Eternal vs conditional security, or OSAS vs LOS

[FreeGrace2]

You still didn't get my point: being presented with the truth, and knowing the Torah by heart and the Pharisee still did not believe is the exact opposite of the Apostles and no way the same!

I think you're missing my point. Everyone makes choices when presented with truth.

Which is why evangelical believers differ on what the Bible teaches.

It seems your argument is that saved people will not only understand the truth but accept it. Not so. As all the various and conflicting doctrines attest.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I sai this:
"The problem is understand what God said. What He said means security for the believer, regardless of circumstances."

I have no problem understanding what the word of God says, my problem is those who assert it says what it doesn't.

Ok, then. Please address the points in the OP and explain to me just what they all are teaching. Thank you.

I have no problem with God being true to his word, but I do have a problem with people who impose a certain attribute or position on God that is not something he himself has said is true.

How 'bout that! Same here!

1Thess 5:1-11 (as context is paramount) BTW that's point four just to be clear.
Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

What is clear here is that Paul is writing to the Thessalonians whom he knew where saved and reminding them about the day of the Lord which means the day Jesus would return.

So far, so good.

He even says that it's not something that he needs to be telling them about because they are well aware. What he's doing is giving them confidence and that he knows that they are prepared for that day even though it may not come until after they die.

Which is, btw, eternal security.

Now his confidence does not mean that all of those people he was addressing this letter to will rise when Jesus returns but only that based on their condition at that time they would.

No, that is totally untrue. I explained how Paul used lifestyle of the unbeliever vs the proper lifestyle of the believer and then applied both kinds of lifestyles to believers and concluded with v.10: who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him.

If proper lifestyle is required to "live together with Him", the phrase "whether we are awake or asleep" needs to be explained.

I expect that the answer will be something like literally being awake or asleep, which is simply ridiculous is that's the answer. Esp so because of how Paul described the lifestyle of unbelievers in the context.

It's basically called exhortation, and has nothing to do with eternal security despite your attempt to make it say so.

See comment above.

You did not exegete anything here, you simply repeated them with your preconceptions.

What I did was explain EVERY VERSE. Please do the same. Or "exegete" them, whatever you think that means.

Paul is stating facts here not precedents.

Here is a FACT that Paul stated:
"who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him."

One needs to explain (exegete) what it means to be "awake or asleep" given the CONTEXT above (v.4-9).

He is encouraging the Thessalonians based on what he knows of them and of himself. What has been relayed to him by Jesus. This is not to say that there are not things in this section of scripture that we cannot assimilate into our own lives as all of God's word is useful to us, but it is not directed at us in the 21st century and it's definitely not teaching anything about eternal security. What is applicable for all Christians in this chapter of Thessalonians is what Paul rights about in verses 12-22. In fact if you had actually read the whole book of 1st Thessalonians in context you would have seen that in chapter 3 v5, Paul writes; For this reason, when I could stand it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith. I was afraid that in some way the tempter had tempted you and that our labors might have been in vain.

I have no idea how any of this relates to v.4-10.

Do you honestly believe that Paul would have written these words if he believed in or was confirming anywhere that eternal security was factual?

That is EXACTLY WHY he wrote those words:
"who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him."

There is NO WAY Paul was only speaking about literal alertness or sleeping. Unless one wants to ignore the immediate context. Which was explained in the OP.

If you disagree, how about copying point 4 and then taking it apart point by point, or verse by verse, to show that my explanation was incorrect.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You can equivocate until the cows come home but assurance does not mean guarantee or security.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assurance
Simple Definition of assurance

• : the state of being sure or certain about something
• : a strong feeling of confidence about yourself or about being right
• : a strong and definite statement that something will happen or that something is true

From From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/security
Simple Definition of security

• : the state of being protected or safe from harm
• : things done to make people or places safe
• : the area in a place (such as an airport) where people are checked to make sure they are not carrying weapons or other illegal materials
  

Assurance is being sure or certain of something: going to heaven is what believers are supposed to have assurance about.

