by believers.
To say its salvation make sin the issue of salvation not Christ.

CHRIST; not sin is the issue of salvation.

John 3
18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Chris38
Apr 9th 2007, 10:25 PM
CHRIST; not sin is the issue of salvation.


Excellant response. If sin is what decides our salvation then the Bible says that we all fall short.

I use to believe that one pretty much had to be spotless in order to be saved. I know at least my first ten years as a christian I was the most miserable christian I knew because I believed that I wasnt good enough becaues of my shortcomings. But then God started showing me that nobody can earn salvation. All this was shown to me from God teaching me the differance between the old and new covenant.
Lordzboy knows my story well.

OneStep
Apr 9th 2007, 10:30 PM
So is it that you believe as the Universalist do? All are saved?
Will still wait for scripture to show OSAS

Chris38
Apr 9th 2007, 11:02 PM
So is it that you believe as the Universalist do? All are saved?
Will still wait for scripture to show OSAS
I said nothing about all being saved. And never said there is a scripture that says once saved always saved. But I do believe that it was the act of Christ being sacrificed that brings salvation and our acceptance of that.

Can someone lose there salvation? I dont know.I certainly have never seen any examples of that in the Bible, except for Judas. But I do know the bible says that all have sinned and fall short. If our sins condenm us then what was the purpose of Christ being sacrificed. That power that sin had over us is broken and the righteousness from Christ has set me free from that.


Now there are those who would use that as a ticket to do whatever they want to, and people like this I would have to question if they ever were saved to begin with.

OneStep
Apr 9th 2007, 11:16 PM
Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were advocating the OSAS.
Do you believe in "backsliders"? Or is that under the heading of never being a Christian.
You state "Now there are those who would use that as a ticket to do whatever they want to, and people like this I would have to question if they ever were saved to begin with."
To me it appears that people are faced with sin every day and it is a "daily dying" of the self/flesh. 1Corinthians 15:31 tells us it is daily...therefore, I see not how it can be OSAS.

Centurionoflight
Apr 9th 2007, 11:18 PM
OneStep



So is it that you believe as the Universalist do? All are saved?
Will still wait for scripture to show OSAS
Still waiting for the scripture that shows we can become unborn.

Like if I denied what I was;
Or did something my parents disliked

Would I suddenly become a fetus?
Just whoosh; plop to the floor;
There I am; what I was before I was born.

Such silliness.

We cant return in the flesh to what we was before.
We cant return in the spirit to what we was before salvation.
It is a one way ticket.


2 Corinthians 5:17

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

We are born of the spirit; by God.

John 1


12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

We are not born by our will; by being good; by doing something.

We are spiritually born by God.

This is not reversable.
If it was; then it wouldnt be a birth.

*Madeline*
Apr 9th 2007, 11:24 PM
Hi Centurionoflight!:)

What about this?:)

2 Peter 2:20 - For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

I believe in Eternal Security, I just wanted to know how you interpret this verse.:)

Love,
Madeline

Centurionoflight
Apr 9th 2007, 11:27 PM
*Madeline*




2 Peter 2:20 - For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
Now they have a father who will flog them to keep on the straight and narrow.

For them;

It is worse;
They now have disipline, where none existed before.
They now know the truth and must suppress it to continue their path.
They now cant look to salvation as a way to make peace with God; for they are saved and they are one of his wayward sons.

Chris38
Apr 9th 2007, 11:41 PM
Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were advocating the OSAS.
Do you believe in "backsliders"? Or is that under the heading of never being a Christian.
You state "Now there are those who would use that as a ticket to do whatever they want to, and people like this I would have to question if they ever were saved to begin with."
To me it appears that people are faced with sin every day and it is a "daily dying" of the self/flesh. 1Corinthians 15:31 tells us it is daily...therefore, I see not how it can be OSAS.

Oh I do believe in backsliding. As a matter of fact have done it before myself. Although I never fell back into drugs and such, I have been to the point where I wasnt seeking God the way I use to; this would be considered backsliding and I still believe if something would have happened to me I still would have gone with Christ.
And you are correct about dying daily which Paul spoke of. But Paul also said that there is none righteous. That we all sin. So when you talk about dying daily, does it mean you never sin? And if the fact that our sins determine rather or not that we are saved then where does grace come into play.
1st John 1:8
If we say we have no sin, we deceave ourselves and the truth is not in us.
So it is obvious that sin is present with us. And if that fact determines our salvation then we will all fall short.

*Madeline*
Apr 9th 2007, 11:49 PM
Hi again!:)


*Madeline*

Now they have a father who will flog them to keep on the straight and narrow.

For them;

It is worse;
They now have disipline, where none existed before.
They now know the truth and must suppress it to continue their path.
They now cant look to salvation as a way to make peace with God; for they are saved and they are one of his wayward sons.

COL, it says that "the latter end is worse with them than the beginning." How is being a LOST person who is headed to an eternity in hell fire not worse than being one of his wayward sons? In the beginning they're LOST, however the "wayward son" is still saved...so how is a wayward son worse than someone who is headed for an eternity in hell? Sorry If I am confusing you. Thanks in advance!:)

Love,
Madeline

Centurionoflight
Apr 10th 2007, 12:19 AM
*Madeline*



COL, it says that "the latter end is worse with them than the beginning." How is being a LOST person who is headed to an eternity in hell fire not worse than being one of his wayward sons? In the beginning they're LOST, however the "wayward son" is still saved...so how is a wayward son worse than someone who is headed for an eternity in hell? Sorry If I am confusing you. Thanks in advance!
This isnt about a lost; person nor is that a factor to compare.


Their state; on this world; Is worse.

20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
Thier first state was related to this world, for they have escaped its
defilements.

Thier last state is worse than their there first state; in this world.

For they have returned willingly and with drive to that which they escaped.

They have to push to keep in that state; there is mental sins that go with this push.

God will disipline them and perhaps let them suffer the sin face to face with death.

This is a worse state, on this world, than they was in before.

DSK
Apr 10th 2007, 12:27 AM
The more replys I read on the topic of Eternal Security, the more convinced I am that it would be best to just post the Scripture dealing with this topic, either for or against Eternal Security, and completely dispense of all the opinions. Once the Scriptures are posted, let the readers decide for theirselves without being confused by all the commentary and opinion that doesn't do justice to what the Scriptures truly say concerning this highly debatable subject.

Centurionoflight
Apr 10th 2007, 12:34 AM
DSK


The more replys I read on the topic of Eternal Security, the more convinced I am that it would be best to just post the Scripture dealing with this topic, either for or against Eternal Security, and completely dispense of all the opinions. Once the Scriptures are posted, let the readers decide for theirselves without being confused by all the commentary and opinion that doesn't do justice to what the Scriptures truly say concerning this highly debatable subject.

Rather than focus on line by line and jot by jot thinking.

Why not state how does the position fit into the other attributes of God.
Show how the thinking of Christ is in the NOSAS positon; I cant see it.

On NOSAS;
It conflicts with the Good shepherd.
It conflicts with the imputation of Righteousness.
It conflicts with the second birth.
It conflicts with grace, and much more grace.
It conflicts with the work of Christ the starter and completer of our faith.


The whole ideas {Doctrine} of NOSAS


1) It Takes the focus off christ and brings it upon man and sin.
2) It introduces legalism as a replacement of the work of Christ.
3) It ignores the work of Christ on the Cross which covered ALL sin.
4) It intruduces Crusader Arrogance as a method to fight sin.
5) It Uses a Spirit of bondage and fear for control
6) It introduces busybodies to watch and make sure other Christians dont get away with any thing, if they are then thump em with hellfire threats.

This is in part why I reject it.

CrunchyChristian
Apr 10th 2007, 01:04 AM
The first scripture that came to my mind when reading this thread was this:

Revelation 3:15-16 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."

Do you feel this pertains to salvation? If OSAS is biblical, then how can God "vomit you out of {His} mouth?"

I think salvation needs to be defined: biblically.

This is a very sticky subject. If you read Hebrews 6:4-6, it says "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

However, in John 5:24 Christ says: "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

And in John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."

But, once again in Hebrews (10:35-39) "So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. For in just a very little while,

"He who is coming will come and will not delay.
But my righteous one will live by faith.
And if he shrinks back,
I will not be pleased with him."

But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved"

I feel the need to say, that backsliding is one thing. Banking on God's grace is another.

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 01:04 AM
John 15

1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.

2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.

3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.

5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is (thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 01:15 AM
Matthew 13

18"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

In verse 22 we see that they were unfruitful, with out fruit you are thrown into the fire.

Matthew 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

John 15:2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.

It is interesting to see that after he gives the parable of the sower in chapter 13 of Matthew, he immediately gives the parable of the wheat and weeds.

The Parable of the Weeds
Matthew 13

24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.

This parable has the same chracteristics as the first parable, Seed is sown by God and then Satan comes along and sow bad seeds or takes away the good seed and this results in judgement because of the seeds that did not bear good fruit but were worthless.

chal
Apr 10th 2007, 12:44 PM
I said nothing about all being saved. And never said there is a scripture that says once saved always saved. But I do believe that it was the act of Christ being sacrificed that brings salvation and our acceptance of that.

Can someone lose there salvation? I dont know.I certainly have never seen any examples of that in the Bible, except for Judas. But I do know the bible says that all have sinned and fall short. If our sins condenm us then what was the purpose of Christ being sacrificed. That power that sin had over us is broken and the righteousness from Christ has set me free from that.


Now there are those who would use that as a ticket to do whatever they want to, and people like this I would have to question if they ever were saved to begin with.

chal > This is the inevitable OSAS Chicken/Egg proclamation that sprouts up in every discussion on the subject.

Questioning someone's salvation doesn't prove or disprove OSAS.

Amen to the fact that it's Christ that saves us (from our sins, not in them).

jiggyfly
Apr 10th 2007, 01:09 PM
The more replys I read on the topic of Eternal Security, the more convinced I am that it would be best to just post the Scripture dealing with this topic, either for or against Eternal Security, and completely dispense of all the opinions. Once the Scriptures are posted, let the readers decide for theirselves without being confused by all the commentary and opinion that doesn't do justice to what the Scriptures truly say concerning this highly debatable subject.

Very, very wise DSK, the bottom line is our opinions do not change the Truth but hopefully the Truth changes our opinions, and this is accomplished by the power of HolySpirit not commentary.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 10th 2007, 01:30 PM
For consideration, in Acts 13: 16-52 we see a record of Paul's preaching at the synagogue in Iconium, whereas you will or should see -- both God's election and man's choice being masterfully intertwined by Paul's speech to persuade the Jews and Greeks of the audience to "respond" to the Gospel... Some will, some will not... The why they do or the why do not I see as this post's underlining question, so agreeing with DSK on this one point... for now, I will leave out any further comments or highlights and suggest one prayerfully study this passage and let scripture form your own conclusions...

Acts 13: 16-52

16 Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen:
17 "The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He led them out from it.
18 "For a period of about forty years He put up with them in the wilderness.
19 "When He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land as an inheritance--all of which took about four hundred and fifty years.

20 "After these things He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet.
21 "Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.
22 "After He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, 'I HAVE FOUND DAVID the son of Jesse, A MAN AFTER MY HEART, who will do all My will.'
23 "From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus,
24 after John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

25 "And while John was completing his course, he kept saying, 'What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. But behold, one is coming after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.'
26 "Brethren, sons of Abraham's family, and those among you who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent.
27 "For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him.
28 "And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed.
29 "When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb.

30 "But God raised Him from the dead;
31 and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people.
32 "And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers,
33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'
34 "As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: 'I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.'

35 "Therefore He also says in another Psalm, 'YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.'
36 "For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay;
37 but He whom God raised did not undergo decay.

38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,
39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

40 "Therefore take heed, so that the thing spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon you:
41 'BEHOLD, YOU SCOFFERS, AND MARVEL, AND PERISH;
FOR I AM ACCOMPLISHING A WORK IN YOUR DAYS,
A WORK WHICH YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE, THOUGH SOMEONE SHOULD DESCRIBE IT TO YOU.'"

42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath.
43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.
44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.

45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming.
46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

47 "For so the Lord has commanded us,
'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES,
THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'"
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

49 And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region.
50 But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.
51 But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium.
52 And the disciples were continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.


For God's Glory...

hillbilly dave
Apr 10th 2007, 01:36 PM
I believe in OSAS. First, John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, That whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. Every one who hears this will have the seed planted some people will believe therefor the roots are established. Some will hear and reject those would be as if the fowel of the air coming to devour them up. Second, We all will never walk perfectly with Jesus. But Hebrews 12:6-8 states ; For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chateneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. We all who believe in Jesus have at some point changed courses and from personal experience was whipped by God to return to a straighter course I can do nothing to save myself from Hell other than to accept the Mercy and Grace God showed me in his Son Jesus. For we will not be perfect until we are on the other side of glory. As Jesus told the Jews when they brought the woman to the temple for him to judge her for adultry and wanting to stone her; Jesus said; " If any be here without sin cast the first stone"; the only one there that could cast a stone simply stated go and sin no more. That is what we are all called into is not to willfully sin. Just a question that needs no public answer, when we awakened this morning what was first on our minds God or the world. If it was not God are we still saved?

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 10th 2007, 01:39 PM
Very, very wise DSK, the bottom line is our opinions do not change the Truth but hopefully the Truth changes our opinions, and this is accomplished by the power of HolySpirit not commentary.


Just to state to the highlight that God does use godly teachers to reveal understandings to His word...

Ephesians 4:11-16
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.


For God's Glory...

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 02:09 PM
*Madeline*

Now they have a father who will flog them to keep on the straight and narrow.

For them;

It is worse;
They now have disipline, where none existed before.
They now know the truth and must suppress it to continue their path.
They now cant look to salvation as a way to make peace with God; for they are saved and they are one of his wayward sons.
I just posted on this issue in the peanut gallery thread on the debate.

Hebrews 10:26 ¶For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.

This ain't talking about a spanking. Just simple disciplinary action etc. It is talking about being consumed with God's wrath... and you are counted an adversary.

cheech
Apr 10th 2007, 02:12 PM
Luke 12:35-48
Watchfulness

35"Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, 36like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. 37It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. 38It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. 39But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

41Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?"

42The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.


Those who knows God's will will suffer worse than those who do not. He will be placed with the unbelievers...and what happens to unbelievers?

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 02:35 PM
*Madeline*

This isnt about a lost; person nor is that a factor to compare.


Their state; on this world; Is worse.

20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
Thier first state was related to this world, for they have escaped its
defilements.

Thier last state is worse than their there first state; in this world.

For they have returned willingly and with drive to that which they escaped.

They have to push to keep in that state; there is mental sins that go with this push.

God will disipline them and perhaps let them suffer the sin face to face with death.

This is a worse state, on this world, than they was in before.
James 5:19 ¶My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back,
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.

The person that strays from the truth but is brought back... a sinner who soul was saved from death.

But notice... he was again a sinner who's soul needed saved from death.

hillbilly dave
Apr 10th 2007, 02:55 PM
Just a question Project Peter, so in what you stated in James 5:19-20 none of us are saved. Just want to better understand your position. Because unless I read my Bible wrong we are all deserving of Hell were it not for the Grace and Mercy of God. What do you consider sin?
No disrespect intended. Only a friendly question.

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 03:16 PM
Just a question Project Peter, so in what you stated in James 5:19-20 none of us are saved. Just want to better understand your position. Because unless I read my Bible wrong we are all deserving of Hell were it not for the Grace and Mercy of God. What do you consider sin?
No disrespect intended. Only a friendly question.
Why would you think none of us are saved? I need to understand that before I can even begin to understand what you are asking and I'll let you clarify instead of me assuming.

Centurionoflight
Apr 10th 2007, 03:30 PM
ProjectPeter


Hebrews 10:26 ¶For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.




James 5:19 ¶My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back,
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.

The person that strays from the truth but is brought back... a sinner who soul was saved from death.

But notice... he was again a sinner who's soul needed saved from death.


Love how you avoid whole doctrines; yet jump on a line or jot like a duck on a june bug.

However;

The death here is of the flesh; not the spirit.
Those who stay in sin; will die the sin face to face with death.
This is a judgement of great pain and misery in death.
To say its of the spirit is to say Christs work is lacking.

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 04:04 PM
Please read this


Matthew 13

18"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

In verse 22 we see that they were unfruitful, with out fruit you are thrown into the fire.

Matthew 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

John 15:2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.

It is interesting to see that after he gives the parable of the sower in chapter 13 of Matthew, he immediately gives the parable of the wheat and weeds.

The Parable of the Weeds
Matthew 13

24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.

This parable has the same chracteristics as the first parable, Seed is sown by God and then Satan comes along and sow bad seeds or takes away the good seed and this results in judgement because of the seeds that did not bear good fruit but were worthless.

here again we are told no fruits in Jesus you are thrown into the fire.

John 15

1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.

2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.

3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.

5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is (thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Centurionoflight
Apr 10th 2007, 04:11 PM
Is the fire the fire of hell?
Or the fire of his disipline upon us while we are on earth?

IF you say its the fire is of hell then God is a liar.

John 3

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 04:13 PM
ProjectPeter




Love how you avoid whole doctrines; yet jump on a line or jot like a duck on a june bug.

However;

The death here is of the flesh; not the spirit.
Those who stay in sin; will die the sin face to face with death.
This is a judgement of great pain and misery in death.
To say its of the spirit is to say Christs work is lacking.With the admin hat on let me state this now. If you are going to simply go on and on with the line upon line mess as you have done in the past month... just ignore the thread. It is getting way beyond old now. It doesn't do anything to further the conversation and you are tossing it out now just to insult folks. You were doing that with me in the other threads and I let it go. Now it seems to be your motto with everyone that disagrees with you and discusses the Bible. So enough is enough.

Now... Admin hat off.

The last verse in that chapter makes it clear what it is speaking of.

Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.


Destruction for those that slide back... for those that continue/persevere... the preserving of the soul. In other words... if you do slide back to this point then there is no preserving of the soul.

Frances
Apr 10th 2007, 04:13 PM
Centurion
I'm wondering at what point you consider a person Saved? Consider the parable of the Sower. The seed on the path was completely lost. Some fell on the rock, the seed germinated - then died through lack of moisture. Some fell among thorns, germinated and grew - yet was choked by weeds. Some fell on good ground, and only they produced a crop.

Threequarters of the seed germinated - in your estimation were those folk Saved? If not, why not?

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 04:17 PM
Is the fire the fire of hell?
Or the fire of his disipline upon us while we are on earth?

IF you say its the fire is of hell then God is a liar.

John 3

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Does God discipline His enemies or just His children? Let me go ahead and answer. Only His children.

Hebrews 12:4 You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin;
5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, "MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
6 FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES."
7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness.
11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.


Yet here that passage makes it clear that it is the same fire His enemies will endure. That isn't speaking of chastisement but judgment.

Hebrews 10:26 ¶For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 05:00 PM
Is the fire the fire of hell?
Or the fire of his disipline upon us while we are on earth?

IF you say its the fire is of hell then God is a liar.

John 3

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Ok you are completey wrong firend, We are told that the angels gather them together at the end of the age and that they are thrown into the fire.

John 3

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

This is true, but I think that your definition of belief is completely diiferent than Jesus' definition of belief.

James 2

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

You see it is the belief that Abraham had that God saves by, A belief working with your actions

This is my analogy, I am a weather man and there is a tornado coming your way tomarrow and then I tell you what you must do to be saved from it, so if you believe me you can be saved from it. So you say you believe me and then tomarrow comes around and you dont do anything that I told you to do to be saved, so you perish. On the other hand I told some one else in you area the same thing and they didn't tell me they believed me, they just did everything I told them to do and they were saved. You see the ones who acted where the ones who really believed me.

This what Jesus Is trying to tell us in so many parable and messages he gave to the people, for example here is one.

The Parable of the Two Sons

Matthew 21
28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

The first son had true belief true faith because he did what the Fater told him to do and he inherited the Kingdom of God, not by works, but by the faith that his works came from!

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 05:12 PM
James2: 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.


And one pillar of Protestantism bites the dust?

JD

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 05:20 PM
And one pillar of Protestantism bites the dust?

JD
How is that?

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 10th 2007, 06:16 PM
Centurion
I'm wondering at what point you consider a person Saved? Consider the parable of the Sower. The seed on the path was completely lost. Some fell on the rock, the seed germinated - then died through lack of moisture. Some fell among thorns, germinated and grew - yet was choked by weeds. Some fell on good ground, and only they produced a crop.

Threequarters of the seed germinated - in your estimation were those folk Saved? If not, why not?

Is it the seed -- or is it the type of soil with the seed that is the focus?

If you are a home owner with land under your home, would you throw seed haphazardly, or would you prepare and till the soil - and then methodically spread, and weed, and cut your own lawn or crop to make sure it is as you want? Or would you not prepare the ground first and just throw the seed into the wind and let it develop where it may? So would you be happier if your whole lawn came up, or just a portion?

Meaning: The prepared soil will not fail, for the owner will not let it fail for he would and will spend energy to make sure it starts and finishes [grows] right.

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 06:26 PM
Is it the seed -- or is it the type of soil with the seed that is the focus?

If you are a home owner with land under your home, would you throw seed haphazardly, or would you prepare and till the soil - and then methodically spread, and weed, and cut your own lawn or crop to make sure it is as you want? Or would you not prepare the ground first and just throw the seed into the wind and let it develop where it may? So would you be happier if your whole lawn came up, or just a portion?

Meaning: The prepared soil will not fail, for the owner will not let it fail for he would and will spend energy to make sure it starts and finishes [grows] right.
Isaiah 5:1 Let me sing now for my well-beloved A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill.
2 And He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it, And hewed out a wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only worthless ones.
3 ¶"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge between Me and My vineyard.
4 "What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?
5 "So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground.
6 "And I will lay it waste; It will not be pruned or hoed, But briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it."
7 ¶For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, And the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 06:43 PM
Doesn't anyone have anything to say about my last post?? Everytime I use scripture to tell the truth it is always ignored, people just go on arguing their points and ignore the truth I just laid out in front of them, and its not my truth its truth from the mouth of Jesus.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 10th 2007, 06:54 PM
Isaiah 5:1 Let me sing now for my well-beloved A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill.
2 And He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it, And hewed out a wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only worthless ones.
3 ¶"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge between Me and My vineyard.
4 "What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?
5 "So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground.
6 "And I will lay it waste; It will not be pruned or hoed, But briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it."
7 ¶For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, And the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.

Good point that this fits the nation Israel very well… But read it closer PP, and see if it refers to the individual as well….??? For I do not. And please also see that Isaiah 5:1-7 is about the plant [vineyard IE Israel] and not about the soil and seed?

We’ve danced to this tune before {The vineyard evidence that you present for being as like the seed and soil that I present} … but I still am persuaded all the more that you can’t link Isaiah 5: 1-7 with Matthew 13, for correct exegesis of scripture can’t tie them together for me.

And by the way, good choice to move from Minnesota to Atlanta... for you missed some good spring snows... :lol:

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 07:07 PM
Good point that this fits the nation Israel very well… But read it closer PP, and see if it refers to the individual as well….??? For I do not. And please also see that Isaiah 5:1-7 is about the plant [vineyard IE Israel] and not about the soil and seed?

We’ve danced to this tune before {The vineyard evidence that you present for being as like the seed and soil that I present} … but I still am persuaded all the more that you can’t link Isaiah 5: 1-7 with Matthew 13, for correct exegesis of scripture can’t tie them together for me.

And by the way, good choice to move from Minnesota to Atlanta... for you missed some good spring snows... :lol:
The concept is the same though. ;) Even prepared, good and fertile soil... the best seed... the best farmer... doesn't always bear the fruit it is supposed to bear.

I do however agree with you that the parable is about the soil and not the seed. The seed is solid... it is the Word of God. The seed did not fail. The problem is not there... it is in the soil (heart). Just as it was with the nation of Israel. All that was needed done was done. The heart was wrong. Instead of justice... violence, etc.

As to convincing you... would be great but not my main goal. :)

And shoot... glad I missed it! They got a whole lot more than I ever want to shovel or snow blow again!

chisel
Apr 10th 2007, 07:13 PM
Here's something you guys might find interesting. Please note that I generally dislike it when people muck around with the original Greek and Hebrew texts, but in this instance it's very important.

In the Greek language there is a tense that we don't have in English called the present continuous tense. It is used for something happening NOW and continues to happen, and certain Greek words reflect that tense. If you don't believe me, find a Greek linguist and ask him.

John 3:16 Contains certain words in the present continuous tense, and these put quite a different spin on that favourite verse. The word 'believeth' and the 'have' in 'have everlasting life' was written in the present continuous tense and therefore the verse, in Greek, reads as follows.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever keeps on believing in him should not perish, but keeps on having everlasting life.

Changes things a bit, doesn't it? Check it up if you don't believe me.

This coupled with all the other verses clearly indicating that one CAN lose one's salvation should really not even merit discussion about OSAS.

Cheers

V.

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 07:18 PM
How is that?


It's entirely possible that I may be wrong, of course. But I thought that one of the pillars of Protestantism was "Sola Fide", which as you know, means "Faith alone."

Yet, Stefen posted that James 2: 24
(A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.)


Doesn't that just clearly and absolutely state the opposite of what most (all) Protestants say?

I've seen many fairly convincing arguments for "Sola Fide" but they are implied at best. This is the only place in the entire bible where the phrase "Faith Alone" is used. And, ironically, it goes completely against what most (all) Protestants think.

I can't really see a way around it to be honest. It's an unambigious knockout punch.

JD

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 07:25 PM
The whole point of the parable of the sower and many parables, is to seperate the sheep from the goats. Jesus is saying that those who here the word and then produce fruit are the true children of God and the ones who don't aren't. Imediately after he gives this parable he tell the prable of the wheat and tares, about the true children of God and about the people who never produced any fruit, the ones who will say lord lord, and he wil say I never knew you.

chisel
Apr 10th 2007, 07:27 PM
It's entirely possible that I may be wrong, of course. But I thought that one of the pillars of Protestantism was "Sola Fide", which as you know, means "Faith alone."

Yet, Stefen posted that James 2: 24
(A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.)


Doesn't that just clearly and absolutely state the opposite of what most (all) Protestants say?

I've seen many fairly convincing arguments for "Sola Fide" but they are implied at best. This is the only place in the entire bible where the phrase "Faith Alone" is used. And, ironically, it goes completely against what most (all) Protestants think.

I can't really see a way around it to be honest. It's an unambigious knockout punch.

JD

JD,

Pardon me chipping in, as this side discussion is between you and project Peter.

But the text in James is pretty clear.
Jam 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

It seems like a contradiction, doesn't it? Paul speaks of justification by faith, and James says that faith cannot save, therefore not justify a person.

If you read Paul's epistles you'll see the works that do not justify are the works of the Law. Paul is speaking out against the legalism of the synagogue.

James on the other hand is speaking about those who profess Christianity but live for the world. James' entire letter is about, living the faith, not just proclaiming is, because that renders your faith null and void and thus your salvation too.

