"Lose one's salvation"

Ormly said:

Again, JesusFreak, that is Calvin and not good Bible.

Click to expand...

The word νεκρός (dead) has literal and metaphoric capability. Specifically in Pauline usage, it typically is used to describe Christ being raised from the dead (Romans 4:24; 6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:11; 10:7, 9; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 2 Timothy 2:8). In other references it is a comparison of Christ's resurrection to the resurrection of believers (1 Corinthians 15:12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 29, 32, 35, 42, 52). Specifically in Ephesians 2, we see it used twice, both in a similar manner (2:1, 5). Almost the exact same expression as used in 2:1 is used elsewhere by Paul (Colossians 2:13, καὶ ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασι&#957. In all three cases, dead is coupled with the idea of in transgressions, only to be followed by having been made alive. In Colossians, the being made alive is also clearly in reference to sin (having forgiven us all our transgressions).

The effects of sin are most basically categorized in two ways. Most commonly thought of would be our physical death at the end of our lives, which ultimately brings about our eternal damnation. However, the more likely idea here has to do with the fall, and its effects (which would encompass all aspects). Ephesians 2:1-3 could be categorized as a synopsis of Romans 1-3, showing that all (both Jew and Gentile) are under sin. This explains Paul's usage of you in 2:1, and his use of among them we too in 2:3 (them = Gentiles, we = Jews). Thus, Paul's pronouncement here in Ephesians and Colossians can be equated to his conclusion of all men in Romans 3:10-18.

Therefore, being dead in our trespasses certainly has some relation to our physical death in the future, and even our eternal punishment. However, the extent of Paul's charge certainly was not "you were as good as dead", meaning, you were going to die. He certainly meant the effects of sin here and now (or back then, were), as denoted by the present participle ὄντας. If this be the case, then νεκρός here cannot be meant in strictly a physical sense. If Paul were to mean physical death, it certainly would not follow that in that physical death, we were walking according to the course of this world. A physically dead man cannot do anything, he is dead, and the full force of death is what Paul clearly meant here. Necessarily then, Paul meant death in the metaphoric case, which is completely within the scope of νεκρός. Thus, Paul is teaching about spiritual death, that which took place at the fall and is passed to each and every man who is of the lineage of Adam. This is why for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), because the sin of Adam has effected man's nature, to the point of death.

Most certainly, it must follow that the being made alive (συζωοποιέ&#969 in 2:5 is in reference to the aforementioned death. Ephesians 2:5 and Colossians 2:13 are the only usages of this word within Scripture. However, the etymology agrees with our conclusion of metaphoric usage. συζωοποιέω is comprised of two words, σύν and ζῳοποιέω. The simple understanding is "to make alive, to birth, to restore" coupled with "with" - "To make alive with", or "to birth with". ζῳοποιέω has the capability of metaphoric usage, which Jesus Himself used (John 5:21; 6:63).

Therefore, it is clear that Paul was contrasting the fall (death) and regeneration (alive). This agrees with Reformed theology, which teaches that man is regenerated by God while still in his sins (even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ). It also shows that regeneration is not a process, but a one-time act in which man is made alive. We could extend the context further to verses 8 and 9, in which the grace that we have been saved by is that same grace which regenerated us in verse 5 (by grace you have been saved).

All that to say, Paul teaches monergism here.

CmRoddy,

Wow, you are getting predictable. Yet another blank assertion with no substance. If you are going to say that I don't understand something, take the time to explain what it really means to be a Universalist. Otherwise, don't bother giving me this nonsense.

Click to expand...

Might I remind you that you made the comment. It is as if you have not read anything I have been saying. Obviously you do not understand.

OK, let's go with this idea that God calls all men (and I'm going to assume, given your past posts, that you believe God calls all men equally).

If that is the case then you are a Universalist and you must believe that all men will be saved if you want to be consistent. Why? Let's look at some passages.

Click to expand...

Why assume such things when scripture clearly states it. You have yet to show that man is different from one another. Why would God need to make two calls? We are all the same.

By the way, Universalist do not believe all men are saved during this temporal life. Their view does not even care if there is one call, two calls or a hundred calls. At some point, all men will be personally saved. Hell, for them, is a training corrective center.

To make your view even somewhat credible you need to postulate that there are at least two very different, distinct kinds of human beings. This you have not done so far.

