You did not chose Me, I chose you.

.

Paul tells us the truth of the matter:

Carry each others burdens(love them) and so fiulfill the law of Christ Gal6:2

Telling people they must concentrate on each and every literal command of Christ and strive to obey them(or insinuating that) to prove they love Jesus, is in my view preaching what you do not practice. For I have met no christian who has ever striven to obey each and every literal command of Christ. Love fulfills the law. The more you love God and your neighbour, the more you will live in accord with Christ's teaching, which are all examples of, love God and love your fellow man. Obviously Paul believed along those lines, hence Gal6:2

Bible Highlighter said:

to carefully and slowly read Titus 1:16,

Click to expand...

It's about false teachers. Non-believers. Ironic, since it's about the circumcision group, who taught one must follow law instead of grace.
" this saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.

Oldmantook said:

Your claim of argument from silence simply is nullified by the context. Like I wrote earlier which you ignored, the context is important. Yes "millennium" is not in the text, which is why we resort to context. You should know that.

Click to expand...

Nonsense! Nothing about the context suggests a millennial kingdom. That is eisegesis. Your argument fails because when the angel told Mary “And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”[Luke 1:33] she was not thinking “Well Jesus is only going to live for an age but the kingdom will never end.”
Also for the Pharisees there was no resurrection ergo no “millennial kingdom.”
If Jesus ceases to reign then it is no longer "His kingdom." You might have an argument if the angel had said “but of the kingdom there shall be no end.” The conjunction “and” joins the two phrases

I'm surprised but perhaps I shouldn't be that you express no knowledge of Jewish beliefs. …And of course in Revelation, John later refers to the 1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You posted the claim, the burden of proof in on you to support it. Not me.

So are you now saying that the exceptions are only "hyperbole?" That's amusing considering how I've demonstrated they are literal meaning finite.

Click to expand...

Nonsense! You have demonstrated no such thing. Making a claim is not demonstrating anything. Quoting YLT is not proof of anything except that was his unsupported opinion. OTH I have provided 24 verses which prove, from scripture alone, that aionios means eternal. Below I quote all 9 verses spoken by Jesus.

Sheer presumption as you assume must mean "forever" instead of a very long time which also fits.
and night shall not be there, and they have no need of a lamp and light of a sun, because the Lord God doth give them light, and they shall reign -- to the

Click to expand...

ages of the ages. YLT
Ages of the ages certainly indicates a very long period of time but is not the equivalent of forever thus nullifying your claim that it must mean forever.

Click to expand...

Wrong! That εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων/eis tous aionias ton aionios could possibly mean “to the ages of ages” is not evidence that in Rev 22:5, or any occurrence, does, in fact, mean that. Simply offering a different interpretation does not refute anything.

Again very poor eisegesis. You should read more carefully Der Alter! Why refer to v.3 when v.5 identifies exactly who they are?? FYI v. 5 states God gives THEM light AND THEY shall reign.... Question: who do you suppose they are?? Can't be God can it? God doesn't give light to himself. Instead he gives light to the redeemed of God. Therefore, according to your interpretation the saints rule for ever and ever; NOT GOD! Your confirmation bias rears its head so I suggest you interpret the text without your preconceived notions.

Click to expand...

Wrong! Vs. 5 the angel of God [cf. Rev 21:9] is speaking, “they” in Rev 22:5 includes God, the lamb and the servants. [cf. vs. 3.]QED!
…..Now the 9 verses spoken by Jesus which shows beyond question that “aionios” means, eternal, everlasting etc. Please see if you can refute any of them. There are also 19 more verses which you have not addressed. None have been refuted.
In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
In this verse Jesus pairs “aionion” with “shall not perish.” Believers could perish in a finite period, “aionion life” by definition here means eternal life.
In this and the preceding verse Jesus pairs “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.
In this verse aionios life is contrasted with “shall not see life.” If “aionios” means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life.” By definition aionios means eternal.
In this verse aionios is contrasted with “shall never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal.
In this verse “aionios meat” is contrasted with “meat that perishes” .” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.
According to noted Greek scholar Marvin Vincent "The double negative “ ου μη/ou mé” signifies in nowise, by no means." Unless Jesus is saying whoever obeys Him will die, i.e. see death, unto the age, by definition aion means eternity.

renniks said:

It's about false teachers. Non-believers. Ironic, since it's about the circumcision group, who taught one must follow law instead of grace.
" this saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.

