You can never lose your salvation!

[bbyrd009]

There is much fighting and war in the promised land once Israel got there.

The promised land is a picture of the believer walking in victory over the many trials down here.

um...lol

The promised land is not to be identified as Heaven.

so you say, but i would keep an open mind there despite the implications.

 

[Stranger]

You claim that I err, yet you insert something that I never stated. Thus, the error is your own thoughts. As @bbyrd009 recently stated, and I paraphrase: metaphorically speaking, we are in the wilderness. Which happened to be my thoughts as I wrote my former reply, however I intentionally choose to leave them out.




Yet, when Jesus returns, the first resurrection takes place, and the "millennial reign", there is still:

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years may be finished, the Adversary shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 and he shall go forth to lead the nations astray, that are in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them together to war, of whom the number is as the sand of the sea;

Then there is the ultimate "promised land", that is the new heavens and the new earth.




Indeed. Because they did not heed the voice of YHVH and obey His Instruction. It was reckoned as "unbelief". They did not believe "God" enough to obey His Instruction.

Speaking of a "victorious walk of faith":

2 Tim 2:5 And if also a man contend in the games, he is not crowned, except he have contended lawfully.

Which by that alone, reveals there is no crown, there is no reward, for those whose "victorious walk of faith" has not been done lawfully.




Indeed, for as in the wilderness, those who refuse the Instruction, those who do not run the race lawfully, it is as though they never believed.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?

Based upon v22, those to whom heard it was said: "I never knew you", sure thought they knew him. In the parallel account in Luke:

Luk 13:25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us; and he shall answer and say to you, I know you not whence ye are; 26 then shall ye begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in our streets; 27 and he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

Ye that work what?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

As I asked of you before: What is "unrighteousness"?


Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him.

Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you.




As you state, the "believer". And as you yourself pointed out with regard to the wilderness, those that did not uphold the Instruction, were reckoned as "unbelievers". And thus, consumed in the wilderness. So according to your own words, you are without excuse.




Just as in the wilderness, those who shrank back from upholding His Instruction.




So let me get this absolutely straight: You are clearly stating that upholding His Instruction, that His "law" is "willful sin"? I am reading you correctly?




Deu 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse: 27 the blessing, if ye shall hearken unto the commandments of YHVH your God, which I command you this day; 28 and the curse, if ye shall not hearken unto the commandments of YHVH your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day ...

Deu 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; 16 in that I command thee this day to love YHVH thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, that thou mayest live and multiply, and that YHVH thy God may bless thee in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.

Deu 30:17 But if thy heart turn away, and thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish; ...

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed; 20 to love YHVH thy God, to obey his voice, and to cleave unto him; for he is thy life, and the length of thy days; that thou mayest dwell in the land ...

Perhaps you missed the parallel between Deuteronomy 9 and Romans 11.




Really? John 4:22? That's your "prooftext" regarding Romans 11:18? I don't even have to look that up. He was speaking to a Samaritan woman. It is telling Gentiles not to glory over those broken off. Just as Deuteronomy 9:4 was telling them not to think in their hearts ... So also should not we think such a thing.

Rom 11:25c ... lest ye be wise in your own conceits,


Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20 Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

This echoes Deuteronomy 9:4.




Indeed.

Rom 11:21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. 22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

The topic is whether or not one can lose their salvation. You gave the example of Israel in the wilderness as proof that we can lose our salvation by not entering the promised land. Which is an error as I showed you. And you are still in error as, now, not everyone is in the wilderness. Some believers have entered the promised land which is walking in victory and in the power of the Holy Spirit. Some are however still in the wilderness and their fight is with the old man of their sin nature, which must die before they can enter the promised land. Point being, there is nothing here to indicate any loss of salvation.

The promised land is not a picture of the millennium. In the promised land there are wars to be fought. Their are no wars to be fought in the millennium. Jesus Christ rules with a rod of iron. Nor is the promised land a picture of Heaven. For there are no more wars in Heaven. The promised land is where the believer has died to self and is walking in the power of the Holy Spirit. Concerning (Rev. 20:7), that is God destroying Satan. It is not the believer.

Well, that is what I and Scripture said. They could not enter because of unbelief. (2 Tim. 2:5) does speak of reward. So? I have said the believer can lose a reward. But this is not the loss of salvation.

