Results 61 - 80 of 83
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: JibbyJee Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88217 | ||
Dear Joe: Thanks for the resource list. I've already got www.whatloveisthis.com bookmarked (what love indeed!). I'm also dedicated to mining AOMIN at least 2 times a day, so James White is very familiar to me (it was his ministry that did me in last December). A friend of mine put White's 9 part rebuttal of Geisler's CBF from The Dividing Line on CD's which I keep in my car. Which reminds me, my car speakers haven't heard music for a long, long time..... Sincerely, your Hymn-singin', Doctrine lovin', Bible totin' Jesus Freak Reformed friend, JibbyJee |
||||||
62 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88108 | ||
Dear Hank Prior to Dec. 2002, I had never even heard of John Calvin. Even since then I've only read a few scattered paragraphs of his writings for the INSTITUTES, and those were all quoted in passing within other books I've read. So I'm sorry if what you see me posting is "CALVINISM" to you, but to me it is NOTHING BUT THE GOSPEL. I am always more than happy to discuss differing interpretations and, if need be, correct my own understanding. Surely I'm not infallible. You've made it clear that you hate "ism's", and for the most part I agree with you. But don't be so obtuse as to forget to include "free willism" into the mix of "manmade" dogma! Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. Tit 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, Tit 3:5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, Sincerely in the mercy of Christ, Jibbs |
||||||
63 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88006 | ||
Tim, happy weekend greetings! Thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to chat with me. I do appreciate it! I'm going to try to answer your post one paragraph at a time. Not sure if I'll finish, though. 1. This goes back to the Christian belief that God saves (Isaiah 63:5). The supposition that God intends to save all yet manages to lose some cannot be defined by any other word but failure. The very definition of failure is the inability to accomplish that which you set out to do. So the question really is: Did Jesus intend to save every man on Earth or not? 2. While I think you have given what you sincerely believe to be the definitive answer to my question, please allow me to give reasons why I disagree with your conclusions. Bear with me while I explain: It's my belief that all men everywhere are sinners and therefore under condemnation whether they hear the Gospel or not (John 3:18,36; Rom. 3:10-11; Eph. 2:3). Because of this natural corruption of man (1 Cor. 2:14), we cannot save ourselves (or even desire to) nor is God under any obligation to redeem any of us. This means none of us can demand salvation from Him. Furthermore, if God only decided to save 5 people on Earth and let the rest go on to Hell (where apart from grace, their desires will take them) He is still perfectly just. Do you see my point? If God only made atonement for those He intended to save, there is nothing unjust at all about that. So the question is not "How can God not try and save so-and-so?" but rather "Why does God save ANYONE?". So again, my friend, I ask you to seriously consider the scope of the atonement in relation the the nature of God's wrath. If Jesus paid for all the sins of every man, on what basis is anyone judged??? I know it may sound trivial, but the answer is the key, in my opinion, to better understanding Jesus' redeeming purpose on Earth. 3. In this paragraph you've given an either/or proposition which I think can be reduced to a simpler argument: Either God saves without the assistance of man or God needs man's cooperation in order to save them. My first question here is "do you or do you not believe God COULD save all?" I certainly believe He could if He chose to, but the Bible reveals not only that He doesn't do so, but also the reasons why (Romans 9:21-24). The central aspect I've gathered from this paragraph is the value you've assigned to human choice. I absolutely agree with you that we must choose to be saved, but where we disagree is on how that choice comes to fruition. The Bible says no one seeks God (as natural men)(Rom. 3:10-11) and that we are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). Were you saved by something you did or by something God did? Here's something that humbled me a great deal (after many sleepless nights!!) when I was first compelled to consider these things: Imagine for a moment yourself standing next to an unbeliever before the throne of God. What differentiates the two of you? How did you gain the attire in which your dressed? Were you smarter than the person next to you? Were you more spiritually inclined? What was in you that caused you to believe that wasn't in the wretched sinner at your side? Please allow me to humbly let you know how difficult these things are to consider honestly. I experienced it for myself. But I believe the truth put things into perspective for me. I (we) are rotten sinners who don't deserve Christ any more than the next guy. Our belief doesn't make us righteous. Christ and Christ alone made us righteous when He bore all our inequities on the Cross. Our coming to Him in belief is the proof of that victory over the ghastly grips of sin upon us. You've said that under my understanding, everyone COULD not be saved. Actually, I believe everyone WILL not be saved. There's a significant difference. Not that everyone COULDN'T be, but rather that God has chosen not to according to His own will and purpose (Eph 1:4). But I don't limit God. I don't know who He will save. So I concentrate on my own walk with Jesus so that I cause no one to stumble, and this for the sake of the elect. 