Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is only in the new Jerusalem, You can link to scripture right here by typing the name e.g. Revelation 22:5
You are either oblivious to or ignore what believers are obligated to do in "deciding who is or who is not an obedient believer." It is certainly within your purview to correct a disobedient brother if you see him sinning and/or wandering from the truth as James 5:19-20 instructs us to do. If you do so and your brother turns back from his wandering ways, you will have saved his SOUL FROM DEATH. This passage like Rom 8:13 totally negates your doctrine of eternal security. Not to mention your neglect to address Jesus' own teaching of spiritual death for the prodigal son who was made alive AGAIN. Dead figuratively? How so may I ask? How can someone be made alive again from figurative death? Since the prodigal did not physically die, Jesus can only have been referencing spiritual death. You forget that Jesus himself was telling this parable using the father's perspective to make a point so according to Jesus' purview, the son was dead.
God has impressed upon me many times that He is a God of total, complete and perfect Justice. Those who reject Jesus sacrifice will receive exactly what they deserve. The word destruction is used a lot in the Bible and is worth doing a study on.
Here is what I was referring to when I said it is not in my purview. "So assuming that, does that make a disobedient believer unsaved, or was he never saved in the first place?" I can observe when a fellow Christian is being disobedient but I cannot determine if he/she is/was saved or unsaved.
Whatever gave you the idea I believed in OSAS? I think my comments on Heb 6:4-6 clearly dispel that idea.
Read the scripture Jesus did not say the son was dead, the father did.
I have no problem with this but it is totally in God's purview not man's.
Read my post again. It was not my contention I was quoting Dr. Wallace. I think the figure is 37% of the usages it can mean since. I agree context determines and Dr. Wallace gave several examples.
After hearing the arguments that "God is going to save all mankind" and "God will destroy the unrighteous" a multitude of times I did do a study of the word translated "destroy."
That is true as one cannot just assume some else is saved or unsaved. However James specifically references a brother who wanders from the truth which cannot refer to an unsaved person since Scripture never references a brother as someone who is unsaved and it is impossible for an unsaved person to wander from the truth since he was never in the truth to begin with.
Do you believe that a genuine believer, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, not persevere in the faith and therefore no longer possess eternal life? Yes or No? Simple question.
Jesus was reciting the story from the father's point of view so your claim is irrelevant. Jesus did not dispute the father's account did he? Moreover, Jesus repeats the same phrase "was dead and is alive again" twice thereby given emphasis to the main point of his parable.
God's purview yes but also subject to our correct interpretation of what the scriptures actually say. This passage has been widely misinterpreted to mean that if a person loses his/her salvation, it is impossible to renew them to repentance. The participle tenses do not support that view.
So given that the majority of time, it means "if" why do choose to instead interpret as since? Is it because you believe not all are believers in the congregation as you alluded to? I don't find that convincing as Paul addressed them as "brethren" v.12. So collectively, I assume he was referencing genuine believers. I can't recall one scripture where Paul writes to an unbeliever. In Rom 1:7 he makes it clear that he is writing to the saints - not saints and unbelievers. Moreover, ζῆτε in v.13 is in the plural form as in "you all" which indicates to me he is assuming all brethren to be believers.
Absolutely we are not transformed into mindless robots when we become Christians.
Jesus never affirmed it nor denied it. Jesus knew that a mere man cannot determine if someone is spiritually dead. A mortal man saying a son who had run away was dead would be using the word "dead" figuratively.
It most certainly does state that someone who is saved can lose their salvation despite your attempted hocus pocus with participles.
I didn't you did! You said for unbelievers it was not "if" they sin but "since" they sin.
In all these verses Paul addressed the Jews as brethren, even those who were trying to kill him. Acts of the apostles 23:6 Acts of the apostles 28:17 Acts of the apostles 23:5 Acts of the apostles 23:1 Acts of the apostles 22:1
You evaded the question. We are not mindless robots and there are consequences for the decisions and actions we make. Habitual sin unrepented of leads to spiritual death for the believer. Yes or No?
Jesus taught the parable from the father's perspective, therefore what the father states in the parable is what Jesus affirms and is meant for us to understand.
Of course it states that someone can lose their salvation. And of course, only the saved can fall away since they were never in the faith to begin with. The use of the present tense participles is not hocus-pocus but evidences the fact that these saved people were now involved in habitual sin - crucifying and shaming Christ. Because of their repeated actions, they were unrepentant and thus it was impossible to restore them to repentance. This is not rocket science. You fancy yourself a Greek student yet you dismiss the grammatical construction.
That is why Paul used the word IF because he was addressing genuine believers because only believers have the choice if they should choose to live according to the flesh or if they should choose to live according to the Spirit. He did not use the word "since" because he did intend to address his warning to unbelievers.
