Search results

Ah oh, that's pretty close to bbyrd009 ( one of our long time members). Nonetheless-- welcome! @bbyrd009

It means that all that was before the foundation of the world, had been made manifest, revealed. And now these are the days as they were in the time of Noah.

No. In fact, he was "lost."

You are reading too much into the parable, and not enough. It's all conjecture, not the truth of the Spirit. If you like it that way, as you say, so be it. Your terms.

No, you are not defining salvation correctly, but trying to fit your definition into the most complex example of salvation in all of history. That is called confusion. If you were to pick an Old Testament example or a New Testament example, each of those is enough to understand, and many do...

Well...yes, but if you do see God as the Father (and I do), then you should also include that He is spirit and we must be born again, just as Jesus said.

I quoted him already. You can look it up if you want. He said he had yet attained, but also indicated that he was among those who are alive (in the Spirit)and remain.

What you are not taking into account, is it does not say that the son came to the Son and is now alive again, but to the father...mean that he was not saved as many wrongly define being saved, not as believing, but as coming to the Father, which is at the end.

I agree. It depends on what context you may want to apply it to. And anyway that is getting off on a tangent which I did not think was on topic. It means discussing the difference between salvation of the house of Israel, and the gentiles...which some are confusing.

Well, if you look at it in the greater context of all who are to be saved, then it is what Jesus said, that we must also be born again. But the parable was not addressed with regard to those who would come to the Son, but to those who should return to the Father. See the difference?

It means Christ completed all that He came to do.

You are not being clear. At first in your above post you seem to be for the salvation of eternal life being irrevocable. But then seem to be against the idea later...and then seem to suggest that it is a mystery and a dilemma. Which do you actually mean to be saying?

You are apparently ranting about your own pet peeve. No one said anything about man made doctrines. The parable simply doesn't go into spiritual rebirth and the experience of the "other fold which Jesus must also bring" who are born again of the spirit of God. That is because the parable was...

If you want to discount the cross and all that Jesus did, that is your business. But that is what is erroneous, for He is the Author and Finisher: It is finished. He said so...and you have said nothing but speak against Him.

Then my comment regarding Paul's letter to the Romans was correct...because he said everything I said elsewhere.

The point I was making, is that Adam was also a son of God, but all who are born of the flesh like Adam are not saved until Christ, and must be born again of the Spirit.

Still the son, but not reborn of the Spirit.

The parable tells of a father who had two sons. The parable may portray the Father, but it is just a portrayal.

He was born of the flesh. The parable does not go into being born again of the spirit, for it was told to the house of Israel who were not to be born again, but to be a part of the second resurrection...they are the first who are last.

While all of the timeline issues may be interesting, all such are of the world...(among the tares/weeds). Better to hear what the Spirit says.