Why Hell is not a place of eternal conscious torment.

[robert derrick]

Vain babblings (κενοφωνίας)
Only in Pastorals. olxx, oClass. From κενός empty and φωνή voice.

Oppositions of science falsely so called (ἀνιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως)

Better, oppositions of the falsely-named knowledge. Ἁντίθεσις, N.T.o. olxx.

Used here, in its simple sense, of the arguments and teachings of those who opposed the true Christian doctrine as intrusted to Timothy. Γνῶσις knowledge was the characteristic word of the Gnostic school, the most formidable enemy of the church of the second century. The Gnostics claimed a superior knowledge peculiar to an intellectual caste. According to them, it was by this philosophic insight, as opposed to faith, that humanity was to be regenerated.

And here, Scholarship resulting from disciplined study is good, so long as we are learning something true.

faith was suited only to the rude masses, the animal-men. The intellectual questions which occupied these teachers were two: to explain the work of creation, and to account for the existence of evil. Their ethical problem was how to develop the higher nature in the environment of matter which was essentially evil. In morals they ran to two opposite extremes - asceticism and licentiousness.

And here, you expose the truth, that much scholarship is intellectualized rejection of Scripture, or vain philosophy not relying on and trusting in the written words of God.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

There are Christians on this site, that teach their own philosophies, and cover them with Bible-sounding words. Once again, we strip down all the fluff, and get to the rotten core, and we find nothing but a person's own personal ideas about things of God.

t characterises the γνῶσις as claiming that name without warrant, and as being mere vain babbling. Comp. Col_2:8.

And very intellectually babbled as well.

Maybe you can understand the verse in a deeper light by reading scholarly work?--Not everyone is inclined to do so--I do, not for head gnosis, but for epignosis--to put into daily practice what Scripture is teaching me dia the Ruach HaKodesh.

Yes?

As I said, scholarship in the truth is good. However, in the end, all it does is confirm what we already know from Scripture.

When I see some complex lengthy explanation to teach the simple truth of Scripture, it is immediately suspect. I put aside all the airy diatribe parts, and go straight to the lying heart concealed in many many words.

If you enjoy studying in greater detail these things, then that is perfectly fine. My only objection, is that it is not necessary in order to teach the simple truth of God's word.

There is more intelligence necessary to rightly divide the word of truth, than a whole idolized mountain of intellect telling us, that what God wrote is not 'really' true. God doesn't 'really' mean it. Why? Because the liar doesn't like it, and isn't honest enough just to say so.

Now, what I enjoy doing is debunking the junk point by point. And that is because it takes honest and disciplined use of Scripture, in order to properly refute the lies about Scripture. I have been corrected several times on this site, because I was not able to rightly refute by Scripture, what was being taught.

And so in the process of correction, I actually learn more distinctly and perfectly what God is saying and teaching and revealing to us, that believe Him and His word as written.

 

[Johann]

Scholarship is not the problem. Pseudo scholarship covering false doctrine is the problem.

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Scripture is written by God to strip away all the lies and pretence of corrupted minds.

Just look at all the complex arguments brought in here, just to say, No, Jesus is wrong. Hell hath no torment. No, there is no eternal punishment.

See how simple it is to reject Scripture? It's just as simple to teach Scripture rightly: Hell hath torment, and there is eternal punishment.

I prefer honesty, rather than long-winded explanations about how God doesn't really mean exactly what He says. And such arguments are always made complex. Why? To confuse and distort of course. They purposely move away from simple words of Scripture, and get people ensnared in all their lying arguments. In the end, the simple truth is left behind in the smoke and fog of warfare against God's written word.

And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Teaching of Scripture is simple: Just quote the Scripture and give the obvious sense of it.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Deep diving into original languages is not necessary to prove the doctrine of Christ. It can be interesting, challenging, and intellectually stimulating, but not necessary. And false teachers take pride in their manipulation of words, for the express purpose of rejecting Scripture as written.

Look at all the volumes of proud learning, that some people wondrously display for themselves, just to say, No. The Word was not God.

When I see someone going to Greek, Hebrew, or manuscript arguments, then I'm looking for the lie in the pudding. And then those same people get upset, when their flowery sciences are stripped of all their perfume, and the truth of the lie they are teaching, is bared to the bone.

Sure glad you sharing your thoughts-simple and straightforward.

