Colossians 1:17 And he (Christ) is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
You still have not provided Scripture to support your claim that the following books exist.
the book of false-witness and injustice
the book of kidnapping
the book of adultery
the book of robbery
the book of extortion
the book of cruelty
the book of justification
the book of prayers
the book of wounds and tears
the book of caring
the book of forgiveness
the book of repentance
the book of blasphemy
the book of sacrifice
The Scripture says that there are "books"; it does not tell us what those books are called, therefore, your assertion is nothing more than an opinion, which is fine, as long as it is recognized as such and not as a Scripturally supported truth.
Religious beliefs need to have a firm foundation in the Bible. The Bible is the Christian's compass; without it one cannot find the way - one cannot differentiate between the opinions of men and the truths of God. This is why a doctrinal proposition that is presented it should always be substantiated by Scripture.
...let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Um...there is a problem with this sort of reasoning. Jesus died 2000 years ago, therefore all the sins that have been committed since then are/were "future" sins. If He had only died for sins in the "past", the could be no redemption for us.
Jesus' sacrifice on the cross extended into the past, the present, and the future. God doesn't see time as we do. We experience time as a series of consecutive events; God experiences time as a whole - all events, whether past, present, or future are occurring in His unbounded "now". He "inhabits" eternity:
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
Jesus' sacrifice provided payment, once and for all, for the penalty of sin itself.
Hebrews 10:11 ....every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man (Jesus), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Another thing worthy of notice, is that sin and death did not enter into the world through Eve - it entered through Adam. Why? Because the command was not given to the woman; it was given to the man. Adam was humanity's legal representative. The fate of mankind did not rest in Eve's hands; it rested in Adam's hands. If Adam had not sinned, death would not have entered into the world. God didn't tell Eve that she would die if she ate the fruit, and if Adam had not sinned, no one would have died, all would have been well.
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Uh...How would Adam's participation in Eve's sin help her in any way? How on earth was his sin a form of self-sacrifice? Why would he have to die to save his wife?
Adam is associated with Jesus in only one sense--by Adam's sin of rebellion against God, sin entered the world and corrupted it; by Jesus act of obedience to God, redemption and the opportunity for holiness was presented to men. The first Adam brought death into the world; the last Adam (Jesus) brought life into the world. The moment a human is born into the world, the first Adam and his condemnation are his representatives before God. The moment that a human is born of the spirit, Jesus and his righteousness become the representatives the person.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:22
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Adam did indeed know exactly what he was doing; he willfully rebelled against God. God said "Thou shalt not eat of the tree" and Adam rebelled against that command by listening to his wife. Adam's act was an act of rebellion; not of self-sacrifice. Eve was tricked; Adam rebelled.
There is no scripture in the Bible that suggests that Adam's act was anything other than rebellion against God's command.
Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
I agree, Hebrews 6 definitely deserves close attention. If the author of Hebrews is indeed propounding that eternal salvation can be lost, the situation is even more serious than many realize.
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
I have met many Christians who believe that eternal salvation can be lost; however, I have met very few that believe that salvation, once lost, cannot be regained again. However, (if the author is propounding that eternal salvation can be lost) this is exactly what is asserted in Hebrews, "It is impossible....to renew them again unto repentance".
Following this line, it can be deduced that a believer, take King David, for instance, is sizziling in Hell as we speak. He denied his Lord by his evil works I.e. murdering Uriah and stealing his wife -- and not only this, he lived in a state of unrepented sin for almost a whole year. How can this be, when it is taken into account that David is called, later in the Bible, a "man after God's own heart"? A man after God's own heart that is damned? The thought (for me) is almost inconceivable.
Of course, I don't believe that the previous interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 is the correct one. The author of Hebrews is not speaking of a person who has lost their eternal salvation; simply of one who has lost the ability to repent. This is corroborated elsewhere in Scripture. Paul spoke of some believers whose sin was so grave that the church should:
...deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1 Corinthians 5:5
Note that he says "that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"; the person lost his/her life, not eternal salvation.
The verse says what it says (and pretty clearly, I might add), and what is says is not going to change. I also think that it is rather presumptuous for you to assert my ignorance in regard to the meaning of "faith" and of my knowledge of Scripture. "Faith" does not have a 66 book definition. Faith is defined by Webster's as:
Faith, n. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by
another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity;
reliance on testimony.
