If you are willing to die for a person would be a good starting question
I'm not going to respond to any more of your leading questions.So, you do think Jesuit Futurism is unBiblical?
Great idea. Let's take a look:Maybe you should re-read the OP of this thread. It's very short.
But does not your OP do exactly that?we are never to approach the Bible with preconceived notions and search for texts that prop up our doctrine
wrong ...we are new creatures, reborn, fashioned in Christ's image ... you believe in trying to tame the old creature with lawsYou believe salvation doesn't change us, just God's opinion of our sin that remains in us.
The Bible says Christians are "new creatures in Jesus", not the same people who go down in the baptistry dry pagans and come up wet pagans.
First, what I'm saying about Matthew 24:12 KJV is not conjecture; it's a fully Biblical, hermeneutical conclusion. No where in Scripture is "agape" attributed to the wicked, period. What is attributed to the wicked is "agapao" (John 3:19 KJV) --- from which "agape" is derived -- and some here have desperately attempted to make these two words equal in order to establish that the wicked can possess and practice "agape"; an extrapolation so ludicrous it's possibly never been heard of until now. It's no different than evolutionists claiming cyclic change within an organism (micro-evolution) can be extrapolated to "prove" an amoeba can eventually change into an elephant (macro-evolution).Where is your proof to demonstrate that it is possible to withdraw? An OSAS doesn't believe that this surrender in Christ can truly be rescinded (and that any that rescind were not truly in Christ to begin with). If you have something to demonstrate that withdrawal is possible, I think in proper context that would demonstrate OSAS to be incorrect.
Something other than this Matthew 24:12 conjecture.
You do realize that entire Doctoral Theses have been written on the analysis of just a single verse, right? Are you going to overthrow a history of theological practice by claiming they, too, had an ax to grind?Great idea. Let's take a look:
But does not your OP do exactly that?
At the core of your argument the OP twisted an eschatological discourse (The Olivet discourse=Matthew 24) into asoteriological debate; Jesus is speaking of the desolations that Jerusalem will undergo during the days of vengeance (there are hundreds of OT references about this). Through righteousness, those who trust in God's faithfulness will be delivered (saved) from these horrible events:
OSAS does not believe thatDon't be mad because I don't believe as the OSAS crowd does: that we may obtain by dead faith that which can be obtained only by living faith: eternal life.
OSAS does not believe that
I do not need to be mad at you. I actually feel sorry for you. Because your pride is so deep you can not figure out your mistake.. And you will not repent of your continuous slander against me and those like me who you continue to bear false witness against.
Basically. You hurt your own testimony every time you do it. so yeah. I feel sorry for you
You do realize that entire Doctoral Theses have been written on the analysis of just a single verse, right? Are you going to overthrow a history of theological practice by claiming they, too, had an ax to grind?
And, again, how much time did Jesus spend talking about Spiritual salvation and Physical Salvation? The answer is 3 1/2 years to ZERO. He told the church of Smyrna to be faithful to death, and get a crown of life. But, somehow you think He's talking about "physical, bodily" salvation in Matthew 24, when it's not the body that is a problem for Jesus -- He can resurrect them, make them, recreate them, make dead arms and legs work again, etc.....it's our stubborn will, our rebellious heart that has been giving Him fits.
“Near is the great day of the LORD, Near and coming very quickly; Listen, the day of the LORD! In it the warrior cries out bitterly. A day of wrath is that day, A day of trouble and distress, A day of destruction and desolation...I will bring distress on men...Neither their silver nor their gold Will be able to deliver them On the day of the LORD’S wrath; And all the earth will be devoured In the fire of His jealousy, For He will make a complete end, Indeed a terrifying one, Of all the inhabitants of the earth.” (Zephaniah 1:14–18)Again...he (Jacob= The remnant of Israel) will be saved from it ("it" = the time of distress=the day of vengeance=when Jerusalem undergoes desolations).
“Say to those with anxious heart, “Take courage, fear not. Behold, your God will come with vengeance; The recompense of God will come, But He will save you.”” (Isaiah 35:4)
“‘Alas! for that day is great, There is none like it; And it is the time of Jacob’s distress,
But he will be saved from it.” (Jeremiah 30:7)
To clarify, you decided to open up a discussion on Matthew 24:12-13.
If you have contextual evidence that Jesus intended to convey a soteriological meaning/that this salvation is from hell, rather than from the events of this passage, please inform us.
Concerning those who took the Word of God out of context, yes (2 Pet 3:16; Jam 3:1). The length of an explanation does not increase its legitimacy. So whether it's a syllogism, sermon, or thesis, every conclusion should be consistent within its own context. To be clear, my aim is not to disregard the position you are arguing for. Rather, I am defending the text you are using to justify it. I happen to disagree with the position, but the purpose of my responses is aimed at the meaning of what Jesus said in Matthew 24:12-13. So I hope you don't see my response as an argument against your soteriological position. I'm merely pointing out that you should use a passage that actually is about the subject you are bringing up.You do realize that entire Doctoral Theses have been written on the analysis of just a single verse, right? Are you going to overthrow a history of theological practice by claiming they, too, had an ax to grind?