Click to expand...

False teachers are identified by the false things they teach. Yes, the Jews made salvation all about the Law of Moses and Law Alone Salvationism without God’s grace. No argument there. But the truth of Titus 1:16 still rings true (whether one is a Jew or Gentile). It says a person can deny God in the fact that they are reprobate unto every good work (Titus 1:16). So we have to conclude that works is a part of knowing God. One cannot have salvation without abiding in the Son (who is God). For he that has the Son has life and he that does not have the Son, does not have life (1 John 5:12). 1 John 2:4 says the person who says they know the Lord and they do not keep his commandments, they are a liar and the truth is not in them. The truth that is not in them is Jesus.

renniks said:

It's about false teachers. Non-believers. Ironic, since it's about the circumcision group, who taught one must follow law instead of grace.
" this saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.

Click to expand...

Why do you think the unprofitable servant was cast into outer darkness? (See Matthew 25:30).

bobsmename said:

So as you do not even try to obey many of Christ's commandments, what does that say about you?

Click to expand...

The young rich ruler asked Jesus as to which commands Jesus was referring to. Jesus did not say, “All of them” although I am sure Jesus does desire all men to strive at obeying all of God’s laws.

Bible Highlighter said:

The young rich ruler asked Jesus as to which commands Jesus was referring to. Jesus did not say, “All of them” although I am sure Jesus does desire all men to strive at obeying all of God’s laws.

Click to expand...

You really want to grow in knowledge? Take time off this website, spend more time in prayer, and you will unearth far more of the message contained in the letter, rather than simply selectively quoting it. That's good advice!

Bible Highlighter said:

Why do you think the unprofitable servant was cast into outer darkness? (See Matthew 25:30).

Click to expand...

You see, beliefs such as you could not be justified by law that has passed from the old covenant(not the moral law) is crazy. You certainly could be justified by that law for it could be faultlessly obeyed. Are you self taught? My guess is you are. You have the legalistic law and the moral law. The former could be faultlessly obeyed, Paul said he faultlessly obeyed it as a Pharisee, as did the Pharisees of Jesus day, they cleaned the outside of the cup. The problem was always the moral law. IE thou shalt NOT(NOT) covet. No wiggle room, dwelling on one single impure thought makes you guilty under the moral law. The moral law of the ten commandments is inflexible, perfectly obey it or stand guilty before it. Hence Paul wrote the law engraved in stone(all but one of which you accept is part of new covenant law) is the ministration of death and condemnation, the letter that kills. Because you cannot be justified by obeying it because justification under the law requires perfect obedience of it. But just because you cannot be justified by obeying it does not mean you are free to disobey it if you have no righteousness of obeying it, for that law is within you, it is in your heart and mind.
As I said, spend time away from here in prayer, you will grow far more in true knowledge, and join a church, they ain't all bad

Bible Highlighter said:

No argument there. But the truth of Titus 1:16 still rings true (whether one is a Jew or Gentile). It says a person can deny God in the fact that they are reprobate unto every good work (Titus 1:16).

Click to expand...

You got the cart before the horse there, pardner. The do reprobate things because they are not saved. If they were, they would do good works, because of the Spirit in them.
The works don't save, the Spirit does.

Bible Highlighter said:

Why do you think the unprofitable servant was cast into outer darkness? (See Matthew 25:30).

Click to expand...

