No. He said Peter was the rock.
Why do you think that the Catholic Church claims apostolic succession through Peter for their popes.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No. He said Peter was the rock.That is pretty much what Jason's theology is saying.
HE was not saying Peter is the rock but that fact that He is the Christ. Upon the fact that Jesus is the Christ will He, JEsus, build his church. The church is not built upon a man and when Jesus died, James was the head of the church, not Peter.
Jesus said if we or Peter deny him before men, He, Jesus, will deny us or Peter before the Father. There is no excuse to do so if you think might lose some benefit (like living) if you do so. Peter did not believe enough at that point.
Where does the Bible say justification can be undone?Hebrews 6:4-6 is talking about denying Jesus because Hebrews 6:1 talks about the foundation of repentance and of faith towards God (Which is when we first accept Christ). To undo the faith, you have to renounce it. Jesus says if you deny me, I will deny you.
The foundational doctrine of repentance, is repentance as formal doctrine. The writer is saying we shouldn't have to keep going over this with you, they were drifting back into a works righteousness system. Leviticus 12:44-45 tells the children of Israel holiness comes down to obeying the Law and not defiling yourself as the heathen (gentiles) do. When the Gentiles started to be included Peter had a vision of unclean animals, he is told to kill and eat. Peter says no Lord, I have never eaten anything unclean. God tells him, do not call anything unclean God has made clean.Hebrews 6
1 "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ. This is the foundation of accepting Christ. It says we are to go on unto perfection.
It then says, NOT LAYING AGAIN the foundation of repentance.
The foundation of my repentance is Jesus because Christ is my foundation.
Repentance of dead works is not a statement that applies to us but it applies to the Hebrews because they were offering animal sacrifices under the New Covenant. A messianic Jew during that time period who accepted Christ would realize that they were wrong to continue in the Old sacrificial system and they would repent of these dead works. They are NOT LAYING AGAIN their faith towards God by accepting Christ. They are NOT LAYING AGAIN their early teachings on baptisms, the laying on of hands, and other early teachings they would first receive when they came to the faith. They are told: "Let us go on unto perfection." (verse 1). This means to move on from the beginning of where they started with the principle doctrine of Christ. The foundation! The beginning. When you build a house, you first lay a foundation or a concrete slab, etc.
1. It does not matter why you say untruths about me.
2. You need to realize that you do not understand my position at all. You are a black and white binary thinker and your questions are like, "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?"
it doesn't, but that moment of conversion can be a bit of a mystery. I believe God will do anything to save us but ultimately has to end. Righteousness is based on God's divine attributes so the standard never changes. If it's possible to lose salvation it can only happen once.Where does the Bible say justification can be undone?
I've been watching your exchange and understand what she means. Your bad about this and I'm not going to bother with revisiting the exchange, I assume she knows what she believes and whether or not your addressing it. Pauline theology usually describes this struggle between the natural man and the new man, sin didn't surrender when the believer turned his or her heart to God and recieve the gospel. It's only when the seed, the word of God, is chocked out of the soil or the human heart that the individule surrenders to perdition. Your still avoiding Hebrews 6:4-5 I noticed, hows the background reading coming?It matters to me and God. I honestly would like to know so I can correct them.
But if we are talking about why I think a person is justifying a license to sin if they say King David was saved while he committed his sins of adultery and murder, I am not incorrect in saying that. It is simply a basic truth that many are ignoring. It is not something that is isolated to only you if you believe that. My goal is to strive at attacking the wrong belief and not any one person or individual here. Again, if you feel I said something wrong about you personally, I would like to know. But attacking the wrong belief is not wrong in my opinion. A belief (based on the Bible) is usually a collective thing and it is not usually just a one person kind of thing.
Nowhere do I recall in giving you such a loaded question. I did not make assumptions about your life. I am merely attacking the wrong belief. There is a difference.
As for your statement about my thinking:
Okay, we are to stick to Scripture to address the topic and not address the poster (according to the forum rules).