Again, (Matt. 7:23) is not speaking of a loss of salvation. The Lord says "I never knew you". That means they were never saved. What you are trying to say now is, not that a believer can lose their salvation, but that a believer is not saved if they don't fit your definition of a believer. Which is what legalists like to do.

Concerning your remarks of (Heb. 10:27), the believers in the wilderness were saved, but they were in unbelief concerning entering the wars that were going to take place in the promised land. They already were under the blood which occurred in Egypt when they put the blood on the doorposts of their house. They did not become unsaved due to their failure to enter the land. They simply died in the wilderness not having the faith to enter the land. So, your remark that I have no excuse is empty.

Concerning 'wilfull sin' in (Heb. 10:26), yes you read me correctly. The wilfull sin is going back to the Mosaic Law instead of going forward with Christ and the believers. Going back to the Law is doing 'despite unto the Spirit of grace'. (Heb. 10:29)

Concerning the verses you gave in Deuteronomy, as I said of (Deut. 9:4) it is clear that it is showing that Israel is not obtaining the land due to their own righteousness. God had other reasons for doing it and it will be obtained only by their faith. Once in the land, which is not a picture of Heaven, but of the believer walking in the power of the Holy Spirit, if Israel turns away from God, then she can expect judgement from God. This is not a loss of salvation but a removal from the land.

(Rom. 11:13-25) is not addressing an individual as losing his salvation. Paul is addressing Israel and the Gentiles. He is addressing the door being opened at this time to the Gentiles and warning that that could be closed, and will one day be closed as He once again turns back to Israel and removes the blindness she is under. (Rom. 11:25) No loss of individual salvation here.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

You gave the example of Israel in the wilderness as proof that we can lose our salvation by not entering the promised land. Which is an error as I showed you.

ya, that was a fail bro, sorry.

i guess i have posted enough of your contradictory quotes for one day though.

 

[KBCid]

<chuckle> You remind me of a dear brother from my past. Are you gonna git me in trouble like he used too? Don't answer that, it is rhetorical in nature and I already know the answer. B'ahavah 'Akhi

You may call me brother mimic and I mimic the majority who will be going through the wide gate to their heaven.

Ahch Ahava

 

[KBCid]

1. The Law in the Teaching of Christ:
The Law frequently appears in the teaching of Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount He refers most specifically and fully to it...

(1) Authority of the Law Upheld in the Sermon on the Mount.
The perfection and permanence of the Law as well as its authority are thus indicated, and the following verse in Mt still further emphasizes the authority, while showing that now the Lord is speaking specifically of the moral law of the Decalogue: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (5:19)...
...What Jesus really does is to bring out the fullness of meaning that is in the Law, and to show its spirituality and the wideness of its reach. He declares that the righteousness of His disciples must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 5:20). Their righteousness consisted largely in a punctilious observance of the external requirements of the Law; the disciples must yield heart obedience to the inner spirit of the Law, its external and internal requirements....

(a) Christ and Tradition:
Jesus then proceeds to point out the contrast, not so much between His own teaching and that of the Law, as between His interpretation of the Law and the interpretation of other teachers: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time"...
(b) Sin of Murder:
This is further confirmed by the citations: "Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment." The second clause is not found in the Pentateuch as a distinct statement, but it is clearly the generalization of the teachers. Christ does not set Himself in opposition to Moses; rather does He enjoin obedience to the precepts of the scribes when, sitting in Moses' seat, they truly expound the Law (Mt 23:1-8). But these teachers had so expounded the command as if it only referred to the act of murder; so Christ shows the full and true spiritual meaning of it: "But I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment" (Mt 5:22).
(c) Adultery and Divorce:
Again, "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Mt 5:27). The traditional teaching confined this mainly to the outward act, ‘But I say unto you,' says Christ, ‘that adultery pertains even to the lustful thought' (Mt 5:28). In dealing with this matter He passes to the law of divorce which was one of the civil enactments, and did not stand on the same level with the moral precept against committing adultery, nay, the very carrying out of the civil provision might lead to a real breach of the moral precept, and in the interests of the precept itself, in the very desire to uphold the authority of the moral law, Christ pronounces against divorce on any ground, save that of fornication. Later on, as recorded in Mt 19:3-9, He was questioned about this same law of divorce, and again He condemns the light way in which divorce was treated by the Jews, and affirms strongly the sanctity of the marriage institution, showing that it was antecedent to the Mosaic code-was from the beginning, and derived its binding force from the Divine pronouncement in Ge 2:24....
Law in the New Testament - International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia

 

[Richard_oti]

<snip>
Concerning 'wilfull sin' in (Heb. 10:26), yes you read me correctly. The wilfull sin is going back to the Mosaic Law instead of going forward with Christ and the believers. Going back to the Law is doing 'despite unto the Spirit of grace'. (Heb. 10:29)

Rom 7:12 So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.

Rom 7:14a For we know that the law is spiritual:

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.

<snip>

(Rom. 11:13-25) is not addressing an individual as losing his salvation. Paul is addressing Israel and the Gentiles. He is addressing the door being opened at this time to the Gentiles and warning that that could be closed, and will one day be closed as He once again turns back to Israel and removes the blindness she is under. (Rom. 11:25) No loss of individual salvation here.

Rom 11:21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. 22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Try to explain it away all you wish using whatever sophistry your heart desires, but you can't overthrow the plain and simple reading that is right there before you.

 

[Stranger]

Rom 7:12 So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.

Rom 7:14a For we know that the law is spiritual:

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.

<snip>



Rom 11:21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. 22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Try to explain it away all you wish using whatever sophistry your heart desires, but you can't overthrow the plain and simple reading that is right there before you.

The question doesn't concern any problems with the law. There are no problems with the law. It is perfect, holy, just and good. The problem lies in my ability to keep the law. I can't. And, neither can anyone else. And this is why the law was given in the first place. It reveals me a sinner.

It is quite easy to explain your interpretation away by observing the simple reading that is given. (Rom. 11:7) "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh...." (11:11) "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles,...." (11:12) "Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" (11:13) "For I speak to you Gentiles...if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?"

Because of unbelief, God turned away from Israel to the Gentiles. (11:20) And the Gentiles now stand only by faith, or belief. (11:20) Thus if Gentiles will not continue in that faith, 'in his goodness' (11:22) then you Gentiles will also be cut off. And God will do this one day. (11:25)

So you see, Paul is very clear that it is Israel and Gentiles that he is addressing. The verses you choose in no way indicate any law keeping or a losing of ones salvation.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

The problem lies in my ability to keep the law. I can't. And, neither can anyone else.

still relayin that foundation, huh

The verses you choose in no way indicate any law keeping or a losing of ones salvation.

none whatsoever? are you sure, Stranger? that there are no supporting Scriptures for keeping the law, (or--forget losing--possibly not having salvation, even though one is convinced that they do? have it?)?

little children, do not be deceived

 

[bbyrd009]

It reveals me a sinner.

fwiw i really think you're a pretty decent guy, ok, even if you are a bigot or whatever, i mean i'm a hypocrite too ok. But what you have developed here is a neat slogan to put on a little piece of wood, Stranger, and that up there is actually revealed when you cannot acknowledge an offense, and accept forgiveness; not when the law is actually like read at you or whatever.

i bother here not because i enjoy roasting you ok, but to point out how to get off of that hypocritical windmill that we all jump on in church, that leads to our whacked doctrine in this area, and will always bear the fruit of relaying the foundation, over and over, as long as confession/rebound is left out of the equation.

Iow the Law prolly will not reveal someone to be a sinner, despite all of the assurances that it will, because the sinner cannot see, see. that is why we sin, because we are blind in that area. Might reveal the sin to everyone else, but that is a different subject in a sense.

 

[bbyrd009]

the Law prolly will not reveal someone to be a sinner, then.

and imo this should be acknowledged, is why i broke it out

 

[bbyrd009]

There are no problems with the law.

except that we are almost all almost completely under it, ya. and i mean me too. that is the "we" i belong to

 

[JPPT1974]

We are all sinners bear in mind my friend. And that we need to have a Savior and Lord. Remember the Garden of Good and Evil that was the very first original sin? God was sending Jesus before He came to be a baby in the humble manger. We all are sinners and will continue to fall short. But God through Jesus gives us a second and a third and beyond chances.

