The secrets of "Faith", and the narrow path.

[Marvin Knox]

EmSw

The relationship of the old man does not change. He is and always will be a child of Satan.

But we who have been born again are new creations, Sons of God, joint heirs in the kingdom of God and seated with Christ in the heavens.

The relationship of that new creation to our Father can never change any more than the old relationship could.

The fact that you miss the concept of the new creation entirely is apparently a root of the many problems you often exhibit when discussing the theology of salvation.

 

[EmSw]

EmSw

The relationship of the old man does not change. He is and always will be a child of Satan.

But we who have been born again are new creations, Sons of God, joint heirs in the kingdom of God and seated with Christ in the heavens.

The relationship of that new creation to our Father can never change any more than the old relationship could.

The fact that you miss the concept of the new creation entirely is apparently a root of the many problems you often exhibit when discussing the theology of salvation.

FG2 was saying the relationship of a son is permanent. However, I am no longer a child of Satan. According to FG2, he will always be a child of Satan.

If the old man does not change, why not put it to death? Why would anyone want to keep that relationship around? Any man, who desires, can end that relationship, no matter what people think.

If a man is a new creation, why does he live as the old? Why does the old overcome the new? Many say they are a new creation, but their life says otherwise. I say, don't tell me you are a new creation, show me! The heart will reveal who man serves. Keep evil in your heart, and it will be your master. If a man does not remove evil from his heart, what will God see when he searches the heart?

 

[FreeGrace2]

No. Read it again. Jesus knocks so as to enter a person and then the supping can begin. There is no mention of supping coming at a waaay later time within Revelation 3:20.

Who said anything about "later time"? It's you that have brought up the phoney issue of time.

For how do you define the difference between a relationship and fellowship?

Seriously? To whom have I been in thorough discussion with on these words then?????? PLEASE READ MY POSTS.

I have fully engaged every one of your posts, yet all your responses demonstrate a total lack of anything I've posted. And to NOW ask me to define the difference between relationship and fellowship is nothing short of GALL. That's what I've been doing all along.

So, why should I think that "this time" you'll actually read what I post?

Can you use a real world example that others would recognize?
Can you provide a Biblical example?....

For heaven's sake. Just more proof that you do NOT read my posts.

I gave you the real world example in the parable that Jesus gave us regarding relationship and fellowship. And I explained it for you.

But your ignorance of what I have posted just proves that you aren't interested in what I post.

So, if you are serious about any of this, just scroll back and READ my posts. It's all there.

And, if you should choose to do that, and you either disagree or don't understand, address each point that you disagree with and provide refutation (not just disagreement) or points you don't understand and ask about them.

Otherwise, I see no point in further discussion, since it's only one sided anyway.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Wrath of God abides on the children of disobedience. God still calls them children. If a person is not chastened by God they are bastards. A bastard is still a child but simply a bastard child. Technically, all people were saved when they were babies. Then sin separated them from God whereby they needed to repent of their sins and get their heart right with God with a new birth. Why do you think sin does not separate God magically all of a sudden afterwards in our life? Why? Because you simply do not want it to be true (Despite what Scripture says).

...

See post #283.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You will be very surprised FG2. How do you explain your relationship as a child of Satan?

I don't have a relationship with Satan. You'll have to ask one who does.

Will you say this relationship is permanent? Will you be a son of Satan forever?

Very poor analogy. When I speak of being a son or child of God, I'm specfically referring to one who has been BORN AGAIN into a new creature by God through faith in Christ. NO ONE is "birthed" by Satan in ANY sense. So your analogy FAILS totally.

Please think through your points before embarrassing yourself like this.

So, you say you are still a son of Satan.

What kind of nonsense is this??

This is what I said: "Inheritance IS something that can be lost, obviously. Which does NOT change anything about still being a son."

How would one get being a "son of Satan" from this?

Explain how this permanent relationship isn't permanent.

Since your initial analogy is totally bogus, all of your questions about your bogus analogy are irrelevant.

Jesus says eternal life is inherited, as is the kingdom of God.

As a child of God, all His children ARE heirs. In that sense only. Rom 8:17a

Hmmm, the unfaithful servant didn't just lose his reward, he was cast into outer darkness. Does your Heaven consist of outer darkness?

Do you understand anything about figures of speech? Metaphors? Apparently not. Keep in mind that in the parable of the wedding feast, there IS an outer darkness there. But I guess you're just not that familiar with the Bible and what it teaches, huh.

