Results 1 - 20 of 39
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: dodoy Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 220079 | ||
... | ||||||
2 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 220067 | ||
Dear Pastor Beja, Thanks for the post. Here are my observations: 1. You posted: "God's judging the world and judging sin is the same thing. When God say He is going to judge sin, that means He is going to judge the sinners. Judging sin means judging people." (any Bible text for this?) I deduce from what you posted that 'judging the world is judging sin, and judging sin means judging people who are sinners.' I am sorry but it appears the Bible does not say God will not judge the righteous. Ecclesiastes 3:17 (NASB) "...God will judge both the righteous man and the wicked man, for a time for every matter and for every deed is there." Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (NASB) 13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. 14 For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." 2. You posted: " But He did die for the sin of those who would receive Him through faith and repentance." I'm real sad I can not fully agree, because it seems it is not the whole truth because the Bible says "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." 1 John 2:2 (NASB) 3. You posted: "So saved from sin, does indeed mean to be saved from the final judgment when God will throw sinful humanity into the lake of fire" (any Bible text for this?) I could not in conscience agree, because the Bible says: 1 Timothy 1:15 (NASB) "It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all." Romans 3:23 (NASB) "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Since all have sinned, all are sinners. Christ came to save sinners, ergo, Christ came to save all, because all are sinners. And so, all had been saved from sin. But the Bible says there are those who will be thrown into the lake of fire. The Bible therefore shows us that to be saved from sin does not mean saved likewise from being thrown into the lake of fire. 4. You posted: "The point being worked towards is that if any part of this is left to us then we will perish. All portions are entirely from God. Yet your view of salvation leaves all mankind, having had some assistance from God to get us started, no we are left to keep our own names from getting blotted out." To say that in my view of salvation we are left to keep our names from getting blotted out, is not fair. Perhaps, that is how you understood my view. When I said that God works IN man, is that God leaving man? 5. You quoted Romans 8:28-30, and concluded: "we see clearly that all those he Justified, He also glorified. Which refers to our final ressurection and partaking of Christ's full likeness." You imply that 'to be glorified' in this verse refers to our final resurrection and partaking of Christ's full likeness? Please, I mean no offense, but we don't have to be grammarians to see that the tense of the verb in the phrase "He also glorified" is in the same tense of the phrase "He also justified". I believe we have been justified, therefore, we must have been glorified as well. But you are saying the glorification mentioned in the verse is yet future. So then, it appears it is not me who is "arguing that there are those who are justified, but they are not glorified." 6. You mentioned in your post "I'm trying to get you to see that we must look at the whole of it at once if you are to see your error." Sincerely, I have to be grateful for your concern for me to see my error. Thank you. But, as you can see, I have defended my position with Biblical verses. If you were in my place, will you admit you are in error? 7. Finally, on what you call the doctrine of Man, you want me to begin with you and Doc, I appreciate the gesture and eagerness. Sadly, I can not take on this topic for the moment yet. I understand you saying that if I can have a correct understanding of this new topic, then I will see where I am wrong. Let me suggest an alternative. Just support your objections to my view with Bible texts. To all others in this forum, you have to pardon me for what I am in your perception. But on this I stand, that unless supported by what the Bible says, no amount of scholarly explanations replete with theological jargon can change my view on an issue. Sincerely, dodoy |
||||||
3 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 220051 | ||
Hi, BradK, Thanks for your post. This is my response to your observations: 1. I agree with your observation No. 1; that's actually what I understand those verses mean. 2. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand you as saying that the blotting or erasing of names from [or the retention of names in] the book of life only applies to the Church in Sardis. I can not agree, based on: a. If I agree, then I must also agree that only those of the Church in Ephesus can eat of the tree of life (Rev 2:1-7); b. If I agree, then I must also agree that only those from the Church in Smyrna can not be hurt by the second death (Rev 2:8-11). Salvation from sin can not be lost. It has been accomplished by God FOR man. What the Infinite has done can not be undone by finite man. If a man losts something, the 'act of losing' is his own act. Erasing of names from the book of life is Christ's act, not man's. Therefore,erasing of names from the book of life is NOT man's losing his salvation from sin; it is Christ's act that effectively disallows the non-overcomer from inheriting eternal life. 3. Don't take this against anyone, but please take another time to study Romans 11 again. Sincerely, dodoy |
