To those who don't believe in eternal security...

ToBeLoved said:

Where does this verse say they loose their salvation? Your reading a lot into the verse that is not there.

What this verse is saying is that when we are saved, we are crucified in Christ to sin and have died to sin. That Christ has given us His justification and declared us righteous and created in each of us a new creation.

It is therefore, impossible that one could return to having their master being satan/flesh again.

Click to expand...

here is the verse that you are interpreting as impossible to return to Satan/flesh being master.... and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Now we have to ask a few questions of your interpretation given this verse....1. where does it say they can't return to Satan/flesh as master when what they can NOT return to is repentance...iow's where does repentance have to do with serving Satan/flesh? 2. why was Christ crucified? Because according to the verse which is part of the context, to return to what they originally had would mean they are crucifying Christ again, that means returning to the original reason for Christ's death. and 3. continuing looking at context,we see this gem in which I highlight something very important that needs addressed if your position is to be taken seriously..."Even though we speak like this, dear friends we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation." How does returning to repentance and crucifying Christ again when we are told they are talking about salvation address the impossibility of returning to Satan/flesh as master of our lives? I seriously look forward to your answers to these questions. Please make your answers at least believable so that we can take it seriously.

One can not have undone what Jesus Christ Himself has done.

Click to expand...

that isn't the question at hand, but go ahead anyway.

Knowing also the context of the Book of Hebrews, which is the apostles explaining to the Old Covenant people (Hebrews/Israelite's) what the New Covenant is and how it differs from the Old Covenant and how we need to be now, under the blood of Christ, the Messiah and not according to the Old Coveant and the law of Moses.

Hebrews 6
A Call to Maturity

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit. 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. 10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. 11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: 12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

God's Promise is Certain

13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 19Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 20Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Click to expand...

what I have been asking the OSAS crowd to address is verses 6 and 9 specifically. IOW's the rest of the passage has been addressed and even if we give the OSAS side some freedom to interpret it without sound hermeneutics, there still are some huge problems for the OSAS er as illustrated above. That is what you all refuse to address, the problems your interpretation presents for the context of the passage as related to the totality of scripture.

ToBeLoved said:

There is actually a thread about that open

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/judas-was-saved-and-then-lost-his-salvation.7973793/

i am not going to wander off onto this subject but if someone else wants to discuss it they can go to this thread and I am subscribed to it and we can discuss it there.

Click to expand...

The reason I didn't offer any more than a passage that supports the notion is because it is off topic as best I can tell. However, trying to claim that it isn't true in this thread, is not as accurate as you pretended it to be.

When, on judgment day, finally, people who believed they were saved all their lives,
are told 'bye',
remember that before they died,
they had nothing in their lives accurate nor right.

They got tricked about the biggest, most important thing possible,
and they fell for it.

(willingly , of course, but still.... they fell for it)

ToBeLoved said:

Actually the more I looked at this verse today during our discussion, I find the other wording earlier "things present" to also be interesting in these verses.

The specific word used is enestota and it is only found in two verses, the one we are looking at and in 1 Corinthians 3:22.


ἐνεστῶτα (enestōta) — 2 Occurrences

Romans 8:38 V-RPA-NNP
GRK: ἀρχαὶ οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε μέλλοντα
NAS: nor things present, nor
KJV: nor things present, nor
INT: principalities nor things present nor things to be

1 Corinthians 3:22 V-RPA-NNP
GRK: θάνατος εἴτε ἐνεστῶτα εἴτε μέλλοντα
NAS: or things present or
KJV: or things present, or
INT: death or present things or coming things

Strong's Concordance
enistémi: to place in, to be at hand, perf. part. to be present
Original Word: ἐνίστημι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: enistémi
Phonetic Spelling: (en-is'-tay-mee)
Short Definition: I place in or upon, am at hand, am present, threaten
Definition: I place in or upon; only in the intrans. tenses: I impend, am at hand, am present, threaten; as adj: present.

I think this proves that the verse is talking about anything in the present, which then would include us.

Click to expand...

lol...where that word is interesting you failed to make your case by shifting the discussion from the word "other" to the word "things present" iow's why not deal with the word in question that contradicts your assumptions before trying to change the discussion to a different word?

Ah well, let's look at the word you want to focus on in context once again...

