Eternal Security

[GodsGrace]

I do agree! But at times from what I have read I disagree with both you and him. But... that OK. If we are all really sincerely headed toward the Light, will God refuse any of us?

It's OK to disagree. What counts is that it's done with respect. I used to be on a forum with some pretty mean persons that called themselves Christian. I think our behavior should be the first thing to change when we get to know God and attempt to be His disciple. And I truly dislike personal remarks...persons telling me I may not be saved. What do they know? We should be here to discuss and fellowship and not much else.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why don't we simply accept the fact that according to Scripture, God looks at both the heart and doctrine (Q) It helps no one to present one-sided beliefs.

Indeed, according to 2 Timothy 3:16,17, doctrine is the first item listed.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for (1) doctrine, for (2) reproof, for (3) correction, for (4) instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Sound doctrine (God s truth) is essential according to Scripture. Unfortunately, today we have more false teachings than every before, and Christians are not being grounded in the truth.

I believe doctrine means "teaching" not God's truth.

Here:

doctrine
ˈdɒktrɪn/
noun

1. a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
   "the doctrine of predestination"
   sinonimi: creed, credo, dogma, belief, set of beliefs, code of belief, conviction, teaching; Altro
   • US
     a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs.
     "the Truman Doctrine

IOW, how could something be God's truth if we don't all agree on it??

For instance, we all agree that Jesus is God incarnate, that He died and was resurrected, that He'll come again in the future, that God forgives sin, that God created everything...

But how is it God's truth if we don't agree?
For instance, there are verses in the bible that make it seem like OSAS is correct,
and verses that make it seem like salvation can be lost... Some believe dead persons can hear us and some don't....etc.

 

[Enoch111]

I believe doctrine means "teaching" not God's truth.

"Teaching" what? Is it not God's truth? Christ's truth?

 

[gadar perets]

That is your own carnal reasoning.

You wrote this concerning APAK's explanation of Isaiah 43:11.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am YHWH; and beside me there is no saviour.​

You falsely interpret this verse to mean Yeshua must be YHWH/God because Yeshua is our Saviour and there is no other. The word “Saviour” in Hebrew is “moshia”. Here is how “moshia” was used in Judges 6:14-15:

“And YHWH looked upon him [Gideon], and said, Go in this your might, and you shall save [moshia] Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent you? And he said unto Him, Oh my Adonai, how shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.”​

These words were spoken to Gideon long before YHWH used Isaiah to prophesy about there being no Saviour besides Him. I’ll comment on how this can be after I give a few more examples.

“And YHWH gave Israel a saviour [moshia], so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.” 2 Kings 13:5​

We learn that the saviour YHWH gave them was Joash (vs.25).

Nehemiah 9:27 speaks of saviours that YHWH sent to save Israel.

“Therefore you delivered them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto you, you heard them from heaven; and according to your manifold mercies you gave them saviours [moshiaim], who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.”​

Obadiah also prophesied about future saviours that will be sent to Israel.

“And saviours [moshiaim] shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be YHWH’s.” Obadiah 1:21​

From the Scripture references given above, it is clear that there were other saviours besides YHWH both before and after the words spoken by Isaiah in our opening verse. How are we to take those apparent contradictions? Did the Almighty make a mistake? Do we reject His prophets because they prophesied falsely? Or do we seek to harmonize all the texts?

It seems obvious to me that when YHWH said there was no other Saviour except Him, He was declaring Himself the ONE TRUE SAVIOUR. As such, He can choose any method He wants to save people. He can choose to save by Himself or He can choose to save by raising up men to act as saviours. The men He raises up do not replace YHWH as the ultimate Saviour from whom all salvation flows. They are vessels through whom YHWH saves. If YHWH can and has used men in the past to be saviours, then why can’t He use His Messiah to save people as well? If YHWH can use men to bring about a temporal salvation to His people, why can’t He use His Messiah to bring about an eternal salvation for His people? He can and He has.

He has also placed in Torah the life of Joseph which is an uncanny parallel with the life of Yeshua. YHWH used Joseph to save not only the children of Israel, but many others from the nation stricken by the famine. Consider the following two verses.

Genesis 45:7 – And Elohim (God) sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.