I question whether that " servant" knew God at all. He didn't seem to understand that God is just, or kind or loving.
"Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine."
That's not who God is. Yes, the man wasted what God gave him, but also, he was a selfish individual acting out of fear. If he understood and accepted God's gracious offer of salvation, what was he afraid of?

bobsmename said:

You really want to grow in knowledge? Take time off this website, spend more time in prayer, and you will unearth far more of the message contained in the letter, rather than simply selectively quoting it. That's good advice!

Click to expand...

Rather than deal with the text I alluded to in Scripture, you appeal to supposed superior knowledge and assume I have not taken time to pray and or study the Bible outside the forums before (Which is yet another one of many baseless accusations). My problem with your view of Soteriology is that it is not only unbiblical but it is immoral, dear sir.

Surely a Bible does not need to tell a person that violating basic morality in the name of the Lord is wrong but if you need a Bible to tell you the truth that doing grievous sin while under God's grace is a serious error, then by all means, I can help to show you that with the Bible again. If you need a real world example to help show you the immorality of your view of Soteriology, I can do that, as well. In fact, what is dumb is that you appeal to morality (hypocrisy) as a case for your view of Soteriology that promotes immorality (i.e. Christians can break God's moral laws or not worry about them so much except rape, child abuse, and denying Christ, etc.). This to me seems inconsistent and contradictory, and immoral.

But you may say I am doing the same thing. But this is not so. Unintentional violation of minor transgressions is not the same level of degree of willful evil that the Bible talks about. Hebrews 10:26 says if we willfully sin after we receive the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sin. Surely these are grievous or serious sins done willfully because Jesus warned us against how certain grievous sins can destroy our souls in hell fire (like looking upon a woman in lust - Matthew 5:28-30, and saying to one's brother that they are a fool - Matthew 5:22). For can you honestly say that the sin of going over the speed limit by 2 miles per hour on the highway is the equivalent to murder in God's eyes? I don't think so. Jesus even said there is a greater sin, and He said there is an unforgivable sin, etc. But you try to lump sin into one big box and say that nobody can obey God so we need to just have a belief alone in Jesus. Problem. No such verse in the Bible teaches such a thing. As much as you may try to fight against such a verse or truth, Titus 2:11-12 wins the battle in the end against your wrong unbiblical belief every time. Titus 2:11-12 says that God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness, and that we should live godly and righteously in this present world.

CharismaticLady said:

He may not have actually lied, but he did something far worse. He caused the King to almost commit a grievous sin.

I doubt Jesus meant just children when He said,

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Click to expand...

Not sure why people want to attack one of the great men of the faith without any solid biblical evidence. We cannot assume that Abraham did any wrong because God does not condemn Abraham in any way for what he did. Sarah was not a child, and she could have spoke up if he tried anything.

renniks said:

There's no work in faith. Going into the ark would be an act of faith. Building the ark because one was following God would be a work.

Click to expand...

James says show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works (James 2:18). So no. When you say there is no work in faith, this is simply not true. James disagrees with you. But lets take your example. Noah and his family built the Ark, which was a work of faith. If Noah did not take the action or work in building the Ark and he just had a belief alone like many today, Noah and his family would have perished in the global flood. 2 Peter 2:5-6 says that the flood is an example to all who would live ungodly thereafter. Yet, you are saying that everyone is ungodly. Peter does not agree with you. Peter makes it clear that the global flood was an example to all who live ungodly.

Der Alter said:

Nonsense! Nothing about the context suggests a millennial kingdom. That is eisegesis. Your argument fails because when the angel told Mary “And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”[Luke 1:33] she was not thinking “Well Jesus is only going to live for an age but the kingdom will never end.”
Also for the Pharisees there was no resurrection ergo no “millennial kingdom.”
If Jesus ceases to reign then it is no longer "His kingdom." You might have an argument if the angel had said “but of the kingdom there shall be no end.” The conjunction “and” joins the two phrases

Click to expand...

