Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

Roselove

Saved in 3 tenses?

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Roselove said:

I had a question on the side that I wanted to ask you. In church last Sunday, the preacher was talking about the prodigal son, one of the points he made was, in the Old Testament, if a son abandoned the family, they were considered dead to them and were taken out of their family's genealogy book or something, but Jesus was saying that we are now sons and daughters even if we leave and He'll take us back. I found it very encouraging, especially when cross referencing it with Jesus in Revelation saying He won't blot our name out of the Book Of Life, but as I was reading Luke 15, verse 24 stuck out to me, the father says his son was dead and is now alive again and that he was lost and now found. It kind of sounded like he was saying that he was lost until he came back and repented. I looked up in the Greek, the word "dead" in that verse, it said it was literal physical or spiritual death from what I could tell? I wasn't sure what to make of it, do you think you could address this question also on your next reply? It's been kind of confusing me. Thanks!

Sister Rose,

I have one more installment to do concerning the article. After I am able to present that installment, then I will handle your question on Luke 15:24. Will that be acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Roselove said:

Are you going to be able to give the rest of your comments, soon? 

Rose, 

I am sorry that I have not been able to do so lately.  The last few months have not been friendly to my schedule.  Please let me see if I can find an afternoon to do so within the next week.  Also, I do have an answer in answer to your question about the parable of the prodigal son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Rose, 

I am sorry that I have not been able to do so lately.  The last few months have not been friendly to my schedule.  Please let me see if I can find an afternoon to do so within the next week.  Also, I do have an answer in answer to your question about the parable of the prodigal son.

Thank you, I appreciate it! I'm looking forward to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 10:22 PM, Roselove said:

Thank you, I appreciate it! I'm looking forward to it. 

Well, yesterday afternoon I started working on my final installment of review for the article.  However, then I had a sump pump problem that stole away a number of hours from my schedule.  Will continue to attempt a completion within the next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well, yesterday afternoon I started working on my final installment of review for the article.  However, then I had a sump pump problem that stole away a number of hours from my schedule.  Will continue to attempt a completion within the next week.

Oh my, I'm sorry to hear that! :44_frowning2:  I hope you're able to get it fixed, soon! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his third and final main point, the author of the article presented his most extensive effort to substantiate his given point.  I myself believe that this is the author’s weakest point, and that such is the reason that he had to put forth so much effort in order to attempt to make his point.  Since this point contains more material, I wish to respond to it by sections.  Even so, the author’s introduction to this point is as follows:

               (https://edgarsreflections.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/what-did-jesus-mean-by-“i-will-lose-nothing”-in-john-639/amp/)

 

Quote

IS THE “RISING UP” RESURRECTION?

One might argue that if the phrase “all that He has given Me I lose nothing,” in John 6:39 is not about salvation why did the Lord Jesus say that he will “raise it up on the last day”? If what Jesus meant by “lose nothing” was his protection of the disciples so as not to lose them physically as explained in John 18:8-9, why did the Lord Jesus mention about raising them up again on the last day? Doesn’t it prove that since Jesus added, “but raise it up on the last day” the phrase “lose nothing” has to do with salvation?


Certainly, an individual might present such an argument.  In fact, such an argument would be quite valid since the two phrases are a part of the same sentence, and thus are a part of the same immediate context.  Indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ specifically connected these two phrases together within the same grammatical sentence.
 

Quote

As I’ve already shown, John himself refutes the idea that the phrase, “lose nothing” mean “not to lose one’s salvation.” John’s usage of the word cannot in anyway be disproved. That the phrase, “lose nothing” does not mean “not to lose one’s salvation” is evidently clear as per John’s words in 18:8,9. John never used that phrase in anyway to suggest OSAS or ES. John, by using that phrase, simply means protection from physical harm or even death as we have seen in John chapters 17 and 18.


Yet as I have demonstrated through a previous posting (here), the author’s argument on this matter is not as valid as he seems to claim.  So then, since the author proceeded to build the present point upon his previous point, his present point will be found to fall without a foundation.
 

Quote

Now, I understand that when Jesus said, “”This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing” and then followed it up with a statement, “but raise it up on the last day” seems to suggest that the Lord Jesus was talking about not losing one’s salvation because of that particular clause which I would like to call as the “raising up” clause. But that is not necessarily the case as I will try to demonstrate.


Indeed, that is true. The phrase, “But should raise it up again at the last day,” certainly does seem to suggest that our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking concerning the matter of eternal salvation and resurrection unto eternal life.  Yet the author suggested that this more natural understanding of the phrase is not necessarily accurate.  Thus he attempted to demonstrate this with a four-fold argument.  However, I myself stand in conflict with every one of those four arguments. 

In the first place, the author of the article presented the argument as follows:

Quote

First, even if the clause, “but raise it up on the last day” means resurrection, still the phrase “lose nothing” cannot mean “not to lose one’s salvation.” Jesus could have been simply saying that it is Father’s will for him to protect the disciples from any harm (or even death) and also to resurrect them in the last day because they believe in the Son (6:40). Their resurrection is not predicated on the “lose nothing” (6:39) but on their “believing” (6:40).


Herein the author attempted to present an option of compromise.  He presented an option which accepts that the phrase, “raise it up again at the last day,” does actually refer unto the resurrection at the end of the world.  Yet in this option of compromise, the author presented that meaning of the phrase, “should lose nothing,” could still refer unto the physical protection of the disciples.  As such, the author indicated that this option would present the idea that our Lord Jesus Christ was promising to protect the disciples physically “AND ALSO to resurrect them in the last day.” (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)  However, this option of compromise is not grammatically possible.  Grammatically, our Lord Jesus Christ did not say, “That of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, AND ALSO should raise it up again at the last day.”  Rather, our Lord Jesus Christ said, “That of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, BUT should raise it up again at the last day.”  Grammatically, the adversative conjunction “but” does not indicate an addition, but rather indicates a contrast.  Thus our Lord’s statement reveals that there is a truth of contrast, wherein two given results would be the direct opposite of one another.  In this statement the result of being lost is the direct opposite to the result of being raise up again at the last day.  Whatever is the correct meaning for these resulting conditions, they are grammatically presented as opposites.  On the one hand, if our Lord loses an individual, then He will not raise up that individual again at the last day.  On the other hand, if our Lord does not lose and individual, then He will raise that individual up again at the last day.


In the second place, the author of the article presented the argument as follows:

Quote

And second, the phrase, “but raise it up on the last day” or the “raising up” clause could be translated in another way other than the normal translation we have. In the original Greek, the phrase “raise them up” is “anistemi,” which could also be translated as “to stand up.” “Anistemi” came from the base words “ana” and “histemi”. Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines the word “histemi” as “to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively): – abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up).”