Genesis 50:20 - But as for you, you thought evil against me; but Elohim meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.​

The starving nations had to come to Joseph for food and to save their lives. He was a type of Messiah Yeshua to whom the world must come for spiritual food and salvation. Yeshua is the bread of life and the YHWH appointed Saviour of the world. If YHWH could use Joseph to save people, He could use His Messiah, Yeshua, to save people as well. However, the salvation we receive through Yeshua is far more efficacious than the temporal salvation received through Joseph. For salvation through Yeshua is eternal. Yet, that eternal salvation is directly caused by YHWH sending Yeshua to be the Saviour of the world. That makes YHWH our ultimate Saviour and Yeshua the means through which YHWH saves us.

 

[gadar perets]

Jesus came as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedec, not after a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life. Therefore He can break the sabbath and still be sinless;

No, he cannot. The reason the high priests were innocent of breaking the Sabbath is because YHWH commanded them to do the work they did each Sabbath. Had they done other work that was not commanded by YHWH, they would have been guilty. Healing on the Sabbath was NEVER a command of YHWH. It was a man made command of the Jews. So when Yeshua broke their man made command and healed someone on the Sabbath, they interpreted that as breaking the Sabbath, but they were wrong as usual.

And also, when there was a change in the priesthood (from Levi to Melchizedec) there was by necessity also a change of the law. Therefore Jesus was not bound by the letter of the OT, but exemplified the spirit of what it was all about. In telling the lame man to carry His bed and walk, He violated the letter of the sabbath in what He taught; but He was teaching a higher principle about the elements of faith, which superseded a legalistic sabbath observance.

The only law that was changed was the law stating the high priest had to be of the lineage of Aaron. The Sabbath law was not changed.

 

[bbyrd009]

"Son of God" and "Savior" were titles assumed by the Caesars after Rome's Republic turned into an Oligarchy. Christ would never refer to Himself as "Son of God." Which is why it cannot be Quoted. I guess "Sons of God" was also a Jewish splinter group.

i am not saying that Christ was not the Son of God, however

 

[GodsGrace]

"Teaching" what? Is it not God's truth? Christ's truth?

I see what you mean.

Isn't a doctrine something that has to be accepted as a teaching of a particular church?

Can a teaching NOT be a doctrine?

I have to think about this some more.

Wait...IOW,
In the Nazarene church I was TAUGHT that man is a trichotomy.
But it is not a doctrine...one could believe it or not and still be a member of that church. Many believe man is a dichotomy.

?? Comment? Is a teaching different from a doctrine?

 

[amadeus]

If you are trying to convince me that I am a corrupt tree, you will in no wise do so; because I believe that God is a God who answers prayer.

Don't be so sensitive. I was merely providing scriptures concerning trees. All of us are to be a tree. It is not my job to accuse you and I do not. We are what we are and God certainly knows. If you are one of His then your fruit will be good fruit.
Give God the glory!

Notice that one of the works of the flesh there in your quote is heresies.

Now what I am attempting to do here is fight heresy; so I think that such a thing would be of the Lord's Spirit, especially since we are commanded to do this in Jude 1:3-4.

This is fine so long as you know what heresy is and God has given you this as a task.

 

[amadeus]

That the Deity of Christ is a doctrine essential to salvation is shown clearly to anyone who will accept the testimony of this fact, in John 8:24.

So accept it, but go slow on accusing or condemning others who are not exactly where you are in every point of their walk with God. Some are only drinking milk while others are into strong meat. Should not a person, if he is to be judged at all, be judged in accord with where he is on the highway of holiness? Who knows the walk of another so well but God?

 

[amadeus]

Why don't we simply accept the fact that according to Scripture, God looks at both the heart and doctrine (Q) It helps no one to present one-sided beliefs.

Does not our heart determine what our doctrine is? If our carnal head is too much involved making decisions as to which doctrines are right will we not find that even more denominations are being added to the thousands instead of moving toward one? Perhaps John the Baptist traveled the right pathway by putting himself where they would remove his old head for him.

Indeed, according to 2 Timothy 3:16,17, doctrine is the first item listed.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for (1) doctrine, for (2) reproof, for (3) correction, for (4) instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Sound doctrine (God s truth) is essential according to Scripture. Unfortunately, today we have more false teachings than every before, and Christians are not being grounded in the truth.

The verse you quote begins with "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". Those men who wrote did so as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. Can a man understand any part of God's message through that inspired writing without the lead of that same Holy Spirit?

