I believe in eternal security but these verses have always stumbled me?

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a cleanup. Please remember to address the content of a post, and not attack the poster's character.

Please treat others the way you would like to be treated.

If the flaming continues, this thread will need to be permanently closed.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Ronald]

not according to the context of the passage, which was shown long ago in this discussion and the context was ignored by some here so that they could go on and on about being accused of refusing to address the context of the passage. So how about addressing some of the many issues of context that show your interpretation wrong? Okay, let's take one at a time...Notice in Heb. 6 who we are talking about in context. The first thing we notice about the context is that this is talking about maturing...now, a non believer cannot mature in Christ because they are not yet born. That leaves us only with believers in this passage. But wait, there's more...how can we be sure? Look at verses 4-6, the people we are talking about having fallen away are those that...let me quote and highlight for you....
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance.... these are not things associate with unbelievers, even those who claim Christ but don't know Him, in fact, these are things of the heart of the new man, the believer unto salvation and yet the text says not only that they have fallen away but that they cannot return to repentance...notice two things, 1. returning or being brought back indicated once was and 2. they can't have what they once did because (in context) it would mean they were crucifying Christ all over again.

Now, in order to not be "ignoring the Heb. 6 passage in context, you must show how the non believer can mature in Christ, be enlightened, taste heavenly gifts, share in the HS, partake in the goodness of the word of God and His power and return to what He never had in the first place. Otherwise you are ignoring the passage in context.

Now, on to II Timothy 2:11-12...again, look at context, verse 10 says this is a teaching for the elect....who are the elect? Are they the unbelievers? No one I have ever heard talk about the elect thinks they are the unbelievers, and yet here the teaching is being given to the elect, and you remove that context to say that it is only the first half that is talking to the elect, then suddenly, without warning in opposition to everything we know about reading for comprehension, the subject changes with no warning for no reason to the unsaved, cause it makes you comfortable to believe that it does.
Now, You can believe what you want about comprehension rules, but since God is the author of comprehension, I wouldn't want to challenge Him on why He would change subject without cause or warning just because it might make us uncomfortable. Rather, I personally choose to allow God to tell me what He wants me to know and yield my understanding over to His wisdom on the matter. But as long as our premises are so vastly different, we will never be able to reason together on the word of God. Thus, you either need to show reason for the change that is not there through communication rules and context, or you need to ignore the passage in context, be accused of doing so and deal with the truth of that, rather than try to start a flaming war like another poster tried to do with me.

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance ..."
The title of the letter is "Hebrews". Mainly Paul is addressing Hebrew Christians and referring to Jews who have not received Christ. I believe the context deals with a message to the Hebrews. So the reference is made to those (the chosen nation), who have been given the word, the Law, experienced God's presence all through their history and then did not receive Christ when He came -- those are the ones for which it would be impossible to come to faith again. This does not speak of present day Christians losing their faith once they've been born again.

 

[John 1:1 GodCZU]

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

OSAS teaches all our sins have already been forgiven. False doctrine.


JLB

What does the Bible say? When we repent of our sins in coming to Yeshua, because we could not do so had the father not called us to repent, they are remembered by God no more. A clean slate. If we are sealed with the holy spirit can we who are called evict him?
Jesus said those who the father puts in his hand shall not be removed by anyone. Paraphrasing the actual scripture there of course.
When Yeshua says no one can remove us, does he then make an unspoken exception for "no one" so as to say, except the mortal in his hand. Who has more power to leave than Jesus has to keep hold to?
No
One

All our sins are forgive. Those who are in Christ do not make a habit of sinning. When we do though, it is forgiven.

These letters are Paul's own words in managing his churches by the way. Not every word in that scripture in Hebrews is other than Paul speaking. He's sharing his part of what he believes about his understanding of scripture too.

 

[razzelflabben]

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance ..."
The title of the letter is "Hebrews". Mainly Paul is addressing Hebrew Christians and referring to Jews who have not received Christ. I believe the context deals with a message to the Hebrews. So the reference is made to those (the chosen nation), who have been given the word, the Law, experienced God's presence all through their history and then did not receive Christ when He came -- those are the ones for which it would be impossible to come to faith again. This does not speak of present day Christians losing their faith once they've been born again.

Hum....who are the Jews that have been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the HS (this one is especially troublesome in that the HS wasn't sent until after Jesus was resurrected, so these Jews you claim this is talking about, have already received the HS that they don't even believe exists....where is that biblical?) tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age...Now, if we try hard enough, we might be able to fit all but the HS into those Jews that have not yet believed unto salvation, but the HS one I can't figure out a way to dismiss. Your gonna have to help me on that one. Jesus said He would go and sent the HS. In fact, the HS doesn't show up as an indwelling until pentecost and then only to believers. So, if these are unbelieving Jews, how did they get the HS and where in scripture does the HS dwell with unbelievers? Now the second huge problem with your interpretation that I can't find a way around, is this idea of returning to the faith again...by your own confession, these are not those that ever had faith. See, the Jews didn't need faith before Christ because they had the law and obedience. In fact, remember Romans 4:3...Abraham believed and that belief was credited to him as faith. So, you are talking Jews who live by the law not faith, returning to a faith they never had....here is another passage. Romans 10:17 faith comes through the message of Jesus Christ...your claim is that they didn't believe this message of faith but somehow magically return to what they never had. How can you return to something you didn't have in the first place?

Now, remember we are looking at context, so once you address the above two issues from scripture, look at Heb. 6:10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.

Now, it is pretty common knowledge though you may have missed that lesson, that the non believing Jews did not care for the believing Jews by in large, but rather persecuted them. Turning them away as heathens...might want to review here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians...thus, your interpretation wants us to believe that the non believing Jews that persecuted Christians are those that are here in verse 10 helping the believers and continuing to help them...where is that passage while you are looking for passages to support your above claims of the passage.

Now verse 11 gives your interpretation problems as well....but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised....notice faith is required to partake in the promise of heavenly reward...but above, you said that those that are without faith have participated in the heavenly reward. So your interpretation is contradicting what vs. 11 tells us about heavenly reward.

there are more problems for your interpretation, but I don't want you to get too bogged down in addressing the context of Heb. 6 so a small bit at a time.

 

[razzelflabben]

What does the Bible say? When we repent of our sins in coming to Yeshua, because we could not do so had the father not called us to repent, they are remembered by God no more. A clean slate. If we are sealed with the holy spirit can we who are called evict him?
Jesus said those who the father puts in his hand shall not be removed by anyone. Paraphrasing the actual scripture there of course.
When Yeshua says no one can remove us, does he then make an unspoken exception for "no one" so as to say, except the mortal in his hand. Who has more power to leave than Jesus has to keep hold to?
No
One

this is just a clever way of avoiding the question I keep asking and pointing out is the difference that some are allowing to divide the church...1. do we get to choose Christ or are we forced by God to accept for refuse Christ based on God's whim? 2. After we come to Christ, do we lose the right to choose if we will stay and follow or reject and walk away?

All answers must be based on scripture or they will be dismissed as "cause I say so" responses.

See, the problem with the above argument is that it is circular reasoning at best and therefore does nothing to answer the question. What is telling is that when worded a different way, all the OSAS ers run and hide from the question using a variety of evasive maneuvers.

Now, just for review, the non OSASer believes that 1. God draws or calls us and we decide whether or not we will answer with "I come" 2. the non OSAS er believes that our coming is not about our efforts because we cannot "save ourselves" but it is an act of grace that we answer to. 3. the non OSAS er believes that when we seek forgiveness we are forgiven and the slate wiped clean but that does not mean that we can go on sinning because then those new sins would be separating us from God and they too need forgiven. In fact, a couple of passages were posted about them, ask if you missed them and I will post again. 4. the non OSASer believes that no one can take us from God, this means no one...but this does not mean we lose our right to chose whether we stay in Christ or not. In fact, the very fact that scripture tells us to remain, tells us that we can also not remain or the command to remain would not exist.

So, there are 4 of the main misrepresentations of the non OSAS belief so that you can't just refer back to them to make your argument sound like wisdom, rather you must respond as per what non OSAS really does teach.

All our sins are forgive. Those who are in Christ do not make a habit of sinning. When we do though, it is forgiven.

how are they forgiven? Why would God command us in scripture to confess and repent if our sins are all for the rest of our lives already forgiven? James 5:16 in fact, the whole ministry of reconciliation we are called to in II Cor. 5 is about confessing and repenting of any sin done after belief unto salvation. So...why, if all the sins we will ever commit after salvation are already forgiven, are we commanded to confess and repent of any sins we commit after salvation?

These letters are Paul's own words in managing his churches by the way. Not every word in that scripture in Hebrews is other than Paul speaking. He's sharing his part of what he believes about his understanding of scripture too.

It is interesting how when people don't like what scripture says they try to dismiss it as not the true word of God. Scripture tells us that God wrote the Bible and people like Paul penned it. That means that Paul is speaking on behalf of God. If you want to dismiss scriptures you don't like, that is your business, but that makes two completely different premises between you and I and the discussion will not move forward until or unless one of those premises changes. Now, let me also say this, to understand what Paul is saying is not to dismiss it, but to make excuses like "Pauls own words" is to dismiss it as Paul and not Paul being inspired by God as scripture tells us he was.

 

[razzelflabben]

What does the Bible say? When we repent of our sins in coming to Yeshua, because we could not do so had the father not called us to repent, they are remembered by God no more. A clean slate. If we are sealed with the holy spirit can we who are called evict him?
Jesus said those who the father puts in his hand shall not be removed by anyone. Paraphrasing the actual scripture there of course.
When Yeshua says no one can remove us, does he then make an unspoken exception for "no one" so as to say, except the mortal in his hand. Who has more power to leave than Jesus has to keep hold to?
No
One

this is just a clever way of avoiding the question I keep asking and pointing out is the difference that some are allowing to divide the church...1. do we get to choose Christ or are we forced by God to accept for refuse Christ based on God's whim? 2. After we come to Christ, do we lose the right to choose if we will stay and follow or reject and walk away?

All answers must be based on scripture or they will be dismissed as "cause I say so" responses.

See, the problem with the above argument is that it is circular reasoning at best and therefore does nothing to answer the question. What is telling is that when worded a different way, all the OSAS ers run and hide from the question using a variety of evasive maneuvers.

Now, just for review, the non OSASer believes that 1. God draws or calls us and we decide whether or not we will answer with "I come" 2. the non OSAS er believes that our coming is not about our efforts because we cannot "save ourselves" but it is an act of grace that we answer to. 3. the non OSAS er believes that when we seek forgiveness we are forgiven and the slate wiped clean but that does not mean that we can go on sinning because then those new sins would be separating us from God and they too need forgiven. In fact, a couple of passages were posted about them, ask if you missed them and I will post again. 4. the non OSASer believes that no one can take us from God, this means no one...but this does not mean we lose our right to chose whether we stay in Christ or not. In fact, the very fact that scripture tells us to remain, tells us that we can also not remain or the command to remain would not exist.

So, there are 4 of the main misrepresentations of the non OSAS belief so that you can't just refer back to them to make your argument sound like wisdom, rather you must respond as per what non OSAS really does teach.

All our sins are forgive. Those who are in Christ do not make a habit of sinning. When we do though, it is forgiven.

how are they forgiven? Why would God command us in scripture to confess and repent if our sins are all for the rest of our lives already forgiven? James 5:16 in fact, the whole ministry of reconciliation we are called to in II Cor. 5 is about confessing and repenting of any sin done after belief unto salvation. So...why, if all the sins we will ever commit after salvation are already forgiven, are we commanded to confess and repent of any sins we commit after salvation?

These letters are Paul's own words in managing his churches by the way. Not every word in that scripture in Hebrews is other than Paul speaking. He's sharing his part of what he believes about his understanding of scripture too.

It is interesting how when people don't like what scripture says they try to dismiss it as not the true word of God. Scripture tells us that God wrote the Bible and people like Paul penned it. That means that Paul is speaking on behalf of God. If you want to dismiss scriptures you don't like, that is your business, but that makes two completely different premises between you and I and the discussion will not move forward until or unless one of those premises changes. Now, let me also say this, to understand what Paul is saying is not to dismiss it, but to make excuses like "Pauls own words" is to dismiss it as Paul and not Paul being inspired by God as scripture tells us he was.

 

[John 1:1 GodCZU]

this is just a clever way of avoiding the question I keep asking and pointing out is the difference that some are allowing to divide the church...1. do we get to choose Christ or are we forced by God to accept for refuse Christ based on God's whim? 2. After we come to Christ, do we lose the right to choose if we will stay and follow or reject and walk away?

All answers thus far have been based on scripture and that doesn't satisfy you.
You want your answers repeated back by others?
What power does a mortal have when God ordains , predestines before earth's creation, all things according to his will and for his pleasure. Paraphrasing there.

God calls and something inside his Elect responds. All people have potential to have that call resonate in them.
God knows our name. The hairs on our head. Does he waste his time talking about his chosen people in scripture and then not show us what that means in our own selves? Ordained by him to find our way to him?

When God says no man shall remove those he's called to Jesus (Yeshua) from his hand, is he lying?
God is not a man that he should lie. How hard is it for man to understand OSAS isn't a radical doctrine. It's a term that encompasses everything God tells us in his own words. We use ours, "OSAS", to agree with the covenant he tells us about in scripture and that causes conflict?
Show the scriptures?
They're there. If you don't see that what can anyone say ?

Believe as you will. In the end we all find out who was right. Two thrones await. It is all as God wills when God is all there is.

 

[razzelflabben]

All answers thus far have been based on scripture and that doesn't satisfy you.
You want your answers repeated back by others?

huh? Why would I ask questions of you if all I wanted was you to repeat back what I have said? That doesn't even make sense at all....geesh...

What power does a mortal have when God ordains , predestines before earth's creation, all things according to his will and for his pleasure. Paraphrasing there.

okay, so from this outburst, are we to assume that you believe that God forces some to follow Him and others to not follow Him? Cause that is the only thing I can draw from this comment as it applies to the discussion at hand.

As to scripture, every passage that talks about predestination talks about being predestined to the image of Christ. As in Gen. we are created in the image of God and allowed sin to mar that image, but that image is God's design for man and needs to be renewed by belief unto salvation. But that is all off topic.

If I am reading you right, you believe God forces us to accept Him or reject Him. On this we will whole heartedly disagree but explains why we can't agree on OSAS either, because the very premise is different.

God calls and something inside his Elect responds. All people have potential to have that call resonate in them.

now wait a moment...if all people have the potential for that call to resonate in them, wouldn't that mean choice? But you just seemed to indicate that we have no choice...so which are you going with? It makes all the difference in the world which answer you go with when it comes to discussing OSAS beliefs. Pick one, don't waffle back and forth.

God knows our name. The hairs on our head. Does he waste his time talking about his chosen people in scripture and then not show us what that means in our own selves? Ordained by him to find our way to him?

again, you seem to be waffling. It isn't a waffling kind of question. Either we choose or we are forced, which say ye?

When God says no man shall remove those he's called to Jesus (Yeshua) from his hand, is he lying?

as I have repeatedly pointed out, both sides of this debate believe that no one can remove us from God's hand, so this one just needs to rest for a moment. The question to whether or not God forces some to accept Him and others to reject Him will end the discussion pretty quick....

God is not a man that he should lie. How hard is it for man to understand OSAS isn't a radical doctrine. It's a term that encompasses everything God tells us in his own words. We use ours, "OSAS", to agree with the covenant he tells us about in scripture and that causes conflict?

I don't know what the holy non sense you are talking about. Like I have repeatedly pointed out, both OSAS and non OSAS teach that no one can remove us from God's hand. Yet here you are going on about it like we disagree somehow. Which is very confusing why you would insist on talking about things we agree on as if we disagree unless you are trying to flame me and others by ignoring corrections you are given about what is really believed.

Show the scriptures?

which scripture do you want?

They're there. If you don't see that what can anyone say ?

what are you referring to?

Believe as you will. In the end we all find out who was right. Two thrones await. It is all as God wills when God is all there is.

Wow...so now, instead of discussing scripture you want to resort to judgment....why did the mods warn us not to flame one another if you are going to insist on this type of response instead of a nice quiet, calm discussion of ideas?

 

[Viren]

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

OSAS teaches all our sins have already been forgiven. False doctrine.


JLB

Hebrew 10:10

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Does one who is holy have sin?

Those who have been born again by the Spirit have Christ living on the inside and he can't sin. That doesn't mean that we never sin it just means that if we do it's because we're not in the Spirit and we need to set our mind on the Spirit. Ultimately Christ will win out because he who is in us which is Christ is greater than he who is in the world which is Satan. Satan is the mind controlled by the flesh. Satan is fatally wounded once a person gives birth to Christ within themselves.

 

[Viren]

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

OSAS teaches all our sins have already been forgiven. False doctrine.


JLB

Hebrew 10:10

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Does one who is holy have sin?

Those who have been born again by the Spirit have Christ living on the inside and he can't sin. That doesn't mean that we never sin it just means that if we do it's because we're not in the Spirit and we need to set our mind on the Spirit. Ultimately Christ will win out because he who is in us which is Christ is greater than he who is in the world which is Satan. Satan is the mind controlled by the flesh. Satan is fatally wounded once a person gives birth to Christ within themselves.

 

[Viren]

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

OSAS teaches all our sins have already been forgiven. False doctrine.


JLB

Hebrew 10:10

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Does one who is holy have sin?

Those who have been born again by the Spirit have Christ living on the inside and he can't sin. That doesn't mean that we never sin it just means that if we do it's because we're not in the Spirit and we need to set our mind on the Spirit. Ultimately Christ will win out because he who is in us which is Christ is greater than he who is in the world which is Satan. Satan is the mind controlled by the flesh. Satan is fatally wounded once a person gives birth to Christ within themselves.

 

[Ronald]

Hum....who are the Jews that have been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the HS (this one is especially troublesome in that the HS wasn't sent until after Jesus was resurrected, so these Jews you claim this is talking about, have already received the HS that they don't even believe exists....where is that biblical?) tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age...Now, if we try hard enough, we might be able to fit all but the HS into those Jews that have not yet believed unto salvation, but the HS one I can't figure out a way to dismiss. Your gonna have to help me on that one. Jesus said He would go and sent the HS. In fact, the HS doesn't show up as an indwelling until pentecost and then only to believers. So, if these are unbelieving Jews, how did they get the HS and where in scripture does the HS dwell with unbelievers? Now the second huge problem with your interpretation that I can't find a way around, is this idea of returning to the faith again...by your own confession, these are not those that ever had faith. See, the Jews didn't need faith before Christ because they had the law and obedience. In fact, remember Romans 4:3...Abraham believed and that belief was credited to him as faith. So, you are talking Jews who live by the law not faith, returning to a faith they never had....here is another passage. Romans 10:17 faith comes through the message of Jesus Christ...your claim is that they didn't believe this message of faith but somehow magically return to what they never had. How can you return to something you didn't have in the first place?

Now, remember we are looking at context, so once you address the above two issues from scripture, look at Heb. 6:10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.

Now, it is pretty common knowledge though you may have missed that lesson, that the non believing Jews did not care for the believing Jews by in large, but rather persecuted them. Turning them away as heathens...might want to review here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians...thus, your interpretation wants us to believe that the non believing Jews that persecuted Christians are those that are here in verse 10 helping the believers and continuing to help them...where is that passage while you are looking for passages to support your above claims of the passage.

Now verse 11 gives your interpretation problems as well....but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised....notice faith is required to partake in the promise of heavenly reward...but above, you said that those that are without faith have participated in the heavenly reward. So your interpretation is contradicting what vs. 11 tells us about heavenly reward.

there are more problems for your interpretation, but I don't want you to get too bogged down in addressing the context of Heb. 6 so a small bit at a time.

Which one of the prophets of the Old Testament do you think was not led by the Holy Spirit? How do you think the Bible inspired words were written in the OT, verbal dictation? The Holy Spirit guided chosen prophets/priests/ kings before Christ. Jews thus experienced the Holy Spirit, not that He dwelt inside them but they certainly experienced His love, glory, grace, provisions and guidance. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit then dwelt within all believers of Christ and there was no more need for a physical Temple.
Did not the Jews receive manna from heaven, miracles of the grand exodus from Egypt, heavenly gifts of the promise land, communion up close and personal with God Who dwelt in their Temples? They didn't have Him living in them, but His Spirit came upon them at times to accomplish His purpose.

 

[JLB777]

Hebrew 10:10

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Does one who is holy have sin?

Those who have been born again by the Spirit have Christ living on the inside and he can't sin. That doesn't mean that we never sin it just means that if we do it's because we're not in the Spirit and we need to set our mind on the Spirit. Ultimately Christ will win out because he who is in us which is Christ is greater than he who is in the world which is Satan. Satan is the mind controlled by the flesh. Satan is fatally wounded once a person gives birth to Christ within themselves.

8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
Hebrews 10:8-12

His sacrifice is the only sacrifice that we will ever need to cleanse us of our sins, if we confess our sin...

Any sin we commit today, will be forgiven because of His sacrifice, but we still need to confess our sin if we expect to be forgiven and cleansed.


Tomorrow starts a new day, and the process starts all over tomorrow.



JLB


JLB

 

[razzelflabben]

Which one of the prophets of the Old Testament do you think was not led by the Holy Spirit? How do you think the Bible inspired words were written in the OT, verbal dictation? The Holy Spirit guided chosen prophets/priests/ kings before Christ. Jews thus experienced the Holy Spirit, not that He dwelt inside them but they certainly experienced His love, glory, grace, provisions and guidance. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit then dwelt within all believers of Christ and there was no more need for a physical Temple.

so....let me get this right...your claim is that these are unbelieving Jewish prophets? Hum...still not sure I can twist it enough to make that sound like what God intends here...please explain how one could be an unbeliever and a prophet who is speaking truth through the HS. Thanks...maybe if you keep trying I can figure out a way to make it work.

Now, the thought just occured to me that maybe you put the prophet part in just to try to confuse the matter and your real intent has to do with the notion that everyone experiences the HS in some way, thus for it to be mentioned here doesn't really mean anything. The problem with that, is that it is mentioned as something separate from what all people experience in Christ. In fact, the entire list is a list of things are are separating one group from the other...we assume the group division is believer and unbeliever, but the context tells us the division is immature believer and mature believer. So...if you intent is that this is what all people, believer and nobeliever alike experience, then why is there a distinction make between mature and unmature believers that lead us into this list? See, you still aren't addressing the problems with your claims here, all you are doing is leading us into circular reasonings of endless debate. Of course the prophets spoke through the HS, but that isn't what this passage says we are talking about. Of course, we all experience God's Love, it's called drawing us to Him, you know, "I will draw all men" but that isn't what we are talking about here either and the context tells us that neither of those is what is the intent of the passage. So in order for us to find a way to force it to say either of these things, we first have to have something that makes it sound like it could be forced to fit. So far you haven't provided that.

Now, you do have another option apart from showing how these could fit the context. You could declare that this is just your opinion and has no real basis in the context. Of which we would have to say, thanks for being honest, have a good day. In that one who holds an opinion over what God intends is a meaningless debate we are told to avoid. If on the other hand, you want to explore what God intends over your opinion, you must reconcile in scripture, where there were unbelieving Jewish prophets that were speaking the truth of God...notice btw plural because this is referring to a group of people not a stay person. Or, it that was a smokescreen and your intent was that this is referring to what everyone in the world expereinces, why the distinction between two groups of people if these are the things we all experience anyway...then, once you show us how to reconcile all that, you need to show us how to reconcile the context that this is talking about mature and inmature believers....so, three things on the table for you right now my friend.

Did not the Jews receive manna from heaven, miracles of the grand exodus from Egypt, heavenly gifts of the promise land, communion up close and personal with God Who dwelt in their Temples? They didn't have Him living in them, but His Spirit came upon them at times to accomplish His purpose.

see above...the problem is that this is talking (in context) about two distinctly different groups of people. Yet here, you claim that we are without literary reason, shifting from two distinct groups to one overall group. You need to show some literary reason to change the topic from mature vs. immature beleavers to all people regardless of belief. When you do that, we will have more to talk about.

 

[Ronald]

so....let me get this right...your claim is that these are unbelieving Jewish prophets? Hum...still not sure I can twist it enough to make that sound like what God intends here...please explain how one could be an unbeliever and a prophet who is speaking truth through the HS. Thanks...maybe if you keep trying I can figure out a way to make it work.

Now, the thought just occured to me that maybe you put the prophet part in just to try to confuse the matter and your real intent has to do with the notion that everyone experiences the HS in some way, thus for it to be mentioned here doesn't really mean anything. The problem with that, is that it is mentioned as something separate from what all people experience in Christ. In fact, the entire list is a list of things are are separating one group from the other...we assume the group division is believer and unbeliever, but the context tells us the division is immature believer and mature believer. So...if you intent is that this is what all people, believer and nobeliever alike experience, then why is there a distinction make between mature and unmature believers that lead us into this list? See, you still aren't addressing the problems with your claims here, all you are doing is leading us into circular reasonings of endless debate. Of course the prophets spoke through the HS, but that isn't what this passage says we are talking about. Of course, we all experience God's Love, it's called drawing us to Him, you know, "I will draw all men" but that isn't what we are talking about here either and the context tells us that neither of those is what is the intent of the passage. So in order for us to find a way to force it to say either of these things, we first have to have something that makes it sound like it could be forced to fit. So far you haven't provided that.

Now, you do have another option apart from showing how these could fit the context. You could declare that this is just your opinion and has no real basis in the context. Of which we would have to say, thanks for being honest, have a good day. In that one who holds an opinion over what God intends is a meaningless debate we are told to avoid. If on the other hand, you want to explore what God intends over your opinion, you must reconcile in scripture, where there were unbelieving Jewish prophets that were speaking the truth of God...notice btw plural because this is referring to a group of people not a stay person. Or, it that was a smokescreen and your intent was that this is referring to what everyone in the world expereinces, why the distinction between two groups of people if these are the things we all experience anyway...then, once you show us how to reconcile all that, you need to show us how to reconcile the context that this is talking about mature and inmature believers....so, three things on the table for you right now my friend.see above...the problem is that this is talking (in context) about two distinctly different groups of people. Yet here, you claim that we are without literary reason, shifting from two distinct groups to one overall group. You need to show some literary reason to change the topic from mature vs. immature beleavers to all people regardless of belief. When you do that, we will have more to talk about.

You must be a new believer and uninformed. You are missing the point, ALL OF THE PROPHETS WERE LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE BOOK OF HEBREWS IS A MESSAGE TO THE HEBREWS AT THAT TIME WHO WERE MESSIANIC JEWS, HENCE THE REFERENCE TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE WORD, MIRACLES, BLESSINGS REFERS TO THE JEWS.
So here it is one more time: The reference pertains to OT Jews, not Christians, therefore "born again" Christians cannot lose their faith! We are secure. If you don't feel secure, you either don't grasp your security in Christ, that the Holy Spirit has sealed you and is living in you or you are not really saved. If you are not saved, that would explain you misunderstanding of scripture, because all scripture is spiritually discerned.
Sorry, I don't have time to spoon feed you, if you can't get this simple stuff after I explained three times, I don't see how you are understanding anything in the Bible. Of course, those who teach Replacement theology can't get it either.
Sorry, I'm done here -- moving on and God's is still working on my patience!

 

[razzelflabben]

You must be a new believer and uninformed. You are missing the point, ALL OF THE PROPHETS WERE LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE BOOK OF HEBREWS IS A MESSAGE TO THE HEBREWS AT THAT TIME WHO WERE MESSIANIC JEWS, HENCE THE REFERENCE TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE WORD, MIRACLES, BLESSINGS REFERS TO THE JEWS.

really? Instead of answering the question you are going to flame me even after the mods warned everyone here against it?!? Seems to me that maybe you can't answer the question and thus you think you would save face to get the thread shut down for flaming violations rather than just fess up to not being able to answer the question.

Now, as per the context we are talking about, it was pointed out that those we are talking about (in this specific part of the discussion) had "shared in the HS" HCSB says "became companions with the Holy Spirit" KJV says "were made partakers of the Holy Ghost" in fact, the Thayers Lexicon says the word for partake/companion/shared means "

1. sharing in, partaking
   
   
2. a partner (in a work, office, dignity)"

The argument was made that this is talking about unbelieving Jews. So, your explanation is that unbelieving Jews were partaking in, or partnering in a work of the HS. Evidence of this was siting that Prophets speaking in the HS was evidence that Heb. 6 where we are told that the people in question shared in/partoke of/were partnering in the work of the HS...that is sharing the gospel of Christ, are those unbelieving prophets who spoke in the power of the HS to share a gospel that they didn't believe in in the first place. Forgive me for saying so, but that is about as far fetched as I think it is possible to make something and instead of explaining how you think we can come to that understanding, you decide it is better to accuse me of being a new believer and/or uninformed believer.

Let's say for a second that even though I have had a passionate Love affair with God for 49 years now, that I am uninformed and a new believer....instead of pointing this out to me as if I don't know it, what would God do? What would Love dictate you do? LOVE, and the author of Love, aka God wouldn't point out that you think I am a new believer and uninformed, but would instead take me to scripture and show me what I am missing. You instead, opt for dismissing truth, accusing me falsely, and refuse to give an answer for the claims you make, knowing that the thread is already on the verge of being closed for such behavior. This tells us a few things, 1. you must want the thread closed 2. you are acting in sin, not the Love of God, and 3. you have no answer for the claim you are giving. None of which are complimentary to the post you make here and what it testifies to as far as truth goes.

So, how about this....instead of trying to flame me and get the thread closed unnecessarily, you refrain from inflammatory remarks and just answer the question like God would do, like a believer who is partaking of the HS would do, as is evidenced by Love?

So here it is one more time: The reference pertains to OT Jews, not Christians, therefore "born again" Christians cannot lose their faith! We are secure.

now, you are trying to go beyond the question in order to justify your response....I'm not that gullible...the question is, how can a non believing Jew or any unbeliever for that matter, partake of, share in, partner with the HS to share the gospel of Christ that they do not believe in, as per your claim that the passage is specifying unbelieving Jews?

Now, if you want to change your claim to that of this is talking about people before Christ, we have a lot of hurdles to jump, the first being that they are partaking of the HS, which was not possible before pentecost. In fact, only those God chose to give the HS for a short period of time had the HS and that was sporadic at best.

Second, as already pointed out, the OT Jews were not about Faith but about Law, thus we have a problem with your interpretation as it clearly talks about faith not the law...

Now, we aren't done yet with problems with this interpretation that this is OT JEws, because verse 6 talks about recrucifying Christ, so obviously Christ has already been crucified at this point or we couldn't recrucify Him, it is talking about men of faith, not of Law which is NT belief, and then icing on the cake, vs. 6, those who have fallen away...if they are the OT JEws that have fallen away, what have they fallen away from? The Law, and into faith? If that is what we are going with, then why doesn't this passage want the OT Jews to come to the saving knowledge of Christ? ISn't Christ for everyone? Jew and Gentile alike? My bible says He is, what bible are you reading that says HE isn't? or are you just misspoken in your claims?

If you don't feel secure, you either don't grasp your security in Christ, that the Holy Spirit has sealed you and is living in you or you are not really saved. If you are not saved, that would explain you misunderstanding of scripture, because all scripture is spiritually discerned.

as I have repeatedly pointed out and you refuse to hear, which is a form or flaming and is a good way to avoid answering questions you can't answer, the NON OSAS doctrine believes very strongly that we are secure in Christ...that isn't the problem here with this passage and the understanding of what it says. The problem is that you keep trying to claim it is talking to people who context says it can't be talking to. You need to reconcile that contradiction without all the flaming and attempts to shut down the thread, cause there are some listening to this conversation that are seeking truth and if you speak truth, they can't possibly believe what you teach if you can't even answer a few straight forward questions about the beliefs you claim to be truth.

Sorry, I don't have time to spoon feed you, if you can't get this simple stuff after I explained three times, I don't see how you are understanding anything in the Bible. Of course, those who teach Replacement theology can't get it either.
Sorry, I'm done here -- moving on and God's is still working on my patience!

wow...so since you can't answer the questions you want us to believe that it is because I can't understand...that is just sad...cause you know what...every single question I have asked of God, He has answered in scripture, clearly, even harder questions than you have been asked.

So, let's cut to the conclusion of the matter. You claim an interpretation of the passage that you cannot defend and that context shows to be incorrect. In context the passage is talking to true believers who fall away by their own wills, not the wills of others, which means that security in Christ is an absolutely, just like you have repeatedly been told. But for the believer who rejects the HS, you know the seal of our salvation, the one who blasphemy's the HS after having come to Christ and lived in His power and grace (notice grace is still in tact as well) then they cannot return to Christ because to do so would be to crucify Him all over again, iows it would be to say that His death and resurrection had no real meaning to begin with. Now, also notice another false claim against non OSAS doctrine, OSASers try to claim that non OSAS ers believe that it is about one sin keeping us from God, when as this passage says, it's about rejecting Christ, not committingg one sin.

So, if we remove the OSAS false claims against non OSAS doctrine, that being the top three 1. security in God's hands...2. grace vs. works righteousness, and 3. committing one sin means you lose your salvation, and instead, dismiss the false accusations and hold only to the teaching, we see that Phil. and Heb. as well as Matt. all tell us the same story that the non OSAS doctrine teaches whereas the OSAS doctrine cannot address any of these passages with clarity and without contradictions. That means, Non OSAS doctrine wins out when we look at the totality of scripture.

Thanks for playing the debate game and thanks to the mods for allowing this thread to stay open to the conclusion of the matter.

 

[Ronald]

really? Instead of answering the question you are going to flame me even after the mods warned everyone here against it?!? Seems to me that maybe you can't answer the question and thus you think you would save face to get the thread shut down for flaming violations rather than just fess up to not being able to answer the question.

Now, as per the context we are talking about, it was pointed out that those we are talking about (in this specific part of the discussion) had "shared in the HS" HCSB says "became companions with the Holy Spirit" KJV says "were made partakers of the Holy Ghost" in fact, the Thayers Lexicon says the word for partake/companion/shared means "

1. sharing in, partaking
   
   
2. a partner (in a work, office, dignity)"

The argument was made that this is talking about unbelieving Jews. So, your explanation is that unbelieving Jews were partaking in, or partnering in a work of the HS. Evidence of this was siting that Prophets speaking in the HS was evidence that Heb. 6 where we are told that the people in question shared in/partoke of/were partnering in the work of the HS...that is sharing the gospel of Christ, are those unbelieving prophets who spoke in the power of the HS to share a gospel that they didn't believe in in the first place. Forgive me for saying so, but that is about as far fetched as I think it is possible to make something and instead of explaining how you think we can come to that understanding, you decide it is better to accuse me of being a new believer and/or uninformed believer.

Let's say for a second that even though I have had a passionate Love affair with God for 49 years now, that I am uninformed and a new believer....instead of pointing this out to me as if I don't know it, what would God do? What would Love dictate you do? LOVE, and the author of Love, aka God wouldn't point out that you think I am a new believer and uninformed, but would instead take me to scripture and show me what I am missing. You instead, opt for dismissing truth, accusing me falsely, and refuse to give an answer for the claims you make, knowing that the thread is already on the verge of being closed for such behavior. This tells us a few things, 1. you must want the thread closed 2. you are acting in sin, not the Love of God, and 3. you have no answer for the claim you are giving. None of which are complimentary to the post you make here and what it testifies to as far as truth goes.

So, how about this....instead of trying to flame me and get the thread closed unnecessarily, you refrain from inflammatory remarks and just answer the question like God would do, like a believer who is partaking of the HS would do, as is evidenced by Love? now, you are trying to go beyond the question in order to justify your response....I'm not that gullible...the question is, how can a non believing Jew or any unbeliever for that matter, partake of, share in, partner with the HS to share the gospel of Christ that they do not believe in, as per your claim that the passage is specifying unbelieving Jews?

Now, if you want to change your claim to that of this is talking about people before Christ, we have a lot of hurdles to jump, the first being that they are partaking of the HS, which was not possible before pentecost. In fact, only those God chose to give the HS for a short period of time had the HS and that was sporadic at best.

Second, as already pointed out, the OT Jews were not about Faith but about Law, thus we have a problem with your interpretation as it clearly talks about faith not the law...

Now, we aren't done yet with problems with this interpretation that this is OT JEws, because verse 6 talks about recrucifying Christ, so obviously Christ has already been crucified at this point or we couldn't recrucify Him, it is talking about men of faith, not of Law which is NT belief, and then icing on the cake, vs. 6, those who have fallen away...if they are the OT JEws that have fallen away, what have they fallen away from? The Law, and into faith? If that is what we are going with, then why doesn't this passage want the OT Jews to come to the saving knowledge of Christ? ISn't Christ for everyone? Jew and Gentile alike? My bible says He is, what bible are you reading that says HE isn't? or are you just misspoken in your claims? as I have repeatedly pointed out and you refuse to hear, which is a form or flaming and is a good way to avoid answering questions you can't answer, the NON OSAS doctrine believes very strongly that we are secure in Christ...that isn't the problem here with this passage and the understanding of what it says. The problem is that you keep trying to claim it is talking to people who context says it can't be talking to. You need to reconcile that contradiction without all the flaming and attempts to shut down the thread, cause there are some listening to this conversation that are seeking truth and if you speak truth, they can't possibly believe what you teach if you can't even answer a few straight forward questions about the beliefs you claim to be truth. wow...so since you can't answer the questions you want us to believe that it is because I can't understand...that is just sad...cause you know what...every single question I have asked of God, He has answered in scripture, clearly, even harder questions than you have been asked.

So, let's cut to the conclusion of the matter. You claim an interpretation of the passage that you cannot defend and that context shows to be incorrect. In context the passage is talking to true believers who fall away by their own wills, not the wills of others, which means that security in Christ is an absolutely, just like you have repeatedly been told. But for the believer who rejects the HS, you know the seal of our salvation, the one who blasphemy's the HS after having come to Christ and lived in His power and grace (notice grace is still in tact as well) then they cannot return to Christ because to do so would be to crucify Him all over again, iows it would be to say that His death and resurrection had no real meaning to begin with. Now, also notice another false claim against non OSAS doctrine, OSASers try to claim that non OSAS ers believe that it is about one sin keeping us from God, when as this passage says, it's about rejecting Christ, not committingg one sin.

So, if we remove the OSAS false claims against non OSAS doctrine, that being the top three 1. security in God's hands...2. grace vs. works righteousness, and 3. committing one sin means you lose your salvation, and instead, dismiss the false accusations and hold only to the teaching, we see that Phil. and Heb. as well as Matt. all tell us the same story that the non OSAS doctrine teaches whereas the OSAS doctrine cannot address any of these passages with clarity and without contradictions. That means, Non OSAS doctrine wins out when we look at the totality of scripture.

Thanks for playing the debate game and thanks to the mods for allowing this thread to stay open to the conclusion of the matter.

Hold on, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a new believer and thus not being knowledgeable. One has to start somewhere. Also if one is not born again, then discernment is not happening. I was there once, this is not an insult. I just don't have much patience to repeat myself over and over again.
Again, you are misunderstanding the scripture AND what I said.
All the prophets were partakers, guided by, the Holy Spirit -- how else could they have prophesied or written the OT.
So the reference is (once again) referring to the Jews who did not receive Christ when He came. They were the chosen people who experienced God and were enlightened - a portion of them did not receive Christ and therefore it would be impossible for them to come to Him after they rejected him.

 

[razzelflabben]

Hold on, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a new believer and thus not being knowledgeable.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with being a new believer or not being knowledgeable...I said there was something wrong with judging anothers maturity in Christ simply because you don't have an answer for the questions you are asked about your claims.

One has to start somewhere. Also if one is not born again, then discernment is not happening. I was there once, this is not an insult. I just don't have much patience to repeat myself over and over again.

oh, so now, because you can't answer the question, you judge me as not being a true believer....like I said, just because you can't answer the questions asked of your belief is no reason to resort to flaming just to close the thread so you don't look as unknowledgeable about your own beliefs as you would otherwise.

Again, you are misunderstanding the scripture AND what I said.

then explain it in a way that makes sense...I pointed out that the passage says that the people in question were partaking of the HS. You said that the people partaking of the HS were non believing Jews. I asked when a non believing Jew was partaking of the HS. You said that the OT prophets spoke by the power of the HS, thus they were...you further said that they were part of a group of people who were led by God, to which I asked you how they were participating in sharing the gospel of Christ when they were by your account unbelievers? Your only response is that I am a new believer (which is false witness) unknowledgable (which is false witness) and that I am not a true believer (again, false witness) instead of answering the simple questions asked of you and your claims of the context of the passage.

All the prophets were partakers, guided by, the Holy Spirit -- how else could they have prophesied or written the OT.

why would you even bring this up as if I didn't already acknowledge that the prophets were speaking by the HS? Your claim was that the unbelievers in the OT were led by the HS as per your interpretation of this passage in Heb. 6...the question was never whether or not God used the HS in the OT ever, but rather where in the OT or NT did God use the HS to spread the gospel of Christ through unbelievers? Remember, the people in the passage we are talking about in context were those that were partaking in the HS and you claimed they were unbelievers. Therefore you need to show where in the bible that God used unbelievers to give them the HS for the sake of spreading the gospel of Christ...a Christ that according to you, they didn't believe in. You refuse to answer the question so that you can bear false witness against me rather than just answer the question.

So the reference is (once again) referring to the Jews who did not receive Christ when He came. They were the chosen people who experienced God and were enlightened - a portion of them did not receive Christ and therefore it would be impossible for them to come to Him after they rejected him.

But you still haven't answered the question...the passage specifies that they partook of the HS. When do unbelievers partake in the HS?

 

[Ronald]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with being a new believer or not being knowledgeable...I said there was something wrong with judging anothers maturity in Christ simply because you don't have an answer for the questions you are asked about your claims. oh, so now, because you can't answer the question, you judge me as not being a true believer....like I said, just because you can't answer the questions asked of your belief is no reason to resort to flaming just to close the thread so you don't look as unknowledgeable about your own beliefs as you would otherwise. then explain it in a way that makes sense...I pointed out that the passage says that the people in question were partaking of the HS. You said that the people partaking of the HS were non believing Jews. I asked when a non believing Jew was partaking of the HS. You said that the OT prophets spoke by the power of the HS, thus they were...you further said that they were part of a group of people who were led by God, to which I asked you how they were participating in sharing the gospel of Christ when they were by your account unbelievers? Your only response is that I am a new believer (which is false witness) unknowledgable (which is false witness) and that I am not a true believer (again, false witness) instead of answering the simple questions asked of you and your claims of the context of the passage. why would you even bring this up as if I didn't already acknowledge that the prophets were speaking by the HS? Your claim was that the unbelievers in the OT were led by the HS as per your interpretation of this passage in Heb. 6...the question was never whether or not God used the HS in the OT ever, but rather where in the OT or NT did God use the HS to spread the gospel of Christ through unbelievers? Remember, the people in the passage we are talking about in context were those that were partaking in the HS and you claimed they were unbelievers. Therefore you need to show where in the bible that God used unbelievers to give them the HS for the sake of spreading the gospel of Christ...a Christ that according to you, they didn't believe in. You refuse to answer the question so that you can bear false witness against me rather than just answer the question. But you still haven't answered the question...the passage specifies that they partook of the HS. When do unbelievers partake in the HS?

"Remember, the people in the passage we are talking about in context were those that were partaking in the HS and you claimed they were unbelievers"
No, the reference is about Jews who rejected Christ (past tense), not a reference to Christians. So I do believe the book of Hebrews was given to the Hebrew Christians. That particular verse was a warning; that even though they were the chosen nation, who were given the LAW and the PROPHETS, the multitude of blessings, gifts and promised land, experienced God, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and miracles; that if after a that history, they rejected Jesus, that was the deal breaker and it would be impossible for them to be drawn back to God. For instance, the Pharisees rejected Him and ordered Him to be crucified - once they went down that path, it would be impossible for them and all who shouted crucify Him, to come to Christ afterward. That's my take on it ... no other way I can explain it

"Therefore you need to show where in the bible that God used unbelievers to give them the HS for the sake of spreading the gospel of Christ" ---- I never made that made that claim and you a twisting and misunderstanding what I said.


OK, I was wrong thinking you were a new believer. Didn't mean to flame you either. So there must be another reason why you do not have security in your salvation - since you are insisting that this passage pertains to true Christians.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty. This is a fundamental truth that has been distorted, misunderstood and is still currently debated over in many churches: A "born again" Christian is sealed by the Holy Spirit and CANNOT LOSE HIS/HER SALVATION. Sealed means sealed, saved for all time - it's a done deal. God doesn't seal a person and then change His mind. He knows past, present and future. He knows who will receive Him and who will not. Now, since you are a self proclaimed "mature" Christian, then let me help you to advance to the next level: YOU CAN'T LOSE YOUR SALVATION. It's a promise. No one can snatch us out of the Father's hand. Yet there are scriptures that apparently suggest otherwise. These scriptures confuse people. So, if you can't lose your salvation and the Bible does not contradict itself, then the scriptures cannot mean what they may appear to mean. AND if you are attending a church that teaches that you can lose your salvation based on those scriptures, (even if it taught 98% sound doctrines), then you just have to understand that it taught you wrong. I think the security of our salvation crucial doctrine, the .
People who fall away and lose faith, never really had it to begin with and many verses pertain to those people. The parable of the sower of the seed explains it perfectly. Some just don't have their roots firmly planted and their seed never nourished properly. If God seals you, your seed will grow. There are scriptures that speak of "blotting out" or "cutting off" of the branch that is connected to the vine. Those scriptures have to be discussed individually in context and discernment is needed to get over these doubts. Believe me, I've met knowledgeable Christians that are gifted that have doubts about the security of their salvation.
That's it. If you want to believe that verse is talking about Christians and that you can lose your salvation, go ahead, you'll find out soon enough. As for me, I am sealed and secure.
This is an interesting thought, the phrase, "God Bless You ... and keep you". Gee, I wonder where that additional thought came from? (as if you won't keep you for any particular reason)

 

[razzelflabben]

"Remember, the people in the passage we are talking about in context were those that were partaking in the HS and you claimed they were unbelievers"
No, the reference is about Jews who rejected Christ (past tense), not a reference to Christians. So I do believe the book of Hebrews was given to the Hebrew Christians. That particular verse was a warning; that even though they were the chosen nation, who were given the LAW and the PROPHETS, the multitude of blessings, gifts and promised land, experienced God, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and miracles; that if after a that history, they rejected Jesus, that was the deal breaker and it would be impossible for them to be drawn back to God. For instance, the Pharisees rejected Him and ordered Him to be crucified - once they went down that path, it would be impossible for them and all who shouted crucify Him, to come to Christ afterward. That's my take on it ... no other way I can explain it

so, now you change your claim...cool, I can work with that...you claim that HEb. 6 is referring to the Jews who rejected Christ...(past tense of course) what does that make them? Wouldn't that make them unbelieving Jews? You know, like I previously claimed you said they were? Anyone who rejects Christ is an unbeliever, right? Can we at least agree on that? If not, what are they?

Okay, next point...We already know that you do not think this is referring to believers, not sure why you tried to make it sound like that wasn't understood, but no matter, you then say, "the particular verse was a warning...." Before we can get into what the intent of the passage is, we have to deal with the context of who is being talked about here. Obviously you believe that it is the ones who rejected Christ, that is past tense...which I have not only accepted as your claim but asked you to evidence in context and/or the totality of scripture. But, you refuse.

So here it is again, once you explain this in a logical manner we can more on to the intent of the passage because as long as our premise is different, we cannot even come to an agreement of what the passage is telling us. Being that there is only 1 HS and He is the interpreter of the word, there can only be one right answer here as well. Thus, you have to evidence your claim through scripture. If you notice, none of these contradictions apply to my interpretation of the text, only to yours, so you have the hard job, I just have to keep asking the same questions over and over till you either answer, or flame enough to close the thread.

If this passage is talking about those who rejected Christ in the past, as per your claim, we have several problems with context. 1. according to the context, we are talking about those that are living by faith not by law, which is only believers. Thus, if you want to claim that these are those who in the past rejected Christ to remain in the Jewish traditions of sacrifices etc., you need to show scripture that tells us that the OT Jews were living by faith not by the law...since I know that isn't what it says, I'll stick with what the text says, but maybe i missed something so feel free to show me the passages I have missed that show those living by the law actually not living by the law but by faith.

2. you still refuse to reconcile the problem with partaking in the HS. According to the text, these people that you say rejected Christ in the past, are also partaking of the HS and the sharing in the ministry of the HS to share the gospel of Christ with the world. Now, if they have rejected Christ, how is it that they are sharing in the ministry of sharing Christ with the world through the HS? See, that is a contradiction right there between what the text says and what you claim it means.

3. Now we come to another glaring problem with your claim. According to you these are those that rejected Christ in the past...yet the text says, that they cannot return to the saving knowledge of Christ. If they never believed, if they rejected in the past, what are they returning to that never happened in the first place?

"Therefore you need to show where in the bible that God used unbelievers to give them the HS for the sake of spreading the gospel of Christ" ---- I never made that made that claim and you a twisting and misunderstanding what I said.

you said that this passage was talking about Jews who rejected Christ. The context of the passage says that they were partaking of the HS....thus, if your theory holds true, that this is talking about those who reject Christ, aka unbelieving Jews, then you must show where God used the HS to work through unbelievers to spread the gospel of the Christ they didn't believe in, as per what the text tells us about the people in question. Doesn't matter if you directly said it or not, it is the consequence of the interpretation you present and thus is yours to address.

OK, I was wrong thinking you were a new believer. Didn't mean to flame you either. So there must be another reason why you do not have security in your salvation - since you are insisting that this passage pertains to true Christians.

Now, why would you apologize for flaming me then turn around and flame me again? What do you think that gains you? As I have repeatedly told you, both myself and the non OSAS doctrine hold very tightly to the security of our salvation. So to try to twist what I am showing you in Heb. 6 into a false claim against my beliefs and the NON OSAS teaching is just more attempts to flame, presumably to shut down the thread because you can't answer the questions asked of your belief. You see, every true teacher, must first learn to be a student, something you seem unwilling to do.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty. This is a fundamental truth that has been distorted, misunderstood and is still currently debated over in many churches: A "born again" Christian is sealed by the Holy Spirit and CANNOT LOSE HIS/HER SALVATION. Sealed means sealed, saved for all time - it's a done deal. God doesn't seal a person and then change His mind.

1. why would you remove our look at what scripture teaches in order to go down a rabbit hole that does not exist? As I have said and shown, both myself and non OSAS teaching believes and holds very dearly the truth that we are secure in Christ. In fact, when our son died, one of the verses we used at the funeral was Romans 8:38-39...but that isn't what we are talking about, so doesn't apply to our discussion. You see, we are absolutely sealed, secure, etc. in our salvation and we have the HS to testify to that truth, you know a guarantee. But notice in context of Heb. 6 what it says of the people in question...they were partaking of the HS that is our guarantee of salvation. Thus the question how can someone who is partaking of the guarantee of our salvation not be saved? But you refuse to answer this question because you would rather reinvent NON OSAS teaching into something it doesn't say so that your arguments sound wise in your own eyes. Nothing can remove us from God's hand...but we can reject Him just like Heb. 6, Matt 13, and Phil. 2 all three tell us we can do. That does nothing to our understanding of security in Christ, in fact, it enhances it, making our security in Christ even greater than it is in OSAS teaching because it allows God to maintain His nature while testifying to the truth of our salvation and trust in Him, not in ourselves.

He knows past, present and future. He knows who will receive Him and who will not. Now, since you are a self proclaimed "mature" Christian, then let me help you to advance to the next level: YOU CAN'T LOSE YOUR SALVATION. It's a promise.

really, and you don't think this is just more flaming

No one can snatch us out of the Father's hand.

since I have loudly and clearly been proclaiming this from the moment I began talking about salvation, I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if it was not said or believed.

Let me tell you a story, it might scare someone like you off, but bear with me none the less. I first came to Christ at the age of 6. My coming to Christ, broke a stronghold in my family that Satan held for years and years and years. The result is that Satan tried to attack me and get me to turn away from, you know reject Christ. I refused, but the point of the story is in how Satan tried to turn me away. You see, every night, I would have demonic visitations. At 6 years old, I had no idea what was going on, but God, in His faithfulness, showed me that as long as I was secure in Christ, that is seeking Him, nothing could hurt me. Not demons, not my family, not the world, nothing at all could harm me as long as I belonged to Christ. And so, I stayed faithful to Him for nigh on 49 years now. Passionately and faithfully in Love with God.

But the key to the whole thing is that I must belong to Him. If I reject Him, if I turn from Him, if I walk away, He can't protect me, because I no longer belong to Him. But, that is the real heart of the issue isn't it? You can't defeat NON OSAS teaching unless you first reinvent the teaching to suit your arguments? Which is dishonest and sinful but you have to know that by now, being such a wise teacher and all.

Yet there are scriptures that apparently suggest otherwise. These scriptures confuse people. So, if you can't lose your salvation and the Bible does not contradict itself, then the scriptures cannot mean what they may appear to mean. AND if you are attending a church that teaches that you can lose your salvation based on those scriptures, (even if it taught 98% sound doctrines), then you just have to understand that it taught you wrong.

actually, the only teaching I care about is what scripture teaches, but then again, that is why I keep asking you about passages that you refuse to reason with me about, because those passages combined with the ones you love, teach us a different truth than what you are teaching.

I think the security of our salvation crucial doctrine, the.
People who fall away and lose faith, never really had it to begin with and many verses pertain to those people.

yet when asked to show that in the context of passages like Heb. 6, Phil. 2, and Matt 13, you fail to even try and instead resort to flaming and changing the topic along with reinventing non OSAS teaching so that you can sound like you know something no one else knows.

The parable of the sower of the seed explains it perfectly. Some just don't have their roots firmly planted and their seed never nourished properly. If God seals you, your seed will grow.

wow, well that isn't the part of the parable that is being questioned, but you interpretation leaves us with a whole bunch of problems because it leaves us wondering when exactly we are saved. IOW's if you are right here, then when the seed starts to root, we aren't really saved, because the roots aren't deep enough. So how long does one need to be a believer before the roots are deep enough to make us secure in Christ? Man, this is scary stuff you are teaching now, cause it means that salvation is more than belief of the heart, more than baptism, more than all the things scripture teaches us salvation is, and instead you teach works righteousness, cause I have to mature in Christ before I am rooted enough to be secure in my salvation...ouch...that is just some messed up theology there.

Now, I am sure you will come back and say that I misrepresented you, but let me quote what you said, just so we are clear..."Some just don't have their roots firmly planted and their seed never nourished properly. If God seals you, your seed will grow." IOW"s you are saying that God doesn't seal those whose roots aren't deep enough yet to be nourished properly...that means that when we first come to Christ, before the roots have time to develop and take hold, we are not really believers unto salvation. Oh, man is that scary teaching....when then are we mature enough to be secure in God's hands?

I even asked my husband to tell me what your words said, not some hidden meaning you want me to draw from them, and he said the same thing. BY what you say here, your theology says that the new believer is not secure in Christ. That is scary stuff right there.

There are scriptures that speak of "blotting out" or "cutting off" of the branch that is connected to the vine. Those scriptures have to be discussed individually in context and discernment is needed to get over these doubts. Believe me, I've met knowledgeable Christians that are gifted that have doubts about the security of their salvation.

well, first, those scriptures aren't even on the table at this point and second, I have no doubts about my salvation, so instead of talking to your imaginary friends, how about talking to me since I am here.

That's it. If you want to believe that verse is talking about Christians and that you can lose your salvation, go ahead, you'll find out soon enough. As for me, I am sealed and secure.

again, you refuse to answer the question of your beliefs so that you can reinvent what I am saying into something different and thus pretend you don't have to answer the question. I can keep asking the question until you flame me enough to close the thread or you can simply answer it as a righteous person would be willing to do. In HEb. 6, we are told that the JEws you claim rejected Christ in the past, are partaking of the HS through a faith that doesn't exist in the OT rituals...how is it possible for a person who has rejected Christ to partake in the work of the HS through the HS through faith in the Christ they do not believe in? It's really a simple question, not sure why you are being so stubborn...oh, wait, I do know, because you think you can flame me into shutting down the thread and thus reinvent the non OSAS argument in order to spread your "wisdom" that doesn't fit the scriptures in question.

This is an interesting thought, the phrase, "God Bless You ... and keep you". Gee, I wonder where that additional thought came from? (as if you won't keep you for any particular reason)

See, more of the same flaming...in my understanding of flaming, if you continue to reinvent someone elses argument to suit your whim even after repeatedly being shown that your reinvention is a misrepresentation, it is flaming. Which is exactly what you are doing here. You have been repeatedly told and shown that Non OSAS teaching and my personal beliefs as well, believe and rely on our security in Christ, yet you can't address any issues with your teaching without first reinventing and misrepresenting the teaching into no security which is false witness and sinful techniques.

So, back to the questions you refuse to answer.

1. does God force us to accept for reject Christ?
2. does God force us to remain in Him?
3. what scripture tells us that the people in Heb. 6 that are said to be partaking of the HS and living by faith not law are Jews that reject Christ when that is contrary to what scripture tells us?

 

[Ronald]

so, now you change your claim...cool, I can work with that...you claim that HEb. 6 is referring to the Jews who rejected Christ...(past tense of course) what does that make them? Wouldn't that make them unbelieving Jews? You know, like I previously claimed you said they were? Anyone who rejects Christ is an unbeliever, right? Can we at least agree on that? If not, what are they?

Okay, next point...We already know that you do not think this is referring to believers, not sure why you tried to make it sound like that wasn't understood, but no matter, you then say, "the particular verse was a warning...." Before we can get into what the intent of the passage is, we have to deal with the context of who is being talked about here. Obviously you believe that it is the ones who rejected Christ, that is past tense...which I have not only accepted as your claim but asked you to evidence in context and/or the totality of scripture. But, you refuse.

So here it is again, once you explain this in a logical manner we can more on to the intent of the passage because as long as our premise is different, we cannot even come to an agreement of what the passage is telling us. Being that there is only 1 HS and He is the interpreter of the word, there can only be one right answer here as well. Thus, you have to evidence your claim through scripture. If you notice, none of these contradictions apply to my interpretation of the text, only to yours, so you have the hard job, I just have to keep asking the same questions over and over till you either answer, or flame enough to close the thread.

If this passage is talking about those who rejected Christ in the past, as per your claim, we have several problems with context. 1. according to the context, we are talking about those that are living by faith not by law, which is only believers. Thus, if you want to claim that these are those who in the past rejected Christ to remain in the Jewish traditions of sacrifices etc., you need to show scripture that tells us that the OT Jews were living by faith not by the law...since I know that isn't what it says, I'll stick with what the text says, but maybe i missed something so feel free to show me the passages I have missed that show those living by the law actually not living by the law but by faith.

2. you still refuse to reconcile the problem with partaking in the HS. According to the text, these people that you say rejected Christ in the past, are also partaking of the HS and the sharing in the ministry of the HS to share the gospel of Christ with the world. Now, if they have rejected Christ, how is it that they are sharing in the ministry of sharing Christ with the world through the HS? See, that is a contradiction right there between what the text says and what you claim it means.

3. Now we come to another glaring problem with your claim. According to you these are those that rejected Christ in the past...yet the text says, that they cannot return to the saving knowledge of Christ. If they never believed, if they rejected in the past, what are they returning to that never happened in the first place? you said that this passage was talking about Jews who rejected Christ. The context of the passage says that they were partaking of the HS....thus, if your theory holds true, that this is talking about those who reject Christ, aka unbelieving Jews, then you must show where God used the HS to work through unbelievers to spread the gospel of the Christ they didn't believe in, as per what the text tells us about the people in question. Doesn't matter if you directly said it or not, it is the consequence of the interpretation you present and thus is yours to address. Now, why would you apologize for flaming me then turn around and flame me again? What do you think that gains you? As I have repeatedly told you, both myself and the non OSAS doctrine hold very tightly to the security of our salvation. So to try to twist what I am showing you in Heb. 6 into a false claim against my beliefs and the NON OSAS teaching is just more attempts to flame, presumably to shut down the thread because you can't answer the questions asked of your belief. You see, every true teacher, must first learn to be a student, something you seem unwilling to do. 1. why would you remove our look at what scripture teaches in order to go down a rabbit hole that does not exist? As I have said and shown, both myself and non OSAS teaching believes and holds very dearly the truth that we are secure in Christ. In fact, when our son died, one of the verses we used at the funeral was Romans 8:38-39...but that isn't what we are talking about, so doesn't apply to our discussion. You see, we are absolutely sealed, secure, etc. in our salvation and we have the HS to testify to that truth, you know a guarantee. But notice in context of Heb. 6 what it says of the people in question...they were partaking of the HS that is our guarantee of salvation. Thus the question how can someone who is partaking of the guarantee of our salvation not be saved? But you refuse to answer this question because you would rather reinvent NON OSAS teaching into something it doesn't say so that your arguments sound wise in your own eyes. Nothing can remove us from God's hand...but we can reject Him just like Heb. 6, Matt 13, and Phil. 2 all three tell us we can do. That does nothing to our understanding of security in Christ, in fact, it enhances it, making our security in Christ even greater than it is in OSAS teaching because it allows God to maintain His nature while testifying to the truth of our salvation and trust in Him, not in ourselves. really, and you don't think this is just more flaming since I have loudly and clearly been proclaiming this from the moment I began talking about salvation, I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if it was not said or believed.

Let me tell you a story, it might scare someone like you off, but bear with me none the less. I first came to Christ at the age of 6. My coming to Christ, broke a stronghold in my family that Satan held for years and years and years. The result is that Satan tried to attack me and get me to turn away from, you know reject Christ. I refused, but the point of the story is in how Satan tried to turn me away. You see, every night, I would have demonic visitations. At 6 years old, I had no idea what was going on, but God, in His faithfulness, showed me that as long as I was secure in Christ, that is seeking Him, nothing could hurt me. Not demons, not my family, not the world, nothing at all could harm me as long as I belonged to Christ. And so, I stayed faithful to Him for nigh on 49 years now. Passionately and faithfully in Love with God.

But the key to the whole thing is that I must belong to Him. If I reject Him, if I turn from Him, if I walk away, He can't protect me, because I no longer belong to Him. But, that is the real heart of the issue isn't it? You can't defeat NON OSAS teaching unless you first reinvent the teaching to suit your arguments? Which is dishonest and sinful but you have to know that by now, being such a wise teacher and all. actually, the only teaching I care about is what scripture teaches, but then again, that is why I keep asking you about passages that you refuse to reason with me about, because those passages combined with the ones you love, teach us a different truth than what you are teaching. yet when asked to show that in the context of passages like Heb. 6, Phil. 2, and Matt 13, you fail to even try and instead resort to flaming and changing the topic along with reinventing non OSAS teaching so that you can sound like you know something no one else knows. wow, well that isn't the part of the parable that is being questioned, but you interpretation leaves us with a whole bunch of problems because it leaves us wondering when exactly we are saved. IOW's if you are right here, then when the seed starts to root, we aren't really saved, because the roots aren't deep enough. So how long does one need to be a believer before the roots are deep enough to make us secure in Christ? Man, this is scary stuff you are teaching now, cause it means that salvation is more than belief of the heart, more than baptism, more than all the things scripture teaches us salvation is, and instead you teach works righteousness, cause I have to mature in Christ before I am rooted enough to be secure in my salvation...ouch...that is just some messed up theology there.

Now, I am sure you will come back and say that I misrepresented you, but let me quote what you said, just so we are clear..."Some just don't have their roots firmly planted and their seed never nourished properly. If God seals you, your seed will grow." IOW"s you are saying that God doesn't seal those whose roots aren't deep enough yet to be nourished properly...that means that when we first come to Christ, before the roots have time to develop and take hold, we are not really believers unto salvation. Oh, man is that scary teaching....when then are we mature enough to be secure in God's hands?

I even asked my husband to tell me what your words said, not some hidden meaning you want me to draw from them, and he said the same thing. BY what you say here, your theology says that the new believer is not secure in Christ. That is scary stuff right there. well, first, those scriptures aren't even on the table at this point and second, I have no doubts about my salvation, so instead of talking to your imaginary friends, how about talking to me since I am here. again, you refuse to answer the question of your beliefs so that you can reinvent what I am saying into something different and thus pretend you don't have to answer the question. I can keep asking the question until you flame me enough to close the thread or you can simply answer it as a righteous person would be willing to do. In HEb. 6, we are told that the JEws you claim rejected Christ in the past, are partaking of the HS through a faith that doesn't exist in the OT rituals...how is it possible for a person who has rejected Christ to partake in the work of the HS through the HS through faith in the Christ they do not believe in? It's really a simple question, not sure why you are being so stubborn...oh, wait, I do know, because you think you can flame me into shutting down the thread and thus reinvent the non OSAS argument in order to spread your "wisdom" that doesn't fit the scriptures in question. See, more of the same flaming...in my understanding of flaming, if you continue to reinvent someone elses argument to suit your whim even after repeatedly being shown that your reinvention is a misrepresentation, it is flaming. Which is exactly what you are doing here. You have been repeatedly told and shown that Non OSAS teaching and my personal beliefs as well, believe and rely on our security in Christ, yet you can't address any issues with your teaching without first reinventing and misrepresenting the teaching into no security which is false witness and sinful techniques.

So, back to the questions you refuse to answer.

1. does God force us to accept for reject Christ?
2. does God force us to remain in Him?
3. what scripture tells us that the people in Heb. 6 that are said to be partaking of the HS and living by faith not law are Jews that reject Christ when that is contrary to what scripture tells us?

If you did not understand my explanation and that is not good enough then there is nothing more I can say. It looks like you have a lot of time on your hands, I don't, still work and have a family. A short commentary addressing one scripture is all I can do. You seem to want a chapter. Just disregard my post and research a John MacArthur's commentary or some other scholar.

 

[razzelflabben]

If you did not understand my explanation and that is not good enough then there is nothing more I can say. It looks like you have a lot of time on your hands, I don't, still work and have a family. A short commentary addressing one scripture is all I can do. You seem to want a chapter. Just disregard my post and research a John MacArthur's commentary or some other scholar.

I don't have as much time as you think, but I do spend as much time as I can in the word and studying it to show myself approved rather than just casually reading some man's version of what I should believe and leave it at that.

As to the rest of this, answering a simple question is no where close to a short commentary address of the passage. You made a claim that doesn't add up to the context of the passage. I asked you to show how it does, you refused, so I asked you to show in scripture any time in which someone, Jew or Gentile that rejected Christ, partook of the HS ministry to share the gospel of Christ in faith, not law as per your claim of what the passage is talking about. That would require nothing more than a simple passage, not a commentary. But again, you refuse and instead resorted to inflammatory remarks. Why is it so hard for you to confess that you are wrong on this matter? I mean, if you were right, I know for sure you would have time to post a single passage of support given how many posts you fill with insults. Presenting a single passage takes a lot less time to do than post after post of inflammatory responses and reinventing other peoples teachings so you can have an argument. IN fact, reinventing teachings and thinking up insults takes a lot more time than looking up a passage you claim exists but fail to provide.

Ah well, pride is an ugly thing...may our Lord exercise grace as He humbles you (as HE does all of us). May you exercise grace in accepting His corrections, HIs instructions, His Love.