Pilgrim_of_the_Dispersion

Considering my personal background and people that I know today who are involved or have been in fallen angels at work here on planet earth today tend to give me a different perspective on some things. There is very little in this world today that is simple and little of it is really as it seems. The possibility of some king not being human or all human seems mystical to you but to me it is just a reality that I know exists today.... But hey I wasn't there and that's why I said maybe he wasn't human..... but soon it will be obvious when Satan and his followers are locked into the dimension that we live in and we'll all have to deal with thier reality. Messing with mysticism is not something that the Lord tolerates in his followers, but the knowledge of it is not...... and if you think mysticism is just a figment of someone's imagination you really need to ponder as to why God forbids it so. If you don't understand that there are very dark forces from the demonic world at work today, you are very blessed and I pray that you never have to experience them first hand. Whew. I prefer the reality that the Bible presents. Where demons don't interact with humans and they have no power over us whatsoever, and where the Adversary can do nothing but tempt us.

If we have full faith in what the Scriptures say, and do not lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5), and do not allow ourselves to be led away by deceptions (that is to say, if the Bible is contradicted in a matter of theology, the Bible is right, and someone else a deceiver), then I would have to say that miracles are not performed today.

Now we're getting to another problem of harmonizing the Scriptures. God wishes ALL men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:3 4), and yet even though He wants everyone to be saved, He decides that some should be condemned for eternity, with no choice in the matter? Is God a liar? (Titus 1:2)

Other One: You seem like a very speculative person, perhaps more interested in mysticism and superstition than in nonfictional things, things with substance. It is almost as if you are not satisfied with a simple explanation, but that you need everything to be more complicated, or else it is not exciting. Not everything in the Bible must be as mysterious as the things contained in the book of the Revelation to John, in fact very little of it is actually as figurative. The king of Babylon was human. Enoob: What exactly are you trying to say?

It's extremely dangerous to base the validity of your interpretation on the number or credibility of uninspired men who share your interpretation. After all, the leaders of the Jewish community in Jesus' time all opposed His beliefs, and Jesus was the extreme minority. The Roman Catholic church, which is one of the largest religious organizations in existence, is extremely inaccurate in its assessment of the Bible, and no matter how many seemingly important people agree with their doctrine, their theology is never going to be right as long as it contradicts the Scriptures. After all, the wisdom of God is infinitely greater than that of man's.

I think we should not try to form the Scriptures around our beliefs, but form our beliefs around the Scriptures. I read in the Scriptures that when we receive Christ, we are born again, not that we are born again so that we may receive Christ. God's love for us is infinite, spanning the entire creation. He does not select those whom He does not wish to be saved.

Many men want to be like God. Also, the word "heaven" is not talking about where God's glory is. It's actually talking about the sky, the atmosphere, the firmament. The name Lucifer means Day Star, so we have the imagery of a star falling out of the sky. That is not to say that this king of Babylon literally fell out of the sky, but that he exalted himself and that God will humble him. Also, where does it say he is made "like us"? And who is this "us?" The others who are spoken of in this passage are rival nations. And this Lucifer is not said to be made like them, but to be made lower than them, that the name and remnant of Babylon will be cut off (verse 22). enoob, you are saying that God is suddenly addressing a different person in verse 12 than He is in verses 4-11, or even verses 20-27, which could not apply to Satan. That makes absolutely no sense. You would need some extremely concrete evidence in saying that God just randomly starts talking of Satan. God is talking about a king who has exalted himself and will be humbled. Everything in the entire passage harmonizes with that identity, but not with the identity of Satan. Also, verses 12-15 would not apply to Satan, or to any fallen angels, because it says "For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven...'" Were not Satan and his angels already in heaven, in the presence of God, if they were to fall out of it?

It seems that a major root of your incorrectness stems from your misinterpretation of John 1:13. Much of your theology spawns from this idea of being reborn before ever believing, and that this rebirth is something of which we have no control. Well, let's examine John 1:13, including the previous two verses, which are very important to understanding the idea. "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." It seems that you center upon the end of this verse as though saying that we are not born of God according to our own will, but according to God's will. And that is true in one sense, but not true in another. We are born of God according to His will, but based on our own choice to be born of God. I think it's the order of the words that confuses you. This is what the passage says: - To those that receive Him, to those who believe on His name--who, because of their belief, become born of God, not of blood, or of the will of flesh, or of the will of man--, they are given the right to become children of God. It does NOT say: - Those that receive Him did so because they were previously born of God, and that is why they were able to have belief on Him. Therefore, since He made them to be born again, they received Him. It does not say that for a couple of reasons. First, because it is saying that reception and belief came before birth of God. Second, because if it said that reception came after being born again, then those who did not receive Him only did not receive Him because He did not force them or cause them to be reborn. Basically, you're saying that God arbitrarily decided to cause some to be reborn, and others to not be reborn, instead of deciding this based upon their actions and upon their prior belief, and that He arbitrarily decided that others should not be reborn, and that they would have no ability or choice in and of themselves to believe or receive Him. Basically, GOD is prevented them from receiving Him. That doctrine clashes directly with the nature of God, which is stated in 1 Timothy 2:3,4 and 2 Peter 3:9, which says that God does not want anyone to perish.

Lucifer is very obviously not the name for Satan. The only time the name Lucifer is mentioned in the Bible is in Isaiah 14:12, and that verse is part of a larger address from God to the king of Babylon. (Isaiah 14:4-27) Lucifer was a name given to this particular king of Babylon. It might not have been his real name, it may just represent the way he is going to be humbled by God. It in no way refers to Satan. Please don't believe that it's Satan simply because that's what you have heard your life. Also, please do not try to twist this passage to say what you want it to, but simply read the text and understand what it clearly says.

Interesting. It seems that not only have you grossly misinterpreted the Scriptures (and it seems, added a few of your own), but that you have made one of the most common logical fallacies out there: Ad hominem. But anyway, no. Believing in baptism tags me as a Christian. And I was not aware that I like tagging people... but I'm sure you're correct in your evaluation of my character, considering you've read an entirety of 6 posts that I've made on this forum. What else do you need to assess my character? Let's now address your theological errors. This "new birth" we obtain is when we cast off the old man and put on the new man of God (Romans 6:4-8). That is to say, we hear the teaching of Christ and we believe it, we receive it, and so we naturally decide to live like Christ would have us to live. Therefore we do what He has commanded us to do, to be baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38) and this baptism, which is not the removal of the filth from the flesh, but the answer of a clear conscience toward God, symbolizes our burial with Christ, and our rising to walk in newness of life with Him (1 Peter 3:21; Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:4). This baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21), because God has decided that it should save us. I believe a better word to use than "shadow"is "symbol." Water baptism is a symbol of being buried with Christ and raised with him to walk in newness of life, but it is, in fact, through baptism that we are raised from spiritual death.

Actually, it can be translated either way, and they both have the same meaning. τοις υπακουουσιν αυτω πασιν The first word, the definite article, is in the dative case, to which is attached connecting words in the English such as "to", "for", "in", "with", etc., whichever one works best in the context. Those first three words literally mean "to the they obey him" with the understood object being people (evidenced in the word πασιν, which means "all" or "every"). So in English we would translate it as "to all the ones that obey them" or "for all the ones that obey him." In English we have to substitute the word "that," since it's only implied in the Greek text. But yeah, anyway, both translations are right, and neither supply a different meaning from the other. Yes, and I disagree with what you said, specifically when you said My problem with you saying that is that the passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 says it is impossible to "renew them again to repentance," meaning that they had once repented. The Spirit of GOD is saying that they repented. You cannot judge whether or not they repented at that time. And I would be very thankful if you would provide me with a Scripture or set of Scriptures that states that those who are "really" saved cannot possibly fall away and lose their salvation. I think the interesting thing about Hebrews is that it warns the Hebrews against disbelief and disobedience, and spurs them towards belief and obedience. Almost as if it's their choice. Regarding the Matthew 13 parable: Jesus condemns those who do not produce fruit. That's what it says. Your belief has colored the passage to say something other than what it clearly says: those who received the seed on stony places were right for receiving the word, but wrong for not enduring persecution. It does not say they were never of the kingdom. Those who receive the seed among the thorns didn't even believe the word in the first place, so they clearly don't apply to what you're saying. There is no distinction in this passage between being "in" the kingdom and not "of" the kingdom. I agree that apostasy is worse than ignorance, however. That's true. John 8:30-31, 44 doesn't... really.. say anything relevant except that you are supposed to abide in Christ. John 15:2, 6 simply says that those who do not bear fruit will be cast out. Again, no distinction between being "in" the kingdom and "of" the kingdom. Galatians 5:4 clearly says that those who attempt to be justified by the law will fall from grace. That does nothing but prove the truth of what the word says about losing salvation. They had the grace of God (salvation...) but they fell from it (no more salvation...). Once again, no distinction between being "in" the kingdom and being "of" the kingdom. Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:29 also show us that people can fall away from repentance. Still no distinction between being in or of the kingdom. I'm convinced that you have invented that distinction. I need you to show me from the Scriptures where that distinction is made. 1) Your entire comment about their regeneration is speculative. But your knowledge of what regeneration is is also wrong, so that doesn't really matter. The "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) is baptism. 2) Since it says they "escaped" the pollutions of the world, they must have been cleansed of their sins. Only God's power can remove you from the pollutions of the world, the sins of the world, and only through baptism, since that is what He in His wisdom has decided to use. And baptism saves you if you have a pure conscience (1 Peter 3:21) and if you did not, you would have not escaped these "pollutions," which this passage says they did. So, I'm going to say they were saved. Your view of them having never been new creatures is speculative, and very clearly conflicts with the statement that they escaped the pollutions of the world.

Yep. You're definitely not understanding this yet. Let me break it down another level. I might not be being very clear. Let's go back to the analogy of someone offering you a car if you jump up and down. Now let's say he had never come up to you and offered you a car. So you jump up and down just because you feel like it. Do you get a car? No, because you had not been offered it in return for your act of obedience. Now imagine you go to a car dealership and jump up and down for the car salesmen. Will they give you a car? Of course not. You didn't earn it by jumping up and down. That's not a payment for the car. And now are you somehow saying that when someone offers you a car to jump up and down, that you are paying for the car? No, he's still awarding it to you without your deserving it, but he would not have done so it you had not done as he had asked. Yes, there is a cause and effect. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not you earned the gift. Go ahead and read Ephesians 2:5-10. Notice that it says our works do not save us, but that God's grace saves us. And yet in verse 10 it said we are made for good works, and that it was purposed beforehand that we would walk in them. While works don't save us, they are still purposed for us by God. And while works don't save us, God still decides whether or not to save us based on whether or not we are obedient to Him (once again, read Hebrews 5:9). Consider the fact that baptism for the remission of our sins did not exist before Jesus died and was resurrected. In fact, none of the New Testament (the covenant, the commandment) was instated while Jesus lived. (Hebrews 9:16-17) There is a huge logical hole in what you are saying, and in fact the implication is that God is choosing for people to NOT be saved. If you say that we can only be reborn by God's doing, and can only have faith by God's doing, then you're saying that when people do not believe, it is because God has not granted them belief. And yet we read in the Scriptures that God desires for ALL men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3,4) If it were completely up to God as to who came to the knowledge of the truth, then clearly God would choose for everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But He has given us agency over ourselves, He has given us volition, He has given us free will. Therefore it is OUR choice whether or not we have faith, whether or not believe. The way that He grants us faith (Philippians 1:29) is that He has made known His existence to mankind and allows us to have knowledge of Him. But it remains our choice to believe or not. Remember, in Mark 16:15-16, Jesus tells His disciples to preach the gospel to everyone, and that whoever believes and is baptized would be saved. It's clearly their choice. If it was God's, we would have universal belief. And we would also have no free will. God rules everywhere. He rules the universe and has done so for eternity. But whether or not mankind has recognized this rule is another concept. And yet the kingdom of God is much different than just any rule. Never in the entire Bible (unless you can find somewhere) does it refer to Israel as the kingdom of God. It refers to Israel as God's people, but that kingdom was physical, and the kingdom of God is spiritual. And it is mentioned in Daniel 2:44 as an entirely different kingdom than Israel. So you're right that the kingdom is in the hearts of believing men, but you're wrong when you say that the kingdom of God is just wherever God rules, because He has rules over everything forever, but He has not always subjected everyone under His rule. And that's what the kingdom of God is, HIS spiritual people. The church. The kingdom is His subjects, His dominion over a spiritual kingdom, because the kingdom is very much spiritual. But anyway, the way you enter the kingdom of God is by becoming His spiritual people, which requires purification, and the remission of sins. (1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38; Colossians 2:12, 1 John 3:1-6) Okay! Let's do a recap to make sure we stay on topic: There is no way we can argue that obedience is not required by God for salvation. Hebrews 5:9 says this: "And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him," Please, please do not try to twist that into some doctrine that says we don't have to obey to be saved. The word of God says in crystal clarity that salvation is given to all who obey him. So we know that salvation depends on our obedience. However, that does not mean our obedience creates this salvation for us, or that it earns our salvation. God decided before the beginning of time that He would require us to be obedient to Him before He would save us. But the point of this topic is to discuss whether or not people can lose their salvation, not how they acquire it. So let's remember these verses: Hebrews 6:4-6: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakes of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame." Hebrews 10:26-28: "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sons, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." 2 Peter 2:20: "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them that the beginning." Yeah, I don't really need to say anything in addition to those verses. They speak for themselves. Salvation can be lost. It hinges upon our obedience. All right. That's actually completely false. Sins ARE deeds and actions. In fact, there are many sins listed in Galatians 5:19-21, which are called the WORKS of the flesh. Romans 13:12 tells us to cast of the works of darkness. So just because they are called works does not mean they are simply actions done without any consequence on our soul. In fact, I think a huge mistake in the religious world (mainly those who follow man's denominations, especially those holding to the faiths of Calvinism) is that they don't understand that the word works talks about our actions, our conduct, both of which have direct consequence on our salvation, whether for good or bad.