Notice the underlined words. The word “histemi,” while it is used to refer to a rising from the dead, it is not necessarily the meaning in John 6:39. I said it is not necessarily the meaning of “anistemi” because the word “dead” is not present in the text. Only “raising up” is clearly there. “Anistemi,” while it could mean “raising up,” could mean a number of different things as well such as, “to stand up,” “to appear,” to stand forth,” “to abide at,” since “ana” could mean “up” or “at.” “Histemi” could also mean, “to continue,” “hold up,” and “stand by.” If the word “dead” is present in the text, then it is beyond doubt that “anistemi” here must be interpreted “resurrection.” In other words, while raising (from the dead) is one possible meaning of “anistemi,” it is not the only possible meaning because the word “dead” is not present in the text. 


Herein the author attempted to present a difference in definition.  He began by revealing that the English phrase “should raise . . . up again” is translated from the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”), In this he was correct.  Then the author revealed that the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) was created by joining the Greek preposition “ἀνὰ” (“ana”) with the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”).  Again in this he was correct.  Then the author presented the definition for the the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) as given in Strong’s dictionary.  Yet again in this he was correct.  Yet it is after this point wherein the author went astray.  Directing our attention upon the definition for the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”), the author stated, “The word ‘histemi,’ while it is used to refer to a rising from the dead, it is not necessarily the meaning in John 6:39.”  Now, there are two glaring errors with this statement.  First, the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) is NEVER used in the New Testament to mean “rising from the dead.”  Rather, it is the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) that is used in the New Testament with this meaning.  Second, the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) most certainly does not mean “a rising from the dead” in John 6:39, because the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) does not even exist in John 6:39.  Rather, it is the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) that is found in John 6:39.  Yet for the remainder of his explanation above, the author of the article continued to mix together the two Greek verbs “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) and “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”).  (Note: This would be like mixing the definitions of the two English words “standing” and “upstanding,” simply because the word “upstanding” includes the word “standing” in its construction.)

In fact, the meaning of the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) is not at all relevant to a correct understanding of John 6:39, specifically because this Greek verb does not exist in John 6:39.  Whereas the meaning of the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) may be relevant in helping us understand how the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) developed its meaning, it is the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) itself that is relevant to a correct understanding of John 6:39, since that is the actual Greek verb which is found in John 6:39.  So then, what is the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) (which the author of the article never actually provided)?  According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary, the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is “to stand up (lit. or fig., trans. or intrans.):--arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up (-right).  Now, the author of the article directed us to consider his underlined portions from the definition for the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”).  These included “abide, continue, hold up, present, stand (by, forth, still, up).”  He directed us thus because it is upon these meanings that he made his argument concerning John 6:39.  Yet it should be noticed that the ONLY one of these meanings that the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) also carries in meaning is “to stand up.”  Not a single other one of these meanings is a part of the meaning for the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”).  Even so, the author of the article has engaged in a significant definitional error herein.  The Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) never means “standing by (or, alive),” as the author of the article asserted in the conclusion of his article.   Rather, it always indicates some form of movement in an upward direction, whether literally or figuratively.

Strong’s Greek Dictionary indicates that the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) can be used either transitively or intransitively.  This is important to understand because the difference in this grammatical usage will affect the applicational meaning of the word.  Grammatically, a transitive usage of a verb indicates a transition of action from the subject to the object.  (Example: I raised up the flag.  The subject “I” is doing the action of “raising up” upon the object “the flag.”)  On the other hand, an intransitive usage of a verb indicates no transition of action from the subject to any object.  (Example: I stand up.  The subject “I” is doing the action of “standing up,” but is not doing so upon any given object.)  In John 6:39 the Greek verb verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is used transitively.  Even so, according to Thayer’s Greek lexicon, when used transitively the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “to cause to rise, raise up; a. properly of one lying down; b. to raise up from the dead; c. to raise up, cause to be born.  Furthermore, according to Bauer’s Greek lexicon, when used transitively the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “raise, erect, raise up; a. literally of idols, of one lying down, especially of the dead – raise up, bring to life; b. figuratively raise up in the sense cause to appear or be born.”  Thus we may understand that the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “raise up again,” just as it is translated in the King James translation.

 
In the third place, the author of the article presented the argument as follows:

Quote

As a matter of fact, John, in his Gospel often used the word “egeiro” when referring to the rising up from the dead. The following Scriptures from John’s Gospel used “egeiro” instead of “anistemi”:

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” (John 2:19-20)

So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. (John 2:22)

Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. (John 12:1)

The large crowd of the Jews then learned that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead. (John 12:9)

So the people, who were with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead, continued to testify about Him. (John 12:17)

This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead. (John 21:14)

I am not denying that “anistemi” can mean “to raise the dead” when it is used in reference to the dead. But since the word “dead” is not in John 6:39-40, 54, “anistemi” can also mean other than rising up from the dead in these passages . . . .

 

Jesus never mentioned death in relation to the “rising up” mentioned in John 6:39. This is very important since all usage of “anistemi” in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word “dead” is always present . . . . 


Herein the author attempted to present a distinction of usage.  First, he indicated that the word “dead” is not found in John 6:39-40, 54.  In this he was correct.  Then he stated that “all usage of ‘anistemi’ in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word ‘dead’ is always present.”  Yet this is a little misleading.  First, the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is only used a total of eight time in the gospel of John (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:23, 24, 31; 20:9); and four of those times are in the context of John 6:35-65.  John 20:9 includes the word “dead” and is clearly speaking of resurrection, employing the phrase “rise again from the dead.”  John 11:31 is clearly not about resurrection, but about rising up from a sitting position.  However, while John 11:23 and John11:24 do not include the word “dead,” these two verses clearly are speaking of resurrection.  Therein we read, “Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.  Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”  Indeed, Martha’s statement in John 11:25 is quite instructive; for it is clear that in her mindset “the last day” and “the resurrection” were directly connected with one another.  Yeah, the resurrection was an event that would occur “at the last day;” and “the last day” was the time period for the event of “the resurrection.”  Even so, the claim by the author of the article that “all usage of ‘anistemi’ in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word ‘dead’ is always present” is found to be somewhat inaccurate.  John 11:24-25 does not include the word “dead,” yet is clearly speaking of resurrection.

So then, what about the context of John 6:35-65?  As I have mentioned, the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is used four times in this context, being found in verses 39, 40, 44, 54.  Thus whatever meaning this Greek verb might carry in one of these verses, it would contextually carry in all four of these verses.  What then do these four verses teach us as a whole together concerning the raising up at the last day?  In John 6:35 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is a responsibility that God the Father has given to God the Son, and that it is the opposite of God the Son’s losing an individual.  In John 6:40 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to all who “see” God the Son and believe on Him, and that it is directly connected with the promised reception of everlasting life unto such believers.  In John 6:44 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to those who come unto God the Son through faith, in response to God the Father’s drawing.  Finally, in John 6:54 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to all who spiritually partake of God the Son, and that it is directly connected with the promised reception of eternal life unto such partakers.  Joining these truth together, we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised work by God the Son unto those who come unto Him and partake of Him through faith, in direct connection with the gift of everlasting-eternal life, and as the direct opposite of being somehow lost by God the Son.  When we further join these truths with what we learn from John 11:24-25, it appears quite clear that the raising up at the last day is indeed a reference unto the event of the resurrection at the last day.