Security is being protected or being safe from harm: the lake of fire.

They are functionally the same.

Sadly it will be the ones and always has been the ones who think they're not susceptible to apostasy that fall into it. Being aware of the pitfalls in our walk is exactly what the New Testament is all about and why it speaks so heavily against all those issues. There is no reason to warn us against potential problems when they aren't problems so the fact that you ignore the warnings and stick to your ignorance is bliss routine only shows why so many people like you fall into apostasy.

I'm not arguing apostasy. Of course believers can fall away from the faith. Jesus made that point in the parable of the soils.

Here are 37 Bible verses that warned about apostasy. You will either Heed These Warnings or ignore them, the choice is yours
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Warnings-Against-Apostasy

This has no effect on eternal security. 1 Thess 5:4-10 proves that.

 

[Born Again2004]

You must remain in the love of Jesus to be saved. You must endure to be saved.

The bible warns you about this.

Heb. 3:14
We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.

Romans 11:22
Take notice, therefore, of the kindness and severity of God: severity to those who fell, but kindness to you, if you continue in His kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

2 Peter 2:20
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

Here is an excerpt from Billy Graham:
Jesus said, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away" (John 6:37).
Think of it this way. When a child is born, he or she becomes part of a family. Even if they rebel or do something wrong, they're still a member of that family, and nothing can ever end that relationship. And when we come to Christ, we become members of a new family -- the family of God. We are now His children, and just as an earthly child will always be part of their family, so we will always be part of Christ's family -- even if we sin and turn away from Him for a time.

But let me add two important warnings. The first is a warning against false belief -- that is, assuming we're committed to Christ when we really aren't. Many people, I'm afraid, fall into this category. They're like the plants Jesus warned about, that grew for a time but then withered and died (see Luke 8:4-15).

The second is a warning against allowing sin to control us -- even as believers. Sin cuts us off from God, and has devastating effects on our lives. Flee from sin, the Bible says, "and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness" (1 Timothy 6:11).

 

[toLiJC]

Eternal vs conditional security, or OSAS vs LOS

...................................

So, if these verses aren't profitable for teaching, then what are they profitable for?

And, if they ARE profitable for teaching, then what are they teaching, if not OSAS?

i don't say there is no eternal life in heaven, but there is apparently no indefinitely lasting salvation in heaven/paradise, which is evident from what has been with many souls for the last about 5-6 millennia, since the beginning that is presented in the biblical scriptures; we can read in the beginning God created heaven and earth(Genesis 1:1), the beginning when God made all the universal creation in six days followed by the act of the original sin(fall), the day since which so many people have turned out to be under "sin" and impact of "death" - where have all those souls come from?!, is it possible that there be indefinitely lasting life in heaven/paradise if so many souls have turned out to be under sin and impact of death since the day of the original sin(fall), after the beginning of this eternity?!, or how is it possible that there be indefinitely lasting life in heaven/paradise if so many souls have turned out to be in this world under sin and impact of death for the last about 5-6 millennia, after a whole elapsed time's infinity?!, it is written in the Bible that the soul can either live forever in heaven or suffer forever in hell, but this means that the souls must be indefinitely existing/present/available in the universe, otherwise if they are not indefinitely existing/present/available, then it won't be possible that any of them live or suffer forever, but then this also means there must be some end of the so-called "eternal life in paradise", because if there was no such end, then there would be no so many souls under sin and impact of death in this world for the last about 5-6 millennia, for there would surely be no chance that any of those souls never inherit(ed) eternal life in paradise in all the hitherto elapsed time's infinity - there has been an entire time's infinity after all, and if all of them had already had eternal lives in paradise, but have been born in this world in the situation under sin and impact of death for the last about 5-6 millennia, then it is certain they somehow lost their eternal lives they had in paradise, otherwise, if it wasn't so, then they would continue to live there for the last 5-6 millennia, and wouldn't be born in this world under such circumstances

so, thus thinking right, we can say there is eternal life in heaven/paradise, i.e. which can last for a very long time, because the biblical word "eternal" actually means long lasting, but there will be some end, especially when even the Son of God, Jesus Christ, had to be born and (to) suffer in this world as a human losing the full peace/happiness that He had in heaven/paradise before He was physically born in this world, but there is really eternal life, i.e. which can last for a very long time - (so to say) for a whole little time's infinity

Blessings

 

[Born Again2004]

I think you're missing my point. Everyone makes choices when presented with truth.