As G2531 it is written, G1125 G3754 For thy G4675 sake G1752 we are killed G2289 all G3650 the day long; G2250 we are accounted G3049 as G5613 sheep G4263 for the slaughter. G4967

First notice that the context here is about being persecuted for one's faith. IOW's it is not talking about eternal security at all but rather how to deal with being persecuted. this context puts the OSAS crowd in a deficit to begin with when using this verse to try to justify their stand.

Rom 8:37

¶
Nay, G235 in G1722 all G3956 these things G5125 we are more than conquerors G5245 through G1223 him that loved G25us. G2248
Rom 8:38

For G1063 I am persuaded, G3982 that G3754 neither G3777death, G2288 nor G3777 life, G2222 nor G3777 angels, G32 nor G3777principalities, G746 nor G3777 powers, G1411 nor G3777 things present, G1764 nor G3777 things to come, G3195
Rom 8:39

Nor G3777 height, G5313 nor G3777 depth, G899 nor G3777 any G5100other G2087 creature, G2937 shall be able G1410 to separate G5563 us G2248 from G575 the love G26 of God, G2316which is in G1722 Christ G5547 Jesus G2424 our G2257 Lord. G296

Now, let's look specifically at "things present"...notice that using common literary rules we see that the word is a comparison to "the things to come" ...things to come refers to according to Strongs...
to be about

1. to be on the point of doing or suffering something
   
2. to intend, have in mind, think to

so the comparison is that which we are to be doing verses that that which is close at hand...now remember the above context is that of a persecuted church or people. So we are comparing that persecution that is already happening to all the things that we are suppose to put our hand to....Notice nothing in that suggests a lack of ability to reject Christ but rather it is telling us that our salvation is NOT one of works, which both sides seem to already agree on. Now, how about dealing with the word that you supposedly were addressing, that of "other"

IMHO, this proves OSAS because even we, ourselves cannot revoke the New Covenant. We have been bought for a price and have changed masters and been created a new creature.

Click to expand...

and yet you fail to make your case using context because the context says that the word you want to focus on means that persecution that is part of the churches reality. Context is important to understanding any written work.

razzelflabben said:

For G1063 so G3779 an entrance G1529 shall be ministered G2023 unto you G5213 abundantly G4146 into G1519the everlasting G166 kingdom G932 of our G2257 Lord G2962and G2532 Saviour G4990 Jesus G2424 Christ. G5547

Notice that abundantly is referring to the entrance not the welcome...oh well, you can't keep things in context and you refuse common literary rules....

Click to expand...

Whether translated "richly" or "abundantly" you still fail to consider the meaning and relevance of the adverb in context. It's a word speaking of a relative degree, while you speak contrary of the idea as if it's referring to either/or.

2Peter 2:11 is speaking of the same thing as 1Cor 3:11-15 where salvation is a given but rewards above salvation are a matter of degree.

As for the rest of what you attempted to say, I just couldn't follow your line of reasoning (or lack thereof).

And by the way, about the Greek, "abundantly" (or "richly) comes before entrance and therefore Peter is placing emphasis on that word.

2Pε 1:11 ουτως <3779> {ADV} γαρ <1063> {CONJ} πλουσιως <4146> {ADV} επιχορηγηθησεται <2023> (5701) {V-FPI-3S} υμιν <5213> {P-2DP} η <3588> {T-NSF} εισοδος <1529> {N-NSF} εις <1519> {PREP} την <3588> {T-ASF} αιωνιον <166> {A-ASF} βασιλειαν <932> {N-ASF} του <3588> {T-GSM} κυριου <2962> {N-GSM} ημων <2257> {P-1GP} και <2532> {CONJ} σωτηρος <4990> {N-GSM} ιησου <2424> {N-GSM} χριστου <5547> {N-GSM}

bcbsr said:

Whether translated "richly" or "abundantly" you still fail to consider the meaning and relevance of the adverb in context. It's a word speaking of a relative degree, while you speak contrary of the idea as if it's referring to either/or.

Click to expand...

humm...so when I point out that what is "richly" or "abundant" is referring to the entry not the welcome I am somehow failing to consider the meaning and relevance of the adverb in context...how interesting. Pointing out the word being referred to is refusing to point out what the word is referring to and you don't understand why I am not going to play this game with you....sure ..I even showed you in two different translations...