Now lets look at your texts is context, the context of the immediage passage and of scripture as the broader context.

Romans 8:29-30
29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

​

No action of man anywhere in this text. All the verbs are God doing them and all that He predestines He calls. Now, if you believe that all are called then all are predestined because that comes first. And all that are called are justified and all that are justified are glorified. You can dispute that God foreknows faith all you want but that simply is not Biblical in any way, shape, or form. You will not find any example of that in the New Testament. You can go ahead and read this thread [link] for explanations.

Click to expand...

First, I need to put in back in context since you took it out. Obviously, if one yanks it out as a stand alone text, it really says nothing.

Vs 28 is the subject or antecedent of the verses that follow. It says things work together for those that LOVE GOD. Those who are THE called according to HIS purpose. We know from all the rest of scripture, that the ONLY way one can be an elect is to accept Christ, by believing, being baptised, and entering into Christ.

Next, God foreknew that many would LOVE HIM. Those that He knew would be the elect, He also predestined that they would be made holy, blameless, conformed to His image.

Vs 30, Moreover, those who LOVED HIM, became HIS Elect, those He foreknew, those that were predestined to be made holy, blameless, and conformed into His Image, He called. These same called, those that Love Him, would be justified, those justified would be glorified.

The entire context of this discourse is God's promise to those that LOVE HIM. He will not forsake them. These people, the early believers were already being persecuted, killed, Paul would know something of this, thought that God had forsaken them. Paul is not addressing unbelievers, nor even those who might leave the group, called out, the elect, the ecclesia. Until to get to the end of the chapter vs 38-39.


Predestined is NOT first. Those that love Him is first. Those that entered into Christ would be the ones predestined to have certain things done to them because God loves them dearly. He had a plan for those who desired, those that willingly accepted His universal call to come. He stand with open arms in receiving those that He called, which is all men. Why would Christ have given Himself for the Life of the World, for mankind, then not really sincerely call all men to come to a knowledge, love for Him.

Your theology again makes God, insincere, capricious, a respector of persons. God does not care who loves Him in return. He desires that everyone love Him in return.

The ONLY reason you think that all of mankind who are called must also be saved is that you eliminated the verse infront of 28. It is those THAT LOVE GOD. They are THE CALLED. They are the CALLED OUT, those that accepted, the elect, the Body of Christ. There is NOTHING in scripture that says God predestined some to believe. If He actually did that, it seems quite illogical that He would also need to call them at all. You either are or you are not and elect.

You can dispute that God foreknows faith all you want but that simply is not Biblical in any way, shape, or form. You will not find any example of that in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

It is Biblical but not even the way Calvinism or other protestants imply. God is omnicient. He knows the beginning from the end, He is the Alpha and the Omega. But knowing something, does not mean God needed to ordain anything, or predestinate anything. Faith is what all men have. All men are the same. All are human beings, same nature, all possess a soul. All were created in the Image of God. All men are of equal value to God. He was willing to die for everyone, so that each could freely believe, exercise the faith He gave to all men. His influence upon man is for man to do His will. NEVER, NEVER, in any scriptural statement, explicit or implicit, does God EVER say, He does the will of man.

You will not find any example of that in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that, it is noplace to be found. This is exactly why God interacts with man, why God calls all men. It is man that makes the decision of whether He will be one of those CALLED OUT ONES.

So because there is no action of man anywhere implied in this text, the only logical conclusion, if everyone is called equally, is that all will be saved. Unless you believe that the chain can be broken (which wouldn't surprise me).

Click to expand...

That is Calvinism, not scripture as I have just pointed out. I do also beleive that the chain can be broken. But that is not the intent of this text. It is NOT broken by God, but it is constantly broken by man. There are way to many examples in scripture, way to many warnings that would be pure fodder in scripture if they had no meaning. All the instructions of God to man would be worthless, meaningless, if man is not an active participant with God in the salvation of his personal soul.

1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

​

Even more clear is this passage. To everyone that hears the Gospel message it will either be a "stumbling block" or it will be "foolishness." Of course, the passage doesn't end there. It goes on to say "but to those who are called" it becomes "the power of God and the wisdom of God."