 

[Johann]

Now, what I enjoy doing is debunking the junk point by point. And that is because it takes honest and disciplined use of Scripture, in order to properly refute the lies about Scripture. I have been corrected several times on this site, because I was not able to rightly refute by Scripture, what was being taught.

Is this what you are doing--debunking my "junk" point by point? I am not offended at all, and NEED correction--or maybe you are not addressing me, but others "junk"--I hear what you are saying-this is my nature/character-to study this way and not afraid to delve into other scholarly labors--not to DENY what stands written.
and these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, they received the word with all readiness of mind, every day examining the Writings whether those things were so;
Act 17:12 many, indeed, therefore, of them did believe, and of the honourable Greek women and men not a few.

Simple, correct?
Here is what a scholar wrote==

With all readiness of mind (meta pāsēs prothumias). Old word from prothumos (pro, thumos) and means eagerness, rushing forward. In the N.T. only here and 2Co_8:11-19; 2Co_9:2.

In Thessalonica many of the Jews out of pride and prejudice refused to listen. Here the Jews joyfully welcomed the two Jewish visitors.

Examining the Scriptures daily (kath' hēmeran anakrinontes tas graphas). Paul expounded the Scriptures daily as in Thessalonica, but the Beroeans, instead of resenting his new interpretation, examined (anakrinō means to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal processes as in Act_4:9; Act_12:19, etc.) the Scriptures for themselves.

In Scotland people have the Bible open on the preacher as he expounds the passage, a fine habit worth imitating.

Whether these things were so (ei echoi tauta houtōs). Literally, “if these things had it thus.”

The present optative in the indirect question represents an original present indicative as in Luk_1:29 (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1043f.). This use of ei with the optative may be looked at as the condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of determination) as in Act_17:27; Act_20:16; Act_24:19; Act_27:12 (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). The Beroeans were eagerly interested in the new message of Paul and Silas but they wanted to see it for themselves. What a noble attitude. Paul’s preaching made Bible students of them. The duty of private interpretation is thus made plain (Hovey).
Robertson

A good incentive and Imperative to daily study our Bibles, yes? Not for head knowledge-but heart knowledge and put the Imperatives into practice, yes?

 

[Johann]

And very intellectually babbled as well.

Very intellectual babble?--I don't know you, but if you feel a need to correct me, the sword cuts both ways, as long as it is done in love-

2Ti_4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Tit_1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Tit_2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Preach: Psa_40:9; Isa_61:1-3; Jon_3:2; Luk_4:18-19, Luk_9:60; Rom_10:15; Col_1:25, Col_1:28
be: Luk_7:4, Luk_7:23; Act_13:5 *marg. Rom_12:12; 1Ti_4:15-16
in: Joh_4:6-10, Joh_4:32-34; Act_16:13, Act_16:31-33, Act_20:7, Act_20:18-21, Act_28:16, Act_28:30-31
reprove: Col_1:28-29; 1Th_2:11-12, 1Th_5:14, 1Th_5:20; Tit_1:13, Tit_2:15; Heb_13:22; Rev_3:19
exhort: 1Ti_4:13
all: 2Ti_2:21, 2Ti_2:25, 2Ti_3:10

You may correct my "junk" whenever you feel led, but don't imply or make assumptions that I'm here to DENY what stands written, Perfect Tense or alter, twist or pervert the Holy Writ-I see too much of that going on.

Do look up the Scripture references and tell me if they are incorrect, yes?
Later
J.

 

[Johann]

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

How do you understand this portion of Scripture--making your calling and election sure--in simple terminology.

J.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This was a nice try-not knowing, or familiar with scholarly work, or can even name names of prominent scholars--actually, Dr. Michael Brown

You need to research people better to see if they are true to God or not.

Dr. Michael Brown:

Is Dr. Michael Brown an apologist for the devil?

Two good articles that address Dr. Michael Brown’s recent ‘Line Of Fire’ interview with Jenny Hodge from ‘Christalignment’. The first from Jordan Hall, holding to a st…

churchwatchcentral.com

(Read the comments section, too).

Brown shacks up with false heretics:

Brown predicted that a second Pentecost event would happen at a particular conference, and it never happened.
See the YouTube video here.

So you're quoting a false prophet for your support.

would laugh you out of court, and so Tovia Singer,

Tovia Singer:

He denies the Trinity:

He also believes the gospels and the writings of Paul are corrupt.

You are quoting a non-Christian to support understanding a topic in the Scriptures.

