Ordinances...

[ZealouS]

The "thread drift" makes me laugh because here I am taking part in it! lol Life is awesome. - Jed

 

[Rescued One]

How can one be saved if they turn away from faith? It makes no sense to me.

Christians do not believe the unsaved have genuine faith. Those people were never saved.

1 John 2
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

[jeffC]

What of those whose names are blotted out of the Book of
Life?

What is your reference for names being blotted out of the book of life?

The first reference is Rev 3:5 which was part of my last post. Jesus' message is to a
community of believers that a) have already accepted Jesus as the Savior and Son of God

and b) have accepted the gospel of Jesus and have or had faith in Him.

Rev.3:1 AND unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things
saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that
thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have
not found thy works perfect before God.
3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and
repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou
shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and
they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot
out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father,
and before his angels.


​

These were saints - their names were already written in the book. If they did not repent,
their names would be removed from the book. Was this an empty threat by the Lord? No, the
real consequence of not enduring to the end is to not receive the promise of eternal
life. This is made even more clear by the rest of Ch. 1 & 2. To "overcome" was
associated with the actions of: being watchful, strengthening the truth, having works
perfect before God, and remembering the truth.

Rev. ch. 1 & 2 contains messages to seven churches of saints. In the messages, the saints
are rebuked for their works and told to repent. Then they are told that if they overcome
(future tense) they will receive eternal life. In some of the messages, the saints
are praised for their faith in Jesus and their willingness to undergo persecutions; then
they are told that [SIZE=+1]if[/SIZE] they overcome [future tense] and endure to the end they will
receive eternal life.



Can someones name be blotted out of the book of life? Yes.

Ex. 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me,
him will I blot out of my book.

Paul, to believing baptised saints: "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (Heb.
10:26)

2 Pet. 2:20-21 "For if after [converted Christians] have escaped the pollutions of the
world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again
entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than,
after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

​

Who is he that overcomes? And what is the victory that overcomes?
1John 5
4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that
overcometh the world, even our faith.

First, the definition of who is born of God and who has faith is an aside from the above
topic. The notion presented in Rev 3:5 is that of "being blotted out of the book of
life." Obviously to get into the book in the first place one must have faith and be born
of God. The matter at hand is can such a one as is in the book of life be blotted out
from said book.

Second, the context of 1 Jn 5 is separate from that presented in Rev 3:5. Rev 3:5 speaks
to those who already believe in Jesus Christ, and does not mention overcoming "the world"
but overcoming trials, temptations, repenting and enduring to the end.

Third, the context of the book of 1 Jn provides one long look at what it means to be born of God,
have faith in God, and love God. These are one who does righteousness and keeps the

commandments:

1 Jn 2:29 "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that
doeth righteousness is born of him.

1 Jn 5:2-3 "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep
His commandments.
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not
grievous.

1 Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby
we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1 Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that
loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not
seen?


​

And finally, what is the victory that overcometh the world?

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and
tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his
son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made
perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed
unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.



​

 

[Swart]

Christians do not believe the unsaved have genuine faith. Those people were never saved.

Interesting. Since that quote was posted by an OC on another OC website.

I'm becoming increasingly intolerant of this false dichotomy you employ. In future I will post on a point-of-order when I see it.

I don't think you speak for all Christians. In this case you are effectively saying that only Calvinists are Christians - since this is a Calvinist opinion.

 

[Ran77]

This thread of Zealous' has been subject to the most serious case of thread drift I've ever seen! It was meant to be a discussion of LDS ordinances and what ordinances we consider to be the most important.

All went fine for nearly two pages. There was some slight thread drift but the posters apologise, corrected themselves and reverted to the OP.

