The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

[Grailhunter]

As a review....

Who did Yeshua have the most issues with? legalists or sinners?

What was His reaction when he dealt with the issue of the adulteress and the prostitute and the lady at the well and the murderer?

When we talk about "Christ's Commandments" specifically what are we talking about? In His words.

As far as looking to Christ, what did He do that we should emulate?

Why do you think that Christ seemed to have such an issue with wealth?

 

[Candidus]

The bible teaches eternal life. It teaches we are sealed in Christ. It teaches that those who are born again are his children and will never be lost

Yes, the Bible teaches Eternal Life! Yet it is on the condition of a Present Tense belief/faith, not a Past Tense one time faith.

Yes, the Bible teaches a that we receive a the Holy Spirit as our Seal, and earnest, the down-payment of our inheritance (not the full reception of that future inheritance); and warns us not to grieve that Seal. The fullness of this promise is only to those who endure to the end. The Scriptures tell us to "Be faithful until death and I will give you a crown of life." (Rev. 3:5,21). The Lord preserves the faithful (Psalms 31:23), not the unfaithful.

I would underscore that the word "seal" in itself makes no allusion to a doctrine of unconditional security whatsoever. It does speak of security which cannot be denied, but nowhere does the word itself define the extent of that security. The word "seal" in itself does not give us the mode in which we are sealed, nor does the word itself give any indication whether the seal can be broken or not. A real danger exists, for if there were no danger, a believer would never have had to be warned not to grieve the Holy Spirit.

Once again, the Bible nowhere teaches that a Born-Again Believer cannot be lost. To get "Eternal Security" out of a passage, one has to read "Eternal Security" into the passage. This fails for it presumes something that is never said to exist in the Bible.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes, the Bible teaches Eternal Life! Yet it is on the condition of a Present Tense belief/faith, not a Past Tense one time faith.

Yes, the Bible teaches a that we receive a the Holy Spirit as our Seal, and earnest, the down-payment of our inheritance (not the full reception of that future inheritance); and warns us not to grieve that Seal. The fullness of this promise is only to those who endure to the end. The Scriptures tell us to "Be faithful until death and I will give you a crown of life." (Rev. 3:5,21). The Lord preserves the faithful (Psalms 31:23), not the unfaithful.

I would underscore that the word "seal" in itself makes no allusion to a doctrine of unconditional security whatsoever. It does speak of security which cannot be denied, but nowhere does the word itself define the extent of that security. The word "seal" in itself does not give us the mode in which we are sealed, nor does the word itself give any indication whether the seal can be broken or not. A real danger exists, for if there were no danger, a believer would never have had to be warned not to grieve the Holy Spirit.

Once again, the Bible nowhere teaches that a Born-Again Believer cannot be lost. To get "Eternal Security" out of a passage, one has to read "Eternal Security" into the passage. This fails for it presumes something that is never said to exist in the Bible.

Eternal security.....
Like Christ said, The process of salvation I have for you is a gift, but it is a gift that is easily lost and many Christians will be in hell. I am sorry I could not do better. Your salvation is dependent on how perfect you are.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

We should be "worried" and "fear" that we may be disqualified as teachers? Nonsense!

"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified." 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (NASB)

What was at stake if Paul was "disqualified"? Not his position as a teacher or preacher, but from being disqualified from receiving the imperishable wreath! The imperishable wreath is not a teaching position. In 2 Timothy Paul writes: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith...." it was not about establishing teaching tenure at "Christian University" but "finishing the course by keeping the faith..." that "in the future there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness..." which is a requirement to enter heaven.

"[W]e are the children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him." Romans 8:17. NASB.

"Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses" 1 Timothy 6:12.

"For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end" Hebrews 3:14.

"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." Hebrews 4:14.

Disqualification is used in reference to salvation in several passages:

"Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified." 2 Cor. 13:5. NKJV.

"Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith." 2 Tim 3:8. ESV.

It is not like Paul limited "disqualification" to a position of teaching, but used it in reference to salvation elsewhere. All throughout Scripture is states the need to continue in the faith, the race, the fight, in order to receive eternal life, the crown of righteousness, salvation in the end.

"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son." Rev. 21:7. NASB.

Like I said, believe what you want

You want to earn your salvation feel free

But do not tell me your not working for your salvation.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, the Bible teaches Eternal Life! Yet it is on the condition of a Present Tense belief/faith, not a Past Tense one time faith.

