The Eternal Security Heresy: A Comprehensive Refutation of OSAS

[BarneyFife]

Was a later addition to the text "interpolation" .. a well known one .. does not exist in earlier texts .. like the long ending of Mark.. although that was a bigger addition to the text.

Doubtless. God is made in man's image by the skeptics of His ability to preserve His word. We shall see in the end who is wiser: God in His providence; or man in his imagination. I hope and pray that textual criticism is not found ultimately to be the last refuge of an infidel, but/and if so, the sin is not laid to their charge.

My concern lies not so much with the judgment of genuine literary authentication but with the doubt cast upon so much of what is accepted as canon as a result. The information glut of the last twenty years has spawned a generation of "experts" in everything.

 

[Taken]

T -
Getting you to think a certain way is a multi multi Billion dollar industry - and these organizations are global.. and I am excluding advertizing here .. the less nefarious use of this technology... its the money that goes into "nefarious" use of this science .. that we want to focus on.

Agree. I haven't watched TV or read a newspaper in years. Waste of my time.

OK .. so back to my post - The idea is not to create Chislam .. not even close... the idea was to turn Islam from its evil ways .. realize how false their religious belief is... but doing so by not criticizing them directly - just promoting certain principles from Jesus in relation to how to conduct one's life .. in relation to works .. this has nothing to do with a salvation converation .. other than the ones from Islam that would turn would turn to prophet Jesus .. rather than the other fellow.

Ok.

Communism - is a whole other issue .. and we should not use this term as it does not well describe what is happening. This is better described as "Collectivism" - and we need to shoot our arrows straight here .. dont' want to wound the enemy .. we want to kill it. Can get into why this is the case if you are interested.

Changing the name of Communism, (Marxism, Socalism, Liberalism, Collectivism) to a new "ism" with some added flavor, carries the Same premise and intent.
Puppet Master and useful puppets...

 

[BarneyFife]

That is exactly what comes to my mind when I think of obedience to God. That light went on for me not too long after I was born again. Seems few in the church have this knowledge. I had the privilege of having a pastor who taught these things.

Yes, people usually learn much more from people than they do from actual Bible study. Sorry, but it's practically undeniable. I have a strong influence on my own thinking, but he didn't come along until after I formed my core beliefs, which have not changed. I was fortunate, I believe.

 

[Taken]

$ 1000 to you if you show me ONE PLACE in the KJV where it says, “ We must repent of our Sins, in order to be Saved......

Luke 13:
[3] ... except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[BarneyFife]

Stepping back out of the Christian Bubble - saying to oneself "Self" how to teach the world to sing .. and while not perfect harmony .. at least in some semblance together.

These are the principles - that I abide by - and on which we should all be able to agree - We need to be uniting people on principles on which we can agree - rather than fighting over whether or not Allah was a better prophet than Jesus .. or whether Gods name is El .. or YHWH or Jesus.

Islam has the principle .. "there is no coercion in Islam" ahaa .. some common ground .. the Golden rule is stated in there somewhere as well .. OK .. Good .. lets work with that.

Of course this teaching in Islam goes completely against "Sharia Law" - but hey .. just highlighting the greatness of Islam Don't shoot the messenger ..

Divided we fall.

Compare this with some of your other posts. You have made some of the most provocative and controversial statements in this thread. And then you say we should hold hands and sing. A few posts later and you're back in business.

 

[BarneyFife]

$ 1000 to you if you show me ONE PLACE in the KJV where it says, “ We must repent of our Sins, in order to be Saved......

How could you make such a ridiculous challenge? Premeditated fraud, it is. You'll never pay. You're already convinced the Bible doesn't mean what it says unless it's something you like.

 

[Heyzeus]

Doubtless. God is made in man's image by the skeptics of His ability to preserve His word. We shall see in the end who is wiser: God in His providence; or man in his imagination. I hope and pray that textual criticism is not found ultimately to be the last refuge of an infidel, but/and if so, the sin is not laid to their charge.

My concern lies not so much with the judgment of genuine literary authentication but with the doubt cast upon so much of what is accepted as canon as a result. The information glut of the last twenty years has spawned a generation of "experts" in everything.

I get what you are all up in arms about .. the problem with the literalist perspective is that if one small pillar falls ... the whole structure collapses - and so one has to go to great lengths to defend even the smallest error - to the point of demonization of the messenger ..

"damn them all to hell .. they are all under Satan's influence" .. not saying you are doing this .. but it happens often .. way too often.

One does not have to be literalist to accept the teachings of Jesus - You won't find Jesus saying "if you do not believe every word literally" you shall not enter the kingdom.

What Jesus says "those who are poor in Spirit shall enter the Kingdom" - he then goes on to correct scripture .. divorce law. Which folks had been interpreting a different way than Jesus would like things to be - for over 1000 years.. and how else could one interpret "If you want to divorce wife .. write a letter"

Dietary law "Don't eat this and that" - how else would one interpret .. Jesus overturned this. Was it God's law Jesus was overturning .. or "Man's Law" .. and Jesus knew something we didn't ....

Otherwise .. one has to accept that Jesus made these dietary laws 1000 years ago .. but changed his mind.

There is no other way out of this .. some have stated "it is the perogative of God to change mind" .. and who am I to argue - but is this a satisfactory response .. ? as we are then left with Jesus being a flip flopper ..

"OH OH - its beyond our understanding" ... no its not .. its quite simple .. Rule is "Don't eat Pork" one day .. and "Eat Pork" the next.
Perhaps Jesus knew the Pork back in the day had worms .. and during his day things were better.

this is ridiculous .. as he made all dietary laws mute at the same time .. making up an excuse for one example out of 1000 .. does not cut it for the other 999 .. some of which will not have such an excuse .. not that this is a valid anyway .. as while today Pork is much less wormy ... this was not the case during the time of Jesus.

Lets go to scripture -

James 1:16 Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. 17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

and we can pull up other supporting passages - and well .. logically - some God who has been around for billions of years - an all powerful God .. is not likely to "Change like Shifting Shadows"

I just can not buy into the God is a flip flopping xenophobic genocidal God - with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics .. but if this was the case .. as we are told in the Mosaic era of OT scripture - then Glad that Jesus did a 180 degree turn .. and changed his nasty ways .. changed like the shifting shadows.

I just hope Jesus doesn't change back again .. do the Jeckel and Hyde thing.. what about you .. do you like the new version or the old one better ?

 

[Heyzeus]

I see what you're saying. I thought you were endorsing Islam, lol.

I remember years ago seeing a TV program where they were interviewing a young Muslim boy. Apparently he didn't have a stitch of knowledge about Jesus. I think it was about how he and his community were starving. In the interview he said he would rather die than steal food because thieves go to hell. And I remember thinking he was what Paul was talking about when he said the gentiles have the law of God written on their hearts and that if he did die for not stealing he would be judged accordingly at the resurrection.

Think others got the same impression so may have been my ineptitude as a writer rather than lack of reading comprehension on your part.
Go on a bit in post 1460.

I had a convo once with a Muslim .. an "Islamist" = agrees with Strict Sharia. One should pay close attention to this distinction as not all Muslims are "Islamists" - albeit the majority are - and it depends on the Region.

For example Bosnian Muslims - and eastern European Muslims in general - are way way different .. they drink - smoke like chimneys - and all the normal stuff .. Women dress in skirts and wear make up and proper bathing suites - and intermarry with other religions .. Laws in these nations are not based on Sharia. They are not Islamists .. and hate the Islamists.

OK .. so the person I was conversing with was an Islamist - but kept stating "There is no compulsion in Islam"

Law - by Definition - is compulsion .. we allow the state to use physical violence and punishment against certain codes of conduct.
So Sharia Law - - by definition is compulsion .. it is forcing religious belief on others through physical violence.

One could argue - but most of society wants this and this is how democracy works - and while this is true in some Muslim nations - this does not change the fact that all children born into this society are compelled - by Law - to observer certain religious beliefs.

One needs distinguish here between Laws for protection from harm - one person on another - direct harm (murder, rape, theft) and Essential Liberty .. we are talking "essential liberty here" "Don't Drink Alcohol" and so on.

The Golden Rule is very clear on this. "If you don't want others forcing their personal religious habits on you - through Law - then do not do this to others"

There is a difference between 1) having a belief .. and 2) forcing that belief on another human - through physical violence.

You don't like alcohol -- No problem - Don't drink.. but "I don't like alcohol" is not a legitimate/valid argument for forcing another not to drink.. through physical violence.

The question of a referendum is not "do you like alcohol" .. the question of a referendum is "Do you have valid argument for using physical violence against another human for said action" - and further .. if we allow Gov't to do this - based on some flimsy Utilitarian Justification - as is the current plague on humanity - will this come back to bite my own backside.

There is an evil idea at the root of Sharia - and this is it .. it is a violation of the Golden Rule - Full Stop.. We are not to force religious belief on others through physical violence w/r to essential liberty

Why ? because we don't want others doing this to us. ... no one in their right mind does .. so this is hypocrisy right off the hop.

 

[brightfame52]

Acts 3:19 Acts 2:38 Acts 17:30 Matthew 3:2 Matthew 4:17 Luke 13:3 and many more places.
.

When it comes to Salvation, the commands to repent is to the regenerate, the born again, otherwise man naturally his heart is unrepentant, unable to repent. Even Acts 2:38 is to the newly born again, not to the natural man !

 

[Heyzeus]

Changing the name of Communism, (Marxism, Socalism, Liberalism, Collectivism) to a new "ism" with some added flavor, carries the Same premise and intent.
Puppet Master and useful puppets...

No - Collectivism is far more specific -and the term is linked to the problem - it is less of political ideology than the others which complicates those others so little people can not understand.

You will say "I hate socialism" .. I will turn around and say "You love socialism" - and be correct.

Collectivism is the problem in Marxism .. the problem in Socialism, Liberalism, Republicanism, Conservatism.

In Philosophy of Law - this is known as "Utilitarianism" - "What will increase happiness for the collective" Sounds good right .. what could possibly go wrong ?

This justification for law sounds good on the surface - which is why it is so insidious .. but dig deeper and this is an evil ideology.

Why would "if it saves one life" of its own volition - not be good justification for law ? What could possibly be the problem - who does not want to save one life ? "Don't you want to save one life you evil person" ? ..

What is up here ?

 

[Heyzeus]

Compare this with some of your other posts. You have made some of the most provocative and controversial statements in this thread. And then you say we should hold hands and sing. A few posts later and you're back in business.

Barney - get off the "demonize the messenger" path. Following the core teachings of Jesus - which you claim are contraversial -- but OK - will make the world a better place.

Your problem .. is that until I came along - you didn't know what those core teachings were. It is not my fault that these teachings caused controversy in your heart .. but .. if you don't want to blame Jesus - then feel free to blame the messenger ... Moi

 

[BarneyFife]

I get what you are all up in arms about

I don't see how that's possible since I'm not "all up in arms" about anything.

the problem with the literalist perspective is that if one small pillar falls ... the whole structure collapses

The pillars don't fall.

and so one has to go to great lengths to defend even the smallest error

Or just have patience and believe. There are no errors in the thoughts relayed, only paradoxes, symbols, and progressive revelation.

"damn them all to hell .. they are all under Satan's influence" .. not saying you are doing this .. but it happens often .. way too often.

Can't help that. But it's not the literalism that causes it, but plain ignorance.

One does not have to be literalist to accept the teachings of Jesus

Yes, they do.

You won't find Jesus saying "if you do not believe every word literally" you shall not enter the kingdom.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

What Jesus says "those who are poor in Spirit shall enter the Kingdom" - he then goes on to correct scripture .. divorce law. Which folks had been interpreting a different way than Jesus would like things to be - for over 1000 years.. and how else could one interpret "If you want to divorce wife .. write a letter"

Progressive revelation
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. (John 16:12)

Jesus knew something we didn't

It goes without saying.

"OH OH - its beyond our understanding" ... no its not .. its quite simple .. Rule is "Don't eat Pork" one day .. and "Eat Pork" the next.

Or perhaps "don't eat pork ever."

I just hope Jesus doesn't change back again .. do the Jeckel and Hyde thing.. what about you .. do you like the new version or the old one better ?

I like the eternal, unchanging One.

 

[BarneyFife]

Barney - get off the "demonize the messenger" path. Following the core teachings of Jesus - which you claim are contraversial -- but OK - will make the world a better place.

Speaking of getting off a path--lose the martyr complex. You don't threaten me at all. Why would I "demonize" you? I just made a few remarks about your posts. Do you need a safe space or something? Get over yourself.

Your problem .. is that until I came along - you didn't know what those core teachings were. It is not my fault that these teachings caused controversy in your heart .. but .. if you don't want to blame Jesus - then feel free to blame the messenger ... Moi

Yes, I've been a born-again Christian for nearly 50 years and I know nothing about the teachings of Jesus. Thank heavens He sent you. Again, try to be a little less narcissistic in your expression. You might get better results.

 

[BarneyFife]

Your problem

I like how people who don't agree with you have a problem. That's precious.

 

[BarneyFife]

Barney

By the way my name is Barny. You can call me BF, though, if you like. lol

 

[Heyzeus]

I don't see how that's possible since I'm not "all up in arms" about anything.

The pillars don't fall.

Or just have patience and believe. There are no errors in the thoughts relayed, only paradoxes, symbols, and progressive revelation.

Can't help that. But it's not the literalism that causes it, but plain ignorance.

Yes, they do.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

This passage has nothing to do with the issue of literalism - as the passage does not state that every word in scripture is the literal word of God. What this passage does do is illustrate how blind you are.. and lost in a world of hypocrisy .. without which you are unable to maintain the illusion that your pillars are intact.

So in your opinion .. we should live by every word in the Bible as if it proceedeth out of the mouth of God. When do we get to start killing babies who live in towns where some folks in that town are worshiping other Gods ?

I like the eternal, unchanging One

Self delusion .. The literalist is the one that believes in the flip flopper .. regardless of whether or not you admit this to yourself

"Babies should not be killed for the sins of their parents"
"Babies should be killed for the sins of their parents"

Which is God's word .. What did Jesus say ?

 

[Heyzeus]

I like how people who don't agree with you have a problem. That's precious.

Reduced to cherry picking two word phrases out of context in a desperate attempt to demonize .. I would expect nothing less.

You are projecting your issues onto others - that is what is "precious"

 

[justbyfaith]

These principles go beyond the boundaries of belief in Jesus .. or Allah ..or Zeus .. as the "Most High" .. The way .. the Truth .. the Light.

Jesus alone is the way and the truth and the "life" (John 14:6).

$ 1000 to you if you show me ONE PLACE in the KJV where it says, “ We must repent of our Sins, in order to be Saved......

Ezekiel 33:12-20.

Galatians also clearly teaches there is no “ wiggle - room” when it come to those that TEACh these False Gospels Of Adding Human Merit to what Christ accomplished alone at the Cross ....they are “ Accursed” —- Damned By God forever....
If one does not believe the Gospel , but later undergoes “a mind change” ( Metanoia ...Greek ) and actually starts Trusting in that Gospel he previously denied .....this “ change of mind” is the type of “ Repentance “ that saves a soul.....

You have it exactly backwards. It is not a lack of repentance that will save a man; but repentance. You need to understand that Galatians is not the only book in the Bible. But even if it is, Galatians 5:16-24 tells us that we will not violate the law (i.e. we will not sin) anymore when we walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. And I would say that being obedient to the law is not something that is going to happen apart from repenting of sins.

Newbies—— The Gospel is all about what God did for man—- NOT what man does for God.Don't “ fall from Grace” by adding Human effort ( religion, in other words ) to this: Jesus died for your sins and rose from the Grave . Rest in that, Plus nothing else , for your Salvation. Here is how you recognize a false Teacher —— When Anybody says , “Jesus Saves—BUT” .....know for sure you are hearing a False, Perverted Gospel being taught by a Teacher that is “ Accursed” for teaching it

Jesus came to save us from our sins (Matthew 1:21). So the contention that Jesus merely died to pay the penalty for our sins without actually dealing with the sins themselves, happens to be a false gospel.

You wanna “ cash in “ on the Grace That is the only thing that can save you ? You “ cash in” with your Faith . Faith in the Gospel . “ By GRACE you are Saved....through FAITH!”

Faith means not staggering at the promise of God and it means not wavering when it comes to obtaining the promises of the Lord (Romans 4:20-22).

There are certain promises that I think apply most succinctly here: 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 (kjv), Hebrews 10:14 (kjv), 1 John 3:9; Jude 1:24, 2 Peter 1:10, 1 John 2:10; 1 John 3:7, 1 John 3:3, 1 John 2:6).

Dietary law "Don't eat this and that" - how else would one interpret .. Jesus overturned this. Was it God's law Jesus was overturning .. or "Man's Law" .. and Jesus knew something we didn't ....

Otherwise .. one has to accept that Jesus made these dietary laws 1000 years ago .. but changed his mind.

Jesus didn't change His mind...He taught us that one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5:17-20). Paul even taught us to keep dietary laws in order to bear with the weaknesses of the weaker brother (Romans 15:1).

Now that our sins are forgiven through the blood of Jesus, dietary laws don't matter as much as they used to. The Lord came to win Gentiles to Himself as well as Jews. Dietary laws would be a peripheral issue that would get in the way of the nitty-gritty of the Person of Jesus Christ and our need to believe in Him....so God put it on the backburner.

"OH OH - its beyond our understanding" ... no its not .. its quite simple .. Rule is "Don't eat Pork" one day .. and "Eat Pork" the next.
Perhaps Jesus knew the Pork back in the day had worms .. and during his day things were better.

That is an excellent observation; and it answers your contention quite nicely (also).

this is ridiculous ..

But of course, you are motivated to believe that God is a flip-flopper; or, at least, the God of those who believe in 2 Timothy 3:16 is. The answer is not so ridiculous; except that it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notion that the God of the Christians is not worthy to be worshiped and exalted.

"Babies should not be killed for the sins of their parents"
"Babies should be killed for the sins of their parents"

Which is God's word .. What did Jesus say ?

See 2 Kings 14:6...which was the conclusion of those who read God's law in the days of the kings. They did not read the scriptures with an anti-God bias.

Reduced to cherry picking two word phrases out of context in a desperate attempt to demonize .. I would expect nothing less.

You should expect nothing less when it seems to be your aim to demonize God.

 

[BarneyFife]

This passage has nothing to do with the issue of literalism - as the passage does not state that every word in scripture is the literal word of God. What this passage does do is illustrate how blind you are.. and lost in a world of hypocrisy .. without which you are unable to maintain the illusion that your pillars are intact.

So in your opinion .. we should live by every word in the Bible as if it proceedeth out of the mouth of God. When do we get to start killing babies who live in towns where some folks in that town are worshiping other Gods ?



Self delusion .. The literalist is the one that believes in the flip flopper .. regardless of whether or not you admit this to yourself

"Babies should not be killed for the sins of their parents"
"Babies should be killed for the sins of their parents"

Which is God's word .. What did Jesus say ?

There is no command in the Bible for people to kill babies in this age. I'm glad since I find it quite objectionable. There is orthodoxy for biblical hermeneutics. No flip-flopping required. I am sorry you are so hostile toward the Bible being seen as authoritative in its entirety.

 

[BarneyFife]

Reduced to cherry picking two word phrases out of context in a desperate attempt to demonize .. I would expect nothing less.

You are projecting your issues onto others - that is what is "precious"

"Demonize"--what a joke. What will those who are so quick to cry "foul" do when real persecution comes?