Earning Knowledge of God / Eternal Life

[GracePeace]

Well intentioned persons have caused much havoc in our world....now and in the past.

Intentions don't really matter....
FACTS MATTER.

When a person has good intentions, but brings persons AWAY from what Jesus taught...
the intentions lose all importance.

But the whole issue was you said he had bad intentions-if you're now saying you don't think that anymore, then good.

What IS important is bringing persons to Jesus...
supporting what HE taught and not some idea that came about AFTER the reformation (and a long time after the reformation).

The truth has been available from the beginning....
starting with Jesus, The Apostles, and those they taught.

Any other idea/concept/doctrine, etc. must be evaluated VERY CAREFULLY because the chances are that they are false.

Yeah, I agree with you that OSAS is inaccurate, but I don't think God requires 100% accuracy for people to know Him or to lead people to Him. Peter, himself, for years after the resurrection, believed he had to keep the dietary law, and thought only Jews could be saved--later, he had a vision that corrected his incorrect beliefs, but God had not left him the whole time his beliefs were inaccurate and he was sincerely trying his best before God.

 

[GodsGrace]

But the whole issue was you said he had bad intentions-if you're now saying you don't think that anymore, then good.

This is what I said in post 192:
And your motives are not good.

I DID NOT say his intentions were bad.
I'm sure he has good intentions, although, as I stated, good intentions won't get you a degree...only studying will.

I replied to this and explained what I meant in my post no. 204

Yeah, I agree with you that OSAS is inaccurate, but I don't think God requires 100% accuracy for people to know Him or to lead people to Him. Peter, himself, for years after the resurrection, believed he had to keep the dietary law, and thought only Jews could be saved--later, he had a vision that corrected his incorrect beliefs, but God had not left him the whole time his beliefs were inaccurate and he was sincerely trying his best before God.

Accuracy is one thing.
Incorrect doctrine, especially doctrine that could lead one astray, is different.
What if I came on these forums and stated that Jesus did not resurrect?
Would that be OK?

As to Peter...he was trying to still follow The Law.
It must have been difficult for some to leave the Law which they had grown up with and studied for an entire lifetime.
See Hebrews 6:4....many wanted to return to The Law for fear that they were making a mistake by follow Jesus.

 

[GracePeace]

This is what I said in post 192:
And your motives are not good.

I DID NOT say his intentions were bad.
I'm sure he has good intentions, although, as I stated, good intentions won't get you a degree...only studying will.

I replied to this and explained what I meant in my post no. 204

Motives and intentions are basically synonymous--his motive is what is driving him, and his intentions concern the outcome of his motives and work toward those ends.

Accuracy is one thing.
Incorrect doctrine, especially doctrine that could lead one astray, is different.
What if I came on these forums and stated that Jesus did not resurrect?
Would that be OK?

For "led astray" to be a substantive danger, it has to be "astray from the Lord", but, again, Peter was not "astray" ("away from the Lord") when he was in error, not understanding the Gospel. I believe people who hold to OSAS actually are with the Lord, so even if I disagree with OSAS, I do not think it is a "damnable heresy".

As to Peter...he was trying to still follow The Law.
It must have been difficult for some to leave the Law which they had grown up with and studied for an entire lifetime.
See Hebrews 6:4....many wanted to return to The Law for fear that they were making a mistake by follow Jesus.

He didn't understand the Gospel--he harbored inaccurate views, and promulgated those views in the Church.

 

[GodsGrace]

Motives and intentions are basically synonymous--his motive is what is driving him, and his intentions concern the outcome of his motives and work toward those ends.

What are the ends? This is the question.
Is it to convince persons that they will be saved no matter what?
Is this what the NT teaches....
or are there many ifs, caveats, and conditions to this life Jesus gives us?
Did Jesus say that we are to dwell with Him and He with us?
Or did He say we don't have to dwell with Him and we'll still be saved?

Seem to me that this is an important issue and the incorrect answer could harm many persons.

For "led astray" to be a substantive danger, it has to be "astray from the Lord", but, again, Peter was not "astray" ("away from the Lord") when he was in error, not understanding the Gospel. I believe people who hold to OSAS actually are with the Lord, so even if I disagree with OSAS, I do not think it is a "damnable heresy".

Why are we discussing Peter?
I'm discussing believers of today that can be LED ASTRAY from GOD by believing that they will be saved no matter how they live their life.