Wallace

Dan Wallace:

Dallas Professor Daniel Wallace supports the redaction approach to the Gospels that the Gospels were written not by direct inspiration of God but by copying material from secondary sources, thereby denying the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit as taught by Christ and the Apostles. Wallace’s 35-page report, called “The Synoptic Problem,” which was published on the Internet, is largely a review of Robert H. Stein’s “The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction.” (Stein is a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.)

Source:

Modern Texts and Versions Have Produced the Fruit of Theological Modernism

Modern Texts and Versions Have Produced the Fruit of Theological Modernism

www.wayoflife.org

Dan Wallace says:

"WE DO NOT HAVE NOW IN ANY OF OUR CRITICAL GREEK TEXTS OR IN ANY TRANSLATIONS EXACTLY WHAT THE AUTHORS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WROTE. EVEN IF WE DID, WE WOULD NOT KNOW IT. THERE ARE MANY, MANY PLACES IN WHICH THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IS UNCERTAIN."

Elijah Hixson & Peter Gurry. Myths & Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii. Quote by Dan Wallace.

Dan Wallace says:

"SCHOLARS ARE NOT SURE OF THE EXACT WORDS OF JESUS. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording.

IN TRUTH, THOUGH RED-LETTER EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE MAY GIVE COMFORT TO BELIEVERS THAT THEY HAVE THE VERY WORDS OF JESUS IN EVERY INSTANCE, THIS IS A FALSE COMFORT."

(Dr. Daniel Wallace, "Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation")

You once believed in eternal, conscious torment, when you were "wet" behind the ears--so stick with "eternal" Olam in the KJV-and don't alter the word, here and there.

The problem I noticed in your approach to God's Word is that you look primarily to others to understand the Bible and do not read the passage in context and pray about it. This is why you mostly quote others in your discussions here, and you don't have much of your own original content of God teaching you personally what the Bible says. I say this not to belittle you or put you down but to challenge you to take a different approach to study God's Word. While it is sometimes okay to look at what other believers say and quote them, this should be a last resort and not our primary method of defending the truth in the Bible.

#1. So look to God's Word and read the chapter.
#2. Then pray and ask God for the meaning and or truth of it (No matter where the truth takes you).
#3. Keep an open mind on things in God's Word. Things we think we know may not always be right.
#4. Have you ever considered that morality should be a method in your toolbox to understand God's Word? I say this because most Christians today believe God told Hosea to marry a prostitute when God was telling Hosea to marry a woman who was from a people of idolatry. Most Christians today do not have a problem with Rahab lying. Most think Christians think Abraham lied to the Pharoah concerning his wife. In other words, many Christians are messed up, and they have things twisted around and cannot understand basic morality or the goodness of God. Their understanding of the facts of the Bible is skewed in certain places.

A excerpt

As a corollary, a good scholar should also have an acute awareness of their need to depend upon the work of other scholars to enhance one’s own research. Good scholars will not pretend that they know everything, but they will instead draw from the work of colleagues who have done remarkable research in their own areas. If you are into literary studies, why not benefit from those in backgrounds? If you are a text critic, why not benefit from specialists in reception history? Good scholars can find enrichment by reading broadly and attempting to be interdisciplinary, while recognizing that one cannot possibly be a specialist in every area. We need one another.

If the men you quoted (in your post) are considered good scholars, you must look again because the ones I addressed are in serious error.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You are KJO then? (King James only)

No. KJV Onlyists believe you cannot study or benefit from Modern Translations, and many KJV Onlystis believe that just studying them can lead one to be corrupted somehow.

I am Core KJB. I believe the King James Bible is the perfect Word of God that is without error (and it is my core foundational text). Despite this fact, I believe Modern bibles are essential to helping us understand the archaic 1600s English in the King James Bible (Even though Modern bibles teach many false doctrines that we must be careful of).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sounds like you don't really understand what a manuscript even is.

It sounds like you desire to belittle my intelligence by making such a silly statement.
You might as well start to question whether I know the difference between a cat and a dog.
So let's stop with the ad hominems.

I said:

You have the Catholic line of manuscripts (Which is where all the Modern bibles come from primarily).
Then you have the line of Bible manuscripts that the Catholics had sought to destroy (along with killing those who copied them). ~ Quote: Bible Highlighter.

Your reply:

Madness.
So, which line did the Catholic Church use to create our biblical canon?

I am not sure you have grasped what I said.
You appear clueless about the two MAJOR lines of Bible manuscripts in history that are in use today in English translations.

#1. Catholic (Alexandrian) line of bible manuscripts (One example in antiquity would be Jerome's Latin Vulgate. This would also be the Westcott and Hort NT Greek text, the Nestle and Aland Critical NT Greek text). Today most of your Modern English bibles are based on the Nestle and Aland. If you were to get yourself a 27th edition Nestle and Aland, it says right at the beginning of the book that the Vatican supervises it. So your NIV, NASB, NLT, GNT, and ESV all use the Nestle and Aland (Which the Vatican supervised). Are there changes that favor the Catholic church in these Modern English translations? Yes, most definitely. Please check out page 21 of the following PDF document. It lists 14 changes that favor the Catholic church in the NIV translation.

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

#2. Antiochian line of bible manuscripts (One example in antiquity would be the Italic bible, and the Waldenses bible, Textus Receptus, Textus Receptus bibles leading up to the King James Bible (To learn more, see TextusReceptusBibles.com). Today the result of this line of manuscripts would be the English translation known as the KJB Pure Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900). If you know Bible history, you would know that the Catholics wanted to kill King James and destroy his translation (with a man named "Guy Fawkes"). He attempted to set up a super bomb to meet this goal, but his plans were thwarted.

If you know Bible history, you should know about these facts, but you don't.

What happened to the Catholic "line" of manuscripts they the RCC used to create our canon?

That is false propaganda. The RCC never gave us our canon.

Yes, having an open mind and critical thinking ability dashes our evangelical upbringing.
Very eye-opening. Or terrifying, depending on what you value. Truth, or evangelicalism.

So what would be outside of the sphere of evangelicalism?
It would be liberalism, and that approach toward the Bible is just unbelief and nonsense.

 

[Johann]

The problem I noticed in your approach to God's Word is that you look primarily to others to understand the Bible and do not read the passage in context and pray about it. This is why you mostly quote others in your discussions here, and you don't have much of your own original content of God teaching you personally what the Bible says. I say this not to belittle you or put you down but to challenge you to take a different approach to study God's Word. While it is sometimes okay to look at what other believers say and quote them, this should be a last resort and not our primary method of defending the truth in the Bible.

My approach to biblical studies and context is sound brother, going through the book of Romans now--nothing you typed here offends me for my Father knows my heart, you have your calling in the body of Christ and so I have mine.

I quote Scriptures, most of the time, in context, and no need to elaborate, so if I quote "others" from time to time it would be mostly from Vincent and Robertson, and I have Jewish sources.

I deliberately mentioned Dr. Brown--and have learned a lot from him, eat the chicken, spit out the sticks, as well as Bob Utley and listen to his sermons.

I don't have to look to others to understand my Bible friend, I look to others to CONFIRM what I already know--to learn to discern error from truth.


1 John 2:27

As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

And as for you (kai humeis). Prolepsis again as in 1Jn_2:24.
Which ye received of him (ho elabete ap' autou). Second aorist active indicative of lambanō, a definite experience, this anointing (chrisma), from Christ himself as in 1Jn_2:20. This Paraclete was promised by Christ (Joh_14:26; Joh_16:13.) and came on the great Pentecost, as they knew, and in the experience of all who yielded themselves to the Holy Spirit.

That any one teach you (hina tis didaskēi humas). Sub-final use of hina and the present active subjunctive of didaskō, “that any one keep on teaching you.”

Teacheth you (didaskei humas). Present active indicative. The Holy Spirit was to bring all things to their remembrance (Joh_14:26) and to bear witness concerning Christ (Joh_15:26; Joh_16:12-15). Yet they need to be reminded of what they already know to be “true” (alēthes) and “no lie” (ouk estin pseudos), according to John’s habit of positive and negative (1Jn_1:5). So he exhorts them to “abide in him” (menete en autōi, imperative active, though same form as the indicative). Precisely so Jesus had urged that the disciples abide in him (Joh_15:4.).
Robertson

I appreciate your concern, but no need for concern.
Later

 

[Bible Highlighter]

My approach to biblical studies and context is sound brother, going through the book of Romans now--nothing you typed here offends me for my Father knows my heart, you have your calling in the body of Christ and so I have mine.

I quote Scriptures, most of the time, in context, and no need to elaborate, so if I quote "others" from time to time it would be mostly from Vincent and Robertson, and I have Jewish sources.

I deliberately mentioned Dr. Brown--and have learned a lot from him, eat the chicken, spit out the sticks, as well as Bob Utley and listen to his sermons.