Yes, they do and which ends up why there are believers and there are non-believers. Example, an Orthodox Jew makes the choice not to believe in Jesus as the Messiah!....just like the Pharisee, they should know, by the Torah, who Jesus is but they make the choice not to...the basic difference between a believer and a non-believer..... is the choosing or rejection of Christ as Lord and Savior.

Which is why evangelical believers differ on what the Bible teaches.

Despite all other beliefs...the true Christian believer is marked with the presence of Christ in them....that's what counts in the end and all else is meaningless!

 

[StanJ]

Which is, btw, eternal security.

No it's assurance and comfort in the Paul know these people and know that if they continue on in what they are doing, they will receive their reward.

No, that is totally untrue. I explained how Paul used lifestyle of the unbeliever vs the proper lifestyle of the believer and then applied both kinds of lifestyles to believers and concluded with v.10: who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him.
If proper lifestyle is required to "live together with Him", the phrase "whether we are awake or asleep" needs to be explained.
I expect that the answer will be something like literally being awake or asleep, which is simply ridiculous is that's the answer. Esp so because of how Paul described the lifestyle of unbelievers in the context.

Yes, and I addressed what you had said and pointed out that v10 here has to do with Jesus's return, which Paul has already explained in 1 Thess 4:13-18. 'We WILL live together with him', can only mean when Jesus returns.

What I did was explain EVERY VERSE. Please do the same. Or "exegete" them, whatever you think that means.

What you did was eisegete every verse based on your Doctrine, not show what they actually convey. Adult with the one you put up as a challenge and I see no reason to deal with all the other ones seeing as your rationale is wrong and all of them which I've already established by dealing with the one you put up as a challenge for me to deal with.

I have no idea how any of this relates to v.4-10.

Well if that's true, then that is very sad given it was in very plain English. Try reading it again with an open mind not closed off by your predisposition.

If you disagree, how about copying point 4 and then taking it apart point by point, or verse by verse, to show that my explanation was incorrect.

Like you I don't Pick-A-Part context on a verse by verse basis. I've already explained how you wrongly asserted what is going on in these verses and I've given you the explanation you can accept it or reject it but there's nothing more I can say to change your mind if you're predisposed to not change your mind. There must be a desire in your heart to know the truth apart from what you think you already know. If that is not there then all the teaching in the world is not going to change your mind because you're close to it.

 

[StanJ]

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assurance
Simple Definition of assurance

• : the state of being sure or certain about something
• : a strong feeling of confidence about yourself or about being right
• : a strong and definite statement that something will happen or that something is true

From From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/security
Simple Definition of security

• : the state of being protected or safe from harm
• : things done to make people or places safe
• : the area in a place (such as an airport) where people are checked to make sure they are not carrying weapons or other illegal materials

Assurance is being sure or certain of something: going to heaven is what believers are supposed to have assurance about.

Security is being protected or being safe from harm: the lake of fire.

They are functionally the same.

Thanks for the citation but I for one am not having a problem with understanding the difference between assurance and security. They mean two different things even though you assert that they're very close.
God is never promised his people that they would be safe from harm in this life, as a matter of fact his word tells us that we will suffer persecution and for the most part early Christians did. In some countries today new Christians suffer persecution but I can pretty much assume that you yourself have never suffered persecution in the real sense. The Bible tells us that faith is the evidence of Things Not Seen. That does not mean that God promises us we will not face harm or persecution. It means that we believe in God despite what we see presently. I don't need God to promise that his promises are true and that he will keep them. How exactly is that walking in faith if you need a guarantee that your faith walk will bring you what you believe in faith you will receive? I'm not the warnings of Falling Away into apostasy not enough for you to listen to? You also need to guarantee that God will keep his promises? I think it's about time you start answering some of my questions instead of keep on asking more of the same that I've already answered.

