I will take the hit--and promise you this is my last post on the topic--seems to really annoy you--I have no interest in discussing it either, I WAS ASKED--and I will answer Mark--and not start a new thread--begging your indulgence for a brief interlude. And this road that you speak of--is related to being born-again. I am telling you exactly what I believe. Since I have anguished over this topic--perhaps you will allow me a moment? Since I have really considered it--and mourned over it--perhaps you will allow it?
Where does that tone come from? Love? I detected sarcasm? Why does it bother you? If you don't believe it--and know it to be wrong--why do you even care? I have never once bit at you like that.
As a Christian I am sure you are aware--we are to be kind to one another? To speak the truth in love. Seems you would like to see me silent on certain topics as my beliefs differ from yours. Or is it just certain threads I am allowed to speak on? JESUS is the center of Christianity--a fairly important piece of the puzzle. Why is a discussion of who He is in relation to the new birth--off topic?
What exactly DO you believe TWI was--Christianity? Or do you think it was gnosticism? I think you know where I stand.
Either way, I still enjoy what you say--consider it--care about your feelings and would NEVER ask you to leave a thread.
The only time I addressed you was to point out how good I thought your point was--and to apologize when you misunderstood that.
I like and care about ex-way people--even those who have turned away from God all together.
Mark,
I know you believe it is a lifetime of repentance--correct? So, do I. But, my salvation is repentance and acceptance of the Jesus of the bible--the beginning of a relationship with my LORD--whom I serve. It becomes a personal lifelong relationship. What about the prodical Son? Will the Lord take you back should you wander, which it seems each of our hearts will do? I believe we are saved, but have not yet inherited.
It isn't so much as the trinity I speak of either--although, without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit--we are all deaf, dumb, and blind. I believe 1st John is speaking of those who deny Jesus is God.
Not misunderstand for a time, but deny. These are those--actually opposed to Christ. You can also have a great deal of head knowledge about the bible--I am speaking of faith in Christ.
So, when I speak to you of the verses in Hebrews--without a similar understanding of who the Son is--you and I will not see the same thing.
He who believes has eternal life (John 6:47).... Every one who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40).... I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish: no one can snatch them out of my hand (John 10:28)…. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1).... Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son (Romans 8:29).... [Nothing] will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:39).... [Christ] will keep you strong to the end (1 Corinthians 1:8).... God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear (1 Corinthian 10:13).... He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion (Philippians 1:6).... We have passed from death to life (1 John 3:14).
My faith is in Christ. I move forward in my faith. . . He sustains me.
Mark, I speak from experience here, from a deeper understanding. I was NOT born-again in TWI--but, I was professing myself a Christian. I SIT--believed God raised Jesus from the dead--yada yada yada--I lived a sin-filled lifestyle--where life was cheap and the hearts of people cheaper. Where legalism abounded and love was COLD!!
Do you hear what I am saying to you? I said I was a Christian. I lived a sinners life--and what is worse--I justified it in the name of God. I didn't know Jesus. How to really get that across to you? I relegated Him. I did not obey or serve Him.
The depth of that--the deeper understanding of the transformation--AFTER my true repentance. A painful and long affair--not a moment either--it took a long time for me to see God and repent. It was not fun, or pretty--the weight of what I had done--sat on my shoulders for a time. I was convicted. I could never do those things again. Ever. I could never believe God condones them.
Even had I striven to live a moral life--it would have still been dead.
Although a simple understanding could be that you can lose your salvation--the verses above contradict that. These warnings are controversial but I lived them. I professed Christ and claimed to be a believer--yet I turned away so easily.
To fall away--means to commit apostasy--The writer is admonishing his readers NOT to go back to the OT sacrifical system because Jesus is superior to it in every way. If they turned away from Him, repentance would be impossible--BECAUSE--it cannot be found anywhere ELSE once Jesus is rejected. By their actions, such persons disgrace Christ openly and seek to re-crucify Him.
If they forsake faith in Christ after having professed it and go back(not persevere) They were never saved to begin with.
My faith was in "Another" Jesus.
All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
You do not have to look any further than this forum--to see the truth of what I tell you. That is not a judgement--many speak freely of abandoning their faith.
Some even use sarcasm?
It truly does matter WHOM you put your faith in, and should you EVER wonder--or need a friend. I am easy to find.
I just wanted to add this. I have a friend--Joe--He is 46 years old. He has worked at the same job for 25 years. Pushing shopping carts. He is a Christian--His faith is in Christ. He reads at a 2nd grade level. Yet, He knows the Lord. He is innocence personified and gracious beyond anyone I have ever met. Never complains--works hard and is thankful for his life and job.
He still lives at home with his elderly parents. He doesn't understand that he could lose his salvation if he does not persevere. He persevere's as the Lord works in him. He is unable to keep himself--the Lord keeps him. He is mentally handicapped--autistic--but, aware enough to have accepted Jesus as his savior.
Do you think, should that man--with his limited circumstance, should he stumble, stray or become confused- will be lost?
He is an amazing example of a Christian--often I am chastened by his pure heart and walk with Jesus. Serves to help me.
Take Care, off to grumpy clients with too much time and money on their hands!--told you about the tomatoes--didn't I! :)
I recommend doing a study of the word "eternal." The Greek word aionion means "belonging to the age to come."
With ultimately two big choices available, everlasting life or everlasting death, am very confident the promise of God is everlasting life in the age to come, not everlasting death in the age to come.