2Peter 2:11 is speaking of the same thing as 1Cor 3:11-15 where salvation is a given but rewards above salvation are a matter of degree.

Click to expand...

huh? II Peter 1, which is what we are supposedly discussion in context as I cut and pasted and highlighted for you is referring to salvation...that is what it says...not my words, scripture words...unless of course you consider "Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." and "forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins." are somehow talking about something other than salvation, of which you have yet to show me how.

Now, let's talk about something else for a brief moment. In the previous post I pointed out to you that the passage being discussed was II Peter 1 not 2 and you didn't even bother to read my post with enough comprehension to correct the (what I assumed was a typo) and continue to post II Peter 2 which is talking about angels not believers or unbelievers at all.

Second, I Cor. 3:11-15 is talking about building on the foundation or maturing in Christ not whether or not one is a wheat or tare. So again, not relevant to our current discussion.

Now let's talk about point 3. Heb. 6 also shows a context of salvation and is even more pointed about it than II Peter 1. Should I quote it again for you? So unless you are willing to find some way to show that what it says the discussion is about is different than the authors claim you have no case.

Finally, you want to try to use this to talk about a warm welcome again. I showed by quoting Strong's that that was not the case according to context and what the word is referring to...I could do it again but you are not even reading what I am saying with enough comprehension to correct your mistake of what passage we are talking about, so why bother. I respond to posts because I have something to contribute, not so that I can waste my time with people who don't even try to read what I said. WE all make mistakes and typos, it happens. Just the other day I intended to say John but because I was distracted by a conversation about Paul I typed Paul instead. It happens, but when you don't even read with enough comprehension to understand you made the mistake, there is a huge problem and it is on your end not mine and it is way beyond a simple typo.

As for the rest of what you attempted to say, I just couldn't follow your line of reasoning (or lack thereof).

And by the way, about the Greek, "abundantly" (or "richly) comes before entrance and therefore Peter is placing emphasis on that word.

2Pε 1:11 ουτως <3779> {ADV} γαρ <1063> {CONJ} πλουσιως <4146> {ADV} επιχορηγηθησεται <2023> (5701) {V-FPI-3S} υμιν <5213> {P-2DP} η <3588> {T-NSF} εισοδος <1529> {N-NSF} εις <1519> {PREP} την <3588> {T-ASF} αιωνιον <166> {A-ASF} βασιλειαν <932> {N-ASF} του <3588> {T-GSM} κυριου <2962> {N-GSM} ημων <2257> {P-1GP} και <2532> {CONJ} σωτηρος <4990> {N-GSM} ιησου <2424> {N-GSM} χριστου <5547> {N-GSM}

Click to expand...

see the cut and paste that shows you otherwise....

razzelflabben said:

lol...where that word is interesting you failed to make your case by shifting the discussion from the word "other" to the word "things present" iow's why not deal with the word in question that contradicts your assumptions before trying to change the discussion to a different word?

Ah well, let's look at the word you want to focus on in context once again...

As G2531 it is written, G1125 G3754 For thy G4675 sake G1752 we are killed G2289 all G3650 the day long; G2250 we are accounted G3049 as G5613 sheep G4263 for the slaughter. G4967

First notice that the context here is about being persecuted for one's faith. IOW's it is not talking about eternal security at all but rather how to deal with being persecuted. this context puts the OSAS crowd in a deficit to begin with when using this verse to try to justify their stand.

Rom 8:37

¶
Nay, G235 in G1722 all G3956 these things G5125 we are more than conquerors G5245 through G1223 him that loved G25us. G2248
Rom 8:38

For G1063 I am persuaded, G3982 that G3754 neither G3777death, G2288 nor G3777 life, G2222 nor G3777 angels, G32 nor G3777principalities, G746 nor G3777 powers, G1411 nor G3777 things present, G1764 nor G3777 things to come, G3195
Rom 8:39

Nor G3777 height, G5313 nor G3777 depth, G899 nor G3777 any G5100other G2087 creature, G2937 shall be able G1410 to separate G5563 us G2248 from G575 the love G26 of God, G2316which is in G1722 Christ G5547 Jesus G2424 our G2257 Lord. G296