 

[Richard_oti]

There are no problems with the law. It is perfect, holy, just and good. The problem lies in my ability to keep the law. I can't.

Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be:

And, neither can anyone else. And this is why the law was given in the first place. It reveals me a sinner.

What did Jesus mean then when he said "go and sin no more"?

1Jo 3:4 Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Heb 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin:

<snip>

It is quite easy to explain your interpretation away ... <snip>

Of course, when you attempt to make it address only the whole, and not the individual.

Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I [1st pers. sing.] might be grafted in.

Rom 11:20 Well; by their unbelief [3rd pers. pl.] they were broken off [3rd pers. pl.], and thou [2nd pers. sing.] standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Rom 11:21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee [2nd pers. sing.].

Rom 11:22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell [pl.], severity; but toward thee [2nd pers. sing.], God's goodness, if thou [2nd pers. sing.] continue in his goodness: otherwise thou [2nd pers. sing.] also shalt be cut off.

Speaking of Israel, the number is plural. The pronouns are singular, of an individual. Not the plural pronouns of a group as in "Gentiles".

Thus if Gentiles will not continue in that faith, 'in his goodness' (11:22) then you Gentiles will also be cut off.

Tis easy to attempt to explain something away when you attempt to change the text. Even if you don't realize that is what you were actually doing.

So you see, Paul is very clear that it is Israel and Gentiles that he is addressing. The verses you choose in no way indicate any law keeping or a losing of ones salvation.

Care to address the problem with regard to the number of the pronouns.

 

[bbyrd009]

Care to address the problem with regard to the number of the pronouns.

i think that is usually accomplished by just insisting that you interpret it my way, richard

 

[Stranger]

Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be:




What did Jesus mean then when he said "go and sin no more"?

1Jo 3:4 Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Heb 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin:

<snip>



Of course, when you attempt to make it address only the whole, and not the individual.

Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I [1st pers. sing.] might be grafted in.

Rom 11:20 Well; by their unbelief [3rd pers. pl.] they were broken off [3rd pers. pl.], and thou [2nd pers. sing.] standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Rom 11:21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee [2nd pers. sing.].

Rom 11:22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell [pl.], severity; but toward thee [2nd pers. sing.], God's goodness, if thou [2nd pers. sing.] continue in his goodness: otherwise thou [2nd pers. sing.] also shalt be cut off.

Speaking of Israel, the number is plural. The pronouns are singular, of an individual. Not the plural pronouns of a group as in "Gentiles".




Tis easy to attempt to explain something away when you attempt to change the text. Even if you don't realize that is what you were actually doing.




Care to address the problem with regard to the number of the pronouns.

As I said, no problem with the law. The problem is our inability to keep the law. (Rom. 8:7) says nothing of losing your salvation or keeping the law.

Give me the verse and I will tell you what Jesus meant.

(1 John 3:4) and (Heb. 12:4) are good verses. How do they prove loss of salvation or the importance of keeping the law?

The whole is what is being discussed. It is Paul that says 'Israel' and 'Gentiles'. Not me. You want to make it individual when it is not. I have not changed the text. You have. You are making Paul's statements pertain to the individual believer when they pertain to the Gentiles and Israel as a whole.

Stranger

 

[Richard_oti]

As I said, no problem with the law. The problem is our inability to keep the law. (Rom. 8:7) says nothing of losing your salvation or keeping the law.

Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be:

Yet, it clearly states that the mind of the flesh can't subject itself to the law of "God".

Give me the verse and I will tell you what Jesus meant.

I'll give you book and chapter, that way you can read the context. John 5 and 8

<hearty chuckle> Did you mean, you'll tell me how what Jesus said should be interpreted.

(1 John 3:4) and (Heb. 12:4) are good verses. How do they prove loss of salvation or the importance of keeping the law?

Let's try the KJV:

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Hebrews 12 emphasizes the utter importance of striving not to sin in saying: In your struglle against sin, you have not yet resisted [sin] to the point of shedding your own blood.

Which, didn't Jesus saying something to the effect of better to pluck out ones eye or cut off the hand, better for one of thy members to perish than the whole body.

Origen, for whatever anyone may think of him, took those words to heart, he went the whole way and cut off the part. He resisted unto shedding his own blood.