Persons that believe in OSAS are probably with the Lord.
I never said otherwise.

Let's try again:
Stating that a person could never lose their salvation is NOT what the NT teaches.
It is a dangerous teaching that could lead some astray by not living a life that Jesus said was NECESSARY to live in order to get into heaven with Him. Paul taught the same...no difference.

Are you saying that Peter did not understand the gospel?
You do realize that the letter from Peter was added to the NT by the spirit of the God because it contributed to the understanding to the teachings left by Jesus...with whom Peter had spent over 3 years and learned from Him....

Also , I NEVER said OSAS is a damnable heresy.
I said IT'S A HERESY.

Damnable is rather strong language and I don't even believe it IS damnable.
We should be careful with our language and I wish you wouldn't repeat back to me statements I didn't make.

He didn't understand the Gospel--he harbored inaccurate views, and promulgated those views in the Church.

Are you talking about Peter again?
Responded to above.
Peter was taught by Jesus.
I think we should pay close attention to everyone that was taught by Jesus.
Like...what wrong views are you saying Peter promulgated?

 

[GracePeace]

What are the ends? This is the question.

In his mind, it is to lead people to trust God.

Is it to convince persons that they will be saved no matter what?
Is this what the NT teaches....

Well, that's the whole discussion, so you can't, as part of the discussion, accuse someone of having bad motives or intentions, and then cite their position as proof of your accusation :
a. It's sort of circular reasoning. You know he denies the Bible teaches your view, so you can't "respond" to his arguments saying, "His motives are bad. Want proof? He holds the view I am arguing against!" Don't comment on his motives. It doesn't prove anything about his view.
b. it's not proper to join a discussion where you know you won't be agreed with, and proceed to accuse others of having bad motives for disagreeing with you.

or are there many ifs, caveats, and conditions to this life Jesus gives us?
Did Jesus say that we are to dwell with Him and He with us?
Or did He say we don't have to dwell with Him and we'll still be saved?

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir.

Seem to me that this is an important issue and the incorrect answer could harm many persons.

Well, I've seen a lot of OSAS people who have grace, so how can I say they're not with the Lord?

Why are we discussing Peter?

Because the Bible teaches us about Christianity--in Peter's life, we are taught principle that I believe applies here.

I'm discussing believers of today that can be LED ASTRAY from GOD by believing that they will be saved no matter how they live their life.

They don't believe in sinning, they believe in trusting God to sanctify them.

Persons that believe in OSAS are probably with the Lord.
I never said otherwise.

OK then... in what substantive way are they guilty of leading people astray? How many inaccurate views do you think you hold? As for myself, I am aware of many inconsistencies in my views.

Are you saying that Peter did not understand the gospel?
You do realize that the letter from Peter was added to the NT by the spirit of the God because it contributed to the understanding to the teachings left by Jesus...with whom Peter had spent over 3 years and learned from Him....

Yes, early on, he didn't understand the Gospel--Acts admits as much!

Also , I NEVER said OSAS is a damnable heresy.
I said IT'S A HERESY.

Well, if it isn't damnable then just make arguments against it, quit accusing people who hold OSAS of leading people astray from the Lord.

Peter was taught by Jesus.
I think we should pay close attention to everyone that was taught by Jesus.
Like...what wrong views are you saying Peter promulgated?

He taught God still obligated Jews to serve by means of the Law, and that only Jews could be saved.

 

[GodsGrace]

In his mind, it is to lead people to trust God.

Doesn't every Christian trust God?

Well, that's the whole discussion, so you can't, as part of the discussion, accuse someone of having bad motives or intentions, and then cite their position as proof of your accusation :
a. It's sort of circular reasoning. You know he denies the Bible teaches your view, so you can't "respond" to his arguments saying, "His motives are bad. Want proof? He holds the view I am arguing against!" Don't comment on his motives. It doesn't prove anything about his view.
b. it's not proper to join a discussion where you know you won't be agreed with, and proceed to accuse others of having bad motives for disagreeing with you.

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir.

Well, I've seen a lot of OSAS people who have grace, so how can I say they're not with the Lord?

You're not understanding me.
Listen carefully.

I NEVER said that a person that believes OSAS is not in right standing with our Lord.

This is what I said:
It could lead a new Christian, or even an older one, to begin to live a life of sin that would, indeed, remove him from dwelling with the Holy Spirit.

