The Eternal Security Heresy: A Comprehensive Refutation of OSAS

[Heyzeus]

The doctrine of the Trinity accepts that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.
.

Well then great .. I am all good in the hood then.

In declaring that Jesus is His Son He is also declaring that Jesus is Him (Isaiah 9:6).

Simply not true .. Jesus is divine yes .. but not "the Father" according to Scripture - one in spirit.

While that is on a negative, what Jesus said is more on the positive.esus' statement is superior to that of Shiva, Buddha, Confucius, and Hammurabi...for His statement actually takes it to a positive action rather than just not doing what you don't want to be done to you.

Not, "Don't do to other people what you don't want them to do to you..."

but..."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

It is the difference between not hitting someone in the face when you are angry and giving food to your enemies.

both aspects are important -but yes there is a distinction .. your claim that the others put more on negative vs positive is unsupported .. but it matters not because both are important .. God has expressed his Will in different ways throughout time. God does not just speak through the prophets .. the Universe is calling to you if you listen carefully .. trying to tell you something .. that is God's Spirit whispering in your ear.

Did you see how Ferris Fused Pauline Grace and Faith into the Jesus of Mark/Matt - you should move to this position and away from the Evil Dr. Martin Luther .. a very bad fellow indeed.

I keep telling you that you have God in a Box - don't worry - taking God out of that Box is not going to harm your soul.. you are not going to turn around tomorrow and be a raging killer - despite your musings in that direction (joke :) ) you are going to continue to live a good life .. regardless of whether or not you think you have a free pass through the gates .. because that is what good Christians do.. we follow the teachings of Jesus .. "the Teachings of God" as per Jesus.. I won't speak for those other teachings you follow ... calling them God's Word ..

Them teachings didn't come from the God of Jesus sfar as I can reckon - and if you want to call Jesus God .. that makes it even worse.. Then we have Jesus giving one set of teachings in the OT ... and a new set in the NT.. making God in to a big flip flopper once again..

Why you think that would help your quest ? - having Jesus flop around like a fish on a hook .. no direction .. with respect to God's word.

 

[brightfame52]

I love when people slam eternal security, they basically make eternal life conditional and remove God out of the picture.

Absolutely. It's making Salvation conditioned on man and not the Grace of God in Christ Jesus alone.

 

[Renniks]

I have not refused to acknowledge the incarnation .. just at a different stage of life. .. and have danced around none of your questions ... I believe in the soul and the resurrection of the soul ... and hence the soul of Jesus was also resurrected .. and is not dead.

The question of whether Jesus came as God - is a separate question . I don't believe that Jesus and the Father are the same .. I believe one is subordinate to the other.

The question of whether or not Jesus was made divine is a different question yet .. and when is another question. I believe the story of Mark - that the spark of the divine descended on Jesus at his Baptism .. upon which .. he went for testing. Satan did not ask God "The Father" his Father according to Scripture .. to bow down to him.

So in this story .. Jesus is not divine .. but made divine at his baptism .. upon which he had to go through testing to complete the ritual.
So Jesus is a Son of God .. but Jesus is not "God The Father" distinct personages - united in Spirit.

Did Jesus have some spark of the Divine at at Birth ? .. hey .. why not .. but it was not actualized until his baptism ..

now .. what of your questions have I not answered ?

Whether Jesus was bodily resurrected.
Jesus was always divine. That's basic Christianity 101. To believe otherwise is heresy.

 

[Renniks]

But as I said, the church can't see it. That's why you didn't see it when I posted it. Your eyes glaze over and your mind goes numb when you read it. Right? But if I post a scripture about once saved always saved or tithing or church attendance, etc. your mind will become sharp and focused. It's because the church is majoring in minors instead of what really counts and what will save them when Jesus comes back.

Not at all. And I don't actually believe in once saved always saved. I also don't just blindly believe everything that any pastor says.
It's one thing to post scripture... it's another to explain what you think holiness looks like.
I don't think church attendance has anything to do with salvation. Or tithing. You're not exactly batting a thousand here. :)

 

[Renniks]

Absolutely. It's making Salvation conditioned on man and not the Grace of God in Christ Jesus alone.

Well eternal life is conditional on continued belief. That doesn't exclude grace at all....

 

[Ferris Bueller]

It's one thing to post scripture... it's another to explain what you think holiness looks like.

Normally I'd agree, but in this case do I really have to relist all the things these scriptures list for you to know what holiness looks like? These scriptures say it just the way I'd say it. Nothing cryptic or needing to be interpreted here.

Matthew 5:17 through Matthew 7:27. Ephesians 4:1-32 through Ephesians 6:9. Also in Colossians 3:5-25 through Colossians 4:1

 

[Renniks]

Normally I'd agree, but in this case do I really have to relist all the things these scriptures list for you to know what holiness looks like? These scriptures say it just the way I'd say it. Nothing cryptic or needing to be interpreted here.

Matthew 5:17 through Matthew 7:27. Ephesians 4:1-32 through Ephesians 6:9. Also in Colossians 3:5-25 through Colossians 4:1

Ok so let's just take one:

"but now do ye also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth."

Let's say a person who has been saved for 30 years still sometimes gets angry or speaks in ways he should not. Does this disqualify him for the kingdom?

 

[brightfame52]

Well eternal life is conditional on continued belief. That doesn't exclude grace at all....

Thats not true according to how I understand the scriptures. Do you have a scripture that says that specifically ?

 

[justbyfaith]

Right .. so because all children whose parents relatives ..( or neighbors for that matter) are not devout Christians are sinners we should kill them all.

You have seriously lost your way. This kind of thinking is what gives Christianity and the a bad name - drives people from the faith.

No; for that is in the Old testament; which is passing away (2 Corinthians 3:12-15, Hebrews 8:13).

Self deception is thinking Jesus is in favor of your believe that all children whose parents relatives ..( or neighbors for that matter) worship other gods should be killed because of the sin inherited from their parents through this action.

No, they should not be killed; for those things were spoken before the Cross.

After the Cross, there is a remedy for such sins (Acts of the Apostles 13:39).

Mandate or no Mandate .. This is Gods Unchangeable Word according to you.. Should we not do as God has Commanded ?
Jesus did not believe in this God's Word .. so neither do I.

1) Jesus believed in everything in God's word.

2) see above as to the reason why we are not required to kill the children of idolaters in this day and age.

I don't believe that Jesus and the Father are the same .. I believe one is subordinate to the other.

For my understanding of Jesus' equallity to the Father alongside of His usbordination to the Father, see posts #1-#6 of the following thread:

True Trinity.

I believe the story of Mark - that the spark of the divine descended on Jesus at his Baptism .. upon which .. he went for testing.

Actually, the Holy Ghost overshadowed the womb of Mary at the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:35).

So in this story .. Jesus is not divine .. but made divine at his baptism ..

This is a heresy known as adoptionism.

So Jesus is a Son of God .. but Jesus is not "God The Father" distinct personages - united in Spirit.

True Trinity.

Well then great .. I am all good in the hood then.

While Jesus is subordinate to the Father, He is also equal to the Father (John 5:18).

Just as my wife is my equal and yet obeys the word of the Lord to submit to her husband in every thing.

Simply not true .. Jesus is divine yes .. but not "the Father" according to Scripture - one in spirit.

True Trinity.

(posts #1-#6).

 

[justbyfaith]

You have seriously lost your way. This kind of thinking is what gives Christianity and the a bad name - drives people from the faith.

But you are the one pressing the issue by claiming that there are contradictions in the Bible, and accusing God of being schizophrenic and some kind of xenophobic genocidalist.

I will stand by the contention that there are no contradictions therein and that God will also be justified when He is judged (Romans 3:4).

 

[brightfame52]

Christ Sheep can never perish Jn 10

 

[Renniks]

Thats not true according to how I understand the scriptures. Do you have a scripture that says that specifically ?

"But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved."

Matthew 24:13

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 1 Timothy 4:1


"Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. "
Hebrews 3:12

 

[Heyzeus]

Whether Jesus was bodily resurrected.

The resurrection .. as in the appearances of Jesus after Death .. Physical in the Flesh - or Spiritual ? This is a debated topic.. There is no Physical Resurrection in the first Gospel - Mark ends with an empty tomb and the reader is left to wonder ..

This is unfortunate - one can infer however a spiritual resurrection I think... but we simply don't know anything beyond the empty tomb..

Can Paul help us ? Paul mention's a couple of the appearances .. but likens them to his Vision - which supports more of a Spiritual Resurrection ..
Matt was written round 80-100AD.. more likely parts of it were written - collected from older documents - and then stuff added - such as the physical resurrection stories - perhaps some coming from older documents .. but not from Mark . which was the primary source document for the author of Matt.

The problem is compounded in that Clement know's naught of a Physical Resurrection ... his description is of a spiritual Resurrection - 95-100AD.. no mention of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death .. the "Smoking Gun" .. which he should have in CH 24-25 of his letter to the corinthians.

I forgot whether Ignatius shows knowledge .. but if so it came later .. 110-115. My guess - is that the Original Matt may not have contained the physical stories .. but these were added later.. - regardless of origin .. either that or Clement had not yet seen Matt - which argues for a later dating ..

In the later gospels the stories get bigger with time .. but regardless .. I believe in the spiritual resurrection . .. not so convinced of the physical .. and does not really matter much in the grande scheme of things .. sans the "smoking gun" .. and wouldn't that be nice .. defacto proof ..

Hard to imagine Mark not including it .. Paul not knowing about it - viewing it as spiritual - and early Church Fathers .. in trying to convince the Corinthians of the truth of the resurrection .. using numerous examples from nature (from the Universe) the cycle of death and rebirth .. and even mentioning the Egyptian myth of the Phoenix - which is reborn at a certain moment in a pillar of Fire.. Clement mentions scripture .. but no Smoking Gun .. he knows naught of it.

One thing is for sure though .. that I have studied this question for a long long time - is a tough one.

Jesus was always divine. That's basic Christianity 101. To believe otherwise is heresy.

Basic Christianity 101 according to who ? and again you try to usurp the Position of the Logos .. who are you to call something heresy.

The Trinity was heresy until well into the 3rd century .. and viewed as heresy by a rather large and powerful segment of Christianity for another 400 years after Nicene.. when this dogma was made official doctrine .. much to the chagrin of many of the attendees ..yet they signed .. as the Emperor had decreed it so .. and only a complete idiot would not realize the gravity of going against the emperor's decree

Always Divine ? Sure -- why not .. just not on the same level as "The Father" in the Grand Scheme of things.

The Bible story however, does not suggest that Jesus was always divine - at least not in the beginning of the story - perhaps he had a bit of the spark of the divine ... and some unusual powers .. but he was not yet aware of his purpose .. or had that spark actualized

And this is how the story begins .. A man who is deified at the age of 30. Now if he was already a God .. why would he go for Testing right after ? The he was always God is not making sense in this equation .. now we find out more stuff later .. but at this point in the story .. No way ..

This man who has had a God patronize him - as was the beginning of a gazillion other stories that everyone was familiar with at the time .. Spirit of the Most High comes down on him .. "You are my Son - With whom I am Pleased" .. ahhhh .. but not so quick.

Directly after the Baptism the Spirit of God - emissary of God - directs Jesus to the Testing. Throughout Mark - Jesus acts as the Logos .. emissary between man and God .. who spoke God's word through the Holy Spirit .. although he is not described as such until 100-120 AD in John .. and I think a Good .. but most often misconstrued way .. specially giving the very bad Modern Translation of the term "Logos" - the the word "Word" - Naughty transcribers.

My question is not in relation to the divinity of Jesus or when it started .. I view Jesus as a Son of God .. a divinity .. how long he has been such is irrelevant. The thing most folks don't like is that I believe that The Father proceeds the Son from the Godhead .. and the Son is subordinate to Father.

 

[ChristisGod]

The resurrection .. as in the appearances of Jesus after Death .. Physical in the Flesh - or Spiritual ? This is a debated topic.. There is no Physical Resurrection in the first Gospel - Mark ends with an empty tomb and the reader is left to wonder ..

This is unfortunate - one can infer however a spiritual resurrection I think... but we simply don't know anything beyond the empty tomb..

Can Paul help us ? Paul mention's a couple of the appearances .. but likens them to his Vision - which supports more of a Spiritual Resurrection ..
Matt was written round 80-100AD.. more likely parts of it were written - collected from older documents - and then stuff added - such as the physical resurrection stories - perhaps some coming from older documents .. but not from Mark . which was the primary source document for the author of Matt.

The problem is compounded in that Clement know's naught of a Physical Resurrection ... his description is of a spiritual Resurrection - 95-100AD.. no mention of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death .. the "Smoking Gun" .. which he should have in CH 24-25 of his letter to the corinthians.

I forgot whether Ignatius shows knowledge .. but if so it came later .. 110-115. My guess - is that the Original Matt may not have contained the physical stories .. but these were added later.. - regardless of origin .. either that or Clement had not yet seen Matt - which argues for a later dating ..

In the later gospels the stories get bigger with time .. but regardless .. I believe in the spiritual resurrection . .. not so convinced of the physical .. and does not really matter much in the grande scheme of things .. sans the "smoking gun" .. and wouldn't that be nice .. defacto proof ..

Hard to imagine Mark not including it .. Paul not knowing about it - viewing it as spiritual - and early Church Fathers .. in trying to convince the Corinthians of the truth of the resurrection .. using numerous examples from nature (from the Universe) the cycle of death and rebirth .. and even mentioning the Egyptian myth of the Phoenix - which is reborn at a certain moment in a pillar of Fire.. Clement mentions scripture .. but no Smoking Gun .. he knows naught of it.

One thing is for sure though .. that I have studied this question for a long long time - is a tough one.



Basic Christianity 101 according to who ? and again you try to usurp the Position of the Logos .. who are you to call something heresy.

The Trinity was heresy until well into the 3rd century .. and viewed as heresy by a rather large and powerful segment of Christianity for another 400 years after Nicene.. when this dogma was made official doctrine .. much to the chagrin of many of the attendees ..yet they signed .. as the Emperor had decreed it so .. and only a complete idiot would not realize the gravity of going against the emperor's decree

Always Divine ? Sure -- why not .. just not on the same level as "The Father" in the Grand Scheme of things.

The Bible story however, does not suggest that Jesus was always divine - at least not in the beginning of the story - perhaps he had a bit of the spark of the divine ... and some unusual powers .. but he was not yet aware of his purpose .. or had that spark actualized

And this is how the story begins .. A man who is deified at the age of 30. Now if he was already a God .. why would he go for Testing right after ? The he was always God is not making sense in this equation .. now we find out more stuff later .. but at this point in the story .. No way ..

This man who has had a God patronize him - as was the beginning of a gazillion other stories that everyone was familiar with at the time .. Spirit of the Most High comes down on him .. "You are my Son - With whom I am Pleased" .. ahhhh .. but not so quick.

Directly after the Baptism the Spirit of God - emissary of God - directs Jesus to the Testing. Throughout Mark - Jesus acts as the Logos .. emissary between man and God .. who spoke God's word through the Holy Spirit .. although he is not described as such until 100-120 AD in John .. and I think a Good .. but most often misconstrued way .. specially giving the very bad Modern Translation of the term "Logos" - the the word "Word" - Naughty transcribers.

My question is not in relation to the divinity of Jesus or when it started .. I view Jesus as a Son of God .. a divinity .. how long he has been such is irrelevant. The thing most folks don't like is that I believe that The Father proceeds the Son from the Godhead .. and the Son is subordinate to Father.