I don't see how that metaphor is relevant. I'm saying obedience is a condition, grace is a gift. I don't think you would go up to someone and say, "If you jump up and down twice, I'll give you my car," and then believe that the giving of the car and the jumping up and down were the same thing... they are quite clearly different. A condition is a condition, a gift is a gift. I really don't understand your argument. It's as if you're saying a condition is the same thing as a gift, and yet I am almost positive you CAN'T be saying that, because that's like saying a toothpick is a jaguar. They are two separate things, not the same. It's slightly hard to tell whether or not this rebirth is even our choice. If you're saying it is, then I would ask you, why would we choose to be born again, if we do not believe in the kingdom of God and the spiritual blessings that come from being born again? Secondly, (although it should probably have been the first point) the "rebirth" that you are referring to is baptism. Romans 6:3-7 tells us that when we are baptized in Christ's burial, we are baptized into His death, and therefore our old man (the man of a fleshly and sinful mind) dies, and we are made a new creation, in which we walk in newness of life. We have this new life (much like being born again) through baptism. And since it's clear that this rebirth is baptism, we then should realize that belief always preceded baptism. This is found to be very clear in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, who asked if he could be baptized. Philip replied "If you believe with all your heart, you may." However, if you're saying that this rebirth is not our choice... well, I really hope you're not saying that. Because if you say that, then everyone in existence would be reborn, and Christ's death would be pointless, because we would have no freewill concerning our salvation, and we would not have sinned. God desires that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) And by the way, the kingdom of God that Christ is referring to is partially fulfilled in the church. So, in a way, you can see the kingdom of God, if you can see the people that compose it. However, the kingdom of God will be fully realized in the afterlife. But the kingdom of God usually refers to the church. The church will simply be changed when the saints are in heaven. To the first part, concerning belief: I have basically addressed that already when I told you what this rebirth was, and the fact that belief precedes rebirth, according to the Scriptures. To the second part, concerning obedience: Meeting a condition in order to receive a gift IS NOT the same as earning a gift. Perhaps this will help: Earn (verb) 1. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: to receive more than one has earned. 2. to acquire through merit: to earn a reputation for honesty. 3. to gain as due return or profit: Savings accounts earn interest. 4. to bring about or cause deservedly: His fair dealing earned our confidence. By no means does our obedience bring about or cause our salvation deservedly. In no way am I stating that. I really don't understand why it is so difficult to comprehend that. Like I said in an earlier analogy: if I promised to give you a brand new car if you jumped up and down twice in a row, would you believe you had somehow earned that gift if you had satisfied my conditions? ... Of course not... I truly am at a loss as to why you are not realizing what I am trying to tell you. Even if you don't agree with me, at the very least you can concede this very fundamental fact.

One without the other is not pleasing to God at all. If we have faith, but do not manifest it in our works, we are not pleasing to God, and that sort of faith cannot save a person (James 2:14). If we do good works, but don't really have faith, we are equally unpleasing to God. I slightly regret that we have to discuss the relationship between faith and works, as well as which saves us (neither of them do, we are saved by grace, not faith or works), when the real discussion is whether or not we can lose our salvation. God very clearly demands obedience for salvation, that really shouldn't be a question. We are commanded to perform good works (Titus 3:1, 14), and when we disobey God's commands without repentance, we lose the salvation that God gave to us because of our former obedience.