Click to expand...

the qualifyier is "THE CALLED" It does not say all those who were called,` The elect in other words, those that have believed, those that have returned God's love and entered into Christ.

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24
23Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.

​

Another clear text. This is speaking of God who sanctifies His people and preserves them completely so they are without blame at the coming of our Lord. It goes on to make a claim that simply cannot be ignored. It says that God is faithful to those who are called and "He also will bring it [sanctification and preservation] to pass."

Click to expand...

First, it uses the word "MAY". It does not say will be preserved. Then it says, Faithful is He who calls you. He will do what He says. It does not say in this verse that God is faithful to those that are called, which is all men. Paul is again speaking to believers, not the world or nor unbelievers. Yanking versus out of context to prooftext is common with sola scripturists which is why one can arrive at a thousand different interpretations of the Bible. Simply amazing what happens when man gets his hands on the Bible for his own ends.

Once again, if all are called equally then all will be saved, unless you believe that God isn't going to be faithful to those whom He calls... which is an absurd thing to even start believing in.

Click to expand...

All are called equally, but those that received Him, He gave them the right to be called sons, to become heirs. It these that are called, The Called, the Elect, the Body of Christ. Not all that are called receive Him, or Love Him, or believe, or accept Him.

You know, I'm willing to bet that you didn't even bother reading Hebrews 2:9ff when responding to this verse. I mean, considering the fact that it speaks of a group of people who are called "many sons" (v. 10), "sanctified" (v. 11) and "brethren" of Christ (vv. 11, 12, 17), "children" of God (vv. 13, 14), "descendant of Abraham" (v. 16), those that have a "faithful high priest" (v. 17) who was a "propitiation for the sins of the people" (v. 17), it is very plain that the group being spoken of here are the saved. And once again, there is no action of man implied throughout the entire text. You insert "free will" a priori into everything you read in the Bible when there is no such teaching anywhere.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is very explicit that they are the Body of Christ. Why would there be action of man in every verse in the Bible. This text is all about God giving man His promise to be faithful to Him. Explaining what God will do, IF man is also faithful. The rest of the Bible is not irrelevant to single texts. Give me some promises man can make which are as finite as God's promises. We are in a relationship. It is a two way covanent. This is NOT a one way street. Man has obligations to fulfill relative to his promises he made to God when he entered into Christ. This is why God instructs man. It is why we have God's revelation. We need to know what His will is for us. If God did our will, then all instruction is moot.

First of all, you are once again assuming this to be true. Notice how you didn't use any Scripture to prove your point.

Click to expand...

There are some logical progression of theology here. If Adam became mortal, died as the judgement against him for sinning, then he could not have been previously mortal. He could not have been immortal either. So that is why we say Adam was neutral or innocent. He was neither mortal or immortal. He could attain either one based on his own movement. So, no, it is not assumed. It is solid theology.

Secondly, the only reason that we die today is because the wages of sin is death (Rom. 3:23). If what you say is true then babies should not be dying. If the babies didn't sin and didn't have original sin imputed to them (which Romans 5:18 tells us that through Adam's sin there resulted condemnation to all men) then they should not be mortal until they sin.

Click to expand...

But that death is spiritual. Every sin we commit is spiritual death. It separates us from God. The definition of death is the separation of parts. In this case God and man. For physical it is separation of body and soul. Man is incapable of dying twice physically. We are mortal, and there is no other state of being lower, or more dead than mortal. Unless Calvinism has one?

If what I say, babies do die. They die because they are mortal creatures. Some are even stillborn having never sinned. The condemnation is death, not sin. We were not condemned to sin, but to death. Your view and explanation, by the way, is pure Pelagianism. Pelagius believed that every man was born like Adam, innocent, and that when man sinned, as did Adam, then they became mortal, died. That view was condemned a long time ago.

Perhaps you should take the time to read some of these articles [link]. Of course, I'm not expecting you to as you obviously didn't take the time to read the confessions I linked...

Click to expand...

Why assume that I didn't read them. Just because I do not agree with them as representing scripture, does not infer I didn't read them. Actually, I might still be able to recite them after 40 years.

just wondering RightGlory , what do you make of Pentecostals , do you think Apostles and Prophets are here today ?

Do you think salvation is expressed by speaking in tongues and giving prophecies ?