Now, let's look specifically at "things present"...notice that using common literary rules we see that the word is a comparison to "the things to come" ...things to come refers to according to Strongs...
to be about

1. to be on the point of doing or suffering something
2. to intend, have in mind, think to

so the comparison is that which we are to be doing verses that that which is close at hand...now remember the above context is that of a persecuted church or people. So we are comparing that persecution that is already happening to all the things that we are suppose to put our hand to....Notice nothing in that suggests a lack of ability to reject Christ but rather it is telling us that our salvation is NOT one of works, which both sides seem to already agree on. Now, how about dealing with the word that you supposedly were addressing, that of "other" and yet you fail to make your case using context because the context says that the word you want to focus on means that persecution that is part of the churches reality. Context is important to understanding any written work.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you got any of the information above for "things present".

In post 380 I presented what the Interlinear Greek and what Strong's said and it is nothing like you have presented above, so I don't know where you are even getting your definitions from.

It also seems you are being rather condescending which makes me not want to spend anymore time with you. So have a blessed month.

ToBeLoved said in post 376:

It is therefore, impossible that one could return to having their master being satan/flesh again.

One can not have undone what Jesus Christ Himself has done.

Click to expand...

Note that Hebrews 10:26-29 shows that truly saved people, people who have truly been sanctified by Jesus' sacrificial blood (Hebrews 10:29), which sanctification requires faith (Acts 26:18b, cf. Romans 3:25-26), can, after they get saved, wrongly employ their free will to commit sin without repentance (Hebrews 10:26). By doing this, these saved people are unwittingly trampling on Jesus and his sacrificial blood, and doing despite to the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29), turning the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4), so that their ultimate fate will be worse than if they had never been saved at all (2 Peter 2:20-22). Even though Jesus' sacrificial blood is sufficient to forgive all sins (1 John 2:2), it actually forgives only the sins of believers which are past (Romans 3:25-26), as in sins which have been repented from and confessed to God (1 John 1:9,7). Jesus' sacrificial blood does not remit unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29). So a saved person can in the end lose his salvation if he wrongly employs his free will to commit unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46).

Some Christians feel that Hebrews 10:26-29 is not for Christians. But note that the immediate context of Hebrews 10:26-29 is Hebrews 10:25, which is addressing "we" saved people. Hebrews 10:25-29 is the same idea as Hebrews 3:13: Saved people need to gather together and exhort each other so that no saved person will fall into any unrepentant sin. For any unrepentant sin will ultimately result in the loss of salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46, Matthew 7:22-23, Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 2:20-22, Romans 8:13; 1 John 5:16, James 5:19-20).

One way that a saved person could come to desire to commit sin without repentance would be if he finds a particular sin to be very pleasurable, so pleasurable and so fulfilling (in the short term) that he continues in it over time until his heart becomes hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13), to where his love for God grows cold because of the abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12), to where he quenches the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19), to where he sears his conscience as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), to where he becomes so infatuated with his sin that he can no longer endure the sound doctrine of the Bible (such as the doctrine of Hebrews 10:26-29), but instead latches onto a mistaken, man-made teaching which contradicts the Bible (2 Timothy 4:3-4), such as the mistaken teaching which assures believers that there is no way that they can ever lose their salvation, even if they sin without repentance.

ToBeLoved said in post 376:

It is therefore, impossible that one could return to having their master being satan/flesh again.

One can not have undone what Jesus Christ Himself has done.

Click to expand...

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

Note that this does not deny that saved people can fall away, for it refers only to apostate believers being unable to be renewed again to repentance, in the sense of a second time, like they had repented the first time when they got saved (1 John 3:9). And Hebrews 6:6 refers only to apostate believers being unable to crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, in the sense of a second time, after they had received salvation through their belief the first time in Jesus' crucifixion for their sins (Romans 3:25-26).

*******

ToBeLoved said in post 380:

We have been bought for a price and have changed masters and been created a new creature.

Click to expand...

Note that a Christian becoming a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17) does not take away his free will. It does not turn him into a robot. So it is possible for him to wrongly employ his free will to the ultimate loss of his salvation (e.g. Hebrews 10:26-29, Hebrews 6:4-8, Matthew 25:26,30).

yeshuaslavejeff said in post 383:

When, on judgment day, finally, people who believed they were saved all their lives,
are told 'bye',
remember that before they died,
they had nothing in their lives accurate nor right.