In post 20, Tawhano queried me on Smith Wigglesworth as (I assume) a Point-of-order on the ordinance of the gift of the HG. This was our first fork. I followed up in this with post 35 and the arc continued through 37 (Tawhano), 38 (Daneel), 51 (myself), 58 (Tawhano), 62 (myself),

Post 22 was our first humour related interjected (by BM of course). It was followed up on by Apex (post 24)

PA then came in with post 25 that (to me at least) appeared to have nothing to do with the OP, nor any other post up to that point either. Her post was about perfection. We have one quote from the Bible, one from SWK and two from the BOM. None of the quotes were from topics that were in any way related. I can only see this as an attempt to sabotage the thread.

BM followed up on PA in post 26 with another humour post (not a very good one). PA did one with post 27. BM followed that with 28. TheWay tried to contribute some humour with post 29. Apex's contribution was #30. Humour posts continued with post 36 (mine), 40 (BM),

Ran77 took PA's bait with post 31, essentially castigating PA for misrepresentation and restated the LDS belief on "perfection".

Post 32 was PA's response to Ran77 in which she used TuQuoque to deflect the discussion into a Salvation vs Exaltation argument. This is a clear example of deliberate thread hijacking. More out of context quotes were used to bolster this argument. Not once did PA attempt to answer Ran's rebuttal. PA pretended as though it never existed.

In Post 33, Ran confronted PA with her refusal to acknowledge his rebuttal and introduce new material not germaine to the discussion at hand. At this point, Ran introduced the OSAS question for the first time.

Post 34 involved PA on the defensive, interjecting one-line answers finishing with "What is the point of salvation (eternal life) if it isn't everlasting? If it is merely a temporary thing, then God wouldn't refer to it as eternal life." in answer to the OSAS question.

In post 39 Ran stated that he wanted a conclusive yes or no if PA accepted OSAS. The question was questioned by PA in post 41. RPJ restated the question in post 42.

PA answered the OSAS question in post 43 with a non answer.

McGregor posted a quote from the Bible in post 44 and claimed that meant Baptism was not important. Presumably this was disputing that no ordinances are important and thus (I suppose) obliquely in line with the OP. JeffC followed up on this with post 48. Post 45, also by McGregor, seemed to contain within it its own answer.

Continuing with the OSAS arc, Ran commented in post 47 that PA hadn't answered the question. He then restarted the question.

The thread effectively concluded with post 49 where Zealous thanked Ran and myself for our answers. He acknowledged the growing discussion of OSAS by stating that he believed in OSAS. A point strangely ignored by all parties - particularly since Zealous was the OP.

Zealous' post should have really closed the thread. However, it has continued on with accelerating pace gaining a life of its own - mainly due to PAs refusal to state categorically if she accepted OSAS. In post 50, PA restated her previous non-answer, mandating that LDS state what they mean by salvation. I interjected on this with an OT post 60. This continued with post 61 (Apex),

At this point, I attempted to make the question more acceptable in post 52 by redefining the question as a discussion on PS. Wrig seemed to take offense at this with his post 53 claiming I didn't understand PS, thus spawning yet another arc. Wrig also objected to JeffC's understanding of OSAS in post 54 and RPJ's understanding in post 55.

This arc of "you don't know" continued in post 56 (Apex), 57 (PA). In post 59 I presented my understanding of OSAS as part of PS as it has been explained to me and as I understand it from two perspectives and why I believe them to be incorrect. I also invited criticism of my understanding of the teachings.

Things get a little confusing from here on working out who is responding to what.

OSAS discussion continues from this point on basically along the lines of:

• LDS don't understand what OSAS is all about
• ECs can't agree on what they mean with OSAS

I've read through the posts and that's basically the crux of the matter (except when involving ad hominem) and it probably deserves it's own thread or two.

In post 72 PA posted an objection to my understanding of one version of OSAS as it has been presented to me. That's fine, I can appreciate that, just understand there are some people out there that do believe that. She also asked me a number of excellent questions that I addressed in post 74. In post 73 she answered my question about PS with another non-answer question that I addressed in post 75.

In all of this, somehow another arc was spawned on scripture vs revelation.