There is no debate.

Jesus said a spirit does not have FLESH and BONES as you see that I have. Touch Me, put your hand into My side. Look at My hands and My feet. Jesus still retains His Crucifixion marks.

end of the so-called debate.

Jesus word TRUMPS your false teaching and beliefs.

see ya...................................................

hope this helps !!!

 

[justbyfaith]

Also, Jesus said, in Matthew 26:29, that He will drink the literal, physical wine that they were tasting at the Last Supper new with them in His Father's kingdom.

In Matthew 14:31, it is clear that Jesus had a physical body before His death and resurrection.

And, in Luke 24:42-43 it is clear that Jesus had a physical body after His resurrection.

Also, in John 2:19-21.

 

[justbyfaith]

That Jesus is truly the Lord God is indisputable in so many threads on the Trinity that I do not need to rehash it here in this thread.

For example, posts #1-#6 of this thread:

True Trinity.

 

[Renniks]

The resurrection .. as in the appearances of Jesus after Death .. Physical in the Flesh - or Spiritual ? This is a debated topic.. There is no Physical Resurrection in the first Gospel - Mark ends with an empty tomb and the reader is left to wonder ..

This is unfortunate - one can infer however a spiritual resurrection I think... but we simply don't know anything beyond the empty tomb..

Can Paul help us ? Paul mention's a couple of the appearances .. but likens them to his Vision - which supports more of a Spiritual Resurrection ..
Matt was written round 80-100AD.. more likely parts of it were written - collected from older documents - and then stuff added - such as the physical resurrection stories - perhaps some coming from older documents .. but not from Mark . which was the primary source document for the author of Matt.

The problem is compounded in that Clement know's naught of a Physical Resurrection ... his description is of a spiritual Resurrection - 95-100AD.. no mention of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death .. the "Smoking Gun" .. which he should have in CH 24-25 of his letter to the corinthians.

I forgot whether Ignatius shows knowledge .. but if so it came later .. 110-115. My guess - is that the Original Matt may not have contained the physical stories .. but these were added later.. - regardless of origin .. either that or Clement had not yet seen Matt - which argues for a later dating ..

In the later gospels the stories get bigger with time .. but regardless .. I believe in the spiritual resurrection . .. not so convinced of the physical .. and does not really matter much in the grande scheme of things .. sans the "smoking gun" .. and wouldn't that be nice .. defacto proof ..

Hard to imagine Mark not including it .. Paul not knowing about it - viewing it as spiritual - and early Church Fathers .. in trying to convince the Corinthians of the truth of the resurrection .. using numerous examples from nature (from the Universe) the cycle of death and rebirth .. and even mentioning the Egyptian myth of the Phoenix - which is reborn at a certain moment in a pillar of Fire.. Clement mentions scripture .. but no Smoking Gun .. he knows naught of it.

One thing is for sure though .. that I have studied this question for a long long time - is a tough one.



Basic Christianity 101 according to who ? and again you try to usurp the Position of the Logos .. who are you to call something heresy.

The Trinity was heresy until well into the 3rd century .. and viewed as heresy by a rather large and powerful segment of Christianity for another 400 years after Nicene.. when this dogma was made official doctrine .. much to the chagrin of many of the attendees ..yet they signed .. as the Emperor had decreed it so .. and only a complete idiot would not realize the gravity of going against the emperor's decree

Always Divine ? Sure -- why not .. just not on the same level as "The Father" in the Grand Scheme of things.

The Bible story however, does not suggest that Jesus was always divine - at least not in the beginning of the story - perhaps he had a bit of the spark of the divine ... and some unusual powers .. but he was not yet aware of his purpose .. or had that spark actualized

And this is how the story begins .. A man who is deified at the age of 30. Now if he was already a God .. why would he go for Testing right after ? The he was always God is not making sense in this equation .. now we find out more stuff later .. but at this point in the story .. No way ..