How do you see the day of Pentecost regarding the coming of the Holy Spirit , do you have a view on Baptism of the Spirit ? Is this all part of salvation in your view ?

CmRoddy,

Page 2

Wrong. He was not of joseph's seed and was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, He wasn't born a sinner because through man is original sin passed down. I'm amazed that you claim that my understanding of theology is lacking when you don't know somethin so basic.

Click to expand...

So what that Joseph was not the Father. He wasn't born a sinner anyway. Not a single baby is ever born a sinner. Where is this in scripture by the way. Rom 5:14ff says differently. If this is so basic it should be stated forthwith in scripture. As well it should have been the universal acceptacnce of understanding from the time of the Apostles. Yet, it has never been a theological belief of the Church. I can assure you it was an interpretation of some man somewhere along the way. Trying to correct an obvious theological error that man was ijmputed sin, or guild or both. Rcc has the same problem. They tried to correct it with another error, trying to make Mary Immaculate, without a sin nature. Of course this makes the Incarnation impossible and pointless, since Christ would not be like we are in every way. Hs the same effect that Calvinism does to the Incarnation, meaningless.

Of course, this all stems from ignorance of what orignial sin really means. I'm not surprised you have this twisted mindset. Read those articles and then come back to me on this subject, mmkay?

Click to expand...

Actually I even know and understand the theory of "orignial sin". Which is why I understand it so well in relation to scripture and why you cannot find it in scripture. You have a link that supports Calvinism. But you have not even begun to show that Calvinism is remotely related to scripture.

This deals with the elect, those of all of mankind who Christ gave life, immortality, an eternal existance again, who believe. We are justified personally or individually by faith, not Christ's work on the Cross.

Your response:....
We aren't justified by Christ's work on the Cross? Where do you get that from?

Click to expand...

Actually all men were justified by Christ on the Cross. But the context of my remark is the elect, the believer, a person being individually saved, or soul saved. No believer is justified by Christ's work on the Cross. We are justified by faith. Do you know and understand the difference? Two different justifications. The former is the same as mentioned in Rom 5:18-19. Read with understanding. Don't put Calvinistic blinders or presuppositions over scripture and you might actually understand what scripture says.

God said "for in the day that you eat from it [the tree of knowledge of good and evil] you will surely die." Either God was lying because Adam didn't die on the same day or God sas speaking of spiritual death.

Click to expand...

How about both. It was the spiritual death, the sin. Sin separates man from God. But the punishment for that sin was death, physical death. Gen 3:19, inspite of the fact your Bible does not say, dust to dust shall man return. He surely was no longer designed to be eternal and in union with God.

We also know that He died then, that is became mortal, because just a little later we have Abel being killed. If man was not yet mortal, this could never happen. The fact that Adam did die biologically confirms that he became mortal on the day he sinned. Unless you can show from scripture there is another way he became mortal?

Just because man can move an arm, blink does not mean he is alive as a state of being. He is alive biologically, but he surely is not immortal, which is life.

Also, Gen 3:19 has nothing to do with death: God is speaking of man's working of the soul for his food and how now he must work from the ground that he came from. Talk about reading into the ext....

Click to expand...

Maybe you would like to explain that man is NOT made of the dust of the earth, or that it does not say, he shall return to that dust. Can dust believe, can dust hear, can dust have an eternal exisatance? Is dust a form of life?

It's not putting into the text that is your problem. You take things out of texts, out of scripture, and asign a wholly different paradigm to them.

The natural man cannot stop because he is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:20)

Click to expand...

It never has the word stop in the text. Paul is speaking post Christ's work on the Cross here. He is speaking to the New Covenant believers.

Again, the Incarnation comes into play. Christ by overcoming death and sin, ended man's enslavement to either one. Christ freed all men from the bondage to death and sin. Man is now free to choose his path, sin or righteousness. Paul is simply saying that they, before they believed were slaves to sin. Now they have chosen to become slaves to Christ or righteousness. Then you have vs 22 which states this freedom, and then if we choose to sin, the wages is death. Which can ONLY be spiritual death, since these people are already mortals. One cannot become a mortal twice. Our physical death is no longer permanent. In other words our bodies will not remain dust, but be raised, immortal. Why? Because Christ, the Incarnated Christ raised our mortal natures to life.