It doesn't go against protestantism at all, but scripturally, faith and works go hand in hand. Our works reflect our faith. Talk is cheap.

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Cheers

V.

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 07:30 PM
I belive JD is talking about protestantism's doctrine on salvation, most peopel believe that all one has to do to be saved is believe. But I explaned earlier that Jesus defintion of belief is different than ours.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 10th 2007, 07:37 PM
The concept is the same though. ;) Even prepared, good and fertile soil... the best seed... the best farmer... doesn't always bear the fruit it is supposed to bear.

I do however agree with you that the parable is about the soil and not the seed. The seed is solid... it is the Word of God. The seed did not fail. The problem is not there... it is in the soil (heart). Just as it was with the nation of Israel. All that was needed done was done. The heart was wrong. Instead of justice... violence, etc.

As to convincing you... would be great but not my main goal. :)

And shoot... glad I missed it! They got a whole lot more than I ever want to shovel or snow blow again!


Brother PP, you can’t build a theology based on concepts, well, at least I can’t… so the only thing these passages have in common is that they deal with farming or planting or growing… The subject and object matters as to why they were written and how they are worded and to the audience they were given are very different between the two passages, along with the purposes and audience intent… and well… are not related to reference each other.

And....
“As to convincing you... would be great but not my main goal. :) ”


Well shoot, I thought I knew you after all these years in reading many of your 15,820+ posts…. So I’m now a bit curious, ‘why is it that you reply to my posts?’ :lol:

And where I live, our Christmas was 20 degrees warmer than our Easter… but been traveling across the country as of late and the Lord has bless the travel with good weather. Missed the big snow storn in NYC by 12 hours... and the heavy thunderbumpers in KC by about 6 hours last month... Praise God!


Take care…

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 07:41 PM
JD,

Pardon me chipping in, as this side discussion is between you and project Peter.

But the text in James is pretty clear.
Jam 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

It seems like a contradiction, doesn't it? Paul speaks of justification by faith, and James says that faith cannot save, therefore not justify a person.

If you read Paul's epistles you'll see the works that do not justify are the works of the Law. Paul is speaking out against the legalism of the synagogue.

James on the other hand is speaking about those who profess Christianity but live for the world. James' entire letter is about, living the faith, not just proclaiming is, because that renders your faith null and void and thus your salvation too.

It doesn't go against protestantism at all, but scripturally, faith and works go hand in hand. Our works reflect our faith. Talk is cheap.

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Cheers

V.


This would be wholly applicable if I was arguing that "Faith doesn't matter"
But I'm not arguing that "Faith doesn't matter." I think that Faith matters a lot. Apologies if I didn't make myself clear. :)

I'm arguing against Sola Fide - Faith Alone. (Which, as I'm sure you'll agree, is a whole different ballgame.)

Maybe, works are a product of Faith (Although, I would somewhat disagree, as many non-Christians still do good things)
But Jesus clearly thinks that works matter - regardless of whether you think they come from Faith or not.



What must I do to attain salvation?




Jesus is directly asked this question.

To which He answers :


"All you have to do is believe in Me and you will attain salvation"



JD

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 07:57 PM
<3


I didn't make myself clear enough. I apologise. :)


JD

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 08:03 PM
I belive JD is talking about protestantism's doctrine on salvation, most peopel believe that all one has to do to be saved is believe.

Actually orthodox protestantism teaches that justification before God is by faith in Christ alone. One is declared right with God through trusting in Christ and His death and resurrection alone as what justifies us before God.

Sanctification is by the indwelling Spirit of God working in the believer to bring forth the works and fruit created for us in Christ.

Glorification is by God raising us from the dead and giving us a new incorruptible, immortal body.

So, in protestant soteriology (which is built on biblical truth) "salvation" is made of 3 distinct, yet inseperable, events.

Justification: - We are delivered from the Penalty of sin. The act of God forgiving ALL our sin and lawless deeds and declaring us righteous. This is what puts us in a right standing with God, to be righteous. God declares us just as pure, holy and righteous as Jesus Christ himself because of the sacrifice of Christ. This is also called "imputed righteousness". God gives Christ's righteousness to us, we do not earn it. This act happens at the very moment a person places faith in Christ(trust). All that is required to justify a person before God is to trust in the person and work of Christ alone.
Also called "positional sanctification".

Sanctification: - We are being delivered from the Power of sin. This is the process, in this life, of being conformed to the image of Christ. We come to realize more and more just how sinful and in need of a savior we are. God begins to work in our will to show us our great need for Him and to change our will to follow and obey Him. This is a daily process for the duration of earthly life.
Also called "progressive sanctification".

Glorification: - We will be delivered from the Presence of sin.This is the final part of salvation when God will complete redemption of His believers and actually remove sin and satan, establish His everlasting kingdom and resurrect the saints to their new bodies.
Also called "completed sanctification".

So, protestant soteriology (Christ/Cross-centered theology) is a bit more complex than might appear on the surface and yet so simple that it is foolishness to Gentiles and a stumbling block to Jews but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.

cheech
Apr 10th 2007, 08:08 PM
Doesn't anyone have anything to say about my last post?? Everytime I use scripture to tell the truth it is always ignored, people just go on arguing their points and ignore the truth I just laid out in front of them, and its not my truth its truth from the mouth of Jesus.

Stefen...we've all posted scripture. Some will be commented on and some may not. It does not mean you are incorrect...it doesn't mean you are being ignored. It just means someone needs clarification on someone elses scripture and not necessarily yours as they could understand yours fully :).

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 08:09 PM
It's entirely possible that I may be wrong, of course. But I thought that one of the pillars of Protestantism was "Sola Fide", which as you know, means "Faith alone."

Yet, Stefen posted that James 2: 24
(A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.)


Doesn't that just clearly and absolutely state the opposite of what most (all) Protestants say?

I've seen many fairly convincing arguments for "Sola Fide" but they are implied at best. This is the only place in the entire bible where the phrase "Faith Alone" is used. And, ironically, it goes completely against what most (all) Protestants think.

I can't really see a way around it to be honest. It's an unambigious knockout punch.

JD
What does that passage in James say? ;)

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 08:10 PM
The important thing is that we abide in Jesus, he is the vine and we are the branches, he said if we produce fruit our father will prune us and we will produce more fruit, he said if we don't, we will be cut off and gathered to be burned. He also said that we must remain in him, and that we remain in him by loving him, and that we love him by obeying his commands, and his greatest command is that we love each other the way he has loved us, this sums up the law and the prophets. He also said that if we love him his father will love us. He also said that we can do nothing apart form him, HE IS THE VINE WE ARE THE BRANCHES. My poont is that everyone should not have confidence because they believe, but because their actions relfect their belif. John says that we know we are Gods children because we love one another, not because we say we believe. When we know that Jesus lives through us and that he is 100% evident in our life, then we have confidence. Paul says to work out our salvation with trembling and fear. So if we have the fruit and obey Jesus commands then there is nothing to worry about, we are given a promise that if we do our part God will do his. That is our hope, God has already made life everlasting available, all we have to do is receive it, by believeing Jesus is God's son and that his word and commands are the way to eternal life. That is why Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, because he is the way, and the only way to go through him is by losing your life for his sake, and by recieving his sacrifice for your sins. You must obey is commands to inherit the Kingdom of God. One does not become lost becaue they sin, one falls away from God and his son volintarliy by denying him with their actions. They honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me. It only takes a little common sense to figure out if you are abiding in Jesus. Usually if you are doubting, that is a good sign of conviction, and you should repent and turn back to God from your sin, turn back to Jesus, he is life, take up your cross and follow him, he has already done the hard part now all we have to do is bare his name with honor and bring him the glory of the one true king, and recieve his death burlal and ressurection as the payment for our sine by believeing in him and be baptized in to him and his work and then we must produce fruit if we are his ture children. If we all love one another the way Jesus loves us, there will not be any place for sin. and we can all be one as the body of the Messiah.

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 08:11 PM
Justification: - We are delivered from the Penalty of sin. The act of God forgiving ALL our sin and lawless deeds and declaring us righteous. This is what puts us in a right standing with God, to be righteous. God declares us just as pure, holy and righteous as Jesus Christ himself because of the sacrifice of Christ. This is also called "imputed righteousness". God gives Christ's righteousness to us, we do not earn it. This act happens at the very moment a person places faith in Christ(trust). All that is required to justify a person before God is to trust in the person and work of Christ alone.
Also called "positional sanctification".

Sanctification: - We are being delivered from the Power of sin. This is the process, in this life, of being conformed to the image of Christ. We come to realize more and more just how sinful and in need of a savior we are. God begins to work in our will to show us our great need for Him and to change our will to follow and obey Him. This is a daily process for the duration of earthly life.
Also called "progressive sanctification".

Glorification: - We will be delivered from the Presence of sin.This is the final part of salvation when God will complete redemption of His believers and actually remove sin and satan, establish His everlasting kingdom and resurrect the saints to their new bodies.
Also called "completed sanctification".



Where in the bible does it say this, again?


JD

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 08:15 PM
What does that passage in James say? ;)





A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.



JD,
unless, I am being dense, of course. If so, please explain. :)

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 08:15 PM
Where in the bible does it say this, again?

JD

Justification - Romans 4
Sanctification - 1 Peter 1
Glorification - Romans 8, 1 Cor. 15

Those are just off the top of my head but it is really built on an approach to the whole of scripture and understanding soteriology from a standpoint of Christ-centeredness and a life-long (and more) process that God is doing in and through the believer.

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 08:15 PM
Brother PP, you can’t build a theology based on concepts, well, at least I can’t… so the only thing these passages have in common is that they deal with farming or planting or growing… The subject and object matters as to why they were written and how they are worded and to the audience they were given are very different between the two passages, along with the purposes and audience intent… and well… are not related to reference each other.

And....
“As to convincing you... would be great but not my main goal. :) ”


Well shoot, I thought I knew you after all these years in reading many of your 15,820+ posts…. So I’m now a bit curious, ‘why is it that you reply to my posts?’ :lol:

And where I live, our Christmas was 20 degrees warmer than our Easter… but been traveling across the country as of late and the Lord has bless the travel with good weather. Missed the big snow storn in NYC by 12 hours... and the heavy thunderbumpers in KC by about 6 hours last month... Praise God!


Take care…I didn't say they were related to each other in that sense. I was simply responding with something that I think puts a kink in the two post that you made up to this point. ;)

And yeah... we have been pretty nippy around here too but that's done now. Tomorrow it starts to warm up and we then get to play with the nasty thunderbangers.

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 08:18 PM
But that's just your interpretation - again, implied at best. None of those passages state anything absolutely unambigiously. You could build up a fairly strong argument, but nothing concrete.


JD

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 08:19 PM
But that's just your interpretation - again, implied at best. None of those passages state anything absolutely unambigiously. You could build up a fairly strong argument, but nothing concrete.


JD

JD,

Who are you speaking to?

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 08:20 PM
Justification - Romans 4
Sanctification - 1 Peter 1
Glorification - Romans 8, 1 Cor. 15

Those are just off the top of my head but it is really built on an approach to the whole of scripture and understanding soteriology from a standpoint of Christ-centeredness and a life-long (and more) process that God is doing in and through the believer.

When did Jesus teach his disciples about soteriology?

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 08:20 PM
This would be wholly applicable if I was arguing that "Faith doesn't matter"
But I'm not arguing that "Faith doesn't matter." I think that Faith matters a lot. Apologies if I didn't make myself clear. :)

I'm arguing against Sola Fide - Faith Alone. (Which, as I'm sure you'll agree, is a whole different ballgame.)

Maybe, works are a product of Faith (Although, I would somewhat disagree, as many non-Christians still do good things)
But Jesus clearly thinks that works matter - regardless of whether you think they come from Faith or not.




Jesus is directly asked this question.

To which He answers :





JD
What Bible are you using where Matthew 19:17 says "All you have to do is believe in Me and you will attain salvation"?

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 08:20 PM
That was to you, Tool. :)

Peter popped in a post before I got there. ;)

JD

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 08:21 PM
What Bible are you using where Matthew 19:17 says "All you have to do is believe in Me and you will attain salvation"?


That was the point - it doesn't say that at all.

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 08:22 PM
JD,
unless, I am being dense, of course. If so, please explain. :)
I don't think you are being dense at all. Says what it simply says although it kicks a sacred doctrine or two in saying it! ;)

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 08:22 PM
What I can't stand is how the wolrd has made christianity some thing of great knowledge with enticing speach and persuasive words, therefore the power of the mesage of Jesus the Messiah crucified and risen is lost. I like the way it was in the begining, "The Way"

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 08:23 PM
That was the point - it doesn't say that at all.
Okay gotcha. I am getting old and think I got you new guys mixed up and am replying to the wrong folks with the wrong conversation! I need more coffee! :lol:

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 08:25 PM
Hehe, coffee! Works like a charm. Thank you for being observant, though. I'm impressed.

JD

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 08:26 PM
When did Jesus teach his disciples about soteriology?

Throughout the scriptures. Christ speaks through the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospels and the epistles.

Salvation is spoken of throughout the whole of scripture.

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 08:28 PM
But that's just your interpretation - again, implied at best. None of those passages state anything absolutely unambigiously. You could build up a fairly strong argument, but nothing concrete.

JD

Your question was where does scripture speak of those things that orthodox protestant soteriology holds to and I gave just a few where those are spoken of.

It has nothing to do with my personal interpretation but is what protestant theologians, pastors and bible scholars have held to for centuries upon centuries believing that is what the whole of scripture teaches regarding salvation.

If there is a particular part you would like to address I would be glad to address it specifically if I can.

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 08:39 PM
Throughout the scriptures. Christ speaks through the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospels and the epistles.

Salvation is spoken of throughout the whole of scripture.

My point is that Jesus never used words like soteriology. He used simple language.

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 08:55 PM
Your question was where does scripture speak of those things that orthodox protestant soteriology holds to and I gave just a few where those are spoken of.

It has nothing to do with my personal interpretation but is what protestant theologians, pastors and bible scholars have held to for centuries upon centuries believing that is what the whole of scripture teaches regarding salvation.

If there is a particular part you would like to address I would be glad to address it specifically if I can.

Well, what orthodox protestant soterasdlfkasdflkasjdfalksjf's opinion, then. ;)

There are a few points I could address, but I don't think that will get us anywhere. It's just seems as if the whole thing is hung together by Blue Tac and prayers. It doesn't seem very coherant (Or even particularly logical)

JD

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 08:55 PM
My point is that Jesus never used words like soteriology. He used simple language.

Ok.

Jesus never used words like Trinity, eschatology, etc. and yet these words can be helpful when we are communicating biblical ideas, doctrines and theology.

We can use whatever words we want. As far as I'm concerned we can use "cat" and "dog" as long as we define what we mean by the words.

Soteriology simply means the study of salvation, which is exactly what this thread is doing. We can call it "salvation study" if that is more comfortable and simple to use. Doesn't make a diff to me.

But anyone who claims that Jesus' teachings were always simplistic would be mistaken. Jesus often taught complex lessons using complex illustrations.

A guy talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood or lopping off body parts is using complex imagery to further understanding of complex concepts.

The Gospel is so simple a child can understand it, yet so complex theologians study it for a life time and find facet after facet.

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 09:09 PM
Well, what orthodox protestant soterasdlfkasdflkasjdfalksjf's opinion, then. ;)

:lol::rofl:That is seriously funny.

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 09:14 PM
Ok.

Jesus never used words like Trinity, eschatology, etc. and yet these words can be helpful when we are communicating biblical ideas, doctrines and theology.

We can use whatever words we want. As far as I'm concerned we can use "cat" and "dog" as long as we define what we mean by the words.

Soteriology simply means the study of salvation, which is exactly what this thread is doing. We can call it "salvation study" if that is more comfortable and simple to use. Doesn't make a diff to me.

But anyone who claims that Jesus' teachings were always simplistic would be mistaken. Jesus often taught complex lessons using complex illustrations.

A guy talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood or lopping off body parts is using complex imagery to further understanding of complex concepts.

The Gospel is so simple a child can understand it, yet so complex theologians study it for a life time and find facet after facet.

What is a theologians point, aren't we all theologians?

John 14:26

26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

1 Corinthians 2

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 09:14 PM
:lol::rofl:That is seriously funny.

Ok, guys. I came in here to give some input that I thought would be beneficial to the discussion.

I did not make fun of anyone or belittle anyone. I simply shared what I consider to be vital information in understanding how protestants understand salvation.

Now, to be treated, by supposed brothers in Christ, with jabs, belittling and making fun of, I think reveals much of the character of those doing the jabs.

Ya'll are welcome to do it if that makes you feel as if you are smarter, more humble, more simple or whatever that type of thing does for you.

That is all I have to say about that type of tactic :)

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 09:19 PM
What is a theologians point, aren't we all theologians?

That avoids the point all together and is simply a rabbit trail.

Your point was that Jesus used simple words. My point was that Jesus (and the bible) shared many complex topics and concepts.

For instance, the Trinity, is a complex and in-depth doctrine. Anyone who says different is simply mistaken. This is God we are talking about and He is a complex being.

That doesn't take away from the simplicity of the Gospel, which simply is believe on Christ and you shall be saved :)

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 09:20 PM
Ok, guys. I came in here to give some input that I thought would be beneficial to the discussion.

I did not make fun of anyone or belittle anyone. I simply shared what I consider to be vital information in understanding how protestants understand salvation.

Now, to be treated, by supposed brothers in Christ, with jabs, belittling and making fun of, I think reveals much of the character of those doing the jabs.

Ya'll are welcome to do it if that makes you feel as if you are smarter, more humble, more simple or whatever that type of thing does for you.

That is all I have to say about that type of tactic :)

I am sorry for offending you! I do not mean to belittle you, I just believe the world has taken God's message and has turned it into something that it shouldn't be. I went to a Baptist bible college and I have studied all of these things. I do not believe it is useful or edifying to the church. Once again I am really sorry.:blush: It's not you I was taking a crack at it is the ideaology, and I shouldn't do that.

Johndigger
Apr 10th 2007, 09:21 PM
Oh, come on now. Stefen said that what you said was complicated and I agreed by punning the word.

Nothing personal - we're simply putting across our points of view.

Then you do the whole "Holier than thou" by saying we are "jabbing you" and basically implying we are bad people.

Hmph.


JD

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 09:23 PM
I am sorry for offending you! I do not mean to belittle you, I just believe the world has taken God's message and has turned it into something that it shouldn't be. I went to a Baptist bible college and I have studied all of these things. I do not believe it is useful of edifying to the church. Once again I am really sorry.:blush: It's not you I was taking a crak at it is the ideaology, and I shouldn't do that.

Apology accepted. Thanks.

Stefen
Apr 10th 2007, 09:27 PM
We can all have fun discussing and debating without getting mad. I find things amussinng some times. When i posted that laughing at what he said, I laughed because I pictured someone typing out soteriology and then just going ;lakjsdf;lsd to make their point, I thought that was funny. I wasn't really laughing at you.

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 09:33 PM
We can all have fun discussing and debating without getting mad. I find things amussinng some times. When i posted that laughing at what he said, I laughed because I pictured someone typing out soteriology and then just going ;lakjsdf;lsd to make their point, I thought that was funny. I wasn't really laughing at you.

Not a problem... lets move on :) back to the topic at hand.

My point was and is that protestants do not teach that only belief comes from salvation but that works (and resurrection) are involved in a complete understanding of salvation from a protestant viewpoint of salvation.

Justication, sanctification and glorification (which makes up biblical salvation) are all concepts that are scripturally defined and understood. These words are actually used in scripture :)

So I will reiterate that protestant soteriology (Christ/Cross-centered salvation) is a bit more complex than might appear on the surface and yet so simple that it is foolishness to Gentiles and a stumbling block to Jews but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.

hillbilly dave
Apr 10th 2007, 09:36 PM
James 5:19 ¶My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back,
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.

The person that strays from the truth but is brought back... a sinner who soul was saved from death.

But notice... he was again a sinner who's soul needed saved from death.
Project Peter the way you explained those verses: The last few words ; he was again a sinner whos soul needed saved from death. My question is or could be misunderstanding what is implied there. Just as we are saved if we accept Christ as Savior. I am sorry it has taken this long to reply I have had somethings to get done.

Centurionoflight
Apr 10th 2007, 09:41 PM
ProjectPeter



With the admin hat on let me state this now. If you are going to simply go on and on with the line upon line mess as you have done in the past month... just ignore the thread. It is getting way beyond old now. It doesn't do anything to further the conversation and you are tossing it out now just to insult folks. You were doing that with me in the other threads and I let it go. Now it seems to be your motto with everyone that disagrees with you and discusses the Bible. So enough is enough.
I am trying to get at the knowledge behind a passage; the mind of Christ.

So if one slaps up a verse and states: "There that proves it!!"

Are They really looking for knowledge? or at that line?

Is their quest for truth of doctrine; or to win that spat.

I dont feel that approach of doctrinal focus is out side of biblical context of study or understanding.
I also dont see it as insulting to dig at their core doctrine.
MY approach maybe messy; but the intent is clean.

2 john 1:9

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

I am trying to focus it on the doctrine; more than the verses.


Many time speople will counter other basic truths of Christ; just to prove them self to be right in a spat.



Destruction for those that slide back... for those that continue/persevere... the preserving of the soul. In other words... if you do slide back to this point then there is no preserving of the soul.
I have stated those who draw back are disiplined.

Those who shirnk back are those who face destruction of the flesh;

Now what doctrine are you saying it says.


Destruction for those that slide back...

What type of destruction?

Spirit or flesh ?

for those that continue/persevere... the preserving of the soul. In other words... if you do slide back to this point then there is no preserving of the soul.

What is a preserving of the soul?

Salvation is about righteousness;{gal 3:6} we are found righteous in the eye of God.

Now can you tie in how your doctrine adds this "preservation of the soul" and needed on top of being found righteous to God for salvation.

Centurionoflight
Apr 10th 2007, 09:46 PM
ProjectPeter



Yet here that passage makes it clear that it is the same fire His enemies will endure. That isn't speaking of chastisement but judgment.



Heb 10


28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

30For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY " And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."

This is clearly talking of a death and judgement of the body; not a loss of salvation.

I have all ready stated there is a dreadful death of the sin-face-to-face with death.

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 11:07 PM
Project Peter the way you explained those verses: The last few words ; he was again a sinner whos soul needed saved from death. My question is or could be misunderstanding what is implied there. Just as we are saved if we accept Christ as Savior. I am sorry it has taken this long to reply I have had somethings to get done.
No problem... it is the beauty of message boards. You can get to it when you have the time.

Tell me... you read what it says. How is what I said a misunderstanding or is that in fact what it says?

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 11:18 PM
ProjectPeter

I am trying to get at the knowledge behind a passage; the mind of Christ.

So if one slaps up a verse and states: "There that proves it!!"

Are They really looking for knowledge? or at that line?

Is their quest for truth of doctrine; or to win that spat.

I dont feel that approach of doctrinal focus is out side of biblical context of study or understanding.
I also dont see it as insulting to dig at their core doctrine.
MY approach maybe messy; but the intent is clean.

2 john 1:9

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

I am trying to focus it on the doctrine; more than the verses.


Many time speople will counter other basic truths of Christ; just to prove them self to be right in a spat.

I have stated those who draw back are disiplined.

Those who shirnk back are those who face destruction of the flesh;

Now what doctrine are you saying it says.we are speaking of the doctrine of security. Again... doctrine simply means teaching. The teaching we are speaking of here is eternal security or not. I showed you where that passage is speaking of more than simply discipline. But then I gotta get my doctrine from the Bible what with that being our doctrinal gauge. Outside of Scripture... it is simply man.





Destruction for those that slide back...

What type of destruction?

Spirit or flesh ?

for those that continue/persevere... the preserving of the soul. In other words... if you do slide back to this point then there is no preserving of the soul.

What is a preserving of the soul?

Salvation is about righteousness;{gal 3:6} we are found righteous in the eye of God.

Now can you tie in how your doctrine adds this "preservation of the soul" and needed on top of being found righteous to God for salvation.

Again

37 FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.
38 BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.
39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

The blue is the righteous living by faith and this preserves their soul.

The green... the one that shrinks back to destruction. Shrinking back does not preserve the soul.

Here is your Greek for that word preserving.

peripoiesis

acquisition (the act or the thing); by extension, preservation: -- obtain(-ing), peculiar, purchased, possession, saving.

The passage already clearly defines the gauge for what it means for "sliding back."

Hebrews 10:26 ¶For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."
31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 ¶But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings,
33 partly, by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated.
34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners, and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one.
35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.
36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.
37 FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.
38 BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.
39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.



Again... the green signifies the shrinking back... the blue living by faith.

Centurionoflight
Apr 10th 2007, 11:21 PM
Stefen



James 2

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.




Nasb

James 2

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.


It is the belief that is salvation; our works dont result in salvation.
James is not addressing salvation.

As per
Romans 4


3For what does the Scripture say? "(A)ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."

4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.



The first son had true belief true faith because he did what the Fater told him to do and he inherited the Kingdom of God, not by works, but by the faith that his works came from!


One must be spiritually alive to even start works.
That foundation of life is salvation.

ProjectPeter
Apr 10th 2007, 11:24 PM
ProjectPeter




Heb 10


28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

30For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY " And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."

This is clearly talking of a death and judgement of the body; not a loss of salvation.

I have all ready stated there is a dreadful death of the sin-face-to-face with death.And you left off the passage that was highlighted from the beginning of the discussion.

Hebrews 10:26 ¶For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.

That is not speaking of discipline but judgment. After judgment the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.

This is not speaking of physical death but judgment and hell. God does not "discipline" his adversaries. Only His children. The writer of Hebrews is very clear on this matter.

Hebrews 12:3 For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you may not grow weary and lose heart.
4 You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin;
5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, "MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
6 FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES."
7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness.
11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

Tru_Knyte
Apr 10th 2007, 11:42 PM
I never really understood the huge conflict between the two. I always figured that if you have faith then you're going to do good works as a result of that faith.

I don't see someone saying that they're Christian and then going out and and doing the exact opposite as truly being a Christian. Same goes for someone that does great charity work, volunteers, etc. but does not confess that Christ is risen.

In other words, works are a result of our faith, but faith is not a result of our works. If we are to be Christian, are we not also supposed to spread the Word? And should not we want to do this?

Romans 10: 10-11

"That 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. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved"

Centurionoflight
Apr 10th 2007, 11:54 PM
ProjectPeter



That is not speaking of discipline but judgment. After judgment the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.

This is not speaking of physical death but judgment and hell. God does not "discipline" his adversaries. Only His children. The writer of Hebrews is very clear on this matter.



Heb 10

27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.


I see fire{as per Gods wrath is like a fire.}; where are you getting it as hellfire?

John 3

18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

To make it hell fire; you are in conflict with the doctrine of john 3:18. which plainly states if we believe on Christ there is no judgement.