Click to expand...

Are you thinking of Matthew 7:21-23? If so, note that it shows that both faith and obedience to God are required for believers to enter ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, Hebrews 5:9, James 2:24). But there is no assurance that they will choose to obey (Matthew 25:26,30, Luke 12:45-46).

And Matthew 7:23a could be hyperbole (like Matthew 23:24b is hyperbole). For Matthew 7:22 could refer to truly saved people, true believers in the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, John 20:31), who had truly repented from their sins (1 John 3:6) and had truly performed many wonderful works for Jesus to the end (John 15:4-5). But at some point subsequent to their initial repentance, they had fallen back into some unrepentant sin (Matthew 7:23b; 2 Peter 2:20-22), so that they had to be completely rejected by Jesus in the end despite their continued faith and good works (1 Corinthians 9:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Hebrews 10:26-29).

Regarding the ability to cast out demons (Matthew 7:22), that is one of the signs that people are saved, that they are believers in the gospel (Mark 16:17). People must be very careful not to fall into the unforgivable presumption of Mark 3:22-30.

ToBeLoved said:

I don't know where you got any of the information above for "things present".

In post 380 I presented what the Interlinear Greek and what Strong's said and it is nothing like you have presented above, so I don't know where you are even getting your definitions from.

It also seems you are being rather condescending which makes me not want to spend anymore time with you. So have a blessed month.

Click to expand...

I cut and pasted it straight from the Thayers Lexicon as presented on the Strong's website...it really isn't that hard to follow what I said or where I got the information especially when I tell you right up front where I got it from and cut and pasted it straight from there.

As to the condescending comment, not at all. I am tired of you ignoring what I post is all and that is not condescending at all, it's frustration that you refuse to have a good discussion of the topic and instead insist on all kinds of unkind tactics to try to justify your position. My personal position is very simple...what God says and nothing more or less. In fact, I would love to believe in eternal security because I personally know some people I love very dearly that are denouncing Christ leaving the non OSAS version questioning whether or not reconciliation is even possible. (Notice I said denouncing Christ not committing this sin or that sin) So it would be comforting to believe in OSAS. However, what comfort is there is believing a lie? None! The only real comfort there is is found in truth. so I come here asking the OSAS side to challenge the conclusions I found so far, and yeah, maybe there is a part of me that even wants to believe OSAS theology, but instead of challenge that holds up, instead of sound exegesis, instead of discussion that could compel me I get non sense like the above. when I tell you that the Strong's says, and I cut and paste it, it's a pretty good bet that it came straight from Strong's since it was cut and pasted from there. To try to claim otherwise is inflammatory of me and my character as I seek God and His wisdom above all else.

Now, if you are willing to cut all the non sense and address what is being said, I am willing to forgive all the false accusations and attempts to manipulate and hand wave the problems that OSAS theology has with some of these passages. If not, I guess we are done.

razzelflabben said:

As to the condescending comment, not at all. I am tired of you ignoring what I post is all and that is not condescending at all, it's frustration that you refuse to have a good discussion of the topic and instead insist on all kinds of unkind tactics to try to justify your position. My personal position is very simple...what God says and nothing more or less.

Click to expand...

Can you please list the post numbers where I have used 'all kinds of unkind tactics' and the words I said?

Maybe that would help me to see why you say what you are saying.

razzelflabben said:

I cut and pasted it straight from the Thayers Lexicon as presented on the Strong's website...it really isn't that hard to follow what I said or where I got the information especially when I tell you right up front where I got it from and cut and pasted it straight from there.

Click to expand...

So then you consider Thayer's and Strong's to be superior to the Interlinear Greek and Strong's?

My point was what was in the Greek, so I guess that is why you missed what I wrote and take it that I am not answering your questions. I see.

ToBeLoved said:

Can you please list the post numbers where I have used 'all kinds of unkind tactics' and the words I said?

Maybe that would help me to see why you say what you are saying.

Click to expand...

there were a couple in the post I quoted, but I really don't care about any of that, all I care about is learning all I can about God as per HIs word not man's ideas.

ToBeLoved said:

So then you consider Thayer's and Strong's to be superior to the Interlinear Greek and Strong's?

