Jump to content

Roselove

Members
  • Posts

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Roselove reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    In his third and final main point, the author of the article presented his most extensive effort to substantiate his given point.  I myself believe that this is the author’s weakest point, and that such is the reason that he had to put forth so much effort in order to attempt to make his point.  Since this point contains more material, I wish to respond to it by sections.  Even so, the author’s introduction to this point is as follows:
                   (https://edgarsreflections.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/what-did-jesus-mean-by-“i-will-lose-nothing”-in-john-639/amp/)
     

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

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

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

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

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

    Herein the author attempted to present a difference in definition.  He began by revealing that the English phrase “should raise . . . up again” is translated from the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”), In this he was correct.  Then the author revealed that the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) was created by joining the Greek preposition “ἀνὰ” (“ana”) with the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”).  Again in this he was correct.  Then the author presented the definition for the the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) as given in Strong’s dictionary.  Yet again in this he was correct.  Yet it is after this point wherein the author went astray.  Directing our attention upon the definition for the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”), the author stated, “The word ‘histemi,’ while it is used to refer to a rising from the dead, it is not necessarily the meaning in John 6:39.”  Now, there are two glaring errors with this statement.  First, the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) is NEVER used in the New Testament to mean “rising from the dead.”  Rather, it is the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) that is used in the New Testament with this meaning.  Second, the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) most certainly does not mean “a rising from the dead” in John 6:39, because the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) does not even exist in John 6:39.  Rather, it is the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) that is found in John 6:39.  Yet for the remainder of his explanation above, the author of the article continued to mix together the two Greek verbs “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) and “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”).  (Note: This would be like mixing the definitions of the two English words “standing” and “upstanding,” simply because the word “upstanding” includes the word “standing” in its construction.)
    In fact, the meaning of the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) is not at all relevant to a correct understanding of John 6:39, specifically because this Greek verb does not exist in John 6:39.  Whereas the meaning of the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”) may be relevant in helping us understand how the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) developed its meaning, it is the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) itself that is relevant to a correct understanding of John 6:39, since that is the actual Greek verb which is found in John 6:39.  So then, what is the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) (which the author of the article never actually provided)?  According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary, the meaning of the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is “to stand up (lit. or fig., trans. or intrans.):--arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up (-right).  Now, the author of the article directed us to consider his underlined portions from the definition for the Greek verb “ἵστημι” (“istemi”).  These included “abide, continue, hold up, present, stand (by, forth, still, up).”  He directed us thus because it is upon these meanings that he made his argument concerning John 6:39.  Yet it should be noticed that the ONLY one of these meanings that the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) also carries in meaning is “to stand up.”  Not a single other one of these meanings is a part of the meaning for the Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”).  Even so, the author of the article has engaged in a significant definitional error herein.  The Greek verb “ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) never means “standing by (or, alive),” as the author of the article asserted in the conclusion of his article.   Rather, it always indicates some form of movement in an upward direction, whether literally or figuratively.
    Strong’s Greek Dictionary indicates that the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) can be used either transitively or intransitively.  This is important to understand because the difference in this grammatical usage will affect the applicational meaning of the word.  Grammatically, a transitive usage of a verb indicates a transition of action from the subject to the object.  (Example: I raised up the flag.  The subject “I” is doing the action of “raising up” upon the object “the flag.”)  On the other hand, an intransitive usage of a verb indicates no transition of action from the subject to any object.  (Example: I stand up.  The subject “I” is doing the action of “standing up,” but is not doing so upon any given object.)  In John 6:39 the Greek verb verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is used transitively.  Even so, according to Thayer’s Greek lexicon, when used transitively the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “to cause to rise, raise up; a. properly of one lying down; b. to raise up from the dead; c. to raise up, cause to be born.  Furthermore, according to Bauer’s Greek lexicon, when used transitively the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “raise, erect, raise up; a. literally of idols, of one lying down, especially of the dead – raise up, bring to life; b. figuratively raise up in the sense cause to appear or be born.”  Thus we may understand that the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) means “raise up again,” just as it is translated in the King James translation.
     
