TomPJr

When Christ is received the heart is converted: "And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh," (Ezek. 11:19) There is only one prerequisite to receiving the Lord: "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; For with the heart there is believing unto righteousness, and with the mouth there is confession unto salvation. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes on Him shall not be put to shame.'' ... For "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'' (Rom. 10:9-11, 13) Anything in addition is either a work or man's addition to the pure and simple Gospel. even Satan and his angels confess God.....and they believe.

If you are saying that the conviction from the Holy Spirit is not real, or you make excuses, you are speaking against the Holy Spirits work. You are taking it upon yourself to decide what's right or wrong instead of really listening to the Holy Spirit. Think about it....To blaspheme God, you claim the power of God for yourself....If you are choosing to rebel against the Holy Spirit and rely on your own interpretation and understanding of what is good and acceptable, then you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by claiming those attributes that are possessed by the Holy Spirit. and... Salvation comes by faithe, confession, asking forgiveness, and repentence.....if you continually ignore the Holy Spirit you become in danger of hardening your heart and deafening you ears to the very one who convicts you to do those things. Then you will no longer be convicted to ask fogiveness or repent. The only unforgiveable sin is the one you fail to ask forgiveness for. That is why we should head the convictions from the Holy Spirit lest we Grieve him away.

Hello I don't have alot of time right now, sorry, but I wanted to try to make a quick reply (hopefully I'll get back here later). Anyway, the first thing I wanted to point out is that if you agree that God pursues us to bring us to repentance, and you agree that God chastises those who are His own (which are both correct)...how can you also agree that disobedience and rebellion causes one to lose their salvation? These two concepts are mutually exclusive. As I've pointed out using Gomer, Israel and Jonah....in the midst of our rebellion, God does not reject us or let us "walk away". He pursues us all the more. Scripture teaches that persistent rebellion is the sign of one who has not been changed by the Holy Spirit. Scripture also teaches that obedience ONLY follows love. One CANNOT obey unless their heart has been changed FIRST. Thus, a person who persistently rebels is someone who is walking by their own strength and not letting the Holy Spirit change their heart first. A failure to repent means a person is not saved to begin with. God doesn't "try" anything by the way. I do not believe in absolute free will. I believe in limited will. But that's for another topic Both examples are very clear. Gomer and Israel didn't "stumble". Gomer did not return to Hosea after she suddenly realized the error of her ways. Have you read the book? What part of Gomer's return to Hosea was by her own free will? The unpardonable sin is the rejection of the Holy Spirit, the rejection of salvation. There is no scriptural support for the idea that disobedience morphs into the unpardonable sin. Scripture teaches that God chastens His own (Hebrews 12). Those who disobey and ignore His leading are punished, disciplined as a father chastens his child. You used the example of your son earlier. If your son disobeys, to the point he leaves your home and rejects all you've taught him..it still doesn't change the fact that he's still your son. I think that you made some very good points... I agree with much of the first stuff that you said....if the person doesn't have a change in heart then they really aren't saved. So many Christians(so-called) believe that they are saved once they acknowledge Christ and are baptized, but they don't have a change in heart. Or....they might have some conviction, and have a slight change in heart, but it doesn't last. For those people, they really thought they were saved, but they weren't. Just because you say "I'm saved" or " I'm Baptized", doesn't mean you are truly saved. The point is that they think that they are saved. I think some of the confusion comes in with the definition of saved. some think it is when you accept Christ. I think it is when your heart is converted. You said that the unpardinable sin is the rejection of the Holy Spirit.....I think that you are right...by ignoring the Holy Spirits convictions to repent, you are rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit. If you do this long enough you will ultimately harden your heart so much that your conscience is seared to the point at which you no longer hear the voice of the Holy Spirit trying to bring you into repentence and you will no longer feel the need to ask for forgiveness. We need to do that to be saved, and if you don't allow the Holy Spirit to convert your heart, then you will be ultimately lost. It is your choice. That is why scripture says "If you hear my voice, now is the time, today is the day".....if you keep procrastinating, you are increasing the bad habbits and silencing the voice of God. God wants us to love him of our free will, not by mind control. Another term for forced love is rape. He tries to convince us by letting us experience sin and its consequences, but we can be too bull headed and stubborn to let the Holy Spirit soften our hearts and convert us. Peace. With Love in Christ.... Tom

excuse me... the ephesians passage that you quoted says that they are sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. this means that the Holy Spirit will be with them to convict them and keep them on the right track. NOWHERE does it say that their salvation is sealed. Gods sacrifice is once and for all, like you stated, but the Holy Spirits job continues, because we must ask forgiveness and repent of our sins in order to have salvation, and the Holy Spirit is the means by which we are convicted of the need to confess, ask forgiveness and repent. We can however, because of our free will, be stubborn and ignore the conviction. Thank God that he is longsuffering, but we should not count on the Holy Spirit to always be there. The Bible says that there will be a time when he will withdraw his Holy Spirit. What a sad time for all who have been ignoring their convictions to live a sinful life with a false sense of security and presumed salvation.

