Jump to content
Website Glitch Read more... ×
Online Baptist

Heir of Salvation

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Heir of Salvation

  1. Heir of Salvation

    Early church eternal security

    I enjoyed sharpening iron with you... God bless you brother :)
  2. Heir of Salvation

    Early church eternal security

    I don't think your assessment is very far off... I said before that I am "skeptical" about OSAS, not that I'm dyed-in-the-wool against it. I'm being treated by some as though I am....but that's another matter. John provides us the answer though, I think in vs. 22 and I think my initial assessment is correct: He identifies those "anti-Christs" those who (were not of us)...in vs. 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. I am not yet convinced that those who can walk away are those who were never truly believers.... That argument is dangerously close to a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman I don't think all OSAS believers who use that verse are guilty of it, because they believe in an a-priori impossibility of falling away (such as yourself I would guess). But, I think the context is, frankly....the entire book, not just a few preceding verses...and those spoken of who are "anti-Christ"...who never were "of us"...are, and always were, genuine non-believers....wolves in sheep's clothing...not those who may have genuinely believed and have abandoned the faith. The non-OSAS position (the only reasonable one) provides that a person who may have GENUINELY believed at some point can walk away....I think John is indeed speaking of those who CLEARLY never did... And he's warning us against wolves who never believed... Frankly, I believe he's warning against Docetism which already infected the faith by then. See I John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: I think that's a better way to understand the passage. Thank you for your insight :)
  3. Heir of Salvation

    Early church eternal security

    Maybe... But preface it with vs. 17 only two verses earlier................. and it could take on a whole new meaning: 1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. That could help to preface vs. 19............since it provides context. It creates a condition....for who Christ's sheep are... and mind you John is warning us about heretics who deny Christ...they, I would argue are those who are spoken of. Genuine "anti-Christs" who deny Christ has come in the flesh.
  4. Heir of Salvation

    Early church eternal security

    You seriously just accused me of "double-talk"???? Really? Because I presented fair arguments....and even conceded numerous points in favour of the OSAS position? Points I didn't HAVE to concede. Such as explaining that while it's indeed true (and it is) that the ancient Fathers don't seem to support an OSAS position....that that should not be of significant concern to Roselove and that the Scriptures themselves should be consulted........ Let's see.... Please see if you can explain in any real detail and without sounding preposterous how I engaged in "double-talk"... You are acting like precisely what Roselove is complaining about........ Someone genuinely asking questions...and seeking to hear contrary arguments held up with Scripture... And you just condemn and insult and falsely accuse and scream "heresy". I may be mistaken. OSAS may be true... But I've not engaged in "double-talk". I presented my argument as fairly and reasonably as possible with my KJV verses quoted: You responded as you did because..... Your arguments simply aren't as good as mine......so you defaulted to insult and false accusation. And you know it. By the way "double-speak"....is preferable to "double-talk"...if that's what you want to accuse me of...just sayin'
  5. Heir of Salvation

    Early church eternal security

    No one can "pluck" them from the father's hand.... But, who would describe an errant sheep who willingly "leaves" the fold and walks away as having been "plucked"???? You "pluck" an apple off of a tree. If it's over-ripe, and falls to the ground (of it's own accord). You do not describe it as having been "plucked". No one can "pluck" Christ's sheep from the fold........... That says nothing about whether a sheep can walk away. And that action cannot reasonably be described as "having been 'plucked' ". I don't think that verse proves your point....especially in context: Consider the preceding verse: Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: That is a CONDITION for being a sheep....his sheep "follow" him. (Or that is at least a faithful and fair way to understand the passage). Conceivably, those who do NOT continue to follow him...are no longer classified as "sheep". Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. If OSAS is true (and it may very well be) this passage doesn't, I think, prove the point.
  6. Heir of Salvation