So you are;


1) Adding hell where there is no hell
2) Conflicting with the doctrine of John 3:18.
3) Applying a death of the body as a death of the spirit
4) Conflicting with the doctrine of {1 cor 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.}

I am not trying to insult;

My position has been this is all easy to see in doctrine;
Yet when one just focuses on one verse or that verse;
Points get missed, soon its about fussing over that verse, all of christianity rotates around that verse.
I dotn see that as a path to understanding and knowledge.

hillbilly dave
Apr 11th 2007, 12:03 AM
No problem... it is the beauty of message boards. You can get to it when you have the time.

Tell me... you read what it says. How is what I said a misunderstanding or is that in fact what it says?
I donot see in those verses anything about needing to be saved from death if you are in Christ. It says if you convert a sinner and have shown him the error of his way shall save a soul from death. and shall hide a multitude of sins. From the way I read your previous statements if I sin even as a born again child of God that I need to be saved again. I am a believer in OSAS. Due to all though I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior I am still in the flesh which is corruptable and not glorified until Christ returns and I recieve my new body just as Christ. We all sin and fall short of the glory. Romans 6: 6 The old man is crucified with Him that the body of sin might be destroyed that we no longer serve sin. I appreciate your patience and your love of the Word of God that we can have a disscusion and remain Christ like. I do enjoy reading your posts.

Stefen
Apr 11th 2007, 12:03 AM
ProjectPeter




Heb 10

27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.


I see fire{as per Gods wrath is like a fire.}; where are you getting it as hellfire?

John 3

18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

To make it hell fire; you are in conflict with the doctrine of john 3:18. which plainly states if we believe on Christ there is no judgement.


So you are;


1) Adding hell where there is no hell
2) Conflicting with the doctrine of John 3:18.
3) Applying a death of the body as a death of the spirit
4) Conflicting with the doctrine of {1 cor 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.}

I am not trying to insult;

My position has been this is all easy to see in doctrine;
Yet when one just focuses on one verse or that verse;
Points get missed, soon its about fussing over that verse, all of christianity rotates around that verse.
I dotn see that as a path to understanding and knowledge.

it is the other way around to not make it hell fire that twists Gods word. Take things into consideration, if someone teaches something falsely God holds them accountable. I already explained john 3:18 to you but you ignored it. Here it is, please read this and consider Jesus' words.

Here is my reply to John 3:18 Most people's definition of beliieving Him is different that what he thinks believing in Him is Jesus, This is an explanation of the Faith our belief that God saves you by.


John 3

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

This is true, but I think that your definition of belief is completely diiferent than Jesus' definition of belief.

James 2

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

You see it is the belief that Abraham had that God saves by, A belief working with your actions

This is my analogy, I am a weather man and there is a tornado coming your way tomarrow and then I tell you what you must do to be saved from it, so if you believe me you can be saved from it. So you say you believe me and then tomarrow comes around and you dont do anything that I told you to do to be saved, so you perish. On the other hand I told some one else in you area the same thing and they didn't tell me they believed me, they just did everything I told them to do and they were saved. You see the ones who acted where the ones who really believed me.

This what Jesus Is trying to tell us in so many parable and messages he gave to the people, for example here is one.

The Parable of the Two Sons

Matthew 21
28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

The first son had true belief true faith because he did what the Fater told him to do and he inherited the Kingdom of God, not by works, but by the faith that his works came from!

Centurionoflight
Apr 11th 2007, 12:23 AM
Stefen



it is the other way around to not make it hell fire twists Gods word. Take things into consideration, if someone teaches something falsely God holds them accountable. I already explained john 3:18 to you but you ignored it.Here it is, please read this and consider Jesus' words.
I answered your John 3 attempt to place it on scale as James 2 in post #91.

Therefore it wasnt ignored.

James is not addressing salvation; rather a work that is done AFTER salvation.



The first son had true belief true faith because he did what the Fater told him to do and he inherited the Kingdom of God, not by works, but by the faith that his works came from!
At what point was the 2nd son not his fathers son?

When was he not genetically related to his father from birth?

Sure he blew his inheritance.
However at no point was he not his fathers son.
That relationship of sonship is salvation.

John 1

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

cheech
Apr 11th 2007, 12:26 AM
My point is that Jesus never used words like soteriology. He used simple language.




But anyone who claims that Jesus' teachings were always simplistic would be mistaken. Jesus often taught complex lessons using complex illustrations.

A guy talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood or lopping off body parts is using complex imagery to further understanding of complex concepts.

The Gospel is so simple a child can understand it, yet so complex theologians study it for a life time and find facet after facet.

Both are correct...the Gospel can be both simple and complex. Simple for those who God allows understanding by opening their minds to his words, having to do this even with with his Disciples:

Luke 24:45
45Then he opened their (Disciples) minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

And complex to those who are "ever hearing but never understanding" which is why he spoke in parables. They are not ready to hear nor understand. There were several verses which showed even his Disciples did not always understand what he was saying...only allowing them to know only so much:

Matt 13:11-17
11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-23555a)] 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Mark 4:33-34
33With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

Mark 8:17-18
17Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember?

I believe anyone can understand the Bible if their hearts and minds are open to it and God knows whose hearts and minds are open and whose isn't. It doesn't take a theologian or a scholar to understand it as the Disciples were neither and Paul speaks about this along with those we consider wise by mans standards:

1 Cor 1:20-21
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

26-3026Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=1&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-28379d)]

Finally in 2 Cor 1:13-14:
13For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Toolman
Apr 11th 2007, 01:11 AM
Both are correct...the Gospel can be both simple and complex. Simple for those who God allows understanding by opening their minds to his words, having to do this even with with his Disciples:

Cheech,

I think your wording is incorrect because while the Spirit opens our minds to understand the doctrines in scripture I would still say that many of those doctrines are complex, not simple, even though believers are given understanding.

In fact Peter agrees with this especially regarding Paul's writings:

NKJV - 2 Peter 3:15-16 - and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

NIV - Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.


So here we see even Peter is attesting to the complexity of some of the mysteries given to Paul and yet we know the Spirit enlightens us as He desires and as we seek. That does not remove the complexity and somehow make it simple though.

To admit that something like the Trinity is complex to our human understanding does not mean we are ever hearing but never understanding. It just means we are admitting that God is greater and more complex that our finite minds can sometimes comprehend, as scripture declares.

Can God give us understanding of the complex? Absolutely. Can He give us understanding of the simple? Absolutely. Both exist within the scriptures.

cheech
Apr 11th 2007, 01:32 AM
I see your point and I agree regarding the wording after reading it over yet again :)

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 02:38 PM
ProjectPeter




Heb 10

27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.


I see fire{as per Gods wrath is like a fire.}; where are you getting it as hellfire?

John 3

18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

To make it hell fire; you are in conflict with the doctrine of john 3:18. which plainly states if we believe on Christ there is no judgement.


So you are;


1) Adding hell where there is no hell
2) Conflicting with the doctrine of John 3:18.
3) Applying a death of the body as a death of the spirit
4) Conflicting with the doctrine of {1 cor 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.}

I am not trying to insult;

My position has been this is all easy to see in doctrine;
Yet when one just focuses on one verse or that verse;
Points get missed, soon its about fussing over that verse, all of christianity rotates around that verse.
I dotn see that as a path to understanding and knowledge.I didn't add JUDGMENT to that passage. The writer of Hebrews did that all on his own! If those in Christ are not judged then what does that say about the one who continues to sin... who slides back? Simple enough really... they are no longer in Christ. Remember CoL... the writer of Hebrews used that word... I didn't add it there. So if that person that slides back is judged it is simple... they are no longer in Christ.

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 02:51 PM
I donot see in those verses anything about needing to be saved from death if you are in Christ. It says if you convert a sinner and have shown him the error of his way shall save a soul from death. and shall hide a multitude of sins. From the way I read your previous statements if I sin even as a born again child of God that I need to be saved again. I am a believer in OSAS. Due to all though I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior I am still in the flesh which is corruptable and not glorified until Christ returns and I recieve my new body just as Christ. We all sin and fall short of the glory. Romans 6: 6 The old man is crucified with Him that the body of sin might be destroyed that we no longer serve sin. I appreciate your patience and your love of the Word of God that we can have a disscusion and remain Christ like. I do enjoy reading your posts.
Here is that passage again... I will insert my comments within the text in blue.

James 5:19 ¶My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, (you the brethren... strays from Christ) and one turns him back,(turns back the strayed from Christ brother)
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner(the strayed from Christ brother) from the error of his way will save his soul from death (death/destruction/hell), and will cover a multitude of sins.

And hey... I live for this. Discussing Scripture is truly my passion and I love doing it. We can get feisty in here now and again but take Centurion and I for example. Lots of folks think her and I are mortal enemies but we spend a lot of time yapping on Instant Messenger about the Bible and just horsing around as well. He is as passionate with what he believes as I am. We have gotten into some good old debates in here over the years but at the end of the day... he is still a friend. He's still wrong mind you! :)

hillbilly dave
Apr 11th 2007, 03:00 PM
Here is that passage again... I will insert my comments within the text in blue.

James 5:19 ¶My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, (you the brethren... strays from Christ) and one turns him back,(turns back the strayed from Christ brother)
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner(the strayed from Christ brother) from the error of his way will save his soul from death (death/destruction/hell), and will cover a multitude of sins.

And hey... I live for this. Discussing Scripture is truly my passion and I love doing it. We can get feisty in here now and again but take Centurion and I for example. Lots of folks think her and I are mortal enemies but we spend a lot of time yapping on Instant Messenger about the Bible and just horsing around as well. He is as passionate with what he believes as I am. We have gotten into some good old debates in here over the years but at the end of the day... he is still a friend. He's still wrong mind you! :)
Thank you very much for your response I still donot agree totally with your break down. Respectfilly I posted in the peanut gallery thread you started and I never met but one enemy and his name is satan. I hope if we do nothing else that some lost person may read and come to know the Lord Jesus. I still enjoy reading your posts as well as Cf.

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 03:10 PM
Thank you very much for your response I still donot agree totally with your break down. Respectfilly I posted in the peanut gallery thread you started and I never met but one enemy and his name is satan. I hope if we do nothing else that some lost person may read and come to know the Lord Jesus. I still enjoy reading your posts as well as Cf.
So you think verse 20 is speaking of someone totally different than the one spoken of in the 19th verse?

hillbilly dave
Apr 11th 2007, 03:24 PM
Please specify what your idea of turning from the truth is. How can you be saved more than once? We all error from the truth from time to time and seek forgiveness. IOW We are chastized by our Father when we error in our walk. The passage brought up seems to imply that to turn a sinner from the error of his way. Thus saying this sinner and the one in 20 are the same but a sinner not yet under conviction for his sins. Even one saved by grace not by merrit are still sinners under grace.

Centurionoflight
Apr 11th 2007, 03:34 PM
ProjectPeter


I didn't add JUDGMENT to that passage. The writer of Hebrews did that all on his own! If those in Christ are not judged then what does that say about the one who continues to sin... who slides back? Simple enough really... they are no longer in Christ. Remember CoL... the writer of Hebrews used that word... I didn't add it there. So if that person that slides back is judged it is simple... they are no longer in Christ.
And the judgement is of the flesh; not the eternal spirit to hell.

You are adding that it is hell;

In that you miss the doctrine of divine disipline upon us while here on earth.

This point of doctrine is addressed in

1 Corinthians 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Now they are givin to the destruction of the flesh;
This is a judgement of the body.


This is not the condemnation of John 3.

Their salvation is secure; they are under the judgement of the flesh.

Which is exactly what heb 10:27 is pointing to.

jgarden
Apr 11th 2007, 04:01 PM
Philipians 1 (Paul's Joy that Christ is Preached)

1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even out of envy and strife, and some also out of good will.

1:16 The former insincerely preach Christ from selfish ambition, thinking that they add affliction to my chains;

1:17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the Good News.

1:18 What does it matter? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed. I rejoice in this, yes, and will rejoice.
Paul appears to be saying that not only "once saved, always saved," but that one's salvation is totally independent of the motivations of the "messenger."

Whether we received the gospel preached "insincerely" or "out of love," our salvation is secure.:B

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 04:06 PM
Please specify what your idea of turning from the truth is. How can you be saved more than once? We all error from the truth from time to time and seek forgiveness. IOW We are chastized by our Father when we error in our walk. The passage brought up seems to imply that to turn a sinner from the error of his way. Thus saying this sinner and the one in 20 are the same but a sinner not yet under conviction for his sins. Even one saved by grace not by merrit are still sinners under grace.


"turning from the truth" doesn't imply someone stepping on it now and again and messing up. It speaks of one turning away... much like repentance means to change ones mind this would be the same. They've changed their minds and now no longer follow the truth. The fact that his soul is saved from death... that is not talking physical death but spiritual death.

hillbilly dave
Apr 11th 2007, 04:14 PM
"turning from the truth" doesn't imply someone stepping on it now and again and messing up. It speaks of one turning away... much like repentance means to change ones mind this would be the same. They've changed their minds and now no longer follow the truth. The fact that his soul is saved from death... that is not talking physical death but spiritual death.

Thank you for clarifing this for me. What about the lost sheep does not the shepard go and look for his lost and bring it back. Project Peter I appologize for the drive buy asking you forgive. I do appreciate the time you have taken.

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 04:15 PM
ProjectPeter
And the judgement is of the flesh; not the eternal spirit to hell.judging the flesh? Now, who is adding? ;)




You are adding that it is hell; Actually no, I am not adding a thing. It says they are judged as an adversary. Since a child of God is not an adversary and judged as such but is instead disciplined then there is one logical conclusion. They are no longer a child of God but just as that text says... they are an adversary to God. So again... I am adding nothing at all.




In that you miss the doctrine of divine disipline upon us while here on earth.

This point of doctrine is addressed in

1 Corinthians 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Now they are givin to the destruction of the flesh;
This is a judgement of the body.
And again... you are adding that to the text. Choosing what you want it to mean and ignoring simple facts. They are judged and the judgment is as to an enemy of God. You can go on all you want about it being judging the flesh but that is clearly adding to the text what isn't there.




This is not the condemnation of John 3.

Their salvation is secure; they are under the judgement of the flesh.

Which is exactly what heb 10:27 is pointing to.Actually... they are enemies of God and judged as such according to that text. Can't get away from that simple written fact.

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 04:42 PM
Thank you for clarifing this for me. What about the lost sheep does not the shepard go and look for his lost and bring it back. Project Peter I appologize for the drive buy asking you forgive. I do appreciate the time you have taken.
The shepherd did come for the lost sheep of Israel.

Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

That is the context in which that passage is used in Luke. Just as Jesus told the Pharisee that it is the sick that need a doctor... it was the lost sheep that needed a shepherd. It was another analogy (out of many used) that Jesus used to make a point to the Pharisee when they were complaining that He hung out with sinners and whatnot. The message was look... when a lost sheep is returned to the fold then even the angels in heaven rejoice. Did all of the lost sheep come back into the fold when Jesus walked the earth? We know they didn't. But it was for those sinners (lost sheep) that Jesus came. So keeping all of that in mind... we probably make a lot of doctrinal issues out of that passage when that wasn't the intent of Jesus.

Basically all of that just to say... the lost sheep passages really don't apply here at all or at least it has no contextual basis to be used in this case.

The Parson
Apr 11th 2007, 04:59 PM
I tend to wonder sometimes if we forget about justification or even ignore the meaning of the word. For instance: Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Not sure how deep ya'll have delved into the subject but justified is justified. Seperating the spiritual from the natural, you can't justify the flesh because it is carnal. But the soul which is spiritual, and sealed (Ephesians 1:13~14 & 4:30) unto the day of redemption is justified. So by the soul being justified and in truth born again through that justification, the Bible says that soul cannot sin... 1st John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Which brings us into another subject.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.If it be the Holy Spirit sealing those souls, are we able / worthy to break those seals ourselves before the day of redemption. Seems the holy seal on our souls are the same type of seals found in Revelation 5.

Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.And who was the only one worthy to open these seals?

Revelation 5:4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.By the way, would someone tell me, without sidetracking, when the day of redemption is? Not the date, but the event, either it be individual or enmass.

Souled Out
Apr 11th 2007, 05:10 PM
I tend to wonder sometimes if we forget about justification or even ignore the meaning of the word. For instance: Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Not sure how deep ya'll have delved into the subject but justified is justified. Seperating the spiritual from the natural, you can't justify the flesh because it is carnal. But the soul which is spiritual, and sealed (Ephesians 1:13~14 & 4:30) unto the day of redemption is justified. So by the soul being justified and in truth born again through that justification, the Bible says that soul cannot sin... 1st John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Which brings us into another subject.
Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.If it be the Holy Spirit sealing those souls, are we able / worthy to break those seals ourselves before the day of redemption. Seems the holy seal on our souls are the same type of seals found in Revelation 5.
Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.And who was the only one worthy to open these seals?
Revelation 5:4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.By the way, would someone tell me, without sidetracking, when the day of redemption is? Not the date, but the event, either it be individual or enmass.

Great post, TParson, and the answer to your last question - it is individual, just as I believe is the day of His appearance. That's why no man knoweth not the day or the hour of His return.

Centurionoflight
Apr 11th 2007, 05:53 PM
ProjectPeter



judging the flesh? Now, who is adding?
Heb 10
28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
{This is a death of the flesh.}
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Therefore this will be a much worse death of the flesh.





Actually no, I am not adding a thing. It says they are judged as an adversary. Since a child of God is not an adversary and judged as such but is instead disciplined then there is one logical conclusion. They are no longer a child of God but just as that text says... they are an adversary to God. So again... I am adding nothing at all.
They are consumed of the flesh; again you are adding this is a spiritual context.

Ignoring many other passages that states things like


Hebrews 13:5
Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
Now someone will quip the slogan;

"He will not leave us; but we can leave him."

That ignores the definition of NEVER.

nev·er - not ever; at no time:

So while we are his sons he will disipline us of the flesh, even to death.
From there to be in his presense forever.

Judgement of the flesh is again enforced else where;

1 cor 11
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep{death and judgement of the flesh}.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.


And again... you are adding that to the text. Choosing what you want it to mean and ignoring simple facts. They are judged and the judgment is as to an enemy of God. You can go on all you want about it being judging the flesh but that is clearly adding to the text what isn't there.


Actually... they are enemies of God and judged as such according to that text. Can't get away from that simple written fact.
We can wrangle over one verse and seclude its meaning to insanity.

That is not rightly divinding the truth; nor is it even addressing the thinking of Christ.

I have shown and enforced with scripture the doctrine of judgment relating to the flesh; you deny it to keep a certain dogma based on how you read it.

For that dogma of your to be true;
1. State and enforce a doctrine showing eternal judgment of damnation of a believer based on some sin or action they have done. This of course would take salvation out of the hand of Christ.

{Hebrews 12:2
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.}

So that should be addressed also.

2. State and enforce a doctrine of the ineptness of Christ to keep his sheep; that they should stray beyond his ability to keep them. Christ even gave his life for us. {John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.}

A GOOD shepherd is able to keep his sheep; nothing can snatch them from him;
The thinking of Christ is he died for us; therefore we are his. No matter what we do or become.

So now if some guy believes on Christ then later falls into the ritual of blood for sins;

God will fully disipline him.
And after their smoldering ruin of a corpse finally dies.
The spirit is still righteous.
That spirit will spend a eterntity in heaven as a example of those who didnt follow Gods path of Faith.
They will have no reward; no inheritance; a eternal peon; but they will be saved.

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 06:17 PM
I tend to wonder sometimes if we forget about justification or even ignore the meaning of the word. For instance: Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Not sure how deep ya'll have delved into the subject but justified is justified. Seperating the spiritual from the natural, you can't justify the flesh because it is carnal. But the soul which is spiritual, and sealed (Ephesians 1:13~14 & 4:30) unto the day of redemption is justified. So by the soul being justified and in truth born again through that justification, the Bible says that soul cannot sin... 1st John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Which brings us into another subject.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.If it be the Holy Spirit sealing those souls, are we able / worthy to break those seals ourselves before the day of redemption. Seems the holy seal on our souls are the same type of seals found in Revelation 5.

Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.And who was the only one worthy to open these seals?

Revelation 5:4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.By the way, would someone tell me, without sidetracking, when the day of redemption is? Not the date, but the event, either it be individual or enmass.

But then we can run all over the place in Scripture and paste bits and pieces together and come up with a puzzle that isn't the picture intended in the letters written.

Being justified is being justified no doubt. But one must believe and that is the catch. One must believe, continue to believe until the end. And then we know too that this isn't speaking of a belief in the mind. Many believed for a variety of reasons and Jesus doesn't commit Himself to them. But an always active/present belief... that is the essence of the word believe in the Greek. So while justified is justified there is a condition to that justification. Sure that word condition freaks folks out but it is there. One must believe... present active believe.

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 06:25 PM
I tend to wonder sometimes if we forget about justification or even ignore the meaning of the word. For instance: Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Not sure how deep ya'll have delved into the subject but justified is justified. Seperating the spiritual from the natural, you can't justify the flesh because it is carnal. But the soul which is spiritual, and sealed (Ephesians 1:13~14 & 4:30) unto the day of redemption is justified. So by the soul being justified and in truth born again through that justification, the Bible says that soul cannot sin... 1st John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Which brings us into another subject.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.If it be the Holy Spirit sealing those souls, are we able / worthy to break those seals ourselves before the day of redemption. Seems the holy seal on our souls are the same type of seals found in Revelation 5.

Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.And who was the only one worthy to open these seals?

Revelation 5:4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.By the way, would someone tell me, without sidetracking, when the day of redemption is? Not the date, but the event, either it be individual or enmass.
Oh yeah... almost forgot.

I pretty much agree with souled out in that the day of redemption here is those last days. As it says in Luke... when you see these things lift up your head because redemption draweth nigh.

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 06:28 PM
ProjectPeter

Heb 10
28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
{This is a death of the flesh.}
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Therefore this will be a much worse death of the flesh.


They are consumed of the flesh; again you are adding this is a spiritual context.

Ignoring many other passages that states things like


Hebrews 13:5
Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
Now someone will quip the slogan;

"He will not leave us; but we can leave him."

That ignores the definition of NEVER.

nev·er - not ever; at no time:

So while we are his sons he will disipline us of the flesh, even to death.
From there to be in his presense forever.

Judgement of the flesh is again enforced else where;

1 cor 11
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep{death and judgement of the flesh}.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
We can wrangle over one verse and seclude its meaning to insanity.

That is not rightly divinding the truth; nor is it even addressing the thinking of Christ.

I have shown and enforced with scripture the doctrine of judgment relating to the flesh; you deny it to keep a certain dogma based on how you read it.

For that dogma of your to be true;
1. State and enforce a doctrine showing eternal judgment of damnation of a believer based on some sin or action they have done. This of course would take salvation out of the hand of Christ.

{Hebrews 12:2
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.}

So that should be addressed also.

2. State and enforce a doctrine of the ineptness of Christ to keep his sheep; that they should stray beyond his ability to keep them. Christ even gave his life for us. {John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.}

A GOOD shepherd is able to keep his sheep; nothing can snatch them from him;
The thinking of Christ is he died for us; therefore we are his. No matter what we do or become.

So now if some guy believes on Christ then later falls into the ritual of blood for sins;

God will fully disipline him.
And after their smoldering ruin of a corpse finally dies.
The spirit is still righteous.
That spirit will spend a eterntity in heaven as a example of those who didnt follow Gods path of Faith.
They will have no reward; no inheritance; a eternal peon; but they will be saved.

And you still haven't shown where this is speaking of physical death. You are addressing everything but the fact that it says that they are JUDGED as ADVERSARIES. You have jumped to every other passage that you can think of to jump too and yet you are not addressing the very passage that we are speaking of. ;)

The Parson
Apr 11th 2007, 06:29 PM
But then we can run all over the place in Scripture and paste bits and pieces together and come up with a puzzle that isn't the picture intended in the letters written.

Being justified is being justified no doubt. But one must believe and that is the catch. One must believe, continue to believe until the end. And then we know too that this isn't speaking of a belief in the mind. Many believed for a variety of reasons and Jesus doesn't commit Himself to them. But an always active/present belief... that is the essence of the word believe in the Greek. So while justified is justified there is a condition to that justification. Sure that word condition freaks folks out but it is there. One must believe... present active believe.Aw, give the old preacher some slack ProPet. I didn't pull these from context! They state a premise.

Toolman
Apr 11th 2007, 06:29 PM
Being justified is being justified no doubt. But one must believe and that is the catch. One must believe, continue to believe until the end. And then we know too that this isn't speaking of a belief in the mind. Many believed for a variety of reasons and Jesus doesn't commit Himself to them. But an always active/present belief... that is the essence of the word believe in the Greek. So while justified is justified there is a condition to that justification. Sure that word condition freaks folks out but it is there. One must believe... present active believe.

There is nothing in the above that disagrees at all with the traditional, orthodox protestant view of Justification IMO.

One places their faith in Jesus Christ and His substitutionary death alone (apart from any works they may do) as what makes them right with God and one is justified. (Justification).

One then continues in belief and produces the works that flow from a justified position. (Sanctification).

One then, after death, is raised from the dead and given a glorified body that is sinless and death free. (Glorification).

So, the doctrine of justification is a biblical doctrine and it is certainly defendable from the scripture, without "paste bits and pieces together". In fact Romans 4 plainly states the exact doctrine.

Just a bit more on justification :)

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 06:32 PM
Aw, give the old preacher some slack ProPet. I didn't pull these from context! They state a premise.
NO!!!! Didn't mean that you took them out of context. I agree that justification is justification. What I am speaking of is that the text speaking of justification doesn't say that we are "once justified, always justified" for lack of a better way to put it.

The Parson
Apr 11th 2007, 06:33 PM
I do have a simple, child like question though. If the soul can be released from the bonds of the Holy Spirits seal, what need is there for a seal in the first place?

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 06:37 PM
There is nothing in the above that disagrees at all with the traditional, orthodox protestant view of Justification IMO.

One places their faith in Jesus Christ and His substitutionary death alone (apart from any works they may do) as what makes them right with God and one is justified. (Justification).

One then continues in belief and produces the works that flow from a justified position. (Sanctification).

One then, after death, is raised from the dead and given a glorified body that is sinless and death free. (Glorification).

So, the doctrine of justification is a biblical doctrine and it is certainly defendable from the scripture, without "paste bits and pieces together". In fact Romans 4 plainly states the exact doctrine.

Just a bit more on justification :)
I would venture to say that should anyone believe differently than that then they are in great danger. I doubt that anyone in this thread would disagree with this... hope not anyway. It is when we get down to the finer points... that is where we get into that whole "we are speaking the same language but means something a bit different" thing. I guess that is the point I was making with Tim. Certainly not that he was taking anything out of context!!! I agree with the basic idea that justified is justified and would put a great big PERIOD on the end of that. What Paul was saying was simple. In Christ we are justified... something that the Law could never do. You are free from things now that you could never have been freed from under the Law of Moses.

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 06:47 PM
I do have a simple, child like question though. If the soul can be released from the bonds of the Holy Spirits seal, what need is there for a seal in the first place?
Is that speaking of being sealed up like in a tupperware container or is it speaking of simply being marked... like they used to do with the letters in placing a wax seal on the paper with a marking in the wax... often by pressing a crest ring or the like on the wax. I think most think it speaking of sealed up so nothing can leak out... but the definition allows for either with being stamped the primary definition. That being said... it comes down to what one believes doctrinally elsewhere how that is defined.

sphragizo

to stamp (with a signet or private mark) for security or preservation (literally or figuratively); by implication, to keep secret, to attest: -- (set a, set to) seal up, stop.