4. First, we could debate the usage of verses like 1 Tim. 2:4 or 2 Pet. 3:9 as they are used in their own context to show that the verses are talking about all Christ died for (the believing ones). Here are some verses that speak of a particular redemption that you asked for. Please read them: Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Eze. 34:10-11; John 10:11; John 10:15 Now as far as a verse that specifically uses the exact phrase you demand, you're right is saying it doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean the doctrine is not implied by the whole text of Scripture. For example, the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. Do you believe in the Trinity? Why? Coram Deo, Jibbs |
||||||
64 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87982 | ||
Hi John! Greetings in Christ! Thanks for the kind words. I hope all discussions here are done in a manner pleasing to the Lord. Prayerfully, the Lord will give us all gentleness and respect. I know you know what I'm talking about. 1 Peter 3:15; Gal. 5:22-23. Alive in Christ, Jibbs |
||||||
65 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87909 | ||
Hi Tim! It must be about 4pm your time right now and I am on my lunch hour. I would be complaining that you're almost off work right now until I found out your 9-5 is on the opposite end of the clock. Ouch!! The night shift can be a mean one! According to your interpretation of John 6, the grace of God draws all men. If we are saved by grace, then I assume you also believe grace must also fail to save, unless you believe everyone will be saved. If I understand the implications of your interpretation, you are saying God applies the same grace to the Apostle Paul and Hitler alike. Under your view, God doesn't do anything for those who come to believe on Him that He doesn't also do for the perishing. Therefore, God in and of Himself, plays NO active role in the salvation of anyone specifically( compare Isa. 63:5). The will of man is the ultimate deciding factor in salvation (compare Rom. 9:16; John 1:13). Your understanding is that God desires all people everywhere to be saved but that His will is impotent when dealing with "autonomous" free will decisions of men. I don't want to misrepresent you here. It's hard to be super-accurate given the time and space constraints. If this is not an accurate portrait of your beliefs, please clarify so I can better understand your position and clearly discuss them with you. As for the simplicity of "all" issue, tell me what you think of this: Matt. 4:8--Is there really a mountain where ALL the literal world can be seen? Is this even possible? John 1:29--Does Jesus literally take the sin of the ALL the world upon Himself? I think you would agree that the reason Jesus took sin upon Himself was to bear the punishment for it in our place. If He took a sin to the cross, then He took the wrath of God for it. His atoning work is completed. With that said, how, then, does God justly punish anyone? If all sins have been paid for, then what is the basis for eternal punishment? In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
66 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87799 | ||
Hello again Tim! Congrats on your ordination in the Church of the Nazarene. The Church of the Nazarene was my first denomination after being saved in 1997. My pastor was Dr. Les Parrott in Puyallup Washington. He's been all over the U.S. so I'm sure you'll hear about his legacy in the denomination if you haven't already. (I think he also was the first President of Olivet University but I'm not certain on that.) Anyway, he was a great pastor and his son Les Jr. and his wife have a very successful worldwide family ministry that is based here in the Northwest. Regarding your post: To start, Tim, I need to say something in love to you. I think as Christians are obligated to be certain that we are not sacrificing truth for the sake of "simplicity". I understand your desire to read what the text "simply" says, but that doesn't always guarantee that we understand the full implications of our interpretation. Sometimes the Bible is not expressly clear and requires such implicity to be explained by more explicit verses. I do believe it is dangerous to make the verses more complex than need be, but at the same time, it is equally dangerous to define truth by how "simple" it is to understand. With that said, I hope we can come to some agreements that resolve what may seem like contradictions in the Word. ((The subject is 'no one'. The main clause is 'No one can come to me'. The next clause explains how anyone can come, only if God draws. The last clause says, 'and I will raise him up at the last day.' Who is the 'he'? The one who comes.)) Respectfully, I don't understand how you can divorce the latter half of verse 44 from the first half. Jesus is clearly saying the no one CAN come (inability) without being drawn. That clearly establishes the "drawing" as the force behind the coming. Jesus identifies his role in relation to verse 40 in the words "and I will raise him up on the last day." He directly links the drawing to the coming so that the two are inseparable. Think about it for a second. What does verse 44 say about the one who doesn't come? Are they drawn? I believe the goal of the "drawing" is salvation--the Father giving to the Son. Are you saying He draws all but that drawing fails to save some?? Isn't this basically saying the God makes salvation possible but doesn't actually save anyone? In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
