BAPTISM

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance - it is rendered as:
From epignosko; recognition, i.e. (by implication) full discernment, acknowledgement -- (ac-)knowledge(-ing, - ment).

Epignosis and Gnosis are NOT the same thing, no matter HOW hard you try to rationalize it.
Gnosis ad Oida refer to general knowledge or mental assent.
Epignosis refers to a full, intimate, experiential knowledge - as a spouse has for their partner.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

Your view would bring me to the logical conclusion that those who fall away continue to have the life of God in them, however.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The sin against the Holy Spirit is FINAL impenitence.
ALL sin is forgivable until we die - mortal AND venial. A mortal sin does NOT place you outside of Christ forever if it is repented of and confessed to the Church (John 20:21-23).

Some sins (venial) are forgivable AFTER death. Matt. 12:32 states, “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come, which indicates that there is purification after death for some. Matt. 18:32-35 and Luke 12:58-59 are additional verses that support this doctrine.
My belief is that every opportunity is given to a man, in this life, to either receive or reject Jesus as Lord and Saviour. If anyone makes a final decision against Christ, no opportunity exists afterwards; and death will not come to a man until he makes a final decision for or against Christ.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My belief is that every opportunity is given to a man, in this life, to either receive or reject Jesus as Lord and Saviour. If anyone makes a final decision against Christ, no opportunity exists afterwards; and death will not come to a man until he makes a final decision for or against Christ.
I can agree with most of that.
I'm a little fuzzy about what you mean about "final decision".

Many people don't really make a hard "decision" not to follow Christ. they simply don't follow Him
However - if that's what you mean by final "decision" - then I agree.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
Your view would bring me to the logical conclusion that those who fall away continue to have the life of God in them, however.
Only those who are NOT in mortal sin.
As the Church teaches - venial sin damages our relationship with God - but it doesn't sever it. Mortal sin does.

The view that there are varying degrees of reward in Heaven is shared by MOST Protestant scholars.
Just as there are varying degrees of rewards - there are varying degrees of sin.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Luke 8:13 shows forth the scenario of someone who believes for a while and then falls away...

John 6:47 would tell us that someone who believes has everlasting life.

How can they have everlasting life if they fell away?

This is partially a test of your reading comprehension.
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Luke 8:13 shows forth the scenario of someone who believes for a while and then falls away...

John 6:47 would tell us that someone who believes has everlasting life.

How can they have everlasting life if they fell away?

This is partially a test of your reading comprehension.
More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of belief. Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant. When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian's background belief.​
BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered

Luke 8:3 is taken from The Parable of the Sower. Jesus explains his parable in Luke 8:11-13 and how people fall away.
John 6:47 is taken from the Eucharistic Discourse. In John 6:41-59, Jesus summarizes the incarnation principle pertaining to Body/Bread and Blood/Wine.

John 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.

What words is Peter talking about? His words in the New Testament? Or the context of the words He just finished saying?
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But if He is your Lord; and if He has set you free from sin: I believe that you will find that He is the One who sustains you, because of that moment of surrender in which He gave you a new heart and a new spirit, in order that He might cause you to walk in His statutes and in his judgments.

What I see you saying is that a child of God has been set free from sinning in the flesh. In other words a child of God will not sin in the sinful flesh any longer. Is that what you are saying?

Correct me if I am wrong.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No - I approach EVERY post with an open mind.
If you can convince me that they mean something else - then I'll be willing to take another look.

The ONLY time I get "negative" is when I read stupid, anti-Catholic lies right out of the gate. I am ALWAYS willing to have a serious and charitable theological discussion.
So, please - address the passages I presented.

That is the problem. You have been educated in a religious theology. You will not venture to have an open mind.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What I see you saying is that a child of God has been set free from sinning in the flesh. In other words a child of God will not sin in the sinful flesh any longer. Is that what you are saying?

Correct me if I am wrong.
I would say that there is a second benefit (2 Corinthians 1:15) in which a person can be set free from walking according to the flesh. If you compare Romans 2:25-29 with Romans 4:11, I believe that you will see that circumcision represents entire sanctification and that a person can therefore be declared righteous apart from entire sanctification.

However, if you hate sin because of the regeneration process; and therefore desire to be set free from it as the result of having been born again: God is also able to do this in you.

