Eternal Security

djstav said:

I think it's because they tried so hard to please God, most of them held on to him for dear life. But their beliefs became untenable, they refused to leave Jesus at all costs, but reality dragged them away. From this many of them have become very empathetic people, understanding and kind.

Click to expand...

Interesting. They became what Christian's are supposed to be after they left Christianity.
Why?
Maybe they feel more free to be themselves because they found Christianity a burden?
Maybe they felt they couldn't live up to the commands of God?
Maybe they just wanted to do what they wanted to and it wasn't what God would want?
At least they learned how to be better people.

Or maybe they lost their faith?
Or maybe they never really had it?

Who could know?

Stranger said:

Means nothing when your knowledge, experience, is rooted in denial of God. Means nothing.

As far as fried rice, I am open to any good recipe. Are you oriental?

Stranger

Click to expand...

I wish! (They have such nice silky hair)

djstav said:

I wish! (They have such nice silky hair)

Click to expand...

Thus you have nothing to offer. No knowledge of God. No experience with God. And not even a trustworthy recipe of fried rice.

All you have is unbelief.

Stranger

GodsGrace said:

Interesting. They became what Christian's are supposed to be after they left Christianity.
Why?
Maybe they feel more free to be themselves because they found Christianity a burden?
Maybe they felt they couldn't live up to the commands of God?
Maybe they just wanted to do what they wanted to and it wasn't what God would want?
At least they learned how to be better people.

Or maybe they lost their faith?
Or maybe they never really had it?

Who could know?

Click to expand...

There's a lot of different ways you can look at it.

djstav said:

There's a lot of different ways you can look at it.

Click to expand...

That's some deep stuff there.

Stranger

Stranger said:

Thus you have nothing to offer. No knowledge of God. No experience with God. And not even a trustworthy recipe of fried rice.

All you have is unbelief.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Say what you want about my unbelief in Jesus, but don't bag my cooking skill's (I won't have it)

djstav said:

Say what you want about my unbelief in Jesus, but don't bag my cooking skill's (I won't have it)

Click to expand...

What is your purpose here with your denial of Jesus Christ. You're not the real thing, just like unless you are oriental, I have no interest in your fried rice. Thus your opinions of Jesus Christ and Christians are rooted in atheism. They have no value.

Stranger

Stranger said:

What is your purpose here with your denial of Jesus Christ. You're not the real thing, just like unless you are oriental, I have no interest in your fried rice. Thus your opinions of Jesus Christ and Christians are rooted in atheism. They have no value.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Boy dude you are a bit jaded, I don't want to offend people, but I can't just believe in God/Jesus because you want it so bad. How can we norms have friendships with believer's if all they're aiming at is to convert us.

djstav said:

Boy dude you are a bit jaded, I don't want to offend people, but I can't just believe in God/Jesus because you want it so bad. How can we norms have friendships with believer's if all they're aiming at is to convert us.

Click to expand...

That is a lie. You don't care if you offend Christians or not. I am not worried if you don't believe in God. That is up to you. You came here, remember?

You can't have friendship with believers because your goal is to cast doubt on the believers faith. You do not believe in Jesus Christ, we have no friendship with you. Pretty simple.

If you reject Jesus Christ, fine. Why are you still here?

Stranger

djstav said:

I think it's because they tried so hard to please God, most of them held on to him for dear life. But their beliefs became untenable, they refused to leave Jesus at all costs, but reality dragged them away. From this many of them have become very empathetic people, understanding and kind.

Click to expand...

"I think it's because they tried so hard to please God, most of them held on to him for dear life. " And, therein lies the crux of the problem. There is NO pleasing God without His son. There will be a slew of "good people" "kind, understanding" people who will be separated from the Creator of the universe without the only way-Christians know that the so called goodness of mere men are as filthy rags to God, these are works...they did not work for those under the OT Law...NO man could fulfill them...until The Christ. WE CANNOT do ANYTHING to please Him without the Son. And, if you do not like what I have to say, that is okay with me but please keep in mind that this is a Christian forum for Christian apologetics. You are as free as anyone to agree or not. BTW-why would anyone NOT want truth??!!