67 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | JibbyJee | 87795 | ||
Greetings Radioman! Thanks for the info, brother! For the most part I'm well aware of JW literature and teachings. As Solomon said "there's nothing new under the sun. (Eccl. 1:9)" JW is nothing more than Arianism with a printing press and a crystal ball. In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
68 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | JibbyJee | 87793 | ||
Howdy TF Okay, well if you aren't going to admit to being a JW then at least purge your deceived mind of all the doctrinal filth you have been brainwashed by. It's not a joke. Hell is just around the corner. Don't wait until it's too late. 7000 errors, huh? Tell you what... list 10 for me and show me their "utmost importance"! And here's one last thought for you to chew on: Joh 10:29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one. Joh 10:31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Why did the Jews want to kill Jesus?? In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
69 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | JibbyJee | 87754 | ||
I urge you to get out of the Watchtower while you still can! Tell me, why is it that you folks always do your work while crawling around in the dark? Why don't you just come out and tell everyone you're a JW? Why all the secrecy? Anyway, back to your post. I'm below the amateur level of Greek translation ability so I will defer to a real Greek Scholar. (Your list of 'scholars' is hysterical!! JOHANNES GREBER?!?!? LOL) Here's what Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries (www.aomin.org for the complete essay) has to say about the JW/Arian translation of John 1:1--- The third clause of this verse has occasioned great debate and controversy, mainly due to the fact that the Greek word for God, theos, does not have the definite article ("the") before it. Some pseudo-Christian or Arian groups have said that this means that the Word was a "god" or a god-like being like an angel (Jehovah's Witnesses). But is this the case? Actually, the answer to the whole question seems fairly obvious, even to a first-year Greek student. The third clause of 1.1 is a copulative sentence - that is, it follows the form "The (noun) is (predicate nominative)". In Greek, one distinguishes the subject of a copulative sentence by which noun has an article in front of it. For example, in 1 John 4:8 we have the last clause reading "God is love." Now, in Greek this is ho theos agape estin. There are two nominative nouns in this sentence - God (theos) and love (agape). However, the first noun, God, has the article ho before it. This indicates that "God" is the subject of the sentence, and love is the predicate nominative. It would be wrong, then, to translate 1 John 4:8 as "Love is God." The only way to make the two nouns interchangeable is to either put the article with both nouns, or to not put the article there at all. As long as one has the article and the other does not, one is definitely the subject and the other the predicate. Hence, 1 John 4:8 does not teach that all love is God, nor that God and love are interchangeable things. Rather, the term "love" tells us something about God - it functions almost as an adjective, describing the noun (God) that it modifies. We have the same situation in 1.1c. The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. Notice that the term Logos has the article ho while the term theos does not. This tells us that the subject of the clause is the Logos. Hence, we could not translate the phrase "and God was the Word" for that would make the wrong term the subject of the clause. Hence, the term "God" is the predicate nominative, and it functions just as "love" did in 1 John 4:8 - it tells us something about the Logos - and that is, that the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term "God" by placing it first in the clause - this is not just a "divine nature" as in something like the angels have - rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as "Deity"). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, "And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity." Before summing up the verse, then, let the reader note that when groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses quote from Dr. Philip Harner's article on the nature of anarthrous (without the article) predicate nominatives, they don't understand what they are talking about. Harner accurately pointed out that the anarthrous predicate nominative functions as a descriptive term rather than a specific or definite term. Problem is, the Jehovah's Witnesses make "God" in John 1.1 just as definite as the translations they attack! Rendering it "a god" misses the whole point - the word "God" is functioning to describe the Logos - translating it as "a god" means a definite god is in mind, rather than following the actual sense of Harner's article and