This is what I said:
"Eternal life is by faith in Christ. I've given the MANY verses that plainly say so. The kingdom of God inheritancr deals with the RELATIONSHIP between Father and child. All believers will live with God forever. That inheritance cannot be lost."

Here you go again. Are you speaking of your permanent relationship as a son of Satan?

This is just unbelievable!! How in the world can any reasonable person come up with such questions from what I have said??

Those who ARE familiar with Scripture know that all humans are physically born AS children of Satan. We are born lost, headed for hell. That is NOT in any way, shape, or form comparable to becoming a child of God through spiritual REBIRTH into a new creation.

Jesus said eternal life is inherited! I know you won't believe this, but at least you have been exposed to the truth.

Yes, the children of God are heirs of God. Rom 8:17a.

What will you inherit as a son of Satan?

This is just a very stupid question, without a shred of any support from Scripture. Please stop with such questions.

Being a permanent son of Satan supports your position.

That has never been my position, but it is clear that you have no clue about my position, given your comments.

 

[FreeGrace2]

EmSw

The relationship of the old man does not change. He is and always will be a child of Satan.

Not true. When one is born again, we are positionally changed and become children of God. Though the children can still be under the influence of their "old man", the sin nature and do the thinks that the children of Satan do.

But we who have been born again are new creations, Sons of God, joint heirs in the kingdom of God and seated with Christ in the heavens.

Correct.

The fact that you miss the concept of the new creation entirely is apparently a root of the many problems you often exhibit when discussing the theology of salvation.

No kidding!!

 

[FreeGrace2]

FG2 was saying the relationship of a son is permanent.

I was specifically referring to the physical relationship between parent and child and claiming that our spiritual relationship with God is the same; permanent.

Can you show or prove that the physical relationship between birth parent and child can be severed? No, you can't. Why would God use such language to illustrate our relationship to Him? Because that relationship is also permanent.

However, I am no longer a child of Satan. According to FG2, he will always be a child of Satan.

This statement is beyond stupid. I never brought up such a goofy idea about being a child of Satan.

Only IF one can prove from Scripture that one is "birthed" by Satan would one have any relevance to my discussion.

If a man is a new creation, why does he live as the old?

Paul answered that in Rom 6 and 7. I highly recommend those so unfamiliar with Scripture study those chapters intensely.

Why does the old overcome the new? Many say they are a new creation, but their life says otherwise.

Paul answered that in Rom 6.

I say, don't tell me you are a new creation, show me!

Gee, that's just what James wrote about in ch 2.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Who said anything about "later time"? It's you that have brought up the phoney issue of time.


Seriously? To whom have I been in thorough discussion with on these words then?????? PLEASE READ MY POSTS.

I have fully engaged every one of your posts, yet all your responses demonstrate a total lack of anything I've posted. And to NOW ask me to define the difference between relationship and fellowship is nothing short of GALL. That's what I've been doing all along.

So, why should I think that "this time" you'll actually read what I post?


For heaven's sake. Just more proof that you do NOT read my posts.

I gave you the real world example in the parable that Jesus gave us regarding relationship and fellowship. And I explained it for you.

But your ignorance of what I have posted just proves that you aren't interested in what I post.

So, if you are serious about any of this, just scroll back and READ my posts. It's all there.

And, if you should choose to do that, and you either disagree or don't understand, address each point that you disagree with and provide refutation (not just disagreement) or points you don't understand and ask about them.

Otherwise, I see no point in further discussion, since it's only one sided anyway.

First, I do understand that you were trying to explain your views, but I find your posts VERY hard to read because I feel like you spitting snake venom at me.

Second, I did not desire to talk with you before because:

(a) You believe what you want to believe (and that will never change - no matter what Scripture I show you).
(b) You ignore morality or God's goodness.
(c) You are hostile, and rude.​

But you were persistent, so I replied. My mistake. I will only reply to verses you post but not actually address what you say that is personal and or talk as if to address you personally. I will inform others of your misinterpretation of your verses. But are conversation between us personally is over. I say this not to wound you, but I say this because I do not want to have dealings with a person who I feel that can have a negative influence upon me.

In any event, may God's love shine upon you.


....

 

[FreeGrace2]

First, I do understand that you were trying to explain your views, but I find your posts VERY hard to read because I feel like you spitting snake venom at me.

I'm sorry you feel that way. My posts are straight forward. What has bothered me is how much you have ignored all that I post. Your last post proved that by the questions that you asked.

What you're feeling isn't snake venom, though. It's just frustration at your lack of attention.

