Already read, Already explicitedly stated my view and expressly said why.
And I have expressed my view which refutes your point of view.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Already read, Already explicitedly stated my view and expressly said why.
And I have expressed my view which refutes your point of view.
Romans 5:2 is too much overused and misused, it appears. The focus really there is Jesus Christ, not faith, at least in my reading.
Here is how I see it through that lens...
We have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:1-2).
Therefore, if we lose or throw away faith, we lose or throw away our access to grace.
We are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Therefore if we no longer have access to grace, we no longer have salvation.
That being said, I do believe that those who have a genuine faith have been sealed by the Holy Spirit and therefore have an everlasting faith.
And the question remains, will a true Christian reject Jesus Christ? If not, then there should be no issue as to whether the Christian will later reject Christ or not.Tong2020 said: ↑
It also keeps me thinking why there those who believe that their salvation can be lost. To them I ask this question: Will a true Christian reject Jesus Christ, Him whom He said he had sincerely and truly received, accepted, and believed in his heart?
Someone who calls themselves a Christian and who believes themselves to be "eternally secure", may in fact have a nominal, lukewarm, or shallow faith; and therefore they can fall away in time of temptation (Luke 8:13) or be "cut off" (Romans 11:20-22).
Amen!Considering that we are given new life by becoming united with our Creator, that He actually lives in us, and our new life is actually the life that comes from Him, eternal, immortal, how exactly would such a life end?
Do we truly suppose that one sin is more than another sin, as if sins weren't from the flesh? That's somehow this spirit child of God will sin? The new creation shares God's nature.
Do we think that doubts which may creep into our minds, as we fail to notice the mind of the flesh, and it's deceits, will somehow overturn God's faithfulness towards us?
As if having truly met our Creator, our God Who says of Himself that He IS love, to turn away? Of such a one Jesus will say, I NEVER knew you.
We can rest, assured, in the simplicity of faith, in the simplicity of His Words.
Much love!
Let’s say “Come Lord Jesus!”Yes! Lets pray for an Awakening!
The Bible is not written "to" us; it is written about us, but not "to" us. Consider Paul's epistle to the Romans. Paul is writing "to" those believers living in Rome. This is a letter written specifically to them. They are the intended audience. Someone kept a copy of the epistle so that what Paul said to those believers might be heard by others, including us.The ENTIRE volume of scripture is written to all mankind!
To all nations and peoples.
WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING???
You are just simply resisting the truth in Romans 11 that plainly destroys that abominable Once Saved Always Saved doctrine!
The so-called "plain" meaning of the passage is an illusion. Why do I say that? Typically, our sense of what any passage "plainly means" is solely based on familiarity. The "plain meaning" of a passage is the way it was first taught to us, or the way we first understood it. If we come to understand it differently, then that meaning becomes the plain meaning. See?@Tong2020,
You have said that Romans 11:20-22 is being misinterpreted by some of us because we don't understand it in its context of the whole chapter of Romans 11.
So, here is your opportunity to give your teaching on how the context of the passage nullifies the plain meaning of the passage.
Have at it.
I am really all ears; and I want you to convince me of your point of view.
The Bible is not written "to" us; it is written about us, but not "to" us
This is a letter written specifically to them.
Who is writing; The intended audience; and the background events that predicated the letter. We do this naturally with other letters we might read from friends or family. And we should do the same when reading the epistles.
Romans 5:2 is too much overused and misused, it appears. The focus really there is Jesus Christ, not faith, at least in my reading.
And the question remains, will a true Christian reject Jesus Christ? If not, then there should be no issue as to whether the Christian will later reject Christ or not.
Let’s say “Come Lord Jesus!”
The so-called "plain" meaning of the passage is an illusion. Why do I say that? Typically, our sense of what any passage "plainly means" is solely based on familiarity. The "plain meaning" of a passage is the way it was first taught to us, or the way we first understood it. If we come to understand it differently, then that meaning becomes the plain meaning. See?
No, first of all, Peter isn't talking about the process or technique of how one comes to understand the meaning of the Bible. as we understand the term. Peter is talking about the source of Biblical Prophecy and how we came to know the purposes and plans of God. He says, " for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Peter is not focused on exegesis; he is focused on the transmission of inspired revelation.So, you're saying that every prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.
Romans 5:2 refutes your point of view; so of course you would take the stance that it is overused and misused. It is the perfect scripture to refute Calvinistic teaching; along with John 1:12.Tong2020 said: ↑
Romans 5:2 is too much overused and misused, it appears. The focus really there is Jesus Christ, not faith, at least in my reading.
And of course we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).
And, we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:1-2).
Yes, I wlll keep quoting that verse until the cows come home; for as long as you continue to contradict it with your theology. For I believe that the verse in question proves it to be heretical in nature.
Yes a “Christian” can, but not the “true Christian”. So, please read my question carefully and I quote:A "Christian" can later reject Christ if his or her faith is not genuine. Such a Christian may even believe that they are eternally secure in Christ.Tong2020 said: ↑
And the question remains, will a true Christian reject Jesus Christ? If not, then there should be no issue as to whether the Christian will later reject Christ or not.
So, believing in eternal security is no guarantee of eternal security.
I believe that real eternal security is not apart from holiness (1 John 3:6, 1 John 2:17).
Let us say, "Come Holy Spirit and redeem a greater number of people before Jesus comes!"Tong2020 said: ↑
Let’s say “Come Lord Jesus!”
Amo 5:18, Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.
Amo 5:19, As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.
Amo 5:20, Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?
No, first of all, Peter isn't talking about the process or technique of how one comes to understand the meaning of the Bible. as we understand the term. Peter is talking about the source of Biblical Prophecy and how we came to know the purposes and plans of God. He says, " for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Peter is not focused on exegesis; he is focused on the transmission of inspired revelation.
"Interpretation" is what we all practice, whether we know it or not. In order to understand your post, I use the same skills I use to understand any form of communication including the Bible. Peter is not objecting to the process of exegesis and hermeneutics. He is assuring his readers that his message and writings were not his own invention. His information comes directly from inspired sources including the Holy Spirit.
Why I said it is misused is when it used to support something it says nothing about. We can quote the same scriptures a million times over, but that will not change what it says.
Yes a “Christian” can, but not the “true Christian”. So, please read my question carefully and I quote:
“will a true Christian reject Jesus Christ?”
The Holy Spirit had already come when the Lord Jesus after He ascended back to heaven, sent Him, even then, convicting the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgement.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!”
No, first of all, Peter isn't talking about the process or technique of how one comes to understand the meaning of the Bible. as we understand the term. Peter is talking about the source of Biblical Prophecy and how we came to know the purposes and plans of God. He says, " for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Peter is not focused on exegesis; he is focused on the transmission of inspired revelation.
"Interpretation" is what we all practice, whether we know it or not. In order to understand your post, I use the same skills I use to understand any form of communication including the Bible. Peter is not objecting to the process of exegesis and hermeneutics. He is assuring his readers that his message and writings were not his own invention. His information comes directly from inspired sources including the Holy Spirit.
That's not true.Here, Peter is not only talking about the process by which holy scripture came into being; but he is also talking about how we understand holy scripture as we read it off the page.
You are dealing with a bad translation. I believe the proper understanding of the Greek behind the English is expressed by the commentators of the NET Bible.No prophecy of the scripture is of any private "interpretation".
Here, Peter is not only talking about the process by which holy scripture came into being; but he is also talking about how we understand holy scripture as we read it off the page.
Agreed. Let's not defeat this statement.Paul said that the apostles "used great plainness of speech" (2 Corinthians 3:12 (kjv)) when they penned the holy scriptures...and that to me indicates that the scriptures are not hard to understand when you look at them with an analytical mind.
Just bear in mind that Paul's "natural man" isn't a stupid man. Paul's natural man is a rational man, one who does not allow for the supernatural. During Paul's time, some Greek philosophers were just beginning to explore mathematics and physics and the debate concerned epistemology: what is the most reliable source of knowledge? Should we focus on the empirical, or the rational? (The Bible would say both are needed.) For Paul, however, the natural man was smart and intelligent but unwilling to allow for divine revelation. He argues that spiritual knowledge, i.e. knowledge we gain from the Holy Spirit is also valid.Truly, the word of God is foolishness to the natural man; and he cannot receive or know the full reality of what they are talking about; for they are spiritually discerned.
Exactly.However, I do believe that the natural man is able, simply by reading the scriptures, to understand the message of salvation and if he receives that, he will also be able to discern by the Spirit the deeper things of what the holy scriptures teach us.
It depends on what you mean by "heretical". Everything in scripture is true as we know, but often times we must allow scripture to be critical of orthodoxy. The Bible is often critical of orthodoxy.The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. Sometimes He may even inspire something to be written in holy scripture that is heretical in order that that concept might be thought of in its proper context and so that He can deal with the problem using other scripture.
As we carefully parse Paul's thought here, we must account for the phrase "this grace in which we stand", which assumes there are other "graces" God might grant. For we understand that heart surgery is another grace God grants, which isn't a grace in which we stand but a grace that predicated our walk of faith. Some of us believe that if God had not softened our hearts and opened our eyes, we would never have come to saving faith.Romans 5:1-2 says everything that needs to be said about the Calvinistic viewpoint that we are born again before we have faith. Since we cannot be born again without grace, it shows clearly that faith comes before grace and therefore before becoming born again of the Holy Spirit.
Of course, bear in mind the distinction I have made."To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7)
As a saint, beloved of God, THIS IS FOR ME! And it’s for men to hear and be saved and walk in truth!
Hopefully you can see from my example above that Paul's intended audience for his epistle to the Romans was the saints living in Rome, as he himself explicitly says. Those of us who are not living in Rome during the first century have a "third party" orientation. And we can confidently say that although Paul wasn't writing specifically to us, he was writing about all saints in general. Just as John wasn't the intended audience of Mary's letter, we are not the intended audience of Paul's epistle to the Romans. And just as Mary's letter contained information relevant to John, Paul's epistle to the Romans contains information relevant to us.The intended audience: All mankind and all the saints.
It’s written TO me and it’s about me, a man.
"...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)
For:
"...blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." (Luke 11:28)
Let's consider Paul's epistle to the Galatians. Do you think Paul was writing this to YOU?
Galatians 3:1
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?