    Early church eternal security

    It can be both "everlasting" but also conditional. It can be "eternal" but receipt of it can be conditional. No one "opposes" "eternal" life.... They oppose non-conditionality. Even you don't believe eternal life is granted unconditionally. You believe that faith in Christ is necessary for receiving that gift to begin with. The difference is that you view it as a Once-only proposition. Those who disagree would contend that those who do not continue in the faith will not receive life eternal.... "Eternality" is not even the issue........it's conditionality that is at issue. The point of the opposing argument is that "eternal" life is granted upon certain conditions. This "simple point" must be answered by those who oppose "eternal" eternal life. They don't oppose "Eternal" life... they oppose a one-time-walk forward during the fifteenth verse of "Just as I am"- then live like the Devil-and believe whatever you want-and discontinue in belief at all-and still be a recipient of Eternal Life- even if you fall away from belief and begin practicing Buddhism.........................kind of Conditionality................. Every verse in the Bible assures BELIEVERS of Eternal Life....No verse assures the "I once believed but have abandoned the Faith". That's the question....Whether those who genuinely once believed can fall away into disbelief: Luke8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
  7. Heir of Salvation

    Early church eternal security

    I get it. I know what the eternal means, what was confusing to me, though, was for instance, like in John 3:16, they were saying that in the Greek for believeth, was implying a continuance of beleiving, which they were trying to say meant that if you stopped believing, you would not inherit wternal life, after death. That's a legitimate understanding of that verse. I'm much more open-minded to osas, now. I have been given information that makes sense to me. I was just needing some mentoring, on this matter. That's why i find it quite saddening, that people were accusing me of not believing the Bible, Welcome to O.B.... Not toeing the company line will often automatically get you branded a Christ-hater, sinner, non-believer, and heretic in the minds of some. Don't let that discourage you... Continue in the Word, listen to the arguments presented, and most importantly read the Scripture with prayer. i felt like they were saying I was trying to be a heretic or something. That's because some posters were sayinig that. Welcome to Christianity where no one is perfect and some are odious, contentious, proud and unrelentingly intransigent. I was just trying to get help. There are knowledgeable and good posters here who can help you and present reasoned arguments...... Scott Markle is definitely one of them. He's wise, and knowledgeable. He'll land on the OSAS side of the argument. Good. I'm not sure I'd agree with him..............................but, he's definitely worth hearing and considering. He can patiently and lovingly expound what he knows of Scripture and present an argument well thought-out and reasoned. Some are just going to call you a "heretic" because you don't agree on every minor point of Doctrine, or even preference. Welcome to the Family. Ignore those who are unhelpful and learn from those who are. Like this Quote
  8. Heir of Salvation

    Early church eternal security

    It is true that there appears to be no KNOWN affirmation of a doctrine of "Eternal Security" in the early Church writings. (Here I would restrict it to the Ante-Nicene pre-4th Century). But, there are doubtless countless writings we no longer have access to. To this I would say several things: The early Church had much larger fish to fry quite frankly. It was busy fleshing out doctrines such as the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Humanity of Jesus Christ, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, the personhood of the Spirit, the Nature of the Trinity, the incarnation etc... I would argue that genuine saved believers had some pretty strange ideas we would consider all but heretical in this day and age. And we can expect too much from them sometimes. We are the beneficiaries of 2,000 years of Christian thought. They were often the beneficiaries of a few books of the New Testament perhaps a gospel or two and some letters of Paul. It was not really until Chalcedon (if I remember correctly) that everyone even agreed upon the Scriptural Cannon. The early Church Fathers had no such benefits........and they were dealing with much "bigger" issues. That being said, when they do make round-about mention of it.....they indeed do not seem to support any such thing as "Once-saved always saved" or "Eternal Security" etc.... This is not surprising really. Such an idea would be foreign to the world they inhabited at the time. Christianity would be the only faith that had such a doctrine (and still is). It's very counter-intuitive. And yes, there are numerous Scriptures which demand a "faithfulness to the end" to ensure salvation. But, the specific historical and social context of such writings is informative....They were under persecution in a way that we are not. They were likely referring to holding fast and not denying their faith in the face of persecution as much as saying "don't lose your Salvation". To be clear, I am Skeptical about Eternal Security myself. And I do think that Early Church writing is of value on any Doctrinal topic......Yes, I do care what they said and what they taught. But, I would be cautious about allowing what we have on that specific issue to inform your decision making much. I use an informal sort of sliding scale of how much weight I place on the Church Fathers on different topics. I am likely to have more faith in their take on say.....the Incarnation or the Trinity than I would on their precise Soteriology. Here.....it really is best to search the Scriptures with diligence and much prayer for your answers.
  9. http://www.dailywire.com/news/9925/liberty-university-students-reject-hank-berrien More power to them IMO.
  10. Heir of Salvation

    Should Women Wear Pants?