This is the word that it comes from.

sphragis --

a signet (as fencing in or protecting from misappropriation); by implication, the stamp impressed (as a mark of privacy, or genuineness), literally or figuratively: -- seal.

Toolman
Apr 11th 2007, 06:48 PM
I would venture to say that should anyone believe differently than that then they are in great danger. I doubt that anyone in this thread would disagree with this... hope not anyway.

Well, we have seen it before but hopefully it is those rare cases.


It is when we get down to the finer points... that is where we get into that whole "we are speaking the same language but means something a bit different" thing.

Sure, I mean we basically have 3 viewpoints here I would imagine in the big picure:

1) Arminian/Free-will that believe that once someone is justified they can forfeit their justification through rejecting Christ as Saviour and literal unbelief (and hyper-arminian who believe you can forfeit it through sin).

2) Arminian/Free-will that believe that once a person is justified there is nothing they can do to lose that justification. God will never let them slip so far as to deny Christ (and hyper free-grace who believe you can even deny Christ and still not lose it).

3) Reformed that believe that God gives the believer everything they need to be saved including faith, works, perseverance, even changing their will to desire Christ and hate sin.

So, yeah, those 3 positions of theology are ALWAYS going to be viewing and understanding things in somewhat different lights. 1 and 2 will have more similiar ground than they will have with 3 because of the vast difference.

I know I'm not saying anything you don't know already (for the umpteenth time) but just for those who are reading to understand why there is this varience.

Centurionoflight
Apr 11th 2007, 06:50 PM
ProjectPeter



And you still haven't shown where this is speaking of physical death. You are addressing everything but the fact that it says that they are JUDGED as ADVERSARIES. You have jumped to every other passage that you can think of to jump too and yet you are not addressing the very passage that we are speaking of.

I have shown it.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:


You are being un reasonable.

I have to show every little thing;

Yet you fail to address any whole doctrines; rather you blantly ignore them.

I am done with these one sided conversations.

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 06:52 PM
Well, we have seen it before but hopefully it is those rare cases.



Sure, I mean we basically have 3 viewpoints here I would imagine in the big picure:

1) Arminian/Free-will that believe that once someone is justified they can forfeit their justification through rejecting Christ as Saviour and literal unbelief (and hyper-arminian who believe you can forfeit it through sin).

2) Arminian/Free-will that believe that once a person is justified there is nothing they can do to lose that justification. God will never let them slip so far as to deny Christ (and hyper free-grace who believe you can even deny Christ and still not lose it).

3) Reformed that believe that God gives the believer everything they need to be saved including faith, works, perseverance, even changing their will to desire Christ and hate sin.

So, yeah, those 3 positions of theology are ALWAYS going to be viewing and understanding things in somewhat different lights. 1 and 2 will have more similiar ground than they will have with 3 because of the vast difference.

I know I'm not saying anything you don't know already (for the umpteenth time) but just for those who are reading to understand why there is this varience.
Yeah... tis the nature of a bunch of folks getting together and yapping about the Bible on a message board! :lol:

ProjectPeter
Apr 11th 2007, 06:57 PM
ProjectPeter


I have shown it.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:


You are being un reasonable.

I have to show every little thing;

Yet you fail to address any whole doctrines; rather you blantly ignore them.

I am done with these one sided conversations.Um.... how much more? How much worse? That passage isn't setting up the way they are judged. It is simply a correlation between those that died because they disobeyed the Law of Moses and those who trample the blood of Christ under their feet as if it was unclean. That is not negating what the writer says a few verses later. They are JUDGED and they are judged as ADVERSARIES of God. Where do you find anywhere in the Scripture where a child of God is judged as an enemy of God? You want to show doctrine... show that. If you cannot show that then this passage isn't speaking of children of God. It is speaking of enemies of God. But then your snag... we know that they were once children of God and that is why you can't draw a line touching the two. It is a classic case of where our doctrine helps dictate how we look at other passages. Another point that Toolman makes on many occasions.

As to your being "done"... it happens often enough so used to that by now. ;)

Centurionoflight
Apr 11th 2007, 07:29 PM
ProjectPeter



Um.... how much more? How much worse? That passage isn't setting up the way they are judged. It is simply a correlation between those that died because they disobeyed the Law of Moses and those who trample the blood of Christ under their feet as if it was unclean. That is not negating what the writer says a few verses later. They are JUDGED and they are judged as ADVERSARIES of God. Where do you find anywhere in the Scripture where a child of God is judged as an enemy of God? You want to show doctrine... show that. If you cannot show that then this passage isn't speaking of children of God. It is speaking of enemies of God. But then your snag... we know that they were once children of God and that is why you can't draw a line touching the two. It is a classic case of where our doctrine helps dictate how we look at other passages. Another point that Toolman makes on many occasions.
I have shown this also;

And you continue to ignore.


1 cor 11
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep{death and judgement of the flesh}.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
We have a judgement even to the death of a believer, to preserve the believer from the same condemnation of the the lost.


This exact concept is what is stated in

Hebrews 10.
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.


31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.



The lord Judging his people is a referance to a form of body.

And you are being very liberal in your read ing of the " ADVERSARIES of God."



The verse states.

heb 10
27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery zeal, about to devour the opposers;
They oppose truth; God will judge them for that because they are HIS to judge, and in this judgement he does, he preserves them.

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

They are still HIS PEOPLE; even while he is judgeing them.




God is holding fast their salvation thru his judgement of them; even to the their death.

1 cor 11
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
The concept is again found in Pauls writing;
1 Corinthians 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.The flesh is destroyed; so that the spirit is saved.



Christ keeps our spirit even thru the judgement he puts upon us.


I have established a precedence for the doctrine;

Of the judgement is upon the flesh; but Christ saves the spirit.
Thru not only the use of this passage; but also the other passages refering to the same doctrine. Which i have referanced.


You have established no such thing.

Your point therefore is with out precedence and is nothing more than your unfounded opinion; not doctrine.

Thus thanks for sharing it.

The Parson
Apr 11th 2007, 08:23 PM
A signet seal is the very sign of authority you will find in Revelation my friends. None the less, Paul, knowing whom he had placed his trust said plainly: 2nd Timothy 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 1:14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

What did Paul deliver to the Lord that he knew would be kept and again, what day was he talking about?

John146
Apr 12th 2007, 05:21 AM
Can anyone give an example of someone that is talked about in the Bible that lost their salvation? I'm not aware of any cases of this. If anyone thinks they know of someone then please share the Scripture.

Let's extend this even further. Does anyone here know of someone who you believe lost their salvation? Or at least that you think lost their salvation? We don't want to judge anyone, of course. But do you know anyone who you feel was once saved and now you feel that they are not? If so, please tell us exactly how you think that they lost their salvation. Please be specific.

Eric

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 12th 2007, 10:02 AM
Can anyone give an example of someone that is talked about in the Bible that lost their salvation? I'm not aware of any cases of this. If anyone thinks they know of someone then please share the Scripture.

Let's extend this even further. Does anyone here know of someone who you believe lost their salvation? Or at least that you think lost their salvation? We don't want to judge anyone, of course. But do you know anyone who you feel was once saved and now you feel that they are not? If so, please tell us exactly how you think that they lost their salvation. Please be specific.

Eric

Hi Eric,


My 2 cents.

Your question is a hard question to answer - for we would be in a position to judge another's saved condition first, which there are areas that we are allowed to, but most are hard to....


Here are the areas where I see that biblically we are to:

We can say that all men are sinners and that all are lost without Christ, for that's what the Word states, so we can judge those without Christ as being lost, for the purpose to share the Gospel in hope and love.

We can also see a brother or sister in Christ walking astray from the word, and we are commanded to 'get involved' to correct them from blatant sin so they may be 'restored', again in hope and love.

We can see fruit of the Spirit and see the love of Christ within each other and that can confirm and encourage us within our own heart that another is in Christ.

And of course, we are to examine ourselves daily to see if we are in the faith, making sure that we are Christ's

But to say one was lost, then saved, and then becomes lost again, I do not see a biblical bases to proclaim this.

Now some here will point to King Saul and to Judas as being "saved" and then lost again, but my position - based on the full consul of God's word -- is that their actions were one who didn't know the Lord as Savior, so they were never called into salvation. For God states salvation is His, His to give and to keep and thus why each of us needs to examine our own lives daily to make sure Christ is within us.


What also needs to be understood is 'look-alike' Christians... those that the bible calls the tares... are they really Christians to begin with, and are they discernable by man?

Again, tough question to answer... and one that this board 'fights' over daily... :saint: [Expect a rebuttal to my comments shortly... :rofl: ]




For God's Glory...

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 12th 2007, 11:38 AM
Can anyone give an example of someone that is talked about in the Bible that lost their salvation? I'm not aware of any cases of this. If anyone thinks they know of someone then please share the Scripture.

Let's extend this even further. Does anyone here know of someone who you believe lost their salvation? Or at least that you think lost their salvation? We don't want to judge anyone, of course. But do you know anyone who you feel was once saved and now you feel that they are not? If so, please tell us exactly how you think that they lost their salvation. Please be specific.

Eric

Absolutely. A Biblical example is Demas, who at one point traveled around with Paul but is later stated to have left him for the world.

I have personally had two very close friends in Bible school who have both turned their backs on God. One might say that they were never saved to begin with, but one of the two actually got radically saved off the street, being delivered from drugs, illicit sex, and everything else that comes with that kind of life. He came to Bible school on fire for God and a true calling on his life. By the time he graduated, he had delved so deeply in apologetics without strengthening his faith that he now calls himself an atheist when it comes to the Bible and an agnostic when it comes to God.

The other person grew up in a Christian family as a PK. She learned all the gigs, words, lines, etc. She had a relationship with God, but not a strong one. Her pull towards the world was too strong and in the end, she followed herself instead of God. She is now pursuing a career on stage and in music in LA, living together with her boyfriend, and serving God 'in her own way' as some people like to say.

So do I know people who have left God? Absolutely? Were they saved? You bet they were. You can produce all the arguments you think will defend your position of OSAS. In the end, the man with an experience is not at the mercy of the man with a (perceived) argument. I suggest you go talk with these two people. They were close to my heart. We sang together, worshiped together, sought God together. I went one way, they went the other. It pains my heart still, but the facts are there.

If you want to argue, by all means, argue with the practical reality of things.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 12th 2007, 12:16 PM
Absolutely. A Biblical example is Demas, who at one point traveled around with Paul but is later stated to have left him for the world.

I have personally had two very close friends in Bible school who have both turned their backs on God. One might say that they were never saved to begin with, but one of the two actually got radically saved off the street, being delivered from drugs, illicit sex, and everything else that comes with that kind of life. He came to Bible school on fire for God and a true calling on his life. By the time he graduated, he had delved so deeply in apologetics without strengthening his faith that he now calls himself an atheist when it comes to the Bible and an agnostic when it comes to God.

The other person grew up in a Christian family as a PK. She learned all the gigs, words, lines, etc. She had a relationship with God, but not a strong one. Her pull towards the world was too strong and in the end, she followed herself instead of God. She is now pursuing a career on stage and in music in LA, living together with her boyfriend, and serving God 'in her own way' as some people like to say.

So do I know people who have left God? Absolutely? Were they saved? You bet they were. You can produce all the arguments you think will defend your position of OSAS. In the end, the man with an experience is not at the mercy of the man with a (perceived) argument. I suggest you go talk with these two people. They were close to my heart. We sang together, worshiped together, sought God together. I went one way, they went the other. It pains my heart still, but the facts are there.

If you want to argue, by all means, argue with the practical reality of things.

Hi PtZ...

Gee... not sure if I should engage or just leave this be....

Well here goes.... Experiences are great for a resume, for it shows someone else what we've learned, what we have accomplished and maybe what we have struggled with, but experience in faith outside of walking in the word, can be a false teacher.

You offer up the experiences of your friends, for which we all have friends like they.... but I can't see how you can judge that they were saved in the first place in order to loose it....

Here's a counter experience, maybe you can relate... Has anyone ever come up to you and thought you were someone else? Maybe they see you as someone they know... maybe by your looks, maybe by your voice or speech, your mannerisms? And maybe they need a lot of convincing that you are not that person... but without your statement that you are not, they would not know.


Celebrity impersonators, good impersonators, make a living on being somebody that they are not.... Now they do this on purpose, but look-alike Christians, may not know that they are until they die. I'd say with your two friends [and to the many friends like them], and based on your testimony, that they may have learned that they were never really true to faith way before the Lord called them to die.... so maybe they need a friend like you to 'bring them back' or witneess to them now, again for the 1st time? In either case, I can't see you knowing for sure that they were ever saved in the first place, but only speculate... particularly if you base it by their looks or actions, instead of their heart, can you?


So my comment is to continue to share the Love of Christ and their need to repent of their sinful ways and to put your trust that the Lord will work on their heart in true salvation...

And I feel your pain in the friendships...


For God's glory...

Toolman
Apr 12th 2007, 02:04 PM
John 2:18-20 - Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things

Now, here John specifically says that antichrists (atheists, unbelievers, heretics) have come out from inside the Church. He says they were once "with us" (claimed to be Christian) but were not "of us" (were not truly in Christ) for IF they had been "of us" (truly in Christ) they would have continued with us (in the faith of Christ).

But their going out was that they might be made manifest that they were not "of us" (truly in Christ).

When someone truly leaves the faith it is for the purpose of manifesting that they were never truly in Christ. This is God's purpose for their leaving.

So, John is expressly clear here that true believers who in the true faith remain and those who leave are manifesting that they were never truly in Christ.

Remember Christ said there would be false Christs who if possible would deceive even the elect. If there are false Christs then you can be sure there are false Christians who can deceive (even themselves) and John expressly and plainly states that is the case.

ProjectPeter
Apr 12th 2007, 03:54 PM
ProjectPeter

I have shown this also;

And you continue to ignore.


1 cor 11
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep{death and judgement of the flesh}.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
We have a judgement even to the death of a believer, to preserve the believer from the same condemnation of the the lost.


This exact concept is what is stated in

Hebrews 10.
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.


31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.



The lord Judging his people is a referance to a form of body.

And you are being very liberal in your read ing of the " ADVERSARIES of God."



The verse states.

heb 10
27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery zeal, about to devour the opposers;
They oppose truth; God will judge them for that because they are HIS to judge, and in this judgement he does, he preserves them.

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

They are still HIS PEOPLE; even while he is judgeing them.




God is holding fast their salvation thru his judgement of them; even to the their death.

1 cor 11
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
The concept is again found in Pauls writing;
1 Corinthians 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.The flesh is destroyed; so that the spirit is saved.



Christ keeps our spirit even thru the judgement he puts upon us.


I have established a precedence for the doctrine;

Of the judgement is upon the flesh; but Christ saves the spirit.
Thru not only the use of this passage; but also the other passages refering to the same doctrine. Which i have referanced.


You have established no such thing.

Your point therefore is with out precedence and is nothing more than your unfounded opinion; not doctrine.

Thus thanks for sharing it.Actually you are trying to mesh passages that don't mesh. The Corinthian passage for example. It doesn't make clear that these folks were judged as adversaries of God. The Hebrews passage does make that clear. How does God judge the adversary... what is their fate eternally?

ProjectPeter
Apr 12th 2007, 03:59 PM
A signet seal is the very sign of authority you will find in Revelation my friends. None the less, Paul, knowing whom he had placed his trust said plainly: 2nd Timothy 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 1:14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

What did Paul deliver to the Lord that he knew would be kept and again, what day was he talking about?In context there... I would say that Paul is speaking of the gospel and even the calling. He tells Timothy to guard it through the Spirit as well.

ProjectPeter
Apr 12th 2007, 04:27 PM
Can anyone give an example of someone that is talked about in the Bible that lost their salvation? I'm not aware of any cases of this. If anyone thinks they know of someone then please share the Scripture.

Let's extend this even further. Does anyone here know of someone who you believe lost their salvation? Or at least that you think lost their salvation? We don't want to judge anyone, of course. But do you know anyone who you feel was once saved and now you feel that they are not? If so, please tell us exactly how you think that they lost their salvation. Please be specific.

Eric
Consider the fact that the Epistle's were not written like the Old Testament which told us of the lives of various individuals. We have mention of a few folks that had turned away from the truth at the time the letter was written but we have no record of how their life ended out. So in that sense I would agree with RbG in that we'd be guessing.

But then we do have passages that speak of this being a possibility although it doesn't tell us that Joe Schmucky was once saved but died lost. I can think of Ananias and his wife and I don't suppose they fared well but then you would have folks say "we don't know if they were saved in the first place" and again that is because the letters weren't written to tell the story of a persons life.

In the Old Testament... good chance that Saul didn;t fare well. Folks will say that Samuel said that Saul would be with him that next day therefore Saul is in heaven but I would say that Samuel was simply talking about Saul being in the grave with them. An often used phrase... resting with the fathers... simply means they are in the grave. Does Scripture say he was toast... not in those clear of words.

ProjectPeter
Apr 12th 2007, 04:32 PM
But to say one was lost, then saved, and then becomes lost again, I do not see a biblical bases to proclaim this.


And a parable that I often use for this case...

Luke 15:11 ¶And He said, "A certain man had two sons;
12 and the younger of them said to his father, `Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.´ And he divided his wealth between them.
13 "And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.
14 "Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be in need.
15 "And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 "And he was longing to fill his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him.
17 "But when he came to his senses, he said, `How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger!
18 `I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight;
19 "I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men."´
20 "And he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him, and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him, and kissed him.
21 "And the son said to him, `Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.´
22 "But the father said to his slaves, `Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet;
23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry;
24 for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.´ And they began to be merry.
25 "Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing.
26 "And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things might be.
27 "And he said to him, `Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.´
28 "But he became angry, and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began entreating him.
29 "But he answered and said to his father, `Look! For so many years I have been serving you, and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a kid, that I might be merry with my friends;
30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with harlots, you killed the fattened calf for him.´
31 "And he said to him, `My child, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours.
32 `But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.´"

Here is the Greek for that red bold type.

anazao

to recover life (literally or figuratively): -- (be a-)live again, revive.

ProjectPeter
Apr 12th 2007, 04:39 PM
John 2:18-20 - Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things

Now, here John specifically says that antichrists (atheists, unbelievers, heretics) have come out from inside the Church. He says they were once "with us" (claimed to be Christian) but were not "of us" (were not truly in Christ) for IF they had been "of us" (truly in Christ) they would have continued with us (in the faith of Christ).

But their going out was that they might be made manifest that they were not "of us" (truly in Christ).

When someone truly leaves the faith it is for the purpose of manifesting that they were never truly in Christ. This is God's purpose for their leaving.

So, John is expressly clear here that true believers who in the true faith remain and those who leave are manifesting that they were never truly in Christ.

Remember Christ said there would be false Christs who if possible would deceive even the elect. If there are false Christs then you can be sure there are false Christians who can deceive (even themselves) and John expressly and plainly states that is the case.
But then John makes it clear who these folks are that he is speaking of. Those that deny Christ who are or were a part of the church. We know that he is speaking of Nicolatianism/Gnosticism or some variation of that. But there are many that don't deny that Jesus is the Christ but even still... they aren't right whether they once were or never really were. I again think of the passage in John chapter 2....

23 ¶Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, beholding His signs which He was doing.
24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,
25 and because He did not need anyone to bear witness concerning man for He Himself knew what was in man.

Then the passage that "many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord'" So these folks aren't "antichrist" as what John is speaking of. I think John was targeting something a bit more specific which was spreading throughout the church during that time and I also think history proves that out as well.

Centurionoflight
Apr 12th 2007, 06:36 PM
ProjectPeter



Actually you are trying to mesh passages that don't mesh. The Corinthian passage for example. It doesn't make clear that these folks were judged as adversaries of God. The Hebrews passage does make that clear. How does God judge the adversary... what is their fate eternally?
I have established a precedence for the conclusion I gave.

You are still in a stage of conjecture; you have no presedence.

Toolman
Apr 12th 2007, 07:13 PM
But there are many that don't deny that Jesus is the Christ but even still... they aren't right whether they once were or never really were.

Yet those who do not deny Jesus we cannot judge as not saved. If they confess Him as Saviour and believe in Him alone for salvation then we must commit that to the Lord's hand no matter how their lifestyle may appear to us. We don't know how their sanctification will manifest in His timing.

Those are not the type of people that were being discussed though.

The discussion was on those who at one time claimed faith in Christ and have now rejected Him and no longer claim faith in Him. John's dialogue there discusses that very thing in principle though he may have been speaking of some specific individuals the principle is universal.

The key phrases he uses tell us this. They were "with us" but were not "of us" and this truth was manifested by their "going out from us". And he concludes there with stating "but you (those who remain) have an anointing from the Holy One" indicating those who went out, because they were not "of us" never had this anointing of the Holy One.

I think it is very strong biblical evidence to support the case that those who appear to, at one time, have faith and later reject Christ were never "of us", i.e. born again.

The scriptural principle seems evident to me and I would side with it before any of my experience or feelings. I may have "felt" that someone was saved but their "going out" manifests the truth, they were never "of us".

Toolman
Apr 12th 2007, 07:26 PM
Absolutely. A Biblical example is Demas, who at one point traveled around with Paul but is later stated to have left him for the world.

I'm not entirely comfortable with stating that Demas was unsaved because of Paul's remark about him.

2 Timothy 4:9-12 - Be diligent to come to me quickly; for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry. And Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus.

Now, we notice here that Paul does obviously comment that Demas has left him because of loving this present world but lets also remember this is the same Paul who because of John Mark seperated company with his longtime friend Barnabus (the first one to trust him after conversion). Paul was so upset by John Mark not traveling the full mission trip with them that he broke fellowship with Barnabus.

But later we notice that Paul calls for John Mark (in the same chapter above), so we observe that Paul can change his opinion on someone at a later date.

Not to mention this is a recurring theme through scripture. Men get weary, or afraid, or whatever and the Lord has to bring them back (Peter's 3 time denial, etc.).

So I'm not convinced by Paul's one statement here as to the final judgement on Demas' life and we are not given that in scripture.

FWIW.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 12th 2007, 07:51 PM
And a parable that I often use for this case...

Luke 15:11 ¶And He said, "A certain man had two sons;
12 and the younger of them said to his father, `Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.´ And he divided his wealth between them.
13 "And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.
14 "Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be in need.
15 "And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 "And he was longing to fill his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him.
17 "But when he came to his senses, he said, `How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger!
18 `I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight;
19 "I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men."´
20 "And he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him, and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him, and kissed him.
21 "And the son said to him, `Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.´
22 "But the father said to his slaves, `Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet;
23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry;
24 for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.´ And they began to be merry.
25 "Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing.
26 "And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things might be.
27 "And he said to him, `Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.´
28 "But he became angry, and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began entreating him.
29 "But he answered and said to his father, `Look! For so many years I have been serving you, and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a kid, that I might be merry with my friends;
30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with harlots, you killed the fattened calf for him.´
31 "And he said to him, `My child, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours.
32 `But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.´"

Here is the Greek for that red bold type.

anazao

to recover life (literally or figuratively): -- (be a-)live again, revive.

Thinking to myself:

:hmm: Been running around since 5AM and have a ton of work still a head of me , so why did I check this site before starting my next project... I must be a fool... and everybody said..AMEN...


OK PP,

My take of Luke 15 and the prodigal son...


1st question/statement is that this deals with a man who has 2 --- sons... Being a son, you are of the father, are you not....? Is not your son compared to the son of a neighbor or stranger different in relationship to you? I'd hope that you would agree that your boy is your boy is your boy.

Yet a larger relationship is that all men are sinners, we all are born sinners and are like our father -- the devil... So in keeping the meaning the same, this can't be about being outside of the family, then being in the family... then leaving the family, so this passage is not about adoption and then being not adopted, and then being adopted again -- but about a father and son.

This son, while leaving his father's house, never left being his father's son... and when time came to the son, he realized that he did wrong to himself, and his father, but knew if he went back to him, his relationship as his son, was his only calling card he had in his mind that would be reasoning for his father to even listen to his confession of wrong, or so he thought... so he returned "home" with a humble repentant heart, seeking with intent to set aside his position of being his father's son --- and offered to pay for his sin by giving up his birth right as son if only to be considered as one of his father's servants, just to be under his father's care again.

But the Father's response was beyond the younger son's expectations, for the father never once considered disowning his son, but rejoiced that His son came back

For family is always family, even if one runs away from your birth parents, they still are your birth parents, no matter what...

2nd question/statement... So this doesn't fit the lost-found-lost [or lost-saved-lost or son- not son -son] scenario that you offer... For In my theology, salvation is not earned nor is one born into salvation, but one is adopted by God for His will and not ours... and that who he declares His will always be His - even until the end... But on the flip side of the coin...not everyone who self-claims they are a of Christ really are... the problem is that we know that there are look alike Christians, but we may not know who they are -- in many ways.... But He does...


For God's Glory...

ProjectPeter
Apr 12th 2007, 08:19 PM
ProjectPeter

I have established a precedence for the conclusion I gave.

You are still in a stage of conjecture; you have no presedence.
Yeah... sure you're right! :rolleyes:

taddy
Apr 12th 2007, 09:58 PM
I still stand my post earlier on this thread.

As for scriptureal proof read Matthew 18:21-35

MATTHEW 18:21-35

21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

VERSE 34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

Clearly states that the King (who represents God) REVOKED the forgiveness he issued out in verse 27.

I am not here to to try to change your views. That is your Pastor (AND ONLY YOUR Pastor's place). It is not your place to to try change my views. That's the job of my Pastor only. I'm not saying that's what you are doing. Neither one of us has the right to say the other is wrong. All I'm doing is sharing my views as you are.

It's fine to say that you agree or disagree, but is not OK to tear my post to shreds and tell me that I am wrong. That is my pastor and only my pastor's job. I respect your views. I came in here looking for a good debated, however, Idid not expect to have my post picked apart.


Tad

HEBREWS 13:17

Obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

taddy
Apr 12th 2007, 10:03 PM
Just in case you are wandering,

The post I am refering to is the one right after y post from April 9, 2007 4:54pm.


TAD

Centurionoflight
Apr 12th 2007, 10:26 PM
taddy



MATTHEW 18:21-35

Clearly states that the King (who represents God) REVOKED the forgiveness he issued out in verse 27.

Christ is not addressing salvation in that passage.

Salvation is a gift; and it is not recallable.

Romans 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

You seem to imply "If we dont forgive then we can lose salvation."

You in essence are putting salvation back into the control of man thru the actions of man.





It's fine to say that you agree or disagree, but is not OK to tear my post to shreds and tell me that I am wrong. That is my pastor and only my pastor's job. I respect your views. I came in here looking for a good debated, however, Idid not expect to have my post picked apart.
When there is issues people disagree with or find to be in error
They get pointed out;
That is the nature of the forum.