The whole is what is being discussed. It is Paul that says 'Israel' and 'Gentiles'. Not me. You want to make it individual when it is not. I have not changed the text. You have. You are making Paul's statements pertain to the individual believer when they pertain to the Gentiles and Israel as a whole.

If Paul was in fact speaking only of Israel and the Ethnesin as singular entities as you propose:

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you [pl] Gentiles

Then Paul reverts to using the singular you when speaking of those grafted in. But refers to those broken off with the plural pronouns "them / they".

If Paul is speaking of them both as singular entities as you have put forth, shouldn't the number of the verbs and pronouns with regard to both be the same.

 

[Richard_oti]

i think that is usually accomplished by just insisting that you interpret it my way, richard

<slaps head> Oh! How silly of me not to see that. Silly Richard, Trix are for kids!

 

[Stranger]

Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be:

Yet, it clearly states that the mind of the flesh can't subject itself to the law of "God".




I'll give you book and chapter, that way you can read the context. John 5 and 8

<hearty chuckle> Did you mean, you'll tell me how what Jesus said should be interpreted.




Let's try the KJV:

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Hebrews 12 emphasizes the utter importance of striving not to sin in saying: In your struglle against sin, you have not yet resisted [sin] to the point of shedding your own blood.

Which, didn't Jesus saying something to the effect of better to pluck out ones eye or cut off the hand, better for one of thy members to perish than the whole body.

Origen, for whatever anyone may think of him, took those words to heart, he went the whole way and cut off the part. He resisted unto shedding his own blood.




If Paul was in fact speaking only of Israel and the Ethnesin as singular entities as you propose:

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you [pl] Gentiles

Then Paul reverts to using the singular you when speaking of those grafted in. But refers to those broken off with the plural pronouns "them / they".

If Paul is speaking of them both as singular entities as you have put forth, shouldn't the number of the verbs and pronouns with regard to both be the same.

Just what are you trying to prove with (Rom. 8:7)? It says nothing of loss of salvation or law keeping. I have no problem with it. What is yours?

In (John 5:14) Jesus is warning the man he healed that his illness was due to judgement and Jesus warned him to go and sin no more. So? In (John 8:11) Jesus tell the woman taken in adultry to go and sin no more. So?

Yes, sin is the transgressing of the law. And now it is anything not done in faith. (Rom. 14:23)

Resisting sin in (Heb. 12:4) is speaking of resisting the temptation to go back to the Mosaic law due to the persecution of the Jews. Jesus suffered this same temptation and resisted it to the death, or blood. (12:2-3)

As I said, (Rom. 11:1-32) is plain. Paul is speaking of Israel and the Gentiles. See (Rom. 11:25), "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,...that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." As to your Greek question concerning the pronouns, Paul through out this chapter speaks to Israel as 'them' and Gentiles as 'you' or 'thou'. How else could he address them when making a contrast. He was speaking to the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews. So, what is your problem?

Stranger

 

[Richard_oti]

Just what are you trying to prove with (Rom. 8:7)? It says nothing of loss of salvation or law keeping. I have no problem with it. What is yours?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain it to me.

In (John 5:14) Jesus is warning the man he healed that his illness was due to judgement and Jesus warned him to go and sin no more. So? In (John 8:11) Jesus tell the woman taken in adultry to go and sin no more. So?

So why does Jesus give them such instruction?

Yes, sin is the transgressing of the law. And now it is anything not done in faith. (Rom. 14:23)

So if my faith and by faith, I uphold the Instruction, then it can not be "willful sin" as you ascribed / defined it earlier. And as you clearly state, sin is the transgression of the law. Thus it behooves us to uphold the Instruction so as not to "sin".

Does that "faith" allow us to nullify or make void the law which you clearly stated that sin is the transgression thereof?

Resisting sin in (Heb. 12:4) is speaking of resisting the temptation to go back to the Mosaic law due to the persecution of the Jews. Jesus suffered this same temptation and resisted it to the death, or blood. (12:2-3)

Now you are changing your story. Originally, you did not "qualify" this, now you have qualified it. So is it now only "willful sin" if you are doing so because of persecution? Or is it still "willful sin" as you originally defined it.

Do you know what Origen did in his resisting of sin to the point of shedding blood?

