If God doesn't want anyone in hell...

[Jack Terrence]

Oh, good grief!! Context, my friend. What was the context for Paul's statements in 1 Cor 10? The Exodus generation. And he really meant ALL of them.

I did that deliberately sir to show you that even you restrict the word "all" by context. I wanted to show you also that you do not apply this principle consistently.

Calvinism has no context for Heb 2:9 or 2 Cor 5:14,15 for being less then the human race.

Oh, yes we do. Hebrews was written to the houses of Israel and of Judah. It explicitly says that God made the new covenant with THEM. Gentiles are nowhere even mentioned as partaking of salvation in that book. We know that Gentiles do indeed partake of salvation, but we CANNOT derive this from the book of Hebrews. Therefore, the statement "he tasted death for all" would be restricted to the Houses of Israel and of Judah. That is the natural way of reading it.

In 2 Corinthians 5 Paul said, "If Christ died for all, then all died." Again, this is restricted to the people of God because Paul was talking about all having died with Christ. Some translations render it, "If Christ died for all, then all died with him." Paul elsewhere said, "For you died and your life is hid with Christ in God." Not all men "died' in the sense Paul speaks of here.

Paul then called the people of God to salvation (6:1-2).

I don't accept mere statements as anything other than opinions. Where is the evidence for this statement?

Paul said that THEIR fathers passed through the sea and were baptized into Moses. This proves that the church at Corinth was exclusively a Jewish congregation. Therefore, the statement, "I Christ died for all, then all died" is NOT inclusive of all men. It is pure presupposition to say that it does.

I have proven that you do not apply "context" consistently.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I did that deliberately sir to show you that even you restrict the word "all" by context. I wanted to show you also that you do not apply this principle consistently.

Well, your attempt failed. I have been consistent to show that there is NO context in 2 Cor 5:14,15 to understand the word "all" to be anything other than everyone. The fact that Paul was writing to believers is irrelevant. He was telling believers that Christ died for everyone. To hide behind Paul's audience has no merit. How else would Paul teach that Christ died for everyone to believers other than to just plainly say so?

The idea that because Paul was writing ONLY to believers that everything he wrote applied ONLY to them is preposterous.

Oh, yes we do. Hebrews was written to the houses of Israel and of Judah. It explicitly says that God made the new covenant with THEM. Gentiles are nowhere even mentioned as partaking of salvation in that book. We know that Gentiles do indeed partake of salvation, but we CANNOT derive this from the book of Hebrews. Therefore, the statement "he tasted death for all" would be restricted to the Houses of Israel and of Judah. That is the natural way of reading it.

Just one tiny bitty problem. Then by your own statement, you agree that Jesus died for every Jew. At least that's a start. And we know how many Jews rejected Him.

In 2 Corinthians 5 Paul said, "If Christ died for all, then all died." Again, this is restricted to the people of God because Paul was talking about all having died with Christ. Some translations render it, "If Christ died for all, then all died with him."

"Some" translations? Which ones? The better ones (earlier) or the worst ones (later)? My interlinear does NOT show "with Christ" in the Greek.

Paul elsewhere said, "For you died and your life is hid with Christ in God." Not all men "died' in the sense Paul speaks of here.

The key here is "elsewhere", which has no contextual linkage with 2 Cor 5:14,15. These verses are direct statements about who Christ died for.

But since the reformed approach Scripture with the pre-conceived notion that Christ died only for the elect, any verse that states plainly that He died for all must be re-interpreted in order to change the clear and obvious meaning to one that supports their personal meaning.

Paul then called the people of God to salvation (6:1-2).

The discussion is on 2 Cor 5:14,15 and the meaning of "all". 2 Cor 6:1-2 does not say what is being claimed here. So what book is that from? And remember, whatever book it's from, has NO CONTEXT with what Paul wrote to the Corinthians in 2 Cor 5:14,15.

Paul said that THEIR fathers passed through the sea and were baptized into Moses. This proves that the church at Corinth was exclusively a Jewish congregation.

'Scuze me, but when Paul wrote "our forefathers" he was speaking of his ancestors as a Jew. This is hardly evidence that the Corinthian church was "exclusively Jewish".