This man who has had a God patronize him - as was the beginning of a gazillion other stories that everyone was familiar with at the time .. Spirit of the Most High comes down on him .. "You are my Son - With whom I am Pleased" .. ahhhh .. but not so quick.

Directly after the Baptism the Spirit of God - emissary of God - directs Jesus to the Testing. Throughout Mark - Jesus acts as the Logos .. emissary between man and God .. who spoke God's word through the Holy Spirit .. although he is not described as such until 100-120 AD in John .. and I think a Good .. but most often misconstrued way .. specially giving the very bad Modern Translation of the term "Logos" - the the word "Word" - Naughty transcribers.

My question is not in relation to the divinity of Jesus or when it started .. I view Jesus as a Son of God .. a divinity .. how long he has been such is irrelevant. The thing most folks don't like is that I believe that The Father proceeds the Son from the Godhead .. and the Son is subordinate to Father.

Like I said before, if you don't believe all the Bible is inspired, you can make up any doctrine you want.. and all you seem to have is a lot of " maybe". Not anything there that offers any hope of salvation.

 

[brightfame52]

"But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved."

Matthew 24:13

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 1 Timothy 4:1


"Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. "
Hebrews 3:12

Those scriptures don't say that specifically.

 

[Heyzeus]

Like I said before, if you don't believe all the Bible is inspired, you can make up any doctrine you want.. and all you seem to have is a lot of " maybe". Not anything there that offers any hope of salvation.

I realize your position... and it is an extreme one - one not shared by the majority of Christianity - Theology and so on.
It is not that these folks would not like to claim that the entire Bible is the Inspired word of God - they desperately would.

The problem is that it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny - and the twisted mind bending things one need to to hold up that Chest - is too much for Learned ones to bear .. so much so .. that in Seminaries .. real ones - 8 years . you learn Greek, Latin, Hebrew .. and you read the old texts .. and the New Texts .. from a much different perspective.

You are taught that Christ shedding tears of Blood was a later addition .. as was the long ending of Mark .. Two different bibles .. Which is the Word of God ? Only one can be true in the case of a significant contradiction or omission.

Never mind when we move outside of scripture - it doesn't add up from a literalist perspective .. and good thing too. I don't have to believe that killing children because of the sins of their parents or relatives .. or neighbor - is worshiping a different God .. is "Gods Word" and we should Obey Gods Word.

 

[Renniks]

I realize your position... and it is an extreme one - one not shared by the majority of Christianity - Theology and so on.
It is not that these folks would not like to claim that the entire Bible is the Inspired word of God - they desperately would.

The problem is that it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny - and the twisted mind bending things one need to to hold up that Chest - is too much for Learned ones to bear .. so much so .. that in Seminaries .. real ones - 8 years . you learn Greek, Latin, Hebrew .. and you read the old texts .. and the New Texts .. from a much different perspective.

You are taught that Christ shedding tears of Blood was a later addition .. as was the long ending of Mark .. Two different bibles .. Which is the Word of God ? Only one can be true in the case of a significant contradiction or omission.

Never mind when we move outside of scripture - it doesn't add up from a literalist perspective .. and good thing too. I don't have to believe that killing children because of the sins of their parents or relatives .. or neighbor - is worshiping a different God .. is "Gods Word" and we should Obey Gods Word.

Really? It's not the position of the majority?
Perhaps if you add all the cults to the mix, but it's certainly the historical position.

Let us act accordingly to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit saith, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom)....Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit.(2)

Clement of Rome.

But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired men themselves but by the divine Word who moves them. (3)

Justin Martyr

The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God [Christ] and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries.(5)Irenaeus

Therefore, whatever He [Christ] wanted us to read concerning His words and deeds, He commanded the disciples, His hands, to write. Hence, one cannot but receive what he reads in the Gospels, though written by the disciples, as though it were written by the very hand of the Lord Himself....For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books.(7)

Augustine, who also wrote:


If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, the author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. (8)