Because the Bible teaches us about Christianity--in Peter's life, we are taught principle that I believe applies here.

I'm not sure what this means.
I read the entire NT and it gives me ONE MESSAGE.
I cannot distinguish any difference between what Jesus taught, what Paul taught, what Peter taught or anyone else.

They don't believe in sinning, they believe in trusting God to sanctify them.

How do YOU know they don't believe in sinning?
This is one of the reasons some believe in OSAS....it makes them feel safe even when they're sinning.
And trusting in God to sanctify them?
Good luck.
I'm not posting any verse.
God works in us to strengthen us for sanctification.
WE take the action.

OK then... in what substantive way are they guilty of leading people astray? How many inaccurate views do you think you hold? As for myself, I am aware of many inconsistencies in my views.

I don't have inconsistencies.
The NT has no conflicts for me or those that believe as I do...
IOW,,,those that UNDERSTAND the NT.

Yes, early on, he didn't understand the Gospel--Acts admits as much!

PETER didn't understand the gospel?
What did he get wrong??
Maybe his letter should be removed from the NT?
Makes one wonder why it's even there in the first place.
Those crazy early Christians that compiled the NT didn't notice this??!

Well, if it isn't damnable then just make arguments against it, quit accusing people who hold OSAS of leading people astray from the Lord.

Here it is again GP....and then I'm not responding to this anymore...

PERSONS THAT TEACH OSAS ARE LEADING PEOPLE ASTRAY.

And I'd like to post one verse here:
James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers brethren,
knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgement.

He taught God still obligated Jews to serve by means of the Law, and that only Jews could be saved.

Whoa!
OK
That's it for me.

You may never see me on here again....

 

[GracePeace]

Doesn't every Christian trust God?

To varying degrees, yes--based on His Word.
In Marks's mind, he is wanting people to trust God in a particular sense, based on what He thinks God's Word is on this matter. Why can't you accept that? Or can you?

You're not understanding me.
Listen carefully.

I NEVER said that a person that believes OSAS is not in right standing with our Lord.

This is what I said:
It could lead a new Christian, or even an older one, to begin to live a life of sin that would, indeed, remove him from dwelling with the Holy Spirit.

Such a thing could be the case... and I've also been to the local Church of the Nazarene (Synergistic, not Monergistic), and they had no grace, so one could argue the same peril of sinfulness--in cutting oneself off from, or minimizing one's access to, sanctifying grace--could occur under the Synergist view.

I'm not sure what this means.
I read the entire NT and it gives me ONE MESSAGE.
I cannot distinguish any difference between what Jesus taught, what Paul taught, what Peter taught or anyone else.

I already explained it.
I invite you, now--instead of me endlessly repeating myself to a person who may or may not want to know what I have to say on the matter--go ahead and explain to me what I've already explained in my previous replies to you on the matter.

How do YOU know they don't believe in sinning?
This is one of the reasons some believe in OSAS....it makes them feel safe even when they're sinning.

Because this is what they constantly say?

And trusting in God to sanctify them?
Good luck.

1 Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you...

I'm not posting any verse.
God works in us to strengthen us for sanctification.
WE take the action.

Who said they don't believe they take any action?

C.H. Spurgeon, an exponent of OSAS, taught (para) "Pray like it all depends on God, and then go like it all depends on you."

Are you acquainted with the view you are addressing before you address it? Proverbs 18:13 would suggest it would be wise to do so.

I don't have inconsistencies.

Lol Well, I wish I was like that!

The NT has no conflicts for me or those that believe as I do...

Sure!

PETER didn't understand the gospel?
What did he get wrong??

I'll wait for you to acknowledge what I already wrote as the reason I said what I said.

Maybe his letter should be removed from the NT?
Makes one wonder why it's even there in the first place.
Those crazy early Christians that compiled the NT didn't notice this??!

Oops, that wasn't what I meant or said--explain why that isn't the case. I'm not repeating myself endlessly. If you can't be bothered to read what I've said, then I can't be bothered to repeat myself.

Here it is again GP....and then I'm not responding to this anymore...

PERSONS THAT TEACH OSAS ARE LEADING PEOPLE ASTRAY.

Already responded.

And I'd like to post one verse here:
James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers brethren,
knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgement.

Yup.

Whoa!
OK
That's it for me.

You may never see me on here again....

Lol Is this even controversial?

When he had the vision, and God told him to eat non-kosher foods, what was his response? "No, I have never eaten anything but kosher food."
So... we know what his practice had been up until then, so why should we think he just kept that private, and never discussed it with anyone in the (until then) exclusively Jewish Church?
His brothers came after he ate with Cornelius, and accused him of sinning by eating non-kosher food--obviously, they were all thinking they were obligated to serve God by the Law. Do you think they never conversed about the matter in the Church, but just privately held these views? No, obviously not--they're literally discussing it right there in Acts!
What was Peter's defense for eating non-kosher food? "God showed me my view was inaccurate, so I followed what God showed me. And the proof I wasn't wrong to do so was that God poured out His Spirit on the Gentiles as a result--God is actually saving non-Jews!"
So, in addition to not understanding he wasn't obligated to serve by the Law, he also didn't understand that Gentiles could be saved.
This event took place YEARS after Christ resurrected! For YEARS the Holy Spirit didn't correct him. The Spirit leads us into all the truth AT HIS PACE, not ours.
Had he understood the Gospel, he wouldn't have had to have been given a vision correcting his ignorance.

And Romans 14 permits all of this.

This is not a controversial matter.

 

[GodsGrace]

To varying degrees, yes--based on His Word.
In Marks's mind, he is wanting people to trust God in a particular sense, based on what He thinks God's Word is on this matter. Why can't you accept that? Or can you?

Such a thing could be the case... and I've also been to the local Church of the Nazarene (Synergistic, not Monergistic), and they had no grace, so one could argue the same peril of sinfulness--in cutting oneself off from, or minimizing one's access to, sanctifying grace--could occur under the Synergist view.

I already explained it.
I invite you, now--instead of me endlessly repeating myself to a person who may or may not want to know what I have to say on the matter--go ahead and explain to me what I've already explained in my previous replies to you on the matter.

Because this is what they constantly say?

1 Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you...

Who said they don't believe they take any action?

C.H. Spurgeon, an exponent of OSAS, taught (para) "Pray like it all depends on God, and then go like it all depends on you."

Are you acquainted with the view you are addressing before you address it? Proverbs 18:13 would suggest it would be wise to do so.

Lol Well, I wish I was like that!

Sure!

I'll wait for you to acknowledge what I already wrote as the reason I said what I said.

Oops, that wasn't what I meant or said--explain why that isn't the case. I'm not repeating myself endlessly. If you can't be bothered to read what I've said, then I can't be bothered to repeat myself.

Already responded.

Yup.

Lol Is this even controversial?

When he had the vision, and God told him to eat non-kosher foods, what was his response? "No, I have never eaten anything but kosher food."
So... we know what his practice had been up until then, so why should we think he just kept that private, and never discussed it with anyone in the (until then) exclusively Jewish Church?
His brothers came after he ate with Cornelius, and accused him of sinning by eating non-kosher food--obviously, they were all thinking they were obligated to serve God by the Law. Do you think they never conversed about the matter in the Church, but just privately held these views? No, obviously not--they're literally discussing it right there in Acts!
What was Peter's defense for eating non-kosher food? "God showed me my view was inaccurate, so I followed what God showed me. And the proof I wasn't wrong to do so was that God poured out His Spirit on the Gentiles as a result--God is actually saving non-Jews!"
So, in addition to not understanding he wasn't obligated to serve by the Law, he also didn't understand that Gentiles could be saved.
This event took place YEARS after Christ resurrected! For YEARS the Holy Spirit didn't correct him. The Spirit leads us into all the truth AT HIS PACE, not ours.
Had he understood the Gospel, he wouldn't have had to have been given a vision correcting his ignorance.

And Romans 14 permits all of this.

This is not a controversial matter.

I read all of the above GP.
NO. I cannot accept incorrect doctrine.

I'd like to wish you a joyous Christmas.
May God bless you always.
GG

 

[GracePeace]

I read all of the above GP.
NO. I cannot accept incorrect doctrine.

I'd like to wish you a joyous Christmas.
May God bless you always.
GG

Who said you should accept incorrect doctrine? Or do I accept it? No, this is a place of discussion where people disagree, and share their reasons for why they disagree.

 

[GodsGrace]

Who said you should accept incorrect doctrine? Or do I accept it? No, this is a place of discussion where people disagree, and share their reasons for why they disagree.