"My child I will give you eternal life in the age to come then at the appropriate time throw you in the lake of fire and you can burn to a crisp"
I posted on this long ago, but it was too unsettling for anyone to comment much on. I’ll put it out again, but I don’t have the time right now to get involved in any extensive discussion or debate. I will, however, do my best to respond to PMs of anyone with burning a desire to see deeper into this.
The key is VIEWPOINTS. Are we going to look at man’s viewpoint or God’s viewpoint? Man’s senses perspective is limited and temporary, but God’s spiritual perspective is unlimited and eternal. We were taught some things on viewpoints.
Applying this notion of viewpoints to “born again” is something hardly anyone has ever thought to do. Let’s try.
From my human viewpoint, I was born in 1949 as a body and soul being, and quite a few years later (decades I think) I received the gift of pneuma hagion, and then had all three: body, soul, spirit. From my point of view this was a new life that started for me, and I reckoned it as being born AGAIN.
But what was God’s viewpoint?
In 1949 a body and soul being came into existence, something NOT what God originally had in mind as a human being when He made, formed, and created Adam. Then some years later, that being received spirit and THAT was the birth of one of God’s creatures, from HIS perspective. That was the FIRST birth from His spiritual viewpoint.
To be born AGAIN, from God’s viewpoint, is something that needs more research. Galatians 4:19 describes Paul’s working this in one city with unsuccessful results.
This is the frontier of spiritual knowledge. Research continues.
(Or you can revive an old one, but in this particular case, that may not
work best for you.)
WordWolf,
I will take the hit--and promise you this is my last post on the topic--seems to really annoy you--I have no interest in discussing it either, I WAS ASKED--and I will answer Mark--and not start a new thread--begging your indulgence for a brief interlude. And this road that you speak of--is related to being born-again. I am telling you exactly what I believe. Since I have anguished over this topic--perhaps you will allow me a moment? Since I have really considered it--and mourned over it--perhaps you will allow it?
Where does that tone come from? Love? I detected sarcasm? Why does it bother you? If you don't believe it--and know it to be wrong--why do you even care? I have never once bit at you like that.
A) This is NOT "hitting." I can point you to some of my former posts that might qualify for that term.
The 'kid-gloves' are most definitely 'on' at the moment.
B) I didn't see Mark ask you about the Trinity-I saw you inject it into the thread.
At the moment, we at the GSC (the staff, and thus those of us who choose to cooperate with the staff)
are asking that threads not be hijacked nor derailed. As a poster, you've gone out of your way to drop this
subject into threads where a crowbar was needed to fit it. Even if I agreed with your position, it's poor
"netiquette", and not in harmony with the letter or intent for harmonious discussion here.
He asked you what you believe ON THE TOPIC WE ARE DISCUSSING- whether OSAS is true or not.
He also said that-
But the point of this particular thread is not whether someone is really saved in the first place based on their belief about the Trinity. The point that this thread is discussing is this: Assume a person confesses Jesus Christ as Lord. In your view that means accepting him as God the Son, which we'll just say for the sake of argument. If that person then later decides he does not believe in Jesus and rejects God, do you think he still will be saved?
What "really annoys me" is something I find GREATLY TIRESOME. My brethen in Christ seem to rarely
tire of biting and devouring one another, with little concern whether they're devouring one another.
Mainly, they do this by picking a doctrine-and by this point, it could be ANY doctrine- and declare that
Christians who disagree with them on this doctrine are NOT Christian, NOT saved, etc. etc.
I can ramble on this subject with a functional analysis on this, but I doubt you'll want some
Sociology on the subject.
It wasn't sarcasm you detected, but weariness. I never said "don't post on it"- I just asked you post in the
appropriate place-its own thread in this very forum.
Oh-and you HAVE bit at me. Every single time you've pronounced non-Trinitarian Christians are not even
Christians, you've slapped me across the face. You've denied me the right to call myself a Christian, or a
disciple of Christ in any legitimate fashion. To you, I'm a deluded heretic, apostate, insignificant in the body
of Christ because I'm not IN the body of Christ. There's no substantial difference between Oakspear-
who proudly upholds his faith and is a non-Christian- and me- who proudly upholds my faith as a Christian-
with the exception that he's telling the truth and I'm a FRAUD.
On the other hand, I never even suggested YOU'RE not a Christian.
As a Christian I am sure you are aware--we are to be kind to one another? To speak the truth in love. Seems you would like to see me silent on certain topics as my beliefs differ from yours. Or is it just certain threads I am allowed to speak on?
It "SEEMS" you're missing what I SAID. I said NOTHING about being "SILENT." My suggestion would have
STARTED A DISCUSSION ON YOUR FAVORITE TOPIC. How is that "silencing" you?
Considering how you've insulted me-and don't even think of it as an INSULT- I think I've been QUITE kind.
I have spoken the truth. Whether or not it's not "in love" because you disagree with it, or because it's not the
nicest tone (even Jesus knew there were times to change your tone), some people would say it was "in love."
(Of course, you're free to think they're deluded...)
Look, this is simple.
You can speak on any thread-so long as it's on topic for that thread.
If no thread is on topic for what you want to speak on, you can make a new thread for which that IS the topic.
============
In other news....
Everyone else?
I'm sorry. I consider this post off-topic. Under the circumstances, I thought it was necessary.
If this goes further, I'll take it to another thread or a private discussion.
I recommend doing a study of the word "eternal." The Greek word aionion means "belonging to the age to come."
With ultimately two big choices available, everlasting life or everlasting death, am very confident the promise of God is everlasting life in the age to come, not everlasting death in the age to come.
"My child I will give you eternal life in the age to come then at the appropriate time throw you in the lake of fire and you can burn to a crisp"
doesn't make sense...
Oldiesman? I say this without any shred of mocking.
Mark's comment was about a study of the word "eternal", the Greek word aionion.
He gave one meaning for the word.
This is a gift-wrapped opportunity for you to demonstrate your skills at "Biblical research."
You claim you learned lots of stuff in twi- which supposedly stressed Bible study.
I've never questioned that either of those was true- but this means you should be ready to
respond to questions with Bible study rather than rhetoric.
Come on! I think this is a good chance to see you strut your stuff!
Mark put forth an "argument" for his position using Scripture. Let's see your "counter-argument"
from Scripture as well. Otherwise, it's like you're conceding the point completely.
I am not skilled in biblical research (never suggested that at any time) have no desire in that arena and further have no desire to debate doctrinal issues. However, I would like to render an opinion in this thread which I have done.
From Merriam Webster's edition:
Main Entry: 1eter·nal
Pronunciation: \i-ˈtər-nəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin aeternalis, from Latin aeternus eternal, from aevum age, eternity — more at aye
Date: 14th century
1 a: having infinite duration : everlasting <eternal damnation> b: of or relating to eternity c: characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? — Mark 10:17(Revised Standard Version)>
2 a: continued without intermission : perpetual <an eternal flame> b: seemingly endless <eternal delays>
3archaic : infernal <some eternal villain…devised this slander — Shakespeare>
4: valid or existing at all times : timeless <eternal verities>
The dictionary meaning of "eternal" is "having infinite duration" or "everlasting".
Assuming that is true, there are only two choices in the coming age: life, or death.
So what's the bottom line of Mark's research of the word "eternal" that is doesn't really mean "everlasting"?
That God promises us eternal life but it may mean eternal death?
I don't think that makes any sense.
If there is an argument otherwise, Mark and anyone else is free to make it, but right now I don't buy the claim.
It seems like a severely watered down version of the intent of God's promise.
I am not skilled in biblical research (never suggested that at any time) have no desire in that arena and further have no desire to debate doctrinal issues.
I shall try to remember that.
(snip)
The dictionary meaning of "eternal" is "having infinite duration" or "everlasting".
Assuming that is true, there are only two choices in the coming age: life, or death.
The obvious problem with that is you're basing that ENTIRELY on the KJV's word "eternal" and
supposing that's the correct word to translate to in English, without checking out for
yourself, then adding your reasoning to THAT.
IF it's correct, you may be in good shape.
If it's WRONG, your entire apologia is off.
So what's the bottom line of Mark's research of the word "eternal" that is doesn't really mean "everlasting"?
That IS what he SAID. I don't know if he's right-I haven't checked it out EITHER. YET.
I was hoping to see what YOU came up with, since it was likely to include something I wouldn't, since we
think differently.
If there is an argument otherwise, Mark and anyone else is free to make it, but right now I don't buy the claim.
It seems like a severely watered down version of the intent of God's promise.
From what little he's posted here, though, he's posted more support for his position than you have
for yours. Someone can come up with a detailed explanation that is STILL false, even though it
looks correct. Remember Bullinger explaining the difference between "kingdom of heaven"
and "kingdom of God"? Remember how they turned out to be synonymous anyway?
I'm not going to push you to support your position, though. I didn't realize you would not,
I beg to disagree--it is part of the topic and it was important to my response to Mark---I did qualify my response, knowing it would illicit some sort of reproof--
and further begged your indulgence. Hating to use it as an example--but, because that is what I see in those verses!
Might I tell you something with the sincerest of heart. I don't judge your Christian faith. I don't even know you. I know we shared a cult. I can see that you
are wonderfully knowledgable with the bible. I read your posts and I enjoy them. I say what I see in the scriptures -- it is NEVER a slight or a dig or intended
to hurt anyone. If you feel I have slapped you in the face--I am truly ashamed. I mean that. I would never want to hurt you in anyway.
You are free to believe whatever you wish. That I intentionally inject things--that I seek to hurt--but, I must now leave these forums for a bit--because I can't be party
to causing you to judge my motives--you judge wrongly and I will not cause you to stumble.
Again, I am sorry if I hurt you--my aim was to offer a hand to Mark and to honestly answer his questions. You never entered my mind. I took the time to
read Mark's site and felt comfortable speaking with him. Knowing as I do--that he probably considers me an idolator. That never once bothered me.
And so you know--I don't know what you or most others here believe about Jesus--just the ones I have had the real pleasure of meeting and speaking to.
I know you believe it is a lifetime of repentance--correct? So, do I. But, my salvation is repentance and acceptance of the Jesus of the bible--the beginning of a relationship with my LORD--whom I serve. It becomes a personal lifelong relationship. What about the prodical Son? Will the Lord take you back should you wander, which it seems each of our hearts will do? I believe we are saved, but have not yet inherited.
This is the crux of the debate. What does it mean to be "saved" now? As I pointed out, the Bible indicates that there are past, present, and future aspects to being saved. We have a lot right now, and stand to inherit even more in the future. I just don't see anything in the Scripture that says it's a permanent seed that remains in you even if you turn away from God.
So, when I speak to you of the verses in Hebrews--without a similar understanding of who the Son is--you and I will not see the same thing.
