|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:11 am
 |
|
|
 |
Jewish at Heart Red Wight If Jewish At Heart is alright with it, that sounds fair! I'd also like to apologize to the two of you. Looking back, I used some unnecessary attitude in my last post. Confrontational arrogance was a big sin a struggled with before becoming a Christian, and I guess I still haven't gotten over it yet ^_^; Thank you, everyone, for your advice, well-wishes, and especially, your prayers. You have no idea how much it means to me to have a community of believers that are supportive and caring. I'm feeling a whole lot better than I was when I wrote my post back on the fourteenth. I still struggle with the guilt and condemnation from time to time, but much less often now. I've also taken to reminding myself about God's love, mercy, grace, and how He can see into our hearts and see who we truly are. And knowing that He can see how I'm truly feeling about this and why I'm feeling this way - even when I don't even know, myself, sometimes - is comforting to me. He's willing to use that if we're willing to be honest with Him. I'm definitely a work in progress, and I've been spending more time in prayer about this than I had been before. As people in my church say, "I'm a mess, but I'm God's mess now!" I don't mind if you all continue the conversation here in this thread. Feel free to. 3nodding |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:10 am
|
|
|
|
In your argument here, you're actually begging the question. You're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove in your quotation of several verses. You're taking your belief that being saved from sins and being saved from God's wrath for sin are totally different from one another (as if one can happen to someone while the other does not). You're committing eisegesis, reading into the text of Scripture an idea it does not teach. I reject your idea, and you must now prove that idea to me from Scripture.
Considering this, look at Matthew 1:21. In my view, I believe being saved from sins is not separate from being saved from God's wrath (you make that distinction, not me). So, does Matthew 1:21 refute my view? What about 1 Peter 2:24? How about Romans 6:6-7? Think about this with any of the verses you posted with your shotgun approach to interaction here. I believe you could honestly have a much more clear, concise, useful interaction if you stay focused and on point and it would save you time writing as well as your audience time reading (I used to write like you as well, but by God's grace, I've gotten better at it). Due to the overall content of your writing, it may take me awhile to address it, but I'll try to simplify things and address the actual issues you're attempting to bring up, to make it shorter.
Concerning 2 Peter 2:20-21? Again, feel free to check out Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-20.htm) on this passage. You certainly can apply OSAS to this, if you understand what we're actually saying. You read many assumptions into the text you do not prove, then when we come along and say something about it, you filter it through your assumptions and we are of course misinterpreting the text in your eyes. You say they were actually in Christ as opposed to having a notional knowledge of Christ, but the text doesn't say it: you assume that meaning. Gill actually does address your points, if you read it, though that doesn't mean you'll accept the answers: proof does not equal persuasion.
Hebrews 6? Again, check out Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (http://biblehub.com/hebrews/6-4.htm). You can go to the commentary in other verses yourself to check it against the text of Scripture. I also can consistently hold to Hebrews 6:4-6 as well as 9 (obviously, I couldn't hold to your interpretation of it consistently, but then you have not proven the text actually supports your assumptions you've read into it so that I must be held to your interpretation, so I'm happy to hold to any explanations that square with all of Scripture; tota Scriptura), but with your view can you consistently hold to even Romans 8:29-30 (not to mention many other texts which I won't bring up in this post due to time and to attempt to stay focused on the one, as I'm sure you'd have to write two posts of text to explain your view on each text and I don't want to let you ignore Romans 8 with a surface level claim about it's interpretation along with a pile of words that don't even address the issue then have you move on to more texts you'll address in the same way)? We'll see.
By the way, as a side note, I wanted to commend you on your consistency in your view of losing salvation at least. I have met many who say you can lose it but you can regain it. You seem to share the same mindset I did when I shared your view, that if indeed it can be lost and that's how the text is interpreted, then certainly it cannot be regained. While I believe you are more consistent as far as this viewpoint goes, I do not, of course, believe you are consistent when your view is compared to other places in Scripture.
You make a connection with "sharing in the Holy Spirit" that does not necessarily follow logically, then you write a rant on it without substantiating it (which is why much of your claims about certain texts within that rant I will ignore, as your claims about the texts are ones you never backed up to begin with or that I don't even disagree with). I believe there is a sense in which people can share in the Holy Spirit but not be elect, so your explanation is not only long but also does not refute my position. Romans 8:9 would be talking about the salvific sense of having the Holy Spirit, not the sense in which even the non-elect could have it (Matthew 7:22).
As for your claims about Timothy? Again, the view of having the spirit comes into play. Did he receive the Holy Spirit in a salvific sense through the laying on of hands, or was this in the sense of 1 Corinthians 12, which even the non-elect could have? Obviously, Timothy was actually a believer, though it's your assumption that they could know certainly he was. The warnings are given to Timothy (and ultimately us as well) as God indeed uses means. You are on guard against sin because of the warnings to be on guard against sin and the Holy Spirit Who works that in you (Philippians 2:12-13), if indeed you belong to Him. These are a means God uses to grow us in holiness. You can't fault God for using whatever means He chooses to, so I'm sorry, you still do not prove my interpretation to be nonsensical by pointing out that God uses means to accomplish His ends.
You have not proven in your rant that "If you belong to Jesus you can't change that now" is false. If God grants faith unto salvation to anyone, He certainly maintains it, as the one who has it cannot lose his salvation. I believe that men can have faith in a sense, that they can believe, yet not be "believers"; it is not salvific faith. You disagree with this view, but nothing you have presented so far has contradicted it.
I don't see any issue with the word "we" in either interpretation. You only believe there is one due to the assumptions you read into the texts we've covered so far which you also read into Gill's interpretation: Gill doesn't hold your view, so your assumptions you have not proven are not something he is held to. You seem extremely arrogant and self-righteous (as I was as a young convert) to even title your response "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees".
Revelation 2:5 is talking about the church, not individuals. You're applying it to individuals in your argumentation, a common example of eisegesis many people commit when it comes to these passages in Revelation. I'll address John 15 later on. As for verses about God's unchanging love? John 6:37 comes to mind:
_
John 6:37
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
_
Your claim is that He will indeed cast them out, if they don't try hard enough to stay within the vine.
There is a sense in which we are already adopted, unless you again want to create contradiction within the texts of Scripture:
_
Romans 8:15
For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"
_
In the context and other passages of Scripture, are we or are we not called children of God? In what sense are we children of God (there are at least 2 senses I can think of given in Scripture)? What of Ephesians 2:3 (we were once by nature children of wrath even as the rest, which would mean we no longer are)? What of Colossians 1:13 (did He rescue us from the domain of darkness and transfer us to the kingdom of His beloved Son or didn't He)? These texts do not say "Maybe you'll become children of God one day if you work hard enough for it". They call Christians children of God right now. 1 John 3:4-10 is particularly telling, considering that children of God are distinct from children of Satan. Romans 8:23 I believe is talking about our adoption as sons in the sense of our bodies being redeemed. In that sense, we are awaiting our adoption as sons, as our bodies won't be redeemed until later.
John 3 sure doesn't. You should try to read and actually understand what is being said before you try to argue against it. You are making the same mistake with Paul Washer's claim that God's love toward the elect is unconditional. He is saying that if you are in Christ? You are just loved, and that can't be changed. Your argument is that it can, but you have yet to demonstrate that it is actually the case from the Scriptures. You're taking his claim that God's love doesn't change for the believer and then you're saying "We have to accept Jesus; that's conditional!" It's not even the same subject he was talking about.
You make the claim "Salvation from sin nature / from the flesh, also has conditions: walk in the Spirit (not merely have the Spirit in you, without wielding him; no! You better use him to kill the flesh)." You then quote Romans 8:13, which definitely talks about not living according to the flesh, but you again read your assumption into it. Check the context:
_
Romans 8:1-11
1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
_
You are honestly talking about having the Spirit in you in a salvific sense but living according to the flesh: this distinction is nowhere in the context, nor in Scripture. Rather, when we look at texts in context, we see this:
_
Romans 8:9
9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
_
You cannot live according to the flesh if you actually have the Spirit of God in you as far as salvation is concerned. You're saying that you can, so you'd better put the Spirit to work so you don't lose it. Notice that those who live according to the flesh are the "natural man", not the believer (Romans 8:6-8; Hebrews 11:6).
Instead of God merely granting faith, as we have previously established, He actually does work in maintaining it in the lives of the elect, contrary to what you have claimed:
_
Philippians 2:12-13
12So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
_
Most people only see the first verse there and ignore the next one. He is at work in the believer both to will and to do according to His good pleasure. If faith is pleasing to God (it is; Hebrews 11:6) then it is included. Notice it doesn't say He has worked it in them and now it's up to them to maintain it, but rather He is at work in them to work out their salvation. My interpretation of this fits with Philippians 1:6, whereas you cannot say if he has begun a good work in you He will bring it to completion because you claim someone can fall out of actual salvation and the work would not be completed.
Concerning your book of life verses? I agree with Revelation 20:15; irrelevant to the context in which Paul Washer used the word unconditional, as it is talking about unbelievers. Revelation 3:5? Exactly the same thing: the elect are the ones who are victorious, so no conflict whatsoever with how Washer used unconditional. Concerning Psalm 69:28? This one I thought very interesting and would be interested in looking more into it. However, I have seen several explanations of this that allow it to be reconciled in my view and one I am considering is that this book was not the same book of life you are talking about in the NT. Here is one place I have heard this claim:
_
Ver. 28. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living. All the Israelites who came up out of Egypt were put down in a muster roll of the living, called "the writing of the house of Israel" (Eze 13:9), and "the book of life." Those who had died were excluded when the names were written out afresh each year. They were, thereby, consigned to oblivion (Pr 10:7). Hence, the book of life was used as an image for God's book of predestination to eternal life (Ps 139:16 Ex 32:32 Ps 87:6 Da 12:1 Php 4:3 Re 17:8 13:8 Re 21:27; Lu 10:20). The book of life, in the human point of view, has names written in it who have a name to live, but are dead, being in it only by external call, or in their own estimation, and in that of others. But, in the divine point of view, it contains only those who are elected finally to life. The former may be blotted out, as was Judas (Re 3:5 Mt 13:12 25:29 7:23 Ex 32:33); but the latter never (Re 20:12,15 Joh 10:28-29 Ac 13:48 ). A. R. Fausset.
http://www.reformedreader.org/spurgeon/tod/tod69.htm
_
That also seems to address Revelation 22:19 or any other such use as far as the book of life is concerned in the NT. Interestingly, another thing I checked out by John Piper raised some issues about the book of life for your view:
_
"In fact, there are two other verses in Revelation that seem to teach that to have your name written in the book means that you will most definitely persevere and conquer. Consider Revelation 13:8. “And all who dwell on the earth will worship [the beast], everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.” This verse implies that those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life “from the foundation of the world” definitely will not worship the beast. In other words, having our name in the book of life from the foundation of the world seems to mean that God will keep you from falling and grant you to persevere in allegiance to God. Being in the book means you will not apostatize.
Similarly consider Revelation 17:8, “The beast that you saw was and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and to go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will marvel, when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come.” Again having one’s name written in the book of life from the foundation of the world appears to secure one from “marveling” at the beast. Those whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel. If your name is written there, you will not marvel at the beast."
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/can-the-regenerate-be-erased-from-the-book-of-life
_
Pointing out various conditions in Scripture does not point out that God's love is conditional for His elect. You have thrown out a lot of verses, but you're not focusing on any to demonstrate your claims. You're just tossing them out and they fit just fine with my view, which certainly holds that God does have unconditional love for His people.
Do you understand what I believe so you can even object to it? I believe that whoever believes in Jesus is drawn by the Father to do so (John 6:44). I believe faith and repentance are gifts of God, as we seem to have established earlier because you seem to agree with me (Philippians 1:29; Ephesians 2:8-9; Acts 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:25). I believe that those who are saved cannot lose that salvation (Romans 8:29-30). So, if you bring up verses to support your view by saying "if this" or "if that", it won't contradict my view at all: I believe they are true. If you do this, you prove you really do belong to God and thus you are saved. If you do not do this, you prove you don't belong to God, thus you are not saved. Throwing out "if" doesn't do anything but use up space and time, for myself and for our audience.
Please, try to listen to what I'm saying. That doesn't mean you have to agree with what I'm saying, by any means. It will only allow you to better figure out what I'm saying, why I'm saying it and then you can better interact with my position, showing me why you disagree with all of that and refuting me from the Scripture, if you can. If you think you know what I believe but misrepresent me, you're only attacking a straw man and the issues are ultimately not even being addressed.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:11 am
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry. I made some quick comments about it, but would like to share a great exegesis of the passage with you. I think it will help when considering the other similar passages as well. The article I found this on has Dr. White dealing with the claims of a Jehovah's Witness, but his exegesis from that article is what I'll be quoting. This would be an exegesis of John 15 by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries:
_
"We first present a basic, brief, but hopefully helpful discussion and exegesis of the passage, focusing upon the essential elements of Jesus’ words. Then we will provide links to Mr. Smart’s messages.