ProjectPeter
Apr 12th 2007, 11:36 PM
Yet those who do not deny Jesus we cannot judge as not saved. If they confess Him as Saviour and believe in Him alone for salvation then we must commit that to the Lord's hand no matter how their lifestyle may appear to us. We don't know how their sanctification will manifest in His timing.

Those are not the type of people that were being discussed though.

The discussion was on those who at one time claimed faith in Christ and have now rejected Him and no longer claim faith in Him. John's dialogue there discusses that very thing in principle though he may have been speaking of some specific individuals the principle is universal.

The key phrases he uses tell us this. They were "with us" but were not "of us" and this truth was manifested by their "going out from us". And he concludes there with stating "but you (those who remain) have an anointing from the Holy One" indicating those who went out, because they were not "of us" never had this anointing of the Holy One.

I think it is very strong biblical evidence to support the case that those who appear to, at one time, have faith and later reject Christ were never "of us", i.e. born again.

The scriptural principle seems evident to me and I would side with it before any of my experience or feelings. I may have "felt" that someone was saved but their "going out" manifests the truth, they were never "of us".
I disagree there... I think this is targeted a bit more closely to a certain type person. But we've disagreed at least twice before or so... :lol:

ProjectPeter
Apr 13th 2007, 12:20 AM
Thinking to myself:

:hmm: Been running around since 5AM and have a ton of work still a head of me , so why did I check this site before starting my next project... I must be a fool... and everybody said..AMEN...


OK PP,

My take of Luke 15 and the prodigal son...


1st question/statement is that this deals with a man who has 2 --- sons... Being a son, you are of the father, are you not....? Is not your son compared to the son of a neighbor or stranger different in relationship to you? I'd hope that you would agree that your boy is your boy is your boy.

Yet a larger relationship is that all men are sinners, we all are born sinners and are like our father -- the devil... So in keeping the meaning the same, this can't be about being outside of the family, then being in the family... then leaving the family, so this passage is not about adoption and then being not adopted, and then being adopted again -- but about a father and son.

This son, while leaving his father's house, never left being his father's son... and when time came to the son, he realized that he did wrong to himself, and his father, but knew if he went back to him, his relationship as his son, was his only calling card he had in his mind that would be reasoning for his father to even listen to his confession of wrong, or so he thought... so he returned "home" with a humble repentant heart, seeking with intent to set aside his position of being his father's son --- and offered to pay for his sin by giving up his birth right as son if only to be considered as one of his father's servants, just to be under his father's care again.

But the Father's response was beyond the younger son's expectations, for the father never once considered disowning his son, but rejoiced that His son came back

For family is always family, even if one runs away from your birth parents, they still are your birth parents, no matter what...

2nd question/statement... So this doesn't fit the lost-found-lost [or lost-saved-lost or son- not son -son] scenario that you offer... For In my theology, salvation is not earned nor is one born into salvation, but one is adopted by God for His will and not ours... and that who he declares His will always be His - even until the end... But on the flip side of the coin...not everyone who self-claims they are a of Christ really are... the problem is that we know that there are look alike Christians, but we may not know who they are -- in many ways.... But He does...


For God's Glory...
Then what's up with the alive, dead, alive again part of that passage? Folks say he was always a son and ok... was he? He had no inheritance. No residence. He was dead. No ring. None of that was there while he was gone and that signifies much if you look up the significance of those things in the history of that time (and I know you are big on that). None of that changed until he came back to the father. When you have a physically "alive" son that is counted dead by the father... there is much meaning in that which a lot of folks don't want to consider. It is still practiced in that part of the world today.

The Parson
Apr 13th 2007, 02:07 PM
In context there... I would say that Paul is speaking of the gospel and even the calling. He tells Timothy to guard it through the Spirit as well.Hardly, because Paul didn't commit the Gospel and his calling to the Lord. Otherwise it would be Pauls Gospel, not the Lords. The Lord commited His Gospel to mankind to spread. The only thing that man can commit to God is his soul. Think about it.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 13th 2007, 03:28 PM
Then what's up with the alive, dead, alive again part of that passage? Folks say he was always a son and ok... was he? He had no inheritance. No residence. He was dead. No ring. None of that was there while he was gone and that signifies much if you look up the significance of those things in the history of that time (and I know you are big on that). None of that changed until he came back to the father. When you have a physically "alive" son that is counted dead by the father... there is much meaning in that which a lot of folks don't want to consider. It is still practiced in that part of the world today.

Sorry for the delay PP… for As I stated… I am running in multiple directions right now…

Quick reply is that this deals with the son's repentance…i.e. as like to his spiritual birth… He blew it with his dad in arrogance and disobedient rebellion to ask dad for ½ his due and he just didn’t 'understand his position' when he did this… However, he didn’t die physically nor was he no longer his father’s son when he left… But his Ahhha moment came when his money ran out and he saw the error of his ways…

So spiritual dead.... transforming to his understanding in humble repentance... becoming spiritually alive...

Sorry for the hit and run… but I must go again…

For God’s glory…

ProjectPeter
Apr 13th 2007, 06:16 PM
Hardly, because Paul didn't commit the Gospel and his calling to the Lord. Otherwise it would be Pauls Gospel, not the Lords. The Lord commited His Gospel to mankind to spread. The only thing that man can commit to God is his soul. Think about it.
And keep in mind that it would be consistent with Paul's other letters where he referred to it as "his gospel" or the "gospel that he preached" etc. And as I said... context has to play a part in that too.

Just saying "the gospel" was probably to simply stated though. Let me put it this way. We could say Timothy, the churches, the saints, the elders, the teachings of Paul, etc. He encourages Timothy in that same passage to guard that which was entrusted to Him as well. I think he is speaking of the gospel as well. But the same could be said of the folks that Timothy was in charge of... the sheep if you will. His continuing the gospel to the Gentile nations.


2 Timothy 1:8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, or of me His prisoner; but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God,
9 who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,
10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
11 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.
12 For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.
13 Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.
14 Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.

ProjectPeter
Apr 13th 2007, 06:18 PM
Sorry for the delay PP… for As I stated… I am running in multiple directions right now…

Quick reply is that this deals with the son's repentance…i.e. as like to his spiritual birth… He blew it with his dad in arrogance and disobedient rebellion to ask dad for ½ his due and he just didn’t 'understand his position' when he did this… However, he didn’t die physically nor was he no longer his father’s son when he left… But his Ahhha moment came when his money ran out and he saw the error of his ways…

So spiritual dead.... transforming to his understanding in humble repentance... becoming spiritually alive...

Sorry for the hit and run… but I must go again…

For God’s glory…He didn't just become spiritually alive though RbG. That text makes that clear. He became alive AGAIN. That's the rub. ;)

And no problem... hit it when you can. :lol:

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 14th 2007, 01:18 AM
He didn't just become spiritually alive though RbG. That text makes that clear. He became alive AGAIN. That's the rub. ;)

And no problem... hit it when you can. :lol:

Hi PP…

I see about three points as to why I see this refering to a transformation of 'one time spiritual death to spiritual life' and not a literal meaning of ‘life again' --the meaning as I understand your point: life-death-life with your emphasis on the word "again" --- and because of time, and also because each point is worth studying by its self, I will post them one at a time.


Point number one. In comparison of verse 24, verse 32 -- for 32 clarifies the comments of 24…

Luke 15:24
for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate.

Luke 15:32
'But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"


Notice the sameness, yet the difference?


For God's glory...

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 14th 2007, 06:56 AM
Hi PP…

I see about three points as to why I see this refering to a transformation of 'one time spiritual death to spiritual life' and not a literal meaning of ‘life again' --the meaning as I understand your point: life-death-life with your emphasis on the word "again" --- and because of time, and also because each point is worth studying by its self, I will post them one at a time.


Point number one. In comparison of verse 24, verse 32 -- for 32 clarifies the comments of 24…

Luke 15:24
for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate.

Luke 15:32
'But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"


Notice the sameness, yet the difference?


For God's glory...

Come on, RbG. Both verses use the basic word for living. Verse 24 uses the word 'live again', which in no way is 'clarified' by verse 32 as you suggest. Verse 32 simply uses the same verb as verse 24 but without the 'again' part. The active aorist used there doesn't necessarily justify the translation given.

But beyond that, the story does speak for itself. The son was with the Father, but then decided to leave. After hitting rock bottom, the son returns home to the Father. He was with the Father, left, and came back. He was alive, died, and came to life again. However you read verse 24, you cannot come to life again unless you have been living before you died. Trying to say anything else from this story requires exegetical acrobatics.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 14th 2007, 12:08 PM
Come on, RbG. Both verses use the basic word for living. Verse 24 uses the word 'live again', which in no way is 'clarified' by verse 32 as you suggest. Verse 32 simply uses the same verb as verse 24 but without the 'again' part. The active aorist used there doesn't necessarily justify the translation given.

But beyond that, the story does speak for itself. The son was with the Father, but then decided to leave. After hitting rock bottom, the son returns home to the Father. He was with the Father, left, and came back. He was alive, died, and came to life again. However you read verse 24, you cannot come to life again unless you have been living before you died. Trying to say anything else from this story requires exegetical acrobatics.


Come on PtZ, :)

Your personal zings don't help here, but seeing that maybe that's your style, I will look past them- I will wait for PP to reply before I continue to build my exegetical position as to why I see this as only meaning dead then alive. [And you are assuming the son was spiritually alive while living with his father? But if that were the case... why did he insult him and rebel against while in living with him? ]


Hint... My travels will take my 2nd reasoning to context of chapter 15 next, and then word usage [read: Greek root wording] after that... so if you want to start your studies to position your exegetical acrobatics against mine... you now have a head start.....

[See how personal zings set a tone, do they not? Let's set them aside and position our points as friends, if not brothers...]

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 14th 2007, 12:36 PM
RbG,

Everything I said was meant in purely brotherly fashion to argue the point I believe is true from this passage. My comment on exegetical acrobatics was not meant to be personal. Sorry you took it that way.

Now let's move on to the actual topic of conversation...

ProjectPeter
Apr 14th 2007, 01:36 PM
Hi PP…

I see about three points as to why I see this refering to a transformation of 'one time spiritual death to spiritual life' and not a literal meaning of ‘life again' --the meaning as I understand your point: life-death-life with your emphasis on the word "again" --- and because of time, and also because each point is worth studying by its self, I will post them one at a time.


Point number one. In comparison of verse 24, verse 32 -- for 32 clarifies the comments of 24…

Luke 15:24
for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate.

Luke 15:32
'But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"


Notice the sameness, yet the difference?


For God's glory...
So why would one verse totally negate another? I gotta figure that wasn't intended by the writer. The point is clear truth be told. Take for example the "lost but now found." One can't be lost that never was. In other words... He was alive, dead, alive again. He was there, lost, there again. So the last usage doesn't at all negate the first usage nor does it change what was said earlier nor does it change the point of the parable.

Toolman
Apr 14th 2007, 01:59 PM
The point of Jesus' parables in Luke 15 is to refute the pharises because He dines with prostitutes and tax collectors (Luke 15 1-3). That is the context upon which all 3 parables are given.

These parables are used to depict the fall of ALL of mankind (offspring of God) and the joy in heaven over those who repent and return to God from the fall.

IMO the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son are all built around the theme of Christ's mission to save that which was lost, mankind (or the portion of mankind that was lost if it pleases you :)) and the seeking of Him and the joy when one is saved.

Read in context I see no other way to view these parables. To take them beyond that to be more than God seeking out lost mankind is to go beyond the intent and context IMO.

My 2c.

ProjectPeter
Apr 14th 2007, 02:10 PM
The point of Jesus' parables in Luke 15 is to refute the pharises because He dines with prostitutes and tax collectors (Luke 15 1-3). That is the context upon which all 3 parables are given.

These parables are used to depict the fall of ALL of mankind (offspring of God) and the joy in heaven over those who repent and return to God from the fall.

IMO the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son are all built around the theme of Christ's mission to save that which was lost, mankind (or the portion of mankind that was lost if it pleases you :)) and the seeking of Him and the joy when one is saved.

Read in context I see no other way to view these parables. To take them beyond that to be more than God seeking out lost mankind is to go beyond the intent and context IMO.

My 2c.
All three parables make the point you speak of no doubt and I too believe that is exactly what and why Jesus told them in refuting the Pharisee's "holier than thou, how dare he" attitude. I don't disagree with you there in the least. But then there are points within that point as well.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 14th 2007, 03:13 PM
The point of Jesus' parables in Luke 15 is to refute the pharises because He dines with prostitutes and tax collectors (Luke 15 1-3). That is the context upon which all 3 parables are given.

These parables are used to depict the fall of ALL of mankind (offspring of God) and the joy in heaven over those who repent and return to God from the fall.

IMO the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son are all built around the theme of Christ's mission to save that which was lost, mankind (or the portion of mankind that was lost if it pleases you :)) and the seeking of Him and the joy when one is saved.

Read in context I see no other way to view these parables. To take them beyond that to be more than God seeking out lost mankind is to go beyond the intent and context IMO.

My 2c.

Thanks Toolman for moving to point two… The net for the parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son, is toward the repentance of a sinner -see v. 7, 10, 32… that is the reason for the parables and I agree with TM’s logic…

So point one is that spiritually, one is dead first then alive, so through the son’s repentance, he became alive to his father and I view verse 32 compliments a better understanding to the intent of the parable.

Point two is found through context of all three parables given and the intent is to show lost condition to found condition; sin condition to humble repentance submission or saved

To point three. So PP and PtZ, in studying this passage, did you find a Greek word for again, or did you -like me find that through translation it has been given with a group of words? [anezhsen <326> (5656) {IS ALIVE AGAIN;}] [Maybe Baddog will chime in to tell us if there is a direct word in the Greek [whether Alexandrian or Byzantine, I’m not particular at this point]. In my view, some words with the Greek have direct words, others have grouping of words offered for meaning, which gives the translator liberties to pick the right grouping of words. For alive again [anezhsen or anazao], one of Strong’s definitions is ‘recover’, which to me offers a differing understanding and I must weigh this into my consideration. If one is born sinful…then to recover from sin through repentance in God’s grace is the better understanding.


Also look to the term 'Born Again', particularly as it is used in John 3: 3


Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." NASB

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. KJV


(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 3:3 apekriqh <611> (5662) o <3588> {ANSWERED} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} kai <2532> {AND} eipen <2036> (5627) {SAID} autw <846> {TO HIM,} amhn <281> {VERILY} amhn <281> {VERILY} legw <3004> (5719) {I SAY} soi <4671> ean <1437> {TO THEE,} mh <3361> {UNLESS} tiV <5100> {ANYONE} gennhqh <1080> (5686) {BE BORN} anwqen <509> ou <3756> {ANEW,} dunatai <1410> (5736) {HE CANNOT} idein <1492> (5629) {SEE} thn <3588> {THE} basileian <932> tou <3588> {KINGDOM} qeou <2316> {OF GOD.} from www.Olivetree.com
Notice that ‘again’ is not within the Greek, but it is within many translations… So where did again come from?

So alive again, born again, why don’t they use the same Greek words? And yet why do they both use again within their contexts?


The point is, for reading, ‘again’ is a good ‘fit’ or filler word that help the translators give clearer meaning to the context…and in general… doesn’t change meaning of the spirit of the original language… BUT… if one is building a doctrine around one word… here, the word being ‘again’, then one needs to know what again means, so in my study, I cannot find a direct Greek word for Again, and if I did, then why isn’t this word used in both Luke 15: 25, 32 and John 3:3?

These are my points among a few others that give me cause to say that the parable deals with death unto life; sinfulness to then recognize a need for repentance; even the old to the new.


For God’s Glory…

skc53
Apr 14th 2007, 03:14 PM
I believe in OSAS. First, John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, That whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. Every one who hears this will have the seed planted some people will believe therefor the roots are established. Some will hear and reject those would be as if the fowel of the air coming to devour them up. Second, We all will never walk perfectly with Jesus. But Hebrews 12:6-8 states ; For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chateneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. We all who believe in Jesus have at some point changed courses and from personal experience was whipped by God to return to a straighter course I can do nothing to save myself from Hell other than to accept the Mercy and Grace God showed me in his Son Jesus. For we will not be perfect until we are on the other side of glory. As Jesus told the Jews when they brought the woman to the temple for him to judge her for adultry and wanting to stone her; Jesus said; " If any be here without sin cast the first stone"; the only one there that could cast a stone simply stated go and sin no more. That is what we are all called into is not to willfully sin. Just a question that needs no public answer, when we awakened this morning what was first on our minds God or the world. If it was not God are we still saved?

Yes, you are so right and I agree with you totally hillbilly Dave. John 3:16 says it all. It's self explanatory.;)

ProjectPeter
Apr 14th 2007, 03:31 PM
Thanks Toolman for moving to point two… The net for the parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son, is toward the repentance of a sinner -see v. 7, 10, 32… that is the reason for the parables and I agree with TM’s logic…

So point one is that spiritually, one is dead first then alive, so through the son’s repentance, he became alive to his father and I view verse 32 compliments a better understanding to the intent of the parable.

Point two is found through context of all three parables given and the intent is to show lost condition to found condition; sin condition to humble repentance submission or saved

To point three. So PP and PtZ, in studying this passage, did you find a Greek word for again, or did you -like me find that through translation it has been given with a group of words? [anezhsen <326> (5656) {IS ALIVE AGAIN;}] [Maybe Baddog will chime in to tell us if there is a direct word in the Greek [whether Alexandrian or Byzantine, I’m not particular at this point]. In my view, some words with the Greek have direct words, others have grouping of words offered for meaning, which gives the translator liberties to pick the right grouping of words. For alive again [anezhsen or anazao], one of Strong’s definitions is ‘recover’, which to me offers a differing understanding and I must weigh this into my consideration. If one is born sinful…then to recover from sin through repentance in God’s grace is the better understanding.


Also look to the term 'Born Again', particularly as it is used in John 3: 3


Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." NASB

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. KJV


(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 3:3 apekriqh <611> (5662) o <3588> {ANSWERED} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} kai <2532> {AND} eipen <2036> (5627) {SAID} autw <846> {TO HIM,} amhn <281> {VERILY} amhn <281> {VERILY} legw <3004> (5719) {I SAY} soi <4671> ean <1437> {TO THEE,} mh <3361> {UNLESS} tiV <5100> {ANYONE} gennhqh <1080> (5686) {BE BORN} anwqen <509> ou <3756> {ANEW,} dunatai <1410> (5736) {HE CANNOT} idein <1492> (5629) {SEE} thn <3588> {THE} basileian <932> tou <3588> {KINGDOM} qeou <2316> {OF GOD.} from www.Olivetree.com
Notice that ‘again’ is not within the Greek, but it is within many translations… So where did again come from?

So alive again, born again, why don’t they use the same Greek words? And yet why do they both use again within their contexts?


The point is, for reading, ‘again’ is a good ‘fit’ or filler word that help the translators give clearer meaning to the context…and in general… doesn’t change meaning of the spirit of the original language… BUT… if one is building a doctrine around one word… here, the word being ‘again’, then one needs to know what again means, so in my study, I cannot find a direct Greek word for Again, and if I did, then why isn’t this word used in both Luke 15: 25, 32 and John 3:3?

These are my points among a few others that give me cause to say that the parable deals with death unto life; sinfulness to then recognize a need for repentance; even the old to the new.


For God’s Glory…
Here is the word used there RbG.

anazao --

to recover life (literally or figuratively): -- (be a-)live again, revive.

The more exhaustive definition is this:

live again, recover life

1. to be restored to a correct life
1. of one who returns to a better moral state
2. to revive, regain strength and vigour

Used elsewhere...

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Revelation 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

One cannot recover something they never had. One can not be revived to something they never were. One cannot regain something they never had. In other words... he was alive, dead, and lived again. That is the meaning of the word.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 14th 2007, 10:47 PM
Here is the word used there RbG.

anazao --

to recover life (literally or figuratively): -- (be a-)live again, revive.

The more exhaustive definition is this:

live again, recover life

1. to be restored to a correct life
1. of one who returns to a better moral state
2. to revive, regain strength and vigour

Used elsewhere...

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Revelation 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

One cannot recover something they never had. One can not be revived to something they never were. One cannot regain something they never had. In other words... he was alive, dead, and lived again. That is the meaning of the word.


So were you able to find a Greek word for “again”? For again meaning repetition, or from before or more than once, I’d have to think there’d be a single Greek word if this was common or important… And also, we just can’t cherry pick one usage that fits and assume it has the same meaning and intent elsewhere we see it within scripture, can we?


Here are words used within Strong’s that have some connotation tot the word Again. A few observations, the most populace word for again is <3825> Palin… So question, if it again is most noted with palin, and palin is defined as a strong again… why isn’t this word used within Luke 15 or John 3?



I see 326 focuses as to being alive, and 3825 as to again, and the again of 326 is a weak application in what I see here…

New Testament Greek Definition:
326 anazao {an-ad-zah'-o}
from 303 and 2198; TDNT - 2:872,290; v
AV - be alive again 2, revive 2, live again 1; 5
1) live again, recover life
1a) to be restored to a correct life
1a1) of one who returns to a better moral state
1b) to revive, regain strength and vigour

New Testament Greek Definition:
386 anastasis {an-as'-tas-is}
from 450; TDNT - 1:371,60; n f
AV - resurrection 39, rising again 1, that should rise 1,
raised to life again + 1537 1; 42
1) a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)
2) a rising from the dead
2a) that of Christ
2b) that of all men at the end of this present age
2c) the resurrection of certain ones history who were restored
to life (Heb. 11:35)


New Testament Greek Definition:
1880 epanerchomai {ep-an-er'-khom-ahee}
from 1909 and 424;; v
AV - come again 1, return 1; 2
1) to return, come back again

New Testament Greek Definition:
450 anistemi {an-is'-tay-mee}
from 303 and 2476; TDNT - 1:368,60; v
AV - arise 38, rise 19, rise up 16, rise again 13, raise up 11,
stand up 8, raise up again 2, misc 5; 112
1) to cause to rise up, raise up
1a) raise up from laying down
1b) to raise up from the dead
1c) to raise up, cause to be born, to cause to appear, bring forward
2) to rise, stand up
2a) of persons lying down, of persons lying on the ground
2b) of persons seated
2c) of those who leave a place to go elsewhere
2c1) of those who prepare themselves for a journey
2d) of the dead
3) at arise, appear, stand forth
3a) of kings prophets, priests, leaders of insurgents
3b) of those about to enter into conversation or dispute with anyone,
or to undertake some business, or attempt something against others
3c) to rise up against any one

New Testament Greek Definition:
3825 palin {pal'-in}
probably from the same as 3823 (through the idea of oscillatory
repetition);; adv
AV - again 142; 142
1) anew, again
1a) renewal or repetition of the action
1b) again, anew
2) again, i.e. further, moreover
3) in turn, on the other hand

New Testament Greek Definition:
1994 epistrepho {ep-ee-stref'-o}
from 1909 and 4762; TDNT - 7:722,1093; v
AV - turn 16, be converted 6, return 6, turn about 4,
turn again 3, misc 4; 39
1) transitively
1a) to turn to
1a1) to the worship of the true God
1b) to cause to return, to bring back
1b1) to the love and obedience of God
1b2) to the love for the children
1b3) to love wisdom and righteousness
2) intransitively
2a) to turn to one's self
2b) to turn one's self about, turn back
2c) to return, turn back, come back

New Testament Greek Definition:
600 apokathistemi {ap-ok-ath-is'-tay-mee}
from 575 and 2525; TDNT - 1:387,65; v
AV - restore 7, restore again 1; 8
1) to restore to its former state
2) to be in its former state


Greek NT words for Alive

New Testament Greek Definition:
2198 zao {dzah'-o}
a primary verb; TDNT - 2:832,290; v
AV - live 117, be alive 9, alive 6, quick 4, lively 3,
not tr 1, misc 2, vr live 1; 143
1) to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)
2) to enjoy real life
2a) to have true life and worthy of the name
2b) active, blessed, endless in the kingdom of God
3) to live i.e. pass life, in the manner of the living and acting
3a) of mortals or character
4) living water, having vital power in itself and exerting the
same upon the soul
5) metaph. to be in full vigour
5a) to be fresh, strong, efficient,
5b) as adj. active, powerful, efficacious

326 anazao {an-ad-zah'-o}
from 303 and 2198; TDNT - 2:872,290; v
AV - be alive again 2, revive 2, live again 1; 5
1) live again, recover life
1a) to be restored to a correct life
1a1) of one who returns to a better moral state
1b) to revive, regain strength and vigour

New Testament Greek Definition:
2227 zoopoieo {dzo-op-oy-eh'-o}
from the same as 2226 and 4160; TDNT - 2:874,290; v
AV - quicken 9, give life 2, make alive 1; 12
1) to produce alive, begat or bear living young
2) to cause to live, make alive, give life
2a) by spiritual power to arouse and invigorate
2b) to restore to life
2c) to give increase of life: thus of physical life
2d) of the spirit, quickening as respects the spirit, endued with
new and greater powers of life
3) metaph., of seeds quickened into life, i.e. germinating, springing
up, growing



Then also, don’t forget the context to my other two points :saint: …

ProjectPeter
Apr 14th 2007, 11:39 PM
So were you able to find a Greek word for “again”? For again meaning repetition, or from before or more than once, I’d have to think there’d be a single Greek word if this was common or important… And also, we just can’t cherry pick one usage that fits and assume it has the same meaning and intent elsewhere we see it within scripture, can we?


Here are words used within Strong’s that have some connotation tot the word Again. A few observations, the most populace word for again is <3825> Palin… So question, if it again is most noted with palin, and palin is defined as a strong again… why isn’t this word used within Luke 15 or John 3?