    Yes. There's nothing wrong with it.
  11. Heir of Salvation

    Liberty students and faculty do something right :)

    Darrel Castle is actually on the ballot in my State....... I'll probably fill his name in.
  12. Heir of Salvation

    Tulip or Not Tulip...

    Don't bother. You could post a video of yourself burning Calvin in effigy and it wouldn't be good enough for some people. Let it go. B.T.W........we treated you just fine at Baptist Symposium..........just sayin......... And yes, it was Beza more than Calvin himself. You're right about that. It's also irrelevant on this board.
  13. Heir of Salvation

    Pulpit Committees and Church Election of Pastors

    Who's to say whether the 70% are "in the right" and the 30% are "wrong"?.......... It's tatamount to impossible to really "know" with any measure of certainty. It's just as likely that the 30% are on a better track than the rest of the members and half the church may be mere pew-warmers. There's a reason Pastors are often chosen "democratically". Even if for imperfect reasons. I'm not sure any system is perfect, but, personally......I've rejected calls to churches where the split was 70-30...(exactly that actually). Unless strongly urged by the Spirit (and only with counsel of Godly men) otherwise......I wouldn't (and haven't) answered a Church call of 70-30....It takes a very WISE and experienced man to navigate such a scenario. Some (usually older and more experienced men I've found) can accept such a call...........but at my age and level of experience.....not happening. Churches without pastors have a tendency to get "desperate" sometimes if it's been a long time. They often either rush to hire the first "qualified" man to come along or they are often merely intransigent and chase away perfectly good candidates who don't have some things on paper that they want......Often that 70% if it's a Church without a pastor for say 4 years.....is "wrong" and the 30% are more patient and wise and willing to wait. It often takes an unusually wise, prudent and Godly man to navigate such a scenario. Often it's an erstwhile retired pastor of many decades' experience and therefore the appropriate wisdom to right the ship and subsequently steer such a church in the right direction. Quite often it's on an interim status. It's an amazing task such men accomplish. Get a 70-30 split on some young 32-year old cat fresh out of seminary with a wife and two kids and $100,000 of debt to pay.......and a 70/30 split is often really bad news for him. That congregation will beat him into submission like a rented mule.....................or worse...................they'll follow him blindly into whatever fancy new-fangled doctrines he espouses. BOTH are errors. It depends on the maturity of the Church you are speaking of.
  14. Heir of Salvation

    Israel attacks U.S.

