Eternal Security

[justbyfaith]

Hebrews and Romans 8 would point to the perseverance of the saints!

Amen brother.

 

[farouk]

Amen brother.

Well, exactly. It's about those for whom the seed has fallen in good ground, according to the parable of the sower.

 

[justbyfaith]

JWs are certain Jesus is Michael.

My experience of them is that they are not certain of this at all. They really do know deep down that Jesus is God. However something within them grates against this concept so that they actively fight against it. When you show it to them in scripture, they walk away convicted every time.

 

[justbyfaith]

Well, exactly. It's about those for whom the seed has fallen in good ground, according to the parable of the sower.

Yes! Again, Amen!

 

[gadar perets]

I know from Isaiah 9:6 that Jesus is the everlasting Father. He is YHWH according to that scripture.

It only says "everlasting Father" in biased translations. And please don't call yourself a trinitarian. You are not. Trinitarians firmly believe that the Father is NOT the Son and vice versa.

A man is comprised of spirit and soul and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23). So by your own words Jesus is the Father, since you have recently admitted that His Spirit is the Father.

The Spirit in all believers is the Father as well. That does not make us all the Father.

It is really funny to me how when people lose an argument, they try to go back to the original Greek or Hebrew and say that the scripture doesn't really mean what it says in English. Their God is not sovereign, Omnipotent, and loving so that He would preserve His word in the language that they read it in so that His unadulterated message might be given to the common people. To them, the educated (Greek and Hebrew scholars) scribes and Pharisees (who rejected Christ) are the most privileged, while the common people who actually received Jesus cannot really know the true message of the gospel.

Where are we told that YHWH would preserve His Word in the KJV? Why the KJV and not the NASB or Tyndale's Bible or The Geneva Bible?

 

[gadar perets]

My experience of them is that they are not certain of this at all. They really do know deep down that Jesus is God. However something within them grates against this concept so that they actively fight against it. When you show it to them in scripture, they walk away convicted every time.

This is a bunch of lies, false assumptions, gross generalizations and wishful thinking.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is a bunch of lies, false assumptions, gross generalizations and wishful thinking.

Nope.

 

[justbyfaith]

It only says "everlasting Father" in biased translations. And please don't call yourself a trinitarian. You are not. Trinitarians firmly believe that the Father is NOT the Son and vice versa.

It is your opinion, that the translations that say that, are biased. And yes I do believe in the true Trinity: that Jesus is God the Son in that He is God (the Father) in human flesh through the virgin birth.

The Spirit in all believers is the Father as well. That does not make us all the Father.

I will concede this point, because you are not ready for the truth on this matter.

Where are we told that YHWH would preserve His Word in the KJV? Why the KJV and not the NASB or Tyndale's Bible or The Geneva Bible?

Loving: 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16; Omnipotent: Revelation 19:6, Sovereign: Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6.

I don't think that switching from the kjv will make a difference when looking at these verses. If the others are valid translations, they can't be that different.

 

[gadar perets]

It is your opinion, that the translations that say that, are biased. And yes I do believe in the true Trinity: that Jesus is God the Son in that He is God (the Father) in human flesh through the virgin birth.

My opinion is based on Hebrew grammar, not on a desire to support the trinity.

[See attached file]

Loving:

1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16; Omnipotent: Revelation 19:6, Sovereign: Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6.

So, as usual, you read into the text what you want. Those texts say nothing about YHWH preserving His Word in the KJV.

I don't think that switching from the kjv will make a difference when looking at these verses. If the others are valid translations, they can't be that different.

The fact that they have even ONE difference (they have many) refutes your belief that the KJV is the preserved (perfect) Word of God. BTW, I do believe we have the preserved Word of YHWH. His name is Yeshua.

 

[Helen]

@gadar perets

......

I always find this subject hard to understand. Hence I don't understand it! But then again, can we really ever comprehend God and the things of God. I wonder if we even come close?
We may 'think' that we do.

I read @101G 's thread on Diversified oneness...on the trinity. I almost understood that.

This that you posted I only half understand.
How can God be all of the trinity ...is this diagram God diversified.
If the Son and the Holy Spirit are part of the Father Himself , then surely they have the very same authority? Right?