In post 78, Wrigley claimed my understanding of PS was a strawman - despite my challenge to demonstrate that my understanding is incorrect. In post 79 wrig challenged me to post a link - my answer is that it would be a rule 3 violation to do so. I know because I've received a rule 3 alert for this exact link.

PAs post 80 was lauded as an exposition of what OSAS means by wrigley. I dunno. I'll have to read it more carefully and perhaps start a thread on it specifically. In post 82 PA gave me a challenge that I'll respond to later in this post.

To be honest, after here it gets kinda boring for me and appears to be a broken record of what I've already posted, but descending into ad hominem and the alternately giving and taken of offence. Ran attempted to get the OSAS discussion back on track with post 104, but it was already too late. The point-of-order has gained a life of it's own and I intend to start a thread specifically on it so we can let this one die a natural death.

What amazed me was that wrig claimed in post 109 that it was DS who were deflecting!!! A review of this thread like the one I've done will show the opposite is the case. McGregor slapped wrig on the back with post 110.

The rest of this thread continued with the scriptures vs revelation arc.

Now to my final comments before I start the OSAS thread:



Tozer at least understood this belief was common in ECy:



This shows that Tozer believed that salvation was conditional upon repentance and that we are not saved by faith alone. He also states that the converse is widely accepted.

It also appears from his statements that Tozer believes a person can be a Christian, yet not be saved. Tozer clearly believs a person's salvation is conditioned upon their actions in this life and that a person may lose their salvation through their actions.

I'll continue this in the other thread. But feel free to correct any mistakes I have made here. My purpose is not to discredit Tozer or anybody else but to determine the full range and thought of OSAS.

Swart,

Excellent breakdown of the thread so far. Good work.


I can see my part of taking this thread off course and apologize to ZealouS for that. Then exit over to the appropriate thread to discuss OSAS.

Thanks

 

[Orontes]

Through the Bible we come to know of Jesus Christ, the savior of the world. He is complete truth and we need no other book since the Bible speaks of him more then any other book. Through the two greatest commandments we are given all the teachings we need. Final.

This reply doesn't answer my question(s). Final means last. What justifies the claim the Bible is the last written word?

Revelation and the Bible go hand in hand. Revelation will never contradict the Bible nor the Bible contradict revelation. So the answer is yes, I do believe in revelation.

Why will revelation never contradict the Bible? Does this mean it cannot? Does the Bible constrain God? The Bible itself has many examples of God changing course and of commandants to do a thing that are later changed. If the text admits Divine variance then why wouldn't that be the case beyond the text as well?

You have failed to prove that what I have stated is in violation of loving thy neighbor. I can show you where Christ himself used hyperbole in order to drive his point home...

An example of Christ using hyperbole:
Luke 14:26
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

I can also find hyperbolic accusations in the Bible but I think you get the point.

Do you consider Luke 14:26 as a hyperbolic accusation (HA)? If so who is being accused and what is the accusation? If not, then your example doesn't relate to the point which is your own use HA. If I understand correctly you want to argue that HA is nonetheless an example of loving one's neighbor is that right?

Do you believe that all accusations and questions are done out of hatred? My posts have contained questions that I felt should be asked.

I think accusations suggest wrong doing. Those who make accusation need to then demonstrate the wrong doing. If they cannot then that says something about the accuser. In inter-faith discussions accusations against other churches may very well stem from hostility.

Onto the matter of foolisness, did I call the poster foolish or the article he quoted? There is a diffrence. I can say that a post is foolishness without believing someone to be a fool, just as I can admit that I have posted foolishly before. A day probabley doesnt go by that I dont do or say a foolish thing.

So you want to stress the difference between the post as foolish and the poster? OK, why was the post foolish? Are you familiar with satire? What you wrote immediately after dismissing the article as foolish was about the Patriarchs and the Mosaic Law even though the Mosaic Law was never mentioned. Was this meant to suggest that prior to Moses coming down off the Mountain there was no moral order? Is so then why, for example, was Cain punished? If that isn't your intended point then why is the Mosaic Law relevant? If it isn't relevant then what does that say about the charge of foolishness?