In the fourth place, the author of the article presented the argument and concluded his article as follows:

Quote

I am not denying that “anistemi” can mean “to raise the dead” when it is used in reference to the dead. But since the word “dead” is not in John 6:39-40, 54, “anistemi” can also mean other than rising up from the dead in these passages. I don’t think that “anistemi,” in this occasion in John 6 necessarily means rising up from the dead for the following reasons:

The taking place of the last day in Jesus’ mind during his time on earth was not after 2000 years. The last day in his thinking and in the disciples’ thinking was only a few years away, that is, in the lifetime of the disciples. Nobody during the time of Christ and of the early NT church would think that the last day will be after 2000 years. In that case, for Jesus to state the he will “resurrect” his disciples is for him to presume that they will die in the next few years since the last day, again, was not thought of as being after 2000 years or even after 200 years.

Jesus never mentioned death in relation to the “rising up” mentioned in John 6:39. This is very important since all usage of “anistemi” in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word “dead” is always present. If Jesus was presuming that his disciples will die before he comes again, then his promise in John 14:2-3 is a bit misleading since he promised them that “I will come again and receive you unto myself.” He did not say that they will go to him. Rather, he said that he will come back for them. Thus, in the last day (if it is connected to his coming) his disciples would still be alive.

In Matthew 16:27,28 Jesus said, “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing (“histemi”) here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Jesus was certain that some of his disciples would still be standing or alive when he comes back. Thus, showing that the last day, in Jesus’ thinking, is not after 2000 years and that some of his disciples (probably the Twelve) will be standing still at the last day.

In Matthew 10:23 Jesus said, “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” Again, another passage that demonstrates that the disciples will be standing still until the last day.

Peter in Acts 3:19, 20 preached, “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you–even Jesus.” This is what the disciples believed. They believed that Jesus will come again during their lifetime (see also Romans 13:11; James 5:8; 1 Peter 4:7)

It is possible then that when Jesus said, “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day,” he was simply saying that the Father’s will for him is to protect the disciples from any harm or death and to have them standing by (or alive) until the last day (which was a few years from that time as far as they believed it back then).

With that in mind, I would like to submit that John 6:39 does not in anyway teach that once a person is saved he will always be saved or that his salvation is eternally secured the moment s/he believes in Christ. The security of our salvation in IN Christ. As long as a person is truly IN Christ he is saved, but once he turned his/her back to the Lord, he is no longer IN Christ. John himself in the same chapter said, “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” (6:66) And then Jesus himself said to the Twelve: “You do not want to leave too, do you?” (6:67)


Herein the author attempted to present an adjustment of perspective.  He implies that we need to adjust our perspective in order to view our Lord’s declaration in John 6:39 from the perspective of the disciples back then, rather than from our perspective 2,000 years later.  Indeed, the author of the article stated, “The taking place of the last day in Jesus’ mind during his time on earth was not after 2000 years.  The last day in his thinking and in the disciples’ thinking was only a few years away, that is, in the lifetime of the disciples.”  Now, it is certainly true that the disciples, during our Lord’s earthly ministry, did not have a correct perspective of God’s plan concerning Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, church administration, and second coming.  Yet for the author of the article to indicate that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was just as wrong in His own understanding of God’s plan as the disciples were is (in my opinion) edging toward blasphemy.  Our Lord Jesus Christ never had a false viewpoint concerning these things, and in John 6:39 He Himself is the One who is teaching truth from His own perfect perspective. 

Again the author of the article stated, “In that case, for Jesus to state the he will “resurrect” his disciples is for him to presume that they will die in the next few years since the last day, again, was not thought of as being after 2000 years or even after 200 years.”  Yet within this very same gospel of John, in John 21:17-19, the record is given, “He [Jesus] saith unto him [Peter] the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?  And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.  Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.  This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.”  So then, our Lord Jesus Christ most certainly did recognize that at least His disciple Peter would experience death before His second coming.  Yet this creates a complicating contradiction.  IF our Lord Jesus Christ’s promise in John 6:39 is to be applied at the very least unto His chosen apostles, and IF His promise in John 6:39 means that He would not lose even one of those apostles unto physical harm or death, then how could He declare His recognition that the apostle Peter would indeed experience physical death, and that through martyrdom.  IF this verse means what the author of the article indicated, then our Lord Jesus Christ was given the responsibility by God the Father not to lose even one of His chosen apostle unto physical harm or death.  Thus Peter’s death would be a failure on the part of our Lord Jesus Christ to fulfill that responsibility before God the Father, and thus that failure would cause our Lord Jesus Christ no longer to be qualified as the Savior of the world.  To these things I declare – GOD FORBID!

Yet again the author of the article stated, “If Jesus was presuming that his disciples will die before he comes again, then his promise in John 14:2-3 is a bit misleading since he promised them that ‘I will come again and receive you unto myself.’  He did not say that they will go to him.  Rather, he said that he will come back for them.  Thus, in the last day (if it is connected to his coming) his disciples would still be alive.”  Yet the New Testament teaching of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 indicates otherwise – “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”  Herein we learn that in the event of the catching up (rapture), our Lord Jesus Christ will descend from heaven and will resurrect His own who have previously died to meet Him in the clouds, in order that He might receive them unto Himself and they might ever be with Him.  The fact that they have previously died in no way brings doubt upon our Lord’s promise, for it is factored directly into His promise.

And yet again the author of the article stated in relation to Matthew 16:27-28, “Jesus was certain that some of his disciples would still be standing or alive when he comes back.  Thus, showing that the last day, in Jesus’ thinking, is not after 2000 years and that some of his disciples (probably the Twelve) will be standing still at the last day.”  Now, in Matthew 16:28 our Lord Jesus Christ only applied His promise unto SOME of His disciples.  This would imply that at least some other of His disciples would indeed experience death, and would thus defeat the promise of John 6:39 for the Lord not to lose even one unto physical harm or death (IF that is what is actually intended in John 6:39, as the author of the article indicated).  Furthermore, our Lord Jesus Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled on the high mountain of His transfiguration, even as Peter indicated in 2 Peter 1:16 that he himself, James, and John were “eyewitnesses” of Jesus’ kingdom “majesty.”  And yet again the author of the article stated in relation to Matthew 10:23, “Again, another passage that demonstrates that the disciples will be standing still until the last day.”  Yet this now pushes forward the false (in my opinion) teaching of preterism.