He who believes has eternal life (John 6:47).... Every one who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40).... I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish: no one can snatch them out of my hand (John 10:28)….
As I mentioned to Oldiesman, the word for "eternal" is the Greek word aionios, which means "belonging to the age to come." Even in Young's and Bullinger! It does not mean that once you have it you can't lose it. Notice that John 6:40 says "SHALL have" and they will be raised up the last day.
There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1).... Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son (Romans 8:29).... [Nothing] will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:39).... [Christ] will keep you strong to the end (1 Corinthians 1:8).... God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear (1 Corinthian 10:13).... He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion (Philippians 1:6).... We have passed from death to life (1 John 3:14).
These are all referring to those who continue to believe. What do you make of those verses I quoted which warn Christians against turning away, and use conditional "if" statements?
My faith is in Christ. I move forward in my faith. . . He sustains me.
Mark, I speak from experience here, from a deeper understanding. I was NOT born-again in TWI--but, I was professing myself a Christian. I SIT--believed God raised Jesus from the dead--yada yada yada--I lived a sin-filled lifestyle--where life was cheap and the hearts of people cheaper. Where legalism abounded and love was COLD!!
Do you hear what I am saying to you? I said I was a Christian. I lived a sinners life--and what is worse--I justified it in the name of God. I didn't know Jesus. How to really get that across to you? I relegated Him. I did not obey or serve Him.
The depth of that--the deeper understanding of the transformation--AFTER my true repentance. A painful and long affair--not a moment either--it took a long time for me to see God and repent. It was not fun, or pretty--the weight of what I had done--sat on my shoulders for a time. I was convicted. I could never do those things again. Ever. I could never believe God condones them.
Even had I striven to live a moral life--it would have still been dead.
I understand that. But you have continued to seek God and continued in the faith to the best of your understanding. What I'm talking about is someone who rejects God after having believed.
Although a simple understanding could be that you can lose your salvation--the verses above contradict that. These warnings are controversial but I lived them. I professed Christ and claimed to be a believer--yet I turned away so easily.
The verses above don't contradict the warning. They are, as I said, referring to those who keep the faith and don't turn away. And also, as I mentioned before, the Bible doesn't refer to those who turn away as "losing their salvation" because they don't fully have it yet.
To fall away--means to commit apostasy--The writer is admonishing his readers NOT to go back to the OT sacrifical system because Jesus is superior to it in every way. If they turned away from Him, repentance would be impossible--BECAUSE--it cannot be found anywhere ELSE once Jesus is rejected. By their actions, such persons disgrace Christ openly and seek to re-crucify Him.
If they forsake faith in Christ after having professed it and go back(not persevere) They were never saved to begin with.
Several of the verses I have quoted refer to some who will "depart from the faith," not just ones who seemed to be believers but weren't. The parable of the sower refers to those who received the seed and began to grow, but then got distracted or deceived. There is no indication that they didn't "really" have the seed.
My faith was in "Another" Jesus.
All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
You do not have to look any further than this forum--to see the truth of what I tell you. That is not a judgement--many speak freely of abandoning their faith.
Some even use sarcasm?
It truly does matter WHOM you put your faith in, and should you EVER wonder--or need a friend. I am easy to find.
Those who have abandoned the faith did not do so because of a faith in "another" Jesus. They abandoned a faith in ANY Jesus. Besides, there have been former Christians who have abandoned their faith in the main-stream view of Jesus as God, as well. Which version of Jesus someone believed in is not the point with regard to this discussion. Some people have rejected God and Jesus regardless of which version they believed in.
Mark,
I just wanted to add this. I have a friend--Joe--He is 46 years old. He has worked at the same job for 25 years. Pushing shopping carts. He is a Christian--His faith is in Christ. He reads at a 2nd grade level. Yet, He knows the Lord. He is innocence personified and gracious beyond anyone I have ever met. Never complains--works hard and is thankful for his life and job.
He still lives at home with his elderly parents. He doesn't understand that he could lose his salvation if he does not persevere. He persevere's as the Lord works in him. He is unable to keep himself--the Lord keeps him. He is mentally handicapped--autistic--but, aware enough to have accepted Jesus as his savior.
Do you think, should that man--with his limited circumstance, should he stumble, stray or become confused- will be lost?
He is an amazing example of a Christian--often I am chastened by his pure heart and walk with Jesus. Serves to help me.
Take Care, off to grumpy clients with too much time and money on their hands!--told you about the tomatoes--didn't I! :)
Of course he wouldn't be lost, as long as he continues in the faith that he has. The warnings in the Bible are not about just stumbling or being confused. They are about completely departing from the faith and rejecting God and Jesus.
BTW, Geisha, I don't consider you an idolater. I think you are sincere in your belief, but perhaps haven't looked into the history of the Trinity. But that would be way off topic.
The dictionary meaning of "eternal" is "having infinite duration" or "everlasting".
That's the English word, eternal. It's not the best translation for the Greek word aionios.
Assuming that is true, there are only two choices in the coming age: life, or death.
So what's the bottom line of Mark's research of the word "eternal" that is doesn't really mean "everlasting"?
The word "eternal" in KJV doesn't, because that's not what the Greek word means.
That's what the best resources say, including Young and Bullinger.
That God promises us eternal life but it may mean eternal death?
I don't think that makes any sense.
If there is an argument otherwise, Mark and anyone else is free to make it, but right now I don't buy the claim.
It seems like a severely watered down version of the intent of God's promise.