I don't have to look to others to understand my Bible friend, I look to others to CONFIRM what I already know--to learn to discern error from truth.


1 John 2:27

As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

And as for you (kai humeis). Prolepsis again as in 1Jn_2:24.
Which ye received of him (ho elabete ap' autou). Second aorist active indicative of lambanō, a definite experience, this anointing (chrisma), from Christ himself as in 1Jn_2:20. This Paraclete was promised by Christ (Joh_14:26; Joh_16:13.) and came on the great Pentecost, as they knew, and in the experience of all who yielded themselves to the Holy Spirit.

That any one teach you (hina tis didaskēi humas). Sub-final use of hina and the present active subjunctive of didaskō, “that any one keep on teaching you.”

Teacheth you (didaskei humas). Present active indicative. The Holy Spirit was to bring all things to their remembrance (Joh_14:26) and to bear witness concerning Christ (Joh_15:26; Joh_16:12-15). Yet they need to be reminded of what they already know to be “true” (alēthes) and “no lie” (ouk estin pseudos), according to John’s habit of positive and negative (1Jn_1:5). So he exhorts them to “abide in him” (menete en autōi, imperative active, though same form as the indicative). Precisely so Jesus had urged that the disciples abide in him (Joh_15:4.).
Robertson

I appreciate your concern, but no need for concern.
Later

I generally try to steer clear of those who are into rank heresy. But you are free to listen to whomever you like. Just know that you will reap what you sow. You put junk in, and junk will come out. In other words, you are what you eat.

 

[Johann]

I generally try to steer clear of those who are into rank heresy. But you are free to listen to whomever you like. Just know that you will reap what you sow. You put junk in, and junk will come out.

Rank heresy?
What "junk" am I promulgating--care to elaborate?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Rank heresy?
What "junk" am I promulgating--care to elaborate?

Check out the videos and the aricles and what I wrote about these men you quote.
For example: I am strongly against OSAS, but I would not exactly say it is rank heresy in every case because a believer could push for holy living as the requirement for OSAS to be true. Granted, even with those who profess this, I have found that they still believe in some instances you can abide in one unconfessed sin (like looking upon a woman in lust) and still be saved. But they do not all appear to to justify tons of sins like Hyper Grace folk, though. It’s still wrong, but I would not quote a Christian who was Hyper Grace, anymore than I quote a Christian who endorses extra biblical nonsense (like in the Charismatic movement), and or those who has put forth their own false prophecies (like Dr. Brown).

 

[robert derrick]

Is this what you are doing--debunking my "junk" point by point?

Of course not. Nothing you said needed correcting.

I'm talking about the bogus scholarship of false doctrine.

In Scotland people have the Bible open on the preacher as he expounds the passage, a fine habit worth imitating.

When someone is teaching, I take notes.

The original assembling of the saints was with everyone present, being able to stand one at time and add to the prophecy and doctrine. (1 Cor 13)

The single-speaker manner came about with dominating leaders, some of whom didn't want to be interrupted with correction.

Including afterward.

The Beroeans were eagerly interested in the new message of Paul and Silas but they wanted to see it for themselves. What a noble attitude. Paul’s preaching made Bible students of them. The duty of private interpretation is thus made plain (Hovey).
Robertson

A good incentive and Imperative to daily study our Bibles, yes? Not for head knowledge-but heart knowledge and put the Imperatives into practice, yes?

It's called studying to prove the doctrine. It also is the beginning of disputes in the Scripture, which is healthy.

Paul's admonition not to argue with heretics, can apply to both people. It simply means that once there is no agreement on a simple reading of a Scripture, then there's no point in continuing the particular dispute. All that will result is an endless difference between all other Scriptures pertaining to it.

We see that here abundantly. There's no purpose in arguing with a created christ believer, once they find another way of reading the Word was God. Every verse of Scripture having to do with the divinity of Christ, will be read another way, so that He's not Lord and God.

 

[Johann]

But they do not all appear to to justify tons of sins like Hyper Grace folk, though. It’s still wrong, but I would not quote a Christian who was Hyper Grace, anymore than I quote a Christian who endorses extra biblical nonsense and or who has put forth their own false prophecies.

I am not into hyper grace, so, as to a Christian endorses extra "biblical nonsense" and-or who has put forth their own false prophecies--who might that be and give me some examples--should you "feel" that includes me, please, go ahead, I would not be offended.