I see 326 focuses as to being alive, and 3825 as to again, and the again of 326 is a weak application in what I see here…

New Testament Greek Definition:
326 anazao {an-ad-zah'-o}
from 303 and 2198; TDNT - 2:872,290; v
AV - be alive again 2, revive 2, live again 1; 5
1) live again, recover life
1a) to be restored to a correct life
1a1) of one who returns to a better moral state
1b) to revive, regain strength and vigour

New Testament Greek Definition:
386 anastasis {an-as'-tas-is}
from 450; TDNT - 1:371,60; n f
AV - resurrection 39, rising again 1, that should rise 1,
raised to life again + 1537 1; 42
1) a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)
2) a rising from the dead
2a) that of Christ
2b) that of all men at the end of this present age
2c) the resurrection of certain ones history who were restored
to life (Heb. 11:35)


New Testament Greek Definition:
1880 epanerchomai {ep-an-er'-khom-ahee}
from 1909 and 424;; v
AV - come again 1, return 1; 2
1) to return, come back again

New Testament Greek Definition:
450 anistemi {an-is'-tay-mee}
from 303 and 2476; TDNT - 1:368,60; v
AV - arise 38, rise 19, rise up 16, rise again 13, raise up 11,
stand up 8, raise up again 2, misc 5; 112
1) to cause to rise up, raise up
1a) raise up from laying down
1b) to raise up from the dead
1c) to raise up, cause to be born, to cause to appear, bring forward
2) to rise, stand up
2a) of persons lying down, of persons lying on the ground
2b) of persons seated
2c) of those who leave a place to go elsewhere
2c1) of those who prepare themselves for a journey
2d) of the dead
3) at arise, appear, stand forth
3a) of kings prophets, priests, leaders of insurgents
3b) of those about to enter into conversation or dispute with anyone,
or to undertake some business, or attempt something against others
3c) to rise up against any one

New Testament Greek Definition:
3825 palin {pal'-in}
probably from the same as 3823 (through the idea of oscillatory
repetition);; adv
AV - again 142; 142
1) anew, again
1a) renewal or repetition of the action
1b) again, anew
2) again, i.e. further, moreover
3) in turn, on the other hand

New Testament Greek Definition:
1994 epistrepho {ep-ee-stref'-o}
from 1909 and 4762; TDNT - 7:722,1093; v
AV - turn 16, be converted 6, return 6, turn about 4,
turn again 3, misc 4; 39
1) transitively
1a) to turn to
1a1) to the worship of the true God
1b) to cause to return, to bring back
1b1) to the love and obedience of God
1b2) to the love for the children
1b3) to love wisdom and righteousness
2) intransitively
2a) to turn to one's self
2b) to turn one's self about, turn back
2c) to return, turn back, come back

New Testament Greek Definition:
600 apokathistemi {ap-ok-ath-is'-tay-mee}
from 575 and 2525; TDNT - 1:387,65; v
AV - restore 7, restore again 1; 8
1) to restore to its former state
2) to be in its former state


Greek NT words for Alive

New Testament Greek Definition:
2198 zao {dzah'-o}
a primary verb; TDNT - 2:832,290; v
AV - live 117, be alive 9, alive 6, quick 4, lively 3,
not tr 1, misc 2, vr live 1; 143
1) to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)
2) to enjoy real life
2a) to have true life and worthy of the name
2b) active, blessed, endless in the kingdom of God
3) to live i.e. pass life, in the manner of the living and acting
3a) of mortals or character
4) living water, having vital power in itself and exerting the
same upon the soul
5) metaph. to be in full vigour
5a) to be fresh, strong, efficient,
5b) as adj. active, powerful, efficacious

326 anazao {an-ad-zah'-o}
from 303 and 2198; TDNT - 2:872,290; v
AV - be alive again 2, revive 2, live again 1; 5
1) live again, recover life
1a) to be restored to a correct life
1a1) of one who returns to a better moral state
1b) to revive, regain strength and vigour

New Testament Greek Definition:
2227 zoopoieo {dzo-op-oy-eh'-o}
from the same as 2226 and 4160; TDNT - 2:874,290; v
AV - quicken 9, give life 2, make alive 1; 12
1) to produce alive, begat or bear living young
2) to cause to live, make alive, give life
2a) by spiritual power to arouse and invigorate
2b) to restore to life
2c) to give increase of life: thus of physical life
2d) of the spirit, quickening as respects the spirit, endued with
new and greater powers of life
3) metaph., of seeds quickened into life, i.e. germinating, springing
up, growing



Then also, don’t forget the context to my other two points :saint: …
RbG... if you can't easily see why they used the words "live again" based on the Greek definition of the word... then don't know what to tell you. That is a perfectly fine translation based on the words meaning. To recover life means that one recovered something lost. In this case it is speaking of life. Therefore they live again. To be restored to life means that well... life has been restored therefore they live again. Honestly... I can't even believe you are arguing that point.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 14th 2007, 11:51 PM
RbG... if you can't easily see why they used the words "live again" based on the Greek definition of the word... then don't know what to tell you. That is a perfectly fine translation based on the words meaning. To recover life means that one recovered something lost. In this case it is speaking of life. Therefore they live again. To be restored to life means that well... life has been restored therefore they live again. Honestly... I can't even believe you are arguing that point.

I can't believe you can't see my point yet... Oh well, maybe I'm not being clear in my presentation... or maybe you are just focused on just the one point and can't see it the way I do...

Oh well...

ProjectPeter
Apr 15th 2007, 12:23 AM
I can't believe you can't see my point yet... Oh well, maybe I'm not being clear in my presentation... or maybe you are just focused on just the one point and can't see it the way I do...

Oh well...
Right now I am focused on that point with it being a major point. Your other points are discounting a point made in the third parable that Jesus gave. That this son was alive, dead, and then revived (alive again). You are trying to have the son dead and only alive when he came back and repented. That is absolutely contrary to what that says... and not translated says... but the Greek itself. So if point one is broke... I figure that is a sticking point before moving on to the other points which tie in with this thinking.

ProjectPeter
Apr 15th 2007, 12:28 AM
And let me add too... the phrase born again works with born "anew" although we are talking two different Greek words. You will find the word "again" as a viable translation for that although I am sure there are technicality that the Greek geek folks use that determine that.

Harrison Potter
Apr 15th 2007, 01:57 AM
I believe that one does have eternal security when you accept Christ as long as you don't throw it away by turning your back on Him. God gave us the freedom of choice and I don't believe that he will take that away from us even when we get to our home on the other side. In other words, just as Satan and his followers turned from God so do we still have that choice. One would be foolish to do so, but I believe we will always have that choice.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 15th 2007, 10:42 AM
Right now I am focused on that point with it being a major point. Your other points are discounting a point made in the third parable that Jesus gave. That this son was alive, dead, and then revived (alive again). You are trying to have the son dead and only alive when he came back and repented. That is absolutely contrary to what that says... and not translated says... but the Greek itself. So if point one is broke... I figure that is a sticking point before moving on to the other points which tie in with this thinking.


So you are saying that while the son was living at home, he was saved… and in being saved, he decided one day to rebel against dear old dad and demanded his inheritance… and upon receiving his due… he lost his salvation the moment he walked out the door leaving father, brother and his ranch behind… After living it up and once the money ran out, he decided to go back home… fast forward… and as soon as dad saw him on the horizon, the son became saved again… That’s what I hear you say the Greek is saying, right? Saved… Dead… Saved again????

OK -- So… let’s focus on this -- cause you don’t want to focus anywhere else… When did the son become saved in the first place? And being saved, why did he decide to walk away then?

See, As PtZ has stated of me, this is an equal stretch to say that the son was saved from the beginning… the assumption was that the son started out being saved… I’m saying that the son wasn’t saved until he repented… for the theme of the three parables is repentance. So for your position, you are implying that the son was born into salvation ergo saved-dead-saved…. And I am stating dead-saved…

Point to the text… if the translators threw in again at verse 24, why not the same with verse 32? Point is that again is implied within the translation….

Luke 15:24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate.

Luke 15:24 for this3778 son5207 of mine1473 was dead3498 and has come326 to life326 again326; he was lost622 and has been found2147.' And they began757 to celebrate2165


Luke 15:32 'But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"

Luke 15:32 'But we had1163 to celebrate2165 and rejoice5463, for this3778 brother80 of yours4771 was dead3498 and has begun to live2198, and was lost622 and has been found2147.'"

The other statement is if the son were dead - <3498> nekros, how did he become alive? For dead men are --well dead… So spiritually, the son was dead once…then alive forever… for under your understanding, this boy could have rebelled and died again, could he not?

So PP, with words and logic together, there is no way that this parable is saying that the son started out being saved, then died by leaving, then saved himself in returning home, and the word again is a nice filler word, but really, it means again for the first time… These three parables were given to show repentance... and not to show that you can lose your salvation.

chal
Apr 15th 2007, 02:23 PM
If the Father in the parable is symbolic of God, then being at home with Him is being saved. I'm not sure how anyone can be more saved that that. A new "Extra Grace, " doctrine, perhaps. OSAS always poses a chicken/egg question and then tries to render it rhetorical and lean toward the least obvious side.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 15th 2007, 11:05 PM
Luke 15:1-3
1 Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him.
2 Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them."
3 So He told them this parable, saying,
//
Luke 15:6-11
6 "And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'
7 "I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
//
8 "Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?
9 "When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!'
10 "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
11 And He said, "A man had two sons.
//
Luke 15:32 'But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"

Luke 15 is directed for the ears of the Pharisees and the Scribes who were within the audience of the tax collectors and sinners… with the intent to show the Pharisees and scribes their need for repentance… For if the Pharisees were believers and followers of God… would they be representative of the 'saved' father’s sons within the last parable… for they believed in God -- did they not?

cwb
Apr 16th 2007, 05:11 AM
The parable of the prodigal son is dealing with fellowship and the son's fellowship with his father and not salvation. I do not see how this parable can be used by either side to prove osas or nosas.

chal
Apr 16th 2007, 08:38 AM
The parable of the prodigal son is dealing with fellowship and the son's fellowship with his father and not salvation. I do not see how this parable can be used by either side to prove osas or nosas.

Perhaps, but you haven't presented a reason why this may be true.

Do you think you can be unsaved and have a fellowship with God? Having a relationship with God IS salvation. When light enters the equation, the darkness is dispelled.

chal
Apr 16th 2007, 08:47 AM
Luke 15:1-3
1 Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him.
2 Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them."
3 So He told them this parable, saying,
//
Luke 15:6-11
6 "And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'
7 "I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
//
8 "Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?
9 "When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!'
10 "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
11 And He said, "A man had two sons.
//
Luke 15:32 'But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"

Luke 15 is directed for the ears of the Pharisees and the Scribes who were within the audience of the tax collectors and sinners… with the intent to show the Pharisees and scribes their need for repentance… For if the Pharisees were believers and followers of God… would they be representative of the 'saved' father’s sons within the last parable… for they believed in God -- did they not?

chal > Do you mean these pharisees?:rofl:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

So do you think you can be unsaved and have fellowship with God?

cwb
Apr 16th 2007, 09:13 AM
Perhaps, but you haven't presented a reason why this may be true.

Do you think you can be unsaved and have a fellowship with God? Having a relationship with God IS salvation. When light enters the equation, the darkness is dispelled.

No, I don't think I said anything about being unsaved and being able to have fellowship with God.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 16th 2007, 11:19 AM
chal > Do you mean these pharisees?:rofl:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

So do you think you can be unsaved and have fellowship with God?

My point exactly…. Jesus stated to those who say that they new God -- the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, the ‘keepers’ of the law, the ‘righteous’ ones [Matthew 5:20] -- that they don’t know Him at all… that is precisely why Jesus gave reasoning of ‘the sheep’, ‘the lost coin’, and then in dramatic fashion, the ‘wayward son’. The chapter is all about repentance… that’s its focus… Good point!

chal
Apr 16th 2007, 11:34 AM
No, I don't think I said anything about being unsaved and being able to have fellowship with God.

chal > Okay, then do the math. Anyone who is with God (the father in the parable) would be saved, whether it's the main point of the parable or not.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 16th 2007, 01:01 PM
Er... pardon my interruption, but where and within which verse(s) does Jesus state that this father in the parable represents God, and that his sons were saved believers? And also, is the woman who lost the silver coin – does she also represent God [vs 8]? Those are assumptions without the text declaring it… So I’m more inclined to say that this is about repentance, and not about security of salvation.

Also, if you look at verse 18, the son says in his heart -- practicing for when he returns home he will say… “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you”… Now if the father is God, why did the son put this father second?

chal
Apr 16th 2007, 01:11 PM
Er... pardon my interruption, but where and within which verse(s) does Jesus state that this father in the parable represents God, and that his sons were saved believers? And also, is the woman who lost the silver coin – does she also represent God [vs 8]? Those are assumptions without the text declaring it… So I’m more inclined to say that this is about repentance, and not about security of salvation.

Also, if you look at verse 18, the son says in his heart -- practicing for when he returns home he will say… “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you”… Now if the father is God, why did the son put this father second?

chal > You answered your own question.


where and within which verse(s) does Jesus state that this father in the parable represents God


“Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you”…

chal > Let me break it down for you. Father (God), I have sinned against heaven and before you. (against your kingdom and against you yourself).

"Before," means "in front of." It doesn't imply a time lapse or chronological order. You are inserting that.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 16th 2007, 01:21 PM
chal > You answered your own question.





chal > Let me break it down for you. Father (God), I have sinned against heaven and before you. (against your kingdom and against you yourself).

"Before," means "in front of." It doesn't imply a time lapse or chronological order. You are inserting that.


Hmmm... look to verse 21:

Luke 15:21 "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'


Still see it the same way?

ProjectPeter
Apr 16th 2007, 01:40 PM
Repentance is most definitely what this chapter is about. I sure don't want folks to think I am saying otherwise.

To cwb who said it isn't about salvation... sure it is. The sinners that Jesus was speaking to in fact needed saved. That is what Jesus was there for and that is why Jesus got the grief. The Pharisee was ragging Jesus about his eating and drinking and talking with the tax collector and sinners. The other son is not at all the Pharisee's that Jesus was speaking to. The other son was the ones righteous and not in need of repentance.

10 "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

Said basically the same in the 7th verse (I think it is).

The Pharisee's, as Chal is pointing out, were definitely in need of repentance and they were of the wrong father to try and put them in this parable. The 99 sheep are not the Pharisee either although I know there are many that teach that today and say what Jesus mean was the "self-righteous" etc. But I figure if Jesus meant the self-righteous then he'd of said just that. Plus the self-righteous aren't in the sheep pen to begin with nor are children of the devil in line for the inheritance of the Father.

It is the righteous. Those who are still in line for their inheritance. The other son. That is why Jesus went to the sinner. The healthy don't need a doctor. A theme of Jesus from early on in His ministry.

Luke 5:30 And the Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with the tax-gatherers and sinners?"
31 And Jesus answered and said to them, "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick.
32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."

Jesus came to preach the gospel to the lost sheep of Israel (repent for the kingdom of God is at hand). So to try and make the 99 sheep or the righteous son (in right standing with the father) the Pharisee... just simply makes no sense.

chal
Apr 16th 2007, 02:45 PM
Hmmm... look to verse 21:

Luke 15:21 "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'


Still see it the same way?

chal > Exactly. That's pretty much what I said. "In your sight," says nothing of any "second place."


why did the son put this father second?

chal > You have yet to show this?

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 16th 2007, 03:12 PM
chal > Exactly. That's pretty much what I said. "In your sight," says nothing of any "second place."



chal > You have yet to show this?


Sorry, didn't think I needed to... for the sentence ranked them for us by importance... The subject it to God {heaven} and then his natural father by order in how it was presentated and note that it does separate who the father is within the sentence.

Luke 15:21 "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

Your original comment is that the father is symbolic of God.



If the Father in the parable is symbolic of God, then being at home with Him is being saved. I'm not sure how anyone can be more saved that that. A new "Extra Grace, " doctrine, perhaps. OSAS always poses a chicken/egg question and then tries to render it rhetorical and lean toward the least obvious side.


My comment is that it's not within the text that I can see.

chal
Apr 16th 2007, 03:22 PM
Sorry, didn't think I needed to... for the sentence ranked them for us by importance... The subject it to God {heaven} and then his natural father by order in how it was presentated and note that it does separate who the father is within the sentence.

Luke 15:21 "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

Your original comment is that the Father is symbolic of God.




My comment is that it's not within the text that I can see.


'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

chal > Father (God), I have sinned against heaven (your authority) and I didn't even try to hide it, I did it in your (plain) sight and disrespected you (Father God). I am no longer worthy to be called your (Father God's) son.

You have not shown where there are two seperate fathers being referred to in this text. The second one is being inserted where it doesn't fit.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 16th 2007, 03:33 PM
chal > Father (God), I have sinned against heaven (your authority) and I didn't even try to hide it, I did it in your (plain) sight and disrespected you (Father God). I am no longer worthy to be called your (Father God's) son.

You have not shown where there are two seperate fathers being referred to in this text. The second one is being inserted where it doesn't fit.

Sorry, If you can't see it... then you can't see it...

Luke 15:20-23
20 "So he [son] got up and came to his[son's] father[For clarity, let's call him Joe]. But while he[son] was still a long way off, his[son] father[Joe] saw him[son] and felt compassion for him[son], and ran and embraced him[son] and kissed him[son].
21 "And the son said to him[Joe], 'Father[Joe], I[son] have sinned against heaven[God] and in your sight[Joe]; I[son] am no longer worthy to be called your[Joe's] son.'
22 "But the father[Joe] said to his[Joe] slaves, 'Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him[son], and put a ring on his[son] hand and sandals on his[son] feet;
23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us [Joe, son, other son and slaves] eat and celebrate;

chal
Apr 16th 2007, 03:36 PM
Sorry, If you can't see it... then you can't see it...

Luke 15:20-23
20 "So he [son] got up and came to his[son's] father[For clarity, let's call him Joe]. But while he[son] was still a long way off, his[son] father[Joe] saw him[son] and felt compassion for him[son], and ran and embraced him[son] and kissed him[son].
21 "And the son said to him[Joe], 'Father[Joe], I[son] have sinned against heaven[God] and in your sight[Joe]; I[son] am no longer worthy to be called your[Joe's] son.'
22 "But the father[Joe] said to his[Joe] slaves, 'Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him[son], and put a ring on his[son] hand and sandals on his[son] feet;
23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us [Joe, son, other son and slaves] eat and celebrate;

and if you can't show it (where "Joe," is in the Greek or the English), you can't show it, but I'm not going to spin in that revolving door anymore.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 16th 2007, 03:56 PM
and if you can't show it (where "Joe," is in the Greek or the English), you can't show it, but I'm not going to spin in that revolving door anymore.


"[For clarity, let's call him [the boy's father] Joe]"....

Sorry Chal, but looks like we are not connecting today...

Have a great day as God directs...

The Parson
Apr 16th 2007, 05:35 PM
Gee guys, I must seem simple minded the way I present my own case over eternal security. It seems a complex matter to most where one clue after the other is followed to show that salvation is not a perminate thing. Matter of fact, I have never in my life seen a more passionate debate as the ones I see when eternal security vs. eternal insecurity are entered into.

I would like to compile a few points I have made over the past year or so when I took part in such discussions. You be the judge if my mindset is wrong or right. When dealing with what I believe, I take a plain spoken verse and place it with others which I then formulate a premise (precept) from. I believe that is the correct way of understanding God's Word, isn't it? Isaiah 28:10

I'll start with, for instance, John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 10:30 I and my Father are one.

I see here that as a child of God, I know the voice of the Lord. Better than that, He knows me and I follow him. It also tells me He has given me ETERNAL LIFE and I will NEVER perish. Defining Eternal, guess what I come up with? I come up with NEVER ENDING... Hey, I am also in the Lords Hand. Imagine that... Anybody strong enough to pull you out of the Saviors hand, step up to the rope. Even more sauce for the goose, I'm in God the Fathers Hand and He is greater than the Savior, His Only Begotten Son. The word "pluck" that comes from the Greek is harpazo and means: har-pad'-zo; to seize, pull, take (by force).You gonna take yourself away from God by force?

Hey, here is even more. Jesus said " I know them". Who them? His sheep. Yet, as I have posted in the forums several times before there is a time called the Great White Throne Judgement. That's where Jesus says: Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Interestingly enough, those that thought they were saved by their works were no more saved than last months lunch. But that isn't the point. The point is that if someone were at one time saved and then lost their salvation even unto death, they would wind up at this judgement. That be the case, why would Jesus lie and say "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." He couldn't say he never knew you because of John 10! But Hey... MY LORD CANNOT LIE. Honestly, he would have to say: "I knew you once but I don't know you any more, depart from me."

So, then there are other matters. One of which is "some say" that those who believe as I do preach that once saved, you can live just any ole way you want or that to think if we sinned a whole bunch and still inherit the kingdom of God, it is unfair in some way. Why not ask me some hard questions and let me answer them solely from the Word of God. Let see what we come up with. I'm willing.

Walstib
Apr 16th 2007, 05:51 PM
I tend to wonder sometimes if we forget about justification or even ignore the meaning of the word. For instance: Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Not sure how deep ya'll have delved into the subject but justified is justified.

I am in agreement. Some further thoughts on this... it is important that we are justified by the blood of Jesus. The Cross being the lens for the focus as it always should be in my opinion.

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (Rom 3:24-27)

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Rom 5:8-11)

That Jesus is the Lamb of God, the sacrifice for our sins as the OT shadowed is in theme here. Then sacrifices were made over and over again, now Jesus is the once and for all High Priest and sacrifice.

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Heb 7:27-28)

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb 9:11-12)

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Act 20:28)

Purchased with His blood which takes us to the Ephesians verse The Parson also posted.

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:13-14)

So by faith in His blood we are justified from all things, we belong to God, we are His possesion. Now also what does the scripture say of those that have been justified?

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope: And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. (Rom 5:1-6)

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:29-39)

Those he justified he also glorified, they are saved from wrath, as well as all the other things the blood of Jesus does to those who are cleansed by it, their consciences cleansed from evil, their sins washed away, protection from the devil and his demons. This leaving out what His crucified body does for the faithful. (scriptures provided if wanted).

To me believing that you can lose your salvation is bigger than that one statement, one has to ... become unjustified... be unsealed... be un-glorified... loose their protection... be under wrath again... loose our son ship... loose peace with God... become un-called... have someone against us... need to be washed in His blood again...

loose our access to grace wherein we stand..... what happened to standing on God's promises He made though the death of His son on the cross? Believing on what He can and did do instead of what we can do?

Those who seek to "be good enough to remain saved" have put in their own hands instead of trusting God. Seeking to go back under the law again and justify themselves with daily sacrifice. Seeking to crucify our Lord over and over again every time they sin and "loose their salvation. This is my opinion with no attack on anyone in particular.

I am changing the way I state my understanding to once sealed always sealed. As The Parson also pointed out there is only on worthy enough to break God's seals, the Lamb of God, slain for our inability to do be righteous on our own, because of God's great love for us. By His blood, His power and authority those who have received the Holy Spirit to indwell inside them have been sealed until the day the purchased possession is redeemed. The Holy Spirit is the earnest, the deposit, and for the deal to be broken God would have to forfit His deposit. The Holy Spirit is God and God can not forfit a part of Himself.

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. (Rev 5:6)

To me the core of the message of the cross, the root of the good news itself is that if one has true faith and receives the Holy Spirit to live inside them, only available to us after Jesus was resurrected after His death on the cross, that they will have eternal life with God in heaven when He brings them home. And God is allot more powerful than any of us... He always keeps His word and will not let go of those who are his.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 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. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (Joh 10:27-31)


Peace,

Joe

ProjectPeter
Apr 16th 2007, 06:27 PM
[/COLOR]I'll start with, for instance, John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 10:30 I and my Father are one.

I see here that as a child of God, I know the voice of the Lord. Better than that, He knows me and I follow him. It also tells me He has given me ETERNAL LIFE and I will NEVER perish. Defining Eternal, guess what I come up with? I come up with NEVER ENDING... Hey, I am also in the Lords Hand. Imagine that... Anybody strong enough to pull you out of the Saviors hand, step up to the rope. Even more sauce for the goose, I'm in God the Fathers Hand and He is greater than the Savior, His Only Begotten Son. The word "pluck" that comes from the Greek is harpazo and means: har-pad'-zo; to seize, pull, take (by force).You gonna take yourself away from God by force? That's the thing about the various passages that I have supplied in here over the years though. None of those verses have anyone "plucking" anyone out of God's hand. But that passage still allows for the sheep to stray. The devil can't snatch that person away but that person can most assuredly wonder away themselves and by a variety of ways. They can be deceived like Eve was. They can become slothful and complacent. But no... no man or entity can take them away by force.



Hey, here is even more. Jesus said " I know them". Who them? His sheep. Yet, as I have posted in the forums several times before there is a time called the Great White Throne Judgement. That's where Jesus says: Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Interestingly enough, those that thought they were saved by their works were no more saved than last months lunch. But that isn't the point. The point is that if someone were at one time saved and then lost their salvation even unto death, they would wind up at this judgement. That be the case, why would Jesus lie and say "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." He couldn't say he never knew you because of John 10! But Hey... MY LORD CANNOT LIE. Honestly, he would have to say: "I knew you once but I don't know you any more, depart from me."Who made up that rule that He would have to say "I knew you once?" God certainly didn't. When a person is forgiven by God then that sin is remembered no more... as far as the east is from the west... it is forgotten. When a righteous man begins to practice sin what happens to his righteousness? Same thing and you bet there is Scripture to back it up.

Ezekiel 18:24 ¶"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.

"I never knew you, Depart from me you worker of iniquity."



So, then there are other matters. One of which is "some say" that those who believe as I do preach that once saved, you can live just any ole way you want or that to think if we sinned a whole bunch and still inherit the kingdom of God, it is unfair in some way. Why not ask me some hard questions and let me answer them solely from the Word of God. Let see what we come up with. I'm willing.But then you know well that there are many that do preach it as license. There are some that preach it as simple loss of temporal blessings. Some teach it as God can't even see it any longer as sin because no matter what you are doing... all God sees is Christ in you etc. There are many different flavors of most every doctrine out there. No different in the NOSAS camp.

taddy
Apr 16th 2007, 06:45 PM
QUOTE: "When there is issues people disagree with or find to be in error
They get pointed out;
That is the nature of the forum".

I respect your opinion on this issue. I just ask that you show me the same respect and quit doing my pastor's job.

Yes, you can, by all means point out your disagreement, but that does not give you the right to judge what is error what is not. ONLY JESUS himself has that right.


I have the capability to CHOOSE to give up my Christianity right now, if I want. Of course, I'm not going to. If I do, that does not mean I was never saved to begin with. Neither does it give you the right to make that judgement. I still stand by my original post.


TAD

PS-
I apologize if this seems rude. TADDY

Walstib
Apr 16th 2007, 07:15 PM
That's the thing about the various passages that I have supplied in here over the years though. None of those verses have anyone "plucking" anyone out of God's hand. But that passage still allows for the sheep to stray. The devil can't snatch that person away but that person can most assuredly wonder away themselves and by a variety of ways. They can be deceived like Eve was. They can become slothful and complacent. But no... no man or entity can take them away by force..

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 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. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (Joh 10:27-31)

Am I not a man? Would wandering away not be plucking yourself out of His hand? I don't see the logic in the separation you are making there. What about the "eternal life" and "never parish" parts of that verse? The two parts of that verse I don't see as separable. Where in the verse does it specify force? You can slowly and gently pluck something. I am sure you have danced this dance before but I am interested in your reasoning... Never too proud to look for errors in my reasoning.



Who made up that rule that He would have to say "I knew you once?" God certainly didn't. When a person is forgiven by God then that sin is remembered no more... as far as the east is from the west... it is forgotten. When a righteous man begins to practice sin what happens to his righteousness? Same thing and you bet there is Scripture to back it up


Ezekiel 18:24 ¶"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.

"I never knew you, Depart from me you worker of iniquity."


This is under the daily sacrifice system of the OT as far as I understand...

What was told would be the way of the new?

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.(Rom 4:5-8) (Psa 32)

What does "not impute sin mean" to you?

Respectfully,

Joe

Centurionoflight
Apr 16th 2007, 07:20 PM
taddy



Yes, you can, by all means point out your disagreement, but that does not give you the right to judge what is error what is not. ONLY JESUS himself has that right.
And we have the mind of Christ thru doctrine of scripture, you position is out of line with the doctrines.

doctrines like;

1) Christ as The Good shepherd.
2) Imputation of Righteousness.
3) Spiritual birth and sealing.
4) Grace givin to us as Gods foes for salvation, Gods grace is not empty toward his sons, he has much more grace to them who are his..
5) Christs works as the starter and completer of our faith.
Therefore I have no choice but to reject it as false.