God promises us life in the age to come, if we accept the Gospel message. We are told elsewhere that we will be given immortality. From that we can conclude there is no end, but not from the word aionios. That word refers to the fact that it is in the age to come.
Here are a couple of articles to consider, if you are so inclined:
So the verses that refer to "eternal life" are not saying that we are NOW in a state of unconditional everlasting life, no matter what we do in the meantime.
I posted on this long ago, but it was too unsettling for anyone to comment much on. I’ll put it out again, but I don’t have the time right now to get involved in any extensive discussion or debate. I will, however, do my best to respond to PMs of anyone with burning a desire to see deeper into this.
The key is VIEWPOINTS. Are we going to look at man’s viewpoint or God’s viewpoint? Man’s senses perspective is limited and temporary, but God’s spiritual perspective is unlimited and eternal. We were taught some things on viewpoints.
Applying this notion of viewpoints to “born again” is something hardly anyone has ever thought to do. Let’s try.
From my human viewpoint, I was born in 1949 as a body and soul being, and quite a few years later (decades I think) I received the gift of pneuma hagion, and then had all three: body, soul, spirit. From my point of view this was a new life that started for me, and I reckoned it as being born AGAIN.
But what was God’s viewpoint?
In 1949 a body and soul being came into existence, something NOT what God originally had in mind as a human being when He made, formed, and created Adam. Then some years later, that being received spirit and THAT was the birth of one of God’s creatures, from HIS perspective. That was the FIRST birth from His spiritual viewpoint.
Thus saith Wierwille. What saith the Scriptures?
To be born AGAIN, from God’s viewpoint, is something that needs more research. Galatians 4:19 describes Paul’s working this in one city with unsuccessful results.
This is the frontier of spiritual knowledge. Research continues.
So are you saying that what you were taught in TWI might not be right?
B-O-D-Y of Christ.....Thanks be unto God Almighty who is keeping up with all the body parts coming and going any given day, moment or second according to sin, everlasting, eternal, etc., etc., etc.
Oopsie doopsie me.....I forgot to mention.....if we think we can lose our salvation then we don't understand adoption. Not only do we have seed but to fortify that we are adopted. He can't take that back. He set it up. He is smarter than us. You know, like, smarter than people.
Ooohhh, He can not change seed. Father set it up in Genesis to make it permanent and to let us know. Father said....Seed is so real that we plant it with the words we speak. Proverbs attests to that. He said it and it is so. That is why we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus.
To believe and say otherwise is to say that our works is greater than the works of Jesus Christ.
Oopsie doopsie me.....I forgot to mention.....if we think we can lose our salvation then we don't understand adoption. Not only do we have seed but to fortify that we are adopted. He can't take that back. He set it up. He is smarter than us. You know, like, smarter than people.
Ooohhh, He can not change seed. Father set it up in Genesis to make it permanent and to let us know. Father said....Seed is so real that we plant it with the words we speak. Proverbs attests to that. He said it and it is so. That is why we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus.
To believe and say otherwise is to say that our works is greater than the works of Jesus Christ.
On the contrary, to believe and say otherwise is to agree with what Jesus himself said. Read the parable of the sower and the seed again. The good seed is the word, but when it's planted, the type of soil determines whether it grows and produces fruit or not. Some don't take root at all, and gets eaten by the birds, but others do start to grow. Some sprout but don't have enough roots and end up withering. Some start growing but get choked by thorns. Notice it doesn't say that it was never really growing (as in "those who turn away were never really saved"). Neither Jesus nor any other NT writer said anything about "permanent seed" that you can't lose even if you turn away and quit believing. This doesn't make our works greater than the works of Jesus. It just makes our acceptance of his words and works the key to eternal life, which is what he said.
Recommended Posts
geisha779
WordWolf,
I will take the hit--and promise you this is my last post on the topic--seems to really annoy you--I have no interest in discussing it either, I WAS ASKED--and I will answer Mark--and not start a new thread--begging your indulgence for a brief interlude. And this road that you speak of--is related to being born-again. I am telling you exactly what I believe. Since I have anguished over this topic--perhaps you will allow me a moment? Since I have really considered it--and mourned over it--perhaps you will allow it?
Where does that tone come from? Love? I detected sarcasm? Why does it bother you? If you don't believe it--and know it to be wrong--why do you even care? I have never once bit at you like that.
As a Christian I am sure you are aware--we are to be kind to one another? To speak the truth in love. Seems you would like to see me silent on certain topics as my beliefs differ from yours. Or is it just certain threads I am allowed to speak on? JESUS is the center of Christianity--a fairly important piece of the puzzle. Why is a discussion of who He is in relation to the new birth--off topic?
What exactly DO you believe TWI was--Christianity? Or do you think it was gnosticism? I think you know where I stand.
Either way, I still enjoy what you say--consider it--care about your feelings and would NEVER ask you to leave a thread.
The only time I addressed you was to point out how good I thought your point was--and to apologize when you misunderstood that.
I like and care about ex-way people--even those who have turned away from God all together.
Mark,
I know you believe it is a lifetime of repentance--correct? So, do I. But, my salvation is repentance and acceptance of the Jesus of the bible--the beginning of a relationship with my LORD--whom I serve. It becomes a personal lifelong relationship. What about the prodical Son? Will the Lord take you back should you wander, which it seems each of our hearts will do? I believe we are saved, but have not yet inherited.