GP
I used to be on a Forum where the above was possible.
That was a few years ago.
These forums have become rather contentious and I find that they are not edifying at all.
I come here for fellowship due to where I live...
I don't really like arguing and I find that sometimes I get so frustrated at having to discuss whether or not water is wet,,,
that I get kind of snarky. This is not befitting my nature and it makes me feel uncomfortable.
We have persons on these threads that do not believe Jesus is God and yet they call themselves Christian.
I think I've had enough for a while...
and,,,I will NEVER accept incorrect doctrine.
GG

 

[GracePeace]

I don't really like arguing and I find that sometimes I get so frustrated at having to discuss whether or not water is wet,,,

Lol!

We have persons on these threads that do not believe Jesus is God and yet they call themselves Christian.

I have had serious questions about it myself! Aren't we allowed to be open to respecting the text, and going wherever truth leads us? (I'm leaning heavily toward Jesus being God, though I still have questions.)

I think I've had enough for a while...
and,,,I will NEVER accept incorrect doctrine.
GG

You SHOULDN'T accept what you consider to be incorrect doctrine!

 

[GodsGrace]

Lol!

I have had serious questions about it myself! Aren't we allowed to be open to respecting the text, and going wherever truth leads us? (I'm leaning heavily toward Jesus being God, though I still have questions.)

You SHOULDN'T accept what you consider to be incorrect doctrine!

How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

I already did. You think posting the title of a book proves something or other? Let's see: Maybe you posted a book by someone that agrees with you? What does that prove? As I've stated.... POST SOMETHING HISTORICAL FROM THE EARLY CHURCH. HISTORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH. Let me repeat: ARIANISM...

www.christianityboard.com

Hope this takes you to my post. It's at the end of the thread. It's what the early church believed about Jesus. Some of these men were taught by the Apostles.

 

[GracePeace]

How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

I already did. You think posting the title of a book proves something or other? Let's see: Maybe you posted a book by someone that agrees with you? What does that prove? As I've stated.... POST SOMETHING HISTORICAL FROM THE EARLY CHURCH. HISTORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH. Let me repeat: ARIANISM...

www.christianityboard.com

Hope this takes you to my post. It's at the end of the thread. It's what the early church believed about Jesus. Some of these men were taught by the Apostles.

Thanks.

i generally prefer to go straight to the text, and wrestle with the texts--if they wrestle with the texts (not just give one-sided analyses, but address why people have questions, and give real solutions).

 

[Johann]

Thanks.

i generally prefer to go straight to the text, and wrestle with the texts--if they wrestle with the texts (not just give one-sided analyses, but address why people have questions, and give real solutions).

The best way-

J.

 

[Johann]

PERSONS THAT TEACH OSAS ARE LEADING PEOPLE ASTRAY.

And I'd like to post one verse here:

Incorrect--too many Perfect Tenses that verify OSAS is CORRECT!

J.

 

[GodsGrace]

Incorrect--too many Perfect Tenses that verify OSAS is CORRECT!

J.

Yeah.
Tenses.
That's the ticket.

Have a happy Christmas.

 

[Johann]

Yeah.
Tenses.
That's the ticket.

Have a happy Christmas.

It's there-many don't see it @GodsGrace

John 5:24
"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment but has passed (μεταβέβηκεν, perfect tense) from death to life."

This verse highlights a completed transition from spiritual death to life, with ongoing implications of eternal security.

John 10:28
"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."

The verb "give" (δέδωκα, perfect tense in some manuscripts) emphasizes a completed act of granting eternal life with perpetual security.

Romans 5:1
"Therefore, since we have been justified (δεδικαιωμένοι, perfect tense) by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Justification is described as a finished act with ongoing effects of peace and reconciliation with God.

Romans 8:1
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

The state of being "in Christ" implies a completed and secure position, supported by perfect tense theology elsewhere in the chapter.

Romans 8:30
"And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (ἐδόξασεν, aorist but implying completed and secured action)."

Though technically aorist, the chain of salvation is often read as unbreakable, aligning with eternal security.

1 Corinthians 6:11
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified (ἡγιασμένοι, perfect tense), you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Sanctification is presented as a completed act with continuing spiritual consequences.

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace you have been saved (σεσῳσμένοι, perfect tense) through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God."

Salvation is described as a completed event, entirely a work of God's grace, with present and eternal results.

Colossians 2:13
"And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven (χαρισάμενος, perfect participle) us all our trespasses."