Consider Romans 4:20-22, and that the promises being referred to there can be found in 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, Hebrews 10:14, 1 John 3:9, Jude 1:24, 2 Peter 1:10, and 1 John 2:10; there are many more passages like these that speak of the promise of entire sanctification.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Luke 8:3 is taken from The Parable of the Sower. Jesus explains his parable in Luke 8:11-13 and how people fall away.
John 6:47 is taken from the Eucharistic Discourse. In John 6:41-59, Jesus summarizes the incarnation principle pertaining to Body/Bread and Blood/Wine.

John 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.

What words is Peter talking about? His words in the New Testament? Or the context of the words He just finished saying?
How do these things reconcile the contradiction in question?
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of belief. Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant. When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian's background belief.
Just so you know, I did not bring up this contradiction from the perspective of unbelief. I have already answered it in a previous post (BAPTISM).

However, @BreadOfLife 's understanding of epignosis throws a wrench in the works; nevertheless his understanding is not valid so the contradiction continues to be reconciled for me.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I would say that there is a second benefit (2 Corinthians 1:15) in which a person can be set free from walking according to the flesh. If you compare Romans 2:25-29 with Romans 4:11, I believe that you will see that circumcision represents entire sanctification and that a person can therefore be declared righteous apart from entire sanctification.

However, if you hate sin because of the regeneration process; and therefore desire to be set free from it as the result of having been born again: God is also able to do this in you.

I think every child of God hates sins of the flesh. They know they condemn a person. But hating sins of the flesh does not mean that a person can do away with all sins of their flesh.

Paul mentioned a thorn in the flesh. Most believe he is talking about a physical sickness of some sort. But I don't see that sickness would be any more than any other thing that man goes through. But what I think he meant is a sin of the flesh that he can't stop committing.

The clue I see is that God did not want him to start thinking that he did not need God's salvation any longer and get the big head over others.

2 Cor 12:7 The Thorn in the Flesh
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.
NKJV

Phil 3:3
3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,
NKJV
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is the problem. You have been educated in a religious theology. You will not venture to have an open mind.
Sounds like a complete cop-out to me.
As I stated before - If you can convince me that they mean something else - then I'll be willing to take another look.

HOWEVER - if you don't have any evidence - then your response is understandable.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just so you know, I did not bring up this contradiction from the perspective of unbelief. I have already answered it in a previous post (BAPTISM).

However, @BreadOfLife 's understanding of epignosis throws a wrench in the works; nevertheless his understanding is not valid so the contradiction continues to be reconciled for me.
Rubbish.
I gave you evidence from PROTESTANT scholarship. I never even once argued from the Catholic standpoint.

The fact that YOU simply refuse to accept the linguistic facts about Epignosis doesn't "invalidate" the evidence I presented.
Denial is NOT a valid debating point . . .
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think every child of God hates sins of the flesh. They know they condemn a person. But hating sins of the flesh does not mean that a person can do away with all sins of their flesh.

Paul mentioned a thorn in the flesh. Most believe he is talking about a physical sickness of some sort. But I don't see that sickness would be any more than any other thing that man goes through. But what I think he meant is a sin of the flesh that he can't stop committing.

The clue I see is that God did not want him to start thinking that he did not need God's salvation any longer and get the big head over others.

2 Cor 12:7 The Thorn in the Flesh
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.
NKJV

Phil 3:3
3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,
NKJV
That is reading what you want into the text.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Rubbish.
I gave you evidence from PROTESTANT scholarship. I never even once argued from the Catholic standpoint.

The fact that YOU simply refuse to accept the linguistic facts about Epignosis doesn't "invalidate" the evidence I presented.
Denial is NOT a valid debating point . . .
I do not have any issues with Catholicism, although I do believe that 1 Timothy 2:5 shows that it is a flawed theology.

The reason why I refuse to accept your definition of epignosis is because it would make the Bible untrue.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I do not have any issues with Catholicism, although I do believe that 1 Timothy 2:5 shows that it is a flawed theology.
The Catholic Church teaches that this verse is true - so I'm NOT sure why you would think otherwise.
The reason why I refuse to accept your definition of epignosis is because it would make the Bible untrue.
There you go again.