Nonsense! You have a one-track mind. As I explained already the kingdom does not end. Jesus' rule however does end when he subjugates himself to the Father and hands over the kingdom.Thus Jesus' reign ends AND despite that, kingdom has no end because the Father reins over it. Apparently that is too difficult for you to accept or comprehend. Moreover, Mary did indeed think that Jesus was only going to live a limited period of time because she thought she was giving birth to a human child. Do you suppose she fully comprehended what the angel told her that she was going to give birth to the Son of God. Hardly.

Der Alter said:

Irrelevant. You posted the claim, the burden of proof in on you to support it. Not me.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant! I supplied the reference. You ignored it - as usual. Do you deny that the Jews were looking for the Messiah to come as a conquering king and rule over them and vanquish their enemies thus bringing peace during an age of time? Yes or No?

Der Alter said:

Nonsense! You have demonstrated no such thing. Making a claim is not demonstrating anything. Quoting YLT is no proof of anything except that was his unsupported opinion. OTH I have provided 24 verses which prove, from scripture alone, that aionios means eternal. Below I quote all 9 verses spoken by Jesus.

Click to expand...

Nonsense! You can quote your pet list all you want and misinterpret them at the same time.

Der Alter said:

Wrong! That εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων/eis tous aionias ton aionios could possibly mean “to the ages of ages” is not evidence that in Rev 22:5, or any occurrence, it does in fact mean that. Simply offering a different interpretation does not refute anything.

Click to expand...

It literally does mean that but in order for it to fit your paradigm you are compelled to interpreted as meaning forever. Poor eisegesis.

Der Alter said:

Wrong! Vs. 5 the angel of God [cf. Rev 21:9] is speaking, “they” in Rev 22:5 includes God, the lamb and the servants. [cf. vs. 3.]QED!

Click to expand...

Wrong! Why look at the surrounding texts when the text itself provides the context? "They" and "them" refer to the saints - not the Godhead. The verse states God gives THEM light. As per your habit you have to twist the text in order to fit your rigid belief system.

bobsmename said:

You see, beliefs such as you could not be justified by law that has passed from the old covenant(not the moral law) is crazy. You certainly could be justified by that law for it could be faultlessly obeyed.

Click to expand...

Again, there is a difference between the Law of Moses, vs. the Laws of Christ.



Also, most are confused when they read Paul because they do not understand that he was fighting against the heresy of "Circumcision Salvationism," which was a major problem back then.

Paul alludes to this problem in a good number of verses:

1. Galatians 2:3 says, “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:”
   
   
2. Galatians 5:2 says, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”
   
   
3. Galatians 5:6 says, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
   
   
4. Galatians 6:15 (NLT) says, “It doesn't matter whether we have been circumcised or not. What counts is whether we have been transformed into a new creation.”
   
   
5. 1 Corinthians 7:18-19 says, 18 For instance, a man who was circumcised before he became a believer should not try to reverse it. And the man who was uncircumcised when he became a believer should not be circumcised now. (NLT) 19 “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.” (NASB)
   
   
6. Romans 2:28-29 says, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
   
   
7. Romans 3:1 says, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?”
   
   
8. Romans 4:9-12 says, ”9 “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 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: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”
   
   
9. Acts of the Apostles 21:21 says, “And they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.”

This Heresy of Circumcision is Explained More Clearly at the Jerusalem Council:

1. Acts of the Apostles 15:1 says, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
   
   
2. Acts of the Apostles 15:5 says, But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
   
   
3. Acts of the Apostles 15:24 says, “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”

The heresy of "Circumcision Salvationism" is basically saying you first had to be circumcised in order to be saved. If a person believed this, they would in effect be making the OT Law of Moses the entrance gate, and foundation for their salvation and they would not be making faith in Jesus Christ as the entrance gate, and foundation for their salvation. If somebody believed in "Circumcision Salvationism," then the Law of Moses would be the basis for their salvation and not Jesus Christ. This is why Paul spoke in the way that he did against the "Law" and or the "works of the Law" in relation to salvation.