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

For this reason the Holy Spirit was sent as Jesus promised. Without that Spirit we cannot learn anything that is "good" and/or "true" Yes, sound doctrine is essential, but without being led of the Holy Ghost no man has essential doctrine as a part of the way he lives for God.

Everyone in an assembly of people may own a Bible, but it does NOT necessarily follow that every Bible owner understands God's message to man.

 

[bbyrd009]

That the Deity of Christ is a doctrine essential to salvation is shown clearly to anyone who will accept the testimony of this fact, in John 8:24.

that you must also become elohim is another, only i don't hear anyone preaching it much.
the "I am He" of John 8:24 is "Son of Man" after all, Christ was not claiming any deity there, except maybe in English?

 

[bbyrd009]

This is fine so long as you know what heresy is and God has given you this as a task.

which imo He is not ever going to do; there is no "fight the devil" in Scripture right
resisting a heresy just means not believing a heresy, i think

 

[justbyfaith]

No, he cannot. The reason the high priests were innocent of breaking the Sabbath is because YHWH commanded them to do the work they did each Sabbath. Had they done other work that was not commanded by YHWH, they would have been guilty. Healing on the Sabbath was NEVER a command of YHWH. It was a man made command of the Jews. So when Yeshua broke their man made command and healed someone on the Sabbath, they interpreted that as breaking the Sabbath, but they were wrong as usual.

As I said, Jesus' violation of the sabbath had to do with commanding the lame man to pick up his bed and walk. And while that was a violation of the letter of the sabbath law (i.e. thou shalt not do any work) by proxy, in the teaching of Jesus; Christ was blameless because He is the Lord of the sabbath days; and His priesthood was after the power of an endless life.

The only law that was changed was the law stating the high priest had to be of the lineage of Aaron. The Sabbath law was not changed.

So you pontificate.

 

[justbyfaith]

You wrote this concerning APAK's explanation of Isaiah 43:11.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am YHWH; and beside me there is no saviour.​

You falsely interpret this verse to mean Yeshua must be YHWH/God because Yeshua is our Saviour and there is no other. The word “Saviour” in Hebrew is “moshia”. Here is how “moshia” was used in Judges 6:14-15:

“And YHWH looked upon him [Gideon], and said, Go in this your might, and you shall save [moshia] Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent you? And he said unto Him, Oh my Adonai, how shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.”​

These words were spoken to Gideon long before YHWH used Isaiah to prophesy about there being no Saviour besides Him. I’ll comment on how this can be after I give a few more examples.

“And YHWH gave Israel a saviour [moshia], so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.” 2 Kings 13:5​

We learn that the saviour YHWH gave them was Joash (vs.25).

Nehemiah 9:27 speaks of saviours that YHWH sent to save Israel.

“Therefore you delivered them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto you, you heard them from heaven; and according to your manifold mercies you gave them saviours [moshiaim], who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.”​

Obadiah also prophesied about future saviours that will be sent to Israel.

“And saviours [moshiaim] shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be YHWH’s.” Obadiah 1:21​

From the Scripture references given above, it is clear that there were other saviours besides YHWH both before and after the words spoken by Isaiah in our opening verse. How are we to take those apparent contradictions? Did the Almighty make a mistake? Do we reject His prophets because they prophesied falsely? Or do we seek to harmonize all the texts?

It seems obvious to me that when YHWH said there was no other Saviour except Him, He was declaring Himself the ONE TRUE SAVIOUR. As such, He can choose any method He wants to save people. He can choose to save by Himself or He can choose to save by raising up men to act as saviours. The men He raises up do not replace YHWH as the ultimate Saviour from whom all salvation flows. They are vessels through whom YHWH saves. If YHWH can and has used men in the past to be saviours, then why can’t He use His Messiah to save people as well? If YHWH can use men to bring about a temporal salvation to His people, why can’t He use His Messiah to bring about an eternal salvation for His people? He can and He has.

He has also placed in Torah the life of Joseph which is an uncanny parallel with the life of Yeshua. YHWH used Joseph to save not only the children of Israel, but many others from the nation stricken by the famine. Consider the following two verses.

Genesis 45:7 – And Elohim (God) sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.

Genesis 50:20 - But as for you, you thought evil against me; but Elohim meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.​

The starving nations had to come to Joseph for food and to save their lives. He was a type of Messiah Yeshua to whom the world must come for spiritual food and salvation. Yeshua is the bread of life and the YHWH appointed Saviour of the world. If YHWH could use Joseph to save people, He could use His Messiah, Yeshua, to save people as well. However, the salvation we receive through Yeshua is far more efficacious than the temporal salvation received through Joseph. For salvation through Yeshua is eternal. Yet, that eternal salvation is directly caused by YHWH sending Yeshua to be the Saviour of the world. That makes YHWH our ultimate Saviour and Yeshua the means through which YHWH saves us.

More carnal reasoning (because it is based in a desire to refuse essential doctrine of the scriptures).

God is indeed the only Saviour; and the face that He sent saviours to help deliver Israel in time of need who were filled with His Spirit (and therefore He was the Saviour in those instances) does not mean that when it says Jesus is our Lord and Saviour; and that there is no Saviour besides Jehovah: that Jesus isn't Jehovah. It is a sign to us that this may very well be who He is. It is evidence to us, if not absolute proof.

You may have shown that Isaiah 43:11 isn't proof; but you haven't show that it isn't evidence. And Isaiah 43:11 isn't the only evidence that shows that Jesus is the LORD. (Can you say that out loud? "Jesus is the LORD.") 1 Corinthians 12:3.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is fine so long as you know what heresy is and God has given you this as a task.

He has given this task to anyone who understands sound doctrine and who encounters doctrine that is false (Jude 1:3-4).

 

[justbyfaith]

So accept it, but go slow on accusing or condemning others who are not exactly where you are in every point of their walk with God. Some are only drinking milk while others are into strong meat. Should not a person, if he is to be judged at all, be judged in accord with where he is on the highway of holiness? Who knows the walk of another so well but God?

Okay, I accept your exhortation; while keeping in mind that if someone is unaware of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ being an essential, and has not seen and/or understood the scriptures on the subject, then they fall into the category that you speak of.

But if they are aware, and choose not to believe the scriptures but rather their own carnal reasoning, then if they were to die failing to believe in Christ's Deity, it would be in their sins. For that is what the scripture teaches. And if someone were unaware of Jesus' claim, they have not heard the truth of the gospel in its fulness quite yet, and therefore when they hear the preaching they will have an opportunity to decide on the issue. And the fact that they are ignorant definitely does not mean that we ought not to preach to them the truth.

Also, I do not believe I have been accusing or condemning others in any fashion; for I have only been declaring what is the judgment of Him who judges righteously, that if anyone fails to understand and believe that He is the great I AM, they will die in their sins.

I am considered to be judgmental because I believe and proclaim this verse. However in so many other things, I am not judgmental as a person to my very core. When it comes to isssues where God has declared what is right and wrong, I will declare what God has spoken. For He has told us to keep judgment in Isaiah 56:1-2: and also that judgment is a thing that is according to His love in Philippians 1:9 (kjv).

 

[amadeus]

which imo He is not ever going to do; there is no "fight the devil" in Scripture right
resisting a heresy just means not believing a heresy, i think

Well if we can understand it there is this:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matt 5:38-39

But there is also this:

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." James 4:7

Several years ago I did an in depth study on these verses. There is a difference, is there not? They are not contradictory although sometimes people we will read them that way. Were both writings written by the inspiration of God?

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I Cor 14:33

Why do people argue over scripture instead of simply discussing it and asking for help as needed?

 

[Enoch111]

Does not our heart determine what our doctrine is?

It is Scripture which determines what our doctrine is (or should be). That is what is stated in 2 Tim 3:16,17. It goes without saying that Scripture also tells us what our heart condition should be.

 

[Enoch111]

Isn't a doctrine something that has to be accepted as a teaching of a particular church?

Doctrine (God's truth) comes from God (2 Tim 3:16,17; Mt 4:4). Every church's doctrine should come directly out of Scripture. Unfortunately the doctrines of men have ruined Christendom, thus you have a mishmash of Bible truth and human tradition in too many churches.

 

[GodsGrace]

Doctrine (God's truth) comes from God (2 Tim 3:16,17; Mt 4:4). Every church's doctrine should come directly out of Scripture. Unfortunately the doctrines of men have ruined Christendom, thus you have a mishmash of Bible truth and human tradition in too many churches.

True. (The CC has many of them).