ECT God does NOT grant eternal life

[Clete]

Do you feel the same about the issues when explaining this to yourself:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)

Obviously, you see yourself as a man of God, right . . or am I mistaken about that as well?

What have I said that suggests that I'd disagree with a syllable of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

All Scripture is extremely valuable for a whole host of reasons. That doesn't mean it was all written to me! You don't apply the writtings of Moses directly to your life and for very good reason - because you're not a Jew and Moses wasn't writing to or about the group of believers of which you are a member and yet you do not consider the first five book of the bible to be somehow useless or of no profit - quite the contrary. I use the exact same principle for some of the New Testament that you use for most, if not all of the Old Testament and I do so for the same reasons and I do not discount the value of any book in the New Testament any more than you discount the value of Deuterotomy or Leviticus.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Revelation 3:14-16 (KJV)

Hey Clete!! Was Laodicea a jewish community?

The church Jesus wrote His letter too was a Kingdom Gospel congregation. I don't know anything about the town itself except that there was a body of Jewish belivers in Christ there.

 

[Cross Reference]

The church Jesus wrote His letter too was a Kingdom Gospel congregation. I don't know anything about the town itself except that there was a body of Jewish belivers in Christ there.

OK. So do you believe they were all jews in that congregation? Do you believe they knew and/or cared about whether what they believed was of the "dispensational" persuasion?

BTW, who invented the Kingdom Gospel congregation title anyway?

 

[TweetyBird]

Because you did.

I never said one thing about Jesus being all alone.

No he wasn't. Who told you that? This was about God testing Jesus and using Satan to do it by tempting Him. Why would God want Jesus tested? Why did He needed to have Adam tested or Abraham or Moses and David and anyone else He desired for leading His people??

I quoted 1 Cor 2. Did you miss it?

What exactly do you think satan was tempting Jesus to do?

God did not need to have Jesus tested. God already approved of Him before He was born.

Moses, Abraham and David are not Jesus Christ. Jesus was not tested by satan for leadership approval. God already put "His stamp of approval" on Jesus, publicly, BEFORE Jesus was tested by satan.

Huh?? Who tried?

Mankind wants to test God.

Jesus ws tempted by Satan not to try Him but out and out get Jesus to fail!

For Jesus to fail at what? Being the Son of God? God manifest in the flesh?

Jesus was. I thought we cleared that up.

Jesus cannot sin. He is God.

Have you ever been on a fast without something to eat OR drink for forty days? God didn't need food or drink but, Jesus?? What do you think?

Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, made in the likeness of man. So yes, Jesus body was made of corruptible flesh and He fasted for 40 days, was tested by satan, then ministered to by angels.

 

[Clete]

OK. So do you believe they were all jews in that congregation? Do you believe they knew and/or cared about whether what they believed was of the "dispensational" persuasion?

They did not have the New Testament in those days, it was still being written and so no such question would have ever come up. Although, having said that, Peter does allude to the fact that Paul has written some things "which are hard to understand". In any case, they would have known without a doubt that John, the writer of Revelation, was an Apostle and would have accepting his teaching as authoritative.

And whether they were all Jews (biologically) is not relevant. The relevant question is simply which program was in effect when they became believers. If they became believers before God cut off Israel and turned to the Gentiles through Paul then they were members of the nation of Israel by virtue of that belief (i.e. again, not necessily biology) and they would continue under the program until their natural death. (Romans 11:29 & I Corinthians 7:18)

BTW, who invented the Kingdom Gospel congregation title anyway?

I do not know who coined the phrase but its is quite useful for making the distinction. The Kingdom Gospel is a works based gospel having to do with the promises made to Israel and it's Kingdom. The Grace Gospel, on the other hand, is not a works based gospel and has nothing at all to do with the nation of Israel as a group.

There are other names for the two gospels that we could use if you prefer. Paul refers to The Circumcision vs. the Uncircumcision which has led to the term "Circumcision Gospel" which means and is exactly the same thing. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Cross Reference]

What have I said that suggests that I'd disagree with a syllable of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

All Scripture is extremely valuable for a whole host of reasons. That doesn't mean it was all written to me! You don't apply the writtings of Moses directly to your life and for very good reason - because you're not a Jew and Moses wasn't writing to or about the group of believers of which you are a member and yet you do not consider the first five book of the bible to be somehow useless or of no profit - quite the contrary. I use the exact same principle for some of the New Testament that you use for most, if not all of the Old Testament and I do so for the same reasons and I do not discount the value of any book in the New Testament any more than you discount the value of Deuterotomy or Leviticus.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The principles upon which ALL was written and intended by God to convey was to all who sought after Him. If they weren't it couldn't be said that Jesus fulfilled the whole law, faith being the chiefest part.