Folks are also confused about salvation because they do not realize that there are TWO processes of salvation (Justification and Sanctification), and in many of Paul's writings, he is defending the Process of salvation called "Justification," which is a process of salvation that is based on God's mercy, and grace through faith in Christ and belief in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection on one's behalf for salvation. It is also about seeking forgiveness with the Lord, as well. This process of salvation (Justification) is not based on any works but it is God's gift to us. Sanctification is the next step or stage in the salvation process and it is living holy and being fruitful by the power of God working within us (See: James 2:24, James 2:17-18, Titus 1:16, Hebrews 5:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Hebrews 12:14, Romans 8:1 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 16:22 (cf. John 14:15), Romans 8:1 (cf. Romans 8:13), Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 16:24-26, Matthew 19:17-19, Luke 9:62 etc.).

You said:

Are you self taught? My guess is you are.

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe God ultimately taught me what I know today.

You have the legalistic law and the moral law.

Click to expand...

So was Jesus being legalistic when He said, "if you will enter into life, keep the commandments?" (Matthew 19:17).

The former could be faultlessly obeyed, Paul said he faultlessly obeyed it as a Pharisee, as did the Pharisees of Jesus day,

Click to expand...

This is a common misunderstanding by proponents of Eternal Security and Belief Alone-ism. Actually, Jesus said the Pharisees ignored the weightier matters of the Law like love, faith, justice, and mercy (See: Matthew 23:23, and Luke 11:42).

You said:

they cleaned the outside of the cup. The problem was always the moral law. IE thou shalt NOT(NOT) covet. No wiggle room, dwelling on one single impure thought makes you guilty under the moral law. The moral law of the ten commandments is inflexible, perfectly obey it or stand guilty before it. Hence Paul wrote the law engraved in stone(all but one of which you accept is part of new covenant law) is the ministration of death and condemnation, the letter that kills. Because you cannot be justified by obeying it because justification under the law requires perfect obedience of it. But just because you cannot be justified by obeying it does not mean you are free to disobey it if you have no righteousness of obeying it, for that law is within you, it is in your heart and mind.

Click to expand...

This is another common misconception. If I am understanding you correctly, you appear to be suggesting that the 10 commandments is the Moral Law. Actually, only 9 out of the 10 are Moral Laws (Sabbath excluded), and there are other Moral Laws besides just the 9 out of the 10 even in the Old Law that carried on into the New Law within the New Covenant. The difference is that certain of these Moral Laws are no longer attached with any death penalties or capital punishment if they are broken under the New Covenant. However, in the OT Law of Moses, it was called the letter that kills, and why it is called the ministration of death, or the law of sin and death, because it could kill a person physically.

Anyways, if a believer stumbles on rare occasion in breaking the Moral Law that was repeated in the New Covenant, they can confess of such sin to Jesus to be forgiven of it (See 1 John 2:1, and 1 John 1:9). For he that confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy (Proverbs 28:13).

You said:

As I said, spend time away from here in prayer, you will grow far more in true knowledge, and join a church, they ain't all bad

Click to expand...

Ah, there is the problem. Most churches teach Eternal Security or Belief Alone-ism. What you fail to understand is that if one does honestly study the Scriptures in prayer away from the popular churches, they will discover like myself that Eternal Security, Belief Alone-ism is not biblical, or moral. One cannot read far in the New Testament before they discover a verse or passage that refutes Eternal Security and or Belief Alone-ism. The only way a person cannot see these verses is if they seek to willfully change what these verses say or they simply ignore them. Take for example the unprofitable servant mentioned in Matthew 25:30. What does that even mean to you? For the reader who reads things plainly, it is obvious that the Parable of the Talents is referring to salvation and it was the believer's faithfulness that was tied to their entering the joy of the Lord and an unbeliever's unfaithfulness that led to their punishment.