Eternal Security

[Nancy]

You sound like a mohamedan

 

[Enoch111]

I base my claim on what is found in Scripture, not what is read into Scripture.

No YOU DO NOT. You deny, deny, deny what is found in Scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

A person who goes through the door is no longer ungodly

Not necessarily (Romans 7:18, 1 John 1:8, Romans 3:23, Galatians 3:22).

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Yeshua; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

Isaiah 9:6, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The work Yeshua did in John 5 was the spiritual work of healing which was never against the law of YHWH, but only against the foolish man-made laws of the Jews which Yeshua rebuked them for. Yeshua NEVER did forbidden work on the Sabbath and he NEVER broke it. That is why he was sinless. Nor did he cause the lame man to sin by picking up his mat. YHWH never forbid such an action. It was the foolish Jewish man-made law that said carrying anything on the Sabbath was forbidden. They took that so far that a person could not carry a handkerchief in his pocket!

John testified under inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the Jews persecuted Yeshua for healing on the Sabbath because that is how they falsely viewed his actions. They also falsely accused him of making himself equal to God by saying God was his Father. Saying God is one's Father does NOT make one equal to God. I say God is my Father and God is my Abba, but that does not mean I am His equal. Yeshua even taught us to call God "our Father". Are we all guilty of making ourselves equal to God??

Also, Hebrews 7:12 does NOT mean the law was changed allowing Yeshua or us to break the Sabbath. The law that was changed was the law forbidding anyone to be high priest except for a son of Aaron. It was changed via the oath of Psalm 110:4 which now allows a priest after the order of Melchizedek to be high priest.

You have a lot more studying to do young man.

Jesus claimed to be working on that day, which was the sabbath (John 5:17, John 5:9). So either He violated the sabbath or He was lying; which one was it?

Exodus 20:10 says clearly, in it (the sabbath) thou shalt not do any work.

And I am not so young any more.

YHWH became flesh ONLY in the minds of deceived people.

He didn't become flesh only in the minds of those who would die in their sins if the Lord were to take them presently.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

First a lesson in logic and reading comprehension...(before the Holy Spirit inspires it would help if people learned some reading comprehension)

If a text says..."Thus says Jim, I want to let you know that Jim has sent me. My name is Jim and Jim has sent me."

In the above quotes...how many Jim's are there?

Jim Jr. and Jim Sr.

 

[Episkopos]

Jim Jr. and Jim Sr.

Father and Son.... It's a lot less religiously limiting to change the names...so as not to get the brain synapses misfiring with previous indoctrinations.

I think maybe this would be a good exercise...change all the names and read the bible again with a fresh perspective.

 

[justbyfaith]

First a lesson in logic and reading comprehension...(before the Holy Spirit inspires it would help if people learned some reading comprehension)

If a text says..."Thus says Jim, I want to let you know that Jim has sent me. My name is Jim and Jim has sent me."

In the above quotes...how many Jim's are there?

There is the possibility of only one (if the person is talking like Jesus did, in referring to the Son of Man in third Person when referring to Himself). Two is also possible.

 

[gadar perets]

Zech. 2: 8 For thus says the Lord of hosts: “He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye. 9 For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me.

Nothing strange here. Yeshua is speaking of a future time through prophecy as he has done elsewhere (Psalm 22:1 for example). He says YHWH of hosts sent him. That shows Yeshua is not YHWH of hosts.

10 “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the Lord. 11 “Many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you.

Again, YHWH of hosts sent Yeshua in verse 11. All the "Lord"s in both verses = "YHWH" in the Hebrew text. YHWH and Yeshua will both dwell in our midst as Revelation 21:22 shows. Verse 10 would be Yeshua quoting the words of YHWH. Verse 11 would be the words of Yeshua concerning himself.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi @BobRyan,

Sin is a principle that dwells within totally depraved man

Man has a "sinful nature" but sin is "transgression of the LAW" according to the actual Bible - see 1 John 3:4

The lost have no power against sin they "do not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they" Romans 8:4-10


...it boils down to independence from the Lord.