Yes, the Bible teaches a that we receive a the Holy Spirit as our Seal, and earnest, the down-payment of our inheritance (not the full reception of that future inheritance); and warns us not to grieve that Seal. The fullness of this promise is only to those who endure to the end. The Scriptures tell us to "Be faithful until death and I will give you a crown of life." (Rev. 3:5,21). The Lord preserves the faithful (Psalms 31:23), not the unfaithful.

I would underscore that the word "seal" in itself makes no allusion to a doctrine of unconditional security whatsoever. It does speak of security which cannot be denied, but nowhere does the word itself define the extent of that security. The word "seal" in itself does not give us the mode in which we are sealed, nor does the word itself give any indication whether the seal can be broken or not. A real danger exists, for if there were no danger, a believer would never have had to be warned not to grieve the Holy Spirit.

Once again, the Bible nowhere teaches that a Born-Again Believer cannot be lost. To get "Eternal Security" out of a passage, one has to read "Eternal Security" into the passage. This fails for it presumes something that is never said to exist in the Bible.

Wrong

If it could be lost. ITS NOT ETERNAL. ITS CONDITIONAL

You can have your conditional life.. I will wish you well

 

[Eternally Grateful]

and they got it right from Strong's wadr, as a search of a snip from your quote makes plain

but i am not saying you have to believe it, and you are welcome to continue believing eteral means forever for as long as you like imo, after all, youll be dead when your "eternal" is accomplished anyway i guess, so not much diff

as long as you seek life, more abundantly anyway, right

No they did not.

You must think you know everything

You used the word AEON.. Thats NOT the word used in John 3: 16, "eternal life"

o believe what you want, if your afraid to look it up. thats on you

 

[Eternally Grateful]

αἰώνιος, -ον, and (in 2 Th. 2:16; Heb. 9:12; Num. 25:13; Plat. Tim. p. 38 b. [see below]; Diod. i. 1; [cf. WH. App. p. 157; W. 69 (67); B. 26 (23)]) -ος, -α, -ον, (αἰών); 1. without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be: θεός, Ro. 16:26, (ὁ μόνος αἰώνιος, 2 Macc. 1:25); πνεῦμα, Heb. 9:14. at DuckDuckGo

see for yourself, and my apologies fwiw
you just picked a believer in Death, More Abundantly rather than an unbiased third party i guess. Thayer was deceived too right

no appology necessary but thank you

I have many more lexicons and they all say the same, which would you like to see. Are they all decieved?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I do wonder at why someone would behave in this manner and then turn round and say they do not.


I dug a little deeper.
If eternal means without beginning or end exclusively, we cannot be made eternal, because everything eternal in this sense is God.

So a lot of the uses of eternal are in regard to their continuation without end.
When an attribute of God they have no beginning or end.

So an adjective can have more than one implication depending on the subject, noun, it is referring to.
Also eternal can be a pointer to a type of the subject applied from one context to another.

So Paul says we inherit life through righteousness, or death through sin.

8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Gal 6:8

If this is an equation between opposites, eternal life is the opposite of destruction.

7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
Gal 6:7

Now this could be written to unbelievers except the letter is for believers, and about those believers caught in sin.

1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.
Gal 6:1

Now if we sow to the Spirit and reap eternal life, and this life is now God, so we are now gods, you can see how the small gods heresy can spring from a restricted view of one word, eternal.

or you could try reading what they said

3 possibilities

1. Without begging or end
2. without beginning
3. without end

John 3: 16 would only fit using the 3rd possibility as since we have a beginning, the first two possibilities do not pertain to us.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

WRONG.

YOU are trying to pit one verse against another. Scripture doesn't contradict itself. The Gospel message is consistent throughout. It is simply told through different points of view. The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 corresponds with ALL of the Last Supper narratives in Matt. 26:26–28, Luke 22:19–20, Mark 14:22–24, and 1 Cor. 11:23–25. You can't dissect Scripture and pit it against itself simply because YOU disagree with it.

This is the Word of God - not YOUR plaything . . .

I am not pitting one verse against another

I have proved they are not in the same context so are not related Has nothing to do with pitting one against another, it is putting them both inn context.