It isn't so much as the trinity I speak of either--although, without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit--we are all deaf, dumb, and blind. I believe 1st John is speaking of those who deny Jesus is God.
Not misunderstand for a time, but deny. These are those--actually opposed to Christ. You can also have a great deal of head knowledge about the bible--I am speaking of faith in Christ.
So, when I speak to you of the verses in Hebrews--without a similar understanding of who the Son is--you and I will not see the same thing.
He who believes has eternal life (John 6:47).... Every one who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40).... I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish: no one can snatch them out of my hand (John 10:28)…. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1).... Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son (Romans 8:29).... [Nothing] will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:39).... [Christ] will keep you strong to the end (1 Corinthians 1:8).... God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear (1 Corinthian 10:13).... He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion (Philippians 1:6).... We have passed from death to life (1 John 3:14).
My faith is in Christ. I move forward in my faith. . . He sustains me.
Mark, I speak from experience here, from a deeper understanding. I was NOT born-again in TWI--but, I was professing myself a Christian. I SIT--believed God raised Jesus from the dead--yada yada yada--I lived a sin-filled lifestyle--where life was cheap and the hearts of people cheaper. Where legalism abounded and love was COLD!!
Do you hear what I am saying to you? I said I was a Christian. I lived a sinners life--and what is worse--I justified it in the name of God. I didn't know Jesus. How to really get that across to you? I relegated Him. I did not obey or serve Him.
The depth of that--the deeper understanding of the transformation--AFTER my true repentance. A painful and long affair--not a moment either--it took a long time for me to see God and repent. It was not fun, or pretty--the weight of what I had done--sat on my shoulders for a time. I was convicted. I could never do those things again. Ever. I could never believe God condones them.
Even had I striven to live a moral life--it would have still been dead.
Although a simple understanding could be that you can lose your salvation--the verses above contradict that. These warnings are controversial but I lived them. I professed Christ and claimed to be a believer--yet I turned away so easily.
To fall away--means to commit apostasy--The writer is admonishing his readers NOT to go back to the OT sacrifical system because Jesus is superior to it in every way. If they turned away from Him, repentance would be impossible--BECAUSE--it cannot be found anywhere ELSE once Jesus is rejected. By their actions, such persons disgrace Christ openly and seek to re-crucify Him.
If they forsake faith in Christ after having professed it and go back(not persevere) They were never saved to begin with.
My faith was in "Another" Jesus.
All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
You do not have to look any further than this forum--to see the truth of what I tell you. That is not a judgement--many speak freely of abandoning their faith.
Some even use sarcasm?
It truly does matter WHOM you put your faith in, and should you EVER wonder--or need a friend. I am easy to find.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark,
I just wanted to add this. I have a friend--Joe--He is 46 years old. He has worked at the same job for 25 years. Pushing shopping carts. He is a Christian--His faith is in Christ. He reads at a 2nd grade level. Yet, He knows the Lord. He is innocence personified and gracious beyond anyone I have ever met. Never complains--works hard and is thankful for his life and job.
He still lives at home with his elderly parents. He doesn't understand that he could lose his salvation if he does not persevere. He persevere's as the Lord works in him. He is unable to keep himself--the Lord keeps him. He is mentally handicapped--autistic--but, aware enough to have accepted Jesus as his savior.
Do you think, should that man--with his limited circumstance, should he stumble, stray or become confused- will be lost?
He is an amazing example of a Christian--often I am chastened by his pure heart and walk with Jesus. Serves to help me.
Take Care, off to grumpy clients with too much time and money on their hands!--told you about the tomatoes--didn't I! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
With ultimately two big choices available, everlasting life or everlasting death, am very confident the promise of God is everlasting life in the age to come, not everlasting death in the age to come.
"My child I will give you eternal life in the age to come then at the appropriate time throw you in the lake of fire and you can burn to a crisp"
doesn't make sense...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Born again?
I posted on this long ago, but it was too unsettling for anyone to comment much on. I’ll put it out again, but I don’t have the time right now to get involved in any extensive discussion or debate. I will, however, do my best to respond to PMs of anyone with burning a desire to see deeper into this.
The key is VIEWPOINTS. Are we going to look at man’s viewpoint or God’s viewpoint? Man’s senses perspective is limited and temporary, but God’s spiritual perspective is unlimited and eternal. We were taught some things on viewpoints.
Applying this notion of viewpoints to “born again” is something hardly anyone has ever thought to do. Let’s try.
From my human viewpoint, I was born in 1949 as a body and soul being, and quite a few years later (decades I think) I received the gift of pneuma hagion, and then had all three: body, soul, spirit. From my point of view this was a new life that started for me, and I reckoned it as being born AGAIN.
But what was God’s viewpoint?
In 1949 a body and soul being came into existence, something NOT what God originally had in mind as a human being when He made, formed, and created Adam. Then some years later, that being received spirit and THAT was the birth of one of God’s creatures, from HIS perspective. That was the FIRST birth from His spiritual viewpoint.
To be born AGAIN, from God’s viewpoint, is something that needs more research. Galatians 4:19 describes Paul’s working this in one city with unsuccessful results.
This is the frontier of spiritual knowledge. Research continues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) This is NOT "hitting." I can point you to some of my former posts that might qualify for that term.
The 'kid-gloves' are most definitely 'on' at the moment.
B) I didn't see Mark ask you about the Trinity-I saw you inject it into the thread.