You might say "We can lose salvation by ceasing to believe". If we could lose our salvation by ceasing to believe, our position as "Sons of God" would be meaningless, as would our spiritual rebirth into the family of God. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit...Ye must be born again (by the Spirit)". I ask, How is unbirth possible? How, once we have been born of God, can we be unborn back into our old position? Wouldn't this contradict the meaning of the word "Son"? A son, by definition, will always be his father's son. It doesn't matter whether the father disowns the son or whether the son disowns the father - the positional relationship of Father and Son remains unchanged. This position cannot be changed without contradicting the definition of the words "Son" and "Father. God uses the words "Father" and "Son" to show us the irrevocability of our choice.
Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
You're not reading what I have written carefully. I did indeed answer the question:
God is one being with three "persons" or "personalities". God (the being with three personalities) forgives sins. When one member of the Godhead forgives a sin, the other members forgive it also. The Godhead is one; there is unity of purpose and decision between them. If this were not the case, there would be a contradiction (or division) between God's intentions, which cannot be, because what is divided cannot stand eternally. God and his kingdom are indivisible and eternal.
There is no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. God (the being with three personalities, united in purpose and decision) does not forgive such a sin. In other words, if I commit such blasphemy:
1. The Father offers no forgiveness,
2.The Son offers no forgiveness,
3. The Holy Spirit offers no forgiveness.
1. God offers no forgiveness for blasphemy against the part of himself which is called the Holy Spirit.
Concerning this statement " ...it's not sinning that can cause us to fall away, it's continuous unrepentant sin" I have a question. What is meant by the phrase "falling away"? Does it signify the loss of salvation or the loss of a healthy relationship between God and a man? King David lived in a state of unrepented sin for a good while after he had taken Bathsheba and murdered Uriah. Did he lose his eternal salvation, or did he fall out of fellowship with God?
Fellowship, is, as defined by Websters: "Companionship; society; consort; mutual association of persons on equal and friendly terms; familiar intercourse." I can see how we can lose familiar intercourse and mutual association with God on friendly terms if we, as Christians, are living in unrepented sin. I cannot, however, understand how we could lose our eternal salvation before God by the works (whether good or bad) that we do, because that would contradict Scripture by making salvation dependent upon ourselves and not upon Christ's work on the cross.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God...
God is one being with three "persons" or "personalities". God (the being with three personalities) forgives sins. When one member of the Godhead forgives a sin, the other members forgive it also. The Godhead is one; there is unity of purpose and decision between them. If this were not the case, there would be a contradiction (or division) between God's intentions, which cannot be, because that which is divided cannot stand eternally. God and his kingdom are indivisible and eternal.
...Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
...Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7
I am not a master of the Hebrew language, but I do have access to a lexicon ( http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8064&t=KJV ), and it says that the word translated as "heaven" is the Hebrew "shamayim", which means:
1) heaven, heavens, sky
a) visible heavens, sky
1) as abode of the stars
2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
b) Heaven (as the abode of God)
As I understand it, either "heaven" or "sky" is a possible translation for "shamayim".
The people who translated the Scriptures were masters of Hebrew and Greek, and unless you have similarly mastered these languages, it is not your place to challenge their translations if you do not provide adequate substantiation for your claims.
Also, I think that the proponents of Perpetual Adultery make a mistake in concluding that legal marriage before God is what makes a couple "one flesh". Mere copulation, Paul says, makes a man and a woman "one flesh" (1 Corinthians 6:16). This further complicates the matter. If copulation is what makes a man and woman "one flesh", and the proponents of PA are correct, then a man who has had sexual relations with more than one woman is forever in a state of adultery. This would imply that many of the characters (David, Judah, Jacob, Samson, ect...) of the Bible were and could never have been saved, because they had sexual relations with more than one woman, and therefore, were in perpetual adultery.
This concept is called "Perpetual Adultery". It maintains that the first marriage contract is indisoluble, and as a result, any consequent marriage or divorce is invalid. Therefore, a person who is divorced and remarried is beyond the reach of God's grace because they are living in a constant state of adultery I.E. (Be not deceived...adulterers...shall not inherit the kingdom of God 1 Corinthians 6:9).
I am quite certain that the proponents of this concept have never themselves been in an abusive relationship, when a spouse is physically abusive to the other spouse and/or their children. The Law of Love trandscends all other laws, and I don't see how Love could possibly dictate that a woman and her children remain under the control of an abusive spouse.