    In the third place, the author of the article presented the argument as follows:

    Herein the author attempted to present a distinction of usage.  First, he indicated that the word “dead” is not found in John 6:39-40, 54.  In this he was correct.  Then he stated that “all usage of ‘anistemi’ in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word ‘dead’ is always present.”  Yet this is a little misleading.  First, the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is only used a total of eight time in the gospel of John (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:23, 24, 31; 20:9); and four of those times are in the context of John 6:35-65.  John 20:9 includes the word “dead” and is clearly speaking of resurrection, employing the phrase “rise again from the dead.”  John 11:31 is clearly not about resurrection, but about rising up from a sitting position.  However, while John 11:23 and John11:24 do not include the word “dead,” these two verses clearly are speaking of resurrection.  Therein we read, “Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.  Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”  Indeed, Martha’s statement in John 11:25 is quite instructive; for it is clear that in her mindset “the last day” and “the resurrection” were directly connected with one another.  Yeah, the resurrection was an event that would occur “at the last day;” and “the last day” was the time period for the event of “the resurrection.”  Even so, the claim by the author of the article that “all usage of ‘anistemi’ in the Gospel of John when it refers to resurrection the word ‘dead’ is always present” is found to be somewhat inaccurate.  John 11:24-25 does not include the word “dead,” yet is clearly speaking of resurrection.
    So then, what about the context of John 6:35-65?  As I have mentioned, the Greek verb ἀνίστημι” (“anistemi”) is used four times in this context, being found in verses 39, 40, 44, 54.  Thus whatever meaning this Greek verb might carry in one of these verses, it would contextually carry in all four of these verses.  What then do these four verses teach us as a whole together concerning the raising up at the last day?  In John 6:35 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is a responsibility that God the Father has given to God the Son, and that it is the opposite of God the Son’s losing an individual.  In John 6:40 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to all who “see” God the Son and believe on Him, and that it is directly connected with the promised reception of everlasting life unto such believers.  In John 6:44 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to those who come unto God the Son through faith, in response to God the Father’s drawing.  Finally, in John 6:54 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”  Herein we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised to all who spiritually partake of God the Son, and that it is directly connected with the promised reception of eternal life unto such partakers.  Joining these truth together, we learn that the raising up at the last day is promised work by God the Son unto those who come unto Him and partake of Him through faith, in direct connection with the gift of everlasting-eternal life, and as the direct opposite of being somehow lost by God the Son.  When we further join these truths with what we learn from John 11:24-25, it appears quite clear that the raising up at the last day is indeed a reference unto the event of the resurrection at the last day.