(John 15:1-8 ) 'I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. [2] 'Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. [3] 'You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. [4] 'Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. [5] 'I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. [6] 'If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. [7] 'If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. [8] 'My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
The most important element of any meaningful exegesis comes from recognizing the context and purpose of the passage. Ignoring context is the chief reason for errors of interpretation. Making lists, as Mr. Smart did, of a phrase and then assuming the phrase is not impacted by its context is a good example of this kind of error.
John 15 comes in the heart of Jesus’ ministry to the Apostles on the night of His betrayal. It likewise is sandwiched in the middle of an extensive dialogue that, importantly, discusses the role of the Spirit in the Christian life. Jesus is preparing the disciples for the crucifixion, resurrection, and His ascension into heaven, and the coming period of the Spirit’s work amongst them.
In these particular verses the Lord uses a common means of illustration: horticulture. It is obvious this was one of His favorite means of communicating great truths, as his audience would surely be able to relate personally to the application. There are many parallels, as we shall note, between Jesus words to His disciples here in John 15 and the parable of the soils (Mark 4:2-20) and other Synoptic passages (Mark 11:12-14, 19-21). The same points Jesus made there to the crowds are made in this passage to His disciples in an even more intimate and vital context.
Finally, it should be noted that Jesus intended His words to bring joy to the heart of the disciples. He said, 'These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.' The intention of the passage is to bring joy to the disciples, especially in light of the events they were about to witness, the sorrow they were about to bear.
John 15:1-8 breaks naturally into two sections: 1-3, the introduction of the analogy to be used, that of the Vine, the Vinedresser, and the Branches, and 4-8, the discussion of abiding in Christ and bearing fruit. With these things in mind, let us look closely at Jesus’ words.
Point First: The Vine, the Vinedresser, the Work of the Vinedresser
Verse 1:
'I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.'
The first words from the Lord’s mouth remind us of the prevalence of the 'I am' sayings in the Gospel of John. I am the light, I am the bread of life, and here, I am the true vine. John 15 flows naturally with the rest of the gospel, repeating in a fresh way themes struck throughout.
Next, the Lord claims to be the true vine. There have always been false Messiahs and pretenders. But there is only one true vine, one true source of spiritual life and nourishment.
The allegory of a vine and a vineyard was not unknown. Isaiah recorded just such an illustration seven centuries before:
1 Let me sing now for my well-beloved A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill.
2 He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it And also hewed out a wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only worthless ones.
3 'And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge between Me and My vineyard.
4 'What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?
5 'So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground.
6 'I will lay it waste; It will not be pruned or hoed, But briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it.'
7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel And the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.
The next issue, often overlooked (except by those who spend a lot of time speaking to Oneness Pentecostals!) is the clear distinction of the Father and the Son here, both as to identity and function. The Son is the Vine to whom the disciples are joined in vital union. The Father is the Vinedresser, the one who lovingly cares for the branches and assures growth and purity. There is no room for modalistic confusion here!
The vinedresser, in the ancient context, was responsible for the care of the vine, always seeking to produce maximum fruitfulness. This involved the examination of the branches, pruning, cleaning, etc. The duties of the vinedresser are laid out in the next verse.
Verse 2:
'Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.'
This verse describes the standard work of the vinedresser, in this case, the Father. What is described would be known to anyone who had ever stopped for even a moment to observe the worker in the vineyard. The vinedresser engages in his work so as to increase the productivity of the vine. Without the vinedresser, the vine would become wild, and its productivity would decrease greatly. There is a purpose in the work of the vinedresser that is paramount.
The Vinedresser attends to only one vine, the true vine. Because of this singularity and particularity, the only branches to which the Vinedresser’s attention is turned are those related to this one vine. The Vinedresser does not tend to many vines, but just one.
The Vinedresser engages in two activities here. First, fruitless branches are removed. Fruitful branches are pruned or cleansed, and that for a purpose: more fruit-bearing. Both actions, in reality, promote more fruit-bearing, as a fruitless branch is, by definition, worthless and useless. Some have suggested that 'take away' may simply mean 'to lift up,' so that it may have more opportunity to bear fruit. But this is not the meaning of the text. The issue is the work of the Vinedresser, and the Vinedresser removes 'deadwood' from the vine for the betterment of the vine and branches. Throughout Jesus’ parables a branch or plant or tree that is without fruit is abnormal, defective, and does not indicate spiritual life. Note, for example:
(Mark 11:12-14, 19-21) On the next day, when they had left Bethany, He became hungry. [13] Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. [14] He said to it, 'May no one ever eat fruit from you again!' And His disciples were listening….When evening came, they would go out of the city. [20] As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up. [21] Being reminded, Peter said^ to Him, 'Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered.'
(Mark 4:2-20) And He was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, [3] 'Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow; [4] as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up. [5] 'Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. [6] 'And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. [7] 'Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. [8] 'Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.' [9] And He was saying, 'He who has ears to hear, let him hear.' [10] As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. [11] And He was saying to them, 'To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, [12] so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN.' [13] And He said^ to them, 'Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? [14] 'The sower sows the word. [15] 'These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them. [16] 'In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; [17] and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away. [18] 'And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, [19] but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. [20] 'And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.'
In both parables, the plants that appeared to have life but had no fruit are consistently shown to be false, and those represented by these plants, to be false professors. The parable quoted above explains to the apostles why they saw so many who would follow for a while, but then would fall away. These were the seeds that fell upon ground that would not produce living plants that produce fruit. The fact that the Lord Jesus utilized this kind of imagery cannot be ignored in interpreting John 15.
There is a very important play on words in verses 2 and 3 that cannot be brought into English with clarity. In verse 2 the unfruitful branches are ai[rei; the fruitful branches are kaqaivrei; that is 'pruned' with the root meaning of 'cleansed,' and then in verse 3 Jesus says to the disciples that they are already kaqaroiv because of the word He has spoken to them. We will see that this is a vital element of the interpretation, giving us a key interpretational element.
Verse 3:
(John 15:3) 'You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.'
At this point Jesus steps out of the language of a parable for just a moment, using the play on words just noted above. He specifically applies the parable to the disciples, and in doing so, makes it clear that he is addressing only those who are truly disciples indeed, those who are 'clean,' i.e., the fruitful branches the Vinedresser prunes to make more fruitful. 'You' is plural. 'Clean' means 'pure' as in 'blessed are the pure in heart' (Matthew 5:8 ). This is the same term Jesus used earlier in John 13:10-11. Here, though, he says not all of them are 'clean' because Judas was still present. Judas was an unfruitful branch…lots of leaves, no fruit. He was 'taken away' by the Father. Obviously, the 'son of perdition' was a pretender, not a true disciple. It follows, then, that all the fruitful branches are 'clean,' and only the fruitful branches are 'clean.' That means only fruitful branches are Christians, for the means of the cleansing is the speaking of the Word, which is the very means of regeneration and salvation (John 17:17). 'because of the word which I have spoken to you.' The means of the cleansing of the apostles was the preaching of the Word of God by the Lord Jesus. Paul spoke of the same concept in Ephesians 5:26, where, speaking of the Church, he wrote, 'so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.' Jesus therefore identifies the Apostles as clean, fruitful branches, but they are so because of what Jesus has done for them, not because of what they have done in and of themselves. The 'word' which the Lord Jesus spoke to them was not His own, but was the Father’s (John 12:49, 14:10). Hence, the Father has, through the Word, 'pruned' these branches, making them fruitful. In the same way, the Father has 'taken away' the unfruitful branch, Judas.
So at this point we can already see in the words of the Lord Jesus that the issue of the fruitless branches has been decided: they are not Christians at all, for they were never 'cleaned' by the Word. They are false professors, surface-level disciples, the shallow or rocky or thorny soil of Mark chapter four.
Point Second: Abiding in Christ, Bearing Fruit
Verse 4:
(John 15:4) 'Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.'
'Abide' is in the imperative mode. It is a command, not a suggestion. Yet, the verb would be carried into the second half of the clause, 'and I in you.' How can the normal meaning of the imperative follow here? Is this a command to do something?
Daniel Wallace notes the use of the Aorist Imperative, Constative (Wallace, pp. 720-721). This use of the aorist imperative emphasizes the importance, urgency, and priority of the command, which is a general precept. Hence, the sense is, 'It is vital and fundamental that you abide in Me and I in you, for apart from me, you can do nothing.' Jesus is not saying, 'I command you to exercise your greatest effort to abide in me, and if you don’t, you’re dead meat.' We are in Christ Jesus only because of the work of God in placing us in Him (1 Cor 1:30).
The branch’s ability to do what it is designed to do (bear fruit) is completely and totally contingent upon another, that being the vine. The life-giving sap flows from the vine to the branch, resulting in the creation of fruit. In the same way, the believer who bears fruit never does so on 'his own,' but only as grace flows from Christ into his or her life.
To be able to 'do' anything as a Christian requires intimate union with Christ. True fruit–not just foliage without fruit–comes only from the life that is in close intimate union with Christ. Only as God’s grace produces fruit do we truly glorify God.
Verse 5:
(John 15:5) 'I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.'
Verse five summarizes the preceding verses and makes the clear application. He is the Vine, we the branches. A promise is given here that determines the categories in which verse 6 must be read. Jesus specifically asserts that the person in whom He abides, and who abides in Him, bears much fruit. This is the positive assertion: if you are in Christ, fruit is the inevitable result. Hence, unfruitfulness indicates not being in Christ in the first place, unless this promise is null and void!
The negative aspect is found in the last clause: apart from Christ, there is no fruit. Nothing. We can do nothing apart from Him. Obviously, therefore, any work that is done to the glory of God is done through the grace and power of Christ. We can take no credit, no glory, for it is all done in Him, through Him, and for Him.
Verse 6:
(John 15:6) 'If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
If there is no vital union with Christ (which is what abiding means, note the absence of the term in verse 2) there is no spiritual life. The term translated 'dries up' is the exact same term found in the parable of the soils in Mark 4:5-6:
(Mark 4:5-6) 'Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. [6] And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.'
In the parable in Mark this term is used by the Lord of the growth found in the 'rocky soil.' Jesus’ own interpretation of His words is, 'and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away.' Hence, the Lord indicates two things about these people: they have no 'root' and they do not 'abide in the vine.' These, therefore, have not been 'pruned' by the Father, they bear no fruit, and are hence those described by John in 1 John 2:19:
(1 John 2:19) They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
The doom of the false professors, while not in any way supporting the idea that salvation is contingent upon what we do rather than upon what Christ has done, is not by this consideration lessened in the slightest. It is vital that we examine ourselves and not ever engage in haughty pride, but in humility of mind serve the Lord Christ.
Verse 7:
(John 15:7) 'If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.'
This is a conditional sentence, with the conditions being expressed in the first two clauses. The first condition is abiding in Christ, the second having His words abiding in us as well.
It is not insignificant that Jesus here introduces the element of doctrine, subsumed under the term 'words.' He speaks of the indwelling of God’s truth within our hearts. These very words are the means of our cleansing, as seen in verse 3, and they are 'spirit and life.'
The believer who does not feast upon the words of Christ has no basis upon which to claim the promise of this verse. What we 'wish' for will be conditioned upon our continuously abiding in Christ, and upon the impact His word has in changing our hearts, our minds, and our priorities. John the Apostle, who recorded for us these words in John 15, provides us with his understanding of them when he writes in 1 John 5:14, 'This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.' We know the will of Christ by abiding in Him and having His word abiding in us.
But the promise then is, if we are abiding in Him, and His word abides in us, He shall grant the desires of our hearts! This is not a blank check with which we force God to do this or that. Instead, it is a promise that God will fulfill His work within us. That is, if we ask, 'God, make me holy' He will do just that. If we pray 'God, make me like Christ,' and that is our desire, He will do it. To even consider the idea that this means we can say, 'God, give me more of the things of the world so I can be happier' is to completely miss the context in which these words were spoken.
Verse 8:
(John 15:8 ) 'My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.'
Here we learn how to glorify the Father: bear much fruit. It is often the prayer of Christians to live in such a manner as to glorify God. Here we are given direct teaching as to how to do this. Bearing fruit is the means of proving or displaying discipleship. There is no meaningful way of demonstrating the reality of discipleship outside of our manner of life. This is exactly the point of James in James 2:14-24: the demonstration of said faith by consistent actions.
'Who are the disciples of Christ?' They are those who bear the fruit of righteousness to the glory of the Father. Obviously, then, we observe again the fact that fruitless branches are not, by definition, disciples. This is why they are taken away.
