If they agree with me, they agree with the Bible.Pelagianism would agree with you as well.
So, what's wrong with Arminianism and Calvinism? Why don't they believe the Bible?
If they agree with me, they agree with the Bible.Pelagianism would agree with you as well.
Exactly right: the words are Jesus are clear and they simply mean what they say.
OK. One question. You said "and He gives to them eternal life". Where did you find the plural of "give" in v.28?John 10:27,28: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
The sheep hear Jesus' voice, He knows them, and they are following Him. And he gives to them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no man can take them out of God's hand . . .
Very wonderful promise to all who are His sheep! PTL!
OK. One question. You said "and He gives to them eternal life". Where did you find the plural of "give" in v.28?
Jesus actually said, "I GIVE them eternal life".
So, the question: WHEN does Jesus GIVE the gift of eternal life to believers? And what verse says so?
Thanks.
OK. One question. You said "and He gives to them eternal life". Where did you find the plural of "give" in v.28?
Jesus actually said, "I GIVE them eternal life".
So, the question: WHEN does Jesus GIVE the gift of eternal life to believers? And what verse says so?
Thanks.
Then why did he say "Jesus GIVES"?? Kinda sounded like an on-going action.I'm not speaking on behalf of Chester but the grammatical context was clear enough, well for me anyhow.
Chester was talking in the 3rd person, explaining what Jesus said in the 1st person.
The plural form of give is believe it or not 'give' .
No it's not. Eternal life is a gift, per Rom 6:23. Is that so hard to define? A gift??LOL! The issue is not over "give" or "gives': the issue is over how you define "eternal life".
OK, so you aren't able to explain yourself. Whatever.Good-bye! I will let you to your theologies and doctrines . . .
Then why did he say "Jesus GIVES"?? Kinda sounded like an on-going action.
Of course!
Eph 2:8 is clear: we are saved by GRACE, through faith. Sad that so many people want to add works to the equation.
Eph 2:8 is obviously about Jesus.
Here's the issue. There are NO verses that include anything OTHER THAN faith. So it is alone. And it's all GRACE.
What I said is supported by Scripture.
Rom 8-
38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,
39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The blue words clearly indicate that there is NOTHING in the future that can result in being separated from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus.
You are assuming that ceasing to believe results in ceasing to be saved. What Scripture says that? None whatsoever.
Instead we have these verses:
John 3:18 - Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
2 Thess 2:12 - and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
These 2 verses are clear. Condemnation (lake of fire) is for those who "have not believed", meaning NEVER believed.
If a person dies without having ever believed in Christ, they ARE condemned.
Those who HAVE believed in Christ will NEVER be condemned.
What does eternal security have to do with free choice??
You call eternal security a "man-made doctrine". You are only half right.
Jesus said this: "I give them (believers) eternal life and they SHALL NEVER PERISH." John 10:28
But your comments reveal that you do not believe this at all.
Jesus is truly human. And He is also truly God.
You should believe what Jesus said. When He gives eternal life, the recipient shall never perish.
So, when does He give the gift of eternal life?
John 5:24 - “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
The word "has" shows that from the moment of believing in Christ, the believer HAS eternal life.
So Jesus' promise in John 10:28 is from the moment of believing.
Yes, there are 3 tenses regarding salvation.Because it is a fact 'Jesus gives eternal life'
Salvation itself is an ongoing reality for the believer. We have been saved, we are being saved and will be saved.
There is no tension in the Bible. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the Bible.It's part of that 'already, not yet' tension we read in the NT. Here is an example:
We have already been redeemed - Ephesians 1:7
But not yet - Ephesians 4:30
Yes, there are 3 tenses regarding salvation.
We HAVE BEEN saved from the Penalty of sin. Our justification
We ARE BEING saved from the Power of sin. Our sanctification
We WILL BE saved from the Presence of sin. Our glorification
There is no tension in the Bible. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the Bible.
All so-called tensions simply fail to understand the 3 tenses of salvation. That's all.![]()
How is that? I was pointing out the present tense for both 'believe' and 'has'. Essentially, a believing person possesses eternal life.I am going to comment on this part of your post:
You said:
John 5:24 - “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
The word "has" shows that from the moment of believing in Christ, the believer HAS eternal life.
Your conclusion here does not even have good grammatical sense.
It doesn't say that at all. Yes, John used participles (he sure liked them). But the usual English translations mean the same thing.Shall we break this verse down rather than just making it say what you want it to say. The verb tenses defined:
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that is hearing (Present Active Participle) my word, and is believing (Present Active Participle) him that sent (Aorist Active Participle) me, is having (Present Active Indicative) eternal life, and comes not (Present Indicative) into judgment, but has passed out (Perfect Active Indicative) of death into life.
So this verse is saying: Because one has passed out of death into life, that one can hear the Word and believe and is in possession of eternal life.
Nope. It should be obvious that John wasn't referring to believing relative to his own present tense, but to those who believe, do so in their own present tense. So, whenever a person believes, it is the present tense WHEN they believe. That's all.Because the Perfect tense verb was used in that ones "passing from death into life". Since the "Perfect tense" magnifies past action with continuing results, the one now hearing and believing, somewhere in the past, was granted eternal life and with the Perfect tense, was not only granted this life in the past but guarantees that they will continue in the state of being "passed out of" until the end of time. No greater verb tense, is used by the writers, than the Perfect tense.
Doesn't matter. No one can perform an action in the past tense. When one does perform an action, it is in the present when they do it.There is no way of knowing for certain, how far back in the past this verb takes us.