The forgiveness granted is completed and remains effective perpetually.

Hebrews 10:14
"For by a single offering he has perfected (τετελείωκεν, perfect tense) for all time those who are being sanctified."

Christ's offering is said to have eternally perfected believers, ensuring their unchanging status before God.

1 John 5:13
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life."
The assurance of eternal life rests on the certainty of present possession, showing its permanency.

The perfect tense is a grammatical term used to describe actions or states that have been completed in the past but have continuing relevance or effect in the present. It focuses on the result or impact of a completed action rather than the action itself.

Key Features of the Perfect Tense:
Completed Action: It indicates that an action has been finished or fully accomplished.
Ongoing Relevance: The results or consequences of that action are still significant or relevant at the time of speaking.
Temporal Connection: The perfect tense links past events to the present situation.
In Biblical Greek:
In Koine Greek, the perfect tense functions similarly:

It emphasizes completed action with continuing effects.
The perfect tense in Greek is often formed with a reduplicated prefix, a specific set of endings, and auxiliary verbs (depending on context).
Example:

Tetelestai (τετέλεσται) from John 19:30, translated as "It is finished," is in the perfect tense. It means the action (Jesus' redemptive work) was completed in the past but remains effective perpetually.
In English:
The present perfect tense is most commonly used to express perfect action in English, formed with "has" or "have" plus the past participle of a verb.

Examples:

"He has saved us."
"I have believed."
These sentences suggest that the actions of "saving" or "believing" occurred in the past but their effects are ongoing.


Now it's your turn-and a blessed Christmas to you and family.

J.

 

[GodsGrace]

It's there-many don't see it @GodsGrace

John 5:24
"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment but has passed (μεταβέβηκεν, perfect tense) from death to life."

This verse highlights a completed transition from spiritual death to life, with ongoing implications of eternal security.

John 10:28
"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."

The verb "give" (δέδωκα, perfect tense in some manuscripts) emphasizes a completed act of granting eternal life with perpetual security.

Romans 5:1
"Therefore, since we have been justified (δεδικαιωμένοι, perfect tense) by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Justification is described as a finished act with ongoing effects of peace and reconciliation with God.

Romans 8:1
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

The state of being "in Christ" implies a completed and secure position, supported by perfect tense theology elsewhere in the chapter.

Romans 8:30
"And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (ἐδόξασεν, aorist but implying completed and secured action)."

Though technically aorist, the chain of salvation is often read as unbreakable, aligning with eternal security.

1 Corinthians 6:11
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified (ἡγιασμένοι, perfect tense), you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Sanctification is presented as a completed act with continuing spiritual consequences.

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace you have been saved (σεσῳσμένοι, perfect tense) through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God."

Salvation is described as a completed event, entirely a work of God's grace, with present and eternal results.

Colossians 2:13
"And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven (χαρισάμενος, perfect participle) us all our trespasses."

The forgiveness granted is completed and remains effective perpetually.

Hebrews 10:14
"For by a single offering he has perfected (τετελείωκεν, perfect tense) for all time those who are being sanctified."

Christ's offering is said to have eternally perfected believers, ensuring their unchanging status before God.

1 John 5:13
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life."
The assurance of eternal life rests on the certainty of present possession, underscoring its permanency.

Now it's your turn-and a blessed Christmas to you and family.

J.

Yeah.
I know all of the above very well J.
I've explained all of them 100X.
Tired if it.
Notice that each says BELIEVE in the PRESENT tense. Seems like you understand tenses.

Let me ask you this....
You know those people that the Apostles taught what Jesus taught them?
What did THEY believe?
Find out.

 

[Johann]

Yeah.
I know all of the above very well J.
I've explained all of them 100X.
Tired if it.
Notice that each says BELIEVE in the PRESENT tense. Seems like you understand tenses.

Let me ask you this....
You know those people that the Apostles taught what Jesus taught them?
What did THEY believe?
Find out.

Which proves my point, the biblical one.
The ECF's are not my ultimate source of authority-the Bible is.

Shalom.

J.

 

[GodsGrace]

Which proves my point, the biblical one.
The ECF's are not my ultimate source of authority-the Bible is.

Shalom.

J.

Right.
That's why we have all different opinions.
Don't we all read the same Bible?
So where's the authority?

Read the ECFs.
Learn the truth from those who know.
Shalom.
And Bye.