My point was what was in the Greek, so I guess that is why you missed what I wrote and take it that I am not answering your questions. I see.

Click to expand...

Thayer's Lexicon is the translational definition from Greek or Hebrew text...it is pretty accurate as per people who have studied the Greek and Hebrew and is considered one of the best sources for those that have not studied ancient Greek and Hebrew. Since it was cut and pasted from Strong's website which uses Thayer's Lexicon I'm not really sure why you would ask if I find Thayer's and Strong's superior to the Interlinear Greek and Strong's...I mean, I cut and pasted straight from Strong's website as per their use of Thayer's, so how could I think that Strong's is superior to Stron'gs? That doesn't even make sense as a question.

Now, as per your previous question, this is another example of unkind tactics. I tell you I cut and pasted it straight from Strong's as per their use of Thayer's Lexicon and you ask if I find Strong's superior to Strong's? Really, that paints a very unflattering picture of my character and suggests that I am some kind of liar even though I go way out of my way to speak truth always. Thus an unkind tactic...I believe that it is important to understand translational issues...the primary source for translational issues is the Lexicon and I use the Lexicon that Strong's uses because I find both Strong's and Thayer Lexicon to be trustworthy sources. To that I add context, something you have not yet addressed as per my posts...totality of scripture, history, etc. In fact, when I study (which btw is pretty much every day to the tune of about 40 hrs. or more a week) I have no less than 7 layers of checks and balances to make sure that I am rightly dividing the word of God. One of those layers is challenge which is what I am asking of the OSAS crowd here. None of which are presenting anything that even resembles true challenge of what am currently understanding. And before you try making excuses like others do, I often change my mind to fit what God reveals through my study which puts me at odds with the church as well as the world and yet when the process is finished no one has any argument but "I believe" "I think" or something like that.

razzelflabben said:

here is the verse that you are interpreting as impossible to return to Satan/flesh being master.... and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Now we have to ask a few questions of your interpretation given this verse....1. where does it say they can't return to Satan/flesh as master when what they can NOT return to is repentance...iow's where does repentance have to do with serving Satan/flesh? 2. why was Christ crucified? Because according to the verse which is part of the context, to return to what they originally had would mean they are crucifying Christ again, that means returning to the original reason for Christ's death. and 3. continuing looking at context,we see this gem in which I highlight something very important that needs addressed if your position is to be taken seriously..."Even though we speak like this, dear friends we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation." How does returning to repentance and crucifying Christ again when we are told they are talking about salvation address the impossibility of returning to Satan/flesh as master of our lives? I seriously look forward to your answers to these questions. Please make your answers at least believable so that we can take it seriously. that isn't the question at hand, but go ahead anyway. what I have been asking the OSAS crowd to address is verses 6 and 9 specifically. IOW's the rest of the passage has been addressed and even if we give the OSAS side some freedom to interpret it without sound hermeneutics, there still are some huge problems for the OSAS er as illustrated above. That is what you all refuse to address, the problems your interpretation presents for the context of the passage as related to the totality of scripture.

Click to expand...

Maybe you misinterpreted what I was saying. I didn't mean that that is said in this verse, but throughout the Bible we are told that Jesus purchased us for a price. So would Jesus then give His Children back over to satan?

razzelflabben said:

Thayer's Lexicon is the translational definition from Greek or Hebrew text...it is pretty accurate as per people who have studied the Greek and Hebrew and is considered one of the best sources for those that have not studied ancient Greek and Hebrew. Since it was cut and pasted from Strong's website which uses Thayer's Lexicon I'm not really sure why you would ask if I find Thayer's and Strong's superior to the Interlinear Greek and Strong's...I mean, I cut and pasted straight from Strong's website as per their use of Thayer's, so how could I think that Strong's is superior to Stron'gs? That doesn't even make sense as a question.