    I don't know what pietism is, Root word "piety".....an obsession with remaining "pious" or monastically humble. I was saying that you were erring on the side of caution because you said that those Nations so mentioned were "No less secular" than Israel. You are (I think) Canadian....but you don't want to think too highly of yourself and you wish to remain humble in God's sight....That's what I mean. "Pietism" CAN MEAN something like someone who is disingenuously pious. But that wasn't what I meant there..... I was suggesting that your natural bent towards humility that every Christian should have balks (quite naturally) at what I'm saying. That's a good trait, but, I think it gets in the way of what I'm arguing here. and I can't be humble cause none of those countries is mine. Sure you can. You are a humble person.....almost to a fault. But no country in this world is godly. True. Which is to say, Ultimately...........as far as the lives of the individual inhabitants....no country is properly truly full of "Godly" persons but, at the same time I think that the "veneer" as you call it is actually important...even if we are whited sepulchres on the inside. Some had a veneer of it for a time, I think the "veneer" of it matters actually. It suggests something about the inside of the people. The people may sin, they may be hypocrites, they may sin when they think they are in darkness................but they aren't "painted whores"....they don't yet have a "whore's forhead". Jer 3:3 Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed. There's a different level of wickedness when you are shamelessly ungodly. A desire to at least hide one's shame bespeaks a conscientiousness of Godliness not always shared by others. The idea is that you no longer even blush when you are shamelessly ungodly: Those Western nations at least pretend to blush....just a little. but even that is long gone on this continent. Not entirely... Mostly, but not entirely. It NEVER existed with the Nation of Israel though. These nations do not honor God. Yes they do. What I just posted was at least Britain and Australia putting a National face on Christianity. Of course, on the inside, in the aggregate, the people are often lost......the nation itself doesn't dishonor God. It at least pretends to. David Hobson's song was an uberly Christian (even Dispensational) view of Christian Christian ethic. Granted, they aren't perfect. and granted, they are probably (as individuals) as lost as anyone.....but the Nation isn't "Godless" not like Israel is. This is actually my "shout-out" to pretentiousness....to faux Christianity....to being a "whited sepulchre"....to complete and utter hypocrisy. A nation completely devoid of Godliness which at least PRETENDS towards Godliness is in better shape than one which doesn't honor God even in the abstract....that's what I'm contending. Oh, and as for 'western gentile Christianity'? Don't forget that 'in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek', Not "In Christ" as you correctly state......but in the Nation....there is the "Christian" and the "Jew"...at least in the national contiousness. I actually contend that that matters. and the western church is generally complacent and lukewarm compared to the eastern church that is currently under persecution. Probably true. The Eastern Church would be equally complacent under the same circumstances: Christianity is embedded in Western Culture though. That's not easily dismissed. I think you have a romantic view of our nations and our churches that does not reflect reality. I don't think so. I'm not contending that we are over-run with Godly people desperate to reach the world with the gospel. This isn't about the PERSONAL state of any nation's inhabitants. I'm not arguing the personal life of a Western Christian vs. the Israeli or Eastern Christian....I'm arguing something more abstract like the "NATIONAL" concsciousness. Britain at least PRETENDS to honor God....as The concert at the Royal Albert Hall suggests........that's downtown London. Kings and Queens go to the Royal Albert Hall. They are married and they are crowned by the Bishop of Canterbury...it's in their National blood. There's a difference between being unrighteous (but only secretly) and shamefacedly shaking your fist at God. Britain, Australia, U.S....etc...they at least have enough FEAR of God that they pretend to care about righteousness (even though they don't really as you rightly say). I think you are a whole lot better off if you at least PRETEND towards righteousness whilst committing every sin known to man than if you shake your fist at God in the process: Psa 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever Those Western Nations aren't really righteous............... but they fear God enough to pretend to be. Israel does not. That makes a difference.
  15. Heir of Salvation

    Israel attacks U.S.

  16. Heir of Salvation

    Israel attacks U.S.

    I disagree. As a whole, they are. Of course these are generalizations and everywhere there is Godlessness. But I think it is pietism and humility (good traits for sure) but not fact that makes you want to say that. From a strictly statistical standpoint for instance, There are far more people in those nations, indeed in the Western World as a whole who embrace the Messiah than there are in Israel. It's getting worse here of course, but Israel is more secular than those countries and there are far fewer Christians in Israel than in the U.S. U.K. Australia et al. There is not even a lot of Orthodox practitioners of Judaism in Israel. It's a very humanistic country. Thanks be to God, it won't be forever, but it is for now.
  17. Heir of Salvation

    Israel attacks U.S.