Stranger said:

In order for God to establish His covenant with Abraham, Abraham was required to leave his home and go to the promised land. (Gen. 12:1-3)

I believe I said, Abraham was not bound to fulfill anything in the covenant. God bound Himself to fulfill all. Thus why the 'Huh' earlier if you agree.

Click to expand...

Genesis 26
So Isaac went to Gerar, to Abimelech king of the Philistines. 2 The Lord appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

Stranger said:

(Gen. 26:5) "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

As I have said, Abraham did obey God

Click to expand...

Indeed he did -- God says that he "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
So then - no taking God's name in vain - for Abraham
No worship of false Gods' for Abraham
No bowing down before images for Abraham
No dishonor to parents for Abraham

You know... the usual.

There were no written commandments, laws, or statutes.

Click to expand...

God's Word is law even when no person comes after Him and "writes it down" -- as it turns out.

God tells Isaac that the covenant made with Abraham is made with Isaac "because" Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws and of course "sin IS" by definition "transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4

Your point that God's commandments, statutes, laws were not in "written form" at the time - is a non-issue. God's Word says they existed and His Word says Abraham obeyed them. This is Moses writing in Genesis 26... and Moses uses that same phrase in several places to identify God's commandments, statutes and laws

Your argument at this point is "with the text"

Stranger said:

Abraham did obey

Click to expand...

Indeed He did.

Abraham in obeying the 'voice' of God was obeying God's charge, commandments and statutes and laws.

Click to expand...

True - he did not have to first have it written down.

And the words of the covenant are passed on to Isaac ONLY because "Abraham KEPT" - "God's commandments, statutes and laws " as we see in Genesis 26.

Clearly the book of Genesis is not "an exhaustive account of every word spoken for the first 2500 years of human history". as I am sure we all agree.

But Moses is the author of Genesis, and Exodus and Leviticus -- and so the reader knows that term... that phrase that Moses keeps using.

Ezek 18 and Matthew 18 teach "forgiveness revoked" when we have a case where Abraham does NOT keep the Commandments, Statutes and Laws - but rather turns from that life and instead adopts some form of rebellion

Stranger said:

Yes Isaac was obedient as to allow himself to be sacrificed. But that played no role in the Covenant being passed or established with him. And yes, neither earned the Covenant, but Abraham's obedience was needed ...

Click to expand...

Indeed it was as God points out in Ezek 18 and Matthew 18.

Ezek 18 and Matthew 18 teach "forgiveness revoked" when we have a case where Abraham does NOT keep the Commandments, Statutes and Laws - but rather turns from that life and instead adopts some form of rebellion

BobRyan said:

Genesis 26
So Isaac went to Gerar, to Abimelech king of the Philistines. 2 The Lord appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”


Indeed he did -- God says that he "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
So then - no taking God's name in vain - for Abraham
No worship of false Gods' for Abraham
No bowing down before images for Abraham
No dishonor to parents for Abraham

You know... the usual.



God's Word is law even when no person comes after Him and "writes it down" -- as it turns out.

God tells Isaac that the covenant made with Abraham is made with Isaac "because" Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws and of course "sin IS" by definition "transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4

Your point that God's commandments, statutes, laws were not in "written form" at the time - is a non-issue. God's Word says they existed and His Word says Abraham obeyed them. This is Moses writing in Genesis 26... and Moses uses that same phrase in several places to identify God's commandments, statutes and laws

Your argument at this point is "with the text"



Indeed He did.




True - he did not have to first have it written down.

And the words of the covenant are passed on to Isaac ONLY because "Abraham KEPT" - "God's commandments, statutes and laws " as we see in Genesis 26.

Clearly the book of Genesis is not "an exhaustive account of every word spoken for the first 2500 years of human history". as I am sure we all agree.

But Moses is the author of Genesis, and Exodus and Leviticus -- and so the reader knows that term... that phrase that Moses keeps using.

Ezek 18 and Matthew 18 teach "forgiveness revoked" when we have a case where Abraham does NOT keep the Commandments, Statutes and Laws - but rather turns from that life and instead adopts some form of rebellion

Click to expand...