It's not "MY" definition.
It is THE definition - and one that is supported by the consensus of Protestant scholarship, as I showed you. Besides - it doesn't make the BIBLE untrue - it makes the false Protestant doctrine of Eternal Security (OSAS) untrue.
BIG difference . . .
 
Last edited:

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Catholic Church teaches that this verse is true - so I'm NOT sure why you would think otherwise.

Really? So Mary is not a co-mediatrix in Catholic teaching? And Catholics are taught that there is no coming to God through the saints? That is news to me...

There you go again.

It's not "MY" definition.
It is THE definition - and one that is supported by the consensus of Protestant scholarship, as I showed you. Besides - it doesn't make the BIBLE untrue - it makes the false Protestant doctrine of Eternal Security (OSAS) untrue.
BIG difference . . .

The definition in the Strong's allows for epignosis to be referring to mental assent.

In your definition this appears to not be a possibility.

You never answered the question that I asked you...

Luke 8:13 declares that there is a person who believes for a while and then falls away...

While John 6:47 declares that the person who believes has everlasting life.

If the person falls away, how do they have everlasting life?

(I already gave you the answer...but let's see if you can come up with an alternate one that is more in liking to your theology).

I'll give you a hint...someone who falls away does not have everlasting life....and yet there is the person who believes for a while and then falls away...while it is promised that whoever believes on Jesus has everlasting life.
 
Last edited:

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Really? So Mary is not a co-mediatrix in Catholic teaching? And Catholics are taught that there is no coming to God through the saints? That is news to me...
That's only news to YOU because you have pre-judged Catholic teaching without doing your homework . . .

There is only ONE way to the Father - and that is through Christ (John 14:6). Not only does the Church teach this - we taught it to the WORLD.
Jesus is our ONLY mediator in that only HIS perfect sacrifice can make peace between us and God. He lives forever to make intercession for us before the Father (Heb. 7:25).

That being said - we are ALL called to be intercessors for one another.
- James tells us to pray for one another (James 5:16).
- John tells us to pray for one another (1 John 5:16).
- Paul asks for prayers and INTERCESSIONS (1 Tim. 2:1).
- Rev. 5:8 shows the Saints in heaven bringing our prayers before God and Rev. 8:3-4 speaks of the Angels in heaven doing the same thing.

We don't go through Mary and the Saints to get TO God.
We ask them to pray FOR us.
The definition in the Strong's allows for epignosis to be referring to mental assent.
In your definition this appears to not be a possibility.
You never answered the question that I asked you...

Luke 8:13 declares that there is a person who believes for a while and then falls away...
While John 6:47 declares that the person who believes has everlasting life.

If the person falls away, how do they have everlasting life?
The definition of Epignosis in Strong's is NOT mere mental assent.
If it were - you might have a case - but ut isn't. You are simply playing games with the definition.

As I showed you Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, along with Thayer's Greek Concordance and the scholarly consensus that states emphatically that "Epignosis" is far different than "Gnosis" - which IS mere mental or intellectual assent.

As for Luke 8:13 and John 6:47 - this is the trouble you get into when you start cherry-picking the Scriptures to formulate perverted doctrines. You must read ALL of Scripture in its proper context.

When John 6:27 says that the one who "believes" has everlasting life - it is NOT talking about a person who simply has come to an mental assent. James 2:19 states in NO uncertain terms that even the DEMONS believe - but that won't save them. He goes on to compare that kind of false faith with REAL faith, which includes obedience.

TRUE Faith = Belief + obedience (works).
You cannot have true faith without either component (James 2:14-26). This is the kind of faith that only comes from having an EPIGNOSIS of Christ - and not a simple Gnosis or Oida (mental assent).
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We don't go through Mary and the Saints to get TO God.
We ask them to pray FOR us.

As long as they are alive on the earth I don't have any problem with that.

But to pray to (ask them for something is the same thing as prayer) the dead is necromancy.

Deu 18:10, There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
Deu 18:11, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
Deu 18:12, For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.


When John 6:47 <fify> says that the one who "believes" has everlasting life - it is NOT talking about a person who simply has come to an mental assent.

I agree, for in order for someone to obtain the promise of John 6:47, they must have a heart faith that is unto righteousness (Romans 10:10); mental assent is not enough.

What I am saying is mere mental assent is the believing that is mentioned in Luke 8:13...for that faith did not endure to the end and therefore could not have laid hold of the promise that we have in John 6:47.