AlexanderJ

And here is Truth:

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.

Romans 3:4

The Lord has paid for repented sins, both past and present, but the Lord has not paid for any future sin that has not happened because it is nonexistent. After a future sin is committed it is only forgiven or paid for after the person repents from it, otherwise the person's sin remains with them.

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.

Isaiah 57:15

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.

It is a hard concept to understand. I once thought as you. Nothing I can say will convince you until your ready to receive it. It is the same as trying to show someone that Adam and Eve sinned on day six before God looked at everything and said that it was very good. Even when shown the exact details that prove it to be true, people can't accept that. One day it will all be clearly understood by all.

Don't you think that you're being a wee bit condescending?

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.

I held your position for a long time and understand why you do. I came to believe otherwise over the last two years. Adam was not deceived according to the scriptures. He knew exactly what he was doing. You and I are at a disadvantage because we were born with sin and therefore a carnal mind. Adam however was not born as such but made in the likeness and image of God. He was given the Spirit of God, the breath of life from day one. His thoughts were pure. He knew exactly what God meant when he said that in the day that he ate of the fruit that he would die. As we can all see, Adam did not immediately die in the ordinary physical sense. He died spiritually. The Spirit of God left the temple. Adams choice to disobey God and die was made while he still had the mind of Christ. He could not simply stand back and watch his wife receive the consequences of her actions. He, just as Christ, had to choose to love his wife and give his life for her.

The bible tells us that Abraham, who was a fallen sinner, was able to conclude that God would raise up Isaac from the dead if he sacrificed him and therefore he was able to take him up on the mount and prepare to offer him. Why is it that people have such a hard time understanding that Adam knew that he himself had just been created from the dust of the ground into a living entity and that God could raise both he and his wife from the dead? After all Adam was the like figure of him who was to come.

The difference between Adam and Jesus is that Jesus is the genuine article whereas Adam was merely a facsimile. They preformed in the exact same way using the same logic. Jesus left heaven bound for the cross because he understood that he would be raised from the dead along with all those who are his. Self sacrificial love is the most amazing thing in existence. God is love.

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 5:16

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.

Now as far as Ephesians 2:8... first, there is no way to extract one verse from the bible and have a full understanding of it. All of them compliment one another and MUST be understood as the whole Word of God. Ephesians 2:8 says that we are saved through faith... well what is faith? A one time feeling you get? A one time acknowledgement? Faith is a loaded word... the word, just that single word, has a 66 book definition. Second, you MUST have a full understanding of what faith means... Search on Youtube Dave Hunt "The Seduction of Christianity Part 1- faith" as he gives the best description of what faith means than any I have ever heard. It's a little dated.. but it's an oldie but goody.

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 didn't answer the question

You can sin against God and get forgiveness

You can sin against Jesus and get forgiveness

You sin(blasphemy) against Holy Ghost there is no forgiveness.

Who is not forgiving ?

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.

Or, simply:

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...

Ephesians 2:8

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men:

but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him:

but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him,

neither in this world, neither in the world to come

Matt 12:31-32 (KJV)

Now if they are the same.

Seem there is a different between them in forgiveness.

How come the Holy Ghost will not forgive ?

God forgives and Jesus forgives.

Where does it say that the Holy Ghost will not forgive?

All the passage says is that one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven....

Then who is not going to forgive them ? if they ask

God or Jesus or Holy Ghost

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.

Hebrews 1:8

...Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

Luke 11:17

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 haven't been here in a week and this is still going? I said I wasn't going to argue about it, and I am not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

It's just that some of those literal, word for word opinions happen to be WRONG, especially when they don't understand the Hebrew or the Greek, and quickly forget that they are reading a translation that is biased, based on the positions of the authors.

Want to know how the verse actually reads in Hebrew? "In the beginning God created the sky and the earth."

I'll check back in a week or so, lol.

Do you know Hebrew and Greek?

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.

In marriage; a man and woman unite their lives in love. This love that unites them is God. God therefore becomes the binding force in their marriage; and through Him, with Him and in Him they can express His love to one another. God stayed faithful to His covenant with his people (his spouse) although they were unfaithful to Him, rejected Him and betrayed Him. Furthermore, in His faithfulness to the covenant with his people, he saved us from eternal damnation by accepting the most painful death. We too are called to love our spouse as God loved us (Ephesians 5:25). We must therefore deny ourselves and take up our cross daily and follow what Jesus did (Luke 9:23) by accepting pain and suffering in order to bring healing to our spouse; especially when there is hurt, unfaithfulness and betrayal. Those who are obedient to the word of God are able to do this; because faithfulness to His words enables us to live by his spirit.

Since God is the binding force in a marriage it is permanent and no human organization can dissolve it (Matthew 19:4-6). Divorce therefore is rejection of the covenant (binding force), rather than its dissolution. Remarriage after divorce therefore is adultery (Luke 16:18). Furthermore, since God is the binding force in marriage rejection of it through divorce is rejection of God.

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.

Christians find their righteousness and perfection in Christ - but not in themselves.

If the question is: "Can a Christian find perfection in himself and in so doing live perfectly?" the answer is, of course, no. On the other hand, if the question is: "Can a Christian find perfection in Christ and, in so doing, live perfectly?" the answer is yes.

Philippians 3:9 And be found in him (Christ), not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death....

A believer on this earth has (and will have, until his/her physical death) two principles in him/her-self, the Flesh, and the Spirit of God. A believer can always find the essence of both perfection and imperfection in him/her-self.

All the inhabitants of Heaven and Hell will have one thing in common - their minds will be made up completely and irrevocably.

Hi Enoob57, in response to your post #69, is it your agenda not to answer questions? I Pet.3:15.

Just because God knows what will happen does not mean that he is the one who chooses for or causes it to happen. In the words of a wise Christian: "...obviously to watch a man doing something is not to make him do it."

My suggestion is that you calm down, take a deep breath, and come up with a scriptural argument to support your views.

Onelight, in response to your post #66. I shall be most happy to reply to the gentleman when he can show in the scripture my error (?). Perhaps you can try if he cannot.

Hi OneLight

Its my understanding that what you mentioned (prophecies and knowledge) were of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit found in I Cor.12. In absense of the completed (perfect) NT scripture, miraculous gifts of the Spirit were given to certain ones in the 1st century. The NT was not complete, only in process of being revealed to inspired men. It was being given in part. In absense of the completed word, which when complete was "perfect" (note the lower-case p). These gifts it seems were given others through the apostles. When the completed NT was a reality the need for the supernatural gifts was no longer and ceased. I know of no prophecies being given today.

How could you possibly prove that the Word is complete?

Wrong again. Young children are not 'saved.' That is a misnomer on your part. Therefore, they don't lose their salvation when they get old enough to make a choice. Salvation is permanent, innocence is not.

Tongues are primarily for the benefit of unbelievers, but they have a secondary benefit in the church. Speaking the language of an unbeliever without having personally studied and without personal understanding of the language is indeed a sign to the unbeliever. It is not of any use to the believer who speaks my own language because he cannot understand it any more than I can. This is why Paul says:

1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

However, if I provide an interpreter, this problem is solved, and my words are edifying to the believers.

1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Tongues is NOT for believers, but for unbelievers.

This statement is incorrect, if you are saying that tongues cannot ever be used in the Church for edification of the Saints. When the person speaking in tongues has an interpreter, it is edifying to the church.

1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying....If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.