OSAS - debate # 2,134,567

[Thiscrosshurts]

Phil 2:12 “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

It is interesting that they are called to work out their own salvation.
That sounds like a works thing but it could also be interpreted as "Jesus set you free and saved you ,now fulfill the high calling he called you to.The believer is a child of God from the start,but is under teachers until mature.Once equipped he can undertake the works sent for him to do.

 

[ForumAddict]

Hi



Good question. Its not like people who believe you can lose your salvation seem to think they have it all figured out, because there's verses like this that point directly to eternal security so they simpy have to be ignored them, wich is what i believe they do.

I dont mean to be rude but this is how it has to be? Ive never heard any explanation to this.

Other is like i said in this thread or some other that Bible says we are predestinated and elected. If so.. then how can you lose your salvation if God Him self has appointed you to be saved even before you were born?
its like God chose jacob over esau even before both were born. One can specualte why , perhaps because Jacob would have the kind of heart that accepts God and His plans on him and does His will. Nontheless Jacob was chosen over esau.

Third thing I want to say that isnt it kinda odd that God calls us His children and has given us the Holy spirit and yet people say its possible that we end up in hell? That God's child could be eternally lost? After being saved. Then we could say that Jesus wasnt able to save us, after all. After all the love and regeneration all in vain. We were found and lost again. In bible God never looses anyone except Judas who was not His begin with but was before known that he would betray Jesus.

Joh 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.



That's just what ive been thinking. To me child is a child and does not become anything else. And if God is loving Father he doesnt let His child perish for ever.
Its beyond my logic that such could happen and even the bible talks about God's spirit in us that seems to unconditionally have the respond to God - Abba, Father.

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Amen brother, very good points, and will be interesting to see how these questions are addressed. My biggest question is why so many feel they can make certain words say completely opposite what they mean. I would not wish to be the one answering to God on judgment day!!

 

[ForumAddict]

agua, I'll not argue with you. I read the verse differently than you do, and that's it. Regardless, I have also posted other verses to make my point that friendly and gentle debate/disputing is not something that wasn't done by those before us. I assume that what was okay for Paul to do is okay for me to do.



That would be works, wouldn't it?

If that is what your dictionary says. Just remember what assuming does to a person.

 

[Stickz]

Jari:Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px inset;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by ForumAddict
I pray someone has already brought out this scripture because I am not interested in catching up with 3 pages of responses.

If one believes they can loose their salvation then please explain why this verse says different;


Ephesians 1:13

New King James Version (NKJV)

<sup id="en-NKJV-29216" class="versenum">13</sup> In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Good question. Its not like people who believe you can lose your salvation seem to think they have it all figured out, because there's verses like this that point directly to eternal security so they simpy have to be ignored them, wich is what i believe they do.

I dont mean to be rude but this is how it has to be? Ive never heard any explanation to this.

Okay, let me give you an explanation for this, Jari, that I know you will hate and disagree with anyway. I should have gone into it from the first, but I somehow didn't think that it would be necessary to do all of the work as long as I pointed in the right direction. But, again, I get snubbed for assuming things. Nevertheless, let me start by quoting myself:

Me: Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Is this

ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

the part of that verse that you are looking at? Have you actually done any research on the word 'sealed' in this verse, and seen the possibilities in the word?

The word in this verse ( from a Strong's ): 'sealed' is sphragizo in the Greek, and it means to stamp ( with a signet or private mark ) for security or preservation ( lit. or fig. ); by impl. to keep secret, to attest:— ( set a, set to ) seal up.

And the word 'attest' means ( from a standard dictionary because I don't want to lengthen this post with an Unabridged definition ): To bear witness to; to certify; to call to witness.

Nothing in this word 'sealed' shows definitive proof of permanence, otherwise the verse should have read like this:

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were permanently sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Because it's a seal, set by God, you have ( possibly, unintentionally ) assumed the permanence of the sealing. I'm not going to go as far as saying that you are wrong, but I just want it to be clear that the way that you are choosing to interpret this verse is not it's only possibile interpretation, even though you and ForumAddict seem to think it is.

I would like to look at another one of your posts too:

Jari ( from another thread ):
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px inset;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by ChristianAspie
The thief on the cross was saved under the Mosaic Law. After Jesus rose again, the rules changed.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
God never changes. Salvation has infact always been same, by Grace. Never by any other rule than grace. And do you even know he was a jew? maybe some foreing like a roman.
And what does being under mosaic law have to do with anything anyway

Bible states no one becomes righteuss by the works of the law. They all needed grace to be saved.

Nor does it state any where in bible that any rules would change not even the law has only that we are not under the law. Still all the same rules except were pardoned.

And again God never changes. :wink:


--- Eph 3:17 "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, ...." ---

With this post in mind, I want you to explain a verse to me. I have posted this verse elsewhere, a couple of times, and haven't gotten any responses from it yet. Will you explain it to me, please, in light of this conversation?

I Samuel 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

I will admit that there are not a lot of verses in the Bible that specifically say that one can lose the Spirit once they have it, but this one seems to say that very thing. In your above post, you say that nothing has changed and God has not changed. So, I ask you to explain to me how king Saul, elected/predestined by God to receive the Spirit, had the Spirit removed from him at a later time, if we should assume that it is a permanent sealing? Did God change the rules of sealing with the New Testament? If so, please, provide scripture.

ForumAddict: My biggest question is why so many feel they can make certain words say completely opposite what they mean. I would not wish to be the one answering to God on judgment day!!

I feel the same way.

ForumAddict: If that is what your dictionary says. Just remember what assuming does to a person.

Do you then believe that Paul had a different set of rules to follow than we do?

 

[jari]

Okay, let me give you an explanation for this, Jari, that I know you will hate and disagree with anyway. I should have gone into it from the first, but I somehow didn't think that it would be necessary to do all of the work as long as I pointed in the right direction. But, again, I get snubbed for assuming things. Nevertheless, let me start by quoting myself:

The word in this verse ( from a Strong's ): 'sealed' is sphragizo in the Greek, and it means to stamp ( with a signet or private mark ) for security or preservation ( lit. or fig. ); by impl. to keep secret, to attest:— ( set a, set to ) seal up.

And the word 'attest' means ( from a standard dictionary because I don't want to lengthen this post with an Unabridged definition ): To bear witness to; to certify; to call to witness.

Nothing in this word 'sealed' shows definitive proof of permanence, otherwise the verse should have read like this:

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were permanently sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

[/COLOR]

You need to understand what seal means. Back in the days letters we put a seal so that when the letters receiver would know the letter is unopened since the sender closed it with a seal. If some one else would open it, it would brake the seal. And the seal usually had stamp on it aswell to indicate who stamped the letter. It was also impossible to recreate a seal without the proper stamper that was used to create the icon of the sender in the seal. So like any seal , this also is meant to be once closed and once opened.


But anyway the verse clearly states that you have been sealed until day of redemption.

So your effort to make a verse in God's null and void has failed.

 

[Stickz]

You need to understand what seal means. Back in the days letters we put a seal so that when the letters receiver would know the letter is unopened since the sender closed it with a seal. If some one else would open it, it would brake the seal. And the seal usually had stamp on it aswell to indicate who stamped the letter. It was also impossible to recreate a seal without the proper stamper that was used to create the icon of the sender in the seal. So like any seal , this also is meant to be once closed and once opened.


But anyway the verse clearly states that you have been sealed until day of redemption.

So your effort to make a verse in God's null and void has failed.

I thought that I did a pretty good job of showing what 'sealed' meant?

Back in the day, those seals on the letters could be broken by anyone or anything, Jari, that's a bad example.

I agree that there is another verse that mentions sealing until the day of redemption, but that wasn't the verse that we were talking about, was it?

And, yes, Jari, that was my plan all along: to void out the verses that prove Once Saved, Always Saved so that I don't have to admit to it. You've caught me.

You have posted quite a few times with complaints that people do not answer questions that you ask about scripture, avoiding admitting the truth etc .... But, I see when you are given an answer, you give some lame response to it and continue saying, "See, no one can give a viable answer to my questions and still won't admit that I am right ...."

My questions go unanswered too, Jari.

 

[jari]

I thought that I did a pretty good job of showing what 'sealed' meant?