This thread has come a long way from the title subject of eternal security ....which I 100% believe.

 

[farouk]

It is your opinion, that the translations that say that, are biased. And yes I do believe in the true Trinity: that Jesus is God the Son in that He is God (the Father) in human flesh through the virgin birth.



I will concede this point, because you are not ready for the truth on this matter.



Loving: 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16; Omnipotent: Revelation 19:6, Sovereign: Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6.

I don't think that switching from the kjv will make a difference when looking at these verses. If the others are valid translations, they can't be that different.

I don't know of any Scripture that says that the Son is the Father. The Son is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His Person (Hebrews 1), but Father and Son are distinct Persons.

 

[justbyfaith]

So, as usual, you read into the text what you want. Those texts say nothing about YHWH preserving His Word in the KJV.

You know that the principles of these verses support the concept that God will preserve his word. otherwise you wouldn't have changed the position of the word loving as if to try and hide it, in your post. I believe that you understand even on the surface level that the fact that God is loving in conjunction with the other attributes mentioned means that He would preserve His word.

 

[justbyfaith]

I don't know of any Scripture that says that the Son is the Father. The Son is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His Person (Hebrews 1), but Father and Son are distinct Persons.

I believe that Isaiah 9:6 declares it quite clearly.

Also in the biblical hermeneutic of 1 Corinthians 2:13, if you compare Ephesians 4:5 with Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 1 Corinthians 12:3, and 1 Corinthians 8:6, I believe that you will see that the one Lord is both Jesus and the Father.

And I do not disagree that they are distinct Persons. But I believe that they are merely distinct, not separate. See Ephesians 3:11; and think of how it might apply to the Father becoming the Son after having lived one eternal moment.

Now I know that with Isaiah 9:6, people often will try to take you back to the original Greek in order to deny that Jesus is the everlasting Father. But notice that when they do this, they have to change the wording twice in order to make it say what they want it to say. And Jehovah's Witnesses sit laughing because of how Christians interpret Isaiah 9:6. They can convert anyone with 1 Corinthians 8:6 if they do not have the proper understanding.

 

[farouk]

I believe that Isaiah 9:6 declares it quite clearly.

Also in the biblical hermeneutic of 1 Corinthians 2:13, if you compare Ephesians 4:5 with Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 1 Corinthians 12:3, and 1 Corinthians 8:6, I believe that you will see that the one Lord is both Jesus and the Father.

And I do not disagree that they are distinct Persons. But I believe that they are merely distinct, not separate. See Ephesians 3:11; and think of how it might apply to the Father becoming the Son after having lived one eternal moment.

Now I know that with Isaiah 9:6, people often will try to take you back to the original Greek in order to deny that Jesus is the everlasting Father. But notice that when they do this, they have to change the wording twice in order to make it say what they want it to say. And Jehovah's Witnesses sit laughing because of how Christians interpret Isaiah 9:6. They can convert anyone with 1 Corinthians 8:6 if they do not have the proper understanding.

The Hebrew at Isaiah 9.6 is 'the Father of eternity', a similar idea to Alpha and Omega in Revelation chapter 1.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Hebrew at Isaiah 9.5 is 'the Father of eternity', a similar idea to Alpha and Omega in Revelation chapter 1.

Okay, change it one more time and you will have your doctrine.

Is the Father of eternity not the Father?

 

[farouk]

Okay, change it one more time and you will have your doctrine.

Is the Father of eternity not the Father?

Isaiah 9.6 says 'son': a number of glorious titles are given.

 

[justbyfaith]

Isaiah 9.6 says 'son': a number of glorious titles are given.

And?

 

[farouk]

And?

Clearly the passage is talking about the future birth of the Saviour.

 

[justbyfaith]

Clearly the passage is talking about the future birth of the Saviour.

No doubt. Is there a point contrary to what I have spoken?

 

[farouk]

No doubt. Is there a point contrary to what I have spoken?

I don't see from Scripture how the Father ever ceased to be the Father, and how the eternal Son became His Father. The term 'Father of eternity' refers to the Son's relationship with eternity, as similarly in Revelation 1.