...until the law sin was in the world,

Indeed. Before the LAW was given at Sinai -- people were sinning no matter that it was not "written on stone".

The LAW came 430 years AFTER Abraham - that is when it was "written on stone".

Gal 3: 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise..

But God's "spoken Word" is LAW and so LAW existed BEFORE it was "written on stone"

Genesis 26:3...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.”

"Until the law..." This is speaking of a period of time in which the law was not in effect

No it is not. There is no text saying "the Law was not in effect until Sinai" and we all know it.

That means it was "SIN" for Cain to kill Abel "SIN is crouching at your door" Genesis 4
That means it was "SIN" For Joseph to give in to adultery "How can I commit this great SIN against God" Genesis
It would always be "SIN" to "Take God's name in vain" -- at every point in history.

Almost All Christian Scholarship admits to this existence of the LAW of God from Adam to this very day.

The sinful nature of man from Adam to this very day -- is a nature with a "bent" toward sin.
Sin "IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 -- by definition.

Man sinned in that he was independent of the Lord, but he didn't transgress

That is creative writing - it is not scripture to say that "Adam did not transgress"

...sin was not imputed to him, because the law, not being present, didn't point him out as being a sinner.

1. Sin is not imputed to the sinner who sins. Rather the sinner who sins is guilty without the sin being imputed.
2. Sin IS imputed to descendants of the sinner - as being among the race of sinners.

Because man was not aware because of the law

More creative writing?

Genesis 26:3...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.”

That means it was "SIN" for Cain to kill Abel "SIN is crouching at your door" Genesis 4
That means it was "SIN" For Joseph to give in to adultery "How can I commit this great SIN against God" Genesis
It would always be "SIN" to "Take God's name in vain" -- at every point in history.

I choose to believe Stranger on this one.

And I choose to believe the actual Word of God... to each his own. You have free will.

Stranger said "Adam transgressed" and you said in your post that "Adam sinned but he did not transgress" -- the agreement that the two of you have there - escapes me just then... but I do see a lot of agreement between the two of you on some of the other points.

To impute means "to credit to one's account." That is the definition of impute.

It means to credit without the item being earned - rather it is credited -- assigned.

For example - Justification by faith - at the moment of justification you have Christ's righteousness imputed to you.

You should read a man's entire post before responding to the first few sentences...Proverbs 18:13. I don't intend this as a rebuke per se...only as a tidbit of wisdom for future reference.

It is possible that you are addressing one of the points raised in my post above... if so then I missed it.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is not what I was addressing; but it is what I want to address now.

That is creative writing - it is not scripture to say that "Adam did not transgress"

I didn't say, "Adam did not transgress." I would say to you that in v.14 it says that death reigned over those who did not transgress after the similitude of Adam's transgression.

So what I was saying is that without the law, there can be no transgression.

And there was no law given from the time between Adam and Moses, according to Romans 5:13-14...which you evidently cannot see. I will pray for the Lord to open your eyes.

I suggest looking back for a moment over my previous post....hold on a sec...I'm going to fetch the post # and page so you know where I'm referring to...post #1158, page 58. Here, maybe I'll quote and paste it below also.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hi @BobRyan,

Sin is a principle that dwells within totally depraved man...it boils down to independence from the Lord.

As such, this element of independence could exist within the heart of man even when there is no law to discover it...until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.

Notice the words, "Until the law..." This is speaking of a period of time in which the law was not in effect to show man his sin...which does not preclude that sin did not then exist in the heart of man. Man sinned in that he was independent of the Lord, but he didn't transgress...sin was not imputed to him, because the law, not being present, didn't point him out as being a sinner. Because man was not aware because of the law of his independent attitude. As soon as the law showed up, sin was imputed to man...it became transgression before the Lord because man was actually violating a commandment that he was aware of in his independence of the Lord.