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

    Herein the author attempted to present an adjustment of perspective.  He implies that we need to adjust our perspective in order to view our Lord’s declaration in John 6:39 from the perspective of the disciples back then, rather than from our perspective 2,000 years later.  Indeed, the author of the article stated, “The taking place of the last day in Jesus’ mind during his time on earth was not after 2000 years.  The last day in his thinking and in the disciples’ thinking was only a few years away, that is, in the lifetime of the disciples.”  Now, it is certainly true that the disciples, during our Lord’s earthly ministry, did not have a correct perspective of God’s plan concerning Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, church administration, and second coming.  Yet for the author of the article to indicate that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was just as wrong in His own understanding of God’s plan as the disciples were is (in my opinion) edging toward blasphemy.  Our Lord Jesus Christ never had a false viewpoint concerning these things, and in John 6:39 He Himself is the One who is teaching truth from His own perfect perspective. 
    Again the author of the article stated, “In that case, for Jesus to state the he will “resurrect” his disciples is for him to presume that they will die in the next few years since the last day, again, was not thought of as being after 2000 years or even after 200 years.”  Yet within this very same gospel of John, in John 21:17-19, the record is given, “He [Jesus] saith unto him [Peter] the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?  And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.  Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.  This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.”  So then, our Lord Jesus Christ most certainly did recognize that at least His disciple Peter would experience death before His second coming.  Yet this creates a complicating contradiction.  IF our Lord Jesus Christ’s promise in John 6:39 is to be applied at the very least unto His chosen apostles, and IF His promise in John 6:39 means that He would not lose even one of those apostles unto physical harm or death, then how could He declare His recognition that the apostle Peter would indeed experience physical death, and that through martyrdom.  IF this verse means what the author of the article indicated, then our Lord Jesus Christ was given the responsibility by God the Father not to lose even one of His chosen apostle unto physical harm or death.  Thus Peter’s death would be a failure on the part of our Lord Jesus Christ to fulfill that responsibility before God the Father, and thus that failure would cause our Lord Jesus Christ no longer to be qualified as the Savior of the world.  To these things I declare – GOD FORBID!
    Yet again the author of the article stated, “If Jesus was presuming that his disciples will die before he comes again, then his promise in John 14:2-3 is a bit misleading since he promised them that ‘I will come again and receive you unto myself.’  He did not say that they will go to him.  Rather, he said that he will come back for them.  Thus, in the last day (if it is connected to his coming) his disciples would still be alive.”  Yet the New Testament teaching of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 indicates otherwise – “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”  Herein we learn that in the event of the catching up (rapture), our Lord Jesus Christ will descend from heaven and will resurrect His own who have previously died to meet Him in the clouds, in order that He might receive them unto Himself and they might ever be with Him.  The fact that they have previously died in no way brings doubt upon our Lord’s promise, for it is factored directly into His promise.
    And yet again the author of the article stated in relation to Matthew 16:27-28, “Jesus was certain that some of his disciples would still be standing or alive when he comes back.  Thus, showing that the last day, in Jesus’ thinking, is not after 2000 years and that some of his disciples (probably the Twelve) will be standing still at the last day.”  Now, in Matthew 16:28 our Lord Jesus Christ only applied His promise unto SOME of His disciples.  This would imply that at least some other of His disciples would indeed experience death, and would thus defeat the promise of John 6:39 for the Lord not to lose even one unto physical harm or death (IF that is what is actually intended in John 6:39, as the author of the article indicated).  Furthermore, our Lord Jesus Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled on the high mountain of His transfiguration, even as Peter indicated in 2 Peter 1:16 that he himself, James, and John were “eyewitnesses” of Jesus’ kingdom “majesty.”  And yet again the author of the article stated in relation to Matthew 10:23, “Again, another passage that demonstrates that the disciples will be standing still until the last day.”  Yet this now pushes forward the false (in my opinion) teaching of preterism.
    So then, Sister Rose, having thoroughly reviewed the author’s article, and having demonstrated a significant number of errors in that article, I am compelled to content that the author is simply false in his claim that John 6:39 does not teach the doctrine of eternal security.  
    Do you have any further questions about the article or about my review thereof?
  2. Like
    Roselove reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Well, yesterday afternoon I started working on my final installment of review for the article.  However, then I had a sump pump problem that stole away a number of hours from my schedule.  Will continue to attempt a completion within the next week.
  3. Like
    Roselove reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Rose, 
    I am sorry that I have not been able to do so lately.  The last few months have not been friendly to my schedule.  Please let me see if I can find an afternoon to do so within the next week.  Also, I do have an answer in answer to your question about the parable of the prodigal son.
  4. Like
    Roselove got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Yes, thank you! 
  5. Like
    Roselove reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Sister Rose,
    I have one more installment to do concerning the article. After I am able to present that installment, then I will handle your question on Luke 15:24. Will that be acceptable?
  6. Like
    Roselove got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    I certainly appreciate it, it definitely helps me to get as much info as possible, it helps a lot. I just have to put the pieces together, which might take me a bit, but I'm beginning to understand things more clearly!  
     
  7. Like
    Roselove reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Sister Rose,
    I am sorry if I am giving you information overload.  It is simply my nature to be thorough and detailed in such matters.  Furthermore, I believe that a consideration of ALL the details reveals the faultiness of the authors presentation and point.
    As far as the lack of a sooner response, no offense was taken.
  8. Like
    Roselove got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    All of this makes sense, it's very complex to me, I'm having to really try to rap my head around all of the information, it does certainly cause me to see that the writer of the article wasn't thinking all of his stuff through, before writing the article. Thank you for explaining this portion, to me!
    By the way, I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner, I didn't get a notification for your comment for some reason! 
  9. Like
    Roselove reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    In his second main point, the author of the article presented the following:
                   (https://edgarsreflections.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/what-did-jesus-mean-by-“i-will-lose-nothing”-in-john-639/amp/)
    This particular point would appear to be the author's strongest point, since it seems so easy to connect the idea of Jesus' losing nothing in John 6:39 with the idea of Jesus' losing none of them in John 17:12.  However, the true strength of this point rises or falls upon the validity of the author's other supporting points.  For this very reason, the author begin this point as follows, "Again, let me repeat that John 6:39 refers to the Jewish disciples only of the Lord Jesus when he was here on earth. Therefore, the “losing” here has something to do with them alone. It does not refer to salvation."  I myself have three points of conflict with this presentation of the author's second point:
    In the first place --
    As I have previously demonstrated in my previous postings of review concerning the author's article (here and here), I believe that the author is in error on a number of his supporting points.  Furthermore, as I proceed to the third and final point of the author's article I intend to demonstrate additional error in his supporting points.  Even so, since the strength of the author's present point rises or falls upon the foundation of his supporting points, I believe that as the points of the author's supporting foundation falls, so this point falls with it.
    In the second place --
    The Greek verb from which the English verb "should lose" in John 6:39 and the English verb "is lost" in John 17:12 are translated is worthy of our notice.  This Greek verb is "ἀπόλλυμι" ("apollumi").  This Greek verb is found twelve times in the gospel of John; and on a number of those occasions, it is translated with the English verb "perish." (See John 3:15-16; 10:28)  In particular its usage in John 10:28 is of significance for the present consideration.  As we have noted in a previously in this series of reviews, the context of John 10:27-30 also speaks concerning those whom God the Father had given unto God the Son, and applies that truth unto all of the Lord Jesus Christ's sheep.  Even so, in John 10:28 our Lord Jesus Christ spoke concerning all of His sheep, whom the God the Father had given unto Him, saying, "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."  Now, herein the phrase, "shall never perish," is translated from the same Greek verb as is found in John 6:39 and John 17:12 concerning those who are not lost.  Thus we might consider our Lord's teaching in John 10:28 as follows: "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never BE LOST, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."  Indeed, we might even consider the reason that our Lord reveals by which none of His sheep will ever be lost -- because they cannot be plucked out of His own hand.  Yea, none of His sheep will ever be lost specifically because He Himself will never lose any of them.  Then in John 10:29 our Lord Jesus Christ added the truth, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."  So then, none of God the Son's sheep, whom God the Father has given unto Him, can ever be lost, specifically because God the Son AND God the Father will never lost them.  It seems to me that the truth concerning never being lost (or, never perishing) is certainly applied within the gospel of John unto more than just the eleven apostles (yea, unto ALL of God the Son's sheep) and is certainly applied unto more than just physical protection (yea, even unto the eternal security of a believer's eternal life).
    In the third place --
    The author of the article seems to assert that our Lord Jesus Christ's statement in John 17:12, "and none of them is lost," had application only unto physical protection.  However, this assertion does not follow the whole flow of thought within our Lord's prayer in John 17:11-17.  Certainly, the declaration of John 18:8-9 indicates that physical protection was included within that responsibility.  Yet the flow of thought in John 17:11-17 does not appear to indicate that physical protection was the exclusive meaning of that responsibility.  In John 17:11 our Lord Jesus Christ prayed for God the Father to keep through His own name those whom He had given unto God the Son.  Then at the end of John 17:11 our Lord Jesus Christ revealed the purpose for this keeping work of the Father, "that they may be one, as we are."  When we consider our Lord Jesus Christ's further prayer for oneness among believers in John 17:20-23, it seems quite clear that this oneness is a spiritual matter, not a physical matter.  Now, having prayed in John 17:11 for God the Father to keep the eleven apostles, our Lord Jesus Christ indicated in John 17:12 that already kept them in the Father's name while He was with them in the world.  Thus we may understand that the keeping work within the context of these verses is the same work.  The keeping work for which our Lord Jesus Christ prayed that the Father would administer unto the eleven was the same keeping work that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself had already administered unto them.  Yet the Lord Jesus Christ would be departing from the eleven in order to ascend unto God the Father.  As such, He would no longer be present with them in order to administer this keeping work directly.  Thus He prayed that God the Father would carry forward that keeping work once after His departure.  So then, how did our Lord Jesus Christ describe this keeping work that He had already administered unto the elven, and that He was praying for God the Father to continue administering unto them?  First, in John 17:12 our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the nature of this keeping work, stating, "While I was in the world, I kept them IN THY NAME."  Second, in John 17:15 our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the protection of this keeping work, praying, "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them FROM THE EVIL."  Finally, in John 17:17 our Lord Jesus Christ revealed the means for this keeping work, praying, "Sanctify them THROUGH THY TRUTH: thy word is truth."  Even so, from the whole contextual flow of thought in our Lord's prayer, we may understand that the keeping work which He Himself had administered and for which He prayed of the Father was not strictly a physical matter, but was far more so a spiritual matter.  In fact, the very statement of exception that our Lord Jesus Christ made concerning Judas Iscariot, "the son of perdition," would also emphasize that this keeping work was a spiritual matter.  In John 17:12 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, "Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, except the son of perdition."  Herein the clause of exception indicates that "the son of perdition" had indeed already been lost.  Yet Judas Iscariot had not come to any physical harm by this point in time.  Judas was not physically lost.  On the other hand, by this time it was quite certain that Judas was spiritually lost, and that for eternity.  So then, even the context of John 17:11-17 does not seem to allow for us to view this keeping work as encompassing only physical protection.  Certainly, as I have acknowledged, the declaration of John 18:8-9 indicates that physical protection was included within our Lord Jesus Christ's responsibility of the keeping work.  However, that physical protection was not the primary aspect of that keeping work.  Rather, spiritual protection was the primary aspect of that keeping work.
    However, the author of the article presented one more main point in his argument.  Therefore, there is yet more for us to consider.
    Sister Rose, are you following this information thus far; or do you have any questions about this information?
  10. Like
    Roselove got a reaction from HappyChristian in Interview for my mom   
    Please pray for my mom, she is having a hard time at her current job and she had an interview today and it went well it seems. They want to have her back tomorrow for a second one, please pray for God's will to be done!  
  11. Like
    Roselove reacted to *Light* in Interview for my mom   
    Everything will be fine. I've prayed over this and God's Will will be accomplished, and He will get the Glory.
  12. Like
    Roselove got a reaction from *Light* in Interview for my mom   
    Please pray for my mom, she is having a hard time at her current job and she had an interview today and it went well it seems. They want to have her back tomorrow for a second one, please pray for God's will to be done!  
  13. Like
    Roselove got a reaction from swathdiver in Interview for my mom   
    Please pray for my mom, she is having a hard time at her current job and she had an interview today and it went well it seems. They want to have her back tomorrow for a second one, please pray for God's will to be done!  
  14. Praying
    Roselove got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Interview for my mom   
    Please pray for my mom, she is having a hard time at her current job and she had an interview today and it went well it seems. They want to have her back tomorrow for a second one, please pray for God's will to be done!  
  15. Like
    Roselove reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Well, I shall ever seek to provide whatever help that I can, as time permits.
  16. Like