    I am not even close to an adherent of Replacement Theology................I abhor Replacement Theology. "Neo-Nazi"????? Really?? Can you quote for me the "Neo-Nazi" part of the post? There's no Scriptural argument to even make!.....the question was if your nation was attacked without warrant should you defend it? The answer is obvious.....of course you defend your country. Do I take it that if an Israeli bomber were dropping ordnance on your house you wouldn't fire back? You wouldn't defend your wife and children? You would let an Israeli murder your family? This thread is beyond the pale of absurd. Jordan shouldn't even have to ask the question, the answer is self-evident. He's just over-thinking it. It's understandable, he's a curious learning young man trying to make sense of complex ideas, sometimes young people over-think things and confuse the complex with the simple. That's all. I have zilch hostility towards Israel.....Zilch. I know that the Nation of Israel however, does not have Carte-Blanche to attack other countries without recourse. I also know that they wouldn't. They are a friend and ally of the United States. And I support them 100%. But the Nation of Israel is not the synonymous with the Jewish people as a whole. There are Jews throughout the world. And, yes, the Nation of Israel as a whole is extremely secular and as a people group they have rejected their Messiah. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it's a fact. Paul also says that the Natural Olive branch (the Jews) will be grafted back in again. Unfortunately, that won't happen until after the time of Jacob's trouble. I wish it weren't so, but, it is so and that's the Scriptural testimony on the matter. Paul's argument in Romans 11 tell the story..... I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. These are the times of the gentiles according to the Scripture, until the fullness of the gentiles has come in, the Jews remain as a whole in unbelief. Replacement Theology doesn't understand that the natural Olive branch will be grafted BACK IN AGAIN. There are two possible errors that are made: The first is to fail to understand that the Jews have been put aside FOR A TIME. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off The second is to fail to realize that the Natural branch (the Jews) will be grafted back in........that's what Replacement Theology fails to recognize, and that's why I absolutely am NOT an adherent of it and I loathe it. Paul expressly warns against it right here: Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. But we can't fail to recognize the first point either that for now, these are the times of the gentiles and God is provoking them to jealousy, and it will take the Tribulation to bring them back in again. It's because I don't fail to recognize the unfortunate reality of point 1 that you accuse me of abhorrent Replacement Theology and Nazism............ (absurd). Make neither of the two errors. Your accusations of "Neo-Nazi" and "Replacement Theology" are absurd, insulting and unwarranted.
  18. Heir of Salvation

    Israel attacks U.S.

    NO.........It isn't. This is absolutely not an anti-Israel Nation. You don't know where to look.........Israel as a Nation, and as a People, have still rejected their Messiah, they will continue to do so until the Tribulation. Only in the time of Jacob's trouble will the remnant of Israel understand and embrace their Messiah. Rom 9:6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: The Gentiles do NOT reject the Messiah.... We are the "Wild Olive branch" that has been grafted into the promises.. That's only Australia..... The Western World is simply so extremely pro-gospel, you aren't looking in the right places. Our LEADERS are often evil...........but that's not who we are. Israel is a secular and Godless Nation. The penultimate expression of righteousness is still expressed in Western Gentile Christianity.....don't be fooled by heretics like Obama into thinking otherwise. God knows where HIS people are.......and he knows which Nations still honor him. That's the Risen Messiah being honored thousands of miles away. In the event you don't internalize this...........this is the Royal Albert Hall in London. It's the Premier cultural venue for musicals, concerts and culture....It defines them culturally. And so the good Ol' U...S...of A, isn't ignored... Let's see Israel do this:
  19. Heir of Salvation

    Israel attacks U.S.

    I'm not trying to be snarky....but, there's absolutely nothing to "explain". If someone attacks your home, your land, your wife, your livelihood....you respond with deadly force. You expose them to a WORLD of hurt, like nothing they've ever conceived of. Swift, sure, deadly, painful... Oprimere, Velocitas, Violentia Operandi. There's no question to be answered here. Men protect their women, their homes, their property, their livelihood. That's how you end a confrontation quickly....If you end confrontations quickly...you save lives. The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagosaki saved lives in the millions or projectedly...at least hundreds of thousands. It was the most humanitarian thing ever done. When at war....you END the war. It's done by overwhelming infliction of pain. Have the fortitude to do it....and lives are saved.
  20. Heir of Salvation

    Israel attacks U.S.

    Yes, you defend yourself. No, God would not punish you for responding.
  21. If someone would help her make her consonants more defined.... she needs that... But, this is an AMAZING voice!
  22. Heir of Salvation

    The Spiritual Progression of Human Souls.