making the term describe the being of the Logos. The point Harner is making is that it is not the definite "God" that is in view, far less the JW translation of "a god" (both are definite) but rather the nature of the Logos that is important. Hence, 1.1 tells us some immensely important things. First, we see that the Logos is eternal, uncreated. Secondly, we see that there are two Divine Persons in view in John's mind - the Father and the Logos. Thirdly, there is eternal communication and relationship between the Father and the Logos. Finally, we see that the Logos shares the nature of God. These items will be important for a proper understanding of many of the statements made by our Lord in this book. It seems to me that John felt it was vitally important that we understand the majesty of the Person of Jesus Christ right from the start. We cab see these concepts played out through the rest of the Gospel of John. What do you think TF? JibbyJee |
||||||
70 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87753 | ||
Greetings Tim! Where you moving to/from? It's a great time to take advantage of interest rates and upgrade to a bigger home or refinance your mortgage, that's for sure. Lots of people selling their homes these days. My wife and I are considering doing just that as well. Anyway, Joseph3 gave some very solid arguments to each one of the verses you listed, something I didn't have time to do myself. But I completely agree with him. His posts are almost verbatim what I would have written. So now you know where I stand. You asked the question "does Christ draw all men or not?". You also listed John 12:32 and John 6:44. From John 6:44 we see a key distinction that is omitted from John 12:32. "AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP ON THE LAST DAY". So the question "does Christ draw all men or not?" by nature begs the question "Are all men raised at the last day?" You could say that all men will be raised up for judgment on the Last Day, and I would agree with you. But I deny that it fits this passage of Scripture. Directly in the context of John 6 in verse 40 Jesus clearly ties being "raised up" with being given eternal life. So that rules out unbelievers from being "raised up" as spoken of here. It's clearly speaking of salvation and to that I'm certain you would agree. So I think both questions are answered. Jesus draws all men to Himself in the sense that He is both Judge and Savior. No man escapes His Sovereign authority. Futhermore, if we continue to the logical conclusion of tying John 6:44 to John 12:32, then in order to remain consistent, we are forced to say that all men will be raised up to eternal life on the Last Day (John 6:40). In short, we are forced to be Universalists. IF John 12:32 and John 6:44 mean the same thing, then everyone will be saved and no one will go to Hell. I hope that explains why I don't believe the two verses are speaking of the same thing. John 6 is speaking directly of the powerful Sovereignty and Grace of God in Salvation. To me, it's the greatest passage of Scripture in the Bible (if there could be such a thing!)... Sincerely in Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
71 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87684 | ||
Tim Thanks, it's good to be here. I've enjoyed this forum immensely so far. Regarding the majority of the proof-texts that you gave in support of an indefinite/universal atonement: I'm not sure how any of these verses support your view. Could you please explain them to me as you understand them? Regarding the WILL TO SAVE ALL verses you listed: again, I don't see how you can come to those conclusions in light of their own context, let alone the entirety of Scripture. Surely you've debated this issue many times here so if you choose not to I totally understand. I will leave you with this though. John 6:35-45 is what I believe to be the clearest, most explicit teaching about the particular extent of the atonement. Couple that with the intercessory prayer of Jesus in John 17 and the Book of Hebrews and you have a very formidible task in disproving that the precious, cleansing blood of Christ was ineffective on anyone. Ultimately, that is what universal atonement advocates are forced to believe. Sincerely in Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
72 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87634 | ||
Greetings again, Hank! Perhaps you've misunderstood me or maybe my tone was a bit too straightforward. I'll take the blame for not being clear enough. I don't doubt for one second that you are a follower of Jesus Christ. Your post seems to imply that you thought I made that accusation and I want to clear the record. I responded to your post because I felt you were attacking the very Gospel that I base my faith upon. The Gospel which some call "reformed", but nevertheless, I just call it the Gospel of Jesus Christ and nothing more or nothing less. This same Gospel that I believe in is what you quite blatantly describe as an error. So yes, I do take issue with that. Please note that I in no way said that you reject Jesus Christ, but that you reject the Gospel as I understand it. It was not meant to undermine you at all, so please accept my apology for the miscommunication. I haven't made any assumptions about you, Hank, that you didn't clearly provide for me. For example, you are obviously one who is not Reformed. You specifically take issue with the Reformed