At the moment, we at the GSC (the staff, and thus those of us who choose to cooperate with the staff)
are asking that threads not be hijacked nor derailed. As a poster, you've gone out of your way to drop this
subject into threads where a crowbar was needed to fit it. Even if I agreed with your position, it's poor
"netiquette", and not in harmony with the letter or intent for harmonious discussion here.
He asked you what you believe ON THE TOPIC WE ARE DISCUSSING- whether OSAS is true or not.
He also said that-
What "really annoys me" is something I find GREATLY TIRESOME. My brethen in Christ seem to rarely
tire of biting and devouring one another, with little concern whether they're devouring one another.
Mainly, they do this by picking a doctrine-and by this point, it could be ANY doctrine- and declare that
Christians who disagree with them on this doctrine are NOT Christian, NOT saved, etc. etc.
I can ramble on this subject with a functional analysis on this, but I doubt you'll want some
Sociology on the subject.
It wasn't sarcasm you detected, but weariness. I never said "don't post on it"- I just asked you post in the
appropriate place-its own thread in this very forum.
Oh-and you HAVE bit at me. Every single time you've pronounced non-Trinitarian Christians are not even
Christians, you've slapped me across the face. You've denied me the right to call myself a Christian, or a
disciple of Christ in any legitimate fashion. To you, I'm a deluded heretic, apostate, insignificant in the body
of Christ because I'm not IN the body of Christ. There's no substantial difference between Oakspear-
who proudly upholds his faith and is a non-Christian- and me- who proudly upholds my faith as a Christian-
with the exception that he's telling the truth and I'm a FRAUD.
On the other hand, I never even suggested YOU'RE not a Christian.
It "SEEMS" you're missing what I SAID. I said NOTHING about being "SILENT." My suggestion would have
STARTED A DISCUSSION ON YOUR FAVORITE TOPIC. How is that "silencing" you?
Considering how you've insulted me-and don't even think of it as an INSULT- I think I've been QUITE kind.
I have spoken the truth. Whether or not it's not "in love" because you disagree with it, or because it's not the
nicest tone (even Jesus knew there were times to change your tone), some people would say it was "in love."
(Of course, you're free to think they're deluded...)
Look, this is simple.
You can speak on any thread-so long as it's on topic for that thread.
If no thread is on topic for what you want to speak on, you can make a new thread for which that IS the topic.
============
In other news....
Everyone else?
I'm sorry. I consider this post off-topic. Under the circumstances, I thought it was necessary.
If this goes further, I'll take it to another thread or a private discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oldiesman? I say this without any shred of mocking.
Mark's comment was about a study of the word "eternal", the Greek word aionion.
He gave one meaning for the word.
This is a gift-wrapped opportunity for you to demonstrate your skills at "Biblical research."
You claim you learned lots of stuff in twi- which supposedly stressed Bible study.
I've never questioned that either of those was true- but this means you should be ready to
respond to questions with Bible study rather than rhetoric.
Come on! I think this is a good chance to see you strut your stuff!
Mark put forth an "argument" for his position using Scripture. Let's see your "counter-argument"
from Scripture as well. Otherwise, it's like you're conceding the point completely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
So many afraid of 'the lake of fire'.
It's a necessity. And of God.
Those who haven't takin a dip in it yet, will.
Those who have will again.
You can't run from it much longer.
Changes it produces, the door to heights yet to be seen.
Fear? Sure there will be, Love gets pretty hot.
A consuming fire.
Nothing is ever gone forever.
Even our bodies will be dust.
It is still here just like everything else.
A God that never changes changing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wordwolf,
I am not skilled in biblical research (never suggested that at any time) have no desire in that arena and further have no desire to debate doctrinal issues. However, I would like to render an opinion in this thread which I have done.
From Merriam Webster's edition:
Main Entry: 1eter·nal
Pronunciation: \i-ˈtər-nəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin aeternalis, from Latin aeternus eternal, from aevum age, eternity — more at aye
Date: 14th century
1 a: having infinite duration : everlasting <eternal damnation> b: of or relating to eternity c: characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? — Mark 10:17(Revised Standard Version)>
2 a: continued without intermission : perpetual <an eternal flame> b: seemingly endless <eternal delays>
3archaic : infernal <some eternal villain…devised this slander — Shakespeare>
4: valid or existing at all times : timeless <eternal verities>
The dictionary meaning of "eternal" is "having infinite duration" or "everlasting".
Assuming that is true, there are only two choices in the coming age: life, or death.
So what's the bottom line of Mark's research of the word "eternal" that is doesn't really mean "everlasting"?
That God promises us eternal life but it may mean eternal death?
I don't think that makes any sense.
If there is an argument otherwise, Mark and anyone else is free to make it, but right now I don't buy the claim.
It seems like a severely watered down version of the intent of God's promise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I shall try to remember that.
The obvious problem with that is you're basing that ENTIRELY on the KJV's word "eternal" and
supposing that's the correct word to translate to in English, without checking out for
yourself, then adding your reasoning to THAT.
IF it's correct, you may be in good shape.
If it's WRONG, your entire apologia is off.
That IS what he SAID. I don't know if he's right-I haven't checked it out EITHER. YET.
I was hoping to see what YOU came up with, since it was likely to include something I wouldn't, since we
think differently.
From what little he's posted here, though, he's posted more support for his position than you have
for yours. Someone can come up with a detailed explanation that is STILL false, even though it
looks correct. Remember Bullinger explaining the difference between "kingdom of heaven"
and "kingdom of God"? Remember how they turned out to be synonymous anyway?