Okay, the rest of what you wrote is just your disagreeing with what I said. Please try to address the actual verses I posted please.
Please tell me why I am wrong on my interpretation please.
Show me the words in Scripture on how I am wrong.
Thank you;
And may God bless you.
The bark of the dog echoed up the tree at the squirrel who was hanging on the bark of the tree at the top near the branches.
The word "bark" is the same word in spelling and pronunciation, but they each have two different meanings. These homonyms exist both in our English bibles and in the original languages. So the word "sin" can have multiple meanings in the Bible. The context determines it's use.
So to say that minor transgression (a “sin not unto death”) is the same as a grievous sin (a “sin unto death”) is to ignore the Bible and the real word.
Just because they both can be referred to by the same word, doesn’t mean they are exactly the same.
For surely if you seen a person go 5 miles per over the speed limit, you are not going to freak out or be disturbed by say seeing a murder. Both are sins, but one is very serious in God’s eyes and the other is not as serious.
I agree that the Hebrews 6 passage clearly refers to a saved person (was saved) who has now apostatized as demonstrated by his actions.Mark has stated to me that he believes Hebrews 6:4-6 is talking about an unsaved person to begin with. This does not work because Hebrews 6:1 clearly says NOT LAYING AGAIN the foundation of repentance. The foundation of repentance is Jesus Christ. Jesus is a believer's foundation.
I see the apostasy mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6 as denying Jesus as your Savior after having had the Holy Spirit. Peter did not have the Holy Spirit yet when he denied Christ. I have encountered one person who said they were not capable of repenting again (after knowing they were saved before). They said they tried many time and could not do it. So we know this is very real.
That is certainly a possibility but logic dictates that that is not the only possibility. Some fall away because they were never truly saved in the first place, however it does not mean that all who fall away were never truly saved. That is a logical fallacy commonly known as an overgeneralization. It's like saying since some chickens lay brown eggs, all chickens lay brown eggs which of course is not true.Such a life would be one of unbelief.
Which means the person would be an unregenerate unbeliever.
Yet that's what the passage tells us, impossible to be restored to repentance seems conclusive. It's not about sins, it's a bout abandoning the faith. You might want to consider the context here.I agree that the Hebrews 6 passage clearly refers to a saved person (was saved) who has now apostatized as demonstrated by his actions.
One can have a hardened heart toward repentance given habitual sin, however I see no scriptural evidence that God closes the door to that person to the opportunity to repent.
Where in Hebrews 6 is there any mention of habitual sin? There is none and you habitually abandon the text.I agree that the Hebrews 6 passage clearly refers to a saved person (was saved) who has now apostatized as demonstrated by his actions.
One can have a hardened heart toward repentance given habitual sin, however I see no scriptural evidence that God closes the door to that person to the opportunity to repent.
I already wrote that habitual sin is the evidence of no repentance and therefore no forgiveness. Are you suggesting that one stuck in habitual now has no opportunity to repent in the future should he/she cease sinning and turn to Christ??Jesus told the story of the man forgiven of his debth, really forgiven, who went out and demanded his rights from a man who owed him. You seem to think that all moments are in the same time. That is, a man can repent and be forgiven and later turn to the pleasures of sin or escape the costs of being a disciple of Christ. So he was repentance and changed his mind. He was forgiven and changed his mind. He had eternal life but decided this life's pleasure was better for him. It happens as Jesus said it would. Most people know that what a man does when he is 20 is not how he lives when he is 50, for better or worse. Evidence of habitual sin is evidence that a man has NOW DECIDED not to continue walking in the faith, not that he never was repentant nor forgiven. There is such a thing a past, present and future and they are not all wrapped into one.
I have considered the context. So you believe abandoning the faith is not sin? Quite simply, that is called apostasy - which is a sin. Your attempt to explain brings up more questions than answers.Yet that's what the passage tells us, impossible to be restored to repentance seems conclusive. It's not about sins, it's a bout abandoning the faith. You might want to consider the context here.