Now I certainly believe that the law of the Lord is something that exists in eternity and that sin is also the transgression of that law. However, man, in the time from Adam to Moses, was unaware of this eternally existing law and therefore in violating it he was not transgressing...he was not trespassing where there was a "no trespassing" sign. He was trespassing in a place where someone had taken the sign down...and therefore God did not hold him as responsible for his law-breaking. And yet death still reigned in that time (from Adam to Moses), because the wages of sin is death, whether it is actual trespassing when there is a sign (transgression) or whether it is trespassing without a sign (simply sin). Because the eternal law in the heavenlies would dictate that it is a violation to trespass even when there is no sign (man should have realized that the presence of a fence was enough evidence that he shouldn't go over it)...nevertheless when standing before the judgment seat of Christ, the one who trespassed without a sign will not be held as responsible for his trespassing as the one who trespassed when there was a sign...as that is only fair in our eyes and our just God would not see it any differently.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hi JbF
Please post my entire previous reply.
This sounds like I don't believe Jesus is LORD.

I do agree with you, except for "God the Father is Lord".
God the Father is LORD.

Sorry I lost track of where the original post was located.

God the Father is the Lord (see Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21).

 

[APAK]

I ‘see’ there are folks here having a good laugh and shouting down one individual again especially - @gadar perets .

Well I would like to challenge anyone to 'put up or shut up.'

As this subject is large and has much history, I will want to look at what several folks love to quote in ignorance – John Chapter 1.

So, to any serious takers and true believers in the word(s) of God:

Tell me how and why the Greek transliterated word ‘logos’ in John 1-2 and John 1:14 became Jesus Christ, let alone any human being?

If you can explicitly, clearly and logically answer these two questions successfully, with strict adherence to scripture, where I would be amazed, I will be the first to tell you I’ve been wrong all these years.

The Greek term ‘logos’ always means God’s inner words, messages, plans purposes etc., that are revealed to us in this world. It never means a person. God’s logos created the world and all that exists per John 1:3; executed through his own spirit. Jesus had zero input to it. Way before his time.

John 1:1-13 and 14 was deliberately misused to build a foundation for the trinity, especially the 2nd person by ignorant and pagan folks. They forced a new meaning for logos and called the human instrument and voice of God’s logos the actual logos.

Christ, the human being that possessed the power of God, became the voice and the key piece to the plan of salvation for mankind. The logos (word- God’s plan for mankind)) became human (flesh - to voice and execute this plan of God). That is why in the same verse 14 he is called ‘full/complete grace and truth.’ He carried the grace and truth of God in him and was grace for us, because he selflessly in love, atoned for our sins.

Christ became by his birth and mission to the cross and beyond the ‘word of God’ NOT THE WORD ITSELF. How can anyone believe otherwise is beyond my understanding?

(Rev 19:13) And he is dressed in a garment sprinkled with blood, and his name is called The Word of God. (NEV)

HE IS NOT THE WORD!!! He is the born son and instrument of God’s plan for mankind.

Blessing all,

APAK

 

[justbyfaith]

If someone is a worker of iniquity they are not born again. It is not that they are condemned for that they didn't obey the Lord; it is that they are condemned for that they were never born again. Their disobedience is only the evidence to all who witness their judgment that they were never saved.

There's a lot to cover here. A lot of error. The above statement isn't true...a person can begin in the Spirit and try being perfected in the flesh...through men's teachings. Iniquity is just mixture. So then it is quite easy to mix in truth with traditions or carnal notions. We are to DEPART from iniquity. That means that iniquity is always trying to get in. Those who keep iniquity out will be vessels of honour. Only people who have received grace have this challenge. Iniquity is a sin for Christians...not the world.

Iniquity is sin as it dwells in the heart; and it abides in Christians and non-Christians alike...but especially non-Christians, because they have not been cleansed through the blood of Christ.

Now those who are not saved will be condemned for their disobedience; but only because they are not forgiven of all their sin and therefore their disobedience is still imputed to them.

Not at all. A Christian can be very disobedient. We can become altogether unfruitful.

I agree; and I think you misunderstood my statement. I mean to say that those who are redeemed have disobedience but are forgiven; while the disobedience of those who are not redeemed do not have their trespasses forgiven them; because they haven't trusted in God's propitiation.

Yes, God's righteousness is indeed imparted to those who are born again (Matthew 5:5, Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:7); however it is also imputed in justification.

This is a strange jumble... God's righteousness is not there until we enter into Him....not necessarily when we are born again. We must be baptized in the Spirit to receive that kind of power. Most Christians live their whole lives walking in their own power. We need to go to God for the full amount of grace and His righteousness.

Justification happens when we are born again...at redemption.

I agree. And therefore the 'ungodly' cannot be defined as people of other religions who do not have their faith in Jesus. Now if someone from another religion places their faith in Jesus, they are justified; and I do not dispute that. However by definition they no longer subscribe to their former religion but to the faith of Christ (which I will define as the religion of Christianity for lack of better terminology).

To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

(Romans 4:5).

Notice that this is an imputation of righteousness to the person who is ungodly.

 

[gadar perets]

Isaiah 9:6, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Yes, a 100% human child is born to a human mother. The son is given to us by YHWH. YHWH puts the government upon his shoulders. The Hebrew for "the mighty God" is "el gibbor" which can be translated "mighty warrior" or "mighty el". Since Yeshua is NOT the "only true God" (John 17:3), the verse should not use "God" with a capital "G".

As for "Everlasting Father", there are at least 27 names in the Bible with the same Hebrew construction as in this verse. Each one means the "father of (something)." For example, Abishua means "father of plenty." Instead of translating the phrase as "father of eternity," the KJV reversed the sequence making the true meaning harder to discern. Several newer versions correct this mistake such as The Emphasized Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The New American Bible, The Holy Bible; A Translation From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, and The New English Bible, just to name a few. Yeshua is the father of eternity because eternal life comes to us through him. And so it is written in Hebrews 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the author (or father) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

Jesus claimed to be working on that day, which was the sabbath (John 5:17, John 5:9). So either He violated the sabbath or He was lying; which one was it?

Exodus 20:10 says clearly, in it (the sabbath) thou shalt not do any work.

My Savior never sinned. Yours evidently did.

 

[Enoch111]

Tell me how and why the Greek transliterated word ‘logos’ in John 1-2 and John 1:14 became Jesus Christ, let alone any human being?

It's right there, staring you in the face. You quoted John 1:14. Now all you have to do is BELIEVE IT.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Who is "the only begotten of the Father"? Once again it is staring you right in the face, and you cannot see it.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (v 18)

Who is "the only begotten Son"?
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

So the truth is staring you, and gadar, and every naysayer in the face. "The Word" (Logos) is "the only begotten Son", and the only begotten Son is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now what I would like to see is that you respond with a positive affirmation that this is God's truth.

 

[Episkopos]

Nothing strange here. Yeshua is speaking of a future time through prophecy as he has done elsewhere (Psalm 22:1 for example). He says YHWH of hosts sent him. That shows Yeshua is not YHWH of hosts.


Again, YHWH of hosts sent Yeshua in verse 11. All the "Lord"s in both verses = "YHWH" in the Hebrew text. YHWH and Yeshua will both dwell in our midst as Revelation 21:22 shows. Verse 10 would be Yeshua quoting the words of YHWH. Verse 11 would be the words of Yeshua concerning himself.

That's called eisegesis. You are trying to read in a conclusion in the face of the text saying something you don't like. Nobody can force you into bible literacy. You are responsible for your beliefs.

 

[justbyfaith]

I ‘see’ there are folks here having a good laugh and shouting down one individual again especially - @gadar perets .

Well I would like to challenge anyone to 'put up or shut up.'

As this subject is large and has much history, I will want to look at what several folks love to quote in ignorance – John Chapter 1.

So, to any serious takers and true believers in the word(s) of God:

Tell me how and why the Greek transliterated word ‘logos’ in John 1-2 and John 1:14 became Jesus Christ, let alone any human being?

If you can explicitly, clearly and logically answer these two questions successfully, with strict adherence to scripture, where I would be amazed, I will be the first to tell you I’ve been wrong all these years.

The Greek term ‘logos’ always means God’s inner words, messages, plans purposes etc., that are revealed to us in this world. It never means a person. God’s logos created the world and all that exists per John 1:3; executed through his own spirit. Jesus had zero input to it. Way before his time.

John 1:1-13 and 14 was deliberately misused to build a foundation for the trinity, especially the 2nd person by ignorant and pagan folks. They forced a new meaning for logos and called the human instrument and voice of God’s logos the actual logos.

Christ, the human being that possessed the power of God, became the voice and the key piece to the plan of salvation for mankind. The logos (word- God’s plan for mankind)) became human (flesh - to voice and execute this plan of God). That is why in the same verse 14 he is called ‘full/complete grace and truth.’ He carried the grace and truth of God in him and was grace for us, because he selflessly in love, atoned for our sins.

Christ became by his birth and mission to the cross and beyond the ‘word of God’ NOT THE WORD ITSELF. How can anyone believe otherwise is beyond my understanding?

(Rev 19:13) And he is dressed in a garment sprinkled with blood, and his name is called The Word of God. (NEV)

HE IS NOT THE WORD!!! He is the born son and instrument of God’s plan for mankind.

Blessing all,

APAK

You have to know the how and why in order to have faith in something? It is like when Jesus said to a man, Unless you see signs and wonders, you will in no wise believe.

The simple answer is that you should simply take a wild look at Luke 1:35...In the virgin birth the Holy Ghost became one with the egg in the womb of the virgin Mary...and the product therefore was fully the Son of God and fully the Son of Man...He was both 100% God and 100% Man.

God purchased His church with His own blood....Acts of the Apostles 20:28.

And if you reject this testimony by going to other translations with itching ears...well, you have to deal with the understanding that in rejecting the Deity of Christ, your only fate can be to die in your sins if you continue with that opinion or belief (John 8:24).

What I am saying is that the Deity of Christ is a doctrine that is essential to salvation...understand John 8:24 in light of the following:

In John 8:58 Jesus broke the normal grammatical usage to make a claim...and the scribes and Pharisees understood perfectly what that claim was, so that they picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59, John 10:31-33).

That claim referred back to Exodus 3:14...For Jesus was claiming to be the great I AM of that scripture passage.

If He were not making a claim He would not have bothered to use improper grammar to make His point...the fact that He did and it turned out to be a true statement and not the statement of an imbecile shows me that Jesus is truly God as He claimed to be.

In some cases you might not get it if you are using certain translations other than the kjv...so I would exhort you to understand that Jesus said that the way to life is narrow and there are only a few who find it (Matthew 7:13-14, John 14:6).

I don't think you want to reject sound doctrine because of itching ears (2 Timothy 4:1-5).

 

[bbyrd009]

You sound like a mohamedan

that sounded like a diversion

 

[aspen]

Pushing the idea of eternal security flys in the face of faith, grace and replaces them with a transaction. It is an attempt to control God. You guys really think that on Judgment Day, Jesus is going to look at a wicked heart and then, listen to it’s owner who demands Him to honor some contract? Transactions, contract, and vacious law are all part of the false self - the true self is the part of us Jesus knows

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, a 100% human child is born to a human mother. The son is given to us by YHWH. YHWH puts the government upon his shoulders. The Hebrew for "the mighty God" is "el gibbor" which can be translated "mighty warrior" or "mighty el". Since Yeshua is NOT the "only true God" (John 17:3), the verse should not use "God" with a capital "G".

As for "Everlasting Father", there are at least 27 names in the Bible with the same Hebrew construction as in this verse. Each one means the "father of (something)." For example, Abishua means "father of plenty." Instead of translating the phrase as "father of eternity," the KJV reversed the sequence making the true meaning harder to discern. Several newer versions correct this mistake such as The Emphasized Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The New American Bible, The Holy Bible; A Translation From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, and The New English Bible, just to name a few. Yeshua is the father of eternity because eternal life comes to us through him. And so it is written in Hebrews 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the author (or father) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"


My Savior never sinned. Yours evidently did.

Nope. He didn't; because He is immutably the Lord God. He came as High Priest of the order of Melchizedec; not after the law of a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life.

You can go to other translations if you wish, in rejection of the King James Version's rendering. Just know that many of the other versions out there are translated by what the Bible would call "teachers telling you what your itching ears want to hear." (2 Timothy 4:1-5).