Summary of Exegesis:
So what can we say regarding the teaching of the Lord Jesus in John 15? And specifically, why should any Bible-believing person reject the idea that the words of the Lord, especially regarding fruitless, rejected, and burnt branches, lead us to believe that salvation is anything less than the perfect, infallible work of a Perfect, Infallible Savior (John 6:37-39)?
The words of the Lord Jesus do not lead us to believe the branches which are taken away (v. 2) and burned (v. 6) are disciples. In fact, one cannot maintain such an interpretation in light of the following considerations:
1) Christ differentiates between those who are 'clean' by the Word which is spoken to them and the branches that are taken away: there is no such thing as a true disciple who is not cleansed by the Word;
2) The Lord limits the realm of true discipleship to those who abide in Him. The branches taken away in v. 2 and burned in v. 6 do not abide in Christ and hence are not disciples;
3) Jesus gives no indication that there is a major exception to verse 5, where there are those who abide in Him and yet do not bear fruit (reinforcing the distinction inherent in the entirety of the passage);
4) the Lord defines fruit bearing as the only evidence of discipleship (v. 8 ). Since the branches that are taken away and burned bore no fruit, it follows inevitably that they are not, by Jesus’ own definition, disciples;
5) Jesus spoke these words not to cause His disciples sorrow but to give them joy (15:11). The centrality of the Father and Son in bringing out the fruitfulness of the Vine brings joy; interpreting these words so as to refer to true disciples losing their salvation does not;
6) the focus upon Christ as the source of all spiritual life picks up the same theme found in John 6 (as the Bread of Life). It is completely backwards to take a passage that presents the work of the Father in glorifying Himself in bringing forth fruit in Christ’s people and see it as a passage teaching the opposite, that is, the Father’s failure to bring forth fruit and hence lose one-time true believers."
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/01/11/john-15-the-vine-and-the-branches-and-an-example-of-cultic-scripture-twisting-provided-by-martin-smart-one-of-jehovahs-witnesses-vintage/
_
As for the parable of the weeds? This perfectly lines up with my view but actually raises issues for your own. Is a weed ever a good seed? In this parable, the people of the evil one are plainly distinct (weeds) from the people of the kingdom (good seed). Notice that the Son of Man also didn't plant the weeds; an enemy did.
You're again reading your assumption into these texts. How do you know the servants being cast out are the elect (rather than servant in some other sense rather than one that must be contradictory to the plain meaning of Romans 8 and other passages)? You read that into the passage and then interpret it based on that, but the text does not say it. Using language like "servant" does not negate passages such as Romans 8:29-30, which clearly teach that the elect cannot lose salvation.
As for Romans 11? I think a lot of the language used in other places, such as John 15, and points made about them help here, but I want to make another point as well. Notice verse 7:
_
Romans 11:7
7What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
_
Those who were the chosen remnant in Israel (the elect) obtained it, while the rest were hardened. This again is a distinction being made that you don't seem to acknowledge. See also Gill's commentary on Romans 11:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/romans/11.htm
_
You move on to throwing things away. You are again reading an assumption into the text: all faith is saving faith, and those who have it can throw it away. How do you know this is the case? I believe there is a distinction between saving faith and faith that doesn't save (does not endure to the end). The elect have saving faith; false converts do not, hence why they fall away unlike the elect.
You talk about Paul wasting paper. I already addressed this when I spoke about means that God uses. Don't confuse Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism. Calvinists acknowledge that God uses means (I preach the Gospel as that is the means God has given for men to be saved) while a Hyper-Calvinist just says "Well, they'll be saved no matter what I do so why bother doing anything?" Obviously direct disobedience to God who commands us to go and preach. Attacking Hyper-Calvinism when I am a Calvinist is simply beating a straw man: you're not addressing my position.
You're limiting Matthew 7:21-23 to only those who make a profession based on having viewed Him on the streets. Why? The language in Matthew 7 doesn't warrant the limitation and I don't believe the context does either. Pointing to Luke 13 doesn't help your case: the question Jesus was answering (Luke 13:23) regards how many people are being saved. Jesus makes a distinction between those who are being saved and those who are not and never does he say those who are seeking to enter but are not able are among the numbers of the saved temporarily. He never says those who are being saved fail to be saved.
You are assuming that Matthew 7:22 would just be people lying about things they did: how do you know that? This is again an assumption on your end. The text does not tell us they never really did these things, but rather, we see that they point to their own works to justify them instead of pointing to Jesus Christ (the genuine Christian would point to Christ to justify himself before God, not his works). You may point to their lying about Him being their Lord, but though they may lie about that (I believe every false convert lies about that) it does not necessarily follow that they did not do these works.
Consider my view for a moment: I believe that everyone who is non-elect is not actually a believer, regardless of claim or how long they claimed to be one before falling away. This means every one of them lie when they claim to submit to Him as Lord. So, when I see Matthew 7:21, where people say to Him "Lord, Lord", why should I make a distinction between those who do so for a long period of time and those who do so for a short period of time?
Matthew 7 and Luke 13 don't use the exact same language, though they use similar language. If we believe each would be the literal words of Jesus, they cannot be the same message. They could have both taken place during the course of the same sermon, or they could be different occasions, but if both are actually His words, they cannot be the same message. This means He could well have had a different audience in Matthew 7 than Luke 13 and indeed, I'm sure He said these things many more times than just what we have recorded.
Consider also that Matthew 7 isn't by itself. We see who He was talking to from the end of Matthew 4 and the beginning of Matthew 5. Do you believe all of the language in Matthew 5-7 was only to the people who saw Him on the streets? How about all of the language in 7? None of these things are for His disciples or those professing to be disciples?
The issues you're trying to raise from 1 John are non-issues. Pointing to "if", as I said before, doesn't demonstrate any problems for my view. I have already admitted that this is a true statement. If they are the elect, then it will remain. If it does not, they only prove they were not really believers. You ignore what 1 John 2:19 actually says: they went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, what would happen? They would have remained. Their going proves what? That they never belonged to us. This is the exact opposite of your own claim: if someone leaves, it can't prove that they never belonged, only that they don't belong any longer. They could have belonged before that but they definitely do not now.
I don't base the fact that Romans 8:29-30 teaches that those whom He foreknew cannot lose their salvation on the word "foreknow". I base it on the text as I explained earlier: those He justified He also glorified. You say they can be justified but not glorified, but the text says that the ones who are justified He glorified. Not might be. Not may be. It specifically says He glorified. You cannot reconcile this with your view.
I haven't suggested anything so far that makes the disciples contradict their own writings. You have implied that I have, but have not substantiated it. You are certainly not considering Tota Scriptura, as you have not reconciled Romans 8:29-30 with your view. You say those He justified do not have to be glorified, Romans 8 says that He glorified them. This is a direct contradiction you have not addressed.
So you're calling me apostate? Dangerous words, ma'am. You'd better be careful who you are calling a heretic. These are things you will have to answer for before the Lord. I'd say your view is much closer to heresy than mine, as you are honestly saying you are ultimately justified by your works (not alone, but together with faith, contradictory to Romans 3:28 ). That justification must be maintained by what YOU do, and if you fail to work hard enough, you will lose it. Justification is by faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ, and to add ANYTHING to that is another Gospel. You are confusing justification and sanctification. Justification is how we are made right before God, while sanctification is growing in holiness. Our sanctification does not affect our justification (our growth in holiness cannot keep us in justification or make us fall out of it), but our justification affects our sanctification (knowing we are justified fuels our sanctification, so we perform what is pleasing to Him out of gratitude for His kindness in our salvation, not fear of losing justification).
You bring up having faith that saves you, but losing that faith. You are ignoring the distinction I mentioned earlier, that saving faith endures to the end. Someone can have some form of faith and fall away, but it isn't the faith that saves. So, I agree with the texts you point out, but not in the way you are interpreting them. They don't prove that the elect can lose saving faith.
You can't be justified and lose faith in God: those who are honestly justified never lose faith in God.
As far as what justification is? I forgot to mention imputation. Very important point. My sin was imputed to Jesus on the cross, while Jesus' righteousness was imputed to me. If God sees me as righteous based on what Jesus has done, not what I have done, then how can anything I DO cause me to lose justification? God would have to be declaring me righteous based on my performance for me to lose my justification based on my performance. Rather, the Bible teaches that we are righteous because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, not our own.
Pointing out that we're not only saved from Hell doesn't address the issue I raised with the Golden Chain of Redemption in Romans 8:29-30. The text clearly says that those who are justified He also glorified. You disagree, because you say they can be justified but not glorified. The text says those whom He foreknew He predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son. You disagree, because you say some of those people whom He foreknew are not conformed to the image of His Son. You're not actually thinking through the issues presented to you from this text, and at no point have you actually addressed the problems they present to your view.
The Bible says not all of the Israelites are the elect (Romans 11:1-7; Romans 9:6). What you're doing is called a category mistake. This is a logical fallacy, one of many you have utilized in your argumentation. While it is true Israel was predestined to come out of Egypt, it does not follow that all of Israel was the remnant who God reserved for Himself (1 Kings 19:18 ). You're saying it's all the same category, when the Bible makes a distinction.
You could certainly say the same back to me, and perhaps you may do that if you have more to say in another reply. That doesn't mean it holds any meaning, however. I have demonstrated my case and reconciled the texts you have brought up in my view, but you have not been able to reconcile Romans 8:29-30 within your own. The chain remains unbroken. There are more passages I could bring up to you, and I'd be glad to if you'd like, but I won't be doing it in this conversation as we already have more than enough to discuss as it is.
You call the Golden Chain of Redemption a tradition. In a sense, it is, as far as the name is concerned anyway, but what it contains is not, at least not "mere tradition of men", which is what I am speaking against when I say tradition. Not all tradition is bad. You haven't addressed the issues raised from Romans 8:29-30, so call it what you want, you're ignoring this clear teaching of Scripture against your view.
You derided the Golden Chain of Redemption as "logic" some man made up. You seem to be anti-intellectual, which is actually what I used to be like as well. God can contradict logic! He is not held by man's laws! You seriously misunderstand what logic is if you believe that way. Without using logic, neither of us could even hold this conversation. You rely on laws of logic when you make your arguments, and when I say something different than you, you have to argue why I am wrong and you are right. You can't allow for contradiction (which is related to the laws of logic), as a contradiction ultimately amounts to falsehood/lies. God cannot lie, so God never contradicts.
God is never "illogical", though that doesn't mean we can always understand why He does this or that. Not understanding why God does this or that does not mean it was irrational for Him to do so, it simply means we do not understand His reason behind it (other than the fact that everything has been created for Jesus, Colossians 1:16). Not being held by natural law does not mean God becomes illogical when He does the supernatural, as there is nothing illogical about God, who is all powerful and Who has determined the natural laws of the world to begin with, exerting His power in doing something that normally could not be done according to natural law. God may be omnipotent, but nevertheless, there are things God literally cannot do (such as lie), due to His nature. God cannot be irrational, truth cannot be irrational and we as Christians should strive to know the truth.
I actually don't believe I noticed that question before. I'm sorry. Paul Washer wasn't quoting from Scripture, but rather he was quoting from "The Father's Bargain" by a Puritan named John Flavel. This is explained at the opening of the video (4 second mark).
By the way, to save time and space, what do you think about addressing me on one thing at a time? This way, you can ask questions, press issues you find inconsistent and push deeper into a text and I can respond to that issue specifically, closer to a conversation you may have in person (rather than being closer to articles or even sermons). This will make writing and reading responses far more manageable and I think people won't be so overwhelmed to read everything (you and I may do so, as we are interacting with each other, but how many others really wanna wade through all of this?).
Thank you for your patience. I hope what I wrote wasn't terrible to read through, and I know much of the space is taken up by other's words (which generally reflect my own belief on the subject, so I used them to explain that more easily and even better at points). I have been and will be praying for both of us and anyone else who reads these things. I care about traditions and blind spots being broken and I care about what is true, even if I am the one with traditions or blind spots that need to be broken in this area (obviously, I don't believe that's the case and I don't believe it's been demonstrated from the Scripture, but I am still open that this may be the case somehow that I am not noticing, especially if we're talking about a blind spot, because if I have a blind spot in this area, how would I be able to see it myself?).
I want Jesus to be glorified, I want to grow in greater unity with my brothers and sisters and I want us to grow in our love for God. I think these are things you desire as well, and I'd like to assume you are my sister, though you do not afford me the same assumption. Thank you again for bearing with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:01 am
|
|
|
|
Micah Seven Eighteen I hope what I wrote wasn't terrible to read through, [...]
Terrible? No.
Inconvenient? Yes.
And mainly because you don't like to quote very much. So, I can't always tell
right away (and in some cases at all), what in my post you were replying to.
Disregarding whole chunks of my post didn't help to follow along (again, since
you didn't quote). Also, your preference to cite verses instead of quote them leads
me to pause and look them up again.
Quote: By the way, to save time and space, what do you think about addressing me on one thing at a time? This way, you can ask questions, press issues you find inconsistent and push deeper into a text and I can respond to that issue specifically, closer to a conversation you may have in person (rather than being closer to articles or even sermons). This will make writing and reading responses far more manageable and I think people won't be so overwhelmed to read everything (you and I may do so, as we are interacting with each other, but how many others really wanna wade through all of this?).
I intended to do that (and tried), but then it became abundantly clear that if I don't
provide clarification on the other points you brought up, and correct a few things,
you may respond based on a belief that I'm making certain distinctions that I'm not
actually making. Figuring out how to address this was still a challenge though:
deciding whether to go in order, and risk sounding overly redundant; or switch the
order up a bit. I settled on the latter, though it took some extra time to figure out
in what order to address it still. And inevitably, it will be long. Sorry to anyone
who hates reading or doesn't have the time, but it can't be helped.
For the record, I did try to thoroughly understand your position / what you wrote;
thus, my delay in responding. And I credit God (undoubtedly spurred on by your
prayer) for putting impediments in my path until I meditated over your reply
with a fine-toothed comb.
I guess the place to start is the whole "predestined-called-justified-glorified" issue
and the Holy Spirit's involvement.
Predestined-Called-Justified-Glorified
Quote: […] the issue I raised with the Golden Chain of Redemption in Romans 8:29-30 [...]
If you're treating Romans 8:29-30 as a chain that can't be broken...
Romans 8:29-30 (NIV)
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image
of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also
justified;those he justified, he also glorified.
Consider the chain broken by Jesus' own words.
Matthew 22:14 (KJV)
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Many are called (“klētoi”), but few are chosen (“eklektoi ” a.k.a. elect).
It's not a chain. The “called” are not guaranteed to be “elected”.
source: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/22-14.htm
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/2822.htm
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/eklektoi_1588.htm
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/1588.htm
Thus, no guarantee that you'll be elect (chosen), even if you were “predestined”
to something and “called” out to do that something. That chain can end at “called”.
You can rebel against your predestination and your calling. That was what I
attempted to illustrate with the wilderness wanderings.
Applying the Chain to Moses
That said, going by biblical definitions, there's even examples of all
(predestination, calling, justification and glorification) being applied
and still not guaranteeing entrance into the promise.
Moses was predestined to be leader of the Israelites: saved from
infanticide, divinely appointed as leader, despite his reluctance,
clearly was elect (chosen out for the rendering of special service to
YHWH) and marked out beforehand, predestined, to be a vessel of
mercy (someone whom YHWH would use to display His mercy)
vs. Pharaoh, a vessel to be used to demonstrate God's wrath.
This is the same Moses who was justified by faith:
Hebrews 11:24-28 (NIV)
24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the
son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the
people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He
regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the
treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 By
faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because
he saw him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the
application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not
touch the firstborn of Israel.
We could literally say, YHWH glorified Moses, going by its actual
definition in the concordance and how it gets used throughout the bible:
source: http://biblehub.com/text/romans/8-30.htm
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/edoxasen_1392.htm
The same word is used of Babylon when she glorifies herself
(in Revelation 18:7 above)
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/1392.htm
Example of YHWH glorifying (honoring) Moses:
Numbers 12:5-9 (NIV)
5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood
at the entrance to the tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam.
When the two of them stepped forward, 6 he said,
“Listen to my words:
“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”
9 The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them.
YHWH glorified (honored) Moses, speaking of his true value above all the others.
So, Moses was: predestined, called out, justified (declared righteous),
and glorified (honored) by God. The “chain” as described in Romans 8:30.
And yet, he didn't make it into the promised land for rebelling against the
words of YHWH's mouth (& Moses rebelled because he lost faith / stopped
trusting in God's words. Stopped trusting in God's way of doing things.
He started trusting in man more, and in his own way of doing things, that
contradicted what God had originally told him).
Numbers 20:8-12(NIV)
8 “Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly
together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its
water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they
and their livestock can drink.”
9 So Moses took the staff from the Lord’s presence, just as he commanded
him. 10 He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock
and Moses said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of
this rock?” 11 Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with
his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.
12 But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in
me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not
bring this community into the land I give them.”
Numbers 20:24(NIV)
24 “Aaron will be gathered to his people. He will not enter the land I give
the Israelites, because both of you rebelled against my command at the
waters of Meribah.
Numbers 27:12-14 (NIV)
12 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go up this mountain in the Abarim
Range and see the land I have given the Israelites. 13 After you
have seen it, you too will be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron
was, 14 for when the community rebelled at the waters in the Desert of
Zin, both of you disobeyed my command to honor me as holy before their
eyes.” (These were the waters of Meribah Kadesh, in the Desert of Zin.)
Psalm 106:32-33 (NIV)
32 By the waters of Meribah they angered the Lord,
and trouble came to Moses because of them;
33 for they rebelled against the Spirit of God,
and rash words came from Moses’ lips.[a]
Footnotes:
a. Psalm 106:33 Or against his spirit, / and rash words came from his lips
You can have your passover lamb, and a priesthood that atones for your sins,
but a heart of unbelief creeping in? That's it.
That is what Moses' example illustrates.
Had he been operating in the “reality” and not the symbol/shadow/types,
he would not be making it into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Compare that to:
Revelation 17:14 (NIV)
14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them
because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called,
chosen and faithful followers.”
You must stay loyal / faithful.
The problem with Moses is figuring out where he is right now: realm of
the dead? wherever Elijah is? Why is Satan arguing about
Moses' body? I don't have everything figured out about Moses.
Jude 1:9 (NIV)
9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil
about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander
but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”[a]
Footnotes:
a. Jude 1:9 Jude is alluding to the Jewish Testament of Moses (approximately the first century a.d.).
All I know is that Moses hasn't been raised to life yet. His appearance at the
transfiguration must've been his soul brought out of Hades, but not a body
incorruptible. The chapter in the epistle to the Hebrews, which mentions
all the Old Testament saints justified by faith, says:
Hebrews 11:39-40 (NIV)
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what
had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that
only together with us would they be made perfect.
That suggests to me that whatever Moses did, although enough to
get him killed, was not enough to get him blotted out of the Lamb's
book of life. But that's only because he was under the Old Covenant,
functioning in the “types” and not the reality of what they represented.
We are functioning in the “reality”. The things we do can get us blotted
out of the Lamb's Book of Life.
Losing Justification
Quote: As far as what justification is? I forgot to mention imputation. Very important point. My sin was imputed to Jesus on the cross, while Jesus' righteousness was imputed to me. If God sees me as righteous based on what Jesus has done, not what I have done, then how can anything I DO cause me to lose justification? God would have to be declaring me righteous based on my performance for me to lose my justification based on my performance. Rather, the Bible teaches that we are righteous because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, not our own.
Even though Moses and the Israelites didn't have their sins imputed on
the Lamb of God (Jesus), they had the Levitical priesthood which God
had given them. YHWH would withhold wrath, despite animals not being
able to atone for sins really. And thus, negative consequences and wrath
(God killing them through plague, or whatever other ways he went about
killing them) avoided—unless it was defiant sin. Then there was no saving
anyone.
Numbers 15:30 (NIV)
30 “‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or foreigner,
blasphemes the Lord and must be cut off from the people of Israel.
Same defiant attitude condemned under the new covenant:
Hebrews 10:26 (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
There is something we can do to lose justification. Just believe the
epistle to the Hebrews: defiant sin. Don't maintain the faith you started
out with. Insult the Spirit of grace.
Or, as Jesus said in the gospels:
Mark 3:29 (NIV)
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be
forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
Otherwise, all other sins, minus defiant sins, get imputed onto
the sacrifice (in the New Testament: Jesus, who is the reality,
the actual atonement sacrifice; in the Old Testament: animals,
the “shadow” of Jesus).
Leviticus 4:32-35 (NIV)
32 “‘If someone brings a lamb as their sin offering, they are to bring a female
without defect. 33 They are to lay their hand on its head and slaughter it for
a sin offering at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered. 34 Then
the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and
put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the
blood at the base of the altar. 35 They shall remove all the fat, just as the
fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering, and the priest shall
burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. In this
way the priest will make atonement for them for the sin they have committed,
and they will be forgiven.
Numbers 8:19 (NIV)
19 From among all the Israelites, I have given the Levites as gifts to Aaron
and his sons to do the work at the tent of meeting on behalf of the Israelites
and to make atonement for them so that no plague will strike the
Israelites when they go near the sanctuary.”
Moses didn't lose out because of a lack of a priesthood to atone for his sins
(Levitical or Melchizedekan is irrelevant; the latter priesthood was around
in Abram's day by the way. It's not new: i.e. Genesis 14:18). The issue was
losing faith / losing trust in the words of the one saving you.
Unbelief happening—after the person has received the Holy Spirit—is
the end. I don't know about Aaron, but without a doubt, we have explicit
verses saying Moses shared in the Holy Spirit, (unlike Peter whose
"lack of faith" episode happened without the power of the Holy Spirit
in him). All the more reason why Moses' "rash speaking" had such
severe consequences and Peter's didn't.
Numbers 11:16-17 (NIV)
16 The Lord said to Moses: “Bring me seventy of Israel’s elders who
are known to you as leaders and officials among the people. Have them
come to the tent of meeting, that they may stand there with you. 17 I will
come down and speak with you there, and I will take some of the power of
the Spirit that is on you and put it on them. They will share the burden of
the people with you so that you will not have to carry it alone.
Moses had already shared in the Holy Spirit when he chose to distrust God.
Peter didn't have the Holy Spirit when he doubted and cowered in fear.
Thank God.
Because cowards don't inherit the Kingdom.
Revelation 21:8 (NIV)
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral,
those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned
to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
Again, the only reason Moses is not blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life
right now is because he was operating in a type/shadow, not the reality.
If we remain cowardly and unbelieving, after having the Holy Spirit,
the lake of fire is where we'll go come judgment day / resurrection day.
So, we shouldn't expect to receive the promise once we rebel against the one
saving us (against God himself—whether directly [like Moses], or indirectly,
[like the rest of the congregation who rebelled against Moses and Aaron, their
shepherd and high priest, respectively; and for us, it's one person operating
in both offices: Jesus]). If we rebel against Jesus, if we reject him, and his
words, after sharing in all of the revelation, knowledge, power,
and Holy Spirit—then, that's it.
And if you suggest that Moses is non-elect then, in your view...
Quote: Consider my view for a moment: I believe that everyone who is non-elect is not actually a believer
You're saying Moses was never a believer. Despite being justified by his faith
at one point. No one reading the Old Testament of the bible would suggest that
Moses was a non-believer and never truly justified. He was elect. He received
the Holy Spirit, and yet he didn't get to enjoy the promises given to Israel
(the land inheritance).
Shadows of Our Inheritance
Israel's "promised land" is the "shadow" to the actual inheritance; that
inheritance is to live in the city from the sky (which will come down
from heaven onto the New Earth).
Hebrews 11:16 (NIV)
16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one.
Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared
a city for them.
Revelation 3:12 (NIV)
12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.
Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God
and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming
down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.
Revelation 21:1-2 (NIV)
21 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven
and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
Revelation 21:9-27 (NIV)
9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the
seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you
the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in
the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the
Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.
11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that
of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had
a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at
the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve
tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on
the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14 The
wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were
the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold
to measure the city, its gates and its walls. 16 The
city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He
measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia[a]
in length, and as wide and high as it is long. 17 The angel
measured the wall using human measurement, and it was
144 cubits[b] thick.[c] 18 The wall was made of jasper,
and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. 19
The foundations of the city walls were decorated with
every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper,
the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20
the fifth onyx, the sixth ruby, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth
beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth turquoise, the eleventh jacinth,
and the twelfth amethyst.[d] 21 The twelve gates were
twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great
street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass.
22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city does not
need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God
gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24 The nations will walk
by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor
into it. 25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there
will be no night there. 26 The glory and honor of the nations
will be brought into it. 27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor
will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only
those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Footnotes:
a. Revelation 21:16 That is, about 1,400 miles or about 2,200 kilometers
b. Revelation 21:17 That is, about 200 feet or about 65 meters
c. Revelation 21:17 Or high
d. Revelation 21:20 The precise identification of some of
these precious stones is uncertain.
A literal city. The New Jerusalem. Streets of pure gold like glass.
Walls made out of jasper. That is our promised land.
Moses got to see his Jerusalem (the Old Jerusalem, the Jerusalem
of this earth) from afar. But never entered it. Neither did the original
generation (with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, and technically
the other spies too, who actually went into it [in order to spy it out
and bring back news of what it was like]; NT parallel: the prophecies
and visions of what the New Jerusalem is like; but actually, when it
came to legitimately receiving the land, it was only Caleb and Joshua,
from the original generation, that stayed faithful until the end. On top
of being called and chosen [elect], they stayed faithful and acted
accordingly, because they believed what God said, exactly as he
said it: go fight the giants you'll win; okay, let's go conquer the giants).
