Madeline

Thanks Linda and Ben, I will do some more research on what you guys have written and get back to you on it.

Love,
Madeline

I guess the first thing I would like to point out is that until one is a member of a church, the issue of separation is not a difficult one. If a person feels that the pastor is not teaching the Word or that what he is teaching is seriously incorrect or devoid of substance, then moving on is a right and natural thing to do. That does not mean that one cannot have Christian friends whose approach to the issue of spiritual growth is more superficial and lackadaisical than one's own -- one certainly may -- but every Christian needs to be able to keep on track without negative influence keeping them from running the race as Jesus wants it run. On a personal level, that is the main issue in separation, namely, not to be dragged down by a bad example.

Jude 1:17-23 -

I almost seems as if she's somewhere in outerspace...probably saddened by all the sin in the world. lol! j/k Nice drawing, btw.

Love,
Madeline

It all makes perfect sense now. The only reason men committ adultery is because women dress immodestly, which induces the men's uncontrollable urge to cheat on their wives. It's not the man's fault at all. I mean, if the paramour would not have dressed immodestly (a subjective standard by the way), then the man would never have been tempted in the first place. I guess this is why Muslim men living in cultures that force women to wear burqas never committ adultery. Please. Are the moderator's just going to let nonsense like this remain on these boards for all to see?

WOW!!!... on this board it's always about how immodest women dress...what about men? Someone I know told me how sensual it is to look at men who are dressed immodestly (jeans with holes in them, and tight tank tops, etc.). I suggest that men should read their Bible and stop trying to blame someone else for his or any other man's failure to fight temptation.

Love,
Madeline

First let me post the English definition of "begotten". Hopefully that will put us on the same page there.

begotten

1 : to procreate as the father : sire
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

So we see in English it can have two different meanings. I agree that the term "only begotten" does not mean a only born son, because we as believers are born again at the new birth as sons of God and as you mentioned angels are also spoken of as the "sons of God" as well. Therefore "only begotten" must have an additional meaning. I think definition two is an appropriate description. It is perfectly accurate to say that Jesus was eternally the only "outgrowth" of the father, nor does it deny or lessen his deity. Christ said he only spoke only the things of the father while he was here on earth, and now that he is at the fathers right hand the Spirit speaks the things of Christ which are the things of the father ect.


Now with that said "begotten" in Psalm 2:7 and in Acts 13:33 does mean born in a more literal sense and is speaking of the resurrection of Christ by the father.




Good. I am glad you can agree to that, although I don't see why you can accept the eternal Sonship of Christ while being bothered by the phrase "eternally begotten" since the two statements are synonyms. Obviously Christ was not "born" in a physical sense since he is eternal.

Jesus is "begotten" in His humanity; Jesus is "eternal" in His deity. He is */not/* "eternally begotten", nor is there anything in scripture which suggests this.

As to the two English definitions, the Bible is written in Hebrew and in Greek. The question is not what English means; that is a fallacy. The question is what the Bible means in its original Hebrew and Greek. But even if we wished to place any stock in these English definitions, the second definition you want to slide to now still says "*/produce /*an 'outgrowth'". Jesus was */not/* produced; production requires a beginning, and Jesus has no beginning. He existed eternally from eternity past; there was never a time when He did not exist. Therefore He is not any sort of "outgrowth". If you want to say that Jesus is eternal in His deity and begotten uniquely in His humanity, that would be correct. If you want to say that in eternity past the idea that Jesus would at some point in human history become a human being, that is, be "begotten" in His humanity, that is fine. My point is that there is no need and no justification to express these truths with the phrase "eternally begotten", and, in fact, that is not what the English phrase means. What a convoluted situation we put ourselves in if in order to adopt a non-biblical phrase we are forced to interpret it to mean something it clearly does not mean in normal English and are likewise forced to aver that it does not mean what it clearly does mean in normal English! Not only is that sort of "arguing about words" completely unnecessary, but it is also very confusing and potentially spiritually dangerous, because there /will/ be those who will take the phrase to mean what it says, despite our convoluted attempts to explain that it really means something entirely different. When you or I or any other native English speaker hears "eternally begotten" we think "born in eternity" or something of the sort. But Jesus was not "born in eternity"; He was born in 1 B.C. In eternity, He was undiminished deity without a beginning, without an end; this He has always been; this He will always be. The human part of His nature is the new development, and that only occurred in time, not in eternity. The problem with the phrase is that it suggests otherwise. My point is that it is unnecessary and unwise to introduce a potentially confusing and spiritually dangerous phrase like this into the conversation of Christian doctrine because it will inevitably trip some people up and because we don't need to use it since it does not occur in the Bible anywhere (i.e., the KJV passages, there is a /*big difference*/ between "only begotten" and "eternally begotten").

Love,
Madeline

Why would God who is uncreated need to "beget" Christ in order for Christ to be called a Son? hits the nail right on the head. No one is denying the eternity of Christ nor the nature of His eternal relationship to the Father nor that of the Father to the Son. The issue here is "entirely" about the concept of "begetting". Begetting means "giving physical birth to", and there was nothing physical at all before Jesus created the universe at the Father's behest. Besides that, if something or someone is "begotten" that something or someone must have had a beginning as well as a sire/creator. Jesus has no beginning: He always existed as God. Jesus has no sire/creator; His relationship as Son is one of chosen obedience but it does not flow from having been created or sired or begotten. As I have explained twice now, no one ever used this term before the Nicene Creed. If you're defending the tradition, you are defending the Creed, because that is where this erroneous false doctrine originates. All of these passages you have listed (John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9) use the word /monogenes/ whose meaning and usage I have explained twice already, but will have one last go here. This adjective and the failure to understand it properly are indeed at the root of the misunderstanding. The Greek adjective is the New Testament translation for the Hebrew adjective /yachiyd/ which means "one and only" and has nothing to do with "begotten" (it is derived solely and entirely from the Hebrew numeral "one"). In the book of Hebrews in the context of Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac in chapter eleven Isaac is described as /monogenes/, whereas in Genesis the word used is /yachiyd./ Without any question, therefore, /monogenes/ is the Greek translation of /yachiyd/, so that whatever /yachiyd/ means ("one and only") is precisely what /monogenes/ is meant to mean, namely, "one and only" or "precious and unique", but not anything to do with "begotten" (despite the etymology of the Greek adjective, usage determines meaning, not etymology). As I say, it would be much ado about nothing except for the fact that the improper meaning of the word "begotten" has led some to misunderstand the divinity of Jesus Christ, since anyone "begotten" has both a beginning and a superior creator, neither of which things is true of our Lord. If you agree/concur with this last statement, then you are merely arguing about words, not doctrines (and mistranslated words at that).

Love,
Madeline

I pray that this forum will find Unity in doctrinal truths, and not find unity in anything goes. I wouldn't doubt that there are some here who resist the Holy Spirit and have too much pride to submit to the truth because of their predetermined views and suppositions. I pray that each of us have an open mind and be willing to be corrected when it comes to doctrinal differences and allow the Holy Spirit to humble us and teach us through prayer and diligent study of God's Word. I also pray that we treat each other as a brother or sister in Christ, and not in the spirit of haughtiness by laughing and mocking other posters. I pray that we would all be Christ-minded and walk in the spirit and Unity but without conforming to false teaching and doctrines, and admonishing them as a brother or sister in Christ, unless heresy is taught.

Love,
Madeline

I feel that I must add this before you try to counter what I wrote:

It can be physical' date=' or it can be spiritual as it was with Paul and Onesimus. Likewise in order to be a son you must have been begotten or have had a father. God the father is the father for a reason.[/quote']

Philemon 1:10 - I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:

Nowhere does it state in that verse that Paul "begat" Onesimus as a son, but rather he has begat him in his BONDS (won over through Christ). Nothing to do with begatting as a Father to a son in the same sense with Christ and His Father.

Love,
Madeline

John 1:18' date=' John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9.[/quote']

I will get to the rest of your post later on today after work, but I would like to comment on your interpretation of the word "begotten". Begotten (monogenes) clearly means one and only, not born. If it were so, then the verses you quoted would read as:

John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time, the only BORN Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BORN Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 - He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only BORN Son of God.

1 John 4:9 - In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only BORN Son into the world, that we might live through him.

NONE of the verse you cited teaches the doctrine of the "Eternal Begetting" of the Son. Jehovah's Witnesses would be happy with your translation. The word "Trinity" is not found in the bible, but the concept is. The phrase "Eternally Begotten" is not found in the bible, and neither is the concept...there lies the difference. Now keep in mind that I do not deny the Eternal Sonship because a Spirit (God the Father) need not procreate or give birth to have a Son, for God is not a human being. All of the passages you cited above gives proof that God gave His one and only son, and that He is "unique" in the sense that He is THE only Son of God as to the "many" sons of God (angels, adopted sons of God). Jesus is not Eternally BORN, for it would make Him lesser and not of the same essence of the Father. More later...

Love,
Madeline

Madeline, "eternally begotten" refers to the fact that the life of Christ was and is from the life of the Father. That has always been true.

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Now you may bring up this verse:

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

That is referring to Christs resurrection from the dead, not his incarnation, and it does not mean he was not the only begotten son before that point. Jesus had from eternity past been the living only begotten Son of God but he did die. When he was raised up by the Father he was at that point begotten of the Father and restored to the life he had always had in the Father in addition to becoming our high priest.

Acts 13:33-34 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

Notice Paul directly quotes Psalm 2:7 in reference to the resurrection.


Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Christ did not become our high priest till after he rose from the dead, so again Psalm 2:7 is quoted in reference to the resurrection.

He was already the only begotten son prior to his resurrection though as is attested to by the words of Christ himself and multiple other scripture passages.

Madeline, "eternally begotten" refers to the fact that the life of Christ was and is from the life of the Father. That has always been true.

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Now you may bring up this verse:

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

That is referring to Christs resurrection from the dead, not his incarnation, and it does not mean he was not the only begotten son before that point. Jesus had from eternity past been the living only begotten Son of God but he did die. When he was raised up by the Father he was at that point begotten of the Father and restored to the life he had always had in the Father in addition to becoming our high priest.

Acts 13:33-34 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

Notice Paul directly quotes Psalm 2:7 in reference to the resurrection.


Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Christ did not become our high priest till after he rose from the dead, so again Psalm 2:7 is quoted in reference to the resurrection.

He was already the only begotten son prior to his resurrection though as is attested to by the words of Christ himself and multiple other scripture passages.

I am puzzled by this quote:

He was already the only */begotten/* son prior to his resurrection though as is attested to by the words of Christ himself and multiple other scripture passages.

What passages would these be? There is no answer to my question because as I pointed out in the prior post the phrase "eternally begotten" is not biblical; it does not occur in the Bible. The only "begetting" of Christ is of His humanity and that happened a little over two thousand years ago.

Therefore when you set out to explain what "eternally begotten" means and says "it refers to the fact . . .", you have gotten caught in a logical fallacy.

Since the phrase only occurs in the Nicene Creed, attempting to explain "what it means" begs the question, "what it means */to whom?/*". For it means nothing in the Bible or to the Bible since it does not occur in the Bible. Attempting to "exegete" extra-biblical material as if it had some authority is always very dangerous as this post shows. It forces a person unnecessarily to try and "wedge in" some non-biblical concept into scripture where it does not belong and results in any manner of doctrinal errors as a result.

What does the phrase mean? This (i.e., the content of your post) may well be what "it means" to you. But no writer of scripture would accept the phrase in the first place. And I seriously doubt if the explanation of the phrase given here even explains what the non-inspired writers of the creed had in mind, having examined the Greek text (explained in the prior post).

Bottom line: neither the phrase "eternally begotten" nor the concept occurs in scripture. The phrase is a late development and is to be explained by an attempt to analyze the adjective /monogenes/ etymologically instead of semantically and theologically. The fact that this is a mistake and was suspected as such even by the men who wrote the creed is evident from their extensive rebuttal of the sort of explanation given by you right after inserting the phrase itself ("begotten */not/* created" they say, and "of the same essence as the Father"). We would all be better off expunging "eternally begotten" from our theological lexica as it explains nothing and only invites incorrect assumptions about the Person of Christ, and completely unnecessarily so.

Love,
Madeline

Q: In the Nicene Creed the Catholic Church asserts that the Son of God is eternally begotten, but you also assert that the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary. Can you explain how the Son can be begotten twice?



A: The question you ask goes directly to the necessity of understanding who Jesus is. Scripture affirms that Jesus is both "the Son of Man" (Matt. 12:8) and "the Son of God" (Matt 8:29).

As we encounter God in history, through his relation with and revelation to man, we see that God acts in three distinct Persons, though he is one unique and singular whole. This is the mystery of the Trinity. As the Son of God, Jesus takes part fully in this divine and hidden life of God. But we also know that God is not given to change or alteration; he is perfect in his nature. God is as he is throughout and apart from time. He is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Spirit.

But we also see something else in God. He is not just one God in three divine Persons. These Persons also exist in relation to one another. In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father.

We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."

Let

Why is it that EVERY time I expose Satan...my post mysteriously dissapears on this forum or a virus is found on my computer??? This is but 1 out of a few Christian websites that I go to and none other websites. Regardless, here's what I MUST say.

Sad, sad, SAD!!!...where are the churches that teach sound doctrine? And why am I so surprised at this when the scriptures clearly teach that apostasy will occur before the coming of the Lord? I had visited another "Baptist" church today and in their pamphlet read:

"Unity to this writer does not mean uniformity. This is an appropriate word for the church today. To counter perceived threats from moral relativism and secularism many in religious bodies have heightened pressure on adherents to conform to doctrinal, moral and even political correctness in interpretation and behavior." - Richard F. Ward

I'll get to the above statement later on.

The Word of God states in 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." and also states in 1 Timothy 4:1, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" This is what is happening today!!! As I entered into the church to expect a warm and hearty welcome from loving "Christians"...I felt an opposing spirit working within the church as I entered, and I was correct. Nobody but 1 or 2 people said hi or welcomed me to their church. The first person who said hi was named "Jesus". I had explained to him how we are to "test" the spirits and how many Pastors and bible teachers behind the pulpit would rather tickle the ears of their audience than preach sound doctrine. He then proceeded to tell me jokes such as..."Have you heard the joke about the 2 peanuts?...well, one was assaulted." He continued by saying, "stop being bleak and cheer up, and we're here on earth to have "fun" and get along." He also said to me, "You need to stop condemning God." I thought to myself, how appropriate for the devil to use someone named "Jesus" to attempt to deceive me into believing that we should all just get along in spite of what we believe. The Word of God states in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

I then said hi to the Pastor as he tried to avoid me for some strange reason. I asked him what his church's statement of belief was, and he gave me the pamphlet which I had already received which said NOTHING about their doctrinal beliefs.

So again I had asked him what are the church's doctrinal beliefs? and he responded by saying..."that's not important, what's important is that there needs to be unity regardless of doctrinal beliefs." So I asked him..."what do you believe about gay marriage?" and he responded by saying, "Our church teaches gay marriage and we believe that God loves all kinds of people in spite of their preferences." I then said see you later "Pastor" and left the church.

Romans 1:26,27 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians 6:9,10 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (homosexuals), nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Btw, during my conversation with the Pastor, he could not look directly in my eyes as if there was a spirit in him that dreaded the unwavering truth of God's Word.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 - Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Was I wrong for doing what I did? For looking for a church that adheres to sound doctrine and that teaches on sin and immorality? Unfortunately, such churches are RARE in this Laodicean church age, so Maranatha, and Anathema to anyone who preaches another Gospel.

Love,
Madeline

The doctrine of eternal Sonship declares that the Second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. His Sonship had no beginning. There was never a time when He was not the Son of God. There has always been a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead. Sonship is not merely a title or role or function that Christ assumed at some point in history, but it involves the essential identity of the Second Person of the Godhead. He is and has always been the true, proper, actual Son of God.

Those who deny eternal Sonship teach that Christ became the Son at some point in history

Most in protestant Christianity will undoubtedly hold firm to the belief that Jesus is the only "begotten" Son of God, and that He is "eternally" begotten. My question is...where in the bible does it state that the Son is "eternally" begotten? I understand that Jesus was begotten at His incarnation (Jn. 3:16) and in the Psalms 2:7, which I believe is a prophecy of the Jesus' incarnation. But I find no concept of the Son being eternally begotten in the scriptures, and the concept of Jesus being "eternally" begotten almost implies as if He is lesser than His Father.

Greek scholar A.T. Robertson comments:

But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogene?s theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogene?s huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like Joh_3:16.

Even in A.T. Robertson's commentary he states that Jesus is God the only begotten, and most, if not all commentaries, would interpret Jesus being begotten at His incarnation. So where do bible teachers and commentators get the doctrine of Jesus being "eternally" begotten except from Origen's theology?

Love,
Madeline

My entire post mysteriously dissappeared when I hit preview post. Nice try Satan because I saved it on notepad. Regardless, I don't understand why SO many professing Christians fail to interpret this passage or pass it off as a prooftext that genuine believers can lose their salvation. The context CLEARLY shows that salvation cannot be lost. For it is impossible for a child who has now become an adult to become a child again. My point? it is something that can NEVER happen, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE. The same concept is found within the context of Hebrews 6:4-6. The whole point of the passage is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to lose their salvation because that would equate to crucifying Christ again, which you can't because it would be as if one could lose their salvation and gain it again.

This is however TRUE regarding those who are SAVED:

Hebrews 6:9,10 - But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of YOU, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

The write of Hebrews uses the word "persuaded" which is the same word found in Romans 8:38,39 when Paul is ASSURED that salvation cannot be lost.

Romans 8:38,39 - For I am persuaded (STANDS CONVINCED), that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Those who believe salvation can be lost trust mainly in their own strength and ability rather than Christ (God) who dwells in all true believers.

1 John 5:4 - For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

John 16:33 - These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

If Christ lives in you (born of God), then you will overcome the world because Christ has overcome the world, which means that you can never lose your salvation if you are a true child of God.

Love,
Madeline

Here's his website: Institute of Biblical Defense

My apologies to BroMatt if I posting links to other websites were not allowed.

Love,
Madeline

As I have stated before...I am a pre-tribber, however, I do have difficulty with many of the pre-trib arguments. This is from personal bible study and listening to apologetics teachers. Here is a sermon that presents good arguments concerning the post-trib view. Now I am not trying to disseminate the post-trib view to anyone on this forum, but I do want to here your interpretations refuting his post-trib position so I can stand firm in my pre-trib position. Thanks in advance! Please listen carefully: Pre-Trib or Post-Trib

Love,
Madeline

Revelation 22:5 - And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Who are the believers going to reign over? Over unbelievers who will be tormented forever and ever? over fallen angels who are also going to be tormented ever and ever? Or is this symbolic of victory over all evil ? Thanks in advance!

Love,
Madeline

I know that the person who takes the placebo DOESN'T realise that it's NOT the real deal. What I meant to say is that the person trusts that this placebo is in FACT the "real deal" when obviously it isn't. My point is that if someone can put their TRUST in a pill which has no real pharmaceutical effects, and this bogus pill mysteriously has the same effect as the real deal, then why aren't many Christians putting that same trust in someone who is REAL?

Love,
Madeline

placebo /pla

Thanks for the replies. I am in agreement because I felt an opposing spirit coming from him as soon as I set foot in that church as he stood in front of the pulpit.

Love,
Madeline

I hold firm to my belief regarding the doctrine of Eternal Security and I won't change my mind. I did however want to get a second opinion about what a Pastor (65-70 yrs old) had told me at a Baptist church. I asked him if he believed in Eternal Security, and he said if a believer denies his faith, then he can lose his salvation. I then quoted John 5:24 and 10:27,28.

John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life..

John 10:27,28 - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

I told him how Jesus said in John 5:24 that the one who "hears" and "believes" has (present tense) eternal life (FOREVER). And he told me...do you know what Eternal means? and I told him forever, and I also quoted John 17:3 on what Eternal Life also means.

John 17:23 - And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

And he said, NO, what DOES eternal mean? and I said "forever, without end, and to KNOW Jesus Christ and the True God". And he said, if you have eternal life and can't lose it, then that means that you had it before you were saved. Jesus is God and God is eternal, which means that He had no beginning and will never have an end. Then he said, that would mean that you had eternal life before you were saved because eternal means without beginning or end. That made no sense (nonsense) to me because if what he said were true, then that means that I had eternal life before I decided to "hear" and "believe", which is absurd because that's not what the "context" states. Furthermore, even IF that were true, then how can I lose it if it is eternal (without beginning or end)? I then quoted again John 10:28, where Jesus said that His sheep will NEVER perish, and IF His sheep can or could/would wander astray and deny their faith...then they would perish which would deny Jesus' words of how His sheep can never perish. He then God upset and laughed haughtily at the same time and told me that he is not going to debate this, and if I were to read the Word of God as he would then I would understand how correct he was. Afterwards, I confronted a church member about this in the parking lot as I was leaving church and told him what the pastor believed concerning eternal security, and the Pastor laughed and giggled in the distance. Should I be a member of this church?

Love,
Madeline

Lol, you guys really ought to listen to Kent Hovind's view on dinosaurs and creationism - you'll get the answers. Creation, Debate
Creation, Debate 2 If you disagree with him, then you would be disagreeing with the top creationist in the world. lol!!!

Love,
Madeline

I study the Word of God very closely and desire to come closer to God, but during these times I sometimes notice oddities that seem unanswerable. Well, I've noticed something odd about the context of Rev. 5:8,9:

"And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"

Does the "us" in verse 9 refer to the 4 beasts? My bible commentary states, "the beasts and the elders praise the Lamb for having redeemed them through His blood (vv. 8,9). Furthermore, those who study NT Greek will indeed say that the "us" also includes the beasts. Why are these 4 beasts redeemed? and what are they redeemed from? according to the book of Isaiah and Ezekiel, these seem to be the same beasts mentioned in Ezekiel 10:7-14 and Isaiah 6:2,3, which are either cherubs or seraphs. And if so, which seems very likely to me...why would they need to be redeemed? Thanks in advance!

Love,
Madeline

Ok, had to go back and do some reading. The "last trump" in 1 Cor 15:52 is the rapture which we clearly see. This trumpet is blown by God 1 Thess 4:16-17.

Rev 11:15 is the last of the seven trumpets of judgement in the tribulation. This trumpet is blown by an angel, not the Lord.

Context would show that these trumpets are not a chornoligical listing but rather a point in time for separate events.

Hope that helps

Tim

One more question. Why is the Trumpet in 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:16,17 referred to as the "Last" Trumpet? What are the preceding trumpets, because I can't find any other place in scripture where there are preceding trumpets before the "Last" trumpet found in 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:16,17 other than the one found in Rev. 11:15. Thanks in advance!

Love,
Madeline