Can anyone help me understand these verses?
- Thread starter RebeccaAutumn
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
@dcontroversal
Oh my goodness, I am laughing so hard, you liked this post by Ralphie, is it true...LOL
I am so glad you two agree on something oh my goodness too funny...
Oh my goodness, I am laughing so hard, you liked this post by Ralphie, is it true...LOL
I am so glad you two agree on something oh my goodness too funny...
-
1
- Show all
R
Actually, no you DON'T trust in 100% of Christ's words.
You have dismissed his words about continuing to believe to be saved when he comes back.
I will show you that it is YOU who are making a joke of Christianity by dismissing the necessity to trust in Christ (I can't believe we've fallen to the place where 'believing' to be saved is even in debate).
Of course he does. He doesn't save half way. The question is, how does that automatically mean you can't lose the fully accomplished salvation Jesus gives?
Your problem is the same old 'once saved always saved' problem I see among you people. You instantly define 'saved' as 'not able to be lost', so every time you see 'saved' or 'salvation' in the Bible you instantly think that means forever and not able to be reversed. What that means is what you are actually saying is Jesus, "saves to the uttermost without possibility of losing it, because that's what saved means". In a debate that's called circular reasoning.
...unless you forsake him. The promise is for those who continue to believe, not for those who forsake him in unbelief.
This erroneous argument comes from Romans 11:29. Funny how you want to play the context card until the context proves your argument wrong then you'll have nothing to do with the context. The passage plainly says the gifts are irrevocable in that generations of Jews can still be saved and possess the gifts promised to Israel even though God has rejected them as a nation. It's not reasonable that a seminary trained person like yourself would think it okay to ignore the plain context of the passage. You're obviously servicing an agenda.
Who argues with this? Nobody of course.
Your problem is you are defining 'eternally' as 'never being able to be taken away'. What has yet to be seen between now and the resurrection is if you re going to continue in the life that is eternal. The definition of eternal life is it is a life that will never peter out (like the life that the old covenant gave did). In fact, the Bible says Jesus is eternal life. The definition of eternal life is not that you can never lose it through unbelief while in the body between now and the resurrection. But that is how 'once saved always saved' conveniently redefines it to suit their wish for their doctrine to be true.
Oh, I see. So now 'sanctified' can be used to refer to salvation, but you insist on resisting that definition for sanctified in Hebrews 10:29, even with the passage itself defining it to mean salvation (vs.10 and 14). Did they teach you to do that in seminary......you know, ignore the definition of a word given right in the context in order to defend the ear tickling doctrine of your choice?
Yep!
He will finish and complete the work he began in you if that's what you want and are relying on him to do. The promise is for continuing believers, not ex-believers who have denied him.
Yes, he will.........if you keep trusting in Christ through the power of faith he gives.
Yep. So, stay there where it's safe. Not by working, but by continuing to trust God for that protection. And last time I checked trusting in God was not on the list of works that can not justify in the infamous works gospel. But apparently it is in your Bible.
Uh, oh.......you're doing it again. You're redefining 'sealed' to mean 'can't be unsealed'. That's not what 'sealed' means. You are sealed as long as you are sealed through your continued believing. Sealed does not mean by definition 'unable to be unsealed'. You added that to the definition. And you're doing that in order to defend a pet doctrine.
Yep, that's right. He doesn't have a shred of incompetency or defect in him and what he does that would let anyone trusting in him down. Unlike the ministry of the Levitical priests who could, and did lose people. Context, dcon, context! Surely they taught you how to read the Bible in seminary!
As long as you keep believing the covering will be yours eternally. No argument here.
How does that mean you can never cast the word of God, the seed, from your heart? It happened to the believer in the 2nd type of soil. You have yet to explain this. Obviously, incorruptible seed does not mean what you think it does.
You have dismissed his words about continuing to believe to be saved when he comes back.
I will show you that it is YOU who are making a joke of Christianity by dismissing the necessity to trust in Christ (I can't believe we've fallen to the place where 'believing' to be saved is even in debate).
Of course he does. He doesn't save half way. The question is, how does that automatically mean you can't lose the fully accomplished salvation Jesus gives?
Your problem is the same old 'once saved always saved' problem I see among you people. You instantly define 'saved' as 'not able to be lost', so every time you see 'saved' or 'salvation' in the Bible you instantly think that means forever and not able to be reversed. What that means is what you are actually saying is Jesus, "saves to the uttermost without possibility of losing it, because that's what saved means". In a debate that's called circular reasoning.
...unless you forsake him. The promise is for those who continue to believe, not for those who forsake him in unbelief.