Again, I have no argument with the text. Abraham knew the mind and will of God, and obeyed the voice of God which embraced what would later be written down as commandments, statutes, and laws. But Abraham was not doing this in response to law. He was being obedient in response to his relationship with God. He was doing just like a Christian that walks in the Spirit does. He was doing what the law would later demand, without walking by law.

Concerning the Abrahamic Covenant, Abraham's obedience in leaving Ur, and going to the land, was required for God to make His Covenant with him. Which God did. But Abraham was not always obedient. Abraham once went into Egypt, out of the land, due to famine. (Gen. 12:10) There he denied his wife Sarai and passed her off to Pharaoh as his sister, forcing God to miraculously intervene. (Gen. 12:10-20) There he picked up an Egyptian servant woman, Hagar. (Gen. 16:1) With whom he would later have a child by to help God fulfill his promises. Which did nothing but add grief to him and his household, to Israel for the rest of their existence, and to the world today. Then Abraham was full of unbelief concerning the promises of God. (Gen. 17:17) So, as you see, Abraham was not always following the voice of God, keeping his laws.

In light of that, Isaac was going down the same road. A famine came and like his Father he was on his way to Egypt. And God stopped him. (Gen. 26:2) God wanted him in the land, not Egypt. God would allow him to 'sojourn' in Gerar but only temporarily. (26:3) In other words Isaac was being disobedient as Abraham had been. But the promises of the Covenant were passed to Isaac, not because of his obedience, but because of Abraham's. And what obedience was that, the obedience that took Abraham to the land when he left Ur. And unless God instructed, to leave the land was disobedience. So God is assuring Isaac that the Covenant is passed to him not because of anything he does, but because of Abraham.

Abraham must be in the land for God to initiate the Covenant. God does initiate it, and then leaves Abraham out of the picture as to the terms of the Covenant. God binds Himself to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant. (Gen. 15:15-17) Which is why it can continue with Abraham. Which is why it can be passed to Isaac, Jacob, etc.

Stranger

BobRyan said:

Indeed it was as God points out in Ezek 18 and Matthew 18.

Ezek 18 and Matthew 18 teach "forgiveness revoked" when we have a case where Abraham does NOT keep the Commandments, Statutes and Laws - but rather turns from that life and instead adopts some form of rebellion

Click to expand...

To quote part of what I said, and not all of what I said, in order to give the appearance that I agree with you is being dishonest. That is the trap you fall in when you pick partial phrases and statements out of what people write to bolster your argument.

My statement in post #967 concerned Abraham's obedience in leaving Ur. Which you cut out.

Stranger

Enoch111 said:

And the LORD [YHWH] appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground... (Gen 18:1,2).

Here the LORD [YHWH] is clearly the pre-incarnate Christ (a theophany or a Christophany). He is among the three "men" so the Word took the form of a man, and two angels also took human form.

As noted, no man has seen God the Father. It is the only begotten Son who has always appeared to men. And He is called Yahweh (YHWH).

Click to expand...

You, and those who agree with you, love to read the Son into verses to "prove" the Son is YHWH. How can you study like that knowing you are just "assuming" whatever you want? How come there are no OT verses that read, "And the Son of God appeared ..." or something similar? In Genesis 18:13, YHWH is speaking to Abraham. How do you harmonize that with Hebrews 1:1-2?

GodsGrace said:

There are two major covenants in the Bible. One is the Mosaic covenant which is a covenant of law, this was conditional. God said do this, obey and he will bless, failure to obey violated his conditions and punishment followed. the New Testaments covenant is one of blood but based on grace, it is unconditional. We receive the mercy and blessings of God not because of anything we do but because of what Christ did. As believers in the New Covenant we operate under grace by which good works are a result. Under the Law (Old covenant) good works were done to receive Gods favor yet there still had to be a sacrifice for sin. As it says that almost all things are cleansed by blood.

source: New covenant

I will not argue something that is accepted as normal Christian theology.
95% of theologians accept the above...the NEW COVENANT is an UNCONDITONAL Covenant, which also means UNI-LATERAL.