Impossible. We didn't exist back then. Jesus was talking about WHEN one believes is when all the actions in the verse take place.It may take us all the way back to eternity
Nope. That is a Calvinist talking point.but I think it more reasonable, to assume it goes back to the "New Birth" All believers know, that the "new Birth" must take place first, in order to change ones "nature" from darkness and enmity with God, to light and love for God.
Hopefully Eph 2:5 and 8 will show you the truth.Those who teach or who believe that the "New Birth" takes place upon believing, are sadly and grievously misinformed or mistaken.
That is simply not true. Just another Calvinist talking point.A person will not choose to believe something, that is opposed to his/her very nature.
Nope. If this were true, why did God reveal Himself through creation to mankind so that no one has any excuse, and why did God create mankind with a conscience, with which to understand right from wrong??If ones old nature is "darkness" (John 3:19, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 6:14, Eph. 5:8, Col. 1:13), it will not choose "light", the complete opposite of that nature and it is totally unreasonable and illogical to believe it would. God must alter the fallen nature in order for one to desire to come to the light.
Why would anyone see tention in that? There are temporal and eternal benefits. There is no tension.I think you fail to understand the point. This might help.
"Already, but not yet" describes the tension between the benefits of redemption already experienced in this life and those benefits which await us at the consummation.
Yes, temporal. In this life.Christians enjoy the "alreadyness" of the Atonement—remission of sins, adoption as children, the indwelling Holy Spirit, etc.
Again, no tension. This is the eternal.However, there is a sense in which we will not see these realities in totality until the last day (1 John 3:2), and so they always remain objects of faith.
And, no tension whatsoever. Unless one sees tension between the present and future tense. I don't.For instance, the believer already has eternal life (John 5:24), but he is not yet physically resurrected.
Being a new creature in this life (temporal) doens't mean sinlessness, so again, there is no tension.Likewise, the church is a fellowship of persons who are both new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) and still imperfect sinners.
Correct.We await our glorification and the destruction of our sinful natures in the last day.
The reality is that the Bible contains NO tension.When you read the above and then re read what I had already posted, it might help you to understand this reality from scripture.
In the here and now (temporal), we have our sin natures and will sin. But in eternity (future) we won't have a sin nature and will NOT sin.
Now, why would anyone see tension in this? There isn't any.
The scripture does not say "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and He shall put you on probation"eternal life = just that - it is eternal life
"eternal security" is a man-made statement of doctrine based on man's interpretation of Scripture
faith is a giftFreeGrace2 said:
The only proof possible would be Scripture stating this. And there isn't any. You want to claim God is the cause of man believing, but you have no proof. And you hide behind your very faulty understanding (misunderstanding, actually) of what free will even is.
Are you having a problem reading plain English?
Where do you think your comprehension problem stems from?
If you have a will to something but not the power to accomplish it then this will is not free but in bondage, which is what Paul teaches.There is no logic in your arguments.
And we howl at your total lack of understanding of what free will even is. You guys like to describe FW as having some kind of power to do things. Why can't you understand that free will means ONLY the freedom to choose? Why is that so hard to digest or accept?
You continue to misunderstand that man, both saved and unsaved, are free to make decisions.
Please answer this: if you aren't free to make decisions, who is making yours?
If you claim that you make your own decisions, please welcome free will to your life.
No, we are supposed to. We ought to. And that is a decision every believer makes.
Correct. And that is a decision. A choice. And it is a free choice. (free will)
Right. We OUGHT TO BE doing God's will. The very word "ought" proves a choice is involved.
So, if we don't have free will, we CAN'T make that choice.
There is no tension in the Bible.Yes I checked the dictionary years ago when I wrote an essay on this..well it was actually on the 'significance of the Kingdom of God in Jesus' teaching' and the Already, not yet tension was a part of that essay.
I don't need clearing up. Again, what's the tension in the NOW and the FUTURE? Nothing at all.But anyhow it would be best described like this which is a definition.
If we hold both things in tension with equal weight - that is already and not yet.
I hope that helps clear that up for you.
Where? Please be specific.If you have a will to something but not the power to accomplish it then this will is not free but in bondage, which is what Paul teaches.
Let's consider this NT "translation of Isa 6;9,10 from Acts 28The scripture says of some that God has closed their eyes lest they should see and stopped up their ears lest they should hear and hardened their hearts lest they at any time turn to Him and He heal them.
specifically Paul says we were in bondage to the elemental spirits and he says we were slaves to sin.Where? Please be specific.
It is ridiculous to claim to "refuse" to do something that you cannot do.
Let's consider this NT "translation of Isa 6;9,10 from Acts 28
26 “ ‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
27 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’
Bolded words are words of volition (choice). These people aren't listening and closed their eyes so they won't see.
Free will all over the place.
There is no tension in the Bible.
I don't need clearing up. Again, what's the tension in the NOW and the FUTURE? Nothing at all.
Well, you have admitted that in spite of the definition of tension, you continue to think of the Bible in those terms.
And you didn't choose which of the definitions you apply when referring to the so-called tension in the Bible.
I asked:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tension
: inner striving, unrest, or imbalance often with physiological indication of emotion
: a state of latent hostility or opposition between individuals or groups
: a balance maintained in an artistic work between opposing forces or elements
: the act or action of stretching or the condition or degree of being stretched to stiffness : TAUTNESS
Which of these definitions do you use to define the "tension" you see in the Bible?