    Roselove reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    As my 22 year old son, who is in Bible college training for the pastorate, said recently in a conversation with me -- Sometimes we miss the beauty (truth and wisdom) of the forest (broader context) for the individual trees (details), yet at other times we miss the beauty (truth and wisdom) of the individual trees (details) for the whole forest (broader context).  Furthermore, most individuals tend to lean more in one or the other direction.  As you have taken note, you yourself tend to lean more in one of those directions than the other; therefore, you must ever be  diligent to consider the other direction whenever you engage in Bible study.  As far as advice for Bible study -- I believe strongly in precision of understanding, both precision in the details (grammar) and precision in the flow of thought (context).  Be careful not to neglect any part that is precisely communicated, but also be careful not to add any idea that is not precisely revealed.  To rightly divide God's Word of truth means to cut a line of understanding that is precisely according to the pattern of revealed truth.  Such precise understanding indicates that we should seek not to err unto the right hand OR unto the left.  In addition, I would challenge you to find a very trusted Bible student, who is very precise and careful in Bible study, with whom you may discuss your thoughts concerning particular passages of study; for such an individual can help you to see things that you may not have noticed on your own.
    By the way, I yet intend to continue my response toward the article on John 6:37-40.  Having begun, I very much desire to finish.
  17. Like
    Roselove reacted to *Light* in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Very true indeed. There are a lot of charlatans out there that claim to drive out demons, and the demons could very well fool others into believing that the demon/s were cast out. And the one casting out demons would preach false doctrines and deceive many. I have seen this time and time again. The devil is the Father of all lies and we should never underestimate his deception.
    Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:22,23)
    Benny Hinn is the epitome of a charlatan who claims to heal people and drive out demons. He's going to be in for a rude awakening when he faces Almighty God at the Great White Throne judgement. 
  18. Like
    Roselove reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Indeed. We must ever remember that the devil's absolutely greatest weapon against humanity, to keep the lost from salvation and to keep the saved from faithfulness, is DECEPTION.  Certainly, the devil would not want the casting out of an evil spirit in order that the delivered individual might trust in Christ, as in the cases wherein our Lord Jesus Christ cast out evil spirits.  However, the devil would have no problem whatsoever empowering such events if he could use them as a tool of deception, especially if he could use them as a tool to deceive multiple individuals or even multitudes of individuals.
  19. Like
    Roselove got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Okay, explained this way, I think I understand now. So perhaps, a person that's not trying to glorify God, but promote themselves (like those tv faith healers?) or even another "god", might say they are casting them out, but the demon might have just left in order to fool everyone. So, the devil wouldn't be dividing against himself in that situation. I guess I was just a little confused because some people might really believe that someone who professes to have the power of Christ working through them (but really they don't), might get saved because of that? But I suppose that could be a situation where everything ends up working together to glorify God? And again, to simply just fool the person believing they are right with God and able to cast them out, but aren't?
  20. Like
    Roselove reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Sister Rose, 
    Concerning Matthew 7:21-23 –
    “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?  And in thy name have cast out devils?  And in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
    In order to correctly understand our Lord’s teaching in Matthew 7:21-23, I believe that we must understand two important elements of this teaching.
    1.  First, we must understand the judgement that our Lord pronounces against the given group of this context.  It is not significantly important whether our Lord professed His judgment, or confessed His judgment.  Rather, it is much more important to understand the actual judgment that He expressed.  Even so, this judgment includes three parts: 
    (1)  The Confrontation – “I never knew you”
    (2)  The Condemnation – “Depart from me”
    (3)  The Classification – “Ye that work iniquity”