You're missing the most vital point here: Gomer was rebellious and adulterous, Israel was rebellious and adulterous.....but what happened to them? Did God allow them to abandon the covenant? Let me summarize it for you: Gomer (like Israel) openly rejected her husband's faithful love. She rebelled, she gave herself to other lovers. But in the MIDST of her rebellion, Hosea pursued her. Your view (the rejection of eternal security) is not found in this story. If your view represented God's heart, what should've happened is that Gomer was left to be used up by her other "lovers". She walked away, thus according to your belief, that was her choice and the covenant would've been severed. However, this is not what occured. Instead, what happened was that Hosea went and publicly bought her back. This was his own wife, they had a covenant, by all rights she already belonged to him. And yet, he laid aside his own reputation and faced the humiliation of having to purchase back his own bride, one who had disgraced his name by giving herself to countless others (even baring children to other men). But the beauty of God's grace and redemption does not end there. Not only did Hosea buy her back, he "hedged" her in. He cut off all of her other resources so that she could not escape from his love. Furthermore, he wooed her, as the Scripture says, he spoke to her tenderly. This story alone destroys every argument that has been raised against eternal security, so I'm not surprised that it is often overlooked...or by the fact that when it is addressed, the most vital aspects are conveniently left out The part I put in bold is the important part First, it's important to note that it was common practice in the Old Testament for covenants to be sealed by blood. Typically, the way this happened was that animals would be split in two pieces and their blood spilled between the two parts. Then, the two parties who were entering a covenant together would pass between the halves, declaring the vows of the covenant. From what I understand, the division of the animals and the blood spilled was symbolic, essentially meaning that if the covenant was broken, that the condition of the dead animals represented how the parties would end up; torn in two, dead, blood spilled. Anyway, the significant part of this story, is that Abraham did not participate in this covenant Remember, he was ASLEEP. God caused Abraham to fall asleep and GOD HIMSELF passed between the animal halves. Many scholars believe that it was God the Father AND God the Son passed between the halves. This is highly important to note regarding the issue of eternal security for several reasons: 1. The New Covenant (in Christ) is the fulfillment of this covenant (with Abraham). 2. Both covenants place the SOLE responsibility on God. 3. Both covenants relied/rely on God's faithfulness, not a set of laws. 4. Both covenants rest on a promise from God. Now do you see why those of us who adhere to eternal security keep bringing up Hosea and Abraham? These two examples demolish the works-based salvation that many of you are advocating. Oh, no one will admit that it's works-based, but that's essentially what it boils down to. By stating that our disobedience causes the covenant to be broken, it places the responsibility of the covenant on us [our own behavior], rather than placing the responsibility on God [the Author and FINISHER of our faith]. 1. Being educated by the Master entails the diligent study of Scripture. This must include studying the historical context, the original language, and understanding to whom each letter was written in order to be properly "educated". God does not educate us by osmosis, it requires effort on our part. 2. "Understanding" involves the ability to properly interpret and apply biblical principles. 3. There should not be a dichotomy between being "educated by the Master" and the use of text books. While the Bible is the ultimate authority, God very often uses extra-biblical sources to educate believers. There are even several scriptures which refer to extra-biblical sources (validating that these can be useful and beneficial to those seeking to grow in wisdom). Bottom line, anti-intellectualism is not biblical. In fact, the misunderstanding about our reliance on the Holy Spirit in order to understand Scripture has led to a multitude of lazy believers who are unable to properly interpret and apply God's Word, much less defend it. This has also furthered a withdrawal from intellectual studies, while simultaneously perpetuating a form of elitism (and false sense of spiritualism). The basic notion of "I have the Holy Spirit, I don't need anything else!" is not only unbiblical, but this mindset has birthed some of the most grotesque misrepresentations of God this world has ever seen. Monsters such as Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh and others invoked the Scriptures to support their unholy agendas. Now it could be argued that none of these people operated under the influence of the Holy Spirit (and certainly didn't represent the Spirit of the biblical principles), however....the point remains that it clearly involves more than a prima facie understanding of Scriptures to properly interpret and apply them. Personally, I am not a highly educated person (in the academic sense). I do not speak or read Greek or Hebrew, and by many accounts it could be argued that I have a learning disability (due to a medical condition). However, I diligently pursue God and accept the fact that He expects me to love Him with my MIND as much as I love Him with my heart. I don't have a free pass to be lazy in my study of the Word. None of us do. This doesn't mean we all must be biblical scholars, but neither does it mean we are free to shun and discredit those whom God has gifted to teach others. It seems that there are several who believe that having the Holy Spirit gives them an excuse to be intellectually lazy. Even worse, they believe that the Holy Spirit ensures them of supernatural, perfect understanding of the Scriptures....even to the point they reject historical, exegetical, lexical and contextual evidence that says otherwise. This isn't the definition of wisdom, it's the definition of foolishness. We've reached a sad place in modern Christianity when being well-studied and educated in biblical studies is ridiculed and rejected while a lacksidasicle, subjective approach to Scripture is favored and praised. Hello, I would like to address what you said about Gomer. I think that you made some very valid points about How God is long suffering, not that any should perrish, and how he persues us to bring us to repentence. He doesn't control our minds and force us, although he does chastise us and refine us in the fire and storms in our lives. For some people this works, but there will be many that rebell too long and there conscience is seared and they will no longer hear the Holy Spirit convicting them to repent. Those who are lost will be lost because of their failure to repent, not Gods failure. God will have tried everything he could do other than mind control. We have an awsome gift of free will. Adam and Eve had the free will to disobey, and cause the fall. The example that you used with Gomer or Abraham, is a good example of how God wants us to respond to him when we stumble. It is there to show us how longsuffering he is and how he wills us to come back to him when we fall away. It doesn't mean that we can't remain lost. It doesn't show that we don't have free will. If The Holy Spirit is convicting you of something and you keep ignoring it, you can be in danger of silencing his voice to the point that you will no longer be convicted of the sins that you need to repent of. This becomes the unpardinable sin because you silence the only voice that brings you conviction of the need to ask forgiveness and repent. Salvation is conditional....we must ask forgiveness and repent.