 

[Clete]

The principles upon which ALL was written and intended by God to convey was to all who sought after Him. If they weren't it couldn't be said that Jesus fulfilled the whole law, faith being the chiefest part.

You're back to being unresponsive again.

 

[Cross Reference]

]They did not have the New Testament in those days, it was still being written and so no such question would have ever come up. Although, having said that, Peter does allude to the fact that Paul has written some things "which are hard to understand". In any case, they would have known without a doubt that John, the writer of Revelation, was an Apostle and would have accepting his teaching as authoritative.

Hard to understand by whom, Peter . ..who continued without his understanding being altered in anyway?

And whether they were all Jews (biologically) is not relevant. The relevant question is simply which program was in effect when they became believers.

I believe in no works based salvation but still consider myself a Kingdom man, why don't you?

If they became believers before God cut off Israel and turned to the Gentiles through Paul then they were members of the nation of Israel by virtue of that belief (i.e. again, not necessily biology) and they would continue under the program until their natural death. (Romans 11:29 & I Corinthians 7:18)

Paul didn't come on the scene for +/- 20 yrs. Try to remember that when "making distinctions", i.e., there was none for jew or gentile.

I do not know who coined the phrase but its is quite useful for making the distinction.

Its not important except it was coined to make an unnecessary distinction.

The Kingdom Gospel is a works based gospel having to do with the promises made to Israel and it's Kingdom. The Grace Gospel, on the other hand, is not a works based gospel and has nothing at all to do with the nation of Israel as a group.

Not if you know your Bible and adhere to what it says by not making it say what it does'nt.

There are other names for the two gospels that we could use if you prefer. Paul refers to The Circumcision vs. the Uncircumcision which has led to the term "Circumcision Gospel" which means and is exactly the same thing. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

The only circumicision is that of the heart, jew or gentile. Jesus made it so by going to the cross; He fulfilled the "type"..

OMT: Paul explained the gospel of Jesus Christ both the jews and gentiles, evently giving up on the jews. It was the message of the Kingdom of God life admininstered by His grace. I think that is also important to remember when making distinctions.

 

[Cross Reference]

You're back to being unresponsive again.

Give a little. Hang in there. I spoke of the principles that were important. You want to hang on to some 'legal' thing.

Animal blood = "promise" by covenant. The Blood of Jesus was "fulfillment" by covenant.

Paul explained what that was all about.

 

[DAN P]

Hi and there are many CIRCUMCISIONS and there IS one called the GOSPEL OF THE UN-CIRCUMCISION that Paul preached to GENTILES !!

Then there is THE CIRCUMCISION preached by Peter only to Jews !!

They are found in Gal 2:7 , so better read up !!

dan p

 

[Cross Reference]

Hi and there are many CIRCUMCISIONS and there IS one called the GOSPEL OF THE UN-CIRCUMCISION that Paul preached to GENTILES !!

Then there is THE CIRCUMCISION preached by Peter only to Jews !!

They are found in Gal 2:7 , so better read up !!

dan p

Get understanding of what "type" means.

 

[Clete]

Give a little. Hang in there. I spoke of the principles that were important. You want to hang on to some 'legal' thing.

Animal blood = "promise" by covenant. The Blood of Jesus was "fulfillment" by covenant.

Paul explained what that was all about.

So what?

It's not as if Paul's Gospel is completely different from what came before in every respect. It is still based on the work done on Calvary. The difference primarily centers around works of the flesh.

The Kingdom Gospel says: “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,I will vomit you out of My mouth."

The Gospel of Grace says: "To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works"


It's not the same and Paul is the line of demarcation. If what Paul preached was the same then there would have been no reason to make Paul an Apostle in the first place because God already had twelve apostles. If it had been the same there would have been no need for the Jerusalem council where Paul had to go explain his gospel to the Twelve and after which the Twelve agreed with Paul that he should go to the Uncircumcision (i.e. to the people without the Law) and that they would minister to the Circumizion (i.e. to the people of the Law) (Gal. 2).

This is the reason why all your proof texts are in passages written by Jesus, Peter, James and John, while all your problem texts are written by Paul. And this particular doctrinal debate isn't the only one that has Paul as the line of demarcation either. There's a whole list of seemingly unrelated issues that have the exact same characteristic.

• Can salvation be lost?
• Are works necessary for salvation?
• Will the rapture occur before the Tribulation?
• Should Christians eat "unclean" foods?
• Should Christian observe the Sabbaths?
• Is water baptism required?
• Should Christians expect physical miracles to happen?
• Are there still Apostles today?

And there are about a hundred variations of those (and others) that are either directly or indirectly responsible for nearly all of the various divisions within the Christian church. Just about every denomination you can think of has one form or another of these doctrinal debates to thank for their existence.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Cross Reference]

So what?

So what??!!

It's not as if Paul's Gospel is completely different from what came before in every respect. It is still based on the work done on Calvary. The difference primarily centers around works of the flesh.

The Kingdom Gospel says: “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,I will vomit you out of My mouth."

Grace said that!!

The Gospel of Grace says: "To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works"

Grace is NOT refering to salvation in the above. Grace is saying that because of the cross God is now able to impute HIS righteousness to the one who is righteous. The one who had been waiting in the abode of the dead, paradise, Abraham's bosom, for Jesus Christ [imputed righteousness] to descend there to free him.,

It's not the same and Paul is the line of demarcation. If what Paul preached was the same then there would have been no reason to make Paul an Apostle in the first place because God already had twelve apostles. If it had been the same there would have been no need for the Jerusalem council where Paul had to go explain his gospel to the Twelve and after which the Twelve agreed with Paul that he should go to the Uncircumcision (i.e. to the people without the Law) and that they would minister to the Circumizion (i.e. to the people of the Law) (Gal. 2).

Paul explained grace and how it can only be received. Being a heart issue makes it a "no brainer".

This is the reason why all your proof texts are in passages written by Jesus, Peter, James and John, while all your problem texts are written by Paul. And this particular doctrinal debate isn't the only one that has Paul as the line of demarcation either. There's a whole list of seemingly unrelated issues that have the exact same characteristic.

Uh, I have no problem.

Can salvation be lost?

As in "forfeited"? Yes.

Are works necessary for salvation?

No.

Will the rapture occur before the Tribulation?

Halfway through it. See Rev. 11:5;12:6;13:5.

Should Christians eat "unclean" foods?

There is nothing unclean that God has made clean, which covers everything.

Should Christian observe the Sabbaths?

All days are sabbaths for the Christian. Define Christian.

Is water baptism required?

Nope.

Should Christians expect physical miracles to happen?

Expect? The man of the Pentecostal gift of Faith might because he lives by the faith of the Son of God.

Are there still Apostles today?

Yes. Missionaries in abundance are all over the world dying preaching the grace of God and making disciples to Jesus Christ..

And there are about a hundred variations of those (and others) that are either directly or indirectly responsible for nearly all of the various divisions within the Christian church. Just about every denomination you can think of has one form or another of these doctrinal debates to thank for their existence.

You have nothing to blame it on but your embraced warped doctrine of legalism, which you "rest in".

God's grace is NOT unmerited..nor is it administered by Him through some special man made precepts.

"And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Luke 9:62 (KJV)

Can you see how grace works in that verse?

 

[Cross Reference]

Life after salvation:

"One of the paradoxes of life in the Spirit is that our sins are an invitation for God’s grace to invade our space. When we hold our sins through self-condemnation we are blocking the door through which Jesus comes to join us in life. We do the same thing when we blame others for what we did. Blame blocks the door to our heart. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity” (I John 1:9). It’s that simple." . . Fount Shults.

 

[Clete]

So what??!!



Grace said that!!



Grace is NOT refering to salvation in the above. Grace is saying that because of the cross God is now able to impute HIS righteousness to the one who is righteous. The one who had been waiting in the abode of the dead, paradise, Abraham's bosom, for Jesus Christ [imputed righteousness] to descend there to free him.,



Paul explained grace and how it can only be received. Being a heart issue makes it a "no brainer".



Uh, I have no problem.


As in "forfeited"? Yes.

No.

Halfway through it. See Rev. 11:5;12:6;13:5.

There is nothing unclean that God has made clean, which covers everything.

All days are sabbaths for the Christian. Define Christian.

Nope.

Expect? The man of the Pentecostal gift of Faith might because he lives by the faith of the Son of God.


Yes. Missionaries in abundance are all over the world dying preaching the grace of God and making disciples to Jesus Christ..





You have nothing to blame it on but your embraced warped doctrine of legalism, which you "rest in".

God's grace is NOT unmerited..nor is it administered by Him through some special man made precepts.

"And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Luke 9:62 (KJV)

Can you see how grace works in that verse?

You're both hysterical and in denial.

You claim to have no problem texts and then do precisely what I said you'd have to do in order to deal with the problem texts that you'll find only in Paul's epistles.