Second, I did not desire to talk with you before because:

(a) You believe what you want to believe (and that will never change - no matter what Scripture I show you).
(b) You ignore morality or God's goodness.
(c) You are hostile, and rude.​

​

Your opinions are wrong.

But you were persistent, so I replied. My mistake. I will only reply to verses you post but not actually address what you say that is personal and or talk as if to address you personally.

Well, when would that happen? I've already provided many verses, all of which you've ignored.

I will inform others of your misinterpretation of your verses.

That's just what I've done with the verses you've provided.

But are conversation between us personally is over. I say this not to wound you, but I say this because I do not want to have dealings with a person who I feel that can have a negative influence upon me.....

Don't worry. I'm not wounded. My time on these forums are never personal. My only focus is on the truth of God's word. I deal with the facts, not feelings.

 

[-57]

No. Read it again. Jesus knocks so as to enter a person and then the supping can begin. There is no mention of supping coming at a waaay later time within Revelation 3:20.

For how do you define the difference between a relationship and fellowship?
Can you use a real world example that others would recognize?
Can you provide a Biblical example?


....

I would think relationship is more of a one on one encounter. A fellowship is with a group of people.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I would think relationship is more of a one on one encounter. A fellowship is with a group of people.

Yes, it can mean that. But the word "fellowship" can also mean to have fellowship between two individuals, too.

Fellowship
[fel-oh-ship]
noun
1. the condition or relation of being a fellow:
the fellowship of humankind.
2. friendly relationship; companionship:
the fellowship of father and son.
3. community of interest, feeling, etc.
4. communion, as between members of the same church.
5. friendliness.
6. an association of persons having similar tastes, interests, etc.
7. a company, guild, or corporation.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fellowship

 

[FreeGrace2]

I would think relationship is more of a one on one encounter. A fellowship is with a group of people.

So a husband cannot have fellowship with his wife? Or a parent with their child? Really??

 

[NonTheologian]

In this thread I would like to identify a problem, the wide path, a stumbling block, and most of all a secret of "Faith". Not Faith the noun, which is "pistis" in the original texts. But Faith the verb, "pisteuo" that is what's in the original texts.

Problem, wide path, a stumbling block.
1) When the Greek texts were translated into English, they came to this word "pisteuo" and discovered there was no English word for the verb form of Faith. What they needed to translate "pisteuo" in to English was the words , Faither, Faithing, and to Faithe. But as you know, those words are not in the English vocabulary. So what are they supposed to do? This word "pisteuo" is arguably the most important word in Gods Word. Put yourself in their shoes, what are you going to do, what are your options? Well, they could have lobbied to have the correct words added to the English language I guess, but how long would that take? They were no doubt excvited about getting this first ever English translation out to the public.
They might have said , well, its only one word, lets just find a word that is the closest we can come up with. But to their surprise, this word "pisteuo" is used 248 times in the Gospels alone. This is a huge problem.
For what ever reason, they chose to use the words "believe, believer, and believing." These words aren't what "pisteuo" fully means, but it's at least part of it is correct.

You see the meaning of the word "pisteuo" in the Greek is best defined according to my experiences in the Vines unabridged edition. There it defines "pisteuo" as , "A personal surrender to Him." ( We all know what a surrender is, and what must be surrendered, and who it must be surrendered to.) " And a life inspired by such surrender." ( which means I'm continually surrendering my life to Jesus ). I not only am surrendering my life to Him daily, hourly, and by the minute, i'm filtering every decision I make all day long through that surrender. That is what "pisteuo" is. Much more than belief.

A good understanding of "pisteuo" in English since we don't have the correct word, is what we call the a,b,c's of Faith, the verb. That is: " An action, based upon a belief, sustained by confidence." You can see that belief only covers one third of the original meaning. If someone has built their entire understanding on believing in Jesus for Salvation, they have fallen as they hit the stumbling block. They are on the wide path. You know 99.9 percent of the Christian world has built their salvation on this "MISTRANSLATION"

Who is to blame for this? Is it the translators ? They only did the best of what was at their disposal! Is it us? We are only reading and acting on what our Bibles say. " If I "believe" in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ i'm saved. That's what it says! But the truth is, it should say, "If we "Faithe" (pisteuo") in the name of the Lord Jesus Cjhrist ( personally surrendering to Him continually, filtering all of our decision making through that surrender, we will be saved !" Faithing is an action, based upon a belief, sustained by confidence.