Satan is working hard to decieve the nations, so they will not be truly converted in their hearts.

I was just reading in Hebrews today and was surprised to read something scarey in chapter 6, verse 4-6. "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift and have become partakers 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." I am from a Mormon background, but am rediscovering God and so it may not be true, but this does appear to suggest that we can lose our salvation if we do it to ourselves. Does it not? Shalom!! First off... praise the L-rd that you came out of Mormonism and found the true G-d! Secondly, yes, this means exactly what it says...we CAN walk away from our salvation and harden our hearts to reject Jesus and receive eternal damnation. However, if we keep ourselves close to Jesus, walk in His Spirit and not harden our hearts, we need not fear, He will help us abide in Him and walk out our salvation unto eternal life. Amen.... Satan wants us to think that we are eternally secure once we acknowledge Chirst. He wants us to have that security blanket that makes us feel like nothing we do can remove our names from the book of life. man...he is pretty good at getting people to relax, and ignore the warnings in the bible! How clever...he can influence people to believe in God, and remain in their sins as an ultimate insult to God.

ex

Tom, you don't even know what exegesis is, what it means, what it consists of, etc (you acknowledged this earlier). So please, don't try to offer it up as a justification. Secondly, how have I not used the context and the history of the book? On both passages I explained why Paul was writing the book, the climate at the time, and the surrounding verses to draw out the interpretation. Justify your claims...this isn't a school yard, this isn't kindergarten, we can't just sit around and say "Nu uh" and expect people to accept it as a valid argument. Put some meat behind what you're saying (i.e. quote my responses on the passages and show where I failed to give the history and context). Shoving a person into a situation where they have no choice but to accept you is called coercion Tom. Give me a scripture that: 1) Shows they are anthropological in their ontology 2) That they carry with them the imago Dei 3) That they were in a covenant with God to begin with We are never warned that we could fall away from God, that we could reject Him. The reason for the warnings have to do with relationship. In a covenant with God, if you neglect the relationship, life gets extremely difficult because He begins to remove protection (happiness, grace, etc) from you. Hey...I looked up the term exegetical and posted earlier its definition. I have been using the bible for my exegesis, but you won't tackle what the rest of the bible says. and if you noticed above....I did say that God used coercion. Do you just like to argue? I can coerce my son to obey me by spanking him or removing privilages, but if he is too bull headed then that might not work.

So Greek, history, context, paradigm analysis, etc aren't "in depth" for you...even though they've been in depth for billions of people for the past 2,000 years? All of a sudden, Tom comes along and speaks with authority on what a passage means, and Greek, History, exegesis, just go out the window? Jonah was swallowed by the fish because he denied God and his calling. God forced him to go back. Abraham had Ishmael, and God forced him to give him up to remain in His Will. Hosea (as a representation of God) forced Hosea to come back to him (as a representation of Israel). You cannot look at the covenants of the Bible, between God and man, and find one instance where God allowed the other person to walk away without Him promising to force them back, or bringing them back immediately. It NEVER occurs. I like your sarcasm. It's cute. 1) History and context is great, but you havn't shown any. I on the other hand, as well as Cardcaptor and others, used exegesis and context by using other parts of the bible. 2) you are correct that jonah denied Gods calling, but God didn't force him. He certainly coerced him, or persuaded him, but the choice was Jonah's. God works with big consequences for big responsabilities. 3) If I'm not mistaken....I think God allowed Satan to walk away. And, oh....a third of the Agnels too...and I think that there might be a few hundred warnings to us about falling away. Why warn about it if there is no danger? and, If you think that those warnings weren't for believers, I'd like you to show me one.

You forgot to mention that the Israelites had to flee from that place. Yes, the blood made the death pass over, but if they hadn't fleed from that place of bondage, then they would have been re-enslaved or slaughtered. The point is that they had to flee....If they would have tarried too long the blood would have been in vein, for the Egyptians would have caught them. That is why God told them to be girded with staff in hand and to flee after the angel of death came.

It is not man centered. Tell me this. Is this scripture man centered of God centered - Matthew 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 which is in heaven. If I do the will of God is it man centered or God centered? This scriptures says that those who "Do the will of my Father" will enter in. Only man is required on this earth to do the will of God. If I am required to do it them it is "I" that is doing it. God is requiring man to do his will in order to enter into heaven, but your understanding is superseding this because it doesn't back up your belief. Here is another one - Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Now, keeping God's commandments man centered or God centered? The will of God is that we keep his commandments, but according to you that is "Man Centered". What does this scripture say to you - Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Now, we know that only Christians have their names in the book of life. If I can't lose my salvation then why is this warning being made? Is this warning of my name being taken out man centered or God centered? Not everybody is educated in Greek like you are. So, just because somebody doesn't give the "exegetical justification" like you do does not mean that they are wrong. I have explained over and over again what it is to "work out or salvation". It is NOT maintaininng our salvation. It is living according to the obedience set forth by the will of God. The works we do are the works of mortiying of our flesh in repenting of the sins that will take us to hell. People are miss interpreting this verse - Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. This is saying that God works with us "to will" and "to do his good pleasure". This does not say that he does the work for us. A definition of the word will is - to desire This says that he works with us to desire to do his will and to do his good pleasure. Even though we are saved by grace through faith we are still called to do the will of God. What I am trying to get though is that we can lose that salvation that was promised if we do not the will of God. No matter how many times I point that out it is ignored. The will of God is not performing works like people think they are. They are not nice little things we do for people. Our works we were created for and ordained to walk in are the works of righteousness. Since we know that the works of the flesh is sin, then the works of righteousness is repentance from those sins and avoiding temptation to give into them. It is the renewing of my mind and mortifying the flesh. This is what working out our salvation is and God is there to help us with our desire to do it. Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Now, if we choose not to do these things we will lose the salvation promised to us because no sin will enter into heaven. Unfortunately, you're simply repeating yourself. You don't even engage in conversation, you just list verses (plucking them out of their context) and highlight the points you think support your stance. Then all you do is say what you *think* the verse means to you. AK has tried to educate you on the proper way to study and interpret Scripture, you ignore it. You prefer to read the bible prima facie, instead of put the extra time and effort into learning what it might actually mean. Of course, I understand this would be threatening because it would destroy the presuppositions you hold already. But that's truly a shame because there is so much you're missing out on by not understanding the depth and extent of God's grace. It would be much more beneficial if you would respond directly to AK's interpretations of each verse (with a counter-interpretation, using proper exegesis), rather than just repeat previous posts with no foundation behind what you're saying. Long lists of Scriptures don't constitute evidence to support your view, and these types of responses also indicate you'd rather state what you believe rather than actually discuss the issue with someone else. A discussion involves responding to what someone else has said. However, the way you approach this is much more like a platform where you simply insist what you believe. Using your method of "interpretation" I could make a very strong case that it's okay to kill babies, and by the way, this is also how cults are born. It is a dangerous and tragic way to approach the Word of God. For about the 10th time now, when are those who are against eternal security going to deal with Hosea? Or God's covenant with Abraham and Israel? You see...it's not as simple as plucking a verse here and there and trying to proof-text your way to a conclusion. You need to look at Scripture as a whole and within the Hebrew context it was written in. These are issues that have been repeatedly ignored.... Cardcaptor is using the Scriptures for his exegesis....can't you see that? All A.K. is doing is posting 1 or 2 passages with his interpretaion or someone elses interpretation after it. That is what you accuse Cardcaptor of doing, and A.K. is doing just that....Cardcaptor is letting the bible define itself, not his own preconcieved ideas. I would rather read 20 verses in the bible that tackle a single issue than just one verse and someones interpretation. When you take 20 passages out of context though, 1 passage with in depth analysis is worth more than 20. I agree, if the in depth study is correctly anylizing the scriptures, without prejudice. You keep speaking of in depth study, but haven't shown any... other than showing a scripture or two followed by your interpretation. you also keep talkig about taking things out of context, but haven't shown a biblical basis of how. You say that the bible says that God forced abraham to follow him.... well the bible also says that Jonah was in the belly of the big fish forever... We know that the "forever" was only three literal days, by comparing other scriptures, the same way, we know God didn't literally force Abraham, by comparing other scriptures. Besides that....Abraham never tried to escape the covenant. He sinned, but had a repentent heart, never willing to take himself from Gods Grace.

Shalom Eliyahuw, Deny and disown are the same thing. We can also say "disavow" "repudiate" and several other words. Same thing. Peter denied (refused to acknowledge, disowned, repudiated) Jesus. The fact that he was grieved does not speak to his salvation, but rather to his reconciliation and being forgiven. For the sake of clarity, the dictionary says:

Shalom Eliyahuw, Again, Peter did deny Jesus when he said he wouldn't. Yes, Peter disowned Jesus by denying Him. It is the same thing. Peter refused Jesus, refused to be associated with him. However, Peter is not the focus, he was only an example. I don't wish to make the discussion about Peter. The point being, we cannot speak for anyone else and what they would or would not do. We are not talking about non-Christians in the OSAS vs NOSAS, we are talking about Christians. You said a "true" Christian would not disown Jesus and I fail to see where that is in Scripture and also I posit that one cannot make such a sweeping and unsupported statement about other's hearts when we are not in a position to do so. Only G-d knows if someone is a true Christian or not and there are warnings about Christians "falling away" in the Scriptures, so we must admit that it is possible for Christians to fall away.

It is not man centered. Tell me this. Is this scripture man centered of God centered - Matthew 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 which is in heaven. If I do the will of God is it man centered or God centered? This scriptures says that those who "Do the will of my Father" will enter in. Only man is required on this earth to do the will of God. If I am required to do it them it is "I" that is doing it. God is requiring man to do his will in order to enter into heaven, but your understanding is superseding this because it doesn't back up your belief. Here is another one - Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Now, keeping God's commandments man centered or God centered? The will of God is that we keep his commandments, but according to you that is "Man Centered". What does this scripture say to you - Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Now, we know that only Christians have their names in the book of life. If I can't lose my salvation then why is this warning being made? Is this warning of my name being taken out man centered or God centered? Not everybody is educated in Greek like you are. So, just because somebody doesn't give the "exegetical justification" like you do does not mean that they are wrong. I have explained over and over again what it is to "work out or salvation". It is NOT maintaininng our salvation. It is living according to the obedience set forth by the will of God. The works we do are the works of mortiying of our flesh in repenting of the sins that will take us to hell. People are miss interpreting this verse - Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. This is saying that God works with us "to will" and "to do his good pleasure". This does not say that he does the work for us. A definition of the word will is - to desire This says that he works with us to desire to do his will and to do his good pleasure. Even though we are saved by grace through faith we are still called to do the will of God. What I am trying to get though is that we can lose that salvation that was promised if we do not the will of God. No matter how many times I point that out it is ignored. The will of God is not performing works like people think they are. They are not nice little things we do for people. Our works we were created for and ordained to walk in are the works of righteousness. Since we know that the works of the flesh is sin, then the works of righteousness is repentance from those sins and avoiding temptation to give into them. It is the renewing of my mind and mortifying the flesh. This is what working out our salvation is and God is there to help us with our desire to do it. Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Now, if we choose not to do these things we will lose the salvation promised to us because no sin will enter into heaven. Unfortunately, you're simply repeating yourself. You don't even engage in conversation, you just list verses (plucking them out of their context) and highlight the points you think support your stance. Then all you do is say what you *think* the verse means to you. AK has tried to educate you on the proper way to study and interpret Scripture, you ignore it. You prefer to read the bible prima facie, instead of put the extra time and effort into learning what it might actually mean. Of course, I understand this would be threatening because it would destroy the presuppositions you hold already. But that's truly a shame because there is so much you're missing out on by not understanding the depth and extent of God's grace. It would be much more beneficial if you would respond directly to AK's interpretations of each verse (with a counter-interpretation, using proper exegesis), rather than just repeat previous posts with no foundation behind what you're saying. Long lists of Scriptures don't constitute evidence to support your view, and these types of responses also indicate you'd rather state what you believe rather than actually discuss the issue with someone else. A discussion involves responding to what someone else has said. However, the way you approach this is much more like a platform where you simply insist what you believe. Using your method of "interpretation" I could make a very strong case that it's okay to kill babies, and by the way, this is also how cults are born. It is a dangerous and tragic way to approach the Word of God. For about the 10th time now, when are those who are against eternal security going to deal with Hosea? Or God's covenant with Abraham and Israel? You see...it's not as simple as plucking a verse here and there and trying to proof-text your way to a conclusion. You need to look at Scripture as a whole and within the Hebrew context it was written in. These are issues that have been repeatedly ignored.... Cardcaptor is using the Scriptures for his exegesis....can't you see that? All A.K. is doing is posting 1 or 2 passages with his interpretaion or someone elses interpretation after it. That is what you accuse Cardcaptor of doing, and A.K. is doing just that....Cardcaptor is letting the bible define itself, not his own preconcieved ideas. I would rather read 20 verses in the bible that tackle a single issue than just one verse and someones interpretation.

You never used any exegetical reasoning for why you disagreed, which is why I kept bringing up the verse. In the next post, you better quote me, verbatim, where I said you must use prima facie when reading scriptures. Quote me, because I never said it. If you can't supply a quote, then admit that you're lost in this debate and then kindly back out. In all fairness, I would like to humor you and give you exegetical reasoning as you ask. I really thought that I already did. ex

No, when you use a prima facie reading of all the scriptures, compounding them only provides for compounded mistakes and does not create truth by any stretch of the imagination. The scriptures are simple? Mind telling that to Peter, who said they are hard to understand? I did to address it many times....we disagree about that verse. so it's up to you to provide other evidence to support your belief if you want me to consider it. I already gave you some of mine but you keep repeating that I don't address it when I did. You are a contradiction to yourself. you say in one post that you must use prima facie, and in another that you can't. My mind is made up, as is yours, but I base my beliefs on more that just one scripture. If you are truly Christianly concerned about convincing me, why are you so stuck on repeating the same thing over and over, and being too lazy to find a few scriptures to back you up?

Oh, so he didn't say: "The only way we can be without offence till the day of Christ is to be without sin"? What is this, kindergarten? I'm sorry, I didn't realize we had moved to the playground and the ole' "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" defense was legitimate. How am I not using exegetical studies? Do you even know what that word means? I used Greek, historical context, etc...all of which consist of exegetical studies (though these are not the only ones). I even said that we can't rely on a prima facie view of scripture...so how am I violating my own criteria? No, because it becomes loaded at that point. If I wanted to, based on the same interpretational values that you are supporting, I could prove that we could see God in all His majesty face to face. I could prove to you that Jesus wasn't God. I could do all of this by using scripture after scripture. Instead, comparing scripture to scripture only works when one has dealt with what each individual scripture means. He has not done this - for if he did, his belief would fall apart. Look mate, I gave plenty of reasons as to why we should look at the Philippians passage first and foremost. Also, by using Greek, and by your acknowledgment of me using Greek, it then becomes literally impossible for me to use a prima facie value of reading. Look, if you don't understand something (which it's obvious you don't), then ask questions. Don't come on here accusing me of things you don't even understand. you said it right above..."your criteria"...and your criteria consists of circular reasoning and a skewed logic. You keep runnin back to Phillipeans when that was already dealt with. I already said before that we disagree about that verse. Can't we agree to disagree about that and move on to other points that back up our beliefs. I, as well as Cardcaptor, pointed out many other points that you just ignore, and point back to your single point of Phillipeans. You can't convince me of what you are saying by repeating the same one line passage over and over. I understand what you believe it is saying. Give me scriptural proof, other than Phillipeans 6. that point you tried to make about the rubber and glue does not make sense. I just stated the fact that you are projecting your own fallacies on others. A.K. - I really would like to quit arguing with you...It's not getting anywhere. please back up your ideas that God takes away our free will to walk away, with scripture. Phillipeans 1:6 cannot be used to convince me. To understand that passage we must understand what his work is. He started a good work in us and he will complete his good work. What is his good work? If a sales mans job is to sell you something and he goes to your house and gives his salespitch in it's entirety and you still decide that you don't want to buy what he is selling, did he not do his work. His work was completed, and he did all he could do, but the ultimate choice is up to you.

He is NOT saying that at all. Ask him. He is saying that it is a matter of the heart. Where is your heart? There will most likely be some sin that is unrepented of, but God judges whether or not your heart is willing and trying to get rid of it, or whether you are just being comfortable in your sin waiting for God to do all the work. You're the one who is not exegetical (using extended study) and relying on prima facie(face value). He did give reasons....you are just to arrogant to even cinsider them and you are too blind to see that we must put precept upon precept and line upon line, comparing scripture with scripture, to gain the whole picture. You are the one not giving any reasons, and just accusing others of not being exegetical. I take that back....you did give reasons. you said that you know Greek, and that you must take Phillipeans six for face value and not consider the rest of the bible.

Thanks for posting that....you backed up what I was saying and then some. I didn't have the time yesterday to get that thorough....so thanks.

Because you're reading them at a prima facie level - sometimes it is better to even forgo reading scripture than to use this method. The reason is that it can bring about HORRIBLE interpretation. Because they are guilty and rejected His grace. And I responded...and you dropped it. You ignored it. Abraham, after denying God by sleeping with his servant, was still brought back to the covenant. Gomer, after leaving Hosea, was "hemmed" in (that is, forced) to come back to him. Israel, after rejecting God, went into exile which was a forced spiritual return to God. Where did I say their "free will" was taken away? None of us are autonomous or have absolute free will, our will is limited. Though we can choose to sin, once in a covenant with God, we can't walk away form Him. you make me laugh... 1) what the heck is prima facie? 2)how can they be guilty if he never tried to save them? Many so-called saved Christians will be cast into the lake of fire. If they are Chistians and accepted Christ, God obviously started his work in them. in The parable of the ten virgins all ten where christians and expecting the Groom...but, 5 where foolish and were cast out because they didn't have a relationship with Christ. If they were Christians and expecting him, I think that God must have started a work in them, otherwise they wouldn't have presumed on being part of the bride. 3) They still had free will to not come back...they just used their brain and made the right choice (to return to God) 4) No true convert will walk away, but just because somebody professes they are saved because they accept Christ doesn't mean they are converted. Even converts still have free will, but they are cinverted and their will is to obey God and follow him. That's what conversion is about. there are many prfesses Chistians who are not converted in their hearts, and presume on their salvation, when they aren't converted and are in danger of hardening their hearts and not letting the Holy Spirit totally convert them. well nice chat...see ya later...I'm going home for the night.

This is an invalid practice, you CAN NOT use scripture to negate scripture. You cannot say, "That is what this scripture says, but I have ten other passages that deal with this scripture - ergo your scripture is wrong." You HAVE to deal with the specific passage I gave, otherwise your other passages are moot because of an incorrect interpretation. I'm saying that you have no idea what the Greek connotations are, the historical context, and that you also take it out of context of the broader passage. Likewise, as can be seen from the Philippians fiasco, if I were to offer all of these contexts, you would not listen anyway because, "I just disagree." Yes, I am. Now, can you finally deal with Abraham, Gomer, and Israel? You have continued to ignore it. If you don't understand it, then ask questions. But if you can't handle those, then kindly back out of the debate. I'm confused by your logic. 1) If nine passages imply one thing and one passage implies the opposite...I think I will go with the nine. 2) So why throw them into the lake of fire if he never tried to save them? 3) I did address Abraham....and I Don't see any where in scripture where God takes away his, or Gomers, or Israels free will. Can you show me from scripture where he does? If he did take away their free will, then why would they still sin?