Go ahead and start crucifying and shaming Christ - sinless Christian behavior according to your belief, yes?Where in Hebrews 6 is there any mention of habitual sin? There is none and you habitually abandon the text.
Quite simply I have maintained one thing and one thing only, if you can lose salvation you only do it once. I have lots of questions but only one premise and you are obviously twisting my words. Hebrews 6:4-6, which you obviously want to distract from is definitive. You only lose salvation once if at all and it's because you abandoned the faith that saved you in the first place. Try to focus on the actual issue.I have considered the context. So you believe abandoning the faith is not sin? Quite simply, that is called apostasy - which is a sin. Your attempt to explain brings up more questions than answers.
That's not how Christ is crucified the second time. It's when you find another solution to sin like legalism that you become apostate and a child of perdition.Go ahead and start crucifying and shaming Christ - sinless Christian behavior according to your belief, yes?
Hey, great job, you've stood up to the obvious error here. Jason conceded your main point and back peddled on the OP. In case your wondering a couple us have noticed and appreciate you standing on sound doctrine. Hang in there, your doing great, Onemantook is keeping you busy while Jason comes up with a response, having already conceded your main point. Have some fun with it, I think your on solid ground doctrinally here.Jesus told the story of the man forgiven of his debth, really forgiven, who went out and demanded his rights from a man who owed him. You seem to think that all moments are in the same time. That is, a man can repent and be forgiven and later turn to the pleasures of sin or escape the costs of being a disciple of Christ. So he was repentance and changed his mind. He was forgiven and changed his mind. He had eternal life but decided this life's pleasure was better for him. It happens as Jesus said it would. Most people know that what a man does when he is 20 is not how he lives when he is 50, for better or worse. Evidence of habitual sin is evidence that a man has NOW DECIDED not to continue walking in the faith, not that he never was repentant nor forgiven. There is such a thing a past, present and future and they are not all wrapped into one.
The actual issue is that because of your entrenched Reformed belief you refuse to acknowledge what the text plainly states. You can't explain it so you have to fabricate reasons why it doesn't mean what it says. The golden rule of hermeneutics says if the plain sense of scripture makes sense, seek no other sense. You are in violation of that hermeneutic because the verse clearly states it's impossible to renew them to repentance SINCE/BECAUSE they are shaming/crucifying Christ. The verse itself points to the reason - something that you conveniently choose to ignore.Quite simply I have maintained one thing and one thing only, if you can lose salvation you only do it once. I have lots of questions but only one premise and you are obviously twisting my words. Hebrews 6:4-6, which you obviously want to distract from is definitive. You only lose salvation once if at all and it's because you abandoned the faith that saved you in the first place. Try to focus on the actual issue.
Your reductionist argument holds not a drop of water. One can apostatize any number of ways. Let me count the innumerable ways. One can apostatize/fall away by turning to a different gospel (Gal 1:6). One can apostatize by legalism, by Gnosticism, by engaging in habitual sin, by renouncing Christianity and becoming a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, etc. You resort to redefining/restricting what it means to fall away in order to support your belief system.That's not how Christ is crucified the second time. It's when you find another solution to sin like legalism that you become apostate and a child of perdition.
The question becomes obvioysly, what text are you refering to? I know but your talking in circles around the topic as usual. The plain sense of the text you neither cite nor care about sats it is impossible to be restored to repentance when? If you abandon the basis for salvation in the first place which is justification by grace through faith.The actual issue is that because of your entrenched Reformed belief you refuse to acknowledge what the text plainly states. You can't explain it so you have to fabricate reasons why it doesn't mean what it says. The golden rule of hermeneutics says if the plain sense of scripture makes sense, seek no other sense. You are in violation of that hermeneutic because the verse clearly states it's impossible to renew them to repentance SINCE/BECAUSE they are shaming/crucifying Christ. The verse itself points to the reason - something that you conveniently choose to ignore.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?