Yes, we must "stay in the Spirit" and we don't do this on our own: God keeps us through faith (I Pet: 1:5; Jude 1:1)

Click to expand...

Who ever stated we do it on our own. That is why we are in a relationship. God does what God does what God can do, we must do what we were created to do. It is a synergistic relationship. And I Pet 1:5 is very important verse. God ONLY works through faith, OUR faith. If we lose that faith, then God's power also stops. It does not ever say that God continues to work in man without faith.

Jude says the same thing. You have a sincere, finite promise of God. The problem is with the other side of the relationship,man. He is not so faithful.

Did you also read vs3. The Gospel, delievered ONCE for all. None of that ONCE delievered was Calvinism. You have not begun to show any evidence even closely resembling that ONCE delievered Truth, to the Saints.

The reason that we are even able to work out our salvation is because God is at work in us "both to will and to work" for Him. (Phil. 2:12-13.

Click to expand...

Very true, but it does NOT say He is doing our will. He works in us, for us to do HIS will. Huge difference in understanding. Man can walk away at any time. He can reject that influence, that calling from God. In fact, every non-believer has actively rejected God. This is why and how God can be just in His sentencing at the judgement. He gives to each man his hearts desire.

You seem to think that man has to fulfill something in order to keep his position with God.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. Follow Him, be faithful to Him, obey Him, deny ourselves, but it can all be summed up, do not sin. Sin separates man from God. When we sin, we need to confress those sins. When we confess them, He is faithful to forgive us of our sins.

Well, you are right in one sense but you also fail to acknowledte that God is faithful to those He calls and will make sure their sanctification happens (I Thess. 5:23-24).

Click to expand...

Not failing to acknowledge, but it is a foregone conclusion. God will not renege on His promises. But man is a totally different matter. he is not so faithful. He reneges on his obligations all the time. Many just give up and fall away. They permit the cares of this world to beset them, or prefer the delights of this world. Find a promise as concrete, as finite as God's for man in scripture, then you will have eternal security as understood by Calvinists. Of course, if you could and you have God securing that promise, then all men would be saved since that is what God desires.

Ormly,

Righglory, Redemption is not salvation in the fullest sense nor can it be other than the possibility for salvation, which can be understood to be the complete version of redemption. Does'nt that make better sense?

Click to expand...

It only describes the purpose of man's existance. Man was created to be eternal, and in union with God. Man was created in His Image, but was to become the Likness of that Image. This is what man was to do as a creature working with God in this created order. That has not changed. Man is still doing this work. It is believers who ar doing it. It is those who chose to submit to Christ. Adam was submitted to God, until he sinned.

There was a consequence of that sin, which was death, mortality. Man lost life, lost his eternal existance. He was condemned to return to the dust from whence he came.

Lets make an illustration in this, using Adam. For the sake of discussion, we can say Adam was originally in a state of redemption, i.e., He was created innocent, in an already redeemed state of being, because that is what redeemed means, made innocent. The difference was that Adam was clean and pure; innocent from creation, no need for the "Blood of the Lamb", Jesus. Not yet, anyway. Question: Was he completed in his innocence, i.e., was he brought into the ultimate relationship with God, God intended, that innocence afforded, him?

Click to expand...

The only purpose of the atonement was to make it possible for God to have union with man in this temporal existance. God's plan was not to eliminate sin, or eradicate it, also not to remove our mortal natures in this life. He also did not take satan out of this world. He defeated the power of satan, namely death.

Please honest in this and not "screw" around with my words or poor grammar as some others will enjoy doing for their own personal advantage, to make it say what it doesn't, OK? Thanks.

Click to expand...

The most important and primary work of Christ on the Cross was to overcome death, the condemnation of death upon His created universe, not just man. Christ restored man to an eternal existance. He made possible for the purpose of man/God relationship to be regenerated. The fall and Christ overcoming the fall is an interlude between the creation of man, purpose of man, and the end of man, having been restored to that purpose.

CmRoddy said:

First of all, this is an example of God commanding what He will and granting what He commands.

Click to expand...

The discussion of "losing salvation" is moving now to "predestination vs free well" which is fine.

CmRoddy said:

Deuteronomy 30:6
6"Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

Click to expand...