I have the capability to CHOOSE to give up my Christianity right now, if I want. Of course, I'm not going to. If I do, that does not mean I was never saved to begin with. Neither does it give you the right to make that judgement. For you to make such a judgemet makes you no different than the Pharisees of 2000 years ago.

You cant give up what is not yours to own.
You are bought with the blood of Christ;

We are not our own to Choose what we can give up.

1 cor 6
19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
You can choose all day to give up your parents.

Yet; by birth you are still their child; this you can never "give up".

We are born by a spiritual birth; into a family; by the will of God; not our own.

This position we can never leave.


Edited out content... this is Bible chat and we discuss the Bible.

ProjectPeter
Apr 16th 2007, 07:45 PM
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 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. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (Joh 10:27-31)

Am I not a man? Would wandering away not be plucking yourself out of His hand? I don't see the logic in the separation you are making there. What about the "eternal life" and "never parish" parts of that verse? The two parts of that verse I don't see as separable. Where in the verse does it specify force? You can slowly and gently pluck something. I am sure you have danced this dance before but I am interested in your reasoning... Never too proud to look for errors in my reasoning.Did the Father give Judas to Jesus? If the Father gave Judas to Jesus did Judas do what he did on his own or did someone pluck Judas out of God's hand?






This is under the daily sacrifice system of the OT as far as I understand...

What was told would be the way of the new?

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.(Rom 4:5-8) (Psa 32)

What does "not impute sin mean" to you?

Respectfully,

Joe

The sacrificial system couldn't save anyone. The Law couldn't save anyone. How is it that man is saved in either Testaments?

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,
6 just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:
7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

There was no salvation for David's deeds. The Law called for death... judgment. He was saved by faith... simply on the mercy and grace of God. He often called it "loving kindness" in his Psalms.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 16th 2007, 08:08 PM
Did the Father give Judas to Jesus?
Unto salvation? Then... No


If the Father gave Judas to Jesus did Judas do what he did on his own or did someone pluck Judas out of God's hand?

<snip>




Acts 1: 16; John 17: 12; Psalm 41: 9; John 13: 18

punk
Apr 16th 2007, 08:09 PM
Centurionoflight:

What exactly does one do with this doctrine they are abiding in?

Or, for that matter, how does one "abide" in doctrine in the first place?

Centurionoflight
Apr 16th 2007, 08:10 PM
punk



What exactly does one do with this doctrine they are abiding in?


My goof.


meant to make it a new thread :P

ProjectPeter
Apr 16th 2007, 08:32 PM
Unto salvation? Then... No




Acts 1: 16; John 17: 12; Psalm 41: 9; John 13: 18
Right... Judas did this. No one else. His actions led to the point where satan himself was able to enter him.

As to "unto salvation"... you can at best guess that. Here is what we know... and we will use the Psalm passage that you gave.

Psalms 41:9 Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.

Whom did Jesus count as friend? Whom did Jesus entrust Himself? When Jesus speaks of "friends" who is it that he is talking about... believer or unbeliever? When Jesus entrust Himself to someone... what is the clear biblical implication to such as that?

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 16th 2007, 08:39 PM
Right... Judas did this. No one else. His actions led to the point where satan himself was able to enter him.

As to "unto salvation"... you can at best guess that. Here is what we know... and we will use the Psalm passage that you gave.

Psalms 41:9 Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.

Whom did Jesus count as friend? Whom did Jesus entrust Himself? When Jesus speaks of "friends" who is it that he is talking about... believer or unbeliever? When Jesus entrust Himself to someone... what is the clear biblical implication to such as that?


Sorry PP... But you lost me... Can you restate where you are going with Psalm 41:9 and why you don't see this referring to Judas?

PS... Here is a link that I captured more scriptural references concerning Judas... as we have danced to this tune before... :)

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=362295&postcount=6

Walstib
Apr 16th 2007, 09:08 PM
Thanks for the reply.


Did the Father give Judas to Jesus? If the Father gave Judas to Jesus did Judas do what he did on his own or did someone pluck Judas out of God's hand?

Sorry to answer you question with a question but did Judas have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of him or was he under the OT? I don’t see apples to apples here. Can you say any of the disciples were “saved” before Jesus was glorified? I can’t. Judas never went to the temple and sacrificed something for atonement that we know of. If he had waited a few days he would have been in a different system…..

As well the points about “eternal” and “never parish” are left out of your reply. How do you see they fit in the verse? Where is the separation?



The sacrificial system couldn't save anyone. The Law couldn't save anyone. How is it that man is saved in either Testaments?

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favour, but as what is due.
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,
6 just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:
7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

There was no salvation for David's deeds. The Law called for death... judgment. He was saved by faith... simply on the mercy and grace of God. He often called it "loving kindness" in his Psalms.

Always save by grace though faith from day one. This it seems like we are in agreement on. My point is more about atonement for sin than salvation itself. The scriptures say that only with blood is there remission.

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb 9:19-22)

You posted:

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. (Eze 18:24)


Here is it saying that according to one’s deeds they will live or die, unless I understand it wrong, and speaking to Israel at that time. I have no doubt these people were under the old covenant and that there is a difference between the old and new. If things worked the same there would have been no need for a new covenant, no need for Jesus to die.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Heb 8:6-7)

The verse you posed from Romans completely supports that it is not by works but by faith. Righteousness reckoned and imputed to the faithful because of their faith. So I don’t see your first point lining up with your second unless I am missing your point from the Ezekiel verse. It says for their sin they will die and in Romans it says their sin will no longer be imputed. These two concepts to me seem to be in opposition.

God did not have the Jews sacrificing animals for hundreds of years just to shadow what was to come, there was power and atonement in this, it is how He set it up though Moses, before this death reigned. David sacrificed at the temple, Jesus sacrificed at the temple and taught others to do the same while still under that system. So as I do believe that it has always been by grace though faith how that was demonstrated and how sin is atoned for has changed over time. I of all people have no desire to go back to the old system but I will not belittle the way God chose to do things at that time. No accusation there.

And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; (Eze 18:6-7)

The reference to the “menstruous woman” to me shows that the law and what is contained therein is a focal point in Ezekiel’s message.

And respectfully I think answering direct questions would help for a healthy discussion. For understanding your position as well as for not losing track of the original points being discussed.


What does "not impute sin mean" to you? And further when does this start and end as you understand things?

Thanks again,

Joe

ProjectPeter
Apr 16th 2007, 10:36 PM
Sorry PP... But you lost me... Can you restate where you are going with Psalm 41:9 and why you don't see this refering to Judas?

I didn't say it didn't refer to Judas at all. So not sure why you would think that. It certainly refers to him. And Jesus describes in John who His "friends" are. John also covers who it is that Jesus trust as do the other gospels. That was the point I am making.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 17th 2007, 12:57 AM
I didn't say it didn't refer to Judas at all. So not sure why you would think that.

Maybe it's my work elsewhere today that is holding me back in understanding the site today :) ... but I can't follow this or your last few posts as to where you are going... [Came back to add this comment: you stated "I didn't say it didn't refer to Judas at all"... To me, I see this as a double negative... Did you mean to say 'I didn't say that it referred to Judas at all'???? For the way you worded it, a double negative is a positive... :)]



For starters, what did you mean within the highlight?


Right... Judas did this. No one else. His actions led to the point where satan himself was able to enter him.

As to "unto salvation"... you can at best guess that. Here is what we know... and we will use the Psalm passage that you gave.

Psalms 41:9 Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.

Whom did Jesus count as friend? Whom did Jesus entrust Himself? When Jesus speaks of "friends" who is it that he is talking about... believer or unbeliever? When Jesus entrust Himself to someone... what is the clear biblical implication to such as that?





It certainly refers to him. And Jesus describes in John who His "friends" are. John also covers who it is that Jesus trust as do the other gospels. That was the point I am making.


I'm a bit slow... I still can't see nor follow your point tonight... A little more help and spell it out please?

ProjectPeter
Apr 17th 2007, 01:26 AM
Maybe it's my work elsewhere today that is holding me back in understanding the site today :) ... but I can't follow this or your last few posts as to where you are going... [Came back to add this comment: you stated "I didn't say it didn't refer to Judas at all"... To me, I see this as a double negative... Did you mean to say 'I didn't say that it referred to Judas at all'???? For they way you worded it, a double negative is a positive... :)]



For starters, what did you mean within the highlight?









I'm a bit slow... I still can't see nor follow your point tonight... A little more help and spell it out please?
Of course not. IT DID refer to Judas. Goodness... does that help?

That prophetic word from David made a couple of very strong statements if that is prophetic about Judas (and it was). He was a friend and he was trusted. Correct?

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 17th 2007, 01:42 AM
Of course not. IT DID refer to Judas. Goodness... does that help?

That prophetic word from David made a couple of very strong statements if that is prophetic about Judas (and it was). He was a friend and he was trusted. Correct?

OK --- so we are on the same page... whew... sometimes I need a translator PP to see your point...

Sorry to bother you but glad you replied...

ProjectPeter
Apr 17th 2007, 02:07 AM
Thanks for the reply.



Sorry to answer you question with a question but did Judas have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of him or was he under the OT? I don’t see apples to apples here. Can you say any of the disciples were “saved” before Jesus was glorified? I can’t. Judas never went to the temple and sacrificed something for atonement that we know of. If he had waited a few days he would have been in a different system…..They were saved as much as anyone was "saved" even today. Through faith. It cannot be any other way because that is and always has been "the way" and the "only way."


As well the points about “eternal” and “never parish” are left out of your reply. How do you see they fit in the verse? Where is the separation?


When one has finished the race, enduring to the end, they will never perish... for eternity. But it isn't over until the race has been run.




Always save by grace though faith from day one. This it seems like we are in agreement on. My point is more about atonement for sin than salvation itself. The scriptures say that only with blood is there remission. Then I challenge you to study that out some more. Hebrews is a great study for that very thing. But that is too why I posted the passage in Romans including Paul speaking of David. There wasn't a blood sacrifice according to the Law that would allow David mercy. A thousand bulls and goats sacrificed wasn't enough. The only thing the law allowed for was for his death. Yet mercy is God's way for those with broken, repentant hearts. So again... it's always been about faith.



For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb 9:19-22)

You posted:

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. (Eze 18:24)


Here is it saying that according to one’s deeds they will live or die, unless I understand it wrong, and speaking to Israel at that time. I have no doubt these people were under the old covenant and that there is a difference between the old and new. If things worked the same there would have been no need for a new covenant, no need for Jesus to die.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Heb 8:6-7)

The verse you posed from Romans completely supports that it is not by works but by faith. Righteousness reckoned and imputed to the faithful because of their faith. So I don’t see your first point lining up with your second unless I am missing your point from the Ezekiel verse. It says for their sin they will die and in Romans it says their sin will no longer be imputed. These two concepts to me seem to be in opposition.

God did not have the Jews sacrificing animals for hundreds of years just to shadow what was to come, there was power and atonement in this, it is how He set it up though Moses, before this death reigned. David sacrificed at the temple, Jesus sacrificed at the temple and taught others to do the same while still under that system. So as I do believe that it has always been by grace though faith how that was demonstrated and how sin is atoned for has changed over time. I of all people have no desire to go back to the old system but I will not belittle the way God chose to do things at that time. No accusation there.

And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; (Eze 18:6-7)

The reference to the “menstruous woman” to me shows that the law and what is contained therein is a focal point in Ezekiel’s message.

And respectfully I think answering direct questions would help for a healthy discussion. For understanding your position as well as for not losing track of the original points being discussed.


What does "not impute sin mean" to you? And further when does this start and end as you understand things?

Thanks again,

Joe
It is the righteousness... not deeds. Certainly one isn't going to be righteous without deeds but that's the rub. Folks focus on "deeds" and they tend to bug out. But James explains that very well.

As to what it means... David explained it rather well. I was hoping that answered the question for you but I will post it again.

Romans 4:7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

ProjectPeter
Apr 17th 2007, 02:09 AM
OK --- so we are on the same page... whew... sometimes I need a translator PP to see your point...

Sorry to bother you but glad you replied...
So now that we are on the same page... you going to answer my question? ;)

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 17th 2007, 03:44 AM
So now that we are on the same page... you going to answer my question? ;)


I thought I did...

cwb
Apr 17th 2007, 03:51 AM
chal > Okay, then do the math. Anyone who is with God (the father in the parable) would be saved, whether it's the main point of the parable or not.

Ok, I still do not see that the parable can be used to prove osas or nosas.

ProjectPeter
Apr 17th 2007, 01:47 PM
I thought I did...
No.. you didn't. I will do them one at a time. Maybe that will help lessen the confusion.

Did Jesus count Judas a friend?

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 17th 2007, 02:43 PM
No.. you didn't. I will do them one at a time. Maybe that will help lessen the confusion.

Did Jesus count Judas a friend?


Pardon, but yes I did... I affirmed your comments by agreeing with your comments by saying we are on the same page...



Of course not. IT DID refer to Judas. Goodness... does that help?

That prophetic word from David made a couple of very strong statements if that is prophetic about Judas (and it was). He was a friend and he was trusted. Correct?



OK --- so we are on the same page... whew... sometimes I need a translator PP to see your point...

Sorry to bother you but glad you replied...

If you were looking for a literal yes or no answer... I can see why you missed it... But I do agree with scripture and your confirming of scripture that Judas was a friend of Jesus.

So what other point do you want to pick on... :lol:

ProjectPeter
Apr 17th 2007, 02:44 PM
Pardon, but yes I did... I affirmed your comments by agreeing with your comments by saying we are on the same page...







If you were looking for a literal yes or no answer... I can see why you missed it... But I do agree with scripture and your confirming of scripture that Judas was a friend of Jesus.

So what other point do you want to pick on... :lol:
Did Jesus entrust Himself to Judas?

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 17th 2007, 02:58 PM
Did Jesus entrust Himself to Judas?

Now that's a different question...

What do you say?

DSK
Apr 17th 2007, 03:06 PM
Did Jesus count Judas a friend?

Not to take away from anything anyone has said, but I want to post the following interesting comment.

Mat 26:50 And Jesus said unto him, (Judas) Friend, do that for which thou art come. Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.

Jesus did not call Judas a "friend" as it appears in the translation of Matt. 26:50, which would have been correct had He called him phile (5384), friend, but He called him hetaire (2083), self-seeking companion. (Spiros Zodhiates)

ProjectPeter
Apr 17th 2007, 03:27 PM
Now that's a different question...

What do you say?
Psalms 41:9 Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.

Wouldn't the answer be yes?

ProjectPeter
Apr 17th 2007, 03:34 PM
Not to take away from anything anyone has said, but I want to post the following interesting comment.

Mat 26:50 And Jesus said unto him, (Judas) Friend, do that for which thou art come. Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.

Jesus did not call Judas a "friend" as it appears in the translation of Matt. 26:50, which would have been correct had He called him phile (5384), friend, but He called him hetaire (2083), self-seeking companion. (Spiros Zodhiates)At this time... I think that would be fitting. But this was at the betrayal... not before.

In the passage in Psalms... it is speaking of a close friend. It is widely agreed that this passage is a prophetic passage of Christ's betrayal.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 17th 2007, 04:19 PM
Psalms 41:9 Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.

Wouldn't the answer be yes?


Did Jesus entrust Himself to Judas?

As Scripture says, Jesus trusted Judas, but Jesus did not entrust Himself to Judas. There is a big difference… :saint:

ProjectPeter
Apr 17th 2007, 04:52 PM
As Scripture says, Jesus trusted Judas, but Jesus did not entrust Himself to Judas. There is a big difference… :saint:
Here is the word David used.

batach

a primitive root; properly, to hie for refuge (but not so precipitately as 2620); figuratively, to trust, be confident or sure: -- be bold (confident, secure, sure), careless (one, woman), put confidence, (make to) hope, (put, make to) trust.

You'll find in John 2 this passage.

John 2:23 ¶Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, beholding His signs which He was doing.
24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,
25 and because He did not need anyone to bear witness concerning man for He Himself knew what was in man.

Here is the Greek word for entrusting.

pisteuo

from 4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ): -- believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

In other words... Jesus trusted Judas and entrusted him as well would be part of that. Jesus didn't send Judas out with His authority as a wolf. He sent him out as a trusted friend like the other 11. That is if we are going to consider the Psalms an accurate prophecy speaking of this incident. I certainly do.

Still on the same page... if so then I will continue with the point?

Walstib
Apr 17th 2007, 05:02 PM
They were saved as much as anyone was "saved" even today. Through faith. It cannot be any other way because that is and always has been "the way" and the "only way."


I do agree with you as stated here for sure. I ask the question to myself why the different convents and what did they mean when this truth is looked at. I am not so fond of labels but as I see it there were and will be different “ages”. I think of Romans 5.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom 5:12-13)

How does it tie into verses like this where it talks of sin being dealt with in different ways. That before the law was given sin was not imputed. Why the differences in the way that sin is looked at and dealt with. And what that all means when at the same time “through faith” has never changed? These are some of the questions I ask myself. Reading through Romans 5 a few times.

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 5:18-21)


What does this verse say about the same things. How do this chapter relate to people who have the Holy Sprit inside them. What it means to be made righteous.

And then! The start of the next chapter.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Rom 6:1-2)

You may think I would not like this verse defending OSAS, but all scripture is true and has to harmonize so how does this relate to Jesus’ death on the cross and how sin is looked at. Sin is disgusting and gross, unholy and awful. We are all called to be obediant and do good deeds.

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Rom 6:4-7)

What does it mean to be crucified with him? What does it mean to be freed from sin? And what does this mean when adding it has always been by grace through faith. I am not asking you to answer all these. I am sure we would agree on almost everything. This is just a longwinded way of saying it is bigger than just always the same way…. And I’m getting some good studying in here. ;)





When one has finished the race, enduring to the end, they will never perish... for eternity. But it isn't over until the race has been run.


Then I challenge you to study that out some more. Hebrews is a great study for that very thing. But that is too why I posted the passage in Romans including Paul speaking of David. There wasn't a blood sacrifice according to the Law that would allow David mercy. A thousand bulls and goats sacrificed wasn't enough. The only thing the law allowed for was for his death. Yet mercy is God's way for those with broken, repentant hearts. So again... it's always been about faith.
It is the righteousness... not deeds. Certainly one isn't going to be righteous without deeds but that's the rub. Folks focus on "deeds" and they tend to bug out. But James explains that very well.

As to what it means... David explained it rather well. I was hoping that answered the question for you but I will post it again.

Romans 4:7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

I think I understand how that is your answer and thanks for taking the time to restate it. Really I am not trying to argue against the truth that the law points to sin and all are guilty, that faith and a broken contrite heart are what God seeks. I agree with almost all you have said here. I trust we both believe that true saving faith precedes salvation.

The time question I had was along the lines I am thinking. How does God deal with sin on a day to day basis in our lives now as Holy Spirit filled Christians?

Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.(Rom 4:7)

When are they forgiven and covered? Only after we ask for forgiveness following a moment of weakness? Does all this have anything to do with your position on losing salvation or is walking away the focus and not sin and obedience?

This is way too long now and I will try and get back to a better focus considering this forum.

Thanks again,

Joe

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 17th 2007, 05:08 PM
Here is the word David used.

batach

a primitive root; properly, to hie for refuge (but not so precipitately as 2620); figuratively, to trust, be confident or sure: -- be bold (confident, secure, sure), careless (one, woman), put confidence, (make to) hope, (put, make to) trust.

You'll find in John 2 this passage.

John 2:23 ¶Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, beholding His signs which He was doing.
24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,
25 and because He did not need anyone to bear witness concerning man for He Himself knew what was in man.

Here is the Greek word for entrusting.

pisteuo

from 4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ): -- believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

In other words... Jesus trusted Judas and entrusted him as well would be part of that. Jesus didn't send Judas out with His authority as a wolf. He sent him out as a trusted friend like the other 11. That is if we are going to consider the Psalms an accurate prophecy speaking of this incident. I certainly do.

Still on the same page... if so then I will continue with the point?

Nope... we are 'again' off page... [just as you wanted to do :lol:] Jesus did not entrust Himself to Judas... and in your words...plain and simple... :rofl:

ProjectPeter
Apr 17th 2007, 05:22 PM
I do agree with you as stated here for sure. I ask the question to myself why the different convents and what did they mean when this truth is looked at. I am not so fond of labels but as I see it there were and will be different “ages”. I think of Romans 5.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom 5:12-13)

How does it tie into verses like this where it talks of sin being dealt with in different ways. That before the law was given sin was not imputed. Why the differences in the way that sin is looked at and dealt with. And what that all means when at the same time “through faith” has never changed? These are some of the questions I ask myself. Reading through Romans 5 a few times.

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 5:18-21)


What does this verse say about the same things. How do this chapter relate to people who have the Holy Sprit inside them. What it means to be made righteous.

And then! The start of the next chapter.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Rom 6:1-2)

You may think I would not like this verse defending OSAS, but all scripture is true and has to harmonize so how does this relate to Jesus’ death on the cross and how sin is looked at. Sin is disgusting and gross, unholy and awful. We are all called to be obediant and do good deeds.

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Rom 6:4-7)

What does it mean to be crucified with him? What does it mean to be freed from sin? And what does this mean when adding it has always been by grace through faith. I am not asking you to answer all these. I am sure we would agree on almost everything. This is just a longwinded way of saying it is bigger than just always the same way…. And I’m getting some good studying in here. ;)Super... if one is getting good study in then that's all anyone can ask! Folks will disagree on points until the Lord comes and sets it all straight I figure. Romans is a particularly fascinating book for a number of reasons. We recently did a study on it at the church again and every time we do I find fascinating that it is always generally the same questions (such as yours) that make it one of the richest letters that Paul wrote.




I think I understand how that is your answer and thanks for taking the time to restate it. Really I am not trying to argue against the truth that the law points to sin and all are guilty, that faith and a broken contrite heart are what God seeks. I agree with almost all you have said here. I trust we both believe that true saving faith precedes salvation.

The time question I had was along the lines I am thinking. How does God deal with sin on a day to day basis in our lives now as Holy Spirit filled Christians?

Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.(Rom 4:7)

When are they forgiven and covered? Only after we ask for forgiveness following a moment of weakness? Does all this have anything to do with your position on losing salvation or is walking away the focus and not sin and obedience?

This is way too long now and I will try and get back to a better focus considering this forum.

Thanks again,

Joe

I figure He deals with it the same way He dealt with it with David back then. Conviction... a word from God... during David's time of prayer and meditation on God's Word... etc.

And yes... the sins are forgiven when they are confessed and repented of. Passages such as 1 John 1 come to mind.

ProjectPeter
Apr 17th 2007, 05:44 PM
Nope... we are 'again' off page... [just as you wanted to do :lol:] Jesus did not entrust Himself to Judas... and in your words...plain and simple... :rofl:
And you say that because?

I will tell you why I say it. Jesus didn't exclude Judas from his right call as a disciple and one sent out by Christ to preach the gospel. Jesus had the full authority of Christ (as the other sent out ones) to cast out demons and heal the sick. Did Judas do so by the power of the devil? Jesus didn't just entrust this authority to anyone. When Jesus explained the parables so that His disciples would understand... He did not exclude Judas from that either. Why? Judas was His friend and Jesus trusted him and as well entrusted himself to Judas. Certainly, if anyone understands real friendship it should be safe to say that Jesus did.

Judas betrayed that trust and it would have been better had he never been born. We know that by that passage, Jesus didn't entrust himself to folks that didn't truly have faith in Him. Head-belief didn't work and He knew what was in man. But folks are quick to paint Judas as never really believing and I just don't see that working well. Without at least a little faith... could Judas have cast out demons and healed the sick? I'm figuring you aren't going to prove that by Scripture and on the contrary... I can show you were without a little faith they certainly couldn't. There was great authority in the name of Jesus but one still had to have faith in that authority. The Jewish exorcist I figure learned that lesson quick enough.

The very fact that Jesus sent Judas out to proclaim the gospel tells us that Christ entrusted him. Gave him the authority... entrusted him. Explained the parables and taught him what His Father had Him teach... entrusted him. But if you have something otherwise... I'd sure like to see how you come to the conclusion that Christ trust someone but yet doesn't entrust Himself to them. That pretty much defies common sense in my opinion.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 17th 2007, 07:50 PM
And you say that because?

I will tell you why I say it. Jesus didn't exclude Judas from his right call as a disciple and one sent out by Christ to preach the gospel. Jesus had the full authority of Christ (as the other sent out ones) to cast out demons and heal the sick. Did Judas do so by the power of the devil? Jesus didn't just entrust this authority to anyone. When Jesus explained the parables so that His disciples would understand... He did not exclude Judas from that either. Why? Judas was His friend and Jesus trusted him and as well entrusted himself to Judas. Certainly, if anyone understands real friendship it should be safe to say that Jesus did.

Judas betrayed that trust and it would have been better had he never been born. We know that by that passage, Jesus didn't entrust himself to folks that didn't truly have faith in Him. Head-belief didn't work and He knew what was in man. But folks are quick to paint Judas as never really believing and I just don't see that working well. Without at least a little faith... could Judas have cast out demons and healed the sick? I'm figuring you aren't going to prove that by Scripture and on the contrary... I can show you were without a little faith they certainly couldn't. There was great authority in the name of Jesus but one still had to have faith in that authority. The Jewish exorcist I figure learned that lesson quick enough.

The very fact that Jesus sent Judas out to proclaim the gospel tells us that Christ entrusted him. Gave him the authority... entrusted him. Explained the parables and taught him what His Father had Him teach... entrusted him. But if you have something otherwise... I'd sure like to see how you come to the conclusion that Christ trust someone but yet doesn't entrust Himself to them. That pretty much defies common sense in my opinion.

So if Jesus entrusted Himself to Judas, would you say he also entrusted Himself to Peter? If both being equal, why did Jesus prevent satan from having Peter, yet did nothing for Judas?

PP… entrusting oneself to another is different than trusting someone… for entrusting oneself is self-determined towards another… trusted someone is expecting another to conform to your directives or desires.

Also, were each of the disciples indwelt with the Holy Spirit at this time? My position says no, not until Pentecost did they have the indwelling of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

And lastly [for now] :lol: … does God only use believers to do His will? Stated another way, is it impossible for a non-believer to present the word of God in a way that a person can believe, repent and be saved?

Walstib
Apr 17th 2007, 08:25 PM
I figure He deals with it the same way He dealt with it with David back then. Conviction... a word from God... during David's time of prayer and meditation on God's Word... etc.

And yes... the sins are forgiven when they are confessed and repented of. Passages such as 1 John 1 come to mind.

Good enough place as any to focus.

Why the need for Jesus to die on the cross if God deals with sin the same way?

This is my understanding,

Before Moses Death reigned and sin was not taken into account. So I do not see how sin is always dealt with the same way right from the start. Looked at the same way yes… always “bad”. With what standard then did God hold these people to if He did not count their sins? Lot’s of people say “it is not fair that God would treat some people different then other’s, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.” This may be true but it does not change the fact that God changed way he deals with sin over time.