The litany of scriptures referenced (the parable of the virgins etc.) was to demonstrate you believe charging someone a fool is following the Second Great Commandment: is that correct?

Finally I will say that a prophet, a true leader, and a follower of the way would probabley let himself be slain for he would not fear death.

The adverb use means this is not a definitive stance with you? The above doesn't answer my questions about what motive you question. Neither does it explain the proper course when attacked by a mob in prison unless it is prophets are not to defend themselves because they have nothing to fear in the afterlife. Is this idea based on any larger standard or is it your own? It seems Joseph expected to be killed and allowed himself to be taken into custody. It also seems the pistol was given to him by someone else after he was in the jail. Is it your view that a prophet shouldn't defend any with him because any companions shouldn't fear death either? The proper course then is to watch the slaughter? If prophets are allowed to protect people from dying could Joseph's actions be interpreted that way? why/why not?

You didn't address the charge of a Church cover up and why this is also an example of the Second Great Commandment.

With all the above being said, this debate occuring betwen you and I is foolishness.

Is this because you feel you should be able to deride and make accusations at leisure?

 

[Orontes]

Which explains why mormonism is so far off the right track. The anchor is not used.

Why is the Bible the anchor? There are questions you didn't answer. I'll remind you:

[SIZE=+0]

How do you know the Bible is the final word?

Also, which Bible are you referring to? Is this the Ethiopic Bible? Is this the Armenian Bible? Is this the Catholic Bible? Is this the Protestant Bible? These are a few of the options: once you've chosen, then tell me what is the justification for the choice and how does that impact the notion of "all of Christianity" noted above?

The Bible.

Is this answer for all the questions I asked? One knows the Bible is the final written word because: the Bible? This seems to beg the question some.

Regarding which Bible, the answer is the Bible? Does this mean all are equally acceptable?

[/SIZE]

 

[Rescued One]

Interesting. Since that quote was posted by an OC on another OC website.

I said, "Christians do not believe the unsaved have genuine faith." Can you name one unsaved person who has genuine faith? No, because you are not omniscient. Ask any saved person and they will tell you that you that the unsaved are not yet Christians. We do not believe that church membership equals salvation. Do you?

I don't think you speak for all Christians. In this case you are effectively saying that only Calvinists are Christians - since this is a Calvinist opinion.

I did NOT say that. I don't know the number of Arminians or Calvinists that are Christians.

 

[Rescued One]

jeffC,

Rev. 3:5
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot
out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father,
and before his angels.

Who is he that overcomes?

1 John 5
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?


Faith without works is dead faith. However, works don't save anyone. They are a result of the new birth from above. "Ye must be born again."

1 John 5
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1 John 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby
we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

The Spirit bears witness to us. Yes, God is sanctifying all believers. We have been turned from darkness to light. We are sanctified by faith that is in Him.

The Book of Life is only one of the books.

Revelation 20
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

If they did not repent,
their names would be removed from the book.

There is no account of the Christian's name being removed from the Book of Life.

Romans 8
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[Rescued One]

Ex. 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me,
him will I blot out of my book.

Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1 Timothy 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (Heb. 10:26)

Hebrews 10:26 never says that anyone can fall away from the state of being saved. It is a hypothetical situation.

Romans 8:
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Remember, "we are more than conquerors through him that loved us!"


1 Peter 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Ephesians 1
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

 

[jeffC]

jeffC,

Rev. 3:5
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot
out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father,
and before his angels.

Who is he that overcomes?

As I said before, the main point is not who overcomes, but once written in the book, can one be blotted out. Do you think the Lord is making an empty threat?

I previously responded to this question by demonstrating that he who is born of God and he who has faith (i.e. he that overcomes) works righteousness. I also pointed out that one must demonstrate that one believes, and not say it only. I also demonstrated how 1 Jn 5:4 is in a different context and does not directly relate to the use of the word "overcome" in Rev 3:5. Rather, Rev. ch. 2 & 3 provide much better context and are addressed to those who are already in the Book of Life. How does one overcome if they are already in the Book of Life?

Faith without works is dead faith. However, works don't save anyone. They are a result of the new birth from above. "Ye must be born again."

Can dead faith save? James says no. "14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." As I have said many times, I agree that works do not save a person - Jesus' forgiveness and atonement do. However, by works faith is made living and a man may be justified. What I take exception to is the notion that works play no role in a person's road to Christ. I disagree that living faith can be separated from works, ever. Even the very acceptance of Jesus is an action - a choice and a work that will be externally manifest in some real sense. I think that a teaching that decouples faith and works is dangerous. Saying that good works come solely from the new birth given of God removes individual responsibility to choose to abandon sin. Of course spiritual strength is received from the Holy Spirit, but ultimately our choices are our own. That is why we will be judged according to our choices. Works are always necessary but never sufficient.

The Book of Life is only one of the books.

How does this impact our discussion?

There is no account of the Christian's name being removed from the Book of Life.

There most certainly are accounts of Christians being condemned. There are seven pertinent examples in the seven messages to the churches in Rev 2 & 3. The epistles are full of warnings against apostate Christians overthrowing the faith of fellow Christians. Paul states that all those in Asia turned away from him. And you ignore the scriptures I previously provided, namely Ex. 32:33, Heb 10:26 and 2 Pet 2:20,21. Note particularly Paul and Peter identify Christians as the recipients of their warnings. Peter is speaking of those who have in fact abandoned Christ when he says: "For if, after they have escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in it and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them."

Romans 8
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I don't believe in any concept of predestination that eliminates free will. I don't find any such teaching scriptural. I believe that can be destined to have the opportunity to make certain choices, but the responsibility is still ours to make them correctly in order to be justified.

 

[Rescued One]

2 Pet. 2:20-21 "For if after [converted Christians] have escaped the pollutions of the
world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again
entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than,
after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

2 Peter 2
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction...

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

The teachers are the main subject of the whole chapter.These teachers are described as continually denying the Lord. These false teachers were not far from the kingdom of God but they didn't obey the truth they knew.

John 3
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.



“Friends, if you came in here today unsaved and you walk out of here unsaved, I am the worst enemy that you have ever had, because you have heard the gospel and you can never go into the presence of God and tell Him that you have never heard the gospel. You have heard it, and it will be worse for you when God pronounces judgment than for any heathen in the darkest part of the earth today.” ---J. Vernon McGee

 

[Rescued One]

How does one overcome if they are already in the Book of Life?

Our names were written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. God wasn't waiting to see what our names were going to be nor was he waiting to see what our actions would be.

1 John 5
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ephesians 1
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:


Revelation 17
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

 

[jeffC]

Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1 Timothy 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

1 John 1:7-2:6
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 MY little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the apropitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole bworld.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his acommandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
​

Hebrews 10:26 never says that anyone can fall away from the state of being saved. It is a hypothetical situation.

really? If it is a situation that can't occur why mention that if someone sins willingly they fall from being saved? What purpose is there in that? Is the whole chapter also hypothetical then?

23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
​

Romans 8:
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Remember, "we are more than conquerors through him that loved us!"

Yes God loves us, but He has given us free will. Though it pains Him when we do not choose Him, it is nonetheless our choice. If salvation were only dependant on God's love, why would not all of humanity be saved? Paul does not list our own selves as unable to seperate our own selves from God. We can seperate ourselves from God, no matter what our knowledge of Him is. Any other way, we do not have free will. Just look at those Peter was condemning in 2 Pet 2:20.

1 Peter 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Ephesians 1
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

God's promises are sure. But we must accept Him in order to receive eternal life.

 

[jeffC]

2 Peter 2
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction...

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

The teachers are the main subject of the whole chapter. These teachers are described as continually denying the Lord. These false teachers were not far from the kingdom of God but they didn't obey the truth they knew.