This erroneous argument comes from Romans 11:29. Funny how you want to play the context card until the context proves your argument wrong then you'll have nothing to do with the context. The passage plainly says the gifts are irrevocable in that generations of Jews can still be saved and possess the gifts promised to Israel even though God has rejected them as a nation. It's not reasonable that a seminary trained person like yourself would think it okay to ignore the plain context of the passage. You're obviously servicing an agenda.
Who argues with this? Nobody of course.
Your problem is you are defining 'eternally' as 'never being able to be taken away'. What has yet to be seen between now and the resurrection is if you re going to continue in the life that is eternal. The definition of eternal life is it is a life that will never peter out (like the life that the old covenant gave did). In fact, the Bible says Jesus is eternal life. The definition of eternal life is not that you can never lose it through unbelief while in the body between now and the resurrection. But that is how 'once saved always saved' conveniently redefines it to suit their wish for their doctrine to be true.
Oh, I see. So now 'sanctified' can be used to refer to salvation, but you insist on resisting that definition for sanctified in Hebrews 10:29, even with the passage itself defining it to mean salvation (vs.10 and 14). Did they teach you to do that in seminary......you know, ignore the definition of a word given right in the context in order to defend the ear tickling doctrine of your choice?
Yep!
He will finish and complete the work he began in you if that's what you want and are relying on him to do. The promise is for continuing believers, not ex-believers who have denied him.
Yes, he will.........if you keep trusting in Christ through the power of faith he gives.
Yep. So, stay there where it's safe. Not by working, but by continuing to trust God for that protection. And last time I checked trusting in God was not on the list of works that can not justify in the infamous works gospel. But apparently it is in your Bible.
Uh, oh.......you're doing it again. You're redefining 'sealed' to mean 'can't be unsealed'. That's not what 'sealed' means. You are sealed as long as you are sealed through your continued believing. Sealed does not mean by definition 'unable to be unsealed'. You added that to the definition. And you're doing that in order to defend a pet doctrine.
Yep, that's right. He doesn't have a shred of incompetency or defect in him and what he does that would let anyone trusting in him down. Unlike the ministry of the Levitical priests who could, and did lose people. Context, dcon, context! Surely they taught you how to read the Bible in seminary!
As long as you keep believing the covering will be yours eternally. No argument here.
How does that mean you can never cast the word of God, the seed, from your heart? It happened to the believer in the 2nd type of soil. You have yet to explain this. Obviously, incorruptible seed does not mean what you think it does.
R
He keeps every word. Your problem is your narrow, distorted interpretation of God's words makes you think what I say causes Jesus to be a liar. But as I've shown, none of my doctrine nullifies the words of God that you use to defend once saved always saved. But your interpretation of the word of God that you misuse to defend once saved always saved nullifies the passages I use to show that you are not once saved always saved (at least not until you grow up and mature to the place of not walking away from God). You are actually the one who has the doctrine that makes Jesus a liar. He said you have to believe to the end to be saved. You call him a liar when you say you do not have to believe to the end to be saved.
Christ will discard you to the lake of fire if you remove remove yourself from his blood that protects you from his wrath. You can't continue to have the protection of a sacrifice for sin that you do not trust in anymore.
You have the life that is eternal and which never ends IF you keep believing. Salvation is eternal and won't fade away, but you keep defining eternal as meaning you can never lose it.
You are justified as long as you are trusting in Christ's ongoing ministry in heaven that keeps you justified.
You are set apart in salvation as long as you are trusting in Christ's ongoing ministry in heaven that sets you apart in salvation.
No. The salvation he gives is permanent. That's why you should stay in it and not cast it off in unbelief.
See, you're defining 'permanent' as 'you'll always have it no matter what' instead of the way the Bible defines 'permanent', which is 'it doesn't run out and have to be secured all over again, like it did under the old covenant'.
There's no failure on his part to keep us. He's not a yutz like Eli. His ministry is perfect. The failure is in you potentially casting away the ministry that can not fail you.
He absolutely without doubt will finish what he has started in a person......if they keep believing him to do that.
He will finish it. Your confidence is well placed, so keep being confident that he will finish it. Don't bail out and forfeit the work that he will surely finish in you if you keep believing.
The Galatians stopped believing in Christ for justification. Paul warned them they can not be heirs of the promises for doing that. And Paul said one of those promises is having THE HOLY SPIRIT. He said they lose the promise of the Holy Spirit if they insist on rejecting justification through Christ. But the church is sure 'sealed' means 'not able to be unsealed'.
It is entirely sufficient, and then some. That's why you should continue to trust in it.
No. You are removed from the Father's hand by your own choice to no longer believe in Christ and want to be in the protection of the Father's hand.