So then, Sister Rose, having thoroughly reviewed the author’s article, and having demonstrated a significant number of errors in that article, I am compelled to content that the author is simply false in his claim that John 6:39 does not teach the doctrine of eternal security.  

Do you have any further questions about the article or about my review thereof?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

having thoroughly reviewed the author’s article, and having demonstrated a significant number of errors in that article, I am compelled to content that the author is simply false in his claim that John 6:39 does not teach the doctrine of eternal security.  

Thank you for the very, grammatically, detailed (in English and in Greek), study on the words of the Lord Jesus in John 6:39, and the appropriate related passages. 

In my estimation, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the author's premise was false in numerous ways and deceitful in the handling of both the English and Greek texts. You have proven that the words of the Lord Jesus in John 6:39, and its related passages, clearly teach the eternal security of the soul of the redeemed.

I appreciate the time, effort, intense study, presentation, and the good spirit, that you made in making the study.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so everyone knows.

Strongs Definitions, as Pastor Markle has pointed, are definitions for root words.

in Greek Morphemes are added to words to slightly change the meaning/part of speech, grammatical function, tense, mood, etc  (though not the core meaning).

for example in English the word “talk” is a root. We can modify the root “talk” in a few different ways: talk-ed creates past tense, talk-ing creates present tense.

however if hypothetically you were to put a number for Strong’s condorance, you would have 1 number for the root “talk”, you would not have 2 separate Strong’s numbers for talk-ed or talk-ing. 

Hope maybe that clears things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Pastor Markle! That was a very informative teaching that you gave on the article! I'm convinced about what you've said! It was a blessing!

I do have a question about the Old Testament, next. Please let me know when you're ready, I know that you are busy! 

On 2/25/2018 at 10:36 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Just so everyone knows.

Strongs Definitions, as Pastor Markle has pointed, are definitions for root words.

in Greek Morphemes are added to words to slightly change the meaning/part of speech, grammatical function, tense, mood, etc  (though not the core meaning).

for example in English the word “talk” is a root. We can modify the root “talk” in a few different ways: talk-ed creates past tense, talk-ing creates present tense.

however if hypothetically you were to put a number for Strong’s condorance, you would have 1 number for the root “talk”, you would not have 2 separate Strong’s numbers for talk-ed or talk-ing. 

Hope maybe that clears things up.

I wasn't sure how this answer fits into what he said. I get overwhelmed with a lot of this, so I was just confused about what you mean. Are you confirming what Pastor Markle said, or are you questioning something? (I'm not being argumentative, I seriously just don't understand, I'm autistic, I just get confused easily with lots of information.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roselove said:

I wasn't sure how this answer fits into what he said. I get overwhelmed with a lot of this, so I was just confused about what you mean. Are you confirming what Pastor Markle said, or are you questioning something? (I'm not being argumentative, I seriously just don't understand, I'm autistic, I just get confused easily with lots of information.)

Sister Rose, 

First, Brother Kurecki is a friend of mine.  Second, what he presented was NOT intended to contradict my explanation, but was intended as a further help to it.  It is always difficult when an article includes Greek or Hebrew information.  I myself have some training in those languages, and can usually follow what is going on, as well as wherein errors might be being made.  However, it is difficult to then explain this information unto an audience that may have little or no understanding of those Languages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roselove said:

Thank you, Pastor Markle! That was a very informative teaching that you gave on the article! I'm convinced about what you've said! It was a blessing!

I do have a question about the Old Testament, next. Please let me know when you're ready, I know that you are busy! 

Sister Rose, 

I praise the Lord that He has used my for your help and edification.  Concerning your question concerning the Old Testament, I believe that I am scheduled to handle the parable of the prodigal son next.  Then we can move to your question concerning the Old Testament.

Now, early in this thread discussion, I presented a posting concerning the teaching of eternal security from John 6:35-40 and its application unto you personally.  It was at that point wherein you presented the article as casting some doubt that John 6:35-40 actually teaches the doctrine of eternal security.  Having now given my thorough review of that article, wherein I demonstrated various errors in that article, I wish to repeat my posting from John 6:35-40 for the encouragement of your assurance in your own eternal security, as follows:

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 2:46 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In this passage we encounter four different groupings of individuals:

1.  The Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son.
2.  Those individuals who come unto and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
3.  Those individuals who do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
4.  God the Father, the One who sent God the Son.

For the sake of our present discussion, I wish to focus out attention, not upon the activities of those who believe or upon the activities of those who do not believe, but upon the activities of God the Father and of God the Son and upon the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, as revealed in this passage.  These points are as follows:

1.  God the Father gives certain individuals unto the Son.
2.  God the Son will "in no wise cast out" those individuals who come unto Him.
3.  God the Son came down from heaven to do God the Father's will.
4.  God the Father wills that of all the individuals which He hath given unto the Son, God the Son should lose nothing, no, not even a single one.
5.  God the Father also wills that of all the individuals which He hath given unto the Son, God the Son should certainly raise them up in the last day.
6.  God the Father also wills that unto every one of the individuals who believe on God the Son, God the Son should give them everlasting life.
7.  God the Son will indeed raise up at the last day every one of those individuals who believe on Him.

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 3:45 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

John 6:37 speaks concerning those individuals who actually DO come unto Christ through faith for salvation.  The order of the verse is as follows:

1.  God the Father gives certain individuals (NOT all individuals) unto God the Son.
2.  ALL (every single one without exception) that God the Father gives actually do come unto God the Son through faith for salvation.
3.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall "in no wise be cast out" by God the Son.

If we then add the truths of John 6:39-40 concerning these individuals, we would add:

4.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall have everlasting life (as per verse 40).
5.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall not be lost by God the Son (as per verse 39).
6.  Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall be raised up at the last day by God the Son (as per verses 39 & 40).

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 7:15 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I wish to apply the truths that we have gleaned from John 6:35-40 unto your personal case --

Have you yourself, "Roselove," come unto God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, through faith as personal Savior?

If you have, then:

1.  God the Father gave you unto God the Son.
2.  God the Son did not and will not cast you out.
3.  God the Father has assigned God the Son not to lose you.
4.  God the Son will certainly NOT fail God the Father in this assignment.
5.  God the Father has assigned God the Son to give you everlasting life.
6.  God the Son has indeed given you everlasting life.
7.  God the Father has assigned God the Son to raise you up at the last day.
8.  God the Son will certainly raise you up at the last day.

Your assurance of security is founded upon and rooted in the authority, power, and faithfulness of God the Father and God the Son.  Indeed, in relation to God the Son's faithfulness, your assurance of security is not only founded upon and rooted in His faithfulness unto you, but even more so is founded upon and rooted in God the Son's faithfulness unto God the Father.