Of course, Paul is talking about salvation. There is no need for salvation if someone is righteous. Being made righteous is what it means to be saved. But there will be no convincing you of that and so I won't even bother trying. My point is simply that you are forced to make Paul mean something - anything - other than what it is clear to everyone that he is talking about in order to preserve the position you've taken on whether one can lose their salvation. You take what Jesus said in the Gospels and what Peter, James and John wrote in the New Testament and take it all to mean EXACTLY what it states while Paul has to be wrenched into a forced agreement that simply is not there. For most people who take the view opposite of yours, they do the exact opposite. It is only when you understand that Paul's Gospel is different and that his letters are written to the Body of Christ while the rest of the Bible is concerned with the nation of Israel and their Kingdom Gospel, that you can read any page of the bible and understand that it means exactly what it seems to be saying. In this case, that means that believers in the previous dispensation could lose their salvation and those in this dispensation cannot - easy.

Incidentally, grace is the only reason anyone has ever or will ever be saved. It is not my intention to suggest that anyone ever has earned their salvation but only that in the previous dispensation, the conditions under which grace was offered were different. Before, works were a prerequisite of salvation now they are a result of it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

"To ‘hope to be better’ [hence acceptable] is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.

"To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.

"To be discouraged is unbelief,—as to God’s purpose and plan of blessing for you.

"To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.

"The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion…

"To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure."

Have we been afraid to really believe God? Have some even been afraid to allow others to really believe Him? We must never forget that "God’s ways are not always man’s ways. To some men constant peril is the only spur to action, and many religions and psychologies are dependent on fear to keep their disciples in line. Fear, too, has a place in Christianity, but God has higher and more effective motivations than fear, and one of these is love. Often fear after a while produces only numbness, but love thrives on love. To promise a man the certainty of his destiny may seem, on the human level, like playing with fire; but this leaves God out of the picture. Those who have the deepest appreciation of grace do not continue in sin. Moreover, fear produces the obedience of slaves; love engenders the obedience of sons" (J. W. Sanderson, Jr.). - Principle of Spiritual Growth by Miles J. Stanford (Chapter 3)​

 

[Cross Reference]

You're both hysterical and in denial.

You claim to have no problem texts and then do precisely what I said you'd have to do in order to deal with the problem texts that you'll find only in Paul's epistles.

You are beginning to bore me.

Of course, Paul is talking about salvation.

1st Rule for understanding: Let its say what it says.

There is no need for salvation if someone is righteous. Being made righteous is what it means to be saved.

Before the cross where did the righteous go when they died and please give the reason why??

But there will be no convincing you of that and so I won't even bother trying. My point is simply that you are forced to make Paul mean something - anything - other than what it is clear to everyone that he is talking about in order to preserve the position you've taken on whether one can lose their salvation.

I am not forced to do anything! I said they could forfeit their salvation! You seem to have a problem with that. Please explain.

You take what Jesus said in the Gospels and what Peter, James and John wrote in the New Testament and take it all to mean EXACTLY what it states while Paul has to be wrenched into a forced agreement that simply is not there.

What agreement? Did not Jesus say "If I be lifted up, I will draw all man unto Me."? Did not Paul reiterate the same exhortation?

For most people who take the view opposite of yours, they do the exact opposite. It is only when you understand that Paul's Gospel is different and that his letters are written to the Body of Christ while the rest of the Bible is concerned with the nation of Israel and their Kingdom Gospel, that you can read any page of the bible and understand that it means exactly what it seems to be saying. In this case, that means that believers in the previous dispensation could lose their salvation and those in this dispensation cannot - easy.

What was good for Israel for them to take heed is no different than what is presented by Paul for the gentile. The fact that escapes you is your personal problem.

Incidentally, grace is the only reason anyone has ever or will ever be saved.

No foolin' Dick Tracey. And even for the Kingdom gospel folk is it the same. So why your "legal" argument and why the need for it, given the words of Jesus?

It is not my intention to suggest that anyone ever has earned their salvation but only that in the previous dispensation, the conditions under which grace was offered were different. Before, works were a prerequisite of salvation now they are a result of it.

Again and yet again. This, by me, is not about salvation either by grace or works. I told you up front I was not a works salvation Christian. What is your problem for not wanting to remember that before giving out your 'snide snippets", that I don't appreciate?

 

[Clete]

You are beginning to bore me.

I respond to another of your posts when you figure out how to correctly use the quote tag like I've asked you to do several times now.

How bored are you now?

 

[Cross Reference]

I respond to another of your posts when you figure out how to correctly use the quote tag like I've asked you to do several times now.

How bored are you now?

Bored enough to tell any conceited snot like you to take a hike. I should have dismissed you a while back for your incompetence and disregard for sincerely asked questions and kind replies you had and have no intention of responding to. Get going.

 

[Rosenritter]

Why was this thread posted in the "Exclusively Christian Theology" forum to begin with? "God does not grant Eternal Life" is an anti-Christian statement.