For us, go drive out demons, and doctrines of demons.
Tangent: the bible itself doesn't give an account for the origins of
demons. The Book of Enoch, however, suggests demons are the
spirits that came out of the giants' bodies once they died.
New Covenant Believers Compared to the Wilderness Wandering
And in the epistle to the Hebrews, written to believers who are under
the new covenant, the believers were warned not to follow the rebellious
generation's example (ergo, this failure to inherit, can happen to people
in Christ too, under the new covenant—not because they weren't elected
nor never truly believed; if the comparison is to the Israelites in the desert,
then they actually all hoped for [expected] the same thing, but because of
unbelief and impatience that developed afterwards, they did not all inherit).
Likewise...
Hebrews 6:11-12 (NIV)
11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end,
so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want
you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience
inherit what has been promised.
We are waiting. We can become lazy. Question is: will we lose faith
or continue to patiently wait for his return in the clouds? Some will
stop waiting for that. Whose example demonstrates faith and patience?
Caleb's and Joshua's—unlike everyone else who belonged to that first
generation who were called out. Not even the one who was undeniably
"elect" and “justified by faith”, the prophet Moses, was immune to
unbelief. And his unbelief kept him out.
Hebrews 3:7-11 (NIV)
7 So, as the Holy Spirit says:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors tested and tried me,
though for forty years they saw what I did.
10 That is why I was angry with that generation;
I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.’
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ”[a]
Footnotes:
a. Hebrews 3:11 Psalm 95:7-11
”Children of the Kingdom” in Unbelief
Some will never be able to enter the New Jerusalem,
despite being a part of God's elect and having been predestined,
called, justified by faith and honored by God at some point.
Thus the parable of the “children of the kingdom” gnashing their
teeth. These people had an "in" at some point.
Luke 13:28-30 (NIV)
28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you
see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of
God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will
come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places
at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who
are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”
Matthew 8:11-12 (KJV)
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and
shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness:
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
You have to be inside to get thrown out. Not merely "not allowed in".
But you're getting thrown out. They had places reserved for them (a
predestined, pre-elected spot; they were children of the kingdom—
NOT "never really of us", "were never really children", but were
actual children). And they won't be able to enjoy it. They're getting
thrown out. Others who were invited will come and recline at the
table instead of them.
So, some Israelites, who were predestined, who were elect, who were
called out, who were justified by their faith, and glorified (honored by
God), sometime in the past, will not get in. Not that they were never
expected to come into the kingdom since the foundations of the earth.
They had a spot at the table. But their place will be filled in by others.
And the same thing with those in Christ. Unbelief can happen to us.
Hebrews 3:12-13 (NIV)
12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving
heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily,
as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s
deceitfulness.
True believer's hearts can be hardened by sin and unbelief. Thus why we're
told to encourage one another so we don't become hardened and turn away
(this verse doesn't suggest: “if they turn away, it's okay; they were never
really of us”). What is the interest in keeping false professors encouraged?
These aren't false professors here. These are real believers. The warning is
to prevent those who are true in their faith from hardening and turning away
from God. If true believers stop believing, they're not making it in. People
like Gill so desperately want to hold onto the notion that "true believers"
are immune to this, so they opt for saying things like, "it'll never happen
to the elect/true believers fully. Maybe just a little".
Gill Wrote:
in departing from the living God; that is, from Christ, who is the
Son over his own house, and whose voice is to be heard; for of no other is
the apostle speaking in the context; and who is not only the Son of the living
God, but he is himself the living God; he is life in himself, and is the
fountain and author of life, natural, spiritual, and eternal. This is mentioned
to exalt the person of Christ, the apostle and high priest of our profession;
and to discover the greatness and heinousness of the sin of such as depart
from him and his Gospel, and to deter men from it: there is a final and
total departure from Christ, from his Gospel and ordinances, from his
people, and from a former profession of faith, which is never to be found
in true believers; for they are as Mount Zion, which can never be removed;
but there is a partial departure, and for a while, which they are liable to,
and is attended with bad effects to them, and should be guarded against:
saints should take heed of themselves, and of their hearts, and of the
unbelief of them, that they do not in the least depart from Christ, by letting
go their hold of him, or by a non-exercise of faith upon him; and this
should be the care and concern of every individual member of the church,
and at all times; unbelief is very dishonourable to God and Christ;
contradicts the word and promises of God; is uncomfortable to the saints;
it is a sin that very easily besets, and is very provoking to God, and is
highly resented by him.
What pre-existing example in scripture is he looking to, to base that assertion
on (oh, don't worry, it's just a partial departure from God)? When is partial
departure anything but departure? The Samaritans who were “half”-pagan in
their worship didn't know God at all according to Jesus no matter what
remnants of truth they had.
John 4:22(NIV)
22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know;
we worship what we do know, for salvation is from
the Jews.
Gill is basing this on his own wishful thinking and thus distorts literal words
of the epistles, and the literal definition of those words, by way of his
commentary, to be able to say such things. That's double speak (partial
unbelief is unbelief; just like a half-lie is a lie). And as for his comparison
to Mount Zion. If “Mount Zion” were referring to people who lost faith, and
got saved anyway, despite their unbelief, then his comparison would be legitimate.
But Mount Zion is not referring to people who got saved despite their lack of faith
/ development of unbelief / partial development of unbelief. That comparison
to Mount Zion is misleading and doesn't prove his point. He has to resort to
double-speak (“partial unbelief”) to cover up the fact that he's nullifying the
words of the Father: true believers can develop unbelief and depart.
...and if this comparison to Mount Zion is an allusion to Psalm 125:1,
notice the condition—trusting in the Lord.
Psalm 125:1 (NIV)
Psalm 125
A song of ascents.
1 Those who trust in the Lord are like Mount Zion,
which cannot be shaken but endures forever.
But if you stop trusting in the Lord (like Moses), you can be shaken.
You do not endure.
Losing the Crown of Life
Along the same vein: why is Paul describing acquiring the crown
(a reference to eternal life) as if it were a competition? and a
competition you can be disqualified from? (Like Luke 13 described:
the children of the kingdom losing their spot and that spot taken by
others, Gentiles, people coming from the east and the west.)
1 Corinthians 9:25-27 (NIV)
25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training.
They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a
crown that will last forever. 26 Therefore I do not run like someone
running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. 27
No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after
I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for
the prize.
This is not a mere reference to "prizes" (a common cop-out I've heard);
Jesus defined for us what that "crown that will last forever" is.
And Jesus words are in agreement with Paul's: it can be taken away.
Revelation 2:10 (NIV)
10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil
will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution
for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you
life as your victor’s crown.
Revelation 3:11 (NIV)
11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take
your crown.
Our crown of eternal life, that crown that lasts forever (as Paul says),
can be taken by someone else. We lose the spot. They take our spot.
We can be disqualified. Someone else can take our place. Our inheritance,
our promised land, the New Jerusalem, and the crown of life, is not
guaranteed. Will we inherit? or lose faith because of impatience and
unbelief developing in us along the way? The person who says in their
heart that, "Jesus is not coming back; let's go back to sin and the ways
of this world", after being cleansed by Jesus, is not getting saved,
despite starting out believing those very things wholeheartedly
and sincerely. They didn't last. Their oil ran out.
We must stay faithful. We can be subject to a heart of unbelief
despite having a heart of true belief at the beginning i.e. Moses.
The Book of Life
Quote: Ver. 28. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living. All the Israelites who came up out of Egypt were put down in a muster roll of the living, called "the writing of the house of Israel" (Eze 13:9), and "the book of life." Those who had died were excluded when the names were written out afresh each year. They were, thereby, consigned to oblivion (Pr 10:7). Hence, the book of life was used as an image for God's book of predestination to eternal life (Ps 139:16 Ex 32:32 Ps 87:6 Da 12:1 Php 4:3 Re 17:8 13:8 Re 21:27; Lu 10:20). The book of life, in the human point of view, has names written in it who have a name to live, but are dead, being in it only by external call, or in their own estimation, and in that of others. But, in the divine point of view, it contains only those who are elected finally to life. The former may be blotted out, as was Judas (Re 3:5 Mt 13:12 25:29 7:23 Ex 32:33); but the
latter never ( Re 20:12,15 Joh 10:28-29 Ac 13:48 ). A. R. Fausset. http://www.reformedreader.org/spurgeon/tod/tod69.htm
If he/she can admit that God is talking about "the book of predestination
to eternal life" in Revelation 20:12; then, a mere two chapters later, in
Revelation 22:19 KJV, God is still talking about the same book. Thus, talking
about blotting people out of the real deal, the Lamb's Book of Life, not the
shadow that prophesied the heavenly one.
Like I've already demonstrated: you can be predestined for something and
totally rebel against that calling. What would make you jeopardize your
standing in the Lamb's book of life? Removing words from the book of
Revelation (which was a prophecy from Jesus, the Lamb). That's an
outright act of Rebellion against Jesus. Rejecting Jesus after accepting him and
receiving the Spirit of Christ in you. That would turn him against you, yeah.
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Unforgivable sin. Insulting the Spirit of grace.
About John 10:28-29 —
But first, what it reads:
John 10:28-29 (NIV)
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch
them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater
than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
Footnotes:
a. John 10:29 Many early manuscripts What my Father has given me is greater than all
Essentially glorifying (honoring) this remnant above everyone else
(i.e.“is greater than all”).
This is precisely what happened when Balaam and Balaak tried to curse the Israelites.
They couldn't curse them, no matter how many times they tried, how many different
positions / locations they tried to curse them from (Numbers 22-24). Israel was under
God's protective hand. Nothing external can affect them if God is with them. And to
pick an example from those three chapters (note: this is before Israel asked for a King;
they haven't entered the promised land yet and this is still the first generation):
Numbers 23:21-24 (NIV)
21 “No misfortune is seen in Jacob,
no misery observed[a] in Israel.
The Lord their God is with them;
the shout of the King is among them.
22 God brought them out of Egypt;
they have the strength of a wild ox.
23 There is no divination against[b] Jacob,
no evil omens against[c] Israel.
It will now be said of Jacob
and of Israel, ‘See what God has done!’
24 The people rise like a lioness;
they rouse themselves like a lion
that does not rest till it devours its prey
and drinks the blood of its victims.”
Footnotes:
a. Numbers 23:21 Or He has not looked on Jacob’s offenses / or on the wrongs found
b. Numbers 23:23 Or in
c. Numbers 23:23 Or in
Victorious. Untouchable. Wrongs/Offenses not being taken into consideration.
Justification.
BUT.
The moment they rebelled against God, a chapter later, forget their enemies
and external attacks. YHWH, himself, the one who was saving Israel, is the
one coming to fight against untouchable Israel.
Numbers 25:1-9 (NIV)
25 While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge
in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2 who invited them
to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and
bowed down before these gods. 3 So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal
of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.
4 The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them
and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce
anger may turn away from Israel.”
5 So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of
your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.”
6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before
the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at
the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of
Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and
followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right
through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague
against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague
numbered 24,000.
This is what it means to be "untouchable", nothing "snatching" you out
from the Father's hand. Your enemies are powerless when God is for you. But
none of that is a guarantee that you, from the inside out, won't lose faith
and fidelity to God, and rot in his hand—after you have believed, after
you've been taken out / called out, after you've set your hope on the promise,
believing it, and are making your way there, waiting for YHWH to lead you
into the promised land. Again, going by biblical definitions, they were
predestined to come, they were called out, they have a means to be justified,
provided by God, and were considered justified by God (thus the only reason
they came out of Egypt: by faith), and were glorified: just look at all the honor
coming out of Balaam's mouth (YHWH only allowed Balaam to speak the
words He put in his mouth). YHWH is honoring this Israel (glorifying them),
the first generation.
What Calvinism is doing is rewriting that definition of "elect". Instead of
what it literally means (divinely appointed to serve God) they make it mean,
“only those who made it in were actually appointed because there's this
unbroken chain that protects anyone who is 'called' from failing to make it in.”
But that's not the reality.
It's more like, "many are invited [called], so maintain your faith, so you
can make it in, not be disqualified and lose your crown (have someone else
take it from you)."
[continued below] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:02 am
|
|
|
|
[...continued]
Getting Kicked Out of The Wedding
Matthew 22:1-14 (NIV)
22 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom
of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.
3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet
to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have
been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened
cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the
wedding banquet.’
5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another
to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and
killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed
those murderers and burned their city.
8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but
those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 So go to the street corners
and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went
out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the
bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man
there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 He asked, ‘How
did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man
was speechless.
13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and
throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping
and gnashing of teeth.’
14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
That guy made it in, since everyone at that point, good and bad, had been invited.
So he's inside, and gets kicked out, why? Because he didn't put on what the King
wanted him dressed in. What are the clothes that we're suppose to put off? The
old nature. We're all suppose to conform to Christ's nature, not keep our own
clothes.
Not coincidentally, the clothes we're given to put on in Revelation 19:
Revelation 19:7-9 (NIV)
7 Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
8 Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear.”
(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.)
9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited
to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true
words of God.”
Ergo,
1 John 3:7 (NIV)
7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what
is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.
1 John 2:6 (NIV)
6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
Enter Paul,
Romans 13:14 (NIV)
14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think
about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.[a]
Footnotes:
a. Romans 13:14 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers
to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as a power in opposition
to the Spirit.
Colossians 3:9-10 (NIV)
9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with
its practices10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in
knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Ephesians 4:22-23 (NIV)
22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your
old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new
in the attitude of your minds;
The bride prepares herself (made new in the attitude of her mind)
and receives new clothes to wear as a result (decorated by the
righteous acts that follow). And if you don't wear those wedding clothes
(righteous acts of the saints that are given to you) don't expect to stay inside
the wedding hall after making it in / making it out of the world (accepting the
invitation and going there). You'll be thrown back out into the world (kicked
out of the wedding hall). You will not stay to enjoy the promise.
Same concept of “the children of the kingdom” getting kicked out.
God's Love Towards the Remnant / His People / His Kids
Quote: my view, which certainly holds that God does have unconditional love for His people.
"God's love" is equivalent to saying "God's favor". Is his favor unconditional
to those in covenant with him? His favor can and does change, even towards
his remnant.
Consider the following:
Zephaniah 2:3 (NIV)
3 Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land,
you who do what he commands.
Seek righteousness, seek humility;
perhaps you will be sheltered
on the day of the Lord’s anger.
Amos 5:15 (NIV)
15 Hate evil, love good;
maintain justice in the courts.
Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy
on the remnant of Joseph.
2 Kings 21:14-15 (NIV)
14 I will forsake the remnant of my inheritance and give
them into the hands of enemies. They will be looted and
plundered by all their enemies; 15 they have done evil
in my eyes and have aroused my anger from the day their
ancestors came out of Egypt until this day.”
The Israelites had already entered the promised land by 2 Kings 21, btw.
Being the "remnant" is not a guarantee of anything.
The remnant can rebel and be in danger of not staying saved.
Don't bother relying on Gill because he contradicts himself.
Commentary on Amos 5:15:
it may be that the Lord God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant
of Joseph: who should escape the fire that should break out of his
house, and devour it, even the ten tribes, Amos 5:6; such of them as
should seek the Lord, and that which is good; for in the worst of
times God reserves a remnant for himself, as in the times of Elijah,
Isaiah, Christ, and his apostles; a remnant according to the
election of grace, to whom he has been gracious in the choice and
reserve he has made of them; in the stores of grace he has hid up
for them; in the provision and mission of his Son as a Saviour; and
in waiting the time of their conversion, when he is gracious to them,
in regenerating, quickening, pardoning, and justifying of them; and
still will be in the visits of his love; in the supplies of his
grace, in supporting them under afflictions, temptations, desertions,
&c. and in giving them his word and ordinances for their comfort and
relief: nor is this "may be" to be understood in a way of doubt or
hesitation, but of good hope, yea, of a holy confidence; and so some
render it, "without doubt the Lord God of hosts will be gracious"
(g), &c. see Zephaniah 2:3.
Commentary on 2 Kings 21:14
And I will forsake the remnant of mine inheritance,.... The whole land
of Canaan was the Lord's inheritance; ten tribes in it were already removed,
only Judah with Benjamin was left, and the Lord threatens to forsake that
remnant:
and deliver them into the hands of their enemies, and they shall become a
prey and spoil to all their enemies; which was fulfilled in their captivity
in Babylon.
That last verse is not a mere "threat", but a promise. Gill tried to soften
the blow there (double speaking again). Both verses are talking about
a remnant—a remnant chosen by God's grace / favor. And yet such
varied responses: in one, Gill says it's a definite "will save" (despite the
language, thus nullifying God's word); yet in another, God is threatening!
On what, exactly, is Gill basing that discrimination? In both cases, they're
both remnants chosen by God's grace. And there is no guarantee of
salvation suggested by the words in either example. Gill imposes that
"guarantee" based on his devotion to his theology and not what God
literally spoke. And certainly not what God moved Peter to speak:
1 Peter 4:17 (NIV)
17 For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household;
and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those
who do not obey the gospel of God?18 And,
“If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”[a]
Footnotes:
a. 1 Peter 4:18 Prov. 11:31 (see Septuagint)
There's nothing certain about the fate of a remnant besides the fact
that one will always exist. That doesn't guarantee specifically-named
individuals will continue to make up that remnant forever.
Quote: As for verses about God's unchanging love? John 6:37 comes to mind: _ John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. _
Yes, they'll come to him.
But will they all stay?
Will they maintain faith?
Will Jesus find faith on the earth when he comes back?
Will they rebel and reject him later, after coming to know him intimately,
as the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, coming to dwell inside of them?
Will they grieve the Holy Spirit to the point that He turns around and fights them?
Revelation 2:14-16 (NIV)
14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are
some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught
Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food
sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. 15
Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of
the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will
soon come to you and will fight against them with the
sword of my mouth.
He's still holding them culpable of something if he's saying, I hold these
things against "you", repent, even though it's with "them" that I have a
problem with. And he's coming to fight. Just like he fought those who
had prostituted themselves with the Moabite women during Balaam's
day. There will be plague among you. You'll have to deal with their dead
bodies.
His love / favor does not remain constant if, after coming to him, you rebel
and reject him and start doing your own thing (Moses, “children of the
kingdom”, remnants). God is still the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
John 6:37 is not speaking of unconditional love to his remnant. It speaks of
his willingness to receive all that are called / invited and that actually come.
He wants them to come to him and stay. It also communicates that he's not
the one who'd be initiating the rejection. It's not his desire to reject any of them.
He came to seek and save the lost. He is able to save them. But the freewill
choice to reject him is always honored.
They can rebel.
They can lose faith.
Like Moses.
Like the “children of the kingdom”.
Like the remnants of the past.
Quote: There is a sense in which we are already adopted, unless you again want to create contradiction within the texts of Scripture: _ Romans 8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"
I acknowledged how we're being saved on an inward level now
(the mind), and then later, on an outward level, the redemption
of our bodies. I take it you didn't read my whole reply before you
started responding to it.
We're being inwardly saved now (assuming we don't rebel and the
Spirit stays in us), and outwardly saved later (if you remain inwardly
saved). But if you quench the Spirit, grieve Him, and he leaves you
(seal broken), what spirit of adoption do you have left? I don't see how
you stay "adopted". The assumption is that adopted children cannot
cease being a part of God's family. If he rejects natural born children,
he can reject adopted children too. The "remnant" in the past, chosen
by God's favor, has been rejected after totally defiling themselves,
after YHWH cleansed them, and set them apart, and they went back to
their filth. YHWH had to pick a new remnant, if not send calamity to
purify the sullied remnant (many, in said remnant, don't survive this
purification process; they die by sword) like in 2 Kings 21:14-15.
Also illustrated by Moses and the Israelites in the desert: the first generation,
the original remnant, did not make it in at all—minus Caleb and Joshua.
He picked a new one: their offspring (plus Caleb and Joshua from the
Old generation).
Ezra makes the following very clear:
Ezra 9:13-14 (NIV)
13 “What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our
great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our
sins deserved and have given us a remnant like this. 14 Shall we
then break your commands again and intermarry with the peoples
who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry
enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor?
Ezra did not say, "it's okay, you guys are the remnant chosen by grace;
you're untouchable now. You, as the remnant chosen by God's favor,
cannot fall out of favor ever again". Quite the contrary. This notion that a
remnant is "once saved, always saved" is not being drilled into your head
by the examples upon examples left behind for us in scripture, but by
traditional interpretations: interpretations that change the literal definition
of words, that disregards and nullifies God's Words, and the examples God
left through Moses and the prophets.
Again, Leaven of the Pharisees
Call it arrogant and self-righteous, but this why I warned, "beware
the leaven of the Pharisees". What is the leaven of the Pharisees?
the interpretations of people who are responsible for explaining
scripture to you (the sayings of the teachers of the law), who have
a lot of prestige, who are looked up to for their intelligent and
pious-sounding reasoning. But their teaching is merely traditional
interpretation that, upon scrutinized through the lens of the Old
Testament, has deviated from the truth. It's only serving to blind
people to what the scriptures literally say (and demonstrate),
example after example. They nullify God's very words. I'm sure
the Pharisees thought Jesus was arrogant and self-righteous too
for merely pointing this out (and rebuking this behavior). It's not
just hand-washing rituals (that YHWH never commanded) that
Jesus was rebuking: Jesus rebuked how they had been interpreting
scripture, in particular the fifth commandment:
Matthew 15:3-9 (NIV)
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God
for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your
father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or
mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say
that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help
their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to
‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word
of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah
was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 15:4 Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16
b. Matthew 15:4 Exodus 21:17; Lev. 20:9
c. Matthew 15:9 Isaiah 29:13
Do you think the Pharisees' theological positions didn't sound pious,
God-honoring, and reasonable? Of course they did. But if it calls you
to ignore Moses—the laws YHWH commmanded through him and the
examples left by him—then, it is false. They can read it well enough,
but their traditional interpretations / commentary deny it (true believers
can lose belief). Are God's Words and the examples he left behind for us in
the Old Testament directly defining "terms" for us? OR theology created
by man, which may have been "motivated" by God's Words, but by their
commentary, nullifies God's words that he spoke through his servant Moses?
Quote: You seem to be anti-intellectual [...]
I'm fully aware that we're using logic to articulate our thoughts.
I'm not "anti-intellectual" and "anti-logic" as long as the "logic
and intellect" doesn't nullify what God wrote through Moses.
And the reason I emphasize that is because Jesus emphasized
the importance of that very thing.
Matthew 23:1-3 (NIV)
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The
teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So
you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do
not do what they do, for they do not practice what they
preach.
The teachers fail to put it into practice, but that's not an excuse
for you. Don't follow their lead. Instead, pay attention to what
is literally said in scripture.
And to show you an example of you being blinded by this leaven
(if the literal definitions of words like "glorification" and "elect"
weren't enough):
After reading what James White says:
Jesus therefore identifies the Apostles as clean, fruitful branches,
but they are so because of what Jesus has done for them, not
because of what they have done in and of themselves. The 'word'
which the Lord Jesus spoke to them was not His own, but was
the Father’s (John 12:49, 14:10).
How can you then suggest that 2 Peter 2:20-22 is not describing
the same exact cleansing that occurs in Christ? True disciples are the
ones who have been washed by Christ. Correct. Thus why I even
alluded to John 13:10-11 (only necessary to wash your feet after you
have been cleansed, thus escaped, in Christ). The truth, in Christ, is
what sanctifies them (I agree with John 17:17). It's not scripture that
suggests those in 2 Peter 2:20-22 only received "nominal knowledge
of Christ". The only one saying it's a nominal knowledge of Christ is
Gill. And apparently Calvinists. Not God's word. Because when you
compare scripture to scripture, apostle with apostle, you see very
clearly: if you've been cleansed at all in Christ, then it was an
inward cleansing (because Christ doesn't cleanse you like the
Pharisees would cleanse you: outward reform only—no, he cleanses
you inwardly), so you have been saved. And if after you have
been saved by Jesus, cleansed by Jesus on the inside, you return to
the mud in total defeat, there is no more salvation for you. It would
have been better had you not known him / been cleansed by him at all.
And James White is twisting the parable of the sower.
[...] the plants that appeared to have life but had no fruit are
consistently shown to be false, and those represented by
these plants, to be false professors.
How can someone "receive the word with joy" and be a
false professor at the same time? That they received it with
joy means they believed the message. They didn't receive
the word, inwardly hating on it, and thus putting on an
outward show so as to be accepted by the religious
community. No, they received it with joy. Sincerely.
So, James White is accusing them to be false professors
merely because they hadn't grown deeper roots yet (because
the surrounding conditions / inward conditions didn't
allow for deep rooted faith to grow) and they were attacked
by affliction too early in the growth process. These aren't false.
They just didn't develop correctly. They were real trees planted
by the sower, not an enemy. The devil comes to undo what God
is doing in the lives of real disciples.
And I'll address the following here because it's related:
Quote: Is a weed ever a good seed? In this parable, the people of the evil one are plainly distinct (weeds) from the people of the kingdom (good seed). Notice that the Son of Man also didn't plant the weeds; an enemy did.