Click to expand...

If the NC is unconditional and uni-lateral, then Jeremiah 31:33 should read;


rather than "WITH" those houses. "WITH" means those houses have their part in the covenant and are not mere recipients.

I don't make the theology....it's already made.

Click to expand...

You would do well to be less gullible and more discerning.

gadar perets said:

If the NC is unconditional and uni-lateral, then Jeremiah 31:33 should read;

Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant FOR the house of Israel, and FOR the house of Judah: ​

rather than "WITH" those houses. "WITH" means those houses have their part in the covenant and are not mere recipients.


You would do well to be less gullible and more discerning.

Click to expand...

Well then, GP, I'M NOT the one that's gullible....you could blame Christian theologians.

GodsGrace said:

Well then, GP, I'M NOT the one that's gullible....you could blame Christian theologians.

Click to expand...

I do blame Christian theologians. They are wrong and we should not accept their teachings when they are wrong. That makes us wrong along with them. The same goes for OSAS (a false doctrine which you rightly proclaim as false) as well as their "no Sabbath" doctrine (which you are on the fence about).

gadar perets said:

I do blame Christian theologians. They are wrong and we should not accept their teachings when they are wrong. That makes us wrong along with them. The same goes for OSAS (a false doctrine which you rightly proclaim as false) as well as their "no Sabbath" doctrine (which you are on the fence about).

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ is the Lord (YHVH) from heaven. This is an English forum...and we use English terms as well as English verses.

In the OT the word YHVH is translated mainly as Lord.

So then prepare the way for the Lord...that would be YHVH again.

Is. 40:3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD (YHVH) in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God (elohim).

What you disagree with is not theologians but the NT writers....This is what they say about the above OT verse.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Or this...

1 Cor. 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord (YHVH) from heaven.

So to miss the Lord (YHVH) coming in the flesh is to miss Jesus, the gospel, the NT and God.

Episkopos said:

Jesus Christ is the Lord (YHVH) from heaven. This is an English forum...and we use English terms as well as English verses.

In the OT the word YHVH is translated mainly as Lord.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. It is rendered "the LORD", not "Lord". "The LORD" is not a translation, but a man made substitute for the Tetragrammaton. The NT uses "Lord" for "YHWH" because it is a translation of "kurios", not "YHWH".

So then prepare the way for the Lord...that would be YHVH again.

Is. 40:3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD (YHVH) in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God (elohim)

What you disagree with is not theologians but the NT writers....This is what they say about the above OT verse.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Click to expand...

Of all the N.T. verses that quote Isaiah, Luke 3:4-6 aids our understanding because it includes Isiah 40:4 & 5. It says, "As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of YHWH, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of YHWH." "Prepare ye the way of YHWH" does not mean, "Move out of the way because YHWH is coming." And so when Yeshua comes they believe he is YHWH. The verse does NOT say, "Prepare you the way FOR YHWH...".

How was "the way" to be prepared? By filling valleys, leveling mountains, straightening paths, etc. This work is not to be understood literally, but spiritually through the humbling of those in exalted positions and the restoration of truth. Who was to do that work? John 4:34 says, "Yeshua saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish his work." Almighty YHWH appointed His Son Yeshua to finish His work. Yeshua was YHWH's instrument in the accomplishment of His great plan. Yeshua is the "Messenger of the Covenant," "the servant of YHWH," and "the salvation of YHWH." John 14:6 calls Yeshua "the way." He is "the way of YHWH;" the means through which YHWH will finish His work.

Or this...

1 Cor. 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord (YHVH) from heaven.

Click to expand...

So to miss the Lord (YHVH) coming in the flesh is to miss Jesus, the gospel, the NT and God.

Click to expand...

Your addition of "(YHVH)" to the text is wrong. The verse does NOT have "YHVH" in the Greek, but only "kurios". "Kurios" was used of men many times in the NT (for example, Acts 25:26 and 1 Peter 3:6). Yeshua is "Lord", but he is NOT "LORD" (YHWH).

So to add "YHWH" to verses referring to Yeshua is to add to the Gospel and the NT.