There is no such word as believe, believing, or believer in the Greek language that I can find. The problem is when it was mistranslated from the Greek to English, the reverse thing happened. If you look at the translation of "belief" in English, and trace it back to the Greek, Yup, it has been mistranslated not only from Greek to English, but from English to Greek. They had to, what else could they have done?

I know this is a really hard pill to swallow, and your first instinct might be to attack the messenger. Please don't! Maybe read through this post 2 or 3 times and just give it a little time to let God draw you. I would like to answer any questions you might have. I won't attack you back.

The "one thing" we as the ones drawn by the Father do not want to do Iron2Iron?
"It's surrendering our life to God" PISTEUO! If we don't, we don't have the Holy Spirit in us. If we don't, Christ is none of ours. And if Christ is not ours, Gods Word is not ours. None of it! So now you can kind of see why I was so adamant about focusing the osas conversation on the once saved part of the osas equation. Rom. 8:9

Can you give some examples of Bible verses whose meaning is "opened" if one follows your suggested interpretation?

 

[-57]

So a husband cannot have fellowship with his wife? Or a parent with their child? Really??

Is that what I wrote?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Is that what I wrote?

This is what you wrote:

"I would think relationship is more of a one on one encounter. A fellowship is with a group of people."
Which is why I asked this;

"So a husband cannot have fellowship with his wife? Or a parent with their child? Really??"

Seems that's what you meant.

 

[-57]

This is what you wrote:

"I would think relationship is more of a one on one encounter. A fellowship is with a group of people."
Which is why I asked this;

"So a husband cannot have fellowship with his wife? Or a parent with their child? Really??"

Seems that's what you meant.

No. I was trying to make a distinction between the two words. You seem to be saying they mean exactly the same thing.

Typically a relationship is between individuals. Typically a fellowship is between groups of people. I do recognize the closeness of the two words.

But, our church had a large room...and it was called Fellowship Hall. It was a room where large froups of people could meet and have fellowship. For some reason I think if you called the room Relationship hall it would sound somewhat strange. Yes?

I can hear the preacher saying, right after church today we're going to meet in Relationship Hall and have relationships with each other. If you don't mind I think I'll stick with my definition.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No. I was trying to make a distinction between the two words. You seem to be saying they mean exactly the same thing.

That statement is exactly wrong.

Fellowship is the STATE of the relationship. It's a "good" state. If the state of a relationship is bad, then there is no fellowship.

Typically a relationship is between individuals. Typically a fellowship is between groups of people. I do recognize the closeness of the two words.

Do you agree with what I just explained?

But, our church had a large room...and it was called Fellowship Hall. It was a room where large froups of people could meet and have fellowship.

Do you really believe that every single person in that hall was actually fellowshipping with everyone else? That would be quite rare in most churches.

For some reason I think if you called the room Relationship hall it would sound somewhat strange. Yes?

Yes, the room is FOR fellowship. But that doesn't mean that everyone is getting along, or having fellowship either.

I can hear the preacher saying, right after church today we're going to meet in Relationship Hall and have relationships with each other. If you don't mind I think I'll stick with my definition.

Do you agree or disagree that there must first be a relationship BEFORE there can be fellowship between 2 individuals?

 

[-57]

That statement is exactly wrong.

Fellowship is the STATE of the relationship. It's a "good" state. If the state of a relationship is bad, then there is no fellowship.


Do you agree with what I just explained?


Do you really believe that every single person in that hall was actually fellowshipping with everyone else? That would be quite rare in most churches.


Yes, the room is FOR fellowship. But that doesn't mean that everyone is getting along, or having fellowship either.


Do you agree or disagree that there must first be a relationship BEFORE there can be fellowship between 2 individuals?

If you need to be right....go ahead. I already covered the nuance of my descriptions. You haven't convinced me.

Here's what you do.
Poster: This color is RED.
FreeGrace2: No, it's light red. This is RED.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If you need to be right....go ahead. I already covered the nuance of my descriptions. You haven't convinced me.

Whatever.

Here's what you do.
Poster: This color is RED.
FreeGrace2: No, it's light red. This is RED.

Because the "poster" used a light red. And there is a difference.

That is what the Scriptures call "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" from 2 Tim 2:15.

Sorry you seem to have a problem with that.

 

[EmSw]

Whatever.


Because the "poster" used a light red. And there is a difference.

That is what the Scriptures call "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" from 2 Tim 2:15.

Sorry you seem to have a problem with that.

But FG2, you only want to divide the word of truth you choose and pick at your discretion. Almost all on this forum notices that.