||||||
4 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 220049 | ||
Hi, Pastor Beja. I have posted something for Doc, in response to what he posted for me. Relative to what he posted which you said is important stuff, yes, indeed, it is important. It, however, belongs to another topic, which we could tackle after the current issue. So sorry if I can not just as yet focus on another topic. On your side note relative to what I meant by being saved from sin, I am sorry, but I felt I have covered that in my previous post for you. Anyway, there is wisdom in what you said that the only reason man "need [to be] saved from my sin, is because God is going to judge it. Therefore, to be saved from sin, is to be delivered from God's judgment on sin." Sadly, I may not have exhausted everything in my search despite the effort I gave, but I can not find anything in the Bible that God is going to judge sin. But if you have found anything on it (which I felt you have otherwise you won't even mention it), thank you very much for informing me. The following verses in the NASB mention "judge the world" (Ps. 9:8; 96:13; 98:9; Jn. 3:17; 12:47; Acts 17:31; Rom. 3:6; 1 Co. 6:2), while these verses mention "judge the earth" (1 Chr. 16:33; Ps. 82:8; 96:13; 98:9). Do you mean that judging sin means judging the earth or judging the world? Sincerely, dodoy |
||||||
5 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 220047 | ||
Dear Doc, Thanks for what you posted, and of course, for giving a theological title for my view, which appears to you as a combination of views, which I never knew existed, nor come across with in my limited readings. I may be slow in comprehensive ability, but I am likewise thankful that portions of what you posted seem to affirm most of my view relative to the nature of man. But that would be another topic. Please note that I would appreciate our sticking first on the current issue. On my reticence you mentioned, sorry, but I just did not feel it important to tell you the group I'm currently studying with at present. Why? Simply because, there is no group to tell. In my profile, I mentioned that my views are the result of my personal Bible Study, not group Bible study. I consider that what we are doing now is a group Bible Study. If this study will lead me to see that my view is not in harmony with Scriptures, then the new view that I will adopt will be thanks to this group. I sincerely believe this group will be doing its best to show me from Scriptures the falsity of my view about salvation, if indeed it is false. Sincerely, dodoy |
||||||
6 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 220046 | ||
Thanks BradK for the time spent in browsing over my post for Pastor Beja. Salvation from sin is God's work FOR man, for all men, all kinds of men. All grace, no work from man. After being saved from sin, God works IN man, both "to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:12). Only those who positively respond will NOT be blotted out by Christ Himself from the Book of Life. Since it is God who works IN us, it is NOT "ultimately based on the sum total of our good works". I understand you as telling me that based on what I posted "there is absolutely no assurance" of salvation. Please study the whole chapter of Romans 11 again. I'll just quote verses 22 and 23. "22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again."(NASB) On my part, I quite notice the similarity of cutting off of grafted branches with the blotting out of names from the book of life. Did you notice it, too? How would you correlate these verses with the assurance of salvation? I do appreciate what others in this forum tell me. But if I am wrong, please show me from Scriptures. Show me that my use of Scriptures is improper, if need be. Show me please, NOT just tell me. Sincerely, dodoy |
||||||
7 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 220024 | ||
Dear Pastor Beja, Sorry to have just shown up. I need to rush my brother to the hospital and have just come home. Well anyway, thanks for what you posted. The following would hopefully explain what you want me to explain: 1. On why a person can be saved from sin yet not receive eternal life. Salvation from sin is God's work FOR man, that He accomplished through Christ. This is purely grace (Eph 2:4-9); not an iota of man's participation. Pls note that when man sinned, sin separated man from God (Isa 59:2), because before sin came man is not separated from God. There is then a need to remove what separates man from God, so that man might be reunited with God again. This, man can not do, so God took the initiative (Rom 5:2) and reconciled the world to Himself through Christ(2 Cor 5: 18,19). Because of that death on the cross, the sin-problem had been absolutely solved for all men (2 Cor 5:14, 15; Rom 6:7). All men are now part of the body of Christ (Eph 2:11-19). Unless removed by Christ Himself, man can not get his own self detached from being part of the body of Christ (John 10:28,29). Unless detached from Christ's body, man is bound to spend eternity with God. But is there a possibility that a man might be removed by Christ from being part of His body? Yes. Christ Himself mentioned in Rev 3:5 that only the names of overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life. Blotting out of any name from the book of life can not occur if that name is not initially in the book of life. Rev 17:8 suggests that, with the exception of beast-worshippers, the writing of names in the book of life was from the foundation of the world. This has to be because Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:19,20). The blotting out of a man's name from the book of life effectively removes him as part of the body of Christ. To recapitulate, man was saved from sin through Christ, became part of His body with his name written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. Bur if Christ blots his name from the book of life, he no longer is a part of Christ's body, and he will not inherit eternal life, instead his final destiny is the lake of fire (Rev 20:15). I hope this answers question #1. 