This verse is a symbol to Level 2 salvation in the old testament. People accept God as their God by circumcision. People are free to choose to circumcise their heart or not, as we are given to the choice to be baptized in water and Spirit or not. God doesn't dictate His will on us, free will is the ultimate gift He gave us.

About the passage "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12-13)

CmRoddy said:

I am absolutely amazed that you used this passage to prove libertarian free will. Did you not see "nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man"?

Click to expand...

First off, I was not defending "libertarian free will" because I don't know what this is. I believe that God gave us free will to choose Him or to reject Him. I believe that God knows about every decision we made or will make. Our knowledge is a function of time, thus we don't know the future. God is above time, His knowledge is not a function of time. thus He is above causality. He know not because He dictates but because He is above the realm of time that we are bound to.

Second, I always understood "not born of the will of man" by its physical meaning. John was saying that we are born again as a gift from Christ, not born again by the will of a man who slept with his wife who gave birth to a baby. May be it is a bit ambiguous in English, but if you said "born of the will of man" it is pretty clear to a middle-easterner what does it mean. But anyways, I don't see the connection you are making here! The verse talks about being born again from God not according to some guy's desire to have a baby, and you draw the conclusion that being born again is not decided by men! It is clear for me that, being born again (which is level 2 in salvation) is an individual decision to accept Christ as a Savior, dieing with Him in baptism and rising with Him into the resurrection of life.

CmRoddy said:

Swing and a miss

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry that I missed you this time, next time I'll aim better

cygnusx1 said:

just wondering RightGlory , what do you make of Pentecostals , do you think Apostles and Prophets are here today ?

Do you think salvation is expressed by speaking in tongues and giving prophecies ?

How do you see the day of Pentecost regarding the coming of the Holy Spirit , do you have a view on Baptism of the Spirit ? Is this all part of salvation in your view ?

Click to expand...

I have a question for you CY. JTB said this: "I baptize you with water so that you will change the way you think and act. But the one who comes after me is more powerful than I. I am not worthy to remove his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Matthew 3:11 (GW)

When did Jesus ever baptize anyone while on Earth?

Ormly said:

I have a question for you CY. JTB said this: "I baptize you with water so that you will change the way you think and act. But the one who comes after me is more powerful than I. I am not worthy to remove his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Matthew 3:11 (GW)

When did Jesus ever baptize anyone while on Earth?

Click to expand...

LOL When He blew on the diciples and said receive ye the Holy Spirit maybe? It is not a baptism of water such as JTB did.

So how does one loose salvation?

By calling the Son of God a liar.

mamaz,

So how does one loose salvation?

Click to expand...

Losing faith.

Ormly said:

By calling the Son of God a liar.

Click to expand...

Rightglory said:

mamaz,
Losing faith.

Click to expand...

May I point both of you to this post.

Jesusfreak5000 said:

has passed - μεταβέβηκεν (perfect indicative) ; μεταβαίνω (nominative singular)

thefivesolas original argument may be enforced with the fact that John rendered μεταβαίνω in the perfect tense (μεταβέβηκε&#957. In simplistic terms, the perfect tense can be described as an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. Jesus' crying out of τετέλεσται (it is finished, John 19:30) is the perfect indicative of τελέω. We would never consider Christ's atoning work as being insufficient, needing to be repeated - it was completed once and for all. It would not be etymologically/contextually incorrect to compare these two instances and confirm that John's use of the perfect tense was to denote a completed act which must never be done again, completed for all time.

Click to expand...

Then I guess love is a farce and God who desires love is really desiring something else by the same name. There can be no love without choice. Are you married?

Ormly said:

Then I guess love is a farce and God who desires love is really desiring something else by the same name. There can be no love without choice. Are you married?

Click to expand...

Why don't you address the text in an exegetical manner, Ormly.

Jesusfreak5000 said:

Why don't you address the text in an exegetical manner, Ormly.

Click to expand...

Why the need to? Is there something wrong with what I wrote that doesn't satisfy you? Perhaps if you accepted it face value, your understanding of your research would be altered.

Ormly said:

Then I guess love is a farce and God who desires love is really desiring something else by the same name. There can be no love without choice. Are you married?

Click to expand...

One cannot love as God demands less one has the Love of God shed abroad in His heart by the Holy Spirit. When one is born again our willers are changed.. Not by us but by the Holy Spirit.