Back in the day, those seals on the letters could be broken by anyone or anything, Jari, that's a bad example.

I agree that there is another verse that mentions sealing until the day of redemption, but that wasn't the verse that we were talking about, was it?

And, yes, Jari, that was my plan all along: to void out the verses that prove Once Saved, Always Saved so that I don't have to admit to it. You've caught me.

You have posted quite a few times with complaints that people do not answer questions that you ask about scripture, avoiding admitting the truth etc .... But, I see when you are given an answer, you give some lame response to it and continue saying, "See, no one can give a viable answer to my questions and still won't admit that I am right ...."

My questions go unanswered too, Jari.

MY bad for not realizing we werent talking about the other verse. However that verse shows us what this verse also means. So the seal is permanent (untill day of redemption).

Yes the seals could be broken, like i explained. but the point in the word seal is that its opened only once.

the point of Paul was that you have the seal that isnt opened because seals are not meant to be opened except by the receiver. So this seal too is never opened until heaven.

let me say it one more time in different way... when some one puts a seal he wants letter not to be opened. If he didnt he would NOT use a seal. so the point in seal really is that it stays.
otherwise paul might just well say you were given Holy spirit. but now he says you were sealed with Holy spirit.
so the intent obviously is to me that its permanent.


And stickz you want me to answer one of your question? what are you saying? that you have questions about OSAS?

 

[Stickz]

Jari: And stickz you want me to answer one of your question? what are you saying? that you have questions about OSAS?

No, thanks, Jari. I think that I've gotten about all that I can get from you. Never cared much for pulling teeth, anyway. I'll leave you alone for now.

 

[agua]

agua, I'll not argue with you. I read the verse differently than you do, and that's it. Regardless, I have also posted other verses to make my point that friendly and gentle debate/disputing is not something that wasn't done by those before us. I assume that what was okay for Paul to do is okay for me to do.

Oky doky. I didn't say debating was wrong but that you misunderstood a scripture you posted.

 

[brakelite]

You gotta laugh...contending over the meaning of contention...

 

[agua]

You gotta laugh...contending over the meaning of contention...

Don't you start.

: p

 

[Stickz]

I Thessalonians 5:19 Quench not the Spirit. ( KJV )

Would someone care to research the word 'quench' and post it for me, on the off chance of it having a little bit more validity if I'm not the one posting it? Thanks.


Lol, agua, I am not ready to agree with you about my misunderstanding the verse either. You knew that it would not be that easy.

I see that the ESV words the verse a little differently than the translations in my previous post:

I Thessalonians 2:2 But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict.

When Paul left Philippi and went into Thessalonica, how would he still be "in the midst of much conflict" if the conflict being referred to here was what he suffered in Philippi?

Let's look at these verses from Acts too ( chapter sixteen covers their being in Philippi ):

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

The following verses are, in my opinion, the "contention" that Paul was referring to in the Thessalonians verse. In Philippi, they had suffered "persecution", having been beaten and imprisoned. The Thessalonians never seem to get their hands on him. Contention. Or, conflict, in this case.

Acts 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

Acts 17:6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;

Acts 17:7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

Acts 17:8 And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.

Acts 17:9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.

Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

To me, this verse seems to imply that the Thessalonians did not so quickly accept what Paul was preaching, and could indicate, at least, a little debate.

Acts 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Acts 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

Acts 17:14 And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still.

But, if you are still unconvinced, agua, then I concede and admit that you are correct, and I misunderstood the verse that I posted.

Peace be unto you

 

[agua]

I Thessalonians 5:19 Quench not the Spirit. ( KJV )

Would someone care to research the word 'quench' and post it for me, on the off chance of it having a little bit more validity if I'm not the one posting it? Thanks.

G4570
σβέννυμι
sbennumi
sben'-noo-mee
A prolonged form of an apparently primary verb; to extinguish (literally or figuratively): - go out, quench.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Yes logic does matter because when God speaks His words its logical and meant to be understood. For God is not author of confusion but of peace.

I guess I should have included your entire post and to what I was referring to and taken my meaning further. It's at times our own logic which prevents us from acknowledging what you stated. Reading it and knowing that God's Spirit is in us is two different things. Logically I can make this statement, but does my experience and relationship, can it confirm it to be true? No one can answer this for the other. Only the individual and God can know if this is true.