Now, as per your previous question, this is another example of unkind tactics. I tell you I cut and pasted it straight from Strong's as per their use of Thayer's Lexicon and you ask if I find Strong's superior to Strong's? Really, that paints a very unflattering picture of my character and suggests that I am some kind of liar even though I go way out of my way to speak truth always. Thus an unkind tactic...I believe that it is important to understand translational issues...the primary source for translational issues is the Lexicon and I use the Lexicon that Strong's uses because I find both Strong's and Thayer Lexicon to be trustworthy sources. To that I add context, something you have not yet addressed as per my posts...totality of scripture, history, etc. In fact, when I study (which btw is pretty much every day to the tune of about 40 hrs. or more a week) I have no less than 7 layers of checks and balances to make sure that I am rightly dividing the word of God. One of those layers is challenge which is what I am asking of the OSAS crowd here. None of which are presenting anything that even resembles true challenge of what am currently understanding. And before you try making excuses like others do, I often change my mind to fit what God reveals through my study which puts me at odds with the church as well as the world and yet when the process is finished no one has any argument but "I believe" "I think" or something like that.

Click to expand...

Did you OR did you not look at the post I referenced with the Greek and Strong's?

If not, I am not discussing it because one thing about Strong's is it takes the root word and all the different other words that come off the root word and combine them into one Strong's Number and definition. The PARTICULAR word in Greek is only used in two verses, so one needs to look at those two verses to see how the word is used and then seek Strong's and the definition which can be multiple. THAT IS MY POINT.

My point is back in that post if you choose to read and discuss.

razzelflabben said:

The reason I didn't offer any more than a passage that supports the notion is because it is off topic as best I can tell. However, trying to claim that it isn't true in this thread, is not as accurate as you pretended it to be.

Click to expand...

How did I pretend? I gave a link to another thread.

Do you read your own words and how insulting they are?

ToBeLoved said:

Maybe you misinterpreted what I was saying. I didn't mean that that is said in this verse, but throughout the Bible we are told that Jesus purchased us for a price. So would Jesus then give His Children back over to satan?

Click to expand...

Let me tell you a story that we are living through at the moment. Some things happened...not going into details at the moment, trust me serious thing...one of our children walked away from our family or at least some of us as a result. He is still our child but, he has no benefits of that relationship, he even changed his name so that there is not even a name connection. Our door is always open to him but we cannot force him to be part of our family since he is determined to not be. Likewise, as I understand scripture, we will always be His children, but if we are determined to not receive any of the benefits of that, He will not force it upon us. Ultimately, in God's wisdom, He left the choice up to us.

Now, every single non OSASer that I have talked to sees scripture pretty much the same way. Let's not get caught up in twisted versions of what people believe. As I understand scripture and have been repeatedly asking OSASers to discuss it with me, we still have the right to deny all benefits of our salvation. That is all benefits, that being calling God father, heaven, the power of the HS, etc. Just like our son who decided that something outside our control was worthy of disowning us. Essentially, returning his sonship in exchange for his sin...now, like most OSASers would argue that they are not true believers, I cannot fathom why our son would disown us with all the love and benefits he received unconditionally, but just because I can't fathom it doesn't mean he didn't. I grew up with a dysfunctional family, if I had been loved like our son, I would have bent over backwards to remain a part of that family but just because it is inconceivable to me, doesn't mean it isn't the reality we are currently living in.

And just for clarity before someone tries that song and dance. We did nothing to distance our son, it was something that happened to the family that was outside of our control that he didn't deal with no matter how much we loved him and tried to help or get help for him. So no, it isn't about us it's about what happened to our family.

ToBeLoved said:

Did you OR did you not look at the post I referenced with the Greek and Strong's?

If not, I am not discussing it because one thing about Strong's is it takes the root word and all the different other words that come off the root word and combine them into one Strong's Number and definition. The PARTICULAR word in Greek is only used in two verses, so one needs to look at those two verses to see how the word is used and then seek Strong's and the definition which can be multiple. THAT IS MY POINT.

My point is back in that post if you choose to read and discuss.

Click to expand...

which I did...and I did address it and you refused to

ToBeLoved said:

Did you OR did you not look at the post I referenced with the Greek and Strong's?

If not, I am not discussing it because one thing about Strong's is it takes the root word and all the different other words that come off the root word and combine them into one Strong's Number and definition. The PARTICULAR word in Greek is only used in two verses, so one needs to look at those two verses to see how the word is used and then seek Strong's and the definition which can be multiple. THAT IS MY POINT.

My point is back in that post if you choose to read and discuss.

Click to expand...

which I did and I did respond to your post but you offered no rebuttal except to try to paint me in a poor light with false accusations....no thank you...I am sure that is not the best rebuttal that could be offered.