2. On Question #2. Let me first quote Romans 2:3-11 (NASB): "3 And do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment upon those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God." These verses fully explain what I mean. But to be just specific relative to your question, yes, our righteousnes is not our own. It is counted to us through faith. A true believer is one who overcomes evil with good (John 14:12). The strength to overcome, the will to overcome, the opportunity to overcome - all these are from God. Our part is in using what God has given. Overcoming is the result of our positive response to God's work IN man (Phil 2:12, 13). This is in contrast to man's being saved from sin, which is God's work FOR man. Sincerely, dodoy |
||||||
8 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 220010 | ||
Well said, Lightedsteps. My profile speaks something on this current topic. You may read it, if it is of any interest to you. Should you find anything therein that somehow is not in full agreement with your current belief, and you want further explanation from me, I would be very glad to further explain. Just let me know. Sincerely, dodoy. |
||||||
9 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 220008 | ||
Hi there, Pastor Beja, Quite a little anxious of what you promised me a couple of days ago. Just reminding. Relative to the topic at hand, this is what I honestly believe, unless proven otherwise: God, through Christ, saved all people from sin, but only the righteous will be rewarded with eternal life. If this is proven Biblically wrong, I have no other choice but to accept what the Bible says. Sincerely in Christ, dodoy |
||||||
10 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 220005 | ||
1 Timothy 4:9-11 (NASB) 9 It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance. 10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. 11 Prescribe and teach these things. In what context did Paul say God is the Savior (NOT just a Savior) of all men? 1 Timothy 1:15 (NASB) It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. I believe there are no gray areas here. God is the Savior of all men in the context of saving sinners. Has anyone got a problem with this? I don't think so. Let Scripture interpret itself. Sola Scriptura. The danger with assertions is in fact mentioned by Paul in this same letter to Timothy (verses 5 - 7) |
||||||
11 | Is there a reason to debate? | Bible general Archive 4 | dodoy | 220004 | ||
lightedsteps, Admittedly, I am greatly humbled by what you posted for me. For who am I, as to be able to connect all the dots? Let us all praise God who gives wisdom to all who lacks and asks (James 1:5). dodoy |
||||||
12 | Is there a reason to debate? | Bible general Archive 4 | dodoy | 219996 | ||
Dear Doc, Steve, and John; In this topic of sabbatou - week issue, I rest my case. Sorry to have offended you in any way. I did not intentionally mean to offend anybody here in the forum. Thanks for the inputs I have learned from all of you. Sincerely in Christ, dodoy |
||||||
13 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 219995 | ||
Hi, Doc. So sorry, you're in bed. Hope you get well soon. Thanks anyway for the answer from Rev. John Samson. He can really move mountains, by context. The Bible says that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4 NASB) Rev. Samson said: "God desires all kinds of people - even kings (or Emperors like Caesar) and the elite in society - people of every kind, to be saved." Please note: "people of every kind", NOT people from every kind. 1 Tim 4:10 (NASB) - "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." This verse says God is the Saviour of all men, which we could contextually render as "God is the Saviour of all [kinds of] men", as Rev. Samson instructs. One of these kinds as shown in verse 10 is "those that believe." The other kind is obvious: "those that don't believe." Now, contextually analyzing the verse, since God is the Saviour of all kinds of men, therefore, He is the Saviour of "those who believe" and also the "Saviour" of "those who don't believe." Question: If God did not save "those who don't believe", how can God be their Saviour? |
||||||
14 | Is there a reason to debate? | Bible general Archive 4 | dodoy | 219989 | ||
Hi, John. I am really sorry if you were not able to catch the question I’ve thrown. Perhaps, you were not even aware that I have thrown the ball. But you could not be blamed. It appears you were busy imagining I am casting doubts on the veracity of Scriptures. Sadly, I don’t. It’s not in my nature to do so, John. I am, however, relieved that Steve (screen name – srbaegon) was able to pick up the question you failed to catch. This he aptly showed in his post for me. What I am questioning, John, is the translation of some portions of the Bible from the languages it was originally written into the English language. I do honestly believe, as others do, that the original autograph of each of the book of the Bible was free from any error. The errors crept in, unintentionally perhaps, via the transcribing and translating procedures the Bible underwent. |
||||||