In fact, Paul dealt with the issue of eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor 8. Only Gentiles would have ever participated in going to the pagan temples and eating such meat. After conversion, some understood grace and that eating meat so sacrificed was meaningless, but other Gentile believers, not as spiritually mature, had problems with those who were eating there.

If the Corinthian church was "exclusively" Jewish, please cite your authoritative source.

Therefore, the statement, "I Christ died for all, then all died" is NOT inclusive of all men. It is pure presupposition to say that it does.

This statement is presupposition. The phase "then all died" surely refers to everyone in humanity. Not just believers or just Jews.

iow, because "all (humans) died (spiritually)", Christ died for all. Not some.

I have proven that you do not apply "context" consistently.

You have not done so.

No one has ever found a verse that says plainly and directly that Christ died ONLY for some exclusively. In any word order or choice.

In fact, just the opposite has been PROVEN.

 

[Jack Terrence]

ht.

Well, your attempt failed. I have been consistent to show that there is NO context in 2 Cor 5:14,15 to understand the word "all" to be anything other than everyone. The fact that Paul was writing to believers is irrelevant. He was telling believers that Christ died for everyone.

Pure preupposition. You cannot prove it because it is NOT true.

How else would Paul teach that Christ died for everyone to believers other than to just plainly say so?

He couldn't teach it because it is not true that Christ died for everyone. Paul NEVER said that to the Corinthians. He said to Jewish believers that Christ died for all. His language does not at all require that we take the word "all" to refer to anyone else but Israel.

The idea that because Paul was writing ONLY to believers that everything he wrote applied ONLY to them is preposterous.

So God heard and helped all mankind in times past (6:1-2)?

'Scuze me, but when Paul wrote "our forefathers" he was speaking of his ancestors as a Jew. This is hardly evidence that the Corinthian church was "exclusively Jewish".

Paul said "OUR fathers", not "MY fathers." Paul was telling the Corinthians that his and THEIR fathers passed through the sea and were baptized into Moses. This excludes that he was speaking to Gentiles. Whenever Paul spoke to the Gentiles he came right out and said, "I speak to you Gentiles."

Just one tiny bitty problem. Then by your own statement, you agree that Jesus died for every Jew. At least that's a start. And we know how many Jews rejected Him.

My point was that you may legitimately infer only that Christ died for all Israel. We can talk about whether or not it means that he died for every Israelite later.

"Some" translations? Which ones? The better ones (earlier) or the worst ones (later)? My interlinear does NOT show "with Christ" in the Greek.

I hope you are aware that many scholars believe that the Aramaic text is closest to the original Greek text. The Aramaic text reads thus.

For the love of The Messiah compels us to reason this: The One died in the place of every person; so then every person died with him.

There are about a half dozen translations on Biblegateway which read this way.

The key here is "elsewhere", which has no contextual linkage with 2 Cor 5:14,15. These verses are direct statements about who Christ died for.

It most certainly has bearing on our interpretation. It shows us what Paul means by the term "died" when he says that if Christ died for all, then all "died." Paul was speaking about their union with him. Verse 17 makes no sense unless Paul was speaking about all having died with him.

Therefore, if any man be in Christ [by dying] he is a new creation.

What is the "therefore" there for? LOL!

If the Corinthian church was "exclusively" Jewish, please cite your authoritative source.

I asked you in the past to not ask me for sources because you just dismiss them when I provide them. Just answer the scripture I give. Paul said that "OUR fathers" passed through the sea and were baptized into Moses. In his second epistle he called them to salvation on the basis that God had heard and helped them in times past (6:1-2). This CANNOT apply to the Gentiles. Moreover, Paul nowhere in his letters to the Corinthians addresses Gentiles specifically like he does in Romans and Ephesians.

Romans: I speak to you Gentiles.
Ephesians: I am a prisoner for you Gentiles.

The Gentiles are nowhere addressed throughout the two epistles to the Corinthians. Nowhere!

Your posts continue to remain too lengthy. Haven't you learned brevity by now?

 

[Jack Terrence]

delete duplicate

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"Well, your attempt failed. I have been consistent to show that there is NO context in 2 Cor 5:14,15 to understand the word "all" to be anything other than everyone. The fact that Paul was writing to believers is irrelevant. He was telling believers that Christ died for everyone."

ht.Pure preupposition. You cannot prove it because it is NOT true.

LOL. I don't have to prove anything. I accept what Paul wrote in 2 Cor 5:14,15. That Christ died for all. It's the reformed who have to re-package the verses to mean "all the elect" or some such phraseology.

So, go ahead and try to prove that Paul didn't mean "all" as in everyone. I've accepted the verses as they stand.

He couldn't teach it because it is not true that Christ died for everyone.

Good heavens!! He just SAID it twice!!

I hope you are aware that many scholars believe that the Aramaic text is closest to the original Greek text. The Aramaic text reads thus.

For the love of The Messiah compels us to reason this: The One died in the place of every person; so then every person died with him.

There are about a half dozen translations on Biblegateway which read this way.

And I agree with that. He died in the place of "all", or every person.

I asked you in the past to not ask me for sources because you just dismiss them when I provide them. Just answer the scripture I give. Paul said that "OUR fathers" passed through the sea and were baptized into Moses. In his second epistle he called them to salvation on the basis that God had heard and helped them in times past (6:1-2). This CANNOT apply to the Gentiles. Moreover, Paul nowhere in his letters to the Corinthians addresses Gentiles specifically like he does in Romans and Ephesians.

I'm not at all convinced by your claim that Corinth was an exclusively Jewish congregation.

Romans: I speak to you Gentiles.
Ephesians: I am a prisoner for you Gentiles.

The Gentiles are nowhere addressed throughout the two epistles to the Corinthians. Nowhere!

This so-called "proof" is mighty weak. The evidence that He died for all is far stronger than this.

 

[mygodisalvation]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.



And you know this, how? Aren't you the guy that thinks God uses wormholes to communicate with Himself? Where is the Scripture for that???



And yet God does know, because He is Omniscient. If He can call the things that be not, as though they are, then He can also know that things that are not, as though they are.

Please don't try to tell us how God views things, or what He can and can't know. No man has that kind of knowledge.

....Exactly why I reject Calvinisim. I think that theology is for self righteous people who think they know exactly who is going to heaven (they are of course) and who is going to hell (all the rest of us) EVEN IF GOD SPECIFICALLY ORDAINED OR CHOSE PEOPLE OVER OTHERS A HUMAN BEING WILL NEVER HAVE THAT INFORMATION. And we should never think that way it's presumptuous.

 

[nobdysfool]

....Exactly why I reject Calvinisim. I think that theology is for self righteous people who think they know exactly who is going to heaven (they are of course) and who is going to hell (all the rest of us) EVEN IF GOD SPECIFICALLY ORDAINED OR CHOSE PEOPLE OVER OTHERS A HUMAN BEING WILL NEVER HAVE THAT INFORMATION. And we should never think that way it's presumptuous.

If you think that's what Calvinism teaches, you couldn't be more wrong. Where did you get this idea? Please educate yourself before making statements like that.

 

[mygodisalvation]

If you think that's what Calvinism teaches, you couldn't be more wrong. Where did you get this idea?

From the Westboro Baptist Church. http://www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/tulip.html

 

[Marvin Knox]

From the Westboro Baptist Church. http://www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/tulip.html

Choosing the Westboro Baptist Church as an example of what Calvinist believe and how they act is unfair in the extreme.

I think you know that - right?.

 

[EmSw]

Choosing the Westboro Baptist Church as an example of what Calvinist believe and how they act is unfair in the extreme.

I think you know that - right?.

So, which form of Calvinism has God predestined to be true?

 

[Marvin Knox]

So, which form of Calvinism has God predestined to be true?

The Word of God is truth. God doesn't have to predestine the Word to be true. He is inherently true and always has been and always will be true.

Any form of systematic theology that lines up with the Word of God is true. Any one that doesn't is false. True doctrine may line up with some of "Calvinism" and some of "Arminianism". Actually it does take a little from both systems as I read it.

On the other hand, a gospel of human merit such as you teach will never be true.

 

[lori milne]

I did that deliberately sir to show you that even you restrict the word "all" by context. I wanted to show you also that you do not apply this principle consistently.

Oh, yes we do. Hebrews was written to the houses of Israel and of Judah. It explicitly says that God made the new covenant with THEM. Gentiles are nowhere even mentioned as partaking of salvation in that book. We know that Gentiles do indeed partake of salvation, but we CANNOT derive this from the book of Hebrews. Therefore, the statement "he tasted death for all" would be restricted to the Houses of Israel and of Judah. That is the natural way of reading it.

In 2 Corinthians 5 Paul said, "If Christ died for all, then all died." Again, this is restricted to the people of God because Paul was talking about all having died with Christ. Some translations render it, "If Christ died for all, then all died with him." Paul elsewhere said, "For you died and your life is hid with Christ in God." Not all men "died' in the sense Paul speaks of here.

Paul then called the people of God to salvation (6:1-2).

Paul said that THEIR fathers passed through the sea and were baptized into Moses. This proves that the church at Corinth was exclusively a Jewish

congregation. Therefore, the statement, "I Christ died for all, then all died" is NOT inclusive of all men. It is pure presupposition to say that it does.

I have proven that you do not apply "context" consistently.

 

[EmSw]

The Word of God is truth. God doesn't have to predestine the Word to be true. He is inherently true and always has been and always will be true.

Any form of systematic theology that lines up with the Word of God is true. Any one that doesn't is false. True doctrine may line up with some of "Calvinism" and some of "Arminianism". Actually it does take a little from both systems as I read it.

On the other hand, a gospel of human merit such as you teach will never be true.

Marvin, why do you so fervently fight against my beliefs? In your eyes, did God not predestine what I believe? Why do you fight against God's predestination? Will you prevail?

How is it I can freely choose to believe what I wish, and you can't? Why is it you can freely choose to upbraid my beliefs? Do not know you are finding fault with God's predestination when you upbraid my beliefs?

BTW, I've never used the word 'merit' when referring to my beliefs. It is love and obedience when I choose to do good. Why do you choose to do good?

I have given you these passages from the very lips of Jesus before, and you have yet to demonstrate the absence of human will and action concerning the coming forth to the resurrection of life.

John 5 -
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Only two options exist in Jesus' words of truth.
1. do good > resurrection of life
2. do evil > resurrection of damnation

Do you find monergism in these passages?
Does 'resurrection of life' not refer to salvation?
Does 'resurrection of damnation' not refer to condemnation?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Marvin, why do you so fervently fight against my beliefs? In your eyes, did God not predestine what I believe? Why do you fight against God's predestination? Will you prevail?

How is it I can freely choose to believe what I wish, and you can't? Why is it you can freely choose to upbraid my beliefs? Do not know you are finding fault with God's predestination when you upbraid my beliefs?

God did predestine your legalistic beliefs just as He did for Paul.

I fight against your legalism just as I would against that of Paul. Perhaps God will knock you off your horse in time and you'll come to your senses. God may prevail against your legalism and perhaps I will be used in some small way to do that.

You and I, and Paul, can freely choose to believe what we wish. Who said anything different? You seem to believe that I believe differently. Why do you keep misrepresenting what I believe after being corrected many, many times?

It is love and obedience when I choose to do good. Why do you choose to do good?

Same here!

It's getting to be more natural for me after 6 decades or so of practice. But I still struggle.

Do you find monergism in these passages?
Does 'resurrection of life' not refer to salvation?
Does 'resurrection of damnation' not refer to condemnation?

No - sanctification is synergistic. Who said otherwise?

Yes - resurrection of life would likely equate to salvation in general.

Yes - resurrection of damnation is obviously condemnation.

I suppose every believer can expect to here at least a mild form of "well done good and faithful servant." Just how much good is being praised by the Lord will, of course, depend on the individual's earthly life. Some folks apparently will hear those words while still smelling of smoke.

There is no greater evil, I suppose, than to reject the offer of salvation after God paid so great a price for it.

 

[EmSw]

God did predestine your legalistic beliefs just as He did for Paul.

If one does not follow God's laws (legalism), then he is considered a lawless one. Jesus has serious words for those who do not follow His laws.

Matthew 7:23
And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,

Matthew 24:12
Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.

Here is Strong's definition of lawlessness -

1. the condition of without law
   1. because ignorant of it
      
   2. because of violating it
2. contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness

Either a person is ignorant of the law, or violating it if not ignorant of it. Strong's says it is iniquity and wickedness. So if God predestined for me to be legalistic, that is a very good thing. I am predestined not to be wicked. : )

If it is wickedness to be in contempt and violation of the law, why would one choose not to follow the law? If one practices lawlessness, Jesus says He never knew you.

I fight against your legalism just as I would against that of Paul. Perhaps God will knock you off your horse in time and you'll come to your senses. God may prevail against your legalism and perhaps I will be used in some small way to do that.

You want to fight my legalism, so that I might be in violation of the law? Shame, shame, shame. You are wanting me to be wicked?

Paul wasn't knocked off his horse for his legalism. Read the story again.

How will God prevail against His own law? God wants me to keep His law, and you want to be used to keep me from keeping His law. Something is not right here.

Marvin, here is a law from God.

Matthew 22
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and great commandment.

Are you going to ignore and violate this law because you don't believe in legalism?
If you obey this law, you are legalistic. Choose wisely.

You and I, and Paul, can freely choose to believe what we wish. Who said anything different? You seem to believe that I believe differently. Why do you keep misrepresenting what I believe after being corrected many, many times?

If God predestines me to believe something, and I choose to believe differently, who prevails? How is this compatible? Why does God predestine people to believe different things?

Same here!

It's getting to be more natural for me after 6 decades or so of practice. But I still struggle.

Nobody is exempt from struggling in obedience.

No - sanctification is synergistic. Who said otherwise?

I don't think sanctification is mentioned in the passage.

Yes - resurrection of life would likely equate to salvation in general.

Yes - resurrection of damnation is obviously condemnation.

If resurrection of life is equated to salvation, then it is those who do good who are saved.

I suppose every believer can expect to here at least a mild form of "well done good and faithful servant." Just how much good is being praised by the Lord will, of course, depend on the individual's earthly life. Some folks apparently will hear those words while still smelling of smoke.

There is no greater evil, I suppose, than to reject the offer of salvation after God paid so great a price for it.

How will the lawless hear 'well done good and faithful servant' if they refuse to obey the law? The wicked will not hear this from the Lord.

 

[Marvin Knox]

"If one does not follow God's laws (legalism), then he is considered a lawless one. Jesus has serious words for those who do not follow His laws." etc.

No one has ever said that disobeying the laws of God is a good thing. One should strive to obey God wherever he sees the Word telling him something that he should or should not do.

You've been told these kinds of things many times. But I'll give it one more shot here and then leave it up to you and the Holy Spirit. It's frustrating. But I try only because I really do care.

Every thread you post on, it seems that you are soon warned by someone that you seem to have crossed over from the normal obedience that all Christians should strive for - into a gospel of law keeping. Many go from scratch when reasoning with you. They soon give up.

I have observed you long enough now to understand that you are not just misspeaking concerning works vs. faith. You are preaching what amounts to another gospel.

You have said such things as anyone with unconfessed sin when he dies will not be saved. You rail against OSAS whenever you find a place to do it. You rail against the doctrines of grace constantly. You have said many things that indicate that you have crossed the line from a mere desire to obey the Lord to expecting those good works to save you.

But then you know all this. We've talked of it before.

You not only will not be corrected on what Reformed believer such as myself believe. You also will not be corrected on the relationship of works to faith.

I'm going to try to go back to not responding to you again. It's hard though when I see someone who is so close and yet so far from truth in their doctrine.

Good luck - I hope to see you one the other side.

 

[EmSw]

No one has ever said that disobeying the laws of God is a good thing. One should strive to obey God wherever he sees the Word telling him something that he should or should not do.

I keep wondering why you say I'm legalistic when you say disobeying the laws of God is not a good thing. Either you obey the laws (legalistic) or you disobey them (lawlessness). This is black and white with no grey areas.

You've been told these kinds of things many times. But I'll give it one more shot here and then leave it up to you and the Holy Spirit. It's frustrating. But I try only because I really do care.

Thank you for caring Marvin. However, I have strong convictions with what I believe. I have given many passages which confirm my beliefs. One which no one has refuted is John 5 -

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Even you said the resurrection of life equates to salvation. Those who have done good come forth unto the resurrection of life, or salvation. The HS is the Spirit of Truth. He has shown me the truth in John 5:29. Why should I neglect or ignore what is being said?