 

[Johann]

Of course not. Nothing you said needed correcting.

I'm talking about the bogus scholarship of false doctrine.


When someone is teaching, I take notes.

The original assembling of the saints was with everyone present, being able to stand one at time and add to the prophecy and doctrine. (1 Cor 13)

The single-speaker manner came about with dominating leaders, some of whom didn't want to be interrupted with correction.

Including afterward.


It's called studying to prove the doctrine. It also is the beginning of disputes in the Scripture, which is healthy.

Paul's admonition not to argue with heretics, can apply to both people. It simply means that once there is no agreement on a simple reading of a Scripture, then there's no point in continuing the particular dispute. All that will result is an endless difference between all other Scriptures pertaining to it.

We see that here abundantly. There's no purpose in arguing with a created christ believer, once they find another way of reading the Word was God. Every verse of Scripture having to do with the divinity of Christ, will be read another way, so that He's not Lord and God.

Well, since this topic is actually not permitted to mention-last I checked-

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Who is Christ?--God-not a created Being- εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

Later
J.

 

[Johann]

It’s still wrong, but I would not quote a Christian who was Hyper Grace, anymore than I quote a Christian who endorses extra biblical nonsense (like in the Charismatic movement), and or those who has put forth their own false prophecies (like Dr. Brown).

I think there is a misunderstanding here-I don't quote Brown, and certainly not Tovia Singer-and was deeply hurt by "Charismatic movements" when I was very young--anything else?
Thank you for the edit-clarifying.

 

[robert derrick]

How do you understand this portion of Scripture--making your calling and election sure--in simple terminology.

J.

Normal sense says it has to do with being justified by Christ, by ensuring we don't fall into sinning.

Now, any normal person would agree calling, election, salvation, and justification are necessary to one another. However, God ensures by Scripture, there remains no reasonable doubt about His doctrine of Christ.

And so, we turn to Rom 8 for confirmation:

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Election = Elect = Justification.

God's written word is perfectly analytical. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. What applies to A-election, must also apply to C-Justification.

B is elect, which ties Election firmly to Justification.

We can ensure we continue as the elect of God, and justified by Christ, by not falling into sin.

How? By doing those things necessary to add to our faith, and ensure we don't sin with the devil.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am not into hyper grace, so, as to a Christian endorses extra "biblical nonsense" and-or who has put forth their own false prophecies--who might that be and give me some examples--should you "feel" that includes me, please, go ahead, I would not be offended.

Your not getting what I am saying. My bringing up OSAS was not something they believed. I was bringing up OSAS to say that what the men you quoted hold to beliefs that are even worse than OSAS. Again, go back to post #306 and start checking out the videos and links I provided to you on these men you quoted.

 

[Johann]

Normal sense says it has to do with being justified by Christ, by ensuring we don't fall into sinning.

Now for proof, that election and justification are the same, and necessary to one another

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Election = Elect = Justification.

No election, no justification. Making our election sure, makes our justification sure.

God's written word is perfectly analytical. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. What applies to A-election, must also apply to C-Justification.

B is elect, which ties Election firmly to Justification.

We can ensure we continue as the elect of God, and justified by Christ, by not falling into sin.

How? By doing those things necessary to add to our faith, and ensure we don't sin with the devil.

Do you believe in the doctrine of election, like the Reformers?--and how exactly do we know that we are part of the eklektous/Bechirim (Chosen Ones)?

For it stands written-many are called, few chosen-

 

[robert derrick]

Well, since this topic is actually not permitted to mention-last I checked-

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Who is Christ?--God-not a created Being- εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

Later
J.

As I said. Once John 1:1 is overthrown, then there's no point in arguing over any other Scripture, that speaks of Christ and the Godhead. They will always have a sort of flowchart response for another interpretation of each and every Scripture, to justify saying that Jesus is not both Lord and God.

I call them foundation stone Scriptures of proof. A single Scripture cut out of the mountain, that crashes down on the false doctrine's tootsies, so that the whole pseudo-scholarship idol comes crashing down.

And I do understand how pride can get in the way of accepting it, and seeking how to honestly rebuild from scratch, upon that one stone of proof.

I've had it done with me, and I decided in the end, all that matters is the truth. Renewing our minds is by the Scriptures correcting our thoughts and imaginations. We conform to His image, not He to ours. Idolatry begins with idolizing our own minds over that of Christ.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

And we notice this verse immediately follows Scripture, that plainly says Jesus is the true God and eternal life.