Yeah...I kind of already addressed this in sharing a few references to the future events Jesus is telling them about. I even provided verses that emphasize the salvation aspect. This does not refer to a personal self-effort at endurance that results in one’s eternal salvation, but to physical deliverance of those who trust in Jesus during the Tribulation. They will enter the kingdom in physical bodies.And, again, how much time did Jesus spend talking about Spiritual salvation and Physical Salvation? The answer is 3 1/2 years to ZERO. He told the church of Smyrna to be faithful to death, and get a crown of life. But, somehow you think He's talking about "physical, bodily" salvation in Matthew 24
Never said it was a problem. Jesus is making a statement of fact: "people's love will grow cold...the one who endures to the end will be delivered".it's not the body that is a problem for Jesus
Any man that can't say with utmost certainty that we're not now nor ever will be at liberty to worship the devil in place of God is not one with whom I wish to discuss anything theologically. Thanks for sharing.The short answer is neither.
Y'know, the thing about you OSAS folks is that you're experts at noncommital. You won't condemn Historicism but the Jesuits ain't wrong, either. We aren't at liberty to break the Ten Commandments but we aren't obligated to keep them. No prob, it's a free country.I'm not going to respond to any more of your leading questions.
Where in the world did you get that idea? It's you OSAS folks that complain God's Ten Commandments are too grievous, which is what the old man of sin would say, not the new man in Christ Jesus...wrong ...we are new creatures, reborn, fashioned in Christ's image ... you believe in trying to tame the old creature with laws
You believe in showing faith without works, which is dead faith: you believe faith is demonstrated by boldly sinning and then obnoxiously insisting God's grace will cover it...which faith is in vain, just like that OSAS woman my dad once spoke with not long after the 1997 Halle-Bopp comet event:OSAS does not believe that
I do not need to be mad at you. I actually feel sorry for you. Because your pride is so deep you can not figure out your mistake.. And you will not repent of your continuous slander against me and those like me who you continue to bear false witness against.
Basically. You hurt your own testimony every time you do it. so yeah. I feel sorry for you
No it isn't. To advocate OSAS is to deny our God-given free will choice to surrender to God and then remain surrendered or withdraw it.To go counter OSAS is to deny the power of the Holy Spirit of God for He holds together those who are in the body of Christ.
Says the one who keeps asking about whether the "many" are saved or not, when the answer to that question is so plain in the OP, a blind man can see it.In case you are not already doing this, please read my entire responses before responding to just part of it. I noticed that you haven't responded to the Scriptural defense against your personal interpretation of the passage:
Claiming a verse is taken out of context or tortured for the purpose of establishing an unBiblical conclusion doesn't make it's so. People claim the Earth is flat, too.Concerning those who took the Word of God out of context, yes (2 Pet 3:16; Jam 3:1). The length of an explanation does not increase its legitimacy.
And I already told you that Jesus spent 3 1/2 years preaching spiritual salvation, 3 1/2 years telling us not to worry what man may do to us, and ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, NOT talking about physical salvation. The "many" are Saints who are going to fail to endure to the end and be lost, in Jesus' contrast to those who will be saved, and anyone not deluded with OSAS readily recognizes the contrast Jesus is making.Yeah...I kind of already addressed this in sharing a few references to the future events Jesus is telling them about. I even provided verses that emphasize the salvation aspect. This does not refer to a personal self-effort at endurance that results in one’s eternal salvation, but to physical deliverance of those who trust in Jesus during the Tribulation. They will enter the kingdom in physical bodies.
My goodness, you truly are a well-indoctrinated Jesuit Futurist who knows nothing of the Protestant Reformation, nothing of Protestant Historicism, and has no idea that for over 300 years, the Protestant church taught EXCLUSIVELY against Jesuit Futurism and Jesuit Preterism until just over 100 years ago, when Jesuit Futurism began to infect the non-Catholic world.The end of what?: "the end of the age' (Matt 24:3) which consummates in the Tribulation (AKA the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy, which is why we are told to understand Daniel's prophesies concerning these things...so that we don't twist the meaning of this passage (Matt 24:15-16).
Let me put it this way: I'm a Saint who plans to "endure to the end" and be saved (Matthew 24:12-13 KJV), unlike the Saints of Matthew 24:12 KJV who allow iniquity to kill their agape cold and dead, leaving them unable to endure to the end, and wind up lost.@Phoneman-777 Are you saved?
Much of this is very off-topic. Can we just stick to the Bible?Says the one who keeps asking about whether the "many" are saved or not, when the answer to that question is so plain in the OP, a blind man can see it.
Claiming a verse is taken out of context or tortured for the purpose of establishing an unBiblical conclusion doesn't make it's so. People claim the Earth is flat, too.
And I already told you that Jesus spent 3 1/2 years preaching spiritual salvation, 3 1/2 years telling us not to worry what man may do to us, and ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, NOT talking about physical salvation. The "many" are Saints who are going to fail to endure to the end and be lost, in Jesus' contrast to those who will be saved, and anyone not deluded with OSAS readily recognizes the contrast Jesus is making.
My goodness, you truly are a well-indoctrinated Jesuit Futurist who knows nothing of the Protestant Reformation, nothing of Protestant Historicism, and has no idea that for over 300 years, the Protestant church taught EXCLUSIVELY against Jesuit Futurism and Jesuit Preterism until just over 100 years ago, when Jesuit Futurism began to infect the non-Catholic world.
Try this: Come back from your NOON 1 hour lunch break at 3:00 PM, and when your boss angrily demands to know where you were for the last two hours, tell him you were only gone for the 1 hour, but that there was a "2 hour gap" between 12:59 and 1:00 PM. That's exactly the redonkulous argument Jesuit "Left Behind" Futurists make when they argue a 490 year prophecy is actually "483 years plus 2 thousand+ years and counting..."