 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose, 

First, Brother Kurecki is a friend of mine.  Second, what he presented was NOT intended to contradict my explanation, but was intended as a further help to it.  It is always difficult when an article includes Greek or Hebrew information.  I myself have some training in those languages, and can usually follow what is going on, as well as wherein errors might be being made.  However, it is difficult to then explain this information unto an audience that may have little or no understanding of those Languages.

Okay, I didn't think he was being rude or anything, I just couldn't tell what he was talking about. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding everything, correctly. It's a lot to take in, especially after my long battle with believing salvation could be lost. I'm really striving to trust in this doctrine, because I just can't seem to live a stable life with Christ, always being worried about that kind of thing. I really enjoy getting all of this help, if I ask a lot of questions, it's not to be controversial or anything, I just tend to get overwhelmed easily, for the reason, stated above. 

Also, thank you for bringing up some of your posts from before, it really helps bring all of this info, together! I really appreciate the effort you've put into helping me understand these concerns, it has been a big blessing.

On 2/25/2018 at 10:36 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Just so everyone knows.

Strongs Definitions, as Pastor Markle has pointed, are definitions for root words.

in Greek Morphemes are added to words to slightly change the meaning/part of speech, grammatical function, tense, mood, etc  (though not the core meaning).

for example in English the word “talk” is a root. We can modify the root “talk” in a few different ways: talk-ed creates past tense, talk-ing creates present tense.

however if hypothetically you were to put a number for Strong’s condorance, you would have 1 number for the root “talk”, you would not have 2 separate Strong’s numbers for talk-ed or talk-ing. 

Hope maybe that clears things up.

Pastor Markle cleared up my question, sorry! Was just trying to get a clear understanding! :12_slight_smile:

Edited by Roselove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Roselove said:

Okay, I didn't think he was being rude or anything, I just couldn't tell what he was talking about. 

Sister Rose, 

I certainly understood that you were not being rude, and that you were only seeking to clear up some confusion.
 

35 minutes ago, Roselove said:

 I really enjoy getting all of this help, if I ask a lot of questions, it's not to be controversial or anything, I just tend to get overwhelmed easily, for the reason, stated above. 

Also, thank you for bringing up some of your posts from before, it really helps bring all of this info, together! I really appreciate the effort you've put into helping me understand these concerns, it has been a big blessing.

As far as the time and efforts spent in order to answer your questions (even if they may be "a lot"), in many ways teaching God's truth and answering spiritual questions is the very calling of the Lord our God upon my life.  In many ways such is the very reason that I exist upon this earth.  As long as I can find the time and ability, I shall ever be glad to help in this manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose, 

I certainly understood that you were not being rude, and that you were only seeking to clear up some confusion.
 

As far as the time and efforts spent in order to answer your questions (even if they may be "a lot"), in many ways teaching God's truth and answering spiritual questions is the very calling of the Lord our God upon my life.  In many ways such is the very reason that I exist upon this earth.  As long as I can find the time and ability, I shall ever be glad to help in this manner.

I'm glad you understood! I get worried that I come off in a way, that I don't mean to! It's hard, really expressing myself over the internet! Lol! 

But, thank you again. I'm glad that God is using you in this way! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the Parable of the Prodigal Son & the Older Brother (Part 1 of 3)

In Luke 15:24 the father of the prodigal son stated concerning his son, “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”  Since the father described his son as having been both dead and lost, the question arises concerning how this parable relates to the doctrine of eternal salvation.

Now, for a correct understanding of the parable in relation to the doctrine of salvation, it is necessary to consider the context of the parable in its entirety.  That entire context encompasses all of Luke 15, including a specific circumstance and complaint and a response by our Lord with a threefold parable.  In fact, the threefold parable is delivered by our Lord as His specific response to the complaint that was expressed against Him.  Even so, the contextual circumstance and complaint for the parable of the prodigal son and the older brother is presented in Luke 15:1-2 – “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.  And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” 

Thus the context for the parable involves three groups of individuals, as follows: 1) the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, 2) the publicans and sinners, 3) the Pharisees and scribes.  The circumstance for the parable was that the publicans and sinners were drawing near unto the Lord Jesus Christ in order to hear His message.  This circumstance includes three noteworthy elements, as follows: 1) The publicans and sinners were the ones choosing to draw near unto the Lord Jesus Christ (not Christ seeking to be a part of their crowd).  2) The publicans and sinners were drawing near unto Christ specifically in order to hear His message (not in order to influence Him to be in some unified part with them).  3) The message that Christ taught and preached was a call to repentance (as per Matthew 4:17; 9:13).  Thus it appears to be implied in this circumstance that many of these particular publicans and sinners were drawing near unto the Lord Jesus Christ in order to hear His message of repentance and to respond with repentance.

Finally, the complaint of the parable was expressed by the Pharisees and scribes, who murmured against the Lord Jesus Christ specifically because He was receiving these particular publicans and sinners unto Himself and eating with them.  Even so, it is directly in response to this murmuring complaint by the Pharisees and scribes that our Lord Jesus Christ delivered His threefold parable.  As such, the primary point of our Lord’s threefold parable was to defend His reception of the repentant publicans and sinners.

Now, the first two parts of our Lord’s threefold parable are very closely related to one another because they both carry the same basic elements and receive that same explanation by our Lord.  These two parts of our Lord’s threefold parable are found in Luke 15:3-10 – “And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?  And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.  And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.  I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.  Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?  And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.  Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”

In both of these parts to our Lord’s threefold parable, we find the same three basic elements, as follows: 1) something that is lost, 2) the finding of the thing that was lost, 3) a call to joy and rejoicing over the finding of the thing that was lost.  Also for both of these parts, our Lord presented the same basic explanation, which also included three elements, as follows: 1) a sinner in need of repentance (which is represented in the two parts of the threefold parable by the thing that was lost), 2) the repentance of the sinner (which is represented in the two parts of the threefold parable by the finding of the thing that was lost), 3) the joy in heaven in the presence of the angels over the repentance sinner (which is represented in the two parts of the threefold parable by the call to rejoice over the finding of the thing that was lost). 