I'm not arguing apostasy. Of course believers can fall away from the faith. Jesus made that point in the parable of the soils.

If you're not arguing apostasy then what are you arguing because I haven't said that anybody can lose your salvation. What I see is you continuing to try to associate apostasy with loss of salvation but calling it loss of salvation and it is not.

This has no effect on eternal security. 1 Thess 5:4-10 proves that.

Of course it doesn't because there is no eternal security and be the verses are dealing with apostasy. Now you show me one verse that directly supports eternal security by using the words 'eternal security', then we'll have a discussion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No it's assurance and comfort in the Paul know these people and know that if they continue on in what they are doing, they will receive their reward.

Receiving their reward cannot be salvation, unless one wants to ignore Paul's words in Eph 2;8,9. We are saved by grace through faith, and not by works.

Yes, and I addressed what you had said and pointed out that v10 here has to do with Jesus's return, which Paul has already explained in 1 Thess 4:13-18. 'We WILL live together with him', can only mean when Jesus returns.

Of course it's about when Jesus returns. But it seems the context about being awake or asleep is being ignored, which is the issue.

What you did was eisegete every verse based on your Doctrine, not show what they actually convey.

OK, then. It should be very easy to take each verse that I commented on (including my comments, and show how they are wrong. Please proceed. That's the whole point of this thread; show me why the verses in the OP do not teach OSAS.

Like you I don't Pick-A-Part context on a verse by verse basis. I've already explained how you wrongly asserted what is going on in these verses and I've given you the explanation you can accept it or reject it but there's nothing more I can say to change your mind if you're predisposed to not change your mind. There must be a desire in your heart to know the truth apart from what you think you already know. If that is not there then all the teaching in the world is not going to change your mind because you're close to it.

What hasn't been done yet is provide an explanation of what the verses in the OP are teaching.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Thanks for the citation but I for one am not having a problem with understanding the difference between assurance and security. They mean two different things even though you assert that they're very close.

I asserted nothing. I gave the definition of both words and explained HOW they are close.

God is never promised his people that they would be safe from harm in this life, as a matter of fact his word tells us that we will suffer persecution and for the most part early Christians did.

Nonetheless, this is irrelevant to the issue of loss of salvation or OSAS.

In some countries today new Christians suffer persecution but I can pretty much assume that you yourself have never suffered persecution in the real sense. The Bible tells us that faith is the evidence of Things Not Seen. That does not mean that God promises us we will not face harm or persecution. It means that we believe in God despite what we see presently. I don't need God to promise that his promises are true and that he will keep them. How exactly is that walking in faith if you need a guarantee that your faith walk will bring you what you believe in faith you will receive? I'm not the warnings of Falling Away into apostasy not enough for you to listen to?

It doesn't matter what you "don't need from God". We have God's Word and His Word gives us promises. Or do you not think so?

To the question of "how exactly is that walking in faith if you need a guarantee" is kind of silly. The very nature of one's faith in God IS the guarantee.

So those who think that God will remove salvation from those who are guilty of various things listed by the LOS side don't really have faith in God to save them. The bottom line is that they are responsible for not losing it. That is unbiblical.

You also need to guarantee that God will keep his promises?

No, I need to understand God's Word. That's plenty enough for me. It seems you're treating the idea of assurance or security as a weakness, as in "I need...". Nonsense.

I think it's about time you start answering some of my questions instead of keep on asking more of the same that I've already answered.

I don't recall dodging any of your questions. But if I have, please repost them one to a post, for simplicity.