faith. I felt your first post to me was both assuming and condescending in tone. All I did was point out a simple logical fallacy in your assumptions and you accuse me of putting a "Calvinistic/Reformed spin on it". I'm sorry, but you've never had any dialogue with me before yet you poo-pooed my opinion like yesterday's trash. How is that kind or respectful? Isn't it possible that the "Calvinistic/Reformed" interpretation is the correct one?? Now, I value the opinions of everyone I meet whether they see eye-to-eye with me on the issues or not. I will dialogue with you and discuss the Scriptures all night if you want, and I bet we would have a good time doing it. I just ask that you treat me with sincerity and respect and not with flippant rhetoric. Once again, I apologize for the disharmony. I truly desire to have honest and loving dialogue on these issues, even when we disagree. Please understand that I do not, have not, and will not EVER make a remark to you or anyone else on this forum concerning their standing with Jesus Christ UNLESS they are obviously promoting heresy. I hope that clears things up. Sincerely in Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
73 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87607 | ||
Greetings Hank! I'm sorry to hear that you reject the Gospel that is the basis for the faith which I call my own. Calling Reformed theology a "semantic path" where one should "proceed with caution" is not only a straw-man argument, but is also a moot point considering the exact same accusation could be leveled against Arminians. Second, I'm not sure how being in a reformed church for 35 years has anything to do with our discussion. Obviously you are trying to give your opinions weight by playing the "experience card". Surely you know that you the length of time you are in a church has nothing to do with whether or not their teachings are true. I could be in a LDS church for 5 minutes or 75 years and their doctrine is still just as heretical either way. So 35 years in a reformed church doesn't give you any special knowledge in and of itself. Nor do I have any interest in teaching you anything, even if you had a spirit that was interested in discussing these things. I believe these issues are far from pointless. I believe the very HEART of the GOSPEL lies at the center. Dodge the issue if you feel you must, but as for me, I will defend the GOSPEL even when I'm "sick" of discussing these issues which are under attack. All for the glory of God.. Soli Deo Gloria! In Christ, JibbyJee ps.....I've never been to a reformed church in my life!! |
||||||
74 | Belief alone saves? | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87553 | ||
hello IHN, I've been reading the discussion you are having with RJ and was wondering how you define "faith". What is faith to you?? The Bible is clear that we are saved by GRACE through FAITH. This saving faith is a gift given from God (Eph 2:8-9) to us. Since faith is a gift of God that is exercised in men only by the power of the Holy Spirit, there inevitably will be "works" that manifest from this work of God within a believer. We call these "fruits of the Spirit" (Gal. 5:22-23). By these works others will recognize us (Matt. 7:15-21) and without the fruits of the Spirit, there is no true faith (James 2:19-26) because it is not God who is working there, but the evil one (Phil. 1:6; Eph 2:10; Rom. 9:16). I don't think RJ is inconsistent in saying that we are saved by faith AND must do works. However, the works are a RESULT of the the power of the Holy Spirit which works in us by FAITH. Our works don't make our faith, our faith makes our works. IN Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
75 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87551 | ||
Hello Hank! There is not real evidence in Scripture to suggest that Jesus died to save everyone. [See John 6:35-45;65, 1 John 2:19; John 17:9; John 8:41-45] The WHOEVER in John 3:16 is literally "all the believing ones". It's describing the truth not giving a prescription. The eisegetical interpretation would be to read into the text the assumption that the atonement makes salvation a possibility for everyone on earth, even the dead, to be saved. By implying the word WHOEVER means an open invitation is to render the Blood of Christ powerless and ineffective to save anyone, because it's potency is contingent upon the exercise of "free will". I can read the exact same verse and let it say what it says and nothing more--All who believe in Jesus will be saved. There is nothing there that suggests he did/didn't die for all men. But in light of all of Scripture, particularly John 6:35-45, it becomes clear that He died TO SAVE and not to FAIL TO SAVE by losing some. In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
76 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | JibbyJee | 87442 | ||