Both the two and the ten, are a part of the "Mosaic Law". Thus, according to you, it is "willful sin" to turn from unbelief, and begin to uphold just those.

As I said, (Rom. 11:1-32) is plain. Paul is speaking of Israel and the Gentiles. See (Rom. 11:25), "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,...that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." As to your Greek question concerning the pronouns, Paul through out this chapter speaks to Israel as 'them' and Gentiles as 'you' or 'thou'. How else could he address them when making a contrast. He was speaking to the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews. So, what is your problem?

Aren't you rather begging the question in assuming that it is my problem. What if it is your problem, or what if we both have a problem. That is indeed possible.

That's the beauty of a gendered / numbered language. There are both singular and plural forms.
If Paul was only speaking of Israel and the Ethnesin, the number of the pronouns would always agree in the singular.

Rom 11:7 What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened:

In the above, "he" is the inflected pronoun of the verb, the 3rd pers. sing.. Hardened however, is the 3rd. pers. pl., as it refers to the individuals, and not the singular entity of Israel.

And not all of Israel was broken off.

Paul refers to Israel as a singular entity when referring to the whole. As the plural they / them, when referring to the individuals thereof. Just as also, Paul refers to Ethnesin, as a plural when referring to the whole, and the singular when referring to the individual.

 

[Stranger]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain it to me.




So why does Jesus give them such instruction?




So if my faith and by faith, I uphold the Instruction, then it can not be "willful sin" as you ascribed / defined it earlier. And as you clearly state, sin is the transgression of the law. Thus it behooves us to uphold the Instruction so as not to "sin".

Does that "faith" allow us to nullify or make void the law which you clearly stated that sin is the transgression thereof?




Now you are changing your story. Originally, you did not "qualify" this, now you have qualified it. So is it now only "willful sin" if you are doing so because of persecution? Or is it still "willful sin" as you originally defined it.

Do you know what Origen did in his resisting of sin to the point of shedding blood?

Both the two and the ten, are a part of the "Mosaic Law". Thus, according to you, it is "willful sin" to turn from unbelief, and begin to uphold just those.




Aren't you rather begging the question in assuming that it is my problem. What if it is your problem, or what if we both have a problem. That is indeed possible.

That's the beauty of a gendered / numbered language. There are both singular and plural forms.
If Paul was only speaking of Israel and the Ethnesin, the number of the pronouns would always agree in the singular.

Rom 11:7 What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened:

In the above, "he" is the inflected pronoun of the verb, the 3rd pers. sing.. Hardened however, is the 3rd. pers. pl., as it refers to the individuals, and not the singular entity of Israel.

And not all of Israel was broken off.

Paul refers to Israel as a singular entity when referring to the whole. As the plural they / them, when referring to the individuals thereof. Just as also, Paul refers to Ethnesin, as a plural when referring to the whole, and the singular when referring to the individual.

You're the one that used (Rom. 8:7) to prove something. Why should I have to explain it to you. As I said, I have no problem with it. It certainly doesn't teach any loss of salvation or law keeping.

Concerning (John 5:14, 8:11), Jesus told them to 'go and sin no more' because they had both had a certain sin brought to light. Jesus healed one of the consequences of his sin. He pardoned another due to her sin. He then tells them to not do it again. Pretty simple.

Sin is a transgressing of the law. Sin is now anything not done in faith. The believer couldn't keep the law before Christ. The believer can't keep the law after Christ. The believer now has the Holy Ghost to enable his walk. And when he walks by the Spirit, he will naturally not be sinning against God. The point being, the believer is not keeping the Law by trying to keep the Law.

Concerning (Heb. 12:2-4) I haven't changed anything. You made a very general statement citing only the book of Hebrews chapter 12 about resisting sin. To which I had to give the verses and context of the reference. To which Jesus blood, shed due to persecution of Jews, was the context. The wilful sin of (Heb. 10:26) is still going back to the Mosaic Law. I have changed nothing.

Concerning Origen, how stupid was that? Real stupid. What else can you say?

Concerning (Rom. 11:7), Paul is not yet contrasting Israel and the Gentiles. Israel was broken off. The remnant consist of Jews who become Christian, meaning they are no longer Israel. They are part of the Church.

Stranger