15 | Is there a reason to debate? | Bible general Archive 4 | dodoy | 219987 | ||
Thank you, Steve for addressing the question I posted regarding my objection on the translation of the Greek ‘sabbatou’ into the English ‘week’. You referred to Luke 18:12. NASB Luke 18:12 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' You said the translation "I fast twice [on] Sabbath" does not make good sense. I know you are sincere in telling me this, Steve. I really appreciate that. But do we really assuredly know the period of time Christ was referring to in this verse? I am sorry to say this, but the conclusion that to fast twice on Sabbath does not make good sense and so "sabbatou" must be "week", could be jumping to conclusion too fast, too soon. Truth of the matter is I can not find any scriptural account of fasting twice a week, have you, Steve? Instead, fasting twice a day is scriptural. The Bible delineates fasting in the daytime vis-à-vis fasting at nighttime. When the Israelites hesitated to battle against the tribe of Benjamin they “fasted that day until even” (Judges 20:26). Upon knowing of the death of Saul and Jonathan, David and his men “fasted until even” (2 Samuel 1:12). When Daniel was thrown into the lions’ den, King Darius “spent the night fasting” (Daniel 6:18). Fasting twice a day is not a product of imagination. Christ Himself “fasted forty days and forty nights” (Matthew 4:2), and that period included five Sabbaths. Taken one day at a time, that is fasting twice a day, one at daytime, the other at nighttime. Hence, on five separate occassions, Christ fasted twice on Sabbath! If despite its being scripturally based, yet fasting twice on Sabbath does not make good sense for you, Steve, will fasting twice a week make good sense? You said: “"protei sabbatou" is literally "first of the sabbath." What is the first of a sabbath? What does that mean?” Steve, I know you are likewise aware that NASB translated “protei” into “foremost” (Matthew 22:38; Mark 12:28. 29) and “leading” (Acts 16:12); the NIV translated it into “most important” (Mark 12:28. 29); the KJV translated it into “chief” (Acts 16:12). In this case, can I be faulted if instead of “first day of the week” I choose “foremost Sabbath” or “most important Sabbath” or “leading Sabbath” or “chief Sabbath” as the better alternative translation of “protei sabbatou”? |
||||||
16 | Is there a reason to debate? | Bible general Archive 4 | dodoy | 219971 | ||
I admire your humility, John. This virtue is getting rarer nowadays. I do appreciate your suggestion that "it would be prudent to [accept] what those who are [scholarly in the field] of linguistics have translated..." I am really sorry I can't be prudent, for now. If I get her right, Dhaniei referred to the "geocentric theory" of the universe, a theory accepted by the whole world as true for almost 1400 years. Among the stellar minds that held on to this belief included Claudius Ptolemaeus, who published the theory and the famous Greek philosopher, Aristotle. But despite the belief of the whole world to the contrary, Copernicus proved the geocentric theory false and presented a new theory modern science uses today. Copernicus stood his ground even to the extent of being excommunicated. I don't lay any claim to being a Copernicus, far from it; it is just I found a scriptural basis for questioning what has been believed on for so long. What I need is a Biblical proof that has long evaded my own search, that would spell out the beans against the basis of my query. Isn't it also possible for the younger siblings to find the cookies their father placed on the top shelf but hidden by the older ones? |
||||||
17 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 219970 | ||
Dear Doc, If I understood you correctly, in effect, the "us" and the "we" refer only to the sanctified and faithful followers of Jesus Christ of all ages? If so, then the apostle Paul was, in a way, telling the Church at Ephesus that only the sanctified and faithful followers of Christ were chosen by God and predestined for adoption as sons through Christ, with all others excluded? If this was really what the apostle Paul meant, why did he tell Timothy that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."? 1 Timothy 2:4, NASB. |
||||||
18 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 219967 | ||
Thanks for being accommodating, Doc. I'd like to start with the first verse you gave in your initial post for me. Eph 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love (NASB) I would like to be clarified on whom Paul is referring to with the "us" and the "we" in the verse. Presently, I understand it to mean just almost everybody because "God so loved the world..." (John 3:16) and "...God is not one to show partiality" (Acts 10:34). If it does not bother you in any way, I would appreciate Bible verses to back up the explanations. |
||||||
19 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 219959 | ||
Dear Doc, Thanks for the response. It's not that I want to insist on what I presently know; I just would like to be clarified based on what the Bible really tells us. With this, Doc, would it just be alright for me to ask you some questions? Pastor Beja promised me a fitting response this week relative to what I wrote in my profile. While waiting for his response, you could perhaps sort out things for me. I could compare your inputs with his once I receive his reply. Is this OK with you, Doc? Again, thanks. |
||||||
20 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | dodoy | 219953 | ||
Thank you very much for the encouragement, Azure. | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |