Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What are you confused about? Is it the "three tenses"? Examples: [Past Tense] (Titus 3:5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by th

Absolutely, AMEN!!!! Big mistakes in contextual understanding and Biblical doctrine are made when we just make that assumption.

Well, I didn't want to say anything at first, but the person (and article) to whom you are referring to is using a different Bible and Greek text than the King James Version and the Greek text it was

Posted Images

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What are you confused about? Is it the "three tenses"?

Examples:

[Past Tense]

(Titus 3:5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[Present Tense]

(1 Corinthians 1:18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

[Future Tense]

(1 Corinthians 3:15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Past, present, and future. Our salvation encompasses all three. I was saved many years ago in the "past", I'm "presently" saved today, and I'll be saved in the "future". It's not three different salvations; it's three aspects of one salvation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

What are you confused about? Is it the "three tenses"?

Examples:

[Past Tense]

(Titus 3:5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[Present Tense]

(1 Corinthians 1:18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

[Future Tense]

(1 Corinthians 3:15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Past, present, and future. Our salvation encompasses all three. I was saved many years ago in the "past", I'm "presently" saved today, and I'll be saved in the "future". It's not three different salvations; it's three aspects of one salvation.

What you're saying makes sense. The thing this person (and others that go along this belief system) was saying is that, in the greek for instance, 1 corinthians 1:18 the verbage is saying "being saved". Like, it depends on us continuing to trust and obey Him, continuing faith, your final salvation will come. 

I didn't know what to think, really. I know that some say we will continue, but then they make it seem as though our final salvation is conditonal upon our continued faithfulness. It seems to be one of the things that has a fine line, between beliefs i guess. :/ 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 minutes ago, Roselove said:

What you're saying makes sense. The thing this person (and others that go along this belief system) was saying is that, in the greek for instance, 1 corinthians 1:18 the verbage is saying "being saved". Like, it depends on us continuing to trust and obey Him, continuing faith, your final salvation will come. 

I didn't know what to think, really. I know that some say we will continue, but then they make it seem as though our final salvation is conditonal upon our continued faithfulness. It seems to be one of the things that has a fine line, between beliefs i guess. :/ 

Well, I didn't want to say anything at first, but the person (and article) to whom you are referring to is using a different Bible and Greek text than the King James Version and the Greek text it was translated from. I quickly looked up the word in Greek, and the word is a different Greek word than what that gentleman quoted. He even admits that other translations translate the word differently. You have to be very careful of whom you read Roselove.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
12 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Well, I didn't want to say anything at first, but the person (and article) to whom you are referring to is using a different Bible and Greek text than the King James Version and the Greek text it was translated from. I quickly looked up the word in Greek, and the word is a different Greek word than what that gentleman quoted. He even admits that other translations translate the word differently. You have to be very careful of whom you read Roselove.

http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Strongs/46001018/G4982 

i looked on here, and it's the same word, though? I took screenshots of the word he said and the one in the textus receptus, and they are the same. I could be missing something, I'm not sure. :/

σωζομενοις <--pasted from textus receptus 

σωζομενοις<--pasted from person's webpage 

im a bit confused :/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, all that I can go by is what I use. I'm no Greek scholar. Here's the word in my Bible program...as you can see, it's the same "number", but look at the Greek word in comparison to what you've posted...

G4982 σώζω sozo (sō'-zō) v.
to save, i.e. deliver or protect.
{literally or figuratively}
[from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saos, “safe”)]
KJV: heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 15:2 - σωζεσθε

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις

The Greek word from the Textus Receptus link that you provided of 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The screenshot's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The Greek word in my program from both 1 Corinthians 15:2 and 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σώζω (#4982)

All that I can say is...

The author has two different Greek words from the same single Greek word and "number"; which is 4982. The author, the screenshot, and the link provided show different Greek words than what mine shows. As I said, I'm no Greek scholar, and I just reference Greek occasionally. I'm wondering why the author has two different Greek words for the same Greek word...well, I think I know why, but I'll stop there.

I can't explain it to you any more than what I've shown Roselove.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother McWhorter,

Actually, all of the examples provided ARE different forms of the SAME Greek verb.  The different forms simply indicate differences in tense, voice, mood, person, number, etc. (in the case of participles).

σωζεσθε -- present, passive, indicative, 2nd person, plural of σώζω

 σωζομενοις -- present, passive, participle, plural, dative, masculine of σώζω

Note: When referencing Strong's concordance of Hebrew and Greek words (in accord with Strong's numbering system), it must be understood that Strong's concordance does NOT provide all of the various forms of a particular word (as per tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, case), but only provides the ROOT form of the word.

(By the way, how are you typing out words using actual Greek letters?  I would like to know that for future posting.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother McWhorter,

Actually, all of the examples provided ARE different forms of the SAME Greek verb.  The different forms simply indicate differences in tense, voice, mood, person, number, etc. (in the case of participles).

σωζεσθε -- present, passive, indicative, 2nd person, plural of σώζω

 σωζομενοις -- present, passive, participle, plural, dative, masculine of σώζω

Note: When referencing Strong's concordance of Hebrew and Greek words (in accord with Strong's numbering system), it must be understood that Strong's concordance does NOT provide all of the various forms of a particular word (as per tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, case), but only provides the ROOT form of the word.

(By the way, how are you typing out words using actual Greek letters?  I would like to know that for future posting.)

Thanks Bro. Markle...I was kind of hoping you might chime in on this. :)

I was suspicious that it may have been the case as you described; however, since I haven't studied Greek, I wasn't about to try to "explain" something that I knew nothing about. LOL!

When I "type" a Greek word, I don't actually type it out. I just highlight it with my mouse cursor in my Bible program, then I copy and paste it here (or in my examples above...copy and paste the word from those websites).

I hope you're doing well friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
28 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother McWhorter,

Actually, all of the examples provided ARE different forms of the SAME Greek verb.  The different forms simply indicate differences in tense, voice, mood, person, number, etc. (in the case of participles).

σωζεσθε -- present, passive, indicative, 2nd person, plural of σώζω

 σωζομενοις -- present, passive, participle, plural, dative, masculine of σώζω

Note: When referencing Strong's concordance of Hebrew and Greek words (in accord with Strong's numbering system), it must be understood that Strong's concordance does NOT provide all of the various forms of a particular word (as per tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, case), but only provides the ROOT form of the word.

(By the way, how are you typing out words using actual Greek letters?  I would like to know that for future posting.)

I'm a bit confused 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Just now, No Nicolaitans said:

When I "type" a Greek word, I don't actually type it out. I just highlight it with my mouse cursor in my Bible program, then I copy and paste it here (or in my examples above...copy and paste the word from those websites).

Understood.  The "copy and paste" method (from your posting) is how I was able to post such in my posting. 

1 minute ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I hope you're doing well friend.

Doing quite well.  Just been so busy this whole year that I have very, very little time for Online Baptist posting.  However, I do continue to read and follow those discussion that "catch my eye."

(In this particular case, I received a private request for help on this matter.  As such, I believe that the Lord would have me to make the time to provide what help that I am able.)

Just now, Roselove said:

I'm a bit confused 

Sister Rose,

About what in particular are you confused?

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

Understood.  The "copy and paste" method (from your posting) is how I was able to post such in my posting. 

Doing quite well.  Just been so busy this whole year that I have very, very little time for Online Baptist posting.  However, I do continue to read and follow those discussion that "catch my eye."

(In this particular case, I received a private request for help on this matter.  As such, I believe that the Lord would have me to make the time to provide what help that I am able.)

Excellent!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Just now, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Understood.  The "copy and paste" method (from your posting) is how I was able to post such in my posting. 

Doing quite well.  Just been so busy this whole year that I have very, very little time for Online Baptist posting.  However, I do continue to read and follow those discussion that "catch my eye."

(In this particular case, I received a private request for help on this matter.  As such, I believe that the Lord would have me to make the time to provide what help that I am able.)

Sister Rose,

About what in particular are you confused?

Well, No Nicolations said that it's 2 different words, but you said it's the same word, i think? I think he was saying it that way, to further disprove the man who wrote the article? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, No nicolations), I wasn't sure really where both of your trains of thought lined up, I guess. I'm just trying to figure out how you all's view is different from the article writer's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Just now, Roselove said:

Well, No Nicolations said that it's 2 different words, but you said it's the same word, i think? I think he was saying it that way, to further disprove the man who wrote the article? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, No nicolations), I wasn't sure really where both of your trains of thought lined up, I guess. I'm just trying to figure out how you all's view is different from the article writer's.

Sister Rose,

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article.  However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.).

Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help).  However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle.  As such, I would request patience, if I may.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article.  However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.).

Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help).  However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle.  As such, I would request patience, if I may.

I'm still a little ignorant to the greek and everything, so my comprehension of everyone's answers is still a bit hard to grasp, but I'm sure when we get further, it'll make more sense. And yes, I will be patient! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 minutes ago, Roselove said:

Well, No Nicolations said that it's 2 different words, but you said it's the same word, i think? I think he was saying it that way, to further disprove the man who wrote the article? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, No nicolations), I wasn't sure really where both of your trains of thought lined up, I guess. I'm just trying to figure out how you all's view is different from the article writer's.

 

7 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article.  However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.).

Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help).  However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle.  As such, I would request patience, if I may.

My apparent "combativeness" wasn't necessarily against the man himself, the article itself, or the ideas of the article; rather, it was against the Bible that he uses, and therefore; its underlying Greek text. As far as the general message underlying the article...I had no problem with that. I agree with being saved in "three tenses". I apologize for letting my rancor show in regards to a Bible version other than the King James. :99_muscle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

My apparent "combativeness" wasn't necessarily against the man himself, the article itself, or the ideas of the article; rather, it was against the Bible that he uses, and therefore; its underlying Greek text. As far as the general message underlying the article...I had no problem with that. I agree with being saved in "three tenses". I apologize for letting my rancor show in regards to a Bible version other than the King James. :99_muscle:

Thank you for your clarification, Brother McWhorter.  Indeed, the author DOES use a different English translation than the King James translation.  However, the Greek terms that he references are the SAME as in the Received Text (from which the King James translation was translated).

Note: I do NOT believe that an apology was necessary; for I do NOT believe that you did anything sinfully wrong.  On the other hand, I do believe that a clarification was necessary; and you have now provided such. 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

By the way -- May I say that I do NOT AT ALL like the the "question" forum for such thread discussions, since postings can be moved through rating; and thereby the line of comment and response can become distorted.  (I wonder if this thread discussion could be moved to a different forum structure by one of the moderators.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thank you for your clarification, Brother McWhorter.  Indeed, the author DOES use a different English translation than the King James translation.  However, the Greek terms that he references are the SAME as in the Received Text (from which the King James translation was translated).

Note: I do NOT believe that an apology was necessary; for I do NOT believe that you did anything sinfully wrong.  On the other hand, I do believe that a clarification was necessary; and you have now provided such. 

Since the words the writer uses are the same as kjv, how is it that he's wrong about our security being conditional? That's where i was a bit confused. :4_6_2v:

I mean, in the way that he's trying to disprove it, that is.

(Sorry if this counts as impatience) :7_sweat_smile:

Edited by Roselove
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Well, all that I can go by is what I use. I'm no Greek scholar. Here's the word in my Bible program...as you can see, it's the same "number", but look at the Greek word in comparison to what you've posted...

G4982 σώζω sozo (sō'-zō) v.
to save, i.e. deliver or protect.
{literally or figuratively}
[from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saos, “safe”)]
KJV: heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 15:2 - σωζεσθε

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις

The Greek word from the Textus Receptus link that you provided of 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The screenshot's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The Greek word in my program from both 1 Corinthians 15:2 and 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σώζω (#4982)

All that I can say is...

The author has two different Greek words from the same single Greek word and "number"; which is 4982. The author, the screenshot, and the link provided show different Greek words than what mine shows. As I said, I'm no Greek scholar, and I just reference Greek occasionally. I'm wondering why the author has two different Greek words for the same Greek word...well, I think I know why, but I'll stop there.

I can't explain it to you any more than what I've shown Roselove.

Okay, I just installed the TR in my Bible program...

1 Corinthians 15:2, the word for saved is σωζεσθε

1 Corinthians 1:18, the word for saved is σωζομενοις

First, thanks to Bro. Markle for pointing out the situation with Strong's. I wasn't aware of that.

Second, I've learned a lesson from this, and though I originally tried to tread carefully, I realize that I need to tread even more carefully from this point forward. I will bow out of this conversation from here on out. Thank you Bro. Markle for addressing Roselove's concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sister Rose,

I have now read through all of the postings in your various other threads concerning the matter of eternal security.  At present I am reading through the article that you referenced in another thread concerning "the tense readings of the Greek New Testament."

In this posting, I wish to present some initial thoughts (which we may then consider in more detail as the discussion proceeds):

1.  Concerning the matter of eternal security -- Those who hold strongly unto this doctrine (as I do) will place their primary focus upon God's authority and power to maintain a believer's eternal security.  However, those who unto the doctrine of required perseverance (lest salvation be lost) will place their primary focus upon the believer's effort and power to maintain that security.  In my own case, I begin with the passages concerning God's authority and power in the matter and then build upon that foundation in consideration of other passages.

2.  Concerning the article about the tense readings -- Although I am only half-way through the article, I have a number of conflicts with the article already.  First, I believe that the article immensely distorts the meaning of the Greek present tense, as well as somewhat distorts the meaning of the Greek aorist tense.  Second, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration with favor.  (By the way, if the author actually does/did hold that water baptism is necessary for regeneration and salvation, then he held unto a false gospel which included human works.  As such, I must question the very salvation of the author, and thereby also question the ability of the author to discern Scripture correctly.)  Third, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of purgatory with favor.  Fourth, the author of the article strongly teaches the false doctrine of complete sanctification upon this earth.

3.  Concerning the article about 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 -- I myself would contend that the author of the article mishandles the grammatical structure of the single sentence in these two verses.

I suppose that I must now ask which of these matters you desire to consider in detail first?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 9/22/2017 at 2:12 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

I have now read through all of the postings in your various other threads concerning the matter of eternal security.  At present I am reading through the article that you referenced in another thread concerning "the tense readings of the Greek New Testament."

In this posting, I wish to present some initial thoughts (which we may then consider in more detail as the discussion proceeds):

1.  Concerning the matter of eternal security -- Those who hold strongly unto this doctrine (as I do) will place their primary focus upon God's authority and power to maintain a believer's eternal security.  However, those who unto the doctrine of required perseverance (lest salvation be lost) will place their primary focus upon the believer's effort and power to maintain that security.  In my own case, I begin with the passages concerning God's authority and power in the matter and then build upon that foundation in consideration of other passages.

2.  Concerning the article about the tense readings -- Although I am only half-way through the article, I have a number of conflicts with the article already.  First, I believe that the article immensely distorts the meaning of the Greek present tense, as well as somewhat distorts the meaning of the Greek aorist tense.  Second, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration with favor.  (By the way, if the author actually does/did hold that water baptism is necessary for regeneration and salvation, then he held unto a false gospel which included human works.  As such, I must question the very salvation of the author, and thereby also question the ability of the author to discern Scripture correctly.)  Third, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of purgatory with favor.  Fourth, the author of the article strongly teaches the false doctrine of complete sanctification upon this earth.

3.  Concerning the article about 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 -- I myself would contend that the author of the article mishandles the grammatical structure of the single sentence in these two verses.

I suppose that I must now ask which of these matters you desire to consider in detail first?

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
14 hours ago, Roselove said:

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

Sister Rose, I am not sure what you mean when you say that "eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church." If you are talking about "extra-biblical" writings instead of actual scripture, then I have no answer for you. If you are talking about scripture, then I would respectfully submit that every time you see the words "eternal life" written in the New testament, these are the writings of the early church.

Once such instance is one that has been submitted already and bears being resubmitted:   Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 
 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

These words are from the lips of Jesus, the one who instituted the very first church and as such, are in fact the writings of the first church. Jesus is very specific here in saying that He gives to believers "eternal life."  The word "eternal" means life without end, as such it can never be temporary, nor can it be lost since it is without end. Please notice that Jesus also includes further explanation to clarify what he means by saying, "and they shall never perish."

I have in my files a sermon by the late Dr. Harry Ironside that addresses this subject in great detail. I will attach it to this post for your consideration. Just click on the attachment.

ETERNAL SECURITY.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, Roselove said:

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

And how do you know the writers of the so called early "church" were actually even saved believers and not heretics? 

The word of God is the final authority not the writings of the early "church".

We never find the validity of a document based on its absence or presence in the uninspired writings of the early "church"

And if you really want to get into Calvinism, Augustine popularized it, and seems very likely that his views of predestination and free will came from the Manichianism that he believed before his "conversion", Ironically Calvin quoted from Augstine ferquently, in fact Calvin said that he could teach his doctrines of election and predestination completely from the words of Augustine. 

And even besides that, I doubt whoever is making the claims that the early church did not believe in eternal security has even read all the writings of the early "church". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, Roselove said:

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

in reference to John 15,

 

"Some think this verse is referring to unbelievers due to the reference of fire. The assumption is that since fire is mentioned, it must be referring to Hell.

But the Judgment Seat of Christ also speaks of fire. Also, the flow of thought in John 15 refers to believers. Jesus urges those “in me” (15:2) to “Abide in me” in order to “bear fruit” (15:4-5). So what gets burned in verse six?

The verse says, “If a man [singular] abide not [present tense, lit. “is not abiding”] in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them [neuter], and cast them into the fire, and they [singular, lit. “it”] are burned.”

The purpose of a branch in the vine is to bear fruit. This occurs as the branch abides in the vine. Jesus is the true vine. He said, “without me ye can do nothing.” This implies with Him you can do anything you ought to do, because He is the source of life. Therefore the words of Jesus here define the word “abide” as depending on Jesus.

So if one who is in Christ (15:2) does not abide in Christ (15:4-5), he will not bear fruit. His purpose “as a branch” is unfulfilled. So the useless wood with no fruit, because of a lack of abiding, is cast out and burned. The “them” in verse six is neuter, and “it” is cast out, not “they” the people. This fits in perfectly with the teaching that the wood, hay and stubble represents the self-dependent aspects of one’s life which will be incinerated at the Judgment Seat (1 Cor. 3)."

 

http://revivalfocus.org/q6-what-gets-burned/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 9/24/2017 at 12:48 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

in reference to John 15,

 

"Some think this verse is referring to unbelievers due to the reference of fire. The assumption is that since fire is mentioned, it must be referring to Hell.

But the Judgment Seat of Christ also speaks of fire. Also, the flow of thought in John 15 refers to believers. Jesus urges those “in me” (15:2) to “Abide in me” in order to “bear fruit” (15:4-5). So what gets burned in verse six?

The verse says, “If a man [singular] abide not [present tense, lit. “is not abiding”] in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them [neuter], and cast them into the fire, and they [singular, lit. “it”] are burned.”

The purpose of a branch in the vine is to bear fruit. This occurs as the branch abides in the vine. Jesus is the true vine. He said, “without me ye can do nothing.” This implies with Him you can do anything you ought to do, because He is the source of life. Therefore the words of Jesus here define the word “abide” as depending on Jesus.

So if one who is in Christ (15:2) does not abide in Christ (15:4-5), he will not bear fruit. His purpose “as a branch” is unfulfilled. So the useless wood with no fruit, because of a lack of abiding, is cast out and burned. The “them” in verse six is neuter, and “it” is cast out, not “they” the people. This fits in perfectly with the teaching that the wood, hay and stubble represents the self-dependent aspects of one’s life which will be incinerated at the Judgment Seat (1 Cor. 3)."

 

http://revivalfocus.org/q6-what-gets-burned/

He says "it" because it's a branch He's talking about, it's an analogy. I don't see how it couldn't just mean, exactly what it appears to mean. This is the 4th version I've read on this parable. Every verse that people that believe in absolute security try to explain, everyone seems to have a totally different answer. The other side never seems to contradict each other. They all say the same thing about the verses, and they take it at face value, in the context.

 I really wasn't trying to sound provoking or anything, I'm really sorry if it comes across like that. I hope you, understand.

Edited by Roselove
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, Roselove said:

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

Sister Rose, 

In your above paragraph, you have made reference unto various passages of Scripture, including James 2:14-26; Acts 13:43; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 12:4-11; Hebrews 12:15-17; John 15:1-6; Matthew 25:14-30.

However, before I focus my attention upon these passages individually, I wish to focus your attention upon one of the passages that (I believe) teaches the doctrine of eternal security.  This passage is John 6:35-40 -- "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.  But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  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.  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."

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.

Now, I wish to ask of you some thought questions based upon this passage:

1.  Since it is God the Father's will for God the Son to lose not even a single one of those whom the Father has given unto Him, if God the Son does actually lose even one of these individuals, would God the Son be fulfilling the will of God the Father or breaking the will of God the Father?

2.  Since it is God the Father's will for God the Son to raise up at the last day (in the resurrection of righteousness) all whom the Father has given unto Him, if God the Son does not actually raise up every single one of these individuals, would God the Son be fulfilling the will of God the Father or breaking the will of God the Father?

3.  If God the Son actually does in either of these matters break the will of God the Father, what would that be called spiritually?  (Hint: It would be called sin against God, something that God the Son would NEVER actually do.)

4.  If God the Son actually does commit a sin against God the Father, can He be the eternal Savior of any other sinner whatsoever at all?

If tuno this point you have followed my flow of thought, then I would present the following truth for consideration:

If God the Son loses even one, then God the Son can be the Savior of NONE.

 

(Note for the audience as a whole:  I fully recognize that John 6:35-40 is a passage of controversy in the doctrinal debate between the Calvinistic belief system and the Arminian belief system, specifically in relation to the doctrinal debate over unconditional election and irresistible grace.  For the present thread discussion I was not focused upon the events that precede an individual's coming unto Christ through faith, but was focused rather upon the assignment of His will that God the Father placed upon God the Son concerning those who actually did come unto the Son through faith.  However, I DO believe that the key in correctly understanding the passage in relation to the doctrinal debate over unconditional election and irresistible grace is to be found contextually through a correct understand of John 6:44-45, with a strong focus upon verse 45.) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
17 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose, 

In your above paragraph, you have made reference unto various passages of Scripture, including James 2:14-26; Acts 13:43; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 12:4-11; Hebrews 12:15-17; John 15:1-6; Matthew 25:14-30.

However, before I focus my attention upon these passages individually, I wish to focus your attention upon one of the passages that (I believe) teaches the doctrine of eternal security.  This passage is John 6:35-40 -- "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.  But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  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.  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."

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.

Now, I wish to ask of you some thought questions based upon this passage:

1.  Since it is God the Father's will for God the Son to lose not even a single one of those whom the Father has given unto Him, if God the Son does actually lose even one of these individuals, would God the Son be fulfilling the will of God the Father or breaking the will of God the Father?

2.  Since it is God the Father's will for God the Son to raise up at the last day (in the resurrection of righteousness) all whom the Father has given unto Him, if God the Son does not actually raise up every single one of these individuals, would God the Son be fulfilling the will of God the Father or breaking the will of God the Father?

3.  If God the Son actually does in either of these matters break the will of God the Father, what would that be called spiritually?  (Hint: It would be called sin against God, something that God the Son would NEVER actually do.)

4.  If God the Son actually does commit a sin against God the Father, can He be the eternal Savior of any other sinner whatsoever at all?

If tuno this point you have followed my flow of thought, then I would present the following truth for consideration:

If God the Son loses even one, then God the Son can be the Savior of NONE.

 

(Note for the audience as a whole:  I fully recognize that John 6:35-40 is a passage of controversy in the doctrinal debate between the Calvinistic belief system and the Arminian belief system, specifically in relation to the doctrinal debate over unconditional election and irresistible grace.  For the present thread discussion I was not focused upon the events that precede an individual's coming unto Christ through faith, but was focused rather upon the assignment of His will that God the Father placed upon God the Son concerning those who actually did come unto the Son through faith.  However, I DO believe that the key in correctly understanding the passage in relation to the doctrinal debate over unconditional election and irresistible grace is to be found contextually through a correct understand of John 6:44-45, with a strong focus upon verse 45.) 

I see what you're saying. I know God says He's not willing any should perish, though, but not everyone will except Him. Or is it because we have a part in responding to that, but when Jesus says it's God's will that He keep all that He's given, it's fully on Jesus? If that makes sense 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, Roselove said:

I see what you're saying. I know God says He's not willing any should perish, though, but not everyone will except Him. Or is it because we have a part in responding to that, but when Jesus says it's God's will that He keep all that He's given, it's fully on Jesus? If that makes sense 

Indeed, God the Father is "NOT willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," as per 2 Peter 3:9.  However, that is NOT the point of God's giving certain individuals unto God the Son, as per John 6:37.  Indeed, I believe in the doctrine that all human individuals are drawn by God unto His Son as Savior.  However, I would agree with you that not every one will accept Him as Savior.  Many follow the broad way unto eternal destruction; whereas few follow the narrow way unto life everlasting.  God's Holy Word does NOT teach universalism in relation to eternal salvation and eternal life.  All are drawn, but not all come; therefore, not all shall be saved.

However, 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).

The great doctrinal controversy then concerns a question in relation to point #1 -- By what means does God the Father determine which certain individuals He chooses to give unto the Son?  I believe that the answer to this doctrinal controversy is to be found contextually within the teaching of John 6:44-45 (as per my note in my previous posting).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, God the Father is "NOT willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," as per 2 Peter 3:9.  However, that is NOT the point of God's giving certain individuals unto God the Son, as per John 6:37.  Indeed, I believe in the doctrine that all human individuals are drawn by God unto His Son as Savior.  However, I would agree with you that not every one will accept Him as Savior.  Many follow the broad way unto eternal destruction; whereas few follow the narrow way unto life everlasting.  God's Holy Word does NOT teach universalism in relation to eternal salvation and eternal life.  All are drawn, but not all come; therefore, not all shall be saved.

However, 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).

The great doctrinal controversy then concerns a question in relation to point #1 -- By what means does God the Father determine which certain individuals He chooses to give unto the Son?  I believe that the answer to this doctrinal controversy is to be found contextually within the teaching of John 6:44-45 (as per my note in my previous posting).

Okay, i think this might make sense. I see what you're saying. 

What do you think of the passages that were concerning me? I really felt like those seemed to explicitly say that you can fall from not enduring through faith in Jesus. I very strongly believed that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 4:06 PM, Roselove said:

Okay, i think this might make sense. I see what you're saying. 

What do you think of the passages that were concerning me? I really felt like those seemed to explicitly say that you can fall from not enduring through faith in Jesus. I very strongly believed that.

Indeed, I wish to focus upon John 15:1-6 next, if that is acceptable.

However, before we move, 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, I wish to focus upon John 15:1-6 next, if that is acceptable.

However, before we move, 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.

That is, encouraging to hear.

My problem are that, I've studied a lot of things about each oneof those points, that they said they put into the true context, which seems to not teach security, though. It's stuff that seems to make sense, i think.  

All of those points, i read were about the disciples in that context. This is one of the people's interpretation, I'll post the link, below. Do you know what he's talking about? 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Roselove said:

That is, encouraging to hear.

My problem are that, I've studied a lot of things about each oneof those points, that they said they put into the true context, which seems to not teach security, though. It's stuff that seems to make sense, i think.  

All of those points, i read were about the disciples in that context. This is one of the people's interpretation, I'll post the link, below. Do you know what he's talking about? 

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

Sister Rose,

Having read through the article, I certainly understand why you are confused and uncertain.  Thus I believe that BEFORE we move to John 15:1-6, we should examine the points of this article concerning the teaching of John 6:35-40.  Would you agree?

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

Sister Rose,

Having read through the article, I certainly understand why you are confused and uncertain.  Thus I believe that BEFORE we move to John 15:1-6, we should examine the points of this article concerning the teaching of John 6:35-40.  Would you agree?

Yes! :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

Having read through the article, I certainly understand why you are confused and uncertain.  Thus I believe that BEFORE we move to John 15:1-6, we should examine the points of this article concerning the teaching of John 6:35-40.  Would you agree?

17 hours ago, Roselove said:

Yes! :) 

In the article that you referenced (as presented below) . . .

20 hours ago, Roselove said:

. . . the author of the article argued for four primary points in order to challenge the common understanding for John 6:39.  These three points are as follows:

1.  Those individuals whom God the Father gave unto God the Son do not include all New Testament believers, but only included the Jewish believers during Christ's public ministry.
2.  God the Father's assignment unto God the Son not to lose any of these individuals does not refer unto spiritual security, but refers unto physical protection.
3.  God the Son's promise to raise these individuals up at the last day does not refer unto the future resurrection of righteousness, but indicates that He would keep them physically alive until some future time in the coming years.

The author began with the contextual background for the discussion of our Lord with the people through John 6:35-65.  Therefore, I shall do the same.  

1.  In John 6:1-13 God's Word reveals the historical account concerning the feeding of the five thousand.  
2.  In John 6:14-15 God's Word reveals that Jesus departed alone into the mountains away from the multitudes - specifically because He perceived that due to the miracle of food, they would attempt to take Him by force in order to make Him their king.
3.  In John 6:16-21 God's Word reveals that at evening the disciples traveled by ship over the sea unto Capernaum, but encountered a storn - wherein Jesus walked on the sea unto them.
4.  In John 6:22-25 God's Word reveals that on the next morning when the people who had experienced the miracle of food did not find Jesus, they also took shipping unto Capernaum, specifically looking for Jesus.
5.  In John 6:26 God's Word reveals that Jesus rebuked these individuals for seeking Him, not because of His miraculous power, but because they had been filled with free food, thus revealing that their motivation was focused upon physical food and physical matters.
6.  In John 6:27 God's Word reveals that Jesus instructed these individuals not to labor for physical food, but to focus their attention upon the food of everlasting life that they might receive from the "Son of man."
7.  In John 6:28 God's Word reveals that these individuals asked Jesus a question concerning what they might do, in order that they might "work the works [plural] of God."  (Note: It is significant and worthy of notice that they used the plural word "works" in their question.) 
8.  In John 6:29 God's Word reveals that Jesus gave answer unto these individuals, "This is the work [singular] of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."  (Note:  It is worthy of notice that Jesus only set one, singular requirement before them from God -- To believe on God the Son, whom God the Father had sent unto them.)
9.  In John 6:30-31 God's Word reveals that these individuals asked Jesus for a miraculous sign in order that they might believe Him, and that they made reference unto the Old Testament miracle of manna in Moses' day, indicating that they were still focused upon physical food and upon the miracle of food.
10.  In John 6:32-33 God's Word reveals that Jesus gave answer unto these individuals, indicating that God, not Moses, was the authority and power in the Old Testament miracle of manna (physical food), and indicating that God the Father was now giving unto them "the true bread from heaven" (spiritual food), the Messiah Himself, who came down from heaven and who gives life unto the world.  (Note:  It is worthy of notice that Jesus did not simply reference the Jews in relation to this gift of life, but referenced the entire world.)

This is the contextual background for the discussion in John 6:35-65.  Let us take note of some thematic points:

1.  Food, with a specific focus upon bread, is a theme that runs throughout this context.  For this reason Jesus used the metaphor of bread (referring unto Himself as the Bread of Life) and of eating and drinking that bread throughout the discussion of John 6:35-65.
2.  The people were focused upon the matter of PHYSICAL food; whereas Jesus sought to refocus their attention upon SPIRITUAL matters.
3.  The particular spiritual matter upon which Jesus sought to focus their attention was to believe on Him.

Sister Rose, are you following this contextual information thus far; or do you have any questions about this contextual information?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Roselove
      No matter how much of the Bible I read, how many sermons I listen to, or how much I pray, I cannot repent. 
      I cannot truly have hatred of sin. My motivation is to not go to hell and when I feel at all secure that I’m going to Heaven, I immediately don’t care about if I’m sinning or not. 
      I cannot feel bad that sin hurts God. I only care about myself. I’ve felt convicted for years that I’m unsaved for this reason. 
      I don’t know what to do. I’m scared and running out of hope. I’m worried I’m to hard spiritually to repent. 
      HOW do I settle this?? 
    • By Roselove
      I have an illness that won’t go away, I would appreciate prayers for healing ❤️ 
      I would be happy to pray for others, as well ❤️
    • By Roselove
      I sometimes can’t quite grasp the difference between these two. 
      Jesus says to come unto Him for salvation, but He also says that if someone comes after Him, they must forsake all and pick up their cross. 
      I know it’s not a physical seperation of the world or a promise to not sin, but I feel convicted that in order to fully put yourself on Him for salvation, you must see Him as such, to where you could happily run away from everyone/everything in your life. 
      People see God in a cruel task-master sort of way and that’s why they don’t trust God enough to fully fling themselves onto Him and off their crutches of their family/friends/whatever keeps them feeling “secure”. They don’t want to forsake all and follow Christ, completely. 
      So many say that you only admit you’re a sinner/know only Jesus’s sacrifice can save you, and be willing for Christ to change you, but it appears you have to go into salvation already with the heart of a disciple. That is most definitely what I see God saying when Jesus talks about hating our life/family/etc. 
      Fully trusting Him, would mean no doubt when you come to Him for salvation. 
      I’m a bit nervous because I still see God as too scary to judt be alone with because I know my heart isn’t totally trusting Him. I feel convicted that I haven’t totally trusted Him, alone and I don’t have total faith that everyone/everything is but loss, compared to Christ. 
      People keep saying I’m wrong, but why do I hear God saying this to me?? Why do I feel like God’s saying I’m not saved because I wasn’t in this mind-set when I came to Him for salvation?? 
      Please pray and help me understand if I’m misinterpreting something. 
      I’m scared and feel helpless. I don’t want to value anything more than, God. But, my wicked heart can’t let go of all and see Him as truly a loving, so much better than anyone/anything God because I’m scared and the Bible says that people with that heart are evil and unsaved. 
      Please be honest with me and please pray for discernment on what I need to know. 
    • By Roselove
      I sometimes can’t quite grasp the difference between these two. 
      Jesus says to come unto Him for salvation, but He also says that if someone comes after Him, they must forsake all and pick up their cross. 
      I know it’s not a physical seperation of the world or a promise to not sin, but I feel convicted that in order to fully put yourself on Him for salvation, you must see Him as such, to where you could happily run away from everyone/everything in your life. 
      People see God in a cruel task-master sort of way and that’s why they don’t trust God enough to fully fling themselves onto Him and off their crutches of their family/friends/whatever keeps them feeling “secure”. They don’t want to forsake all and follow Christ, completely. 
      So many say that you only admit you’re a sinner/know only Jesus’s sacrifice can save you, and be willing for Christ to change you, but it appears you have to go into salvation already with the heart of a disciple. That is most definitely what I see God saying when Jesus talks about hating our life/family/etc. 
      Fully trusting Him, would mean no doubt when you come to Him for salvation. 
      I’m a bit nervous because I still see God as too scary to judt be alone with because I know my heart isn’t totally trusting Him. I feel convicted that I haven’t totally trusted Him, alone and I don’t have total faith that everyone/everything is but loss, compared to Christ. 
      People keep saying I’m wrong, but why do I hear God saying this to me?? Why do I feel like God’s saying I’m not saved because I wasn’t in this mind-set when I came to Him for salvation?? 
      Please pray and help me understand if I’m misinterpreting something. 
      I’m scared and feel helpless. I don’t want to value anything more than, God. But, my wicked heart can’t let go of all and see Him as truly a loving, so much better than anyone/anything God because I’m scared and the Bible says that people with that heart are evil and unsaved. 
      Please be honest with me and please pray for discernment on what I need to know. 
    • By Roselove
      What is a good fundraiser that is Christ-based? 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 32 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...