The law came through Moses and exposed sin openly for what it was. Yet at the same time sin could be atoned for by sacrifice and was required by the Jews. Even the unknown sin of the whole nation was atoned for once a year with sacrifice. Is it fair that God would “burden” these people with laws when faith is what saves people? Who am I to talk back to God? I was not there when he formed the foundation of the earth. Then why did God instruct them to follow the Mosaic law?

Hebrews is a great place for this as you did say.


For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb 9:13-14)

There was purifying of the flesh. Clean and unclean.

And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel: (Num 19:17)

And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.(Lev 4:20-21)


To me it is clear that at this time atonement and forgiveness were given through sacrifice. Not just a shadow but real in the livers of those people. But then Hebrews 10…

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. (Heb 10:1-6) (Psa 40:4-6)

For this all to be true what is the context of the verse here? I think first it says the comers would not be perfect, because, they always had to keep doing it, they had to sacrifice every year.. etc Just because God took no pleasure in sacrifice does not mean that it did not serve His purpose at that time. David may have known that sacrifice was not what made a personal relationship with God but as far as I understand he never stopped following the Mosaic law.


For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. (Heb 13:11-15)

The sacrifice of the bull outside the camp for the sin of the whole congregation. Just as Jesus is that “outside the camp” sacrifice for us. Sin is dealt with in a different way post resurrection.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.(2Co 5:17-21)


“; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”

Jesus reconciled the whole world to himself becoming sin for us. Sin is not taken into account when there is now law, the world now is under grace and not law. This in regards to righteousness. The faithful will be found righteous because they are in Jesus and not from deeds or how much they sin. And this by no way meaning that you can sin as much as you want with no repercussions! But that one’s righteousness as person with the Holy Spirit inside them is a gift from God made possible by His death on the cross.

Again.. The Son of God coming to earth and giving up His life for us changed how sin is judged in those who come to have true saving faith in Him and receive the Spirit.
How does this all relate to OSAS?

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1Jn 1:7-10)

On topic chapter for sure. All those “if’s” in there that make it seem so much up to us moment by moment. Then this has to harmonize as well.

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remained in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1Jn 3:9-10)

I mean… is John even writing to the same people here? If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and yet no person born of God can sin. There must be more to sin and the Christian then how things were at King David’s time.

For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (Rom 6:7-14)

How do you understand “being dead to sin”?

Joe


Do I have some sort of multi quote button hit here somehere???

ProjectPeter
Apr 18th 2007, 01:34 AM
So if Jesus entrusted Himself to Judas, would you say he also entrusted Himself to Peter? If both being equal, why did Jesus prevent satan from having Peter, yet did nothing for Judas? What did Jesus do for Peter save praying for him? Call it a hunch but I figure He prayed for all of them for those 3 plus a bit years. But even still... we can ask the same about why did Jesus pray and say that about Peter but not John? Matthew? etc? Why did Jesus pray that specific prayer only for Peter? We can't say one way or the other or even if it was only for Peter (although we can assume because of the wording that there was something special about Peter) that Jesus prayed. What we can say is that it was recorded what Jesus said to Peter and not any others.


PP… entrusting oneself to another is different than trusting someone… for entrusting oneself is self-determined towards another… trusted someone is expecting another to conform to your directives or desires.And again... I made the case why I believe Jesus did. Unless of course you can show me where Jesus just lets whomever preach the gospel and cast out demons and heal the sick and etc? Show me that and you well might have a case.


Also, were each of the disciples indwelt with the Holy Spirit at this time? My position says no, not until Pentecost did they have the indwelling of Christ through the Holy Spirit.No they weren't and I'd hope you know me by now better than that. But what they did have was the full authority of Christ to cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. In that Jesus entrusted Himself to them. It is a perfect example of "entrusting Himself" in all honesty. ;)




And lastly [for now] :lol: … does God only use believers to do His will? Stated another way, is it impossible for a non-believer to present the word of God in a way that a person can believe, repent and be saved?We aren't talking about just preaching the word of God RbG right? We again are speaking of casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead... you know, the little things like that. Now... if Judas was never a believer in the first place... by what power did he do this? Either Jesus or satan. And if you say Jesus then you will have to show where this was done anywhere in Scripture. Folks can talk about most anything and some rather effectively. But the signs that follow believers... that they ain't going to fake.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 18th 2007, 02:25 AM
What did Jesus do for Peter save praying for him? Call it a hunch but I figure He prayed for all of them for those 3 plus a bit years. But even still... we can ask the same about why did Jesus pray and say that about Peter but not John? Matthew? etc? Why did Jesus pray that specific prayer only for Peter? We can't say one way or the other or even if it was only for Peter (although we can assume because of the wording that there was something special about Peter) that Jesus prayed. What we can say is that it was recorded what Jesus said to Peter and not any others.

And again... I made the case why I believe Jesus did. Unless of course you can show me where Jesus just lets whomever preach the gospel and cast out demons and heal the sick and etc? Show me that and you well might have a case.

No they weren't and I'd hope you know me by now better than that. But what they did have was the full authority of Christ to cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. In that Jesus entrusted Himself to them. It is a perfect example of "entrusting Himself" in all honesty. ;)

We aren't talking about just preaching the word of God RbG right? We again are speaking of casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead... you know, the little things like that. Now... if Judas was never a believer in the first place... by what power did he do this? Either Jesus or satan. And if you say Jesus then you will have to show where this was done anywhere in Scripture. Folks can talk about most anything and some rather effectively. But the signs that follow believers... that they ain't going to fake.


So... your position is in defending that Judas was at one time saved, and then lost his salvation -- am I correct? And you are basing this on that he was one of the twelve?

And you are also stating that because Jesus gave them authority [not power], but authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness, you are claiming that they are the one doing this -- because they are saved? [by the way, God will allow [dare I say give] satan and the antichrist power in the last days to perform signs and wonders as well... but that is another topic for another thread...:) ]

So as one of the twelve, what can be said of Judas? Do we know how he became a disciple? Do we know how many demons he casted out? How many people did he witnessed to? No -- we don’t know either way… all we know is that he is one of the 12 and that Jesus used the disciples to proclaim to the region that Jesus has come, and in doing so Jesus gave the 12 the authority in doing so, but the work was and is always of and by God.

This does not mean that they had to be “saved” to do God’s will, it means that they were given God’s will to do. Nothing more. So assuming that Judas or any disciple at the time were saved is an assumption… but we know that they all later questioned their faith at the last table, for they all were in the same condition in their own mind.

So casting out demons is not anyone’s work but God’s -- and we know that God will use even a donkey if he had to do His will… so I see no difference in the vehicle He uses to work through…. Judas followed Jesus with his feet, but his heart was not even close in following and submitting to Him. So giving them authority is not entrusting Himself in my book... for this was not a sign that they were saved, but that the Christ had come and is among the people.

John called Judas a thief, for he stole money from the treasury for himself. He was a betrayer, he was an accuser, and he was always self-serving

No, I see scripture stating very clearly that Jesus loved Judas and gave trust to him, but Judas, and yes having his own thoughts and will, was self-serving always and equally was used by God to be an implement to send Jesus to the cross, as it was told would happen in scripture…

Humbling, ain't it?


PS... Consider the following, that way before Judas' denial, Jesus called Judas a devil, and yet He chose him... For salvation or for what other reasoning? This leads me to say that Jesus saw Judas' heart from beginning to end...

John 6:65-71
65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
67 So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"
68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69 "We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."
70 Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?"
71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

ProjectPeter
Apr 18th 2007, 02:43 PM
So... your position is in defending that Judas was at one time saved, and then lost his salvation -- am I correct? And you are basing this on that he was one of the twelve?There hasn't been many an OSAS/NOSAS discussion that has been on this board when this hasn't come up! I've always taken that stand... strange that you've not noticed that before. And no I am not basing that on "he was one of the twelve." Goodness... what I have I just posted in the last four or five post to you on this? I wished there was a scratching my head emoticon thingy because I suppose I am wondering why we are even having the discussion because I don't know how I can be any more clear than what I've written to this point.


And you are also stating that because Jesus gave them authority [not power], but authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness, you are claiming that they are the one doing this -- because they are saved? [by the way, God will allow [dare I say give] satan and the antichrist power in the last days to perform signs and wonders as well... but that is another topic for another thread...:) ]Sure it would be another topic and one I'd strongly disagree with you on based on what you have said in this little bit.



So as one of the twelve, what can be said of Judas? Do we know how he became a disciple? Do we know how many demons he casted out? How many people did he witnessed to? No -- we don’t know either way… all we know is that he is one of the 12 and that Jesus used the disciples to proclaim to the region that Jesus has come, and in doing so Jesus gave the 12 the authority in doing so, but the work was and is always of and by God.

This does not mean that they had to be “saved” to do God’s will, it means that they were given God’s will to do. Nothing more. So assuming that Judas or any disciple at the time were saved is an assumption… but we know that they all later questioned their faith at the last table, for they all were in the same condition in their own mind.

So casting out demons is not anyone’s work but God’s -- and we know that God will use even a donkey if he had to do His will… so I see no difference in the vehicle He uses to work through…. Judas followed Jesus with his feet, but his heart was not even close in following and submitting to Him. So giving them authority is not entrusting Himself in my book... for this was not a sign that they were saved, but that the Christ had come and is among the people.And again... all that sounds good to you I suppose but here's the truth. You do not have any Scripture that shows where God worked signs of miracles in the name of Christ through a donkey or a heathen. It came from believers. You go on about how Judas followed Jesus as if you know? Scripture tells you enough to clearly understand that Judas didn't persevere... no doubt. But that is all you can draw from Scripture. Everything else is your assuming based on your doctrinal leaning. ;)




John called Judas a thief, for he stole money from the treasury for himself. He was a betrayer, he was an accuser, and he was always self-servingAnd again... John is speaking many years after the fact. When Jesus makes the point of the betrayer... that point is made near the end of His walk on this earth. John knew nothing until after the fact. Just like the others... John figured Judas was heading out to give money to the poor when Jesus told him to go on and do what he needs to do. That is unless you have Scripture that tells us differently. So far... you have yet to provide any.




No, I see scripture stating very clearly that Jesus loved Judas and gave trust to him, but Judas, and yes having his own thoughts and will, was self-serving always and equally was used by God to be an implement to send Jesus to the cross, as it was told would happen in scripture…

Humbling, ain't it?Where do you see Scripture laying all that out about Judas save the end of Judas' life? Where do you see it speak of his "always" being that way?



PS... Consider the following, that way before Judas' denial, Jesus called Judas a devil, and yet He chose him... For salvation or for what other reasoning? This leads me to say that Jesus saw Judas' heart from beginning to end...

John 6:65-71
65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
67 So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"
68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69 "We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."
70 Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?"
71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.That wasn't "way before the denial". If you follow the time line the way that John wrote... the majority of his writing came the last few months of Jesus' ministry here on earth. I can lay it out for you, have done it in many of these discussions already. But right now I am heading to the church and will have to do all of that later.

tHbaGLORY
Apr 18th 2007, 03:08 PM
Rom 8:33 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=33&version=kjv#33)
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? [It is] God that justifieth.

Rom 8:34 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=34&version=kjv#34)
Who [is] he that condemneth? [It is] Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Rom 8:35 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=35&version=kjv#35)
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? [shall] tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Rom 8:36 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=36&version=kjv#36)
As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Rom 8:37 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=37&version=kjv#37)
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

Rom 8:38 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=38&version=kjv#38)
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Rom 8:39 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=39&version=kjv#39)
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

That includes ourselves. When we are saved through the blood of Christ we are SEALED by the Holy Spirit and nothing can seperate us from Christ. You don't become unborn again, or untransformed, or revert back to an old creation... These verses say it all--Once Christ saves you, you are his forever...

For if works is necessary to maintain Salvation, then salvation is only attained through works. If this is so, then Christ died for nothing. Can any Christian tell me of a Christian who has not sinned? Is there anyone of us that does not sin every single day? Show me the verse that tells us exactly what our alotment for sin is, before we are cut off. The verses above are very clear--nothing, NOTHING can seperate us from Christ Jesus.

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 18th 2007, 03:14 PM
There hasn't been many an OSAS/NOSAS discussion that has been on this board when this hasn't come up! I've always taken that stand... strange that you've not noticed that before. And no I am not basing that on "he was one of the twelve." Goodness... what I have I just posted in the last four or five post to you on this? I wished there was a scratching my head emoticon thingy because I suppose I am wondering why we are even having the discussion because I don't know how I can be any more clear than what I've written to this point.

<SNIP>



A simple yes would have been acceptable instead of making this a 'me not knowing all about you post…'

So sounds like you are done by being more personal in accusations, then so am I done as well… [Oh and read Revelation 13 and maybe you’ll see what I’m referring to....]

Walstib
Apr 18th 2007, 03:37 PM
So... your position is in defending that Judas was at one time saved, and then lost his salvation -- am I correct? And you are basing this on that he was one of the twelve?



There hasn't been many an OSAS/NOSAS discussion that has been on this board when this hasn't come up! I've always taken that stand... strange that you've not noticed that before. And no I am not basing that on "he was one of the twelve." Goodness... what I have I just posted in the last four or five post to you on this? I wished there was a scratching my head emoticon thingy because I suppose I am wondering why we are even having the discussion because I don't know how I can be any more clear than what I've written to this point.


Really I am wondering more and more about how you see salvation PP. I can’t see where Jesus’ death on the cross comes into your views as it seems to me like you teach it has always been the same and always will be.

Judas lived and died before Jesus was resurrected. Do you think people indwelt with the Holy Spirit are judged exactly the same way and at the same time as people before Jesus went home? Why all the talk in scripture about the final judgement day if Judas was saved then not saved… and “could have” been saved again? Do you have any evidence that any OT person was saved while they were still on earth alive in their body? Maybe I have just never seen it myself.

I am not trying to be difficult I just don’t get where you are coming from and want to understand. I see that you believe Judas was saved, that being based on things being done through him and his relationship with Jesus. I don’t see this as solid evidence all things considered.

God used the high priest who was intent on killing Jesus to prophecy that “it would be better for on man to die than the whole nation to perish”. That says something about this logic to me. Is prophecy that much different than a sign or miracle?

And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. (Luk 19:39-40)

If God would use stones the same as the disciples… well I don’t see why God using them for His purpose would automatically place them in a state of “present salvation”.

I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (Joh 16:28-32)

Considering this passage…. When did the disciples “really” believe? Did they all loose their salvation when they abandoned him only to regain it again later?

So please, if you would, explain to me the difference between salvation pre and post resurrection. Do you think there is one? What do you think changed in regards to salvation by Jesus shedding His blood on the cross. Really I want to understand.

Respectfully,

Joe

ProjectPeter
Apr 18th 2007, 04:58 PM
A simple yes would have been acceptable instead of making this a 'me not knowing all about you post…'



So sounds like you are done by being more personal in accusations, then so am I done as well… No... it wouldn't have been. The post in this thread alone have laid out why I believe he was "saved" just as much as the others were and in that I have laid out much more information than "he was part of the 12" as my reasoning.

And if you think that was some sort of "personal accusation" then it is truly a marvel what has been done with language because of the Internet. Goodness! I was simply shocked that you would even ask that after the many discussions you have been a part of on this board and on this very topic to not know that I was taking the stand that Judas was saved and then lost his salvation. Add to that the fact that apparently you missed the majority of the reasoning that I have laid out in this thread alone... seems a tad amazing that you aren't seeing what I am saying. Not that you agree... I know you won't do that. But at least see what I am saying without summing it up as just because he was one of the 12.



[Oh and read Revelation 13 and maybe you’ll see what I’m referring to....]I knew which passage you were referring too but wondering where you get this "God gives him the power" at from that passage. And then there is the fact that there is nothing that will lead us to believe that the Antichrist or the devil himself will ever do a miracle in Jesus name or through faith in Christ. And that there makes quite the difference. Judas was doing that very thing. Rev 13 allows for no such interpretation.

ProjectPeter
Apr 18th 2007, 06:03 PM
Really I am wondering more and more about how you see salvation PP. I can’t see where Jesus’ death on the cross comes into your views as it seems to me like you teach it has always been the same and always will be.

Judas lived and died before Jesus was resurrected. Do you think people indwelt with the Holy Spirit are judged exactly the same way and at the same time as people before Jesus went home? Why all the talk in scripture about the final judgement day if Judas was saved then not saved… and “could have” been saved again? Do you have any evidence that any OT person was saved while they were still on earth alive in their body? Maybe I have just never seen it myself.

I am not trying to be difficult I just don’t get where you are coming from and want to understand. I see that you believe Judas was saved, that being based on things being done through him and his relationship with Jesus. I don’t see this as solid evidence all things considered.

God used the high priest who was intent on killing Jesus to prophecy that “it would be better for on man to die than the whole nation to perish”. That says something about this logic to me. Is prophecy that much different than a sign or miracle?

And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. (Luk 19:39-40)

If God would use stones the same as the disciples… well I don’t see why God using them for His purpose would automatically place them in a state of “present salvation”.

I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (Joh 16:28-32)

Considering this passage…. When did the disciples “really” believe? Did they all loose their salvation when they abandoned him only to regain it again later?

So please, if you would, explain to me the difference between salvation pre and post resurrection. Do you think there is one? What do you think changed in regards to salvation by Jesus shedding His blood on the cross. Really I want to understand.

Respectfully,

Joe
Have you ever heard the saying that "they looked forward to the cross and we look behind to the cross?" Much of that comes from a passage in Peters first letter.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.
3 ¶Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,
7 that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry,
11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.
12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven -- things into which angels long to look.

Naturally we can find more on this in other letters such as Hebrews where it speaks of the various things being shadows of what was to come or where Paul, in Romans, lays out how it was that even Abraham or David's mercy and thus salvation didn't come from works of the Law but by faith and purely the grace of God.

As to the High Priest prophecying... God used and will continue to use many folks to prophecy. That was done throughout the Scriptures. But the High Priest was not an apostle of Christ. The High Priest was not given to Jesus by the Father. Judas was. Just more as to why I believe he was in fact just as saved as the others.

As to the others state of salvation before and after they all bailed... Scripture speaks for itself there I would think.

Luke 22:31 ¶"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;
32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."

John 13:1 Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.
2 And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him,
3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God, and was going back to God,
4 rose from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself about.
5 Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.
6 And so He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, "Lord, do You wash my feet?"
7 Jesus answered and said to him, "What I do you do not realize now, but you shall understand hereafter."
8 Peter said to Him, "Never shall You wash my feet!" Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me."
9 Simon Peter said to Him, "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head."
10 Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you."
11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, "Not all of you are clean."

Gotta figure that at this point in time... all of them were clean sure enough, save Judas at this point who would follow what satan put in his heart.

Then go further in John to when Jesus prays for them.

John 17:6 "I manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world; Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me, and they have kept Thy word.
7 "Now they have come to know that everything Thou hast given Me is from Thee;
8 for the words which Thou gavest Me I have given to them; and they received them, and truly understood that I came forth from Thee, and they believed that Thou didst send Me.
9 "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine;
10 and all things that are Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.
11 "And I am no more in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to Thee. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, the name which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as We are.
12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me; and I guarded them, and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
13 "But now I come to Thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy made full in themselves.
14 "I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 "I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
16 "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.
18 "As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
20 "I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21 that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.
22 "And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one;
23 I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.

I think their "salvation" was rather clear and yes... even before Christ died and rose again. Had they died between then and the resurrection then they would have been with Christ in paradise. Do you really question that about the eleven?

As to what happened at the cross and the difference? The cross was once and for all. Again I would recommend Hebrews because it speaks very clearly of this and in great detail. The Jews had the priest that did the sacrifice for them annually etc. and it was done by imperfect men and had to be done all the time. But Christ, the perfect High Priest, the first and the last... it is finished. Once and for all the need for shed blood was over. Through Christ all men can know the Father. Don't get more wonderful than that.

Walstib
Apr 19th 2007, 12:47 AM
Have you ever heard the saying that "they looked forward to the cross and we look behind to the cross?" Much of that comes from a passage in Peters first letter.

Naturally we can find more on this in other letters such as Hebrews where it speaks of the various things being shadows of what was to come or where Paul, in Romans, lays out how it was that even Abraham or David's mercy and thus salvation didn't come from works of the Law but by faith and purely the grace of God. .

I have heard that saying and I see the truth to it as well. I am understanding your view of things better for sure.

Question…

Are you saying that obedience and sin are not counted when considering salvation? Everyone with faith will be saved regardless of what they do while they have faith because by God’s grace they will be forgiven.


As to the High Priest prophesying... God used and will continue to use many folks to prophecy. That was done throughout the Scriptures. But the High Priest was not an apostle of Christ. The High Priest was not given to Jesus by the Father. Judas was.


Just more as to why I believe he was in fact just as saved as the others. I think their "salvation" was rather clear and yes... even before Christ died and rose again. Had they died between then and the resurrection then they would have been with Christ in paradise. Do you really question that about the eleven?


I do understand your logic. The thought that keeps coming to my mind here is that there is a judgment day spoken of in the scriptures. If everyone in pre resurrection times was saved or not saved in a moment by moment fashion what is the purpose of the judgment day? I hope you don’t see that as a silly question, it is blocking agreement with you on this right now for me. Do you understand paradise and heaven to be exactly the same place?



As to what happened at the cross and the difference? The cross was once and for all. Again I would recommend Hebrews because it speaks very clearly of this and in great detail. The Jews had the priest that did the sacrifice for them annually etc. and it was done by imperfect men and had to be done all the time. But Christ, the perfect High Priest, the first and the last... it is finished. Once and for all the need for shed blood was over. Through Christ all men can know the Father. Don't get more wonderful than that.

AMEN and thank you Jesus!! I so love finding full agreement on things. Sometimes I wonder why it can seem so difficult to find the core points of disagreement that lead to the different views on this issue.



Thanks for your patience,

Joe

ProjectPeter
Apr 19th 2007, 02:50 AM
I have heard that saying and I see the truth to it as well. I am understanding your view of things better for sure.

Question…

Are you saying that obedience and sin are not counted when considering salvation? Everyone with faith will be saved regardless of what they do while they have faith because by God’s grace they will be forgiven.With most folks... what would they know to obey? As to their sin... they simply need to believe and turn from that sin. Sin is and should certainly be a part of the gospel message because sin is contrary to the gospel. But no... there are steps that a person is going to go through in their Christian walk. They don't start out mature most certainly. It could vary individual to individual based on a lot of things. But they won't start out mature and won't know most of the things they should obey.



I do understand your logic. The thought that keeps coming to my mind here is that there is a judgment day spoken of in the scriptures. If everyone in pre resurrection times was saved or not saved in a moment by moment fashion what is the purpose of the judgment day? I hope you don’t see that as a silly question, it is blocking agreement with you on this right now for me. Do you understand paradise and heaven to be exactly the same place?Not sure what you are asking on the first question. The purpose of judgment day would be for judgment. And no... paradise wasn't the same as heaven. But paradise was where the righteous dwelled during that period of time.



AMEN and thank you Jesus!! I so love finding full agreement on things. Sometimes I wonder why it can seem so difficult to find the core points of disagreement that lead to the different views on this issue.



Thanks for your patience,

JoeNo problem. Love discussing Scripture even if it is with folks that disagree.

Walstib
Apr 19th 2007, 04:40 AM
With most folks... what would they know to obey? As to their sin... they simply need to believe and turn from that sin. Sin is and should certainly be a part of the gospel message because sin is contrary to the gospel. But no... there are steps that a person is going to go through in their Christian walk. They don't start out mature most certainly. It could vary individual to individual based on a lot of things. But they won't start out mature and won't know most of the things they should obey.

I agree with your points. I am learning more and more everyday the depth of sin and the flesh. Lets try this… what do you see is the difference between a born again believer and an OT saint? Specifically what effects do you see from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in this regard.


Not sure what you are asking on the first question. The purpose of judgment day would be for judgment. And no... paradise wasn't the same as heaven. But paradise was where the righteous dwelled during that period of time.

What I am asking is… if salvation is determined moment by moment and everyone in paradise was automatically going to heaven, and those below to hell, are they not already judged and not in need of “last day judgement”? I am asking who you think will line up for this judgment. Compared to who does not line up. As I understand things this is after the “first resurrection”.

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (Joh 12:48)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:12-13)

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (Joh 6:29)

It is hard enough for me to form my question let alone expect you to understand it. ;) I am seeing new things myself as I go… I hope you understand now.

Joe

ProjectPeter
Apr 19th 2007, 04:49 PM
I agree with your points. I am learning more and more everyday the depth of sin and the flesh. Lets try this… what do you see is the difference between a born again believer and an OT saint? Specifically what effects do you see from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in this regard.None really. That is why Jesus commented as He did.

John 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
2 this man came to Him by night, and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."
3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.´
8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How can these things be?"
10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?

Not sure that this would be an easy medium to explain all of this because of space and depth and time constraints on my end for the next couple of weeks. But if you can put it on the back burner until the first of next month then we could start a thread on it and discuss it because it is fascinating to ponder and study out. But fair warning... you will have to remind me! :lol:


And yes... the issue of the Spirit does come into play in a major way for the NT saints.


What I am asking is… if salvation is determined moment by moment and everyone in paradise was automatically going to heaven, and those below to hell, are they not already judged and not in need of “last day judgement”? I am asking who you think will line up for this judgment. Compared to who does not line up. As I understand things this is after the “first resurrection”.

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (Joh 12:48)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:12-13)

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (Joh 6:29)

It is hard enough for me to form my question let alone expect you to understand it. ;) I am seeing new things myself as I go… I hope you understand now.

JoeIt's the way it is I guess because that is how God set it up. I figure there are some things we aren't going to understand and perhaps this is one of those things. We have things like Jesus saying "it will be worse for you than Sodom on that day" etc. So God has judged them hence His destroying them. But we know too that they will face God on that day. Perhaps it is all in the fact that they haven't faced God with this yet and that is appointed to everyone living and dead. I guess we could come up with much but much would be speculation. Ultimately it will come down to the fact that this is the way God does it.

Walstib
Apr 20th 2007, 02:59 AM
Not sure that this would be an easy medium to explain all of this because of space and depth and time constraints on my end for the next couple of weeks. But if you can put it on the back burner until the first of next month then we could start a thread on it and discuss it because it is fascinating to ponder and study out. But fair warning... you will have to remind me!

Sounds good but I will be off to Finland for May. I will try to remember as I am interested.



It's the way it is I guess because that is how God set it up. I figure there are some things we aren't going to understand and perhaps this is one of those things. We have things like Jesus saying "it will be worse for you than Sodom on that day" etc. So God has judged them hence His destroying them. But we know too that they will face God on that day. Perhaps it is all in the fact that they haven't faced God with this yet and that is appointed to everyone living and dead. I guess we could come up with much but much would be speculation. Ultimately it will come down to the fact that this is the way God does it.

Fair enough. I am going to take some time on this one myself before getting back into it. Load my brains before I shoot my mouth. ;)

Peace,

Joe