    The key to understanding our Lord’s judgment is bound up in the word “never.”  Herein the Greek word that is translated “never” means just that – “never, not ever at all whatsoever.”  As such, our Lord indicated that He never at all whatsoever knew these individuals as His own people.  It is not that these individuals possessed eternal salvation at one time, and then somehow lost their salvation.  Rather, it is that they NEVER possessed eternal salvation at any time whatsoever at all.  It is not that these individuals were the children of God at one time, and then somehow ceased to be the children of God.  Rather, it is that they NEVER were the children at any time whatsoever at all.  For this very reason the Lord condemned them to depart from Him, such that they could not enter into the kingdom of heaven, but were cast out into the eternal judgment of hell.  Indeed, for this very reason the Lord classified them as those who worked sinful iniquity.  They may have classified their works as good works, but the Lord classified their works as iniquity and classified them themselves as the workers of iniquity.  In no manner whatsoever did the Lord classify them or their works as acceptable in His sight.  Indeed, according to Proverbs 21:4, our Lord views even the plowing of the unsaved wicked as sinful iniquity in His sight.
    2.  Second, we must understand the argument that the given group of this context presented unto the Lord.  Now, let us take note that this context is specifically about who will or will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Furthermore, let us take note that this context is about those who follow a Biblically based religion; for only such would say, “Lord, Lord,” unto the Lord Jesus Christ.  Finally, let us take note that this context is about judgment day and about the determination by which individuals shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Contextually then, the religious individuals of this context present the power of their good works as the foundational evidence by which they should be permitted entrance into the kingdom of heaven.  Yet does God’s Holy Word teach us that good works are the true foundation by which individuals may enter into the kingdom of heaven?  No, it does NOT.  Rather, God’s Holy Word teaches us that the true foundation by which we sinners shall enter into the kingdom of heaven is in being born again and eternally saved by God’s grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  These individuals were not trusting in Christ, but in their own good, religious, powerful works.  Thus they were NEVER known by the Lord as His own people.  Yet the Lord did not at all deny their performance of these good, religious works; nor did the Lord deny that they employed His very name in the performance of their works.  Indeed, they had performed these works and had claimed the name of the Lord while performing them.  Yet their works in the Lord’s name did not matter.  They were NEVER known by the Lord as His own people because they had NEVER placed their trust wholly and only in Him as Savior.  So then, from where did they acquire the power to perform their supernatural works?  Since they did not receive that power from the Lord, they could only have received it from the Lord’s great adversary, the devil.
    Sister Rose, I pray that this answer was of help in answering your questions.  If not, please ask any further question that you might concerning the matter.
  21. Like
    Roselove reacted to Alan in Prayers for PTSD   
    I will be praying for you this morning.
  22. Like
    Roselove reacted to Invicta in Prayers for PTSD   
    Rose. I have prayed for you,
    I hope you are soon better. 
  23. Praying
    Roselove got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Prayers for PTSD   
    The last month or so I've been struggling with past traumas more frequently than usual. I've been feeling pretty down, not really having any energy, generally depressed and anxious. My mind is always scattered and I feel like a weight is holding me down. I'm not finding relief, please pray for me. 
    Thank you
  24. Praying
    Roselove reacted to Danny Carlton in Urgent, work needed   
    I find myself in a place where I have no idea how we will pay this month's bills. I've been supporting my family as a freelance web developer for the past 10 years and we've always had money coming in from somewhere, but my freelance clients have dwindled down to just a few and the website I was relying on as a financial backup also petered out and is now defunct. I know God will come through and provide, but the stress of times like this is always what's worse. So I'm asking for prayer for strength to trust in God's plan. He knows what He's doing, but it's very hard not to worry and fret over every little thing that I do, whether I'm doing enough, too little or too much.
  25. Praying
    Roselove reacted to *Light* in Prayer for Jeff   
    Please pray for a friend of mine named Jeff. He has killed someone in the past (served his prison time). I don't know if he is saved or not now because only God can judge his inner heart. He prays for people now and seems to care more about them more than before. He is on Dialysis and only has lass than a year to live. This brings me to tears because I want to make absolutely certain that he is a child of God, and I want to see him in heaven. Jesus did not come for the righteous, but sinners to repentance. May the LORD have mercy on his soul and bring Him to Christ as his LORD and Savior.
  • Member Statistics

    6,088
    Total Members
    2,124
    Most Online
    shlomo
    Newest Member
    shlomo
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...