Its beyond my logic that such could happen and even the bible talks about God's spirit in us that seems to unconditionally have the respond to God - Abba, Father.

I included the smiley face hoping to show I was not being critical in any way my brother.
YBIC
C4E

 

[Stickz]

Thank you, agua, for helping me out with the word 'quench'. So, what would your interpretation of that verse be then?

I Thessalonians 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.

 

[agua]

1Th 5:19 NKJV Do not quench the Spirit.

Quench here means that we should not hinder the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. imo

As examples we can do this by continuing in sin and not heeding correction or by practicing the things God hates as outlined in Proverbs 6 imo .

 

[brakelite]

From my reading of the scriptures there seems to be only one really contentious issue that arose between Christians, while there were plenty that arose between Christians and the unbelieving Jews.
The contentious issue that was so prevalent early on in the life of the church was of course circumcision. Converted Jews still zealous for the law of Moses and for the traditions of the elders still felt that circumcision was a necessary adjunct to salvation. It was Paul's letter to the Hebrews that finally laid this debate to rest, proving that the Christians were no longer bound by the Mosaic laws.

There is of course many issues today that have risen between Christians as a direct result of the falling away into apostasy in the 6th century and onward. Truths long since buried and forgotten God would have us now discover. Hence the debate.

Interestingly, there is one contentious issue today that should have been a contentious issue in the days of Paul, but wasn't. That is the issue of the Sabbath. If Sunday observance was instituted as a memorial of the resurrection and instituted at that time as most claim, then surely this would have been the subject of even more heated debate that was circumcision. Converted Jews, of which the vast majority of early converts were, all of a sudden began observing Sunday and ignored the Sabbath without any argument, debate, or protest? Not even a question? Not one hint of such a debate appears in any of Paul's letters, nor in Acts. Certainly there was a little controversy over the feast days, the annual Sabbaths, but the weekly Sabbath, that institution so revered and so loved by Jewry, especially since the Babylonian captivity, passed away without a whimper? I would suggest, rather categorically state that the reasonm there was no controversy over the Sabbath was because there was no need of it. The Sabbath was observed by the early church...Sunday observance, at least in apostolic times, was unheard of.

 

[ForumAddict]

A plain reading of Genesis indicates that when God created Adam in His own rational image, He gave Adam the gift of intelligible speech, thus enabling him to communicate objectively with his creator (and with other human beings) via sharable linguistic symbols called words (Genesis 1:26).

God sovereignly chose to use human language as a medium of revelational communication.

If the primary purpose of God's originating of language was to make it possible for Him to communicate with human beings, as well as to enable human beings to communicate with each another, then it must follow that He would generally use language and expect man to use it in its literal, normal, and plain sense.

This view of language is a prerequisite to understanding not only God's spoken word but His written Word (Scripture) as well.​

The Bible as a body of literature exists because human beings need to know certain spiritual truths to which they cannot attain by themselves.

Thus these truths must come to them from without - that is, via objective, special revelation from God (Deuteronomy 29:29).

And this revelation can only be understood if one interprets the words of Scripture according to God's original design for language - that is, according to the ordinary, plain, literal sense of each word.​

Even in New Testament times, the apostle Peter warned that there are teachings in the inspired writings of Paul "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16, insert added).

This verse tells us that mishandling the Word of God can be very dangerous. Indeed, mishandling the Word of God is a "path" to destruction.

ronrhodes/Interpretation

 

[Stickz]

ForumAddict: Even in New Testament times, the apostle Peter warned that there are teachings in the inspired writings of Paul "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16, insert added).

This verse tells us that mishandling the Word of God can be very dangerous. Indeed, mishandling the Word of God is a "path" to destruction.

How exactly would this affect someone that believes in Once Saved, Always Saved?

 

[ForumAddict]

First off by not taking into account the 'context'.

This verse tells us that mishandling the Word of God can be very dangerous. Indeed, mishandling the Word of God is a "path" to destruction.

By reading it all instead of picking it apart.

its literal, normal, and plain sense.