We are all teachers. Peter speaks of all those who know Christ, and then turn away from him. This is refering to those who were previously Christians. They turned back to wickedness and denied Christ.

John 3
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.



“Friends, if you came in here today unsaved and you walk out of here unsaved, I am the worst enemy that you have ever had, because you have heard the gospel and you can never go into the presence of God and tell Him that you have never heard the gospel. You have heard it, and it will be worse for you when God pronounces judgment than for any heathen in the darkest part of the earth today.” ---J. Vernon McGee

Just becuase one believes on the Son today does not mean that he will not deny Him, in word or deed, tomorrow. To say that God will not permit one who is "saved" from doing so is to remove free will. Where is the line between saved and unsaved? If one has no control over being "unsaved" after being "saved" how does one have any influence over being "saved" in the first place?

 

[jeffC]

Our names were written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. God wasn't waiting to see what our names were going to be nor was he waiting to see what our actions would be.

1 John 5
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ephesians 1
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:


Revelation 17
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

This doesn't respond to the question. Their names are in the book (because the threat is that their names would be blotted out). So if the names are already in the book, why does he tell them to overcome? If they are in the book, what do they need to overcome?

 

[Rescued One]

This doesn't respond to the question. Their names are in the book (because the threat is that their names would be blotted out). So if the names are already in the book, why does he tell them to overcome? If they are in the book, what do they need to overcome?

It isn't if their names are written in the Book of Life---they are written.

When my mother warned me to not play in the street she was still planning to rescue me if I did.

Our faith overcomes. We are encouraged to feed our faith.

God did not threaten to blot our names out of the Book of Life. Nor did He threaten to not give His Son to purchase us with His blood. If His Son has paid for one's sins, will he then allow tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword, death, life, angels, principalities, powers, things present, or things to come to separate us from His love?

 

[Rescued One]

If one has no control over being "unsaved" after being "saved" how does one have any influence over being "saved" in the first place?

What are you asking? Are you telling me that I can save myself? The saved don't become unsaved.

 

[jeffC]

It isn't if their names are written in the Book of Life---they are written.

Apparently I'm not explaining myself well. I agree that the names are written in the book. By the qualification you gave, they are thus saved. What then, must they overcome as Rev 3:5 commands them to do?

 

[ZealouS]

This reply doesn't answer my question(s). Final means last. What justifies the claim the Bible is the last written word?

Can you prove that we need any knowledge beyond what is written in the Bible to be saved? If not, then I see no point in in looking for more information on the subject of Salvation. Do you know of any other book that holds more teaching about Christ and more information about his life?

Why will revelation never contradict the Bible? Does this mean it cannot? Does the Bible constrain God? The Bible itself has many examples of God changing course and of commandants to do a thing that are later changed. If the text admits Divine variance then why wouldn't that be the case beyond the text as well?

I assume you are referring to the Mosaic law that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Christ did not contradict the Mosaic law and the Mosaic law was mainly a prophecy about Christ. A course change did happen but it shows no contradiction. God would never contradict himself nor allow anyone whom was speaking a revelation to contradict something he previously revealed.

Do you consider Luke 14:26 as a hyperbolic accusation (HA)? If so who is being accused and what is the accusation? If not, then your example doesn't relate to the point which is your own use HA. If I understand correctly you want to argue that HA is nonetheless an example of loving one's neighbor is that right?

I was using an example of Christ using hyperbole but if it is hyperbolic accusations you must have, it will be given you.

Luke 6:41
41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

There are of course many example's of hyperbole in the Bible used to accuse men of wrong doing and make them feel the weight of that wrong doing. Some of these are even hyperbolic accusation.

Now I demonstrate this because you claim that just because someone uses hyperbole to make an accusation it is not the way of love. I demonstrate by showing that Christ himself did this and he IS THE WAY of love. Unless you can prove that the use of hyperbole to make an accusation against a person or people is out of place in the Bible then you argument holds no ground and that it is a violation of the second greatest commandment, then your wasting your time bringing the subject up over and over again.