I'm not going to push you to support your position, though. I didn't realize you would not,
otherwise I just would have left you alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Wordwolf,
I beg to disagree--it is part of the topic and it was important to my response to Mark---I did qualify my response, knowing it would illicit some sort of reproof--
and further begged your indulgence. Hating to use it as an example--but, because that is what I see in those verses!
Might I tell you something with the sincerest of heart. I don't judge your Christian faith. I don't even know you. I know we shared a cult. I can see that you
are wonderfully knowledgable with the bible. I read your posts and I enjoy them. I say what I see in the scriptures -- it is NEVER a slight or a dig or intended
to hurt anyone. If you feel I have slapped you in the face--I am truly ashamed. I mean that. I would never want to hurt you in anyway.
You are free to believe whatever you wish. That I intentionally inject things--that I seek to hurt--but, I must now leave these forums for a bit--because I can't be party
to causing you to judge my motives--you judge wrongly and I will not cause you to stumble.
Again, I am sorry if I hurt you--my aim was to offer a hand to Mark and to honestly answer his questions. You never entered my mind. I took the time to
read Mark's site and felt comfortable speaking with him. Knowing as I do--that he probably considers me an idolator. That never once bothered me.
And so you know--I don't know what you or most others here believe about Jesus--just the ones I have had the real pleasure of meeting and speaking to.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Also--for the record--I just adore Oakspear! Always have! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
This is the crux of the debate. What does it mean to be "saved" now? As I pointed out, the Bible indicates that there are past, present, and future aspects to being saved. We have a lot right now, and stand to inherit even more in the future. I just don't see anything in the Scripture that says it's a permanent seed that remains in you even if you turn away from God.
As I mentioned to Oldiesman, the word for "eternal" is the Greek word aionios, which means "belonging to the age to come." Even in Young's and Bullinger! It does not mean that once you have it you can't lose it. Notice that John 6:40 says "SHALL have" and they will be raised up the last day.
These are all referring to those who continue to believe. What do you make of those verses I quoted which warn Christians against turning away, and use conditional "if" statements?
I understand that. But you have continued to seek God and continued in the faith to the best of your understanding. What I'm talking about is someone who rejects God after having believed.
The verses above don't contradict the warning. They are, as I said, referring to those who keep the faith and don't turn away. And also, as I mentioned before, the Bible doesn't refer to those who turn away as "losing their salvation" because they don't fully have it yet.
Several of the verses I have quoted refer to some who will "depart from the faith," not just ones who seemed to be believers but weren't. The parable of the sower refers to those who received the seed and began to grow, but then got distracted or deceived. There is no indication that they didn't "really" have the seed.
Those who have abandoned the faith did not do so because of a faith in "another" Jesus. They abandoned a faith in ANY Jesus. Besides, there have been former Christians who have abandoned their faith in the main-stream view of Jesus as God, as well. Which version of Jesus someone believed in is not the point with regard to this discussion. Some people have rejected God and Jesus regardless of which version they believed in.
Of course he wouldn't be lost, as long as he continues in the faith that he has. The warnings in the Bible are not about just stumbling or being confused. They are about completely departing from the faith and rejecting God and Jesus.
BTW, Geisha, I don't consider you an idolater. I think you are sincere in your belief, but perhaps haven't looked into the history of the Trinity. But that would be way off topic.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
That's the English word, eternal. It's not the best translation for the Greek word aionios.
The word "eternal" in KJV doesn't, because that's not what the Greek word means.
That's what the best resources say, including Young and Bullinger.
God promises us life in the age to come, if we accept the Gospel message. We are told elsewhere that we will be given immortality. From that we can conclude there is no end, but not from the word aionios. That word refers to the fact that it is in the age to come.
Here are a couple of articles to consider, if you are so inclined:
http://focusonthekingdom.org/37.htm#2
http://focusonthekingdom.org/510.htm#1
So the verses that refer to "eternal life" are not saying that we are NOW in a state of unconditional everlasting life, no matter what we do in the meantime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Thus saith Wierwille. What saith the Scriptures?
So are you saying that what you were taught in TWI might not be right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
B-O-D-Y of Christ.....Thanks be unto God Almighty who is keeping up with all the body parts coming and going any given day, moment or second according to sin, everlasting, eternal, etc., etc., etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Oopsie doopsie me.....I forgot to mention.....if we think we can lose our salvation then we don't understand adoption. Not only do we have seed but to fortify that we are adopted. He can't take that back. He set it up. He is smarter than us. You know, like, smarter than people.
Ooohhh, He can not change seed. Father set it up in Genesis to make it permanent and to let us know. Father said....Seed is so real that we plant it with the words we speak. Proverbs attests to that. He said it and it is so. That is why we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus.
To believe and say otherwise is to say that our works is greater than the works of Jesus Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
ok anymore?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
On the contrary, to believe and say otherwise is to agree with what Jesus himself said. Read the parable of the sower and the seed again. The good seed is the word, but when it's planted, the type of soil determines whether it grows and produces fruit or not. Some don't take root at all, and gets eaten by the birds, but others do start to grow. Some sprout but don't have enough roots and end up withering. Some start growing but get choked by thorns. Notice it doesn't say that it was never really growing (as in "those who turn away were never really saved"). Neither Jesus nor any other NT writer said anything about "permanent seed" that you can't lose even if you turn away and quit believing. This doesn't make our works greater than the works of Jesus. It just makes our acceptance of his words and works the key to eternal life, which is what he said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.