If you're not arguing apostasy then what are you arguing because I haven't said that anybody can lose your salvation.

Huh??!! That's exactly what I've taken from your posts. Apparently one of us has a problem in communication.

What I see is you continuing to try to associate apostasy with loss of salvation but calling it loss of salvation and it is not.

Yet, you believe that a believer who apostatizes won't go to heaven. Or are you a Calvinist who will claim that all apostates never "truly" believed. iow, just deny that anyone who has believed and then apostatizes later on really didn't believe??

Of course it doesn't because there is no eternal security and be the verses are dealing with apostasy.

This is very confusing. You just claimed that you don't believe that one can lose salvation and now you say there is no eternal security. It cannot be both things.

Now you show me one verse that directly supports eternal security by using the words 'eternal security', then we'll have a discussion.

This request is as ridiculous as claiming that the word "trinity" doesn't occur in the Bible and therefore, isn't a true doctrine.

No one has yet explained to me what the verses in the OP are teaching. Don't tell me what they don't teach. I already know those who believe in LOS have rejected the verses in the OP as teaching OSAS.

So, what DO they teach? Let's not focus on what they DON'T teach.

 

[StanJ]

Receiving their reward cannot be salvation, unless one wants to ignore Paul's words in Eph 2;8,9. We are saved by grace through faith, and not by works.

No it cannot, but that's not what I was referring to either. Their reward is eternal life.

Of course it's about when Jesus returns. But it seems the context about being awake or asleep is being ignored, which is the issue.

Then stop ignoring it. As I said Paul taught in the previous chapter that the dead in Christ will rise first, so what are you not understanding about this? Do you not see how this relates?

OK, then. It should be very easy to take each verse that I commented on (including my comments, and show how they are wrong. Please proceed. That's the whole point of this thread; show me why the verses in the OP do not teach OSAS.

There's nothing okay about it and I've already shown you that your point for was wrong and yet if you continue to deflect and equivocate about what you said. I'm not going to spend the next 3 or 4 days giving with all your issues when every one of them is going to suffer from the same predisposition. They do not teach OSAS and you didn't show that they did.

What hasn't been done yet is provide an explanation of what the verses in the OP are teaching.

Anybody who uses sound biblical hermeneutics does not have a problem seeing what they are teaching but the point is they aren't teaching OSAS as you claim, even though you didn't show such.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No it cannot, but that's not what I was referring to either. Their reward is eternal life.

I cannot agree with this. If eternal life is a reward, then it is earned. There would be no grace in that. The Bible does NOT teach that.

I said this:
"Of course it's about when Jesus returns. But it seems the context about being awake or asleep is being ignored, which is the issue."

Then stop ignoring it.

Seriously?? The comment was directed at you. Stop ignoring the context about what Paul meant by being awake or asleep. I'm not the one who has ignored it. I'm the one who has been EMPHASIZING it.

As I said Paul taught in the previous chapter that the dead in Christ will rise first, so what are you not understanding about this? Do you not see how this relates?

Apparently not, so when will someone explain all this to me?

There's nothing okay about it and I've already shown you that your point for was wrong and yet if you continue to deflect and equivocate about what you said.

All I remember is that you disagreed with point 4. But I wasn't shown wrong in any sense.

I'm not going to spend the next 3 or 4 days giving with all your issues when every one of them is going to suffer from the same predisposition.

With such a bias, I agree that it wouldn't do any good and it shouldn't be attempted.

They do not teach OSAS and you didn't show that they did.

Funny thing. This is basically the ONLY response I get from the LOS crowd. Disagree, make claims but never back any of it up with evidence.

So, if none of the verses in the OP teach eternal security, just WHAT do they TEACH?

Why can't any of the LOS crowd provide a biblically based answer? ALL Scripture is inspired and is PROFITABLE for:
teaching
reproof
correction
instruction in righteousness
2 Tim 3:16

Yet, the LOS crowd seems totally uninterested in even trying to figure out just what the verses in the OP are teaching, or whatever else they are profitable for, and proving such a claim.