Even so, we are brought to consider a few details of truth.  First, our Lord did not indicate that the angels themselves are the ones rejoicing.  Rather, He indicated that the rejoicing was done in heaven within the presence of the angels.  So, we might ask – Who is in heaven within the presence of the angels that might rejoice over a sinner who repents?  The answer would be the Lord our God Himself and the saints of the past who have died and are presently in heaven with the Lord God (which would be represented in the two parts of the threefold parable by the friends that are called to rejoice together with the finder of the thing that was lost).  Second, by our Lord’s explanation for these two parts of the threefold parable, we are able to understand that the means by which the Lord our God finds lost sinners is through the repentance of the lost sinner.  In these two parts of the threefold parable, the thing that was lost and then found really did not have the ability to return on its own volition, but had to be found by the “searcher.”  As such, this represents the seeking by the Lord our God after lost sinners.  Yet in our Lord’s explanation, He did not speak about a sinner that was found.  Rather, He spoke about a sinner that repents.  Even so, this indicates the means by which lost sinners are found.  They are found by the Lord our God when they repent.  Third, it is worthy of note that in the first part our Lord made the parable personal unto the murmuring Pharisees and scribes.  He began the parable with the opening phrase, “What man of you . . . .”  Thus our Lord implied that rejoicing over the finding of something precious that had been lost would even be a natural response for the murmurers.  So then, how much more would it be appropriate for the Lord our God to rejoice over the finding of a lost sinner through the means of the sinner’s repentance?  Fourth, in His explanation to the first part of this threefold parable, our Lord revealed that there would be joy in heaven over just one sinner that repents, “more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.”  As such, our Lord revealed how greatly the Lord our God values even a single sinner that comes unto repentance.  Finally, in both parts of our Lord’s threefold parable, He presented that the one who found the thing which was lost called friends to rejoice together over that finding.  Even so, we are able to understand that the Lord our God expects His “friends” to rejoice with Him over any given sinner who repents.

With all of this in mind, we are able to discern the relation of these parts of the threefold parable with the circumstance of Luke 15:1.  First, the thing that was lost represents the publicans and sinners, who were lost sinners in the sight of God.  Second, the finding of the thing that was lost represents the repentance of the publicans and sinners as they drew near unto the Lord Jesus Christ to hear His message of repentance.  Third, the rejoicing over the finding of the thing that was lost represents the response of the Lord our God toward the publicans and sinners who were drawing near unto the Lord Jesus Christ to hear and receive His message of repentance.

The final part of our Lord’s threefold parable is then the part concerning the prodigal son and his older brother.  This part is found in Luke 15:11-32, and it also includes the same three basic elements as the previous two parts.  Thus we understand that our Lord’s explanation for the first two parts of His threefold parable also apply unto this third and final part.  First, in Luke 15:11-16 we encounter the thing that is lost through the sinfully rebellious departure and sinfully riotous living of the prodigal son.  As such, the prodigal son represents the publicans and sinners in their sinful rebellion against the Lord God.  Second, in Luke 15:17-21 we encounter the brokenhearted repentance and return of the prodigal son unto his father.  As such, the repentant prodigal represents the publicans and sinners who were drawing near unto the Lord Jesus Christ to hear and receive His message of repentance.  Third, in Luke 15:20, 22-24 we encounter the joyful response of the father unto his repentant son, wherein the father restores his repentant son unto the fellowship of the family and calls for his servants to rejoice with him over the repentance and return of his son.  As such, the rejoicing of the father represents response of the Lord our God over the repentance of the publicans and sinners as they drew near unto the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Yet this third part of our Lord’s threefold parable includes an element that the previous two parts did not include.  In Luke 15:25-32 this third part includes the bitter anger and murmuring complaint of the elder brother against the father’s reception of and rejoicing over his repentant son.  Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.  And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.  And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.  And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.  And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: but as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.  And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.  It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.”  Now, although our Lord does not provide a specific explanation for this part, it seems clear from the entire context, beginning with the contextual circumstance and complaint, that the older brother represents the complaining Pharisees and scribes, who murmured against the Lord’s reception of and response toward the repentant publicans and sinners.

So then, what was the relationship of the publicans and sinners and of the Pharisees and scribes toward God the Father?  Within the context of our Lord Jesus Christ’s ministry upon earth, both groups would have been Jews.  As such, both groups were members of God’s chosen people and nation.  Thus within the parable the family relationship of both sons with the father would represent close relationship of the Jews with the Lord God as His chosen people and nation.  Yet both groups also possessed a broken spiritual relationship with the Lord God, such that both groups needed to draw near unto the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior through repentance and faith.  In the parable this is represented for the publicans and sinner through the prodigal son’s rebellious departure from the father, and it is represented for the Pharisees and scribes through the older son’s angry division against the father.  Even so, it is worthy of note that publicans and sinners, as represented by the repentant prodigal, actually did draw near unto the Lord Jesus Christ to receive His message of repentance; whereas the parable ends without any indication that the older brother, who represents the Pharisees and scribes, ever came unto repentance and reconciliation with his father.  As such, the conclusion of our Lord’s threefold parable provided a rebuke against the Pharisees and scribes for their complaint against the Lord Jesus Christ and for their lack of repentance before Him.  Indeed, this would be in union with our Lord’s rebuke against them in the closing portion of Matthew 21:31 – “Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.”

So then, this parable in its entire context does not teach that a child of God can become eternally lost through a rebelliously prodigal lifestyle, such that the prodigal would need to repent and become a child of God again.  Rather, this parable teaches that both groups of Jews, regardless of their relationship with the Lord God as members of His chosen people and nation, needed to draw near unto Christ through repentance and faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the Parable of the Prodigal Son & the Older Brother (Part 2 of 3)

The following two outlines are from messages that I preached concerning the prodigal son and concerning the older brother.  I pray that they will be found to be "good unto the use of edifying."

__________________________________________________

Message #1 – The Way Back to the Father

Luke 15:17-24

 

 Introduction:

 

     A.  Departing from the Father 

           1.  To pursue the way of self 

Luke 15:11-12 – “And he said, A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me.  And he divided unto them his living.”  

           2.  To pursue the way of the world 

Luke 15:13 – “And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.”

            3.  To pursue the way of sin 

Luke 15:13 – “And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.”

     

     B.  Reaping What Is Sown 

Hebrews 11:25 – “Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.” 

Galatians 6:7-8 – “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” 

James 1:15 – “Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

                                                                                      

           1.  No pleasure 

Luke 15:14 – “And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.”  

           2.  No provision 

Luke 15:15-16 – “And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.  And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.” 

           3.  No help 

Luke 15:15-16 – “And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.  And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.”

 

I.     He Came to Himself – Realizing that it was better to be WITH the father. 

Luke 15:17 – “And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

 

II.    He Recognized His Sin. 

       A.  I have sinned. 

Luke 15:18 – “I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee.” 

       B.  I am not worthy. 

Luke 15:19 – “And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.” 

       C.  I will serve. 

Luke 15:19 – “And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.”

 

III.  He Returned to the Father. – Draw nigh to God with a broken heart, and He will draw night to you. 

Luke 15;20 – “And he arose, and came to his father.  But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.”  

James 4:8-9 – “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.  Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.  Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.”

 

IV.  He Confessed His Sin. 

       A.  No excusing himself 

Luke 15:21 – “And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.”  

       B.  No trivializing his sin 

Luke 15:21 – “And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.” 

       C.  No shifting of blame

 

V.   He Was Restored by the Father. 

       A.  Restored to peace 

Luke 15:22 – “But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.” 

       B.  Restored to blessing 

Luke 15:23 – “And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry.” 

       C.  Restored to fellowship 

Luke 15:24 – “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.”