Again, the Greek shows that God begins and finishes the work of salvation. That's pretty self-descriptive. In the Greek, "complete" doesn't mean "try." It means that it WILL get done. Those that burn rejected the initial act of a good work. So producing Ishmael was a shining act of obedience? You're also ignoring Gomer and Israel. Why should I answer your questions when you haven't touched mine? Can we take it one step at a time? Lets finish talking about Abraham.... I did and am adressing your questions....why are you dodging mine? And where are you getting your "GREEK" from? You referenced the words "finishes" and "complete"....where did you get these from? The verse I used was taken from the NKJV I showed you mine, now you show me yours. No, we have to discuss the three because all three are important and deal with my point. As for my Greek, I'm using the manuscripts that you're NKJV is taken from - I speak, read, and write in Koine Greek. Look back a few pages, I laid out (quite well) how my idea is supported. Your move. Well I already told you how I see that passage and you told me how you see it...thats that. If you don't want to answer my questions then I'm done talking to you...If this is going to be a fair respectful discussion then both of our questions need to be adressed and you answered none of mine. I asked you to use the context to show me, and you didn't. I supplied you context, Greek, and the historical background of the passage. You gave me your thought. How fair is that? Why should I accept your opinion which had no backing, when my opinion used all the exegetical qualities to interpret scripture? I used the rest of the bible as context! You just say that you read Greek. Well I'm proud of your accomplishment, but things aren't always as they seem. Words aren't always literal. Now for context, I gave you other parts of the bible that contradict what you say. And I ask you again...What about all the warnings to those who fall away. or the scriptures about the natural branches being broken off. and...again I ask... of all the people that are thrown in the lake of fire, are you saying that God never began a good work in them? If a fruit tree bears no fruit it will be cut down. Fruit trees are supposed to bear fruit. You wouldn't cut down a non-fruit tree for not producing fruit.....so why would God cut down people and throw them into the lake of fire if he never tried to save them or if they where never convicted of their sins and given a chance to repent? I ask these questions for my context. You used your greek words, well okay, we both know what the scripture says, but lets compare it with the rest of the scripture to confirm what it actually means.

Again, the Greek shows that God begins and finishes the work of salvation. That's pretty self-descriptive. In the Greek, "complete" doesn't mean "try." It means that it WILL get done. Those that burn rejected the initial act of a good work. So producing Ishmael was a shining act of obedience? You're also ignoring Gomer and Israel. Why should I answer your questions when you haven't touched mine? Can we take it one step at a time? Lets finish talking about Abraham.... I did and am adressing your questions....why are you dodging mine? And where are you getting your "GREEK" from? You referenced the words "finishes" and "complete"....where did you get these from? The verse I used was taken from the NKJV I showed you mine, now you show me yours. No, we have to discuss the three because all three are important and deal with my point. As for my Greek, I'm using the manuscripts that you're NKJV is taken from - I speak, read, and write in Koine Greek. Look back a few pages, I laid out (quite well) how my idea is supported. Your move. Well I already told you how I see that passage and you told me how you see it...thats that. If you don't want to answer my questions then I'm done talking to you...If this is going to be a fair respectful discussion then both of our questions need to be adressed and you answered none of mine.

Again, the Greek shows that God begins and finishes the work of salvation. That's pretty self-descriptive. In the Greek, "complete" doesn't mean "try." It means that it WILL get done. Those that burn rejected the initial act of a good work. So producing Ishmael was a shining act of obedience? You're also ignoring Gomer and Israel. Why should I answer your questions when you haven't touched mine? Can we take it one step at a time? Lets finish talking about Abraham.... I did and am adressing your questions....why are you dodging mine? And where are you getting your "GREEK" from? You referenced the words "finishes" and "complete"....where did you get these from? The verse I used was taken from the NKJV I showed you mine, now you show me yours. also....I never said that Abraham was never disobedient....we all are...what your point. He stumbled....that is different from willfully living in sin.