    "Soul" in the New Testament...is not the same as tho Old Testament "nephesh".... I'm thinking that's where some confusion lies... "nephesh" is simply "soul" or "life" in Hebrew...thus Adam became a living "soul". Once we get into parsing out the Greek of the New Testament...words translated "soul" aren't coextensive with the Hebrew idea of "soul". "Soul" isn't a particularly defined subject in Hebrew thought...it's MUCH more well defined in 100 A.D. when the Scriptures were captured in Greek, rather than confuse ourselves, why not simply flesh out the linguistic differences. "nephesh" does NOT mean what "Soul" means in koine Greek and it isn't as loaded an idea. It's a more primal idea no doubt in Hebrew than it would be in the N.T. I don't think we'd be correct to compare "soul" in the O.T. as coextensive with "soul" in the Greek of the N.T. You have knowledge of the original languages (as I've observed from your posts)....I'd imagine you know that the Hebrew's "nephesh" is clearly not "soul" in Greek then translated into English.....the Hebrew...just sorta includes the idea of a "life" or a "being"......we shouldn't compare the two. Remember according to the book of Ecclesiastes....both man and animals supposedly have "spirits"! Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? רוּחַ and רוּחַ That's for both man and a beast! I'm sure you know that "ruach" simply means something like "wind" or "spirit-wind"...and we translate it as: "life"...or "soul" into English. But it's a very primal idea not NEAR as specified as the loaded terms we often now use, from a westernized Greek Philosophical pre-suppositional standpoint. Let's not confuse them no??? I don't think we should ascribe the same level of specificity to words like "soul" or "life" or "person" in the same way in the O.T. as we do to the more specific ideas expressed in the N.T. That might clear up a lot of confusion...In other words...don't take the KJV's use of the word "soul" in the O.T. as coextensive with the KJV's use of "soul" in the N.T. They aren't the same loaded idea in both testaments. I'd contend the KJV translators knew that as well, but...you have to translate as well as you can. But "soul" doesn't neccessarily mean the same thing in Hebrew as it does in Greek even if the same word is best translated into English the same way.
  23. Heir of Salvation

    God's Soul???

    "The Lord our God".....isn't "God the Father" IMO (as I understand it).... Usually, "the Lord our God" would refer to the Father...in the Old Testament...but in Christianity, the mystery of the Trinity is introduced...I'd say that for New Testament Christians "The Lord our God" isn't the "Father" but rather the "Trinity"...or the "Godhead"... I don't think the "Father" has a "soul" distinct from the other persons of the godhead. I think the Godhead has one "soul" and that "soul" is comprised of three persons...... Let the debate begin..lol
  24. Heir of Salvation

    God's Soul???

    I'd be interested in parsing out this discussion............ What's critical is how one defines a "soul". Also, interestingly is a Theological point... You seem here, to define "God" or "our Father" or the "Lord God" as being the first member of the Trinity ONLY... That may be a point of contention. The Father is the 1st member of the Trinity (only because the Theologians describe him as such) and the Son is the "2nd" (because it works) the Spirit the third member of the Trinity (it's a designation which is workable)....etc. My best guess is...the FATHER....on his own, doesn't have a "soul". "God" does, or rather the Trinity does...but my best guess is that the Trinity has a "soul"....perhaps we can make more sense of it if we say "GOD".....or even "Elohim " has one "soul"....and that "soul" is composed of the three persons in the Godhead. My understanding of the Godhead would be that "God" (meaning the Trinity) has one "soul"....and the individual members of the Trinity are individual persons within the Godhead..... Much to the dismay of most on this board, the Scriptures aren't going to define these words so completely...some level of Philosophy is necessary to answer them such as: What is a "person" What is a "soul" Maybe this is a starting point.
  25. Heir of Salvation

    The Spiritual Progression of Human Souls.

    Jordan, can I respectfully submit to you that you have missed the point behind the Scripture you quote? As always, context is king and context shows us that "Spiritual Death" is nowhere in view. Moreover, if it was, than the passage would imply Universalism. The entire chapter is about bodily resurrection from the dead: I Cor 12: 15 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (If Spiritual Death is in view, than Universalism follows necessarily). Will "all" be made Spiritually alive again? I trow not! This passage is clearly speaking of PHYSICAL death and bodily resurrection from the dead only. It is inappropriate to use this passage to teach Original Sin or Original Guilt of some kind. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Every man will not be saved, but every man will be resurrected, even the damned: John 5: 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, vs. 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
×