 

To hear the sermon as preached, follow the link: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=13117952482
 

__________________________________________________

Message #2 – What about the Other Brother

Luke 15:25-32

 

 Introduction:

 

     A.  The Conflict 

           1.  The publicans and sinners come 

Luke 15:1 – “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.”  

           2.  The Pharisees and scribes complain 

Luke 15:2 – “And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”

 

     B.  The Message 

           1.  Rejoicing when a lost sheep is found 

Luke 15:3-6 – “And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?  And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.  And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.”  

           2.  Rejoicing when a lost coin is found 

Luke 15:8-9 – “Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?  And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.”  

           3.  Rejoicing when a lost son is returned repentant 

Luke 15:22-24 – “But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.  And they began to be merry.” 

           4.  Rejoicing by God the Father when a sinner repents 

Luke 15:7 – “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.” 

Luke 15:10 – “Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”

 

I.     The Other Brother Did NOT Agree with the Father. 

Luke 15:24-28a – “Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.  And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.  And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry . . . .”

 

II.   The Other Brother Became Angry with the Father. 

Luke 15:28-30 – “And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.  And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: but as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.”

 

III.  The Other Brother Broke Fellowship with the Father. 

Luke 15:28 – “And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.” 

 

IV.  The Other Brother Cared Only about Himself. 

Luke 15:29-30 – “And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: but as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.”

 

V.   The Other Brother Continued in Bitterness against the Father. 

Luke 15:31-32 – “And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.  It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.”

 

Note: The parable ends without any indication of repentance on the part of “the other brother.”  In fact, both brothers departed from fellowship with their father.  The younger son broke fellowship through a sinful lifestyle, whereas the older son broke fellowship through a sinful attitude.  Furthermore, the older son engaged in a broken fellowship while never leaving the father’s house, and while having continued in outward, “religious” service and obedience to the father.

 

 To hear the sermon as preached, follow the link: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=131171017164

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this information! I believe I understand now what Jesus was saying! Thank you very much for explaining this in depth! 

From the help I’ve been getting, I’m seeing how security lines up in Scripture, I believe. The question I had about the Old Testament is this, I’ve noticed there are some things in the Old Test. that God said  in the New Test. that we use as proof for security, now. For instance, we say how, He will never leave us nor forsake us, but God said that in the OT as well, yet they left Him and He was no longer with them. Another one that I thought of was, Jude 1:1, my preacher said that it saying that we are preserved, is one of the proof texts of our eternal security. But, in Psalm 37:28, God says that He preserved them forever. I believe that the OT people didn’t have security like the church does. I know there are probably more examples, but I’m just a little confused as to how we can use things like this as proof texts, if God said it in the OT, but it didn’t assure them of absolute security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I most certainly believe in eternal security, I don't believe that the immediate context of "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee" is pertaining to salvation. What it pertains to is clearly told...

(Hebrews 13:5-6)

 5  Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. 

 6  So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

 

Why was it said in the Old Testament? Again, the immediate context is clear...

 

(Deuteronomy 31:1-6)

 1  And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.

 2  And he said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: also the LORD hath said unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan. 

 3  The LORD thy God, he will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee, and thou shalt possess them: and Joshua, he shall go over before thee, as the LORD hath said. 

 4  And the LORD shall do unto them as he did to Sihon and to Og, kings of the Amorites, and unto the land of them, whom he destroyed.

 5  And the LORD shall give them up before your face, that ye may do unto them according unto all the commandments which I have commanded you. 

 6  Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.

So in a nutshell, God promised to not fail nor forsake them in their battles while conquering the promised land. Both Old and New Testaments refer to God's protection of his people from others...not salvation.

People take "never leave nor forsake" out of its actual context and apply it to salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

While I most certainly believe in eternal security, I don't believe that the immediate context of "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee" is pertaining to salvation. What it pertains to is clearly told...

(Hebrews 13:5-6)

 5  Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. 

 6  So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

 

Why was it said in the Old Testament? Again, the immediate context is clear...

 

(Deuteronomy 31:1-6)

 1  And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.

 2  And he said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: also the LORD hath said unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan. 

 3  The LORD thy God, he will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee, and thou shalt possess them: and Joshua, he shall go over before thee, as the LORD hath said. 

 4  And the LORD shall do unto them as he did to Sihon and to Og, kings of the Amorites, and unto the land of them, whom he destroyed.

 5  And the LORD shall give them up before your face, that ye may do unto them according unto all the commandments which I have commanded you. 

 6  Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.

So in a nutshell, God promised to not fail nor forsake them in their battles while conquering the promised land. Both Old and New Testaments refer to God's protection of his people from others...not salvation.

People take "never leave nor forsake" out of its actual context and apply it to salvation.

I agree with Brother McWhorter.  I myself would NOT use Hebrews 13:5 as a proof text for eternal security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Roselove said:

Another one that I thought of was, Jude 1:1, my preacher said that it saying that we are preserved, is one of the proof texts of our eternal security. But, in Psalm 37:28, God says that He preserved them forever. I believe that the OT people didn’t have security like the church does. I know there are probably more examples, but I’m just a little confused as to how we can use things like this as proof texts, if God said it in the OT, but it didn’t assure them of absolute security?

Sister Rose, 

Concerning Jude 1:1 in relation to Psalm 37:28, it appears that your difficulty is specifically due to your premise -- the premise that Old Testament believers did not possess eternal security as New Testament believers.  I myself disagree with that premise.  I believe that Old Testament believers received eternal justification from God before God just as New Testament believers, and that they were eternally regenerated by the power of God just as New Testament believers.  I would hold that the one major difference between Old Testament believers and New Testament believers is that we enjoy the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whereas they did not.  As such, in my understanding I separate the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit in indwelling  as two distinct (although related) works.  (Now, it is worthy to note that many Fundamental Baptists would disagree with me on this matter, and that some on this very forum have expressed disagreement with me on this matter.)  Even so, I would hold that Jude 1:1 and Psalm 37:28 BOTH teach eternal security for genuine believers, whether Old Testament or New Testament.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose, 

Concerning Jude 1:1 in relation to Psalm 37:28, it appears that your difficulty is specifically due to your premise -- the premise that Old Testament believers did not possess eternal security as New Testament believers.  I myself disagree with that premise.  I believe that Old Testament believers received eternal justification from God before God just as New Testament believers, and that they were eternally regenerated by the power of God just as New Testament believers.  I would hold that the one major difference between Old Testament believers and New Testament believers is that we enjoy the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whereas they did not.  As such, in my understanding I separate the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit in indwelling  as two distinct (although related) works.  (Now, it is worthy to note that many Fundamental Baptists would disagree with me on this matter, and that some on this very forum have expressed disagreement with me on this matter.)  Even so, I would hold that Jude 1:1 and Psalm 37:28 BOTH teach eternal security for genuine believers, whether Old Testament or New Testament.