As you can see it is actually YOU that is making a mockery of Christianity and making it look stupid to the world.
And now that you have a written record of what I actually believe you should save it and refer to it. Then you can stop using your misleading and twisted arguments to say what I believe.
Christ will discard you to the lake of fire if you remove remove yourself from his blood that protects you from his wrath. You can't continue to have the protection of a sacrifice for sin that you do not trust in anymore.
You have the life that is eternal and which never ends IF you keep believing. Salvation is eternal and won't fade away, but you keep defining eternal as meaning you can never lose it.
You are justified as long as you are trusting in Christ's ongoing ministry in heaven that keeps you justified.
You are set apart in salvation as long as you are trusting in Christ's ongoing ministry in heaven that sets you apart in salvation.
No. The salvation he gives is permanent. That's why you should stay in it and not cast it off in unbelief.
See, you're defining 'permanent' as 'you'll always have it no matter what' instead of the way the Bible defines 'permanent', which is 'it doesn't run out and have to be secured all over again, like it did under the old covenant'.
There's no failure on his part to keep us. He's not a yutz like Eli. His ministry is perfect. The failure is in you potentially casting away the ministry that can not fail you.
He absolutely without doubt will finish what he has started in a person......if they keep believing him to do that.
He will finish it. Your confidence is well placed, so keep being confident that he will finish it. Don't bail out and forfeit the work that he will surely finish in you if you keep believing.
The Galatians stopped believing in Christ for justification. Paul warned them they can not be heirs of the promises for doing that. And Paul said one of those promises is having THE HOLY SPIRIT. He said they lose the promise of the Holy Spirit if they insist on rejecting justification through Christ. But the church is sure 'sealed' means 'not able to be unsealed'.
It is entirely sufficient, and then some. That's why you should continue to trust in it.
No. You are removed from the Father's hand by your own choice to no longer believe in Christ and want to be in the protection of the Father's hand.
As you can see it is actually YOU that is making a mockery of Christianity and making it look stupid to the world.
And now that you have a written record of what I actually believe you should save it and refer to it. Then you can stop using your misleading and twisted arguments to say what I believe.
Nothing you said has a foundation in scripture...zero, nadda, nothing....more Cainology and opinionated ignorance....here let us again reveal your hypocrisy and false dogma....
HAH most here know your kind and they ALL see through your Cainology pal....and you have not set us straight on anything other than you don't know what your talking about....
HAH most here know your kind and they ALL see through your Cainology pal....and you have not set us straight on anything other than you don't know what your talking about....
-
1
- Show all
R
Hey, @dcontroversal , @UnderGrace . Answer this question:
'Saved' and 'hold fast' are in the present tense in this passage:
"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain (that is if Christ has not really risen from the dead as you believe-see vs.14, 17). "-1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Now, according to the plain words of the passage, is a person still saved (present tense) if they are no longer presently holding fast the word of the gospel?
No games, no evasiveness. Just answer this simple 3rd grade question.
'Saved' and 'hold fast' are in the present tense in this passage:
"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain (that is if Christ has not really risen from the dead as you believe-see vs.14, 17). "-1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Now, according to the plain words of the passage, is a person still saved (present tense) if they are no longer presently holding fast the word of the gospel?
No games, no evasiveness. Just answer this simple 3rd grade question.
I already addressed this, as Paul is emphasizing the vital importance of not leaving off "His resurrection" [in the issue of faith].
Besides this fact, notice the something like nine times in merely the first two verses, that the "PLURAL 'you'" is being used.
The issue is not "still saved" (especially of an individual), but rather, is: the BASIS of faith; that is, whether salvation has actually taken place, in which the vital truth of His resurrection is a NECESSITY, per the entire context. Where it says, "if ye keep in memory WHAT *I PREACHED UNTO YOU*..." doesn't mean something like, "make sure you don't forget this, or else you'll probably lose it," but instead, the doctrine *I* was given to disclose (as opposed to the high-sounding dudes you are tempted to follow, but who are not bringing THE TRUTH of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" [death/burial/AND-RESURRECTION]), HOLD [believe] THAT! If you don't believe THAT (that is, APART from THAT), there IS NO SALVATION.
Besides this fact, notice the something like nine times in merely the first two verses, that the "PLURAL 'you'" is being used.
The issue is not "still saved" (especially of an individual), but rather, is: the BASIS of faith; that is, whether salvation has actually taken place, in which the vital truth of His resurrection is a NECESSITY, per the entire context. Where it says, "if ye keep in memory WHAT *I PREACHED UNTO YOU*..." doesn't mean something like, "make sure you don't forget this, or else you'll probably lose it," but instead, the doctrine *I* was given to disclose (as opposed to the high-sounding dudes you are tempted to follow, but who are not bringing THE TRUTH of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" [death/burial/AND-RESURRECTION]), HOLD [believe] THAT! If you don't believe THAT (that is, APART from THAT), there IS NO SALVATION.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
U
Last go round with you Ralphie and knowing that it is most likely hopeless, however......
