Excellent Discussion on OSAS

[JLB]

EG....we all see what we want to see!
You don't know how much it disturbs me that we're not all on the same page.

Amen.

 

[JLB]

Lets just defend what we believe without making it personal with those we disagree with and take the emotions out of it, I know its not easy to do because we are all very "passionate" and "protective " about what we believe and why we believe it.

I have had to learn to do this myself as I was not easy to talk with if we disagreed while I was on other forums.

Amen. Good word.

 

[Johann]

Lets just defend what we believe without making it personal with those we disagree with and take the emotions out of it, I know its not easy to do because we are all very "passionate" and "protective " about what we believe and why we believe it.

I have had to learn to do this myself as I was not easy to talk with if we disagreed while I was on other forums.

Brother, this was neither an emotional nor a personal response. While I do appreciate the demands placed on you in monitoring these discussions, I believe it is sometimes necessary to recognize that a rebuke may be intended as a corrective effort--to bring the interlocutor into alignment with truth or order.

J.

 

[GodsGrace]

they are not growing.

they have always been huge.

satan has always inserted a legalistic mindset. a mindset that tells the human to say Hey God look at me, see what I did.

It started with Cain.

It was huge is judaism

it is huge today in both Islam and in Catholicism.

its one thing to teach morality in a church, its a far other thing to teach that our moral choices we do or do not do have a say in our eternity.

The moral choices we make have nothing to do with our Christianity?
This is all Jesus and the other writers taught...:

2 Timothy 2:15
15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.


Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.


1 Corinthians 6:18-20
18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.


19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.


1 Corinthians 6:9
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,


Mark 7:20-23
20 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy *, slander, pride and foolishness.
23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

that was already set in stone.. and when we committed our first immoral choice, we earned our condemned state..

the marraige supper of the lamb is a future event

I meant YOUR marriage EG.
I do hate analogies and am sorry I posted one.

Would my father kick me out of his family if I do not do what he said?

Could he make me not be his natural son even if he did?

His blood is in my viens I will always be his son.

Just like Jesus blood purchased me, and I will always be his son.

as for what he expects. He gave me things to do. warned me not to do things. If I obeyed, he blessed me, when I disobeyed, he chastened me

sounds exactly like what God said he would do.

well he let my brother and sister get away with anything, never corrected them. and treated them like they never did anythign wrong.

Both of them are basically homeless. so yeah, As God helped me in my christian life by not allowing me to walk all over him. My faith did the same.

those who say salvation can be lost.

lol. This term in itself is a misnomer

grace is basically mercy given that is not deserved. While it is not free. it is payed for by the giver.

if costs the one who receives it nothing..

But it causes the one who recieved it to shout for Joy, to change his life. To love the person for who it is given, if they truly experience it.

Actually it did

it was just shut down by the power of Rome for for far to many years.. And had to go underground because anyone who taught it would have been martyred or imprisoned or cast out.

I do not know which is worse. your pro catholic leaning, or your anti calvin leaning. sadly. its almost like you have 2 strikes against you when it comes to Gods promise concerning those who are his children

No comment.
Just for your information...I'm non-denominational and have been for years.

 

[Studyman]

But eating well cooked pork is not an sinful acts before God, to think so is to bring Judaism into Christianity which the apostles never did, and even when Peter lapse into being fearful of certain brethren, that believed yet cling to the Jews' rellgion and would not let it go,

What is Judaism? I can't get any of the promoters of this world's religious system to give me a straight answer. And God knows I have tried.

Saul, before becoming Paul, had adopted the religion of his fathers, a religious sect that Jesus called the promoters thereof "Pharisees". Paul called this religious sect of the Pharisees, he had once adopted, "the Jews religion".

Paul said the promoters of this religion "were ignorant of God's Righteousness and had gone about establishing their own". He said they had been given the Oracles of God, but didn't believe them. Jesus Said of this same religious sect;

Mark 7: 9 And he said unto them, Full well "ye reject" the commandment of God, that ye may keep "your own tradition".

John 8: 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

I could go on and on regarding how God defined for us in Scripture, the "religion" of the Jews who killed the Prophets, Jesus, Stephen, and many more, and rejected and despised even the least of God's Judgments and Commandments.

