Eteral life is impossible to retract.

[SnuP]

Originally posted by DaveKerwin
The problem is you have no concrete answer. Lets say I no longer fear God, but I am open to correction, open to instruction, and I listen to God. Or change it up a bit from there. If you are not osas, then I suggest holding Ben's position, named in the post previous to this.

How can you be open to correction, but closed to instruction?

How can you be open to instucion, but not hearing God? 

How can you fear God but, not listen to Him? 

How can you hear God, with out fearing Him? 

etc...

The whole idea that you can do one without the rest makes no sence. 

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, I already responced to 2Peter 2 at the end of post 173. I am uncertain whether it would be #1 or 2.

Hello, Dave. Why can't you consider #3? If it is #1, then the "apopheugo" through the "epignosis" of the LORD and SAVIOR Jesus Christ, are SAVED in chapter 1, but they are UNSAVED in chapter 2. What is the standard for assigning different meanings to exact-same-words, written between consecutive chapters? If I accept that those in chapter 1 are SAVED (and there is no way to deny that, they are "of the SAME FAITH as Peter"), how then can I come to a conclusion that the SAME words mean something DIFFERENT in the NEXT CHAPTER? Does that idea (that the same words can have diametrically opposed meanings), seem more like honest theology, or does it seem more like preconception? This is why I rejected #1.

And, #2 says "they never LOST salvation"---yet their FIRST state, was "DOGS & SOWS". Their SECOND state was "sheep" (hasta be, 'cause they ESCAPED the defilements through JESUS!). But the words, "epistrepho-ek" very clearly means "they TURNED AWAY from the holy commandment". And, their LAST state, their TURNED-AWAY-state, is worse than BEFORE THEY WERE SAVED!

How could they have never-been-saved? They ESCAPED through JESUS---word-for-word the same as those in chapter 1. How could they have never fallen? They TURNED AWAY from the holy commandment of Jesus, they RETURNED to the vomit/mire, they are WORSE than BEFORE they were saved!

How could this passage mean anything, but "they-lost-salvation"?

Try making a post without Greek words.

Can't always do that when debating theology. Without Greek, I might be inclined to think that Heb12:2 says that Jesus is the AUTHOR and FINISHER of our faith, thinking that He PREDESTINED it---never realizing that the Greek is "archegos" and "teleiotes"---meaning, "leader and finisher-by-highest-EXAMPLE".

The text was originally in Greek. Subtle things are often revealed by reading the Greek. Did you know that when Jesus asked Peter 3 times, "do you love me?"---that there was something MORE going on? Only when you see that Jesus & Peter were using TWO DIFFERENT WORDS for "love", only then do you understand that the THIRD time Jesus asked, it was resigned---and with a sigh...

 

[LouisBooth]

"The whole idea that you can do one without the rest makes no sence. "

Funny how people believe you can loose your salvation but don't think people like moses are in hell since he didn't repent of his wrong doings i think its made clear by Paul in romans that like Israel, we cannot loose our salvation.

"If it is #1, then the "apopheugo" through the "epignosis" of the LORD and SAVIOR Jesus Christ, are SAVED in chapter 1, but they are UNSAVED in chapter 2. "

I explained this to you. Its the truth that saves, not the knowledge of it.

 

[Ben johnson]

I explained this to you. Its the truth that saves, not the knowledge of it.

But, but, "epignosis", is not "mere-head-knowledge"---it is experiential.

Contextually, they are ONTOS-APOPHEUGO, TRULY escaped. Can unsaved be truly escaped? TRULY ESCAPED through the KNOWLEDGE of the LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST! They are unsaved? They are again entangled in the defilements and overcome; here is the kicker---far better to have never KNOWN the way of righteousnes, than to HAVE KNOWN and then FALL AWAY from it. Their LAST state is worse than their FIRST.

Let's try this two ways:
Far better to have never HEARD of but-never-really-SAVED-IN the way of righteousness, than having KNOWN _OF_ it (but never really PART OF the way-of-righteousness), to STAY turned away from it. Their LAST state is worse than their FIRST, which is to say they STAYED unsaved but now they have HEARD of it (though they REJECTED it all along) The dog RETURNS to its vomit (but it hasn't really ever LEFT it so it's not really RETURNING is it), and the sow is WASHED (but only apparently, it's not TRULY washed in Jesus' blood, for it's still a HOG isn't it?) only to wallow AGAIN (but it never really LEFT the mire so it's not wallowing AGAIN, is it?).

And the other way:
Far better to have never been SAVED, than HAVING BEEN saved, to have TURNED AWAY from the holy commandment. Their LAST state, entangled again in the defilements and overcome, is worse than if they had never TRULY KNOWN THE SAVED WAY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. The dog RETURNS to vomit (called a dog WHEN it's in the vomit, so it becomes a dog AGAIN) and the sow is TRULY WASHED but WALLOWS again (called a sow BECAUSE of its mire so it becomes a sow AGAIN).

