Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Hank | 15258 | ||
Kin, I have problems with your analogy. In comparing the relationship of a regenerate child of God to the marriage bond between husband and wife, you say, "I can't force my wife to stay with me if she ever wanted to walk away." That's perfectly true, of course, but she nonetheless remains your wife, though estranged, until legal divorce is effected..... But doesn't the analogy somehow break down here, unless we're willing to accept the premise that God "divorces" those whose blood Jesus the Christ shed for their redemption? And would not one be hard pressed to support that premise by Scripture?...... Would it not be more scripturally accurate to use the analogy of father and son, as Jesus did in Luke 15, the parable of the lost, or prodigal, son? The son, although he wandered far from his father's care and acted in a manner that could hardly be said to bring honor to his father, remained the son. The fellowship was broken awhile, but the relationship remained: the son was still the son and his father still his father. Whether the son returned to his father's household or stayed on in the far-off country feeding the pigs for the rest of his life is a moot issue when it comes to who his father was. He was born as a son of his father into his father's household. That act, of being born a son, seals for all eternity his relationship as son in that household. Whatever the son does with his life after that does not and cannot change his son-ship with his father..... When we experience the new birth into God's kingdom that Christ makes possible by what He did on the cross, we are in a spiritual, but very real, sense the children of God, from that moment on, for all eternity. That is what is meant by the eternal security of the believer. Christ shed His blood on Golgotha's tree, once and for all, as redemption for our sins -- all of them -- past, present, and future...... To propose a doctrine that holds to the idea that salvation is a day-by-day thing, dependent upon how much and how often we sin, and that God must "save" us over and over is to say that Jesus must be crucified over and over..... Frankly, I've never heard of, and find it most difficult to believe, a single example wherein a truly redeemed child of God who said to God, "Look, I've changed my mind. I don't want your salvation. I want to die and go to a devil's hell and live with the devil and his angels for all eternity." Have you? --Hank | ||||||
2 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15389 | ||
Re: the post " Hank, Your analogy of the lost son is ..." Hank, is this Note even worth answering? The arguments presented are so tiresome. The first sentence in the other Note is "Your analogy of the lost son is innaccurate." That sentence itself is laughably inaccurate. You very accurately called Luke 15:11 and following the "parable of the lost son." The theme of the chapter is not "sinners that need to repent." It is more than obvious from reading the chapter that it contains three parables concerning joy over repentance. Does John 15 have to do with the judgment of sinners? For everyone's information, lost souls are not gathered up in bundles to be burned. God deals individually with souls. Then we jump to the subject of man's much-touted ability to choose. Hello? While not denying human responsibility, can we at least acknowledge that divine sovereignty has something to do with our salvation? Then the writer of the other Note says: "I have seen those committed to Christ turn back to the world..." No, you haven't. You've never seen any such thing. This whole idea of proving the Bible by case histories or the experiences of people was adequately addressed in another submission posted yesterday. I quote yesterday's post for those who missed it. "I'll make my answer short. You write: "There are those that say, well, he was never REALLY saved, but how do we know?" How do we know? "1 John 2:19 (NIV) They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. "Faith that endures is the only legitimate saving faith. Consider Matthew 13:20. Some people make an emotional, superficial commitment to salvation in Christ, but it is not real. They remain interested only until there is a sacrificial price to pay, and then abandon Christ. "Always remember: we do not prove the Bible nor do we build doctrine on the experience(s) of people, whether the experiences are ours or belong to others. We do not establish Bible doctrine on case examples. On the contrary, we prove or disprove experience by the Bible." Finally, the other post uses the same old tired and false argument twisted from 2 Peter 2 to "prove" that it's possible for a blood bought, blood washed, born-again, Holy-Spirit sealed and indwelt child of God to "fall from grace and lose his salvation." Who is being spoken of in 2 Peter 2: false teachers or born-again Christians? The answer is simple to ascertain. Verses 20-22 use the word "they" a number of times. They is a pronoun. Every pronoun has an antecedent. If one keeps backing up until he find the pronoun's antecedent in 2:1, he will see that the chapter is talking about false teachers. False teachers, not believers. There is no magic or guesswork here. This conclusion is arrived at by the application of the rules of English grammar. Oh, did I forget to mention? This question and the arguments from John 15 and 2 Peter 2 have been asked, answered and refuted a number of times. Anyone who can read will note before he posts a question that the instructions plainly say: "Please search for your question before asking it?" Merely following the directions would have shown that this question has already been debated to death here on the forum. |
||||||
3 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Morant61 | 15397 | ||
Greetings Radioman! Grammatically, there are two options for the antecedent of "they". It could be a reference back to 2 Pet. 2:1 and refer to the false teachers. Or, it could refer back to the victims of the false teachers in 2 Pet. 2:18-19. However, the antecedent of "they" is not really the crucial issue in 2 Pet. 2:20-22. The most crucial issue is how they are described. The word translated "having escaped" in 2 Pet. 2:20 is the Greek word 'apopheugo'. It is only used three times in the entire New Testament, all three of which are found in 2 Peter (2 Pet. 1:4, 2:18, and 2:20). Here is the question at issue. Look at 2 Peter 1:4: "Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." Here is a clear reference to believers. As a result of God's promises we can a)participate in the Divine nature and b) escape from the pollution of the world. This is exactly what 2 Pet. 2:20 said had happened to those it is discussing. 'Apopheugo' is 2 Pet. 2:20 is an Aorist, Active, Participle. Therefore, the action of the main verb takes place after the action of the participle, "After escaping...they are overcome." So, here is my question: How can 2 Pet. 1:4 refer to believers, but 2 Pet. 2:20 refer to unbelievers? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||