Anybody who uses sound biblical hermeneutics does not have a problem seeing what they are teaching but the point is they aren't teaching OSAS as you claim, even though you didn't show such.

OK, fine. Then just WHAT do they TEACH? Please answer. They ARE profitable for something. Do you have any idea?

 

[Thursday]

Here is an excerpt from Billy Graham:
Jesus said, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away" (John 6:37).
Think of it this way. When a child is born, he or she becomes part of a family. Even if they rebel or do something wrong, they're still a member of that family, and nothing can ever end that relationship. And when we come to Christ, we become members of a new family -- the family of God. We are now His children, and just as an earthly child will always be part of their family, so we will always be part of Christ's family -- even if we sin and turn away from Him for a time.

But let me add two important warnings. The first is a warning against false belief -- that is, assuming we're committed to Christ when we really aren't. Many people, I'm afraid, fall into this category. They're like the plants Jesus warned about, that grew for a time but then withered and died (see Luke 8:4-15).

The second is a warning against allowing sin to control us -- even as believers. Sin cuts us off from God, and has devastating effects on our lives. Flee from sin, the Bible says, "and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness" (1 Timothy 6:11).

I quote scripture, you quote Billy Graham.

 

[ZacharyB]

It is not necessary to remember every sin if you are sincerely sorry for your sins.

Dis is mucho too obvious for those who insist on living in their sins ...
and want-desire-expect to receive salvation regardless of what dey duz!

God is not a legalist ... He is love ... He honors a correct heart attitude!
Yes, Thoiseday, it's all about the attitude of the heart.
Is it bent on (intent on) obedience?

 

[ZacharyB]

Matt 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven,
but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

God's enemies teach they have done dis ...
whenupon dey believe on the Lord Jesus and His glorious gospel (good news).

Dey don't care that God's will is also that dey do their best to stop sinning.
Jesus came to make it entirely POSSIBLE to be victorious over sin.
The dual blessing of the new nature and the indwelling Holy Spirit
make this victory over sin POSSIBLE.

Dis is what being an OVERCOMER is all about.
Jesus warned that we must overcome like He overcame (Revelation 3:21).
And He didn't overcome by believing He was/is the Son of God ... many LOLs.
Now, true believers, let's all enter into a nice chorus of LOLs together!

 

[dysert]

Meaning that this is NOT a commonly-used abbreviation?

I never heard of LOS before, fwiw.

 

[ZacharyB]

I believe that I am saved by God's grace alone and nothing I could every do makes any difference!

You and the FG2 need to take a close look at the 10 NT verses that teach ...
one must continue in the faith until the end of his/her life to receive eternal life!

Dis is perhaps the most simple and obvious set of anti-OSAS NT Scriptures!

Yes, Thoiseday, der are many "IF" conditional statements in the NT.
But, dese are ignored by the enemies of God who teach OSAS.

 

[Born Again2004]

You and the FG2 need to take a close look at the 10 NT verses that teach ...
one must continue in the faith until the end of his/her life to receive eternal life!

Dis is perhaps the most simple and obvious set of anti-OSAS NT Scriptures!

Yes, Thoiseday, der are many "IF" conditional statements in the NT.
But, dese are ignored by the enemies of God who teach OSAS.

I don't expect you to believe me and I can quote as many verses that say I am right. The bottom line and above all else it is a spiritual thing or a heart thing...I just know its right.....on face value , I am right because your belief is founded of "shifting sands"...mine is totally in God's hands and is unshakeable!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Dis is mucho too obvious for those who insist on living in their sins ...

Where are you living?

Or, how would one live "outside their sins"??

and want-desire-expect to receive salvation regardless of what dey duz!

OK, show any verse that says that salvation is based on what one "duz" vs what one believes.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You and the FG2 need to take a close look at the 10 NT verses that teach ...
one must continue in the faith until the end of his/her life to receive eternal life!

Please read the whole context for those verses.