I guess that is too hard for you to understand

 

[Eternally Grateful]

ha, "mess with the bull you get the horns" has never been more apropos imo lol
see, if you keep believing the sun rose out your anus too, you get to have a "conversation" with bread of death i guess lol

Thayer is not a bad source imo, but also not the only one, nor hardly the authority on the matter; the problem imo is that he was a believer, and so could not help but forward his belief in Death, More Abundantly, as a comparo with other etymologies reveals. Doesnt mean he was bad or evil tho i guess
yet you are the one cherry picking lexicons, wadr
and "eternity" is not ever going to not be derived from aion, right, no matter what either of us "believe"

so fwiw i dont really blame you seeking facts and proof ok, that is how we are trained to reason i guess. Like lawyers

again let me know. I have a bunch more

 

[bbyrd009]

You used the word AEON.. Thats NOT the word used in John 3: 16, "eternal life"

John 3:16 Lexicon: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Strong's Greek: 166. αἰώνιος (aiónios) -- agelong, eternal
so i'm not seeing where another stem is used, sorry

 

[bbyrd009]

no appology necessary but thank you

I have many more lexicons and they all say the same, which would you like to see. Are they all decieved?

well i guess we are all deceived, right, all are deceived, so technically "yes," although that does not necessarily mean "wrong" in every case i guess. But see i have a meta-lexicon, and most of them agree that aion or what we now call an "eon" is a space of time, an age, an "eternity."

 

[bbyrd009]

again let me know. I have a bunch more

they are all biased crap wadr, and we all know what Eon means already

 

[FollowHim]

or you could try reading what they said

3 possibilities

1. Without begging or end
2. without beginning
3. without end

John 3: 16 would only fit using the 3rd possibility as since we have a beginning, the first two possibilities do not pertain to us.

The point is eternal is a promise not a thing or object. Life eternal can be stopped because it exists if not stopped. One could miss this. A past event cannot be changed, it has happened.

Part of the theory of salvation event is it cannot be undone. If salvation is about faith and realisation which is counted as acceptance, if faith goes, realisation evaporates, then salvation is lost. The dried dead branch.

 

[Illuminator]

Well if you want to go this far, it is enough for me to say thanks. I do not think we can have a constructive interaction, as you do not know what you are talking about.

On the subject of cannibalism the early church fathers recorded people did report this because they drank the blood and eat the body of Christ, though symbolically, it could be seen based on the words, as cannibalism, except it is not.

The Early Church Fathers were UNANYMOUS on their teaching of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, not a mere symbol. A symbol cannot give eternal life.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am not pitting one verse against another
I have proved they are not in the same context so are not related Has nothing to do with pitting one against another, it is putting them both inn context.
I guess that is too hard for you to understand

You haven't "proven" anything of the kind.

As I showed you - The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 corresponds with ALL of the Last Supper narratives in Matt. 26:26–28, Luke 22:19–20, Mark 14:22–24, and 1 Cor. 11:23–25.
There is NO escaping the fact that John 6:22-71 leads up to the Last Supper, where Jesus give the Sacramental prescription for the Eucharist.

the only thing "hard to understand" here is how somebody can read all of these passages and STILL be blind to the truth . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Early Church Fathers were UNANYMOUS on their teaching of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, not a mere symbol. A symbol cannot give eternal life.

CORRECT.

So, tell me, @Eternally Grateful - WHY do you suppose this is the case??

 

[Illuminator]

mailmandan said: ↑

If you believe that salvation is by works (at least in part) then you believe it’s earned (at least in part). Either we are saved by trusting or we are saved by working. Either Christ did it all or else we did some of it. You can’t have it both ways.​

What do you mean by salvation by "works"? What "works" do you have in mind?

First, mailman confuses redemption (Christ did it all) with salvation. Second, we use biblical/historical definitions for terms like "faith", "believe" and "works" and a host of other terms. Anti-Catholics don't speak the same language, and until we get the biblical/historical definitions ironed out, and avoid the political definitions of the 16th century, these kinds of discussions go nowhere.
BTW, post 3775-6 are excellent summaries refuting mailmandan's false dichotomy.

 

[marksman]

Another dishonest statement. What a surprise . . .

I never made the claim that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on ALL truth.
There is SOME truth in every Christian sect - even YOURS. As Christians - we ALL share some of the same basic truths.

the difference is that your Protestant Fathers broke away and began inventing their own versions of the "truth". This is why you now have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines while ALL claiming that the Holy Spirit "led" you to this confusion.

This is a man made mess . . .

Just like the catholic church is a man-made mess.

 

[marksman]

Perfection is an interesting topic.

So does anyone care to describe a perfect person? Details please.

No need to mix in Grace....we can get to that later.

One who likes donuts.