1) Let me start with this, do you think that the a word can be used in different ways and this is defined by its context, that is the surrounding text?
2) If an author has made a statement of fact in his writing do you agree that the author with integrity will not contradict himself?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
amen....the context is obvious, maybe he will listen to you...he rejects most truth in favor of Cainology and a wishy washy salvation that can be lost or revoked by a weak god that cannot keep his promises and or throws us away because we may fall and fail.....a god that needs our help to remain saved.......a god that fails in his misson!
-
1
- Show all
Well since you know all that is coming -to test that (Your theory), and what you will do when the confronting happens , good for you (In theory). Stll, the reality of the scriptures addresses the lost of ones restoration. If not possible, then no need to address. We seem to have a lot of fortune tellers in here. Can you say who else for sure will pass all test (just theory)? So, are you responsible for who does and does not have their name removed from the Book of Life?
And good thing you know how to punctuate and spell, because if your pig did not have lipstick on it, it might be recognized as such by the less discerning. But to those with a discerning spirit- lipstick or no lipstick can recognize a pig. Another words this sounds like the doctrine of the swine.
And good thing you know how to punctuate and spell, because if your pig did not have lipstick on it, it might be recognized as such by the less discerning. But to those with a discerning spirit- lipstick or no lipstick can recognize a pig. Another words this sounds like the doctrine of the swine.
-
1
- Show all
R
/
Verses 14 and 17 plainly tell us what "unless you believed in vain" means in vs. 2 means. It means that the faith that they really did have has been in vain if it's not really true that Christ is risen from the dead:
"14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."-1 Corinthians 15:14
"17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."-1 Corinthians 15:17
How are you missing Paul's plain explanation of what "unless you believed in vain means"? You can't ignore the plain words of the passage. No interpretation needed. He plainly tells us what would cause the faith they had in the gospel he preached to them to have actually been in vain.
Verses 14 and 17 plainly tell us what "unless you believed in vain" means in vs. 2 means. It means that the faith that they really did have has been in vain if it's not really true that Christ is risen from the dead:
"14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."-1 Corinthians 15:14
"17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."-1 Corinthians 15:17
How are you missing Paul's plain explanation of what "unless you believed in vain means"? You can't ignore the plain words of the passage. No interpretation needed. He plainly tells us what would cause the faith they had in the gospel he preached to them to have actually been in vain.
R
Now answer my question, dcon (and UG).
According to this scripture are you saved if you are not presently holding fast the gospel you heard?
" 1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. "-1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Your Freegrace doctrine says you are saved even if you are not holding fast the gospel by which you are saved. That's in complete contradiction to what Paul says above. Don't you even realize your own doctrine says I can quit believing Christ rose from the dead and I'm still saved because unbelief does not cause you to lose your salvation? You have one of the most confused, contradictory doctrines of all in the church.
According to this scripture are you saved if you are not presently holding fast the gospel you heard?
" 1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. "-1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Your Freegrace doctrine says you are saved even if you are not holding fast the gospel by which you are saved. That's in complete contradiction to what Paul says above. Don't you even realize your own doctrine says I can quit believing Christ rose from the dead and I'm still saved because unbelief does not cause you to lose your salvation? You have one of the most confused, contradictory doctrines of all in the church.
"19 But had certain questions against him of their own superstition [i.e. Jews' religion], and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive." Acts 25:19 [Sure this is Festus speaking, but the point here has to do with the (original) purpose of Paul's trial]. [see also Col4:3 / Eph6:20]
On the other subject, "the Book of Life" [a record of all who have lived/all the living (see also Ps69:28)] and "the Lamb's book of Life" [a record of all who are saved] are two distinct things/books.
In the former, it is possible for one's name "to be blotted out"; in the latter, it is NOT possible to have one's name "to be blotted out," only "written in" or "not written in". (I can supply the verses later, if requested, but they are easy enough to look up for one's self)
On the other subject, "the Book of Life" [a record of all who have lived/all the living (see also Ps69:28)] and "the Lamb's book of Life" [a record of all who are saved] are two distinct things/books.
In the former, it is possible for one's name "to be blotted out"; in the latter, it is NOT possible to have one's name "to be blotted out," only "written in" or "not written in". (I can supply the verses later, if requested, but they are easy enough to look up for one's self)
-
1
- Show all