I think accusations suggest wrong doing. Those who make accusation need to then demonstrate the wrong doing. If they cannot then that says something about the accuser. In inter-faith discussions accusations against other churches may very well stem from hostility.

I think I have demonstrated what I believe to be wrong doing. When the men came to capture Elijah, fire rained down from heaven and consumed them. The prophets of the Bible relied on God for protection, not a pistol or sword or any earthly weapon.

So you want to stress the difference between the post as foolish and the poster? OK, why was the post foolish? Are you familiar with satire? What you wrote immediately after dismissing the article as foolish was about the Patriarchs and the Mosaic Law even though the Mosaic Law was never mentioned. Was this meant to suggest that prior to Moses coming down off the Mountain there was no moral order? Is so then why, for example, was Cain punished? If that isn't your intended point then why is the Mosaic Law relevant? If it isn't relevant then what does that say about the charge of foolishness?

I am very familiar with satire. You are comparing the lives of men whom lived before the law of Moses was given to a man who lived after Christ came, 1800 some odd years infact. No doubt, it was common for the things that were listed in the article to be done in their day, right or not. This is not to say that men were without Morals but that these men did not know the law given to Moses. And in a personal opinion, the article was comparing the lives of men chosen by God to a man I do not believe to be chosen by God.

The litany of scriptures referenced (the parable of the virgins etc.) was to demonstrate you believe charging someone a fool is following the Second Great Commandment: is that correct?

Are you suggesting that Christ violated the second commandment by referring to men as fools?

The adverb use means this is not a definitive stance with you? The above doesn't answer my questions about what motive you question. Neither does it explain the proper course when attacked by a mob in prison unless it is prophets are not to defend themselves because they have nothing to fear in the afterlife. Is this idea based on any larger standard or is it your own? It seems Joseph expected to be killed and allowed himself to be taken into custody. It also seems the pistol was given to him by someone else after he was in the jail. Is it your view that a prophet shouldn't defend any with him because any companions shouldn't fear death either? The proper course then is to watch the slaughter? If prophets are allowed to protect people from dying could Joseph's actions be interpreted that way? why/why not?

Prophets brought men back from the dead. If Joseph Smith knew when and how he were to be killed, would not the Christian thing to do be to surrender yourself before the shooting even starts? Is this not showing love for your enemies to? By since he had such a great fore knowledge of the event, shouldnt he have surrendered himself to spare those with him and his enemies from harm, just as Christ did? Face it, Joseph Smith acted as a wolf on the day of his death, not as a lamb.

Mathew 7:15-20
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

You didn't address the charge of a Church cover up and why this is also an example of the Second Great Commandment.

It isnt a cover up in the fact that they destroyed the information of how things truly unfolded but it is a cover up in the sense that the true events are rarely told. The fact that 3 men were shot by Joseph Smith, two of whom died, is excluded from many of the accounts. In yahoo, type in "Joseph Smith shot men" and click on the first link given, this is an official church site, and show me in the article where it is made known that Joseph Smith killed shot 3 men, killing 2 of them. Here is the proof for my statements.

John Taylor, who became the third President of the Mormon Church, made these statements concerning the death of Joseph Smith: "Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six-shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, 'Would any of you like to have this?' Brother JOSEPH immediately replied, 'YES, give it to me,' whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket.... I was sitting at one of the front windows of the jail, when I saw a number of men, with painted faces, coming around the corner of the jail, and aiming towards the stairs.... "I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, 'Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were WOUNDED by these discharges, TWO of whom, I am informed DIED." (History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 100, 102 & 103)

Is this because you feel you should be able to deride and make accusations at leisure?

If you believe I am deriding and making accusations without legitimate reasons that is fine. However, I would like to inform you that I do not consider it a lesiruely activity, infact I can hardly stand to even post in these forums. When I may 90% of my posts, It is more of a feeling of something that must be done rather then a feeling of enjoyment.

Christ guide us,
Jed