You are calling this same Jews religion, "Judaism", and are accusing me of bringing this religious philosophy into what was first called "Christianity", or the Church of God that the Pharisees persecuted and killed.

Clearly you are confused. Out of one side of your mouth, you call "Judaism" the practice of following and promoting God's Laws. Out of the other side of your mouth, you call the Pharisees religion, who full well rejected the Laws of God, "Judaism".

So which is it? Was Jesus a Judaizer, or is it the Pharisees? You should figure this out before you make such accusations towards others.

Paul rose up and rebuked Peter to his face before all people.

There was never a "Law of God" given through Moses that forbids a faithful man of God from sitting or eating with someone based on their DNA. Especially if this non-Jew wanted to "sojourn with them". In fact, they were to be considered "as one that is born among them", and God instructed Jews to "Love them as they loved themselves". (Lev. 19:33,34)

It was another "commandment/tradition of men", practiced by the Jews, that Peter struggled with, in Gal. 2. and Acts 10.

Acts 10: 28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that "it is an unlawful thing" for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

God hath shown me too?

Lev. 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Paul, like a good, faithful brother, rebuked him according to God's Instruction in righteousness..

Lev. 19: 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

And Peter accepted the correction.

Your deception is, and even though you have been shown countless times, but you refuse to be corrected, is that the religious philosophies, doctrines and commandments followed and promoted by the Pharisees/Jews of Christ's Time, that Paul called "The Jews Religion", was not from God. And this religion led God's People astray, as lost sheep. And Jesus came to expose the religious system of this world, and save those who were led astray and lost by adopting the religious doctrines and philosophies of men who rejected God's Judgments.

Does it matter what we eat, what we drink, wherewithal we are clothed ( Ps. 132:9, Is. 61:10, ) I think it is up to each person to work out with fear and trembling.

I don't argue with you because of what you eat, but what you preach. If you can't "define" Judaism or the "Jews Religion" as the Bible defines it, then you shouldn't be preaching to others?? And given that you clearly are, shall I not warn my brothers to "Take Heed" and beware of your preaching?

 

[mailmandan]

This is a classic case of hypocrisy--accusing another of the very fault one possesses.

J.

It's called "projection" and it's not uncommon, especially among politicians.

 

[civic]

Brother, this was neither an emotional nor a personal response. While I do appreciate the demands placed on you in monitoring these discussions, I believe it is sometimes necessary to recognize that a rebuke may be intended as a corrective effort--to bring the interlocutor into alignment with truth or order.

J.

This was for everyone myself included. No one in particular.

 

[mailmandan]

What doth it profit? (ti ophelos̱). Rhetorical question, almost of impatience. Old word from ophellō, to increase, in N.T. only here, Jas_2:16; 1Co_15:32. “Ti ophelos was a common expression in the vivacious style of a moral diatribe” (Ropes).
If a man say (ean legēi tis). Condition of third class with ean and the present active subjunctive of legō, “if one keep on saying.”
He hath faith (pistin echein). Infinitive in indirect assertion after legēi.
But have not works (erga de mē echēi). Third-class condition continued, “but keeps on not having (mē and present active subjunctive echēi) works.” It is the spurious claim to faith that James here condemns.
Can that faith save him? (mē dunatai hē pistis sōsai autoṉ). Negative answer expected (mē). Effective aorist active infinitive sōsai (from sōzō). The article hē here is almost demonstrative in force as it is in origin, referring to the claim of faith without works just made.
Robertson

1) If one should say that he has faith, but do no good works or produce no fruit to confirm it, would "that kind" of faith, unworking faith, be the kind of faith that saves? Eph_2:8-10. The answer is "no" and that true faith will manifest itself in some type of good work. The good work does not save, but genuine faith in Jesus Christ does initiate desires for and sustain one in deeds of fruitful service to Jesus Christ.

2) The original language indicates a sense of almost disgust on James' part. It is ironic for one to say or keep on saying, or persistently say, that he has faith and is saved if he has no works. His claims demonstrate that his faith is spurious if the claims are not accompanied by some fruit.

That kind of faith which talks loudly, but works not at all, appears to be a farcical faith or claim of a kind of faith which the claimant does not possess, Joh_15:14.

Nowhere does Scripture teach or imply that good works save, in either the initial justification or eternal salvation sense.
Rather, Scripture affirms a consistent order:
Grace → Faith → Salvation → Good Works (as fruit)
Any reversal of this order leads to theological error or contradiction of the Gospel.

J.

You nailed it!

 

[Johann]

It's called "projection" and it's not uncommon, especially among politicians.

You're absolutely right, brother, and I appreciate your insight. That said, I’ve been meaning to have a conversation with you about Hebrews 6. Just yesterday, I was discussing this very passage with another brother, and I was reminded again how complex and highly debated it is. Contrary to how some may present it, the meaning is not as 'set in stone' as it might seem at first glance.

You and I both understand that Scripture interprets Scripture, and we also recognize the tension created by the many paradoxical triads and pairs that appear throughout the biblical narrative. One of the challenges we face, I believe, is the tendency to read our Bibles through a Western, rationalistic, and often political-philosophical lens...rather than the Eastern, Hebraic worldview from which it emerged.

What I’m trying to express, brother, is that Hebrews 6 seems to present, on the one hand, the very real possibility of apostasy, and on the other, the absolute security of the believer-a tension that demands careful, contextual study. So rather than using Hebrews 6 as a definitive proof-text for whether a believer can lose salvation, I believe we must examine the who, the what, and the why of the passage in its full covenantal and literary setting.

Just my thoughts, shared in grace.

Johann.

 

[mailmandan]

You're absolutely right, brother, and I appreciate your insight. That said, I’ve been meaning to have a conversation with you about Hebrews 6. Just yesterday, I was discussing this very passage with another brother, and I was reminded again how complex and highly debated it is. Contrary to how some may present it, the meaning is not as 'set in stone' as it might seem at first glance.

You and I both understand that Scripture interprets Scripture, and we also recognize the tension created by the many paradoxical triads and pairs that appear throughout the biblical narrative. One of the challenges we face, I believe, is the tendency to read our Bibles through a Western, rationalistic, and often political-philosophical lens...rather than the Eastern, Hebraic worldview from which it emerged.

What I’m trying to express, brother, is that Hebrews 6 seems to present, on the one hand, the very real possibility of apostasy, and on the other, the absolute security of the believer-a tension that demands careful, contextual study. So rather than using Hebrews 6 as a definitive proof-text for whether a believer can lose salvation, I believe we must examine the who, the what, and the why of the passage in its full covenantal and literary setting.

Just my thoughts, shared in grace.

Johann.

After a careful contextual study, and properly harmonizing scripture with scripture, I shared my views in post #768.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

EG....we all see what we want to see!
You don't know how much it disturbs me that we're not all on the same page.

I disagree we all see what we want to see.

I am quite sure when Saul was on that road to Damascus and got knocked off his horse. the last thing he wanted to see is it was Jesus who spoke to him. No one wants to admit they are wrong. But unless we humble ourselves. we will never see or admit we have been wrong.

I have been wrong on many things.. and it was hard. but have changed my view.

we teach two different gospels.. you teach one type and I teach another type. because of this, unless one of us repents. we will sadly never be on the same page when it comes to this topic.

that disturbs me also..

Do you realize that some version state CAN FAITH SAVE THEM? It leaves out the THAT which is all important to you.
But, you know, I hate discussing words when we can't even agree on big issues.

in the greek, faith refers back to the phrase (a person says he has faith)

so wither the word that faith is there or not., In context. it does not change anything.

it would be nonsensical to come out and declare that someone said they had faith.. But they do not have works. and then refer to any other type or any other faith. in any language

I stayed in James to support my view.
You know very well that we need supporting scripture for any verse.
A verse cannot stand alone.

It does not stand alone. In sequence everything James says is based on the topic

what is the topic?

if a person says they have faith, can faith save them (there faith, not anyone elses faith)

I wish there was an UP arrow to get us back to the post we're responding to.
It makes me dizzy going back and forth....

me too. The longer the responses get I believe the more lost we can become..lol

OK. So let's dismiss everything else he says?

who said I was dismissing everything else he says?

I agree with everything else he says. I just put what he says in context with what he is saying or arguing

can faith save them.

why would he even ask such a question, unless there were people he witnessed and he was writing to that did this very thing..

in this context. what would they be doing?

they would be hearers only and not doers.

what would james then do?

1. he would have them test their faith, ie, am I talking to you.
2. He would use examples of people who had living faith in what they did (abraham)
3. He would encourage them to come to this saving faith. and do what a person who realy trusts God would do.

it all fits neatly together.

I used to struggle with james 2 and acts 2. because I saw a contradiction I could not resolve. so it put the whole bible in question. especially since people would point them out to me, and I had no answer for them.. (it is not enough just to say they contradict. You have to know what they are saying) when God opened my eyes to what was really being said. talk about a light coming on.. It not only satisfied my need, my questions and my doubts. But it made things more clear.

I only wish others would see it

Paul says we are saved by faith alone....

yes no works

then he goes on to state how we're to behave in all his writings.

amen, he should as should we all help disciple others to help them become more like christ.

So are we saved by faith alone or not?

Actually we are saved By Grace alone. Gods mercy alone. based on the work of the cross alone.

its just unlike the calvinist view. God will not force us to believe. nor force us or keep us from the ability to believe. He wants us to recieve his gift. But we will never do it unless we repent and come to true saving faith.

Initial salvation....OK.

There is no such thing

your saved or your not saved.

But then why is it important for Paul to discuss our behavior all the time?
Surely this has something to do with salvation.

No. Paul would be contradicting himself and everyone else

There is justification. or being saved from the penalty of sin, the curse of the law

then there is sanctification, the being saved from the power and destruction of person sin in our lives

there will be glorification. where our sanctification is complete. but not because we did it. But because God did it.

in this lifetime, we are to take the time we have hear on earth and grow as much as we can. to learn to be a light in the world. to love and serve others.

doing this produces fruit. glorified God (because it all of him) and brings the lost to him.

One man was thrown out of the chuch in Corinth...was he never saved??
He was let back in, so....

being thrown out of the church and thrown out of heaven are two different things.

I pray one day you see the separation between being positionally in christ, as his child, and being placed into his family forever

and having the privilege's of reaping the benefits hear on earth of being part of that family.

That same ma in chapter 2 was allowed back into the church. and back into fellowship. But he did not get resaved. He got restored.

If he was saved, he continued to be saved from the penalty of sin while being chastened by God and the church

And what about Matthew 18?
Jesus said to treat the offending party as they would a tax collector.
Was that person never saved?

let him be to you like a heathen and tax collector,

only God can say if that person is/ saved or not. I do not have that power. nor do you.

Too many verses teaching the opposite of OSAS.

No sis. God does not contradict himself. I pray again you see this one day.

You do not tell someone they will live forever based on what I did. then go back against your word remove that promise from them because they did nto live up to whatever standard you gave

Right. But he DID offer his son.

yes. decades after he was made right with God and saved forever.

And two different writers spoke to this...
One at initial salvation...
and one many years later.

There is no such as initial salvation. Your speaking catholic talk

your saved or your not saved. Paul said I have been saved (a completed action) he did not say I might be saved

Obedience perfects faith.
Faith without obedience is a dead faith and puts one in danger.
John 3:36 is the perfect verse but I hate having to discuss the word OBEY...
so let's not get into that.

Yes. Because every time we take a step of faith in obedience. we find out our faith was not in vein, it was justified. it was in the right thing. and the more we step out. the more it becomes an automatic. and less stepping out in faith.

What else is the gospel for if not eternal life?

You tell me

God said I have it.. so why do you deny I have it or it can be lost (conditional life, or it is not eternal)

The whole point of Jesus is for the atonement and to teach us how to get to heaven.

He taught us how to get to heaven
Through him. no one comes to the father except through him

The jews rejected him, because they thought they could earn their way to heaven
sadly. most of the church are doing the exact same thing

What is there to teach if faith is ALL we need??

to get saved. Again, study the book of John, Look at eph 1: 13 - 14, 2: 8 - 9 titus 3: 5 there are so many verses or passages I can not come close to naming them all

Agreed.

Agreed.
So does a saved person who claims we don't even need to obey the commandments have life in him?
I mentioned this yesterday...

never heard of a saved person say we do not need to obey a command we can live however we want.

I have heard Gnostics say this, and be refuted by John and James and Peter

now saying we need to obey to be saved. or we do not need to obey to be saved. thats a different topic altogether. (the topic would be law)

we are not under law. so is not a topic we need to discuss

LOL Abraham did works all along EG.
He left his home to obey God!

Yes. Proving he had faith

he also had many sins.. he was not perfect.

You're putting persons into scripture that are not there.
James is speaking to believers...
TO THE 12 TRIBES THAT ARE DISPERSED ABROAD....
CONSIDER IT ALL JOY MY BRETHREN......
James 1:1-2

lol.. He spoke to his bretheryn in the flesh. the children of Israel.

I do not even think you believe they are all saved.

any pastor who does not understand there are people in his church who may not be saved and talk to them, would be failing in his mission. as James would

Verse 12: BLESSED IS A MAN WHO PERSEVERES UNDER TRIAL.....
IOW, we must persevere under trial.

if we want to be blessed. yes

He even says we won't be approved till then....but who knows what he meant.
We are approved now...not in the end.

it means our faith is not yet pure. it has not been perfected.

do you persevere under every trial, I know I do not.. because God as my faith is still growing my faith. I continue to run the race.

Chapter 2, verse 8: IF YOU ARE FULFILLING THE ROYAL LAW,,,YOU ARE DOING WELL.

Sounds like we need to fulfill the royal law.

It says doing well.. doing well is not enough.

MUST pertains to God giving a command.
It's not a suggestion...
it's a MUST.

lol. Your stuck on a word.

Whether or not we do it goes into a different topic...
1 John 1 and 2 for instance.

But God cannot be mocked...

Your right

And every time someone says his sons death was insufficient in saving a person completely. they mock God

Agreed !

I can't go back to my post again...but I doubt I said anything like that.
This is why I hate analogies...did I actually post one? lol

I just used it as an example

when we trust someone, we do works for them

if we do not do any work for them, do we really trust them

my answer is no

Well I agree with you 100%.
This is why I post on doing good works.
How could there be pushback for wanting to do good works?

who is pushing back for wanting to do good works?

Not me,, if you still think this after all this time, you have not heard a word I have said.

For wanting to obey Jesus?
I think it's dangerous NOT to obey Jesus...

me too..

and the pushback sounds like we don't really have to.

again, who is pushing back?

not me

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

People who are stubborn and refuse to repent of their sin, can indeed end up returning to being a sinner;
A heathen who is lost.

God will not allow that to happen

how you or anyone else think we can resist the chastening of God is beyond my imagination.

not to mention. there is a point where God will take a son home (the sin unto death) if God knows that person is doing more harm than good.

he will never however. leave nor forsake him.

don't pump your chest against them.. because if you got as you deserve. you would be no more than a heathen who is lost.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

there is an up arrow in the quote when you reply to a poster- its a small blue up arrow next to your name Godsgrace said:

never thought of this,. thats how I keep in line, Maybe thats what she was talking about. I have to use it. or I would be lost..lol

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Pretty frustrating at times when someone keeps repeating that they're right and you're wrong.
As if THEY have all the truth and everyone else that disagrees with them does not have the truth.

100%

but then do we do it in the way we speak?

which was my point..

 

[civic]

You're absolutely right, brother, and I appreciate your insight. That said, I’ve been meaning to have a conversation with you about Hebrews 6. Just yesterday, I was discussing this very passage with another brother, and I was reminded again how complex and highly debated it is. Contrary to how some may present it, the meaning is not as 'set in stone' as it might seem at first glance.

You and I both understand that Scripture interprets Scripture, and we also recognize the tension created by the many paradoxical triads and pairs that appear throughout the biblical narrative. One of the challenges we face, I believe, is the tendency to read our Bibles through a Western, rationalistic, and often political-philosophical lens...rather than the Eastern, Hebraic worldview from which it emerged.

What I’m trying to express, brother, is that Hebrews 6 seems to present, on the one hand, the very real possibility of apostasy, and on the other, the absolute security of the believer-a tension that demands careful, contextual study. So rather than using Hebrews 6 as a definitive proof-text for whether a believer can lose salvation, I believe we must examine the who, the what, and the why of the passage in its full covenantal and literary setting.

Just my thoughts, shared in grace.

Johann.

I'm in the process of doing an in depth study on Hebrews 6. There are 3 possibilities as to who the Author is addressing in 4-8.

1- unbelievers-
2- Apostates- who were once saved- I don't believe this as they were never saved.
3- Backsliders, carnal believers who willfully sin- think the Israelites in the wilderness who did not enter the promised land which included Moses. We would never say Moses was an unbeliever or lost his salvation.

Just like in 1 Corinthians 3 we read at the Bema ( Judgment Seat of Christ ) the wood , hay and stubble will be burned up, their works destroyed yet they will be saved as by fire. We also know The Father disciples those He loves. Sin does not go unpunished. Think Annanias/ Sapphira God took their lives for lying in Acts. Think 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul says many are sick and many have fallen asleep for taking the Lords supper unworthily.

I'm leaning towards the warning passages are for carnal believers living in sin, not repenting and God disciplining them as we read He does in Hebrews 12. They are still saved but as by fire. Think of Jude below

Jude 1:23-24 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh

1 Corinthians 5:5- hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

The fire purifies and also burns up the wood,hay,stubble. It reveals ones work/fruit. God takes the unfruitful branch and removes it. Sometimes God takes them home prematurely. Salvation is permanent, the new birth is permanent, eternal life is permanent but willful sin and disobedience has consequences. God will not be mocked and those He loves He disciplines including taking their unfruitful rebellious lives home.

I'm leaning this way and just wanted to lay out my thoughts before doing the deep dive.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The moral choices we make have nothing to do with our Christianity?

how did we get from a church that looks to self the religion of works salvation to what choices we make?

This is all Jesus and the other writers taught...:

2 Timothy 2:15
15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.


Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.


1 Corinthians 6:18-20
18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.


19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.


1 Corinthians 6:9
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,


Mark 7:20-23
20 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy *, slander, pride and foolishness.
23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

again, what does this have to do with the fact 90% of all the earths religion teach our entrance to heaven is based on hos good we are. what works we perform. what works we do nto perform. or how many sins we may commit?

I meant YOUR marriage EG.
I do hate analogies and am sorry I posted one.

sorry, It did not fit. because I do not look at God in this way yet..

I will in the future. thats why I tried to switch it to a more personal present example with us being Gods children.

No comment.
Just for your information...I'm non-denominational and have been for years.

I know. But you do use alot of catholic argument.

 

[Studyman]

Matthew 8:32​

“And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.”

Why did Jesus allow the demons and evil spirits to enter Swine, and not sheep or goats, to perish in the waters?

Of course, we can't talk about that.

You are being deceitful in your post, by using so many logical fallacies ~ Whatever they clearly mentioned is to be avoided, yet no man has the right to add his private convictions into the scriptures which you are attempting to do.

Again, they are not "MY" private convictions. Just as abstaining from drinking blood was not the Gentiles "private convictions". In both cases, both me and the Gentiles were instructed "By God", to "Deny" our "private convictions" (eating pork, drinking blood), and yield ourselves to God, and "Abstaining" for the behavior that is contrary to HIS Teaching.

God has a reason for His instruction in righteousness. For me personally, I loved the tradition of my fathers of eating pork, just as I'm sure the Gentiles in Acts 15 loved their traditional food. I didn't understand why God created such righteousness, but who am I to judge or question God, Yes? Especially for something so easy to submit to. And I may be giving pearls unto swine here, but in this wicked world, it is sometimes hard to keep Christ in our minds. All the distractions, influences, "wiles of the devil, etc. But just this one judgment, brings the Christ to the forefront of my mind every time I shop for food, eat in restaurants with my wife etc. It is the Holy Spirit that had God's Judgments written for me, so that I can know Him as I sojourn through a land that is not mine, through a world that hates God and rejects God's Righteousness in favor of their own, and has since the prince of the religious system of this world convinced EVE that God lied to her.

I am grateful for HIS Helper who brings God's Word to my mind all through the day, even when I'm hungry. I can't imagine enduring in this world without His Words, and have come to understand why Jesus said to "Live By" them.

Does God's Written Judgment matter? I believe that is for each person to work out on their own.

But Yielding oneself to God, and our body as instruments of righteousness unto God, is the opposite of "adding personal conviction". In truth, it is "denying personal conviction".

I don't care what you eat, but I do Love the brethren, and therefore, it seem important to point out to everyone when a person, who has transformed themselves into an apostle of Christ, is preaching against the Words of His Father.

 

[Johann]

I'm in the process of doing an in depth study on Hebrews 6. There are 3 possibilities as to who the Author is addressing in 4-8.

1- unbelievers-
2- Apostates- who were once saved- I don't believe this as they were never saved.
3- Backsliders, carnal believers who willfully sin- think the Israelites in the wilderness who did not enter the promised land which included Moses. We would never say Moses was an unbeliever or lost his salvation.

Just like in 1 Corinthians 3 we read at the Bema ( Judgment Seat of Christ ) the wood , hay and stubble will be burned up, their works destroyed yet they will be saved as by fire. We also know The Father disciples those He loves. Sin does not go unpunished. Think Annanias/ Sapphira God took their lives for lying in Acts. Think 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul says many are sick and many have fallen asleep for taking the Lords supper unworthily.

I'm leaning towards the warning passages are for carnal believers living in sin, not repenting and God disciplining them as we read He does in Hebrews 12. They are still saved but as by fire. Think of Jude below

Jude 1:23-24 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh

The fire purifies and also burns up the wood,hay,stubble. It reveals ones work/fruit. God takes the unfruitful branch and removes it. Sometimes God takes them home prematurely. Salvation is permanent, the new birth is permanent, eternal life is permanent but willful sin and disobedience has consequences. God will not be mocked and those He loves He disciplines including taking their unfruitful rebellious lives home.

I'm leaning this way and just wanted to lay out my thoughts before doing the deep dive.

I’d genuinely love to read your final analysis on Hebrews 6, civic--particularly your treatment of the Greek verbs in the passage.

Hebrews 6:4–5 is densely packed with participial constructions that carry serious theological weight-

Hebrews 6:4–5:
Ἀδύνατον γὰρ τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας (once enlightened),
γευσαμένους (having tasted) τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου (the heavenly gift),
καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας (having become partakers) Πνεύματος Ἁγίου (of the Holy Spirit),
καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα (having tasted the good word of God),
δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος (and the powers of the age to come)...

Each of these aorist participles--φωτισθέντας, γευσαμένους, γενηθέντας-points to definitive past experiences, not theoretical or superficial exposure.

The use of ἅπαξ (once for all) further amplifies the finality of these events. The cumulative effect is unmistakably emphatic, and the syntax offers no hint of ambiguity or pretense.

I won’t go into the full exegetical unpacking here...I’ve found that discussions like these often draw more ad hominem than genuine engagement, especially since many here don't study the text in this way.

But I did want to say your insights would be valued, and I’m sincerely looking forward to hearing your input.

Leighton Flowers just don't "cut it for me"-it is almost as if he is trying to "convince" himself, know what I mean?

Johann.

 

[JLB]

God will not allow that to happen

The teaching of Christ certainly teaches otherwise.

• But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

His sheep who wander away and become lost must repent and return.


If they don’t they will be a sinner; a heathen and tax collector.


Do you believe the lost need salvation?

 

[civic]

I’d genuinely love to read your final analysis on Hebrews 6, civic--particularly your treatment of the Greek verbs in the passage.

Hebrews 6:4–5 is densely packed with participial constructions that carry serious theological weight-

Hebrews 6:4–5:
Ἀδύνατον γὰρ τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας (once enlightened),
γευσαμένους (having tasted) τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου (the heavenly gift),
καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας (having become partakers) Πνεύματος Ἁγίου (of the Holy Spirit),
καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα (having tasted the good word of God),
δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος (and the powers of the age to come)...

Each of these aorist participles--φωτισθέντας, γευσαμένους, γενηθέντας-points to definitive past experiences, not theoretical or superficial exposure.

The use of ἅπαξ (once for all) further amplifies the finality of these events. The cumulative effect is unmistakably emphatic, and the syntax offers no hint of ambiguity or pretense.

I won’t go into the full exegetical unpacking here...I’ve found that discussions like these often draw more ad hominem than genuine engagement, especially since many here don't study the text in this way.

But I did want to say your insights would be valued, and I’m sincerely looking forward to hearing your input.

Leighton Flowers just don't "cut it for me"-it is almost as if he is trying to "convince" himself, know what I mean?

Johann.

Yes those participles imply he is talking about believers. There is no way to be a partaker of the Holy Spirit apart from Him woking and living in you.