Which color understanding do you all think Peter meant to convey here?

Blue or purple?

 

[LouisBooth]

"But, but, "epignosis", is not "mere-head-knowledge"---it is experiential. "

Yup, everyone experiences the knowledge that christ is our saviour, though not all choose him. What is it you're not understanding ben? this doesn't not indicate they were saved, only confronted with the choice.

yes, it is better not to know of the choice because then you have no excuse.

 

[Ben johnson]

So, Louis, you think Peter was blue? (Can you say "Peter-Purple" five times quickly?)

Does the blue understanding, really make sense?

What I'm not understanding, is how the exact same words can have different meanings between chapters 1 and 2. What is the standard that allows a different understanding of the words in ch2, than they undeniably mean in chapter 1?

How does Peter say the same exact thing twice, but it doesn't mean the same thing twice?

 

[LouisBooth]

"different meanings between chapters 1 and 2. "

Not at all. You can be saved in the knowledge of the truth, or you can be not saved by it. the knowledge doesn't save, the truth does. that's what I was explaining to you.

 

[Ben johnson]

You can be saved in the knowledge of the truth, or you can be not saved by it. the knowledge doesn't save, the truth does.

OK, maybe a more specific questions---in 2:2:21 it says, "It would have been better for them to have never KNOWN THE WAY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, than HAVING KNOWN it, to turn away from the holy commandment." Help me to undestand why you think this is only "head-knowledge, but not changed/saved heart". Peter wrote "known the way of righteousness"---if Peter meant they were NOT saved, how would he have worded it (how differently), had he meant WERE saved?

 

[LouisBooth]

If you haven't been confronted by God and a choice been given, you're not accountable for that choice. As shown in romans 7 he only "died" when the law sprang up and wouldn't have know what "coventing" was unless the law told him. Peter worded it just right You can know the right thing to do, but not do it. Big difference ben.

 

[Thunderchild]

I have stolen your post #161 Ben Johnson. 'Twill make a useful ground for Salvation Bible Study.

 

[Thunderchild]

Jesus said to some of the believing Jews that if they were his disciples the truth would set them free. Is merely believing enough?

 

[eldermike]

JN 8:31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

"If you hold to My Teaching" What was He talking about, what teaching?

From the Teacher:

JN 8:23 But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

Believing is the teaching.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Is merely believing enough?"

Ahh...okay, I'm glad you addressed this. I think people seem to misunderstand what belief is. Belief is not that something exsists, it goes way beyond that. Its beleif that God can and will do what he says he will and belief that you want it for yourself. Christ proclaims, your faith has healed you, it was faith that God could do it, trust that he would, not belief that he exsisted, etc...

 

[SnuP]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Is merely believing enough?"

Ahh...okay, I'm glad you addressed this. I think people seem to misunderstand what belief is. Belief is not that something exsists, it goes way beyond that. Its beleif that God can and will do what he says he will and belief that you want it for yourself. Christ proclaims, your faith has healed you, it was faith that God could do it, trust that he would, not belief that he exsisted, etc...

Well said, now if you could only apply that to the rest of your doctine.  All you have to do is take yourself outof the picture and seek God on the subject.  But hey that is what I have been telling people to do all along, about every area in their life including healing.  I just happen to be more optamistic.

Jesus is a loveing shephard, He will come looking for you when you wander of, but if you fight Him when He tries to help you, He will not force you to come back.  You can lead a sheep to water but you cannot make him drink.

 

[LouisBooth]

"You can lead a sheep to water but you cannot make him drink."

Yup, and sometimes you don't lead him to water but you green pastures and some times you lead him through the valley of the shadow of death.

"about every area in their life including healing. "

I have, that is exactly why I arrived at the postion I have. God reveiled his truth to me about healing and when he says no.

 

[Ben johnson]

Thunderchild: I have stolen your post #161 Ben Johnson. 'Twill make a useful ground for Salvation Bible Study.

With my blessing! I would be interested in how it goes, PM me after the study if you're inclined...

Is merely believing enough?

YES IT IS!!!

"...that whosoever BELIEVES should not perish but have eternal life!"

...however...

...it is not just any KIND of belief. Mere "head-acknowledgement" (Jms2:19)---nay, it is the kind of belief that causes us to be:

&#149humbled as a child (Matt18:3-4)
&#149repentant (Lk13:3)
&#149doing the will of the Father (Matt7:21)
&#149born-again (Jn3:5)

(each of which is written as: "Unless _______, you will NOT inherit the kingdom of God")

"Born-Again" is the concept under which all the others dwell---we are born again when we believe, when we believe enough to receive Jesus---for salvation IS "receiving Jesus"

Receiving Him, Abiding in Him, walking in Him, growing in Him "to the measure and stature of the fulness of Christ".

Belief, faith-unto-salvation; this is our creed, this is our Gospel! The Gospel incarnated in Jesus!!!!!