Why do you appeal to other passages when the immediate context of the whole chapter of Rom 8 makes it clear that he is addressing the brethren in Rome who have the indwelling Spirit??
Not necessarily. It was not stopping sinning that saves therefore it is not sinning which makes one "lose" salvation.
Nonsense. The father could not determine what Jesus would say. In some circumstances even Jews today will consider a child dead.
To say "the saved can fall away since they were never in the faith to begin with." is a contradiction. If one is saved they are in the faith, if they are not in the faith they are not saved.
Dead horse stop beating it. Show me some credible scholarship.
You ignored my argument. Paul saying brethren does not prove the entire Roman church consisted of saved individuals as I have shown from other verses.
"...not sinning which makes you lose your salvation? So sinless perfection is your cup of tea??
Uh...Jesus told the parable directly out of his mouth - not the father's. Even you should be able to see that but I guess not. Thus Jesus's statements regarding the spiritual state of the son are true and accurate. You are free to choose otherwise.
Your logic is fallible. It ignores that one can be in the faith but fall away/depart from the faith. How can can one apostate from the faith if he/she was never in the faith to begin with? Simply impossible.
To your detriment, you rely on "scholarship" which can sometimes merely amount to the traditions of men. An unwise thing to do but certainly your choice. Since you prefer to rely on scholarship and ignore the warnings of Paul, may I suggest another Apostle - James who also wrote that whoever turns a brother who wanders from the truth from the error of his way will save him his soul from death. One can only wander from the truth if he were only in the truth to begin with. Death of the soul refers to spiritual death - not physical death. You prefer citing your scholarly writings; I prefer citing the Apostles' own writings.
Paul stated "brethren" = saints. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. Up to now you have failed to do so. A writer or speaker can address his audience from his own frame of reference as he dictates his message to whomever he wants to address despite what may be a varied audience.
Maybe you are different but I have always found it helpful to actually read a post before responding. And if you are going to quote me do so in context to quote me out-of-context as you did here is dishonest. One and only warning.
So we are to assume that the father in the parable of the prodigal son was omniscient and was able to state categorically that his wayward son was spiritually dead? Or do we conclude that the father was speaking figuratively since a human father does not have any power to deliver anyone from a lost state?
This is contradictory. I believe and have stated that Christian believers are not robots or automatons. I believe that a solid believer can "lose" their salvation. But it is not a matter of "I had it here a minute ago now I can't find it."
Nonsense! I think I can say without fear of contradiction that every professional you consult in any other field; medicine, law, accounting etc. was not born with knowledge of their field but they had to learn. i.e. scholarship.
I think it's fair to say you do not rely on the apostles writings!
More nonsense. I most certainly have proved that Paul addressing a group as brethren does not mean they were saints.
What is this supposed to mean?
Perhaps you should reread your own posts to see if they make sense. You are capable of doing that lest I get the wrong impression.
The father was not speaking. Jesus is speaking through the father to make his point. Do you know not how to interpret parables? Parables were Jesus' main teaching tool to illustrate spiritual truths. Your claim of figurative speaking is nonsense. You imagine that the father is saying the equivalent of "he's dead to me" as you used in employing your Korea experience. The problem with your figurative illustration is that the father of the prodigal never took that attitude toward his lost son. Instead, he looked forward to his son's return and threw a celebration when the prodigal returned home.
So are you saying a believer can "lose" his salvation? If so, how just does a believer lose his salvation der alter? More details please? If you disagree, how do you explain James 5:19-20 which you totally ignored? Care to explain what James meant in light of what you believe?
Nonsense. Scripture states "And you, the anointing that you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But just as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things and is true and is no lie, and just as it has taught you, you shall abide in Him. 1 Jn 2:27
Be more specific and refrain for speaking in generalities. In other words, deal with the textual evidence and and point out to me where it was changed according to your allegation.
False. Acts 23 makes it clear that Paul who was also a Jew was speaking to his Jewish brethren which the verse clearly distinguishes. Your attempt to conflate Jewish brethren with Christian brethren whom Paul did address in Rom 8:13 is clearly without warrant. Same thing with Acts 28:17. Paul is addressing his Jewish brethren. Conflating the two and taking things out of context amounts to nothing more than eisegesis in order to support your belief.
God is love and God is also a God of Justice. One does not cancel out the other. This is why Jesus had to go to Calvary. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 1John3:16
I am sorry, I should not have mixed those two together. I think the point of God wanting to tell me about HIS Justice is to deal with people that claim God is not Just. Those who rejects Jesus will get exactly what they deserve. Some people say the punishment is greater then the crime but I believe that God is Just and He will not allow some to suffer beyond what Justice requires.
This reminds me of the Jewish approach where they even believe reincarnation. If we do not get it right in this life then God gives us another life in the hope we will get it right then. The Dante approach to hell did have a profound impact on people.