It's only a problem if I start claiming (corruptly) that the devil
is "a creator God" who makes his own humans, because afterall,
neither the Son nor the Father planted weeds; they're only planting
righteous people (and that's obviously not the case, if there are
vessels of wrath like Pharaoh and we're told God raised up Pharaoh
as a vessel of wrath, then it was God who raised Pharaoh up; Pharaoh
is a weed. The devil did not raise up Pharaoh. Though Pharaoh could
be considered a son of the devil since he lies and murders; a lot of that
death, besides outright murder [of the Hebrew infants], he causes by
misleading others, due to his unwillingness to submit to YHWH through
Moses' warnings e.g. Pharaoh's magicians counterfeiting the true miracles
of God, thus trying to de-legitimize the God of Moses and keep people
from believing his warnings as proclaimed by Moses). The devil,
through Pharaoh's magicians, likes to undo the works of God and provide
counterfeits. The example of the good seed losing their life, was precisely
the parable of the sower (God planted them and Satan came to undo them
and rob what little faith they had).
And notice how both "thorns" and "the cares of this world" are not of God:
Thorns came after sin entered (a corruption of creation brought about
by Satan's enticement, thus not a part of the original creation)
Genesis 3:17-18 (NIV)
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate
fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must
not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
The cares of this world are also not of God, but of the world:
1 John 2:15-16 (NIV)
15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves
the world, love for the Father[a] is not in them. 16 For everything
in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride
of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.
Footnotes:
a. 1 John 2:15 Or world, the Father’s love
And who is the ruler of this world?
Ephesians 2:2 (NIV)
2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of
this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit
who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
John 16:11 (NIV)
11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now
stands condemned.
Paul and Jesus alluding to Satan as the ruler/prince of this world.
He's always trying to ruin God's turf, what God planted, what God is building.
I can see how John 15 makes sense the way James White is
explaining it (if he's just talking about Israel in general and
this is not referring to disciples but those "born into Israel";
they didn't produce fruit, just foliage, despite receiving his
life giving water, so they get cut off for not producing the
fruit.) But that's why we should be glad that the Holy Spirit
of God inspired Paul to use the same metaphor to address
the gentiles who were not born into it: wild olive branches
are getting grafted into this true vine because of their faith.
But they should tremble because if they lose their faith
(the very reason they were grafted in to begin with) then
they'll get cut back out. He didn't spare the natural branches
and he won't spare you either. There's no other way to interpret
what Paul is saying: you guys stand by faith (not nominal
knowledge of Christ, but faith), and yet, tremble because you
can get cut out too. If what they had weren't true faith but
mere nominal knowledge, they wouldn't be standing there in
the first place.
Romans 11:20-21 (NIV)
20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and
you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not
spare you either.
[continued below]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:03 am
|
|
|
|
[...continued]
Walking in the Flesh with the Holy Spirit in You
Quote: You make the claim "Salvation from sin nature / from the flesh, also has conditions: walk in the Spirit (not merely have the Spirit in you, without wielding him; no! You better use him to kill the flesh)." You then quote Romans 8:13, which definitely talks about not living according to the flesh, but you again read your assumption into it. Check the context: _ Romans 8:1-11 1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Sirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. _ You are honestly talking about having the Spirit in you in a salvific sense but living according to the flesh: this distinction is nowhere in the context, nor in Scripture. Rather, when we look at texts in context, we see this: _ Romans 8:9 9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. _ You cannot live according to the flesh if you actually have the Spirit
of God in you as far as salvation is concerned. You're saying that you can, so you'd better put the Spirit to work so you don't lose it. Notice that those who live according to the flesh are the "natural man", not the believer (Romans 8:6-8; Hebrews 11:6).
The context of Romans 8 you decided to quote only aids what I'm
saying and does not change what Romans 8:13 states. Paul is still
telling the believers in Christ, not "nominally in Christ", but who
are in Christ, to put to death the deeds of the flesh using the Spirit.
What I'm saying is, "you better put the Spirit to work so you
kill the deeds of the flesh", just like Paul said. You actually can live
according to the flesh in spite of the Spirit of God in you. Thus, why
Paul tells us to walk in the Spirit instead of the flesh. Since he's in us,
we should walk in Him. If carnal Christians cannot walk in the
Spirit, what's the use of saying walk in Him?
Galatians 5:16-26 (NIV)
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires
of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit,
and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with
each other, so that you are not to do whatever[a] you want. 18 But
if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and
debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits
of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy;
drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those
who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things
there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the
flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit,
let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited,
provoking and envying each other.
Footnotes:
a. Galatians 5:17 Or you do not do what
It is quite possible to be "out of" step with the Spirit, and
walking in the flesh, despite the Holy Spirit being in you
(i.e. Moses). Just because God provides us access to his
power, that dwells within us, to move through us, to desire
to walk in a way that is in accord with his sense of
righteousness, that doesn't mean we actually heed his voice
and walk in him.
We can grieve him.
Ephesians 4:29-31 (NIV)
29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths,
but only what is helpful for building others up according to
their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do
not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed
for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage
and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.
Colossians 3:5-10 (NIV)
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature:
sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which
is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[a]
7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived.
8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these:
anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.
9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self
with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being
renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Footnotes:
a. Colossians 3:6 Some early manuscripts coming on those
who are disobedient
Paul is writing to people with the Holy Spirit in them. They belong
to Christ. This isn't "nominal knowledge". Paul is not unsure of whether
they're real believers or not. Again, he's writing to believers who have
the Holy Spirit inside of them, thus they belong to Christ, and he knows
exactly why it was given to them: to put to death this earthly nature like
Paul writes in Roman 8:13. They belong to Christ. And they can still walk
in the flesh, despite being sealed with the Holy Spirit. Thus Paul telling
them, to stop lying, get rid of all rage, and malice (he repeats the same
thing in Colossians). They need to stop grieving the Holy Spirit who is
inside of them (he does not doubt here about these believers having the
Holy Spirit, thus belonging to Christ).
It's only by using the Holy Spirit in us, heeding him, submitting
to him—instead of quenching him and grieving him—that we
can put off this nature and put on Christ's. Otherwise, yes, you
will walk in the flesh despite having the Holy Spirit in you.
More on the Holy Spirit & Election
You throw out statements like,
Quote: Romans 8:9 would be talking about the salvific sense of having the Holy Spirit, not the sense in which even the non-elect could have it (Matthew 7:22). [...] Did he receive the Holy Spirit in a salvific sense through the laying on of hands, or was this in the sense of 1 Corinthians 12, which even the non-elect could have?
...without even going through the trouble of explaining what you mean.
And to be quite frank, that doesn't hold up: if you have the Spirit of Christ, the
Spirit of God, in you, then you belong to Christ; so how do you remain non-elect
in that moment? This isn't "try before you buy". Get a little taste of the Holy Spirit,
without belonging to Christ in the process (negating Romans 8:9). Just kidding
about “calling” you, this anointing of the Holy Spirit means nothing; you were
actually doomed from the start ;) No. That's not what's happening
in scripture.
Pharaoh is a vessel of wrath. Pharaoh never received the Holy Spirit at any point.
You can say he doesn't belong to God. But where in the bible is the Holy Spirit
ever given to someone without having intentions to change the person and
make them his? Even King Saul displays biblical evidence that he did receive
the Holy Spirit, was changed, and God had every intention to make him his
(and did).
1 Samuel 10:1 (NIV)
10 Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head and
kissed him, saying, “Has not the Lord anointed you ruler over his
inheritance?[a]
Footnotes:
a. 1 Samuel 10:1 Hebrew; Septuagint and Vulgate over his people Israel?
You will reign over the Lord’s people and save them from the power of their
enemies round about. And this will be a sign to you that the Lord has
anointed you ruler over his inheritance:
1 Samuel 10:6 (NIV)
6 The Spirit of the Lord will come powerfully upon you, and you will prophesy
with them; and you will be changed into a different person.
Knowing that, would you consider King Saul "non-elect" just because he
rejected God at the end of it all? (Going by what you've said, I'm presuming
you would consider King Saul "non-elect"). But going by its literal definition
of "divinely appointed; selected to serve", yes he was elect.
Note: although YHWH considered it evil that the Israelites desired a human king,
in place of YHWH, to lead them in their battles, YHWH still gave them what they
wanted.
So...
King Saul was elected (divinely appointed) by God for a certain purpose
and for a certain outcome (to lead the people in victory and eliminate
pagans—a.k.a. save them from their enemies / God's enemies).
1 Samuel 9:16 (NIV)
16 “About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin.
Anoint him ruler over my people Israel; he will deliver them from the hand
of the Philistines. I have looked on my people, for their cry has reached me.”
1 Samuel 12:19-25 (NIV)
19 The people all said to Samuel, “Pray to the Lord your God for your servants
so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of
asking for a king.”
20 “Do not be afraid,” Samuel replied. “You have done all this evil; yet do
not turn away from the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart. 21 Do
not turn away after useless idols. They can do you no good, nor can they
rescue you, because they are useless. 22 For the sake of his great name the
Lord will not reject his people, because the Lord was pleased to make you
his own. 23 As for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord
by failing to pray for you. And I will teach you the way that is good and
right. 24 But be sure to fear the Lord and serve him faithfully with all
your heart; consider what great things he has done for you. 25 Yet if you
persist in doing evil, both you and your king will perish.”
King Saul was predestined (literally, predetermined/ marked out beforehand).
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/4309.htm
King Saul was elected (divinely appointed).
source:http://biblehub.com/greek/1589.htm
(as it appears in Romans 9:11 & 11:5; but “eklektoi” from Mt 22:14 fits the bill too)
King Saul was anointed. Physically with oil, and with the Holy Spirit.
Yet Saul rejected God, in spite of his predestination, call, and anointing
to be king. He lost out on being king in spite of having the Holy Spirit of
God come and change him. So, after being chosen / elected (divinely
appointed) by God, Saul rejected God because of his lack of faith, and
fear of man, more than fearing God's own words. So God left him (even
though He was the one who elected Saul in the first place). God did not
harden King Saul's heart. It was out of King Saul's own volition. All of
this after receiving the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit seems to have
dwelled in Saul prior to rejecting God, thus why we're told the Spirit
left him.
1 Samuel 16:14 (NIV)
14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul,
and an evil[a] spirit from the Lord tormented him.
Footnotes:
a. 1 Samuel 16:14 Or and a harmful; similarly in verses 15, 16 and 23
This pattern is everywhere. To reject God, after he has elected you,
called you, and anointed you (after receiving the Holy Spirit), is
"the end". King Saul was never reinstated, no reconciled relationship
with God, despite his election and calling to the position. He died in
rebellion. And yet, he had belonged to God at one point and believed
in him. And received the Holy Spirit. God knows details we don't,
but I wouldn't be surprised if King Saul was blotted out of the Lamb's
Book of Life.
And like I originally replied to Jewish at Heart, Saul's focus was no longer on
God and on what God had said, but glorifying man and himself. Same with
Moses. Who got the credit for the miracle? Moses and Aaron. Not God.
After receiving the Holy Spirit, thus being endowed with the wisdom,
knowledge and inner strength to know better and do better, they lacked faith
in what God had originally said and started glorifying man (and themselves)
instead.
Apostasy
Quote: So you're calling me apostate? Dangerous words, ma'am. You'd better be careful who you are calling a heretic. These are things you will have to answer for before the Lord.
First of all, what's defining my definition of apostate:
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/646.htm
Considering that “a remnant, that will always be comprised of
a specific set of individuals, is totally untouchable once they're chosen
by grace”, is something I see reflected nowhere in scripture, then I'm
using the word out of a clean conscience. It does accurately, and quite literally,
describe you and others who have defected to this position. You use to
believe against OSAS, now you don't.
But yes Jesus will judge me, despite my clean conscience.
1 Corinthians 4:4 (NIV)
4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent.
It is the Lord who judges me.
And if I'm identifying you as having fallen prey to the enemy (or are an
enemy), when really you have not (and are not), I'm sure I'll be forgiven
once I realize it and repent of it. Just like Paul:
1 Timothy 1:13 (NIV)
13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man,
I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.
Assuming that's even the case here.
On the otherhand, people who don't act out of ignorance or unbelief
are not shown mercy (i.e. King Saul, Moses, the remnants, “the
children of the kingdom”, etc).
Quote: I'd say your view is much closer to heresy than mine, as you are honestly saying you are ultimately justified by your works (not alone, but together with faith, contradictory to Romans 3:28 ).
Depends on who is defining “heresy” for you.
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/airesin_139.htm
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/139.htm
I don't consider myself to be following any particular philosophical sect
like Calvinism. I just compare Old Testament and New Testament, and study
the Hebrew and Greek terms wherever and whenever I'm led to by the Spirit.
And what I've been describing is no different than the following
(and both of these statements can be true at the same time):
implying works didn't justify Abraham, but faith alone did
Romans 4:2 (NIV)
2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something
to boast about—but not before God.
implying faith plus works justified Abraham; faith alone did not
James 2:21-24 (NIV)
21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he
did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that
his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was
made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled
that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him
as righteousness,”[a] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see
that a person is considered righteous by what they do and
not by faith alone.
Footnotes:
a. James 2:23 Gen. 15:6
Is James a heretic? Has he deviated from what the bible teaches?
No he is “bible”. In verse 24, of James 2, the NIV translates it as
"considered righteous"; the KJV, ESV, NASB, ISV, NET Bible, and some
other ones translate it as "justified".
So, which is it? Was Abraham justified (declared righteous) by his faith alone?
or by his faith plus works, not faith alone? Scripture seems to suggest both.
Because the works are a result of that saving faith (a faith that says, "I have no
idea how he's going to do what he promised, but he's going to do it; so, let's go,
let's do, and let's wait, exactly as he said, because I believe"). Moses stopped
believing in this way, thus did not inherit the promised land.
And if Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, then you're turning Paul
into a hypocrite, considering the overwhelming theme of Hebrews 11
(and thus, the bible since it's quoting Old Testament), where it describes
a bunch of Old Testament saints who are "justified by faith", yet what's
being described are their actions; ergo, their works justified them / declared
them righteous. The works that accompany faith did (and still do) justify
people and that is why they were saved. Drawing attention to two:
Hebrews 11:7-8 (NIV)
7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear
built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world
and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later
receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did
not know where he was going.
They obeyed. Out of faith. Had they not: Noah and his family would've
died. Abraham would've never walked into the promised land. God didn't
build the ark for Noah. Noah built it. God didn't teleport Abraham.
Abraham had to trust, risk his life and livelihood and just journey out.
Faith followed by works. Your faith moves you to do certain things; ergo,
why I said being saved inwardly (and maintaining that inward
salvation) leads to salvation outwardly. But if it's not maintained
inwardly, then you won't stay saved inwardly, let alone outwardly
when the time comes. You don't do certain things unless you believe.
And someone who believed, can stop believing (i.e. Moses). Despite
the Holy Spirit (God) being in you, thus working through you to do
things. It's not demonic possesssion where he's forcefully making you
do things against your will. When Moses stopped believing, his doing
changed too. Paul's emphasis in his epistles is to pinpoint the moment
salvation starts (you can be saved without works like the thief on the
cross; but unless you died right after converting, there will be works).
Salvation doesn't start with something you did. Faith is given by God,
you just merely maintain it . Not quench it. Thus believers told to encourage
one another. And that faith is "made complete" (James 2:22) by putting
that faith into action.
Distinctions I Am NOT Making
Quote: In your argument here, you're actually begging the question. You're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove in your quotation of several verses. You're taking your belief that being saved from sins
and being saved from God's wrath for sin are totally different from one
another (as if one can happen to someone while the other does not). You're committing eisegesis, reading into the text of Scripture an idea it does not teach. I reject your idea, and you must now prove that idea to me from Scripture.
@the bolded: No.
Being saved from sin is to be saved from God's wrath. I agree.
They're not "totally different" from each other.
God's wrath, amongst other things, consists of plagues; the lake of fire;
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; the flood in Noah's day;
the events started by the sixth seal (Revelation 6:12-17), followed by
bowls and trumpets, all of them are wrath.
Going through a couple of these:
Numbers 16:46 (NIV)
46 Then Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put incense
in it, along with burning coals from the altar, and hurry to the
assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out
from the Lord; the plague has started.”
Why did plague start? Because the community was in sin (a spirit of
rebellion against YHWH had festered). So wrath happens. A rebellion
that Korah, Dathan, and Abiram incited the community into, ostensibly
against Moses and Aaron, but really because they disagreed with the
way YHWH set up the priesthood. Put simply, hostility against God's
law and desiring to transgress it [a.k.a. wanting to sin]). Enter wrath
upon these once saved souls (and bodies). They had belief to leave
Egypt, but didn't maintain that belief / trust in God. So their bodies
didn't stay saved either. God made the earth swallow them up alive.
Jude 1:7 (NIV)
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns
gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve
as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Deuteronomy 29:23 (NIV)
23 The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur—
nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it.
It will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah
and Zeboyim, which the Lord overthrew in fierce anger.
God's wrath once again. Why did God rage against Sodom and Gomorrah?
Because they were in sin. Where sin happens, they're inviting wrath. God
is long suffering, but where there is no repentance, then once their sin
reaches its full measure, they will feel God's wrath.
Genesis 15:16 (NIV)
16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here,
for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
But after that, the Amorites would feel God's wrath, through the Israelites
coming to take possession of the land promised to them (where the Amorites
were currently inhabiting).
People are saved from God's wrath if they maintained belief, ergo continued
believing God's promises & warnings, and thus stopped sinning, stopped
rebelling against his instructions. Lot's wife, despite being saved from Sodom,
didn't continue believing along the way. She looked back (stopped believing the
warning). Once saved, did not stay saved. She didn't make it to safe land, though
she did make it out of Sodom—which indicates that she did start out with belief
because Lot's wife made it out of Sodom at least, unlike her son-in-laws.
The sons-in-law didn't (because they never believed at any point). So they
stayed in Sodom, never came out at all.
Genesis 19:12-14 (NIV)
12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law,
sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them
out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to
the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to
marry[a] his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because
the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
Footnotes:
a. Genesis 19:14 Or were married to
There's a reason the sons-in-law are never mentioned again.
They never left. Because they never believed.
Four people were led out instead of six:
Genesis 19:16-17 (NIV)
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of
his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city,
for the Lord was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out,
one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop
anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”
...and only three survived (because one lost faith along the way). She clearly
believed though because she started moving. Once that faith is gone though,
there is no saving you. And naturally, once belief stops, you stop doing things.
Ergo, no, I don't make distinctions between being saved from wrath and
being saved from sin. (And I have no idea what I said that made you think
that's what I believed the scriptures taught).
Quote: Considering this, look at Matthew 1:21. In my view, I believe
being saved from sins is not separate from being
saved from God's wrath (you make that distinction,
not me)
Just in case I haven't been clear, let me drive the point home:
as long as we believe—the condition: maintained faith—
we're saved from both sin and God's wrath. But we're not saved
from either if we stop believing along the way. I have not said you can
be saved from wrath and not sin. Or you can be saved from sin, but not
wrath. (If that's what you mean by “separate”?). It's either all or nothing.
Like I said, you can't have one without the other: inward salvation and
outward salvation go hand in hand. If you stop believing, you're no longer
saved from sin nor from God's wrath—despite having been saved inwardly
(that is, being in covenant, genuinely trusting in God, and obeying him)
at one point.
Your question was, and I quote, "how is one 'saved' if they don't actually
enter into the Kingdom?". That's why I went on to explain about the flesh
in this earthly life before we ever enter the kingdom in the New Jerusalem.
This body's corruptible flesh has a sin nature. We won't be liberated from
this flesh until it is transformed, into an incorruptible one. This flesh is not
transformed upon death, but upon resurrection. Until then, we can be saved
on a psyche / mind / soul level—if we stay trusting / not doubting in
God, but keep the faith. What you die as (thus the reason we must maintain
faith until the end) is what you are (faithful believer or not?). The physical
salvation of the body—God transforming our body into an incorruptible one
—comes later when Jesus returns in the clouds. If your soul / mind stays
saved, you will be saved from God's wrath too. If your soul (mind/psyche)
does not stay saved, you will not be saved from God's wrath nor from the
bondage to sin nature.
That's why sinners are outside the city after the resurrections of the dead
(I don't think it's their remains, since it says “those who practice”, not
those who “practiced” past tense):
Revelation 22:14-15 (NIV)
14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the
right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
15 Outside are the dogs,those who practice magic arts, the sexually
immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and
practices falsehood.
Clean Conscience
And you know what, I might as well mention this in here: this is the
reason why there are so many verses talking about a clean
conscience.
Hebrews 9:9 (NIV)
9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the
gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the
conscience of the worshiper.
Hebrews 9:14 (NIV)
14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse
our consciences from acts that lead to death,[a]so that we may
serve the living God!
Footnotes:
a. Hebrews 9:14 Or from useless rituals
Hebrews 10:22 (NIV)
22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the
full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled
to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies
washed with pure water.
1 Timothy 1:19 (NIV)
19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have
rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.
1 Peter 3:21 (NIV)
21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—
not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear
conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ,
Footnotes:
a. 1 Peter 3:21Or but an appeal to God for a clear conscience
That conscience is what we're dealing with in the realm of the dead,
I believe.
And why in Hades, the rich man is getting a dose of his own medicine.
He's not in flames in the lake of fire. He's in Hades. And he's in flames
because in life, there was a poor man who sat at his gate, naked, dogs
licking his sores, starving, wishing for a scrap of food to fall from
the rich man's table, thirsty, probably in the full force of the sun. The rich
man lived in gross self indulgence, luxuriously living, costly purple clothing,
fine linen. Never spared anything. Not a rag, not even a scrap of food that fell
from the table. So in death, when the angels carry him off to the realm
of the dead, his conscience puts him in a spiritually-equivalent situation
so he knows what it feels like to see someone far off in the distance,
in comfort, while you're in agony, a person who won't draw near to offer you
a drop of alleviation. Hot and thirsty. Not even drop of water. That fire was
not the lake of fire. But a taste of his own unmerciful medicine. There were
no worms there. This isn't Gehenna. You have to be alive, not dead, to be
cast into the everlasting flames prepared for the devil and his angels (lake
of fire). The rich man and Lazarus, on the other hand, went to Hades upon
dying. They're two totally different places.
Revelation 19:20 (NIV)
20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet
who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs
he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast
and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive
into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
Revelation 20:10 (NIV)
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake
of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been
thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Matthew 25:41 (NIV)
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you
who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and
his angels.
Isaiah 66:24 (NIV)
24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who
rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire
that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome
to all mankind.”
Thus why I alluded to Gehenna, as opposed to Hades, in my previous
replies.
Mark 9:47-49 (NIV)
47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better
for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two
eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’[a]
49 Everyone will be salted with fire.
Footnotes:
a. Mark 9:48 Isaiah 66:24
source: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/9-47.htm
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/1067.htm
People are alive for that lake of fire.
The realm of the dead, on the otherhand, is where everyone goes upon
death (not alive), to wait for their resurrection. Hades. Sheol.
Sheol
Isaiah 14:9 (NIV)
9 The realm of the dead below is all astir
to meet you at your coming;
it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you—
all those who were leaders in the world;
it makes them rise from their thrones—
all those who were kings over the nations.
source: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/14-9.htm
source: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7585.htm
Hades
Luke 16:22-23 (NIV)
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him
to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades,
where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with
Lazarus by his side.
source: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/16-23.htm
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/86.htm
In a nutshell:
I do believe in the Lamb's Book of Life. It's scripture. But after this
conversation, I'm convinced you can get blotted out of it. (Since
Rev 22:19 KJV is referring to the divine one, not the earthly one;
and, for taking out words, you get blotted out of the book of life).
And if you don't commit any of the sins which the bible says are
unforgivable and get you blotted out, then great. You won't marvel
at the beast, as predestined / planned beforehand. Yay :P
I'm convinced that the Old Testament contains examples / shadows
of how things will work out under the new covenant. Not that they
work out differently. If anything it's more severe since there are no
more chances left after Christ. Reject him, after receiving the Holy
Spirit in you, thus becoming his, being cleansed on the inside by
Christ, and abandoning him for the world, that's it. There is no
more repentance, despite being predestined and justified and
glorified, sometime in the past. Our hearts can be hardened into
unbelief, if we grow lazy, impatient and don't encourage each other
in the faith.
Calvinism doesn't define my terms. The Hebrew and Greek
definitions do.
I doubt further explanations will be necessary after this, lol.
edited to clarify wording of "Clean Conscience" section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 9:16 am
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm glad to see you don't care much about actual conversation. This isn't the way you'd talk with someone if you were face to face (if it is, I feel bad for them), overwhelming them with speech and giving no place to let them object, ask questions, make sure they follow you, etc. You could well have corrected any misconceptions I had and explained things piece by piece one at a time, allowing me chances to actually interact with you bit by bit. You're making excuses, sister.
Rather than doing this in a way I requested of you that I believe would have been much more beneficial to both us and others, you decided to just flood me with text and completely disregard my request. Very kind of you, sister. Great way to regard others as more important than yourself.
I don't usually do this, but I think I'll bow out here. I have other things I'd like to be focusing my time on. I actually am curious about the points you have to make, but I am really not interested in talking over each other with large amounts of words: I actually want a dialogue, one more similar to conversation rather than you write an article and I write an article to reply. If you ever change your mind and would like to converse with me, I'd love to hear you out on your view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 7:23 pm
|
High-functioning Allegiant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