Greetings DL! Before I reply to your last post, I must ask you to answer the question about Philippians 1:6 regarding Jesus not only beginning the work (salvation) in us but also promising to finish it. I don't see how your last response answers that question at all. You've brought predestination into the mix and somehow implied that it (the doctrine of predestination) is connected to using liberty as an excuse to continue in sin. I never heard of Christians who believe they can continue to sin willingly and still be saved. So I'm not sure why you made that statement. In fact, I'm not entirely sure why you posted any of it regarding the course of our dialogue. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt to address your concerns. As I said earlier, I'm not sure what your point is about the predestination/liberty statement. Of course I agree with it, but I just not sure how it relates to our conversation. Likewise I'm going to need you to explain how Christians still being in the flesh as anything to do with choosing our own destiny. I could equally say it does not have anything to do with it. In fact, Scripture says that flesh is worthless. Therefore, it has no eternally profitable bearing on your life or mine. Look at these Scriptures: Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life. Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. Rom 7:18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not. Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Rom 8:4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that you can somehow make good of the flesh. Paul understood that He couldn't as shown in the verses above. We are saved by grace, through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) which is a work that God does (John 3:6; Eph 2:10), based upon the will of God, not man (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 9:16). That's all I have time for right now. Sorry about that. I'll try to get back when I can. In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
77 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | JibbyJee | 87371 | ||
Greetings DL Respectfully, sir, I disagree with the idea/conclusion that Rev 22:19 automatically means someone's name is there to begin with. The verse is saying that if they had any hope at all of being saved it was lost when they perverted the Word of God, thereby forfeiting their place in the Tree of Life (or Book) forever. You still didn't take my question to it's full extent. If Jesus was the one who started the good work in you, and the Bible says He will finish it (that's a promise!) then you are saying He fails to do what He purposes to do. Phi. 1:6 directly contradicts your interpretation. So does 1 John 2:19. We must base our doctrine in light of all of Scripture. In the Potter's Service, JibbyJee |
||||||
78 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | JibbyJee | 87289 | ||
Phi 1:3 I thank my God upon all my remembrance of you, Phi 1:4 always in every supplication of mine on behalf of you all making my supplication with joy, Phi 1:5 for your fellowship in furtherance of the gospel from the first day until now; Phi 1:6 being confident of this very thing, that he who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ: Greetings DL! I just have one question for you. Who began the good work in you? Alive in Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
79 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | JibbyJee | 87287 | ||
Greetings EdB! I agree with you that the various versions are essentially saying the same thing. However, my own understanding of what is said in Rev. 22:19 persuades me that it is not talking about someone having their name taken out of the Lamb's Book of Life. We need to carefully evaluate these things with a balanced view of all of Scripture. God's Word is not contradictory (1 Cor. 14:33). I would suggest to you that he who commits the blasphemous sin spoken of in verse 19 commits the impardonable sin as well (1 John 5:16) and was never a true disciple of Christ to begin with (1 John 2:19). Having done so, it is impossible for that person to be brought back to repentance because of the eternally heinous nature of the crime against God and His Word (Heb. 6:3-6). You may think this is spitting hairs as well, and I respect your opinion, but I think the assumption that you're reading into verse 19 is not necessarily correct. That assumption being that the person is literally removed from the Book as if he was previously there. The verse does not clearly imply that conclusion. It could just as easily be that the verse is simply reiterating the point that the person will NEVER be able to be saved and receive eternal life. Do you agree with me that both are legitimate possibilities that need to be understood in light of all of Scripture? 1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God. Phi 1:3 I thank my God upon all my remembrance of you, Phi 1:4 always in every supplication of mine on behalf of you all making my supplication with joy, Phi 1:5 for your fellowship in furtherance of the gospel from the first day until now; Phi 1:6 being confident of this very thing, that he who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ: take care. Alive in Jesus, JibbyJee |
||||||
80 | God--the "loving Father" of whom? | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87206 | ||
Justme I just read your profile and wanted to let you know that I'll be praying for your healing from the cancer. How's it all going? My mother-in-law has been battling thyroid/lymph node cancer for 5 years. She is such a trooper. She's a godly woman who God is using to encourage and witness to so many people. I can't even begin to tell you the impact her response to the ordeal has had on me. So keep your chin up and your eyes on the Glory of Christ (as I'm sure you are!) I'd love to hear about the details if you ever feel the need to chat with a twenty-something kid! :) Alive in Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |