Apart from works?

[Bible Highlighter]

No, you wrote "DIED for the sins of the world".
that is NOT what the scripture says. it is your conclusion forcing then scripture to say what it did not say.

you are grabbing ideas and forcing scripture to fit it. i noticed in other threads you are also saying this conclusion- DIED for the sins of the world. 'taking away' or 'propitiation for' the 'sins for the world', is far too different from equating it as having DIED for the sins of the world as you like to say it, obviously possibly grabbed from some catechism without question.

what is clear is that Jesus lays down his life for His sheep ONLY. and therefore with regards to taking away sins or propitiation for the sins of the 'world' , one must understand it in the context that it is NOT FOR THOSE who do not know christ or who continually denied christ until their very last breathe but only those who are his, who knows his voice, or those who will be his sheep later.

straight from the lips of jesus himself :

Joh 10:14-16 I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father-- and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have "other sheep" that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. ​

Mar 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." - not everyone who lived on this planet buddy.​

Jesus is our atoning sacrifice - which means to die. For Jesus is the Lamb of God.

"Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2 NIV)​

Also,

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:17).​

In addition, again, Jesus desired that Israel was to be saved but they wouldn't let Him or allow Him to save them.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me." (Matthew 23:37).​

I hope this helps.
And may God bless you.

...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Really? Suppose they stayed in the eastern U.S? Could they still receive it?

no.

 

[Geralt]

yeah right, you always quote this verses, but cannot challenge the consequences or details of your interpretation. like for example "world"- you would not say if it is everyone that ever lived, or those that lived only after jesus, etc.. trying to hide details would not help your argument.

much like you would like to quote 'free will' or choice, but would not challenge what is it that makes people choose what they choose. you would not even discuss sin or the effects of the fall, but instead propose a pelagian view of unaffected human nature able to choose between good and evil.

so you are left now choosing verses in scripture that supposedly show people exercising their free choice, but really has no form nor relevance.

Jesus is our atoning sacrifice - which means to die. For Jesus is the Lamb of God.

"Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2 NIV)​

Also,

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:17).​

In addition, again, Jesus desired that Israel was to be saved but they wouldn't let Him or allow Him to save them.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me." (Matthew 23:37).​

I hope this helps.
And may God bless you.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

yeah right, you always quote this verses,

And yet they continue to go unexplained by you. Why is that?

but cannot challenge the consequences or details of your interpretation.

I believe I just have by quoting Scripture that is very plain to see.

like for example "world"- you would not say if it is everyone that ever lived, or those that lived only after jesus, etc.. trying to hide details would not help your argument.

Generally, the word "world" used in reference to people is in reference to the entire world unless the immediate context states otherwise.
The only exception of people who are left out in this reference to this "world of people" that Jesus died for (as I said before) are those who will worship the beast in the future because their names were not written in the Lamb's book of life since the foundation of the world. The Bible has to be read as a whole.

much like you would like to quote 'free will' or choice, but would not challenge what is it that makes people choose what they choose. you would not even discuss sin or the effects of the fall, but instead propose a pelagian view of unaffected human nature able to choose between good and evil.

So was God lying to Cain when He essentially told him he had choice between choosing good vs. evil? (See Genesis 4:7).
Was Moses lying to the Israelites that good and evil was set before them and that God wanted them to choose life as an option? (See Deuteronomy 30:19).

so you are left now choosing verses in scripture that supposedly show people exercising their free choice, but really has no form nor relevance.

No. The burden of proof is on you to actually show with Scripture that this is so. Surely you cannot believe I am just going to take your word for it. Prove it to me with Scripture (if you can).


...

 

[bling]

The point is that you are ignoring reality to make your belief work here, so the question doesn't apply to what the Bible says nor what real life says. The Canaanite woman used a continued real world example in reply to Jesus's real world example in illustrating spiritual truth. But your question here attempts to ignore this, though. So it is a question based on a belief that does not exist. It is a fantasy. The Bible teaches that sin separates a person from God (Regardless of whether you are a believer or not). So just as there are consequences to sin committed in the real world, there are serious consequences to sin in the after life that would not be good for any person (And it would not be a loss of rewards, either). Jesus said, if you look upon a woman in lust, your whole body could be cast into hell fire. I sincerily doubt Jesus was only talking to unbelievers here. Jesus's goal is to get people to be "believers" and not "unbelievers." The Scriptures were written for believers. So Jesus is also talking to believers when he spoke what he did in Matthew 5:28-30.

I have no problem with Jesus saying sinners go to hell, even if the sinner was formally a Christian sowing good seed (that come right from Gal. 6: 6-9.

The question is does God take back (God is a Native American giver) or does the Christian give up ( Gal. 6:9) his salvation?

I did address the issue. The Parable is clearly talking about salvation. At the end of Matthew 13, we see in verses 41-42 hit us over the head that those who are in Christ's Kingdom who commit iniquity (sin) will be gathered up by Christ's angels and cast into the furnace of fire (i.e. the Lake of Fire).

I am not saying the parable is not talking about salvation!

The factor that determines the outcome is the soil (the heart of the individual: does it have rocks, does it have weeds, is it harden, or is it ready for the seed [word]). We can let bad weeds (worldly interests) chock out the good seeds [word]).

But can one abide in sin and still be saved? Sure not.

One abides in sin because he/she has lost interest in doing what is right.

For if a person lives in sin day in and day out, then they are living in sin and proving their loyalty to the enemy and not God. If a believer stumbles into sin on rare occasion and confesses and forsakes such a sin, then they are on the road to recovery in overcoming sin. There is a difference.

An example of the life of a Faith Alone Salvationist or an Anti-Moralist would sort of be like an alcoholic who claims he does not have a drinking problem and yet he continues to drink himself into oblivion. An example of a true believer faced with the same choice would be like an alcoholic who may stumble once or twice on his road to recovery in becomng sober.

So sinning (stumbling) does not mean you have lost your salvation (which I fully agree with), but what I am saying you can give up the Godly good life and go back to being a drunk.

Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing the Word of God. We gain life by hearing the gospel that comes from God's Word. But remember the rich man? He was not willing to sell all that he had in order to follow Jesus. This is the comparison to the man in the Parable in Matthew 13 who fell away due to the cares and the riches of this life. The picture given to us is that the seed was choked by thorns. This means the seed (Which initially gave this person life) has now stopped this seed from living anymore. For the analogy of the first individual who did not receive the seed of the Word was an unsaved person. For the wicked one took the seed out of their heart before they could believe. So this is talking about salvation. It is very simple in what it says. The only reason you are seeking it to say something different is because somebody has placed an idea into your mind that would not naturally come to you if you were studying the Scriptures on your own by praying to the Spirit so as to give you the understanding.

So the rich man of his own free will chose not to have eternal life, which any Christian today can make that same choice at any time. Do you agree?

No. Nowhere does the parable say that the wheat is condoning the weed's wickedness. The weeds are false believers and they are wicked because their deeds are evil or sinful. A weed is a weed because of it's destructive nature. A wheat is good because it provides nourishment for the purpose of good and not evil. Come on now. God is good and He does not condone evil. This is basic elementary stuff here. Good people do good and bad people do bad. It's very simple. You would not know the good guys from the bad guys when you go out into public, or watch a movie, or turn on the news without their actions showing forth that they are evil or good.

I am talking about the soil and you are talking about the wheat, which is a huge difference. The seed produces the wheat, but the soil has to allow it to be productive. The soil can and should provide nourishment to the wheat and not the other way around?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have no problem with Jesus saying sinners go to hell, even if the sinner was formally a Christian sowing good seed (that come right from Gal. 6: 6-9.

It is not a matter of you having a problem with the idea of believers falling away it is a matter of morality or ethics that you are failing to understand or grasp as a result of saying that believers are saved no matter what they do.

As for Galatians 6:6-9:
Well, it says if you sow to the Spirit you reap everlasting life; And Jesus is the source of your everlasting life (See 1 John 5:12). However, the opposite contrast should be the Lake of Fire and not physical death of one's first body. For eternal life is what it is being contrasted here. Which means "spiritual death" is the opposite contrast.

The question is does God take back (God is a Native American giver) or does the Christian give up ( Gal. 6:9) his salvation?

Did certain Native Americans that coined that term act honorably and provide a contract of terms or conditions ahead of time for the gifts they gave? No. They gave and then took back the gift wrongfully.

God would never do anything like that.

Also, God owns everything. Including you. God has the right to set the standard of morality and God has the right to place conditions on things. Is not life sort of like a gift from God? Yet, the Scriptures say: "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away."

Furthermore, God taking back his gift based on the person breaking the contract in having that gift is an upholding of morality and not a compromise on morality in any way. For if a person sins, they are showing their loyalty to themselves and their evil rather than God. In fact, it would be a breach of God's moral character to let someone into his kingdom who later turned out to be evil or bad.

I am not saying the parable is not talking about salvation!

The factor that determines the outcome is the soil (the heart of the individual: does it have rocks, does it have weeds, is it harden, or is it ready for the seed [word]). We can let bad weeds (worldly interests) chock out the good seeds [word]).

One abides in sin because he/she has lost interest in doing what is right.

The deception of Eternal Security is that it clouds a person's thinking on what is good and right. Morality is subjective or not properly understood because the idea of sinning while being saved is a comforting notion to some. But are we not to have the mind of Christ? If that is the case then how does a sin and still be saved type mind set fit into the mind of Christ?

Anyways, the SEED is the Word of God sown in a person's heart. If the Word was choked by thorns and no longer produces fruit because it is dead then that person's faith in God's Word is dead. Remember, the first person could not receive the Word because the wicked one took the seed of the Word of God out of their heart. This first person was an unbeliever.

So sinning (stumbling) does not mean you have lost your salvation (which I fully agree with), but what I am saying you can give up the Godly good life and go back to being a drunk.

Are you saying they are saved if they go back to being a drunk or are you saying it is not possible for them to go back in being a drunk?

So the rich man of his own free will chose not to have eternal life, which any Christian today can make that same choice at any time. Do you agree?

I believe in free will. This means that a believer can fall away from the faith of their own free will choice. God does not force salvation upon people. Nor does He prevent salvation for anyone (except those who worship the beast in the future).

I am talking about the soil and you are talking about the wheat, which is a huge difference. The seed produces the wheat, but the soil has to allow it to be productive. The soil can and should provide nourishment to the wheat and not the other way around?

The soil (although not specifically stated) in the parable of the sower is the condition of the heart because the seed of the Word of God (the Gospel) was not received into the heart of the first man. For the wicked one took the seed out of the heart of the first man before it could be sown.

The field in the parable of the weeds (which is a different parable) is talking about the world. No soil is in focus in the parable of the weeds.


...

 

[bling]

It is not a matter of you having a problem with the idea of believers falling away it is a matter of morality or ethics that you are failing to understand or grasp as a result of saying that believers are saved no matter what they do.

I never have said or do say: “believers are saved no matter what they do.”, so where did you get that idea???

As for Galatians 6:6-9:
Well, it says if you sow to the Spirit you reap everlasting life; And Jesus is the source of your everlasting life (See 1 John 5:12). However, the opposite contrast should be the Lake of Fire and not physical death of one's first body. For eternal life is what it is being contrasted here. Which means "spiritual death" is the opposite contrast.

Right and Gal. 6:9 says if a Christian who has been sowing spiritual good seeds stops quits doing that he will not have the harvest of eternal life.

Did certain Native Americans that coined that term act honorably and provide a contract of terms or conditions ahead of time for the gifts they gave? No. They gave and then took back the gift wrongfully.

God would never do anything like that.

You are saying God does the same thing.

Also, God owns everything. Including you. God has the right to set the standard of morality and God has the right to place conditions on things. Is not life sort of like a gift from God? Yet, the Scriptures say: "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away."

Our life is not ours to just take away at any time (commit suicide), but eternal life is God’s gift to us, so can we give that gift away?

Furthermore, God taking back his gift based on the person breaking the contract in having that gift is an upholding of morality and not a compromise on morality in any way. For if a person sins, they are showing their loyalty to themselves and their evil rather than God. In fact, it would be a breach of God's moral character to let someone into his kingdom who later turned out to be evil or bad.

If there is some “contract” that we must fulfill than “the gift” is not an unconditional “gift” and we at least are “paying for” some portion of the gift, by fulfilling the contract.

The deception of Eternal Security is that it clouds a person's thinking on what is good and right. Morality is subjective or not properly understood because the idea of sinning while being saved is a comforting notion to some. But are we not to have the mind of Christ? If that is the case then how does a sin and still be saved type mind set fit into the mind of Christ?

It is not what I have been saying. If a Christian leaves the path where the blood of Christ is cleansing him and intentionally walks away leaving eternal life behind (giving it up), he/she no longer has eternal life.

Anyways, the SEED is the Word of God sown in a person's heart. If the Word was choked by thorns and no longer produces fruit because it is dead then that person's faith in God's Word is dead. Remember, the first person could not receive the Word because the wicked one took the seed of the Word of God out of their heart. This first person was an unbeliever.

Right, everything is dependent on the soil (the individual’s heart) and not the sower going back and picking up the seeds that were sown.

Are you saying they are saved if they go back to being a drunk or are you saying it is not possible for them to go back in being a drunk?

I have said and continue to say; giving up the good life and intentional going back to being a drunk is giving up eternal life (life here on earth can be extremely tough, like in Lazarus and the Rich man).