I’m interested to know more about why you believe that. I’ve heard some people believe it, but never quite understood where in the OT they came to that conclusion. I appreciate your feedback 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 12:08 PM, Roselove said:

I’m interested to know more about why you believe that. I’ve heard some people believe it, but never quite understood where in the OT they came to that conclusion. I appreciate your feedback 

Sister Rose,

I do have one more installment concerning the parable of the prodigal son and the older brother.  This installment will concern the applicational usage of the parable concerning the matter of spiritual revival among believers.

However, in relation to the interest that you expressed above, I have a question for you -- When do you believe that eternal regeneration first began to be applied unto believers?  For example, those who do not grant regeneration unto Old Testament believers often place the dividing line at the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, indicating that regeneration is a blessing of the new covenant that began with the shed blood and sacrificial death of Christ, and that blessing of regeneration is empowered by the resurrection of Christ.  Thus they would conclude that the blessing of regeneration could not has been granted before that death and resurrection.  Is this the position that you hold?  Or is your position something different that this?  (Note: The point at which you hold for the beginning of the blessing of regeneration will affect the particular evidences that I might present to the contrary.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Jordan Kurecki
      Thanks to those who prayed for me, and gave to me to go to Uganda last summer. For those who saw my video update, I mentioned a man named Fanuel, I had gotten to go and share the Gospel with him at his hut and he got saved, then proceeded to come to our meetings that same evening and gave a public testimony of salvation:
      Here is a picture of him from the day he got saved in summer of 2016. Then I received another picture from my friend over in Uganda of this second picture, which was him at the Church today, one year later, attending soul winning training! Praise God
       


    • By Roselove
      So, I've been wondering something for quite sometime. 
      Ive noticed that people who have a struggle with doubting their salvation and those who are afraid of having committed the unpardonable sin, tend to have these fears, for a very long time. It seems that it's nearly impossible for them to have enough assurance for them to stop fearing and obsessing over it. 
      Ive been going through this for over 5 years and have read many others talking about this, too. It tends to take years for people to get over these fears, that is, if they ever do. 
      Why is this particular problem, so extremely hard to get under control? I have clinical OCD, so I'm sure it contributes, the others might have this problem, too, but why won't God take away these terrible fears and obsessions, over whether or not we are saved or have committed the unpardonable sin? 
      I know that He wants us to know whether we are saved or lost or if we are forgiveable. I know that someone cannot effectively do His will, without this i would think, so why is this particular problem so hard to overcome, even with fervent prayer? I understand that God works in His timing and that we have to suffer at times in this life, sometimes for many years, but I wouldn't think that this kind of thing, would be one of the things that would be helpful to go through? I'm not sure? 
      What do you all think, about this? 
    • By Roselove
      My husband is worried about not having eternal security. He heard that one can be born again, but still die spiritually from starving, by not going from the milk to the meat of the word and I guess continuing with God. Also he heard that when it talks about us having eternal life in the Bible, it means Jesus, but that He's walking with us but we can choose to turn away and jump out of His hand. My husband is very upset and it's upsetting me and making me nervous, too. I think this stuff is hurting his faith, please help... I'm having a panic attack.. 
      its hard for me to explain all the stuff he heard, but it's worrying him very much. I'm not as knowledgeable as i should be, please someone help me out. 
    • By BabeinChrist
      Repentance CANNOT save
       
      I'm writing on the topic of repentance in regards to salvation because this is a subject that is very misinterpreted today, (even amongst Independent, Fundamental Baptists) and there’s a LOT of false teaching out there under the guise of repentance that is actually teaching a works-based salvation. The mistake that most people make is that, whenever they see the word "repent" in the Bible, they add these words after it:  “of your sins”.
      So whenever they see the word "repent" they just automatically add "of sin"... repent of your sin.
      In fact, they often think that just the word "repent" means to turn from sin, but the Bible does not teach that, and since the King James Holy Bible is the Word of God, it should be our final authority on doctrine.
      I've noticed that typically, one can find the meaning of a word used in the Bible by searching for its first appearance, where it is often defined.  So before we study repentance in regard to salvation, let’s just get an understanding of what the word "repent" even means in the Bible, by going to its first use. To the best of my knowledge, that is in Exodus 32:12, we have Moses speaking to God:
       “Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath and repent of this evil against thy people.”
      So we can see repent means "to turn".  Moses is pleading with God to turn from His anger or wrath towards his people. It continues...
      “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.” “And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”
      That proves that repenting does not mean "repent of your sins" because we KNOW God doesn’t have any sins, God never has sinned and God is perfect in EVERY way ---and yet--- did God repent in this scripture?
      Yes, He did.
      He turned..... He turned from one course of action unto another. He didn’t turn from sin, He turned from anger, He turned from his wrath, He turned from the judgement He was going to pour out. So we can be sure that repent does not mean to repent of your sins in order to be saved.
      It's interesting to note, that if you do a word study on the word "repent" in the King James Bible (the ONLY Bible I will use), you'll discover that the one who "repents" the MOST in the entire Bible is : God!
      "Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?  And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." (Jonah 3:9-10)
      “And God saw their works,” What did God see? Works. “ God saw their works,” now he is going to tell us what those works were: “that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”
      That right there says when you turn from your evil way, that is your WORKS, so if you believe that a person has to turn from their evil way and believe on Christ, then here’s what you're saying is required to be saved: to believe on Christ and have works!
      The Bible says salvation is without works and Jonah 3:10 says turning from your sins or turning from your evil ways is works, so that’s why this is such an important doctrine to understand and be clear on! 
      Of course, the devil wants to get you to trust in your works to save you --- this goes all the way back to Cain and Abel, where Cain is trusting his works instead of the blood of the lamb, all the way back to the Tower of Babel, where they’re trying to do their works/build their way to heaven, and all throughout Galatians he warns us: It's a false gospel when you think that you are justified by works, all throughout Romans he tells us we are not justified by works.
      All throughout the Bible God warns us.. 'trust Christ for salvation, don’t trust works' !
      The devil wants to get in the back door, he doesn’t just want to come right out and say, 'trust works!' knowing good and well that the Bible says NOT to trust works, so he wants to deceive you so you think: 
      "Well... it's not works but you do have to repent of your sins",
      .....OR....
      "Well.... I’m not saying it’s works but you can’t just live however you want, you gotta do something right... You gotta at least go to church three times a month or something, I mean you know you gotta do something right?"
      NO !!
      You have to do nothing because Jesus did everything, you believe on Christ, HIS works are sufficient, we don’t have to add anything to His works, JESUS CHRIST PAID IT ALL. 
       


    • By JacquelineDeane55
      Even if it was just two, it was all worth it. Their eternal destiny is now forever changed. Praise GOD He saved their souls.
      I helped invite people to VBS, but I don't know how many children actually came.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 12 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online



×