Are there other verses which trump this one? Does this verse not speak of grace?

Titus 2 -
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Does grace not teach us to live soberly, righteously, and godly? Is this not doing good to others?

Every thread you post on, it seems that you are soon warned by someone that you seem to have crossed over from the normal obedience that all Christians should strive for - into a gospel of law keeping. Many go from scratch when reasoning with you. They soon give up.

What is normal obedience?

Jesus gave us the Gospel; where does He say we should not keep the law?

If the truth is given, man cannot contend with it. They find themselves frustrated and weary.

I have observed you long enough now to understand that you are not just misspeaking concerning works vs. faith. You are preaching what amounts to another gospel.

Nonsense. You are saying if I keep the words of Jesus, I am preaching another gospel. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

You have said such things as anyone with unconfessed sin when he dies will not be saved. You rail against OSAS whenever you find a place to do it. You rail against the doctrines of grace constantly. You have said many things that indicate that you have crossed the line from a mere desire to obey the Lord to expecting those good works to save you.

But then you know all this. We've talked of it before.

I didn't say that, so I will look past that statement.

Do you believe evil works will save one? Do you believe those with evil hearts will enter the kingdom? Do you think those who are lawless will be let into heaven? Do you believe any evil will be permitted to enter God's holy paradise? Just where do you dismiss good and allow evil to triumph it?

You not only will not be corrected on what Reformed believer such as myself believe. You also will not be corrected on the relationship of works to faith.

I'm going to try to go back to not responding to you again. It's hard though when I see someone who is so close and yet so far from truth in their doctrine.

Good luck - I hope to see you one the other side.

I am not a Reformed believer, as you and I can freely believe as we choose.

How far from the truth of John 5:29 am I?

Look me up on the other side. I will be open to meeting you.

 

[nobdysfool]

The problem is trying to draw a causal relationship between doing good works and the resurrection to life. It is NOT the good works that CAUSE one to be resurrected to Life, the good works are the indication that one is qualified, by means of their union with Christ, to be resurrected to Life. We do good works BECAUSE we are saved, not in order to BECOME saved.

 

[EmSw]

The problem is trying to draw a causal relationship between doing good works and the resurrection to life. It is NOT the good works that CAUSE one to be resurrected to Life, the good works are the indication that one is qualified, by means of their union with Christ, to be resurrected to Life. We do good works BECAUSE we are saved, not in order to BECOME saved.

Jesus made that relationship, not me.

Answer this question - how does one come forth to the resurrection of life without doing good?

If one is not doing good, then he/she is doing evil. You can't separate doing good from the resurrection of life. If you try to argue otherwise, you will be arguing against the very truth Jesus stated. Don't let your personal beliefs come between you and the truth Jesus gave.

If one keeps evil in his heart, and keeps practicing that evil, he/she is not born again. He/she is still living in the morbid condition of a filthy heart. One can say they have a new heart all they want, but if they keep evil within it, nothing has changed; nothing is new.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Answer this question - how does one come forth to the resurrection of life without doing good?

By having the gift of eternal life (Rom 6:23) which is through believing in Christ (Jn 3:15,16, 6:40).

If one is not doing good, then he/she is doing evil. You can't separate doing good from the resurrection of life. If you try to argue otherwise, you will be arguing against the very truth Jesus stated. Don't let your personal beliefs come between you and the truth Jesus gave.

Jn 3:15,16, and 6:40 are Jesus own words.

If one keeps evil in his heart, and keeps practicing that evil, he/she is not born again.

What verse actually says this? In fact, one is born again when one believes in Christ.

He/she is still living in the morbid condition of a filthy heart. One can say they have a new heart all they want, but if they keep evil within it, nothing has changed; nothing is new.

Wrong. Those who believe are described as being a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). However, that new creation may or may not exhibit itself.

It's a mistaken idea that being born again guarantees a better life. We are commanded to be filled with (Eph 5:18) and walk by means of the Holy Spirit, or we will fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Gal 5:16).

When a believer grieves (Eph 4:30) or quenches the Holy Spirit (1 Thess 5:19), they are fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.

All the commands for living holy lives and being blameless are proof that believers must obey these commands and that they are not automatic or guarantee.