I believe in free will. This means that a believer can fall away from the faith of their own free will choice. God does not force salvation upon people. Nor does He prevent salvation for anyone (except those who worship the beast in the future).

The difference between us is I see it takes a free will choice by a Christian to give up (or sell to satan) his birthright of eternal life and while you are preaching “Christians have to do right or God will take His gift back”. If you are correct then we are in some ways earning or paying God back at least a portion of our inheritance by fulfilling some “commitment”. I see it being presented in scripture as an unconditional gift which some OSAS advocates interpret to mean; impossible to loss and wrongfully include impossible to give up.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I never have said or do say: “believers are saved no matter what they do.”, so where did you get that idea???

It's implied in the belief of Eternal Security itself. For when the Eternal Security Proponent tells other people that they they are saved by God's grace and it is not of any works (i.e. Christ directed works in their life) or when the Eternal Security Proponent says that their future sin is forgiven them, people can easily misunderstand that they can sin and still be saved (Whether that was the Eternal Security Proponent's intention or not). Anyways, not all forms of Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) (or Eternal Security) are the same.

OSAS Classic
This is the false view that you can abide in unrepentant sin and or live however you like and still be saved. Belief in Jesus is all you need to get thru the gates of Heaven.

Mid Range OSAS
This is the false view that a believer cannot live a habitual lifestyle of sin. However, abiding in one or two unrepentant sins before you die will not necessarily send you to the Lake of Fire.

OSAS Lite
This is the false view that you have to be penitent and live a holy life in order for OSAS to be true. If you do not repent and you do not live holy, then you were never born again to begin with. This view is wrong because it makes it makes you doubt the promises of God like 1 John 1:9 and James 5:19-20. Also, another problem with this belief is that if you do not explain yourself properly about Eternal Security with one living holy, you can mislead people into thinking they have a license to sin, too.

Another bad doctrine that is tied to OSAS and is popular is:

Mid Acts Dispensationalism (MAD)
This is a wrong teaching that there are two or more gospels under the New Testament. This wrong doctrine was created no doubt for people to deny the holy teachings of Jesus Christ. Which is popular among Classic OSAS proponents. For Paul's words on holiness are easier to twist than Jesus' words. However, Paul essentially said in 1 Timothy 6:3-4 that any man who speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness is proud and they know nothing.

Right and Gal. 6:9 says if a Christian who has been sowing spiritual good seeds stops quits doing that he will not have the harvest of eternal life.

So you don't believe in Eternal Security? You believe that a saved believer can fall away from the faith and become unsaved?
Please elaborate what you are talking about here.

You are saying God does the same thing.

Please go back and re-read what I had written. For do you believe the Native Americans who coined that phrase had provided a written or oral contract or agreement that they could take back their gifts if the Americans (who used those gifts) were to use them in a bad or unwise manner?

For example: If the Native Americans gave the white man ears of corn and told them ahead of time that they were not allowed to hurt others with these types of food (like stabbing people in the eye sockets with the ears of corn), then they will take back the corn. Do you think it would be wrong for the Native Americans to take back the corn (that was a gift) if the white man did something bad like this? I don't think the Native Americans would be wrong for taking the corn back if the whites did something bad like this because they are using the gift in a way that is wrong and harmful (and not as how the gift was originally intended). Why would you think it would be any different with God?

Our life is not ours to just take away at any time (commit suicide), but eternal life is God’s gift to us, so can we give that gift away?

Wow. If a believer can commit suicide and be saved, then it sure sounds to me like a believer is saved no matter what they do then. But this is not possible because God is good and He cannot agree with a believer's thinking that they can do evil and be rewarded with entering God's Kingdom. God does not reward the wicked or wicked actions. It doesn't work like that. God is good and He upholds a standard of morality for all people. For God is not a respecter of persons.

In other words, God does not compromise His morality in the giving of His gifts. God places conditions on His gifts that would uphold His standard of goodness or morality.

If there is some “contract” that we must fulfill than “the gift” is not an unconditional “gift” and we at least are “paying for” some portion of the gift, by fulfilling the contract.

No. Bob can give his son Rick a free car as a gift. But if Rick runs red lights, drives drunk, and ignores general maintenance on his car, he is not going to have his car for very long. But did Rick have to buy the car? No. It is still a gift. But that does not mean Rick can ignore the responsibilities in owning a car, though. The same is true if you consider a relationship with a certain person as a gift. For can you be unfaithful with someone and be in right standing with them? Then why do you think it is different with God?

It is not what I have been saying. If a Christian leaves the path where the blood of Christ is cleansing him and intentionally walks away leaving eternal life behind (giving it up), he/she no longer has eternal life.

But yet, you said a person can commit suicide and be saved? How do these two concepts work together?

Right, everything is dependent on the soil (the individual’s heart) and not the sower going back and picking up the seeds that were sown.

The seed that is sown is the Word of God. For why wouldn't one continue in the same teachings that they have learned from the Word?

I have said and continue to say; giving up the good life and intentional going back to being a drunk is giving up eternal life (life here on earth can be extremely tough, like in Lazarus and the Rich man).

So you believe a person can be saved and then become unsaved? I agree. But how does Eternal Security work with that concept, though?
You said before God cannot take back his gift.

The difference between us is I see it takes a free will choice by a Christian to give up (or sell to satan) his birthright of eternal life and while you are preaching “Christians have to do right or God will take His gift back”. If you are correct then we are in some ways earning or paying God back at least a portion of our inheritance by fulfilling some “commitment”. I see it being presented in scripture as an unconditional gift which some OSAS advocates interpret to mean; impossible to loss and wrongfully include impossible to give up.

So do you believe it is possible to give up the gift of eternal life because of one's sin?
What you have been saying to me sounds contradictory. Please use a real world example to help illustrate where you are coming from and or provide some Scripture references.


...

 

[bling]

It's implied in the belief of Eternal Security itself. For when the Eternal Security Proponent tells other people that they they are saved by God's grace and it is not of any works (i.e. Christ directed works in their life) or when the Eternal Security Proponent says that their future sin is forgiven them, people can easily misunderstand that they can sin and still be saved (Whether that was the Eternal Security Proponent's intention or not). Anyways, not all forms of Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) (or Eternal Security) are the same.

OSAS Classic
This is the false view that you can abide in unrepentant sin and or live however you like and still be saved. Belief in Jesus is all you need to get thru the gates of Heaven.

Mid Range OSAS
This is the false view that a believer cannot live a habitual lifestyle of sin. However, abiding in one or two unrepentant sins before you die will not necessarily send you to the Lake of Fire.

OSAS Lite
This is the false view that you have to be penitent and live a holy life in order for OSAS to be true. If you do not repent and you do not live holy, then you were never born again to begin with. This view is wrong because it makes it makes you doubt the promises of God like 1 John 1:9 and James 5:19-20. Also, another problem with this belief is that if you do not explain yourself properly about Eternal Security with one living holy, you can mislead people into thinking they have a license to sin, too.

Another bad doctrine that is tied to OSAS and is popular is:

Mid Acts Dispensationalism (MAD)
This is a wrong teaching that there are two or more gospels under the New Testament. This wrong doctrine was created no doubt for people to deny the holy teachings of Jesus Christ. Which is popular among Classic OSAS proponents. For Paul's words on holiness are easier to twist than Jesus' words. However, Paul essentially said in 1 Timothy 6:3-4 that any man who speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness is proud and they know nothing.



So you don't believe in Eternal Security? You believe that a saved believer can fall away from the faith and become unsaved?
Please elaborate what you are talking about here.

I do not believe OSAS, because the free unconditional gift of eternal life is truly a gift given and owned by the receiver of the gift. Since ownership was transferred the person can “sell” or give the gift away.

Our difference is in your believe the gift is not given unconditionally, so it would not truly be a “gift”.

You and I agree a Christian can still sin.

But that would mean “sin” specifically does not cause a person to loss their eternal life. Your solution to this is to suggest continuous or rebellious sinning will cause God to take back the gift of eternal life, but that still has the gift not being a true gift. My solution to the dilemma would never have God taking back an unconditional gift He gave, but would have man giving up the gift, which is a huge difference. Man gives up the gift for the perceived pleasures of sin like Esau gave up his birthright for the pleasures of a bowl of soup.

Wow. If a believer can commit suicide and be saved, then it sure sounds to me like a believer is saved no matter what they do then. But this is not possible because God is good and He cannot agree with a believer's thinking that they can do evil and be rewarded with entering God's Kingdom. God does not reward the wicked or wicked actions. It doesn't work like that. God is good and He upholds a standard of morality for all people. For God is not a respecter of persons.

In other words, God does not compromise His morality in the giving of His gifts. God places conditions on His gifts that would uphold His standard of goodness or morality.

??? I think you missed the word “not” I wrote???

No. Bob can give his son Rick a free car as a gift. But if Rick runs red lights, drives drunk, and ignores general maintenance on his car, he is not going to have his car for very long. But did Rick have to buy the car? No. It is still a gift. But that does not mean Rick can ignore the responsibilities in owning a car, though. The same is true if you consider a relationship with a certain person as a gift. For can you be unfaithful with someone and be in right standing with them? Then why do you think it is different with God?

You have Bob doing the giving and Bob does not take the car back so it was an unconditional gift from Bob, so in that case Bob represents God.

Your driver license is not given to you by the government unconditionally and they will take it back if you do not meet some conditions, so this case the Government is not representing God.

But yet, you said a person can commit suicide and be saved? How do these two concepts work together?

You need to read what I said “Our life is not ours to just take away at any time (commit suicide)”

The seed that is sown is the Word of God. For why wouldn't one continue in the same teachings that they have learned from the Word?

Because they are nourishing weeds.

So you believe a person can be saved and then become unsaved? I agree. But how does Eternal Security work with that concept, though?
You said before God cannot take back his gift.

Right! “God cannot take back His gift”, but we can give the gift away, the Hebrew writer uses the analogy of Esau and him giving his birthright away even though it could never be taken from him.

So do you believe it is possible to give up the gift of eternal life because of one's sin?
What you have been saying to me sounds contradictory. Please use a real world example to help illustrate where you are coming from and or provide some Scripture references.

I do not say it is because of “sin” since we agree Christian’s sin sometimes. I say we give up our birthright of eternal life because we value the perceived pleasures of sins over eternal life (the huge Love feast).[/QUOTE]

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I do not believe OSAS, because the free unconditional gift of eternal life is truly a gift given and owned by the receiver of the gift. Since ownership was transferred the person can “sell” or give the gift away.

Our difference is in your believe the gift is not given unconditionally, so it would not truly be a “gift”.

You and I agree a Christian can still sin.

But that would mean “sin” specifically does not cause a person to loss their eternal life. Your solution to this is to suggest continuous or rebellious sinning will cause God to take back the gift of eternal life, but that still has the gift not being a true gift. My solution to the dilemma would never have God taking back an unconditional gift He gave, but would have man giving up the gift, which is a huge difference. Man gives up the gift for the perceived pleasures of sin like Esau gave up his birthright for the pleasures of a bowl of soup.




??? I think you missed the word “not” I wrote???



You have Bob doing the giving and Bob does not take the car back so it was an unconditional gift from Bob, so in that case Bob represents God.

Your driver license is not given to you by the government unconditionally and they will take it back if you do not meet some conditions, so this case the Government is not representing God.



You need to read what I said “Our life is not ours to just take away at any time (commit suicide)”



Because they are nourishing weeds.



Right! “God cannot take back His gift”, but we can give the gift away, the Hebrew writer uses the analogy of Esau and him giving his birthright away even though it could never be taken from him.

I do not say it is because of “sin” since we agree Christian’s sin sometimes. I say we give up our birthright of eternal life because we value the perceived pleasures of sins over eternal life (the huge Love feast).

Again, the way that you have been wording your belief by your recent posts appears to show a contradiction in your belief. You say you do not believe in "Once Saved Always Saved" and yet you believe that a gift cannot be returned. Do you believe a saint can abide in unrepentant sin like (lying or lusting after a woman) and die in those sins and still be saved? Or do you think it is impossible for a believer to not have a hard heart towards God and that God simply chooses only those who are acceptable in behavior towards Him? Can sin separate a believer (who was once saved) from God?

Please answer my questions and explain this to me in a very simple and easy to understand way. In fact, please use a real world example to help illustrate what you are talking about here.

As for Esau: The blessing of the birthright went to Jacob and not Esau (Which was the whole point). Once the blessing had been done upon Jacob, it was over with and could not be undone. Jacob was blessed as having the "birthright."

As for the car analogy: We are told in the Bible to obey the Law of the land if it does not conflict with God's laws. This means we are showing our obedience to God by doing so. So when you obey the traffic laws, you are in essence obeying God. See Romans 13:1-7.


...

 

[bling]

Again, the way that you have been wording your belief by your recent posts appears to show a contradiction in your belief. You say you do not believe in "Once Saved Always Saved" and yet you believe that a gift cannot be returned. Do you believe a saint can abide in unrepentant sin like (lying or lusting after a woman) and die in those sins and still be saved? Or do you think it is impossible for a believer to not have a hard heart towards God and that God simply chooses only those who are acceptable in behavior towards Him? Can sin separate a believer (who was once saved) from God?

Please answer my questions and explain this to me in a very simple and easy to understand way. In fact, please use a real world example to help illustrate what you are talking about here.

My beliefs have not changed and I have been totally consistent, but from your comments you add stuff to my answers I never said.

Let me explain it again using your analogy: Bob unconditionally gives you the title to a car. The fact that you own the car now means you can sell the title or give the title away at any time, but Bob cannot just take the car back from you, because he truly gifted the car to you.

A license to drive the car was not gifted to you since you had to meet some requirement including paying some money. You cannot sell or give away your license and if you do not meet some conditions the state can revoke your license.

I am saying God’s unconditional gift of eternal life is like Bob unconditionally giving you the title to a car. The fact that you’re not driving the car and as time passes you might be drawn to other interest and just want to get rid of the car. Well the fact you are not in heaven yet, but have the birthright to heaven, you can loss interest in going to a place of unselfish Godly type Love by seeking only selfish type love and will give the birthright to heaven away.

God is not taking your birthright back and you are really giving it away or selling it to satan.

As for Esau: The blessing of the birthright went to Jacob and not Esau (Which was the whole point). Once the blessing had been done upon Jacob, it was over with and could not be undone. Jacob was blessed as having the "birthright."

What read the story again “Esau had the oldest son birthright and sold it to Jacob for a bowl of soup?”

Jacob couldn’t and no one else could steal Esau’s birthright and Isaac could not take it from Esau.

As for the car analogy: We are told in the Bible to obey the Law of the land if it does not conflict with God's laws. This means we are showing our obedience to God by doing so. So when you obey the traffic laws, you are in essence obeying God. See Romans 13:1-7.

That has nothing to do with the analogy, but I explained it above.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

My beliefs have not changed and I have been totally consistent, but from your comments you add stuff to my answers I never said.

I am only trying to figure out what you believe by the information you gave me. You said you do not believe in Once Saved Always Saved and then you also said that God's gift cannot be returned (Which naturally implies to most people that salvation cannot be undone). But I think with your analogy I am beginning to understand your position (even though I do not agree with it).

Let me explain it again using your analogy: Bob unconditionally gives you the title to a car. The fact that you own the car now means you can sell the title or give the title away at any time, but Bob cannot just take the car back from you, because he truly gifted the car to you.

A license to drive the car was not gifted to you since you had to meet some requirement including paying some money. You cannot sell or give away your license and if you do not meet some conditions the state can revoke your license.

I am saying God’s unconditional gift of eternal life is like Bob unconditionally giving you the title to a car. The fact that you’re not driving the car and as time passes you might be drawn to other interest and just want to get rid of the car. Well the fact you are not in heaven yet, but have the birthright to heaven, you can loss interest in going to a place of unselfish Godly type Love by seeking only selfish type love and will give the birthright to heaven away.

God is not taking your birthright back and you are really giving it away or selling it to satan.

Yet, as I said before, God is also the government in this analogy because Romans 13 says that our obeying the government and it's laws (as long as it does not conflict with God's laws) is the same as obeying God. Also, if a believer backslides into sin for a while (sort of like the prodigal son), he can come back home and be forgiven. James 5:19-20 says to us believers that if any fellow brother or sister wanders from the truth and we convert them back to the faith, we are in effect saving their soul from spiritual death and helping to cover a multitude of sins (By getting them to repent of their sins to the Lord of course). So how would the analogy of a believer selling his birthright to satan work here? Can a believer get his birthright back from satan? How could satan even possess such a thing? It doesn't make any sense. Nor is there an ounce of Scripture to support such an odd view.

What read the story again “Esau had the oldest son birthright and sold it to Jacob for a bowl of soup?”

That is not what I was referring to. I am fully aware that Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew. I am referring to the incident when Isaac gave the first born blessing to Jacob (Which is usually a part of one having the birthright or in being the first born son). Jacob received both the birthright and the blessing when they should have went to Esau. But Esau despised his birthright.

Jacob couldn’t and no one else could steal Esau’s birthright and Isaac could not take it from Esau.

Actually, in Genesis 27:36, Esau said that Jacob took away his birthright.


...

 

[bling]

I am only trying to figure out what you believe by the information you gave me. You said you do not believe in Once Saved Always Saved and then you also said that God's gift cannot be returned (Which naturally implies to most people that salvation cannot be undone). But I think with your analogy I am beginning to understand your position (even though I do not agree with it).

Do you see God wanting to take back the gift of eternal life from His children (and they would be God’s children if they have the gift of eternal life)?

God does not want the gift returned to Him, but satan does want your birthright even if he cannot use it for eternal life in heaven for himself, satan can keep you from having eternal life with God. Satan is eager to buy or be given your birthright.

Do you see: if you have God forcefully taking back His gift it is not truly a “gift” (like Bob gifting you a car) and it was certainly not given unconditionally?

Yet, as I said before, God is also the government in this analogy because Romans 13 says that our obeying the government and it's laws (as long as it does not conflict with God's laws) is the same as obeying God. Also, if a believer backslides into sin for a while (sort of like the prodigal son), he can come back home and be forgiven. James 5:19-20 says to us believers that if any fellow brother or sister wanders from the truth and we convert them back to the faith, we are in effect saving their soul from spiritual death and helping to cover a multitude of sins (By getting them to repent of their sins to the Lord of course). So how would the analogy of a believer selling his birthright to satan work here? Can a believer get his birthright back from satan? How could satan even possess such a thing? It doesn't make any sense. Nor is there an ounce of Scripture to support such an odd view.

The government is not “analogous” to God Himself in Ro. 13, but is a servant of God. Not all governments all the time are to be obeyed blindly.

Lets look at the prodigal son story: Did or even would the father kick his young son out of the house for having done extremely bad stuff (the Father readily took the son in after the son did extremely bad stuff). The prodigal son leaves the Father’s house, just as Christians can leave God and God does not kick Christians out even if they sin some. The prodigal son could have come to his senses and decided (out of a false pride) to not return and thus been lost.

There is a problem with carrying any analogy to far, since an analogy is not an exact replica of what it is representing. Just as you could sell the car Bob gave you and later want the car back, Bob could give you another car. God might be able to give you lots of rights to heaven one at a time. There is also the possibility of this being the unforgiveable sin. Christian might be able to “fall away” being involved in sin without giving up their birthright “yet” and thus be able to be drawn back.

That is not what I was referring to. I am fully aware that Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew. I am referring to the incident when Isaac gave the first born blessing to Jacob (Which is usually a part of one having the birthright or in being the first born son). Jacob received both the birthright and the blessing when they should have went to Esau. But Esau despised his birthright.

Sorry the “blessing” was not part of the first born birthright Esau sold to Jacob. It is a right of the first born and Jacob stole that right from Esau.

Actually, in Genesis 27:36, Esau said that Jacob took away his birthright.

If Jacob had “stolen” Esau’s birthright Esau could just take it back.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you see God wanting to take back the gift of eternal life from His children (and they would be God’s children if they have the gift of eternal life)?

God does not want the gift returned to Him, but satan does want your birthright even if he cannot use it for eternal life in heaven for himself, satan can keep you from having eternal life with God. Satan is eager to buy or be given your birthright.

Do you see: if you have God forcefully taking back His gift it is not truly a “gift” (like Bob gifting you a car) and it was certainly not given unconditionally?


The government is not “analogous” to God Himself in Ro. 13, but is a servant of God. Not all governments all the time are to be obeyed blindly.

Lets look at the prodigal son story: Did or even would the father kick his young son out of the house for having done extremely bad stuff (the Father readily took the son in after the son did extremely bad stuff). The prodigal son leaves the Father’s house, just as Christians can leave God and God does not kick Christians out even if they sin some. The prodigal son could have come to his senses and decided (out of a false pride) to not return and thus been lost.

There is a problem with carrying any analogy to far, since an analogy is not an exact replica of what it is representing. Just as you could sell the car Bob gave you and later want the car back, Bob could give you another car. God might be able to give you lots of rights to heaven one at a time. There is also the possibility of this being the unforgiveable sin. Christian might be able to “fall away” being involved in sin without giving up their birthright “yet” and thus be able to be drawn back.




Sorry the “blessing” was not part of the first born birthright Esau sold to Jacob. It is a right of the first born and Jacob stole that right from Esau.



If Jacob had “stolen” Esau’s birthright Esau could just take it back.

You are taking this whole birthright thing too far in your interpretation. It is imagnitive but it cannot actually be supported by Scripture. Again, James 5:19-20 shows that a believer who was fallen away can and go from a saved state and then to an unsaved state and then back to a saved state. This is why in the Parable of the Prodigal Son his father said he was dead and is alive again twice. If one is an unsaved state, they no longer have God's gift of eternal life anymore.

As for the birthright blessing: Well, the father can choose to give the blessing and inheritance (heaven) to another son in the family instead of to the first born (even thought it is originally suppposed to be for the first born). Veritably, the fact that Jacob received the blessing of the first born shows that we must be born again. Even Isaac was the second son of Abraham but yet he is recognized as Abraham's only begotten Son.

I believe the birthright is analogous to our belief in Jesus and it is not analogous to the gift of salvation. It is the core of what makes you worthy to be CALLED a part of Christ's Kingdom (But it does not mean one will gain the inheritence or salvation). For a person can backslide into sin and believe in Jesus, but they will not be saved. A first born son who has the birthright can lose the blessing and the inheritence (heaven) by losing favor with their Father. In Matthew 13:41-42, we learn that Jesus will send forth his angels and gather out of HIS KINGDOM all who offend and do iniquity (sin) and throw them into the furnace of fire. These are people who had a belief on Jesus (i.e. had a birthright to be called to be a part of His Kingdom), but by their bad behavior they were cast out and were burned in the furnace of fire (i.e. the Lake of Fire). In other words, these individuals did not receive the blessing and inheritence.

In other words, Esau sold his birthright was analogous to the selling of his soul and analogous to his turning his back on God for good (i.e. Rejecting Jesus after having believed - See Hebrews 6). This is why Esau sought repentance with tears but he could not be renewed back to God. Esau committed an unforgiveable sin of rejecting the Lord after having believed by the selling of his birthright because he knew there would be a blessing from God in it if he did keep it. Esau despised his birthright.

As for Romans 13:

It says,

1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation"
(Romans 13:1-2).


...

 

[bling]

You are taking this whole birthright thing too far in your interpretation. It is imagnitive but it cannot actually be supported by Scripture. Again, James 5:19-20 shows that a believer who was fallen away can and go from a saved state and then to an unsaved state and then back to a saved state. This is why in the Parable of the Prodigal Son his father said he was dead and is alive again twice. If one is an unsaved state, they no longer have God's gift of eternal life anymore.

I did not originate the use of the birth right as an analogy to addressing Christians giving up there salvation, the writer of Hebrews deserves that credit and really God. Heb. 12: 16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. I do think Gal. 6:6-9 is a better verse since it specifically talks about eternal life and giving it up.

Jesus put the word “dead” into the prodigal son’s father which shows us even dead people (by Christ’s definition of dead) can do stuff. I have no issue with the young son walking away from the father and coming back, the problem would be if the father kicked the son out.

James talks about a brother sinning, but does not say “hell bound brother” or “lost brother” and we both agree a Christian can sin without losing his/her salvation.

As for the birthright blessing: Well, the father can choose to give the blessing and inheritance (heaven) to another son in the family instead of to the first born (even thought it is originally suppposed to be for the first born). Veritably, the fact that Jacob received the blessing of the first born shows that we must be born again. Even Isaac was the second son of Abraham but yet he is recognized as Abraham's only begotten Son.

OK?

I believe the birthright is analogous to our belief in Jesus and it is not analogous to the gift of salvation. It is the core of what makes you worthy to be CALLED a part of Christ's Kingdom (But it does not mean one will gain the inheritence or salvation). For a person can backslide into sin and believe in Jesus, but they will not be saved. A first born son who has the birthright can lose the blessing and the inheritence (heaven) by losing favor with their Father. In Matthew 13:41-42, we learn that Jesus will send forth his angels and gather out of HIS KINGDOM all who offend and do iniquity (sin) and throw them into the furnace of fire. These are people who had a belief on Jesus (i.e. had a birthright to be called to be a part of His Kingdom), but by their bad behavior they were cast out and were burned in the furnace of fire (i.e. the Lake of Fire). In other words, these individuals did not receive the blessing and inheritence.

The reason for the birthright analogy and why it fits best is because we are not living in heaven yet, but have the indwelling Holy Spirit as our guarantee and a “birthright” is also a guarantee. We are giving up the “title” to a home in heaven. The father’s bless to the first born is not the same as the birthright of the first born Gen. 27: 36 Esau said, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob? This is the second time he has taken advantage of me: He took my birthright, and now he’s taken my blessing!”

Esau specifically said they are two separate items “This is the second time…”.

In other words, Esau sold his birthright was analogous to the selling of his soul and analogous to his turning his back on God for good (i.e. Rejecting Jesus after having believed - See Hebrews 6). This is why Esau sought repentance with tears but he could not be renewed back to God. Esau committed an unforgiveable sin of rejecting the Lord after having believed by the selling of his birthright because he knew there would be a blessing from God in it if he did keep it. Esau despised his birthright.

I can agree with this being a good possible scenario, since it shows Esau doing it and not God doing it to Esau and this possible being the unforgivable sin, but when Esau sold his birthright which I would equate to giving up the indwelling Holy Spirit the guarantee to the future gift he did not directly have at the moment.

As for Romans 13:

It says,

1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation"
(Romans 13:1-2).

This has nothing to do with OSAS.

 

[DingDing]

Is salvation by faith apart from works, or is salvation contingent upon one's ongoing performance and/or one's' involvement in religious ceremonies.

I think the question is: what is faith? Suppose Jesus were to say that a man can walk one of two possible paths, and that one leads to condemnation while the other leads to eternal life. What then would you say of someone who claimed to have faith in Jesus, but then walked the wrong path? In such a scenario, would not faith be defined by the path walked?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I did not originate the use of the birth right as an analogy to addressing Christians giving up there salvation, the writer of Hebrews deserves that credit and really God. Heb. 12: 16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. I do think Gal. 6:6-9 is a better verse since it specifically talks about eternal life and giving it up.

Yes, giving up Jesus is likened to giving up eternal life forever (Because you cannot repent of denying Jesus as your Savior after having believed and in having the Spirit (Hebrews 6); Please take note: That Peter did not receive the Holy Spirit yet when he denied the Lord.). Anyways, the "birthright" is Jesus just as "eternal life" is Jesus. Yet, one may not be giving up Jesus (their birthright) if they back slide into sin. This means that while a backslidden believer is lost spiritually, that does not mean they cannot come back to the faith by getting their heart right with the Lord because they have not denied Jesus as their Savior.

Jesus put the word “dead” into the prodigal son’s father which shows us even dead people (by Christ’s definition of dead) can do stuff. I have no issue with the young son walking away from the father and coming back, the problem would be if the father kicked the son out.

Yes, a person who lives physically can also be dead spiritually. That is the analogy. The physical relates to the spiritual. It is talking about salvation. The son fell away from the father (but did not deny his father) and yet he was lost in a physical way (as well as spiritually). This is why the father said he was "dead" and is "alive again" twice.

James talks about a brother sinning, but does not say “hell bound brother” or “lost brother” and we both agree a Christian can sin without losing his/her salvation.

No. James 5:19-20 is clearly talking about a fellow believer who has went hellbound because of his/her sin (using different words of course). It doesn't make sense if you were to read it in some other way. James 2 is talking about faith without works is dead. It is a warning to live out your faith instead of just having a belief alone. For a dead faith cannot save anyone because we are saved by grace THRU faith. Also, if you were to also re-read James 5, it is warning the brethren not to fall into condemnation several times before verses 19-20. Falling into condemnation does not mean you are saved. Falling into condemnation with God means you are unsaved. Twisting it to say so otherwise goes beyond the text and the surrounding verses. Anyways, in James 5:19-20 the brethren are told if we are to convert a fellow believer who has erred from the truth they are to realize that they are helping to save a soul from death and to cover a multitude of their sins. This is no doubt if they were to get this believer to repent of their backslidden ways.

OK?

Are you saying you do not see the pattern of the second born son being chosen repeatedly within the line of Abraham in Scripture as a loose reference of how we are to be born again? The pattern is there in Scripture for all to see.

The reason for the birthright analogy and why it fits best is because we are not living in heaven yet, but have the indwelling Holy Spirit as our guarantee and a “birthright” is also a guarantee. We are giving up the “title” to a home in heaven. The father’s bless to the first born is not the same as the birthright of the first born Gen. 27: 36 Esau said, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob? This is the second time he has taken advantage of me: He took my birthright, and now he’s taken my blessing!”

No. The birthright is the Lord. One cannot sell their belief in the Lord once they received Him (without losing their soul for good). The receiving of the inheritance is likened unto the receiving of the inheritence in the Kingdom. Paul essentially says they that do certain sins will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21).

Esau specifically said they are two separate items “This is the second time…”

Yes. Esau said Jacob made him to sell his birthright. But it was ultimately Esau who sold it, though. Esau was the one who was responsible ultimately in selling his birthright (Which is likened to selling one's belief in God).

I can agree with this being a good possible scenario, since it shows Esau doing it and not God doing it to Esau and this possible being the unforgivable sin, but when Esau sold his birthright which I would equate to giving up the indwelling Holy Spirit the guarantee to the future gift he did not directly have at the moment.

What is the condition of having the seal of God?

Scripture says, God the Father has set his seal upon those who labor for the meat that endures unto everlasting life.

"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." (John 6:27).

In fact, what is a guarantee?

Guarantee receipts normally have conditions which you can normally read in the ”fine print”. If you get a guarantee receipt for a certain product and you would like to make a claim, the store might request that you bring both the product and the receipt with you before they are willing to look at your claim. They might also request that you do this within a certain time frame and that you state what’s wrong with the product. Another example could be if someone buys you a bus ticket which guarantees you to get to a certain city PROVIDED that 1) you don’t throw away your ticket, 2) that you embark the right bus on the right time, and 3) that you STAY ON the bus until it arrives at the city. The BUS will arrive at the city as promised, but the question is if YOU will choose to be among the bus passengers.

1 Samuel 16:14
But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

Psalms 5:11
Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me

Again, circumcision was a ”seal” for those under the old covenant.

Romans 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a SEAL of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

This seal WAS broken and guaranteed nothing when those who were circumcised broke the covenant and were cut off from the people of God.

Romans 2:25-27
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, IF thou keep the law: but IF thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

As you can see, this seal was conditioned on continued faith and obedience. The Holy Spirit marks us as God’s children of the new covenant but if we abandon the faith, and/or live in disobedience then the Spirit of God no longer remains in us and we are no longer sealed. Circumcised (sealed) jews were broken off through unbelief.

Acts 5:32
And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

This has nothing to do with OSAS.

I agree. Very good observation, my friend. The Bible does not teach OSAS.


...

 

[bling]

No. James 5:19-20 is clearly talking about a fellow believer who has went hellbound because of his/her sin (using different words of course). It doesn't make sense if you were to read it in some other way. James 2 is talking about faith without works is dead. It is a warning to live out your faith instead of just having a belief alone. For a dead faith cannot save anyone because we are saved by grace THRU faith. Also, if you were to also re-read James 5, it is warning the brethren not to fall into condemnation several times before verses 19-20. Falling into condemnation does not mean you are saved. Falling into condemnation with God means you are unsaved. Twisting it to say so otherwise goes beyond the text and the surrounding verses. Anyways, in James 5:19-20 the brethren are told if we are to convert a fellow believer who has erred from the truth they are to realize that they are helping to save a soul from death and to cover a multitude of their sins. This is no doubt if they were to get this believer to repent of their backslidden ways.

You use “backsliding” to describe the Christian who is sinning but not yet committed the unforgivable sin, which is OK if we agree on this definition, so they can be brought back at this time before committing the unforgivable sin which I would describe as selling your birthright like Esau did.

Are you saying you do not see the pattern of the second born son being chosen repeatedly within the line of Abraham in Scripture as a loose reference of how we are to be born again? The pattern is there in Scripture for all to see.

I think it is an excellent living parable to the Jews to help them realize: Even though the Jews are the physically first born of God they may not end up being God’s elect.

No. The birthright is the Lord. One cannot sell their belief in the Lord once they received Him (without losing their soul for good). The receiving of the inheritance is likened unto the receiving of the inheritence in the Kingdom. Paul essentially says they that do certain sins will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21).

You first say: “the birthright is the Lord” and then say the birthright (what they are selling) is “belief in the Lord” but that is not the same thing. A birthright is a guarantee to get something later you do not have yet. I would say Christian are in the Kingdom now, but are not yet in heaven, thus the need for a guarantee for heaven.

Sinning causes a Christian to not value the birthright to heaven and thus can eventually cause them to give away that birthright (Give away God’s presence in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit).

Yes. Esau said Jacob made him to sell his birthright. But it was ultimately Esau who sold it, though. Esau was the one who was responsible ultimately in selling his birthright (Which is likened to selling one's belief in God).

Again, it is not the intellectual “belief”, but the driving off of the indwelling Holy Spirit, so a person can still belief like demons belief in God, but that is not a saving faith.

As long as you have not driven off the Spirit, you can be restored.

What is the condition of having the seal of God?

Scripture says, God the Father has set his seal upon those who labor for the meat that endures unto everlasting life.

"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." (John 6:27).

In fact, what is a guarantee?

Guarantee receipts normally have conditions which you can normally read in the ”fine print”. If you get a guarantee receipt for a certain product and you would like to make a claim, the store might request that you bring both the product and the receipt with you before they are willing to look at your claim. They might also request that you do this within a certain time frame and that you state what’s wrong with the product. Another example could be if someone buys you a bus ticket which guarantees you to get to a certain city PROVIDED that 1) you don’t throw away your ticket, 2) that you embark the right bus on the right time, and 3) that you STAY ON the bus until it arrives at the city. The BUS will arrive at the city as promised, but the question is if YOU will choose to be among the bus passengers.

The guarantee God gives us is totally an unconditional gift, while a “bus ride” can be contingent on you keeping up with a ticket. A gift from God is like a car title or deed to some large house. I am not personally responsible for keeping up with the title or deed, since it is securely kept on record by the government so no one can just steal or find my car or house and own them because of my neglect or poor security. I have to make a conscious effort to transfer my title or deed to someone (sign it over to them).

1 Samuel 16:14
But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

Psalms 5:11
Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me

Again, circumcision was a ”seal” for those under the old covenant.

Romans 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a SEAL of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

This seal WAS broken and guaranteed nothing when those who were circumcised broke the covenant and were cut off from the people of God.

Romans 2:25-27
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, IF thou keep the law: but IF thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

As you can see, this seal was conditioned on continued faith and obedience. The Holy Spirit marks us as God’s children of the new covenant but if we abandon the faith, and/or live in disobedience then the Spirit of God no longer remains in us and we are no longer sealed. Circumcised (sealed) jews were broken off through unbelief.

Acts 5:32
And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

The Holy Spirit given King Saul was not the same “portion” as our indwelling Holy Spirit or given for the same reason.

The miraculous portion of the Spirit did seem to come and go.

Again we are both trying to determine when Christians can go to no longer possess eternal life in heaven. We both agree it is not with the Christian sinning (since most Christians do sin from time to time). There are lots of good scriptures the OSAS crowd uses to show “eternal life in heaven is a true gift (thus being unconditional)” which if I show even an unconditional gift can be given away, their argument is made void. Your trying to show “God can take back His gift”, automatically makes eternal life not a gift and certainly not an unconditional gift.

You say a Christian can backslide and not loss the gift of eternal life, but if the Christian commits the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit that person no longer goes to heaven, which I can agree with. So you and I both seem to be saying it takes more than just backsliding, but what?

Sin is certainly involved with the Christian who stops being heaven bound, but I see Paul teaching Gal. 6: 6-9 that the Christian gives up sowing good seeds and thus automatically goes to sowing bad seeds (all mature adults as they go through life are sowing good or bad seeds). This giving up the harvest of eternal life is what causes the Christian not to go to heaven, but this giving up would also be the result of the Christian enjoying the pleasures of sowing bad seed and not wanting to sow good seed (giving up on sowing good seed).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You use “backsliding” to describe the Christian who is sinning but not yet committed the unforgivable sin, which is OK if we agree on this definition, so they can be brought back at this time before committing the unforgivable sin which I would describe as selling your birthright like Esau did.



I think it is an excellent living parable to the Jews to help them realize: Even though the Jews are the physically first born of God they may not end up being God’s elect.



You first say: “the birthright is the Lord” and then say the birthright (what they are selling) is “belief in the Lord” but that is not the same thing. A birthright is a guarantee to get something later you do not have yet. I would say Christian are in the Kingdom now, but are not yet in heaven, thus the need for a guarantee for heaven.

Sinning causes a Christian to not value the birthright to heaven and thus can eventually cause them to give away that birthright (Give away God’s presence in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit).



Again, it is not the intellectual “belief”, but the driving off of the indwelling Holy Spirit, so a person can still belief like demons belief in God, but that is not a saving faith.

As long as you have not driven off the Spirit, you can be restored.




The guarantee God gives us is totally an unconditional gift, while a “bus ride” can be contingent on you keeping up with a ticket. A gift from God is like a car title or deed to some large house. I am not personally responsible for keeping up with the title or deed, since it is securely kept on record by the government so no one can just steal or find my car or house and own them because of my neglect or poor security. I have to make a conscious effort to transfer my title or deed to someone (sign it over to them).



The Holy Spirit given King Saul was not the same “portion” as our indwelling Holy Spirit or given for the same reason.

The miraculous portion of the Spirit did seem to come and go.

Again we are both trying to determine when Christians can go to no longer possess eternal life in heaven. We both agree it is not with the Christian sinning (since most Christians do sin from time to time). There are lots of good scriptures the OSAS crowd uses to show “eternal life in heaven is a true gift (thus being unconditional)” which if I show even an unconditional gift can be given away, their argument is made void. Your trying to show “God can take back His gift”, automatically makes eternal life not a gift and certainly not an unconditional gift.

You say a Christian can backslide and not loss the gift of eternal life, but if the Christian commits the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit that person no longer goes to heaven, which I can agree with. So you and I both seem to be saying it takes more than just backsliding, but what?

Sin is certainly involved with the Christian who stops being heaven bound, but I see Paul teaching Gal. 6: 6-9 that the Christian gives up sowing good seeds and thus automatically goes to sowing bad seeds (all mature adults as they go through life are sowing good or bad seeds). This giving up the harvest of eternal life is what causes the Christian not to go to heaven, but this giving up would also be the result of the Christian enjoying the pleasures of sowing bad seed and not wanting to sow good seed (giving up on sowing good seed).

I do not think we are going to convince each other any time soon. So let's just agree to disagree here.


...