Eternal Security is NEVER wrong.

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: Heavenly you cannot discern if your truly elect....

HP: Just wondering if you will tell us that you are a liar just as some others on this list have stated they are?

 

[Jedi Knight]

HP: Just wondering if you will tell us that you are a liar just as some others on this list have stated they are?

Do you have the Holy Spirit?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Certainly, just as every believer has. Are you a self confessed liar?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Certainly, just as every believer has. Are you a self confessed liar?

Are you so mixed up to say in other posts you might be decieved BUT NOW you do have the Holy Spirit? That's double talk and confusion...unstable.

 

[DHK]

HP: This is certainly a most abused text. Those posting it more often than not are trying to say that this passage of Scripture proves that if one does not make it in God never knew them. That conclusion is simply not supported by the context of this passage, and is a falsely assumed end. Listen to how DW and others merely assume without proof such a conclusion as to the meaning and application of this verse.

First HP: Stop the childish name-calling.

Second, this is not a most abused text. It is one of the most clearly stated texts in the Bible. One simply has to look at the context. Go back a few verses. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. You shall know them by their fruits. Beware of false prophets. All through the passage Christ is referring to false prophets/teachers. It is a no brainer here. These are apostate individuals who pretend to teach and preach Christianity but don't. They preach a false gospel. They are the Benny Hinn's of our society. It looks like a gospel but it isn't. It sounds like a gospel but it isn't. No gospel has a trinity that has nine persons in it.

Depart from me for I never knew you.
If one does not have a relationship with Christ, then Christ never knew that person. Being saved is having a relationship with Christ. False prophets CANNOT have a relationship with Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The entire context deals with the Kingdom of God and the final removal of false professors from this kingdom. It is similar to Matthew 13 and the true seed of the kingdom versus the tares which are removed at the end of the age.

The immediate contrast is first made in Matthew 5:20 and carried through to the conclusion where only two possible but contrasting ways characterize all kingdom professors and concluded by only two contrasting foundations upon which all kingdom professors build upon.

What is being considered in Matthew 7:21-23 are ALL FALSE KINGDOM PROFESSORS or the tares in Matthew 13.

1. "Lord, Lord"
2. "in thy name"
3. "done many wonderful works"

In principle, this final scene deals with all RELIGIOUS LOST because there are only two possible but contrasting ways to follow and only two possible but contrasting foundations to build one's life upon as a RELIGIOUS person - (1) narrow way, the rock; (2) broad way, sand.

Those in Matthew 7:21-23 represent that portion of mankind who have built their life upon the foundation of sand and in particular false kingdom professors.

What is true of these false kingdom professors in Matthew 7:23 is eqully true of all religious lost regardless of what religion they are. What is true of these false kingdom professors in Matthew 7:13-14 or "the broad way" is equally true of all religious lost regardles of what religion they walk in.

In regard to the way they chose to walk and the foundation upon which they chose to build the Lord claims to have NEVER known them in regard to salvation or the narrow way and the rock foundation. None who chose to walk the broad way were ever saved. None who chose to build upon the sand were ever saved.

Since no person can walk BOTH WAYS at the same time or build upon BOTH FOUNDATIONS at the same time then those who walk the broad way and build upon the sand WERE NEVER SAVED as that way is the way of damnation the foundation of destruction not salvation.

HP: This is certainly a most abused text. Those posting it more often than not are trying to say that this passage of Scripture proves that if one does not make it in God never knew them. That conclusion is simply not supported by the context of this passage, and is a falsely assumed end. Listen to how DW and others merely assume without proof such a conclusion as to the meaning and application of this verse.

First, look at the context. In order to assume the end that DW assumes, EVERONE THAT ENDS UP LOST MUST OF NECESSITY BE OF THIS GROUP. Is that established by the text? Does everyone that is lost stand before God as those do in this passage and claim to be in a right relationship with God? Who is DW kidding? The text itself does not say that God never knew an that will be lost or all that are lost believe they are right with God. This text neither states nor implies any such notion. This text, if context means anything, anything at all, that these select individuals spoken of, God never knew them.

Many that are lost in the end know full well that they are lost, and will not be of the group spoken of here. That does not prove or support any notion such as OSAS period, just as God saying that God did not know these fails to prove anything whatsoever concerning OSAS as DW and many others that are under that false delusion obviously believe.

This is the manner in which DW, and many others leaning hard towards Calvinism, continually beg the question. They assume without proof their assumptions of OSAS and try and apply that unfounded presupposition upon certain selected ‘proof texts’, reading into each selected passage the desired outcome that will support their unfounded presupposition.

Does DW disagree? If so, let him prove by the ‘Scripture passage itself’ that every one that is lost belongs to a group of individuals that God says ‘He did not know’ and as such every lost person is of this select group made mention of in this text. Show us your ability to decipher the GK and or English tense of verbs or context to establish your conclusions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: entire context deals with the Kingdom of God and the final removal of false professors from this kingdom.

HP: I do not want to be short, but I am out of time.

Ask yourself if every one that in the end will stand before God and try to convince Him that they are believers. If your position is correct, and this passage speaks of everyone that will not enter in, every one without exception must do precisely this. Will those of differing faiths try to convince God they were of the faith? I certainly do not believe so, and neither will the agnostics and atheists. Some sinners will simply be honest that they in no way deserve eternal life. Your position is not supported by the Word of God on this issue or logic.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think you must be short, short of time to even read what I said. If you had read what I said you would have never come back with the question you ask below. Please reread what I said and then we will have a basis for discussion. If you come back with the same question then you apparently did not understand what I said. I never said those in Matthew 7:21-23 were all the lost. They are explicitly the religious lost, the tares now in God's kingdom, those on the broad way, those who have built their houses on sand.

However, they do represent ALL the lost in this sense. Their path - the broad way - is the same path all the lost are on. Their foundation - sand - is the same foundation all lost people build upon.

Christ NEVER knew them in regard to salvation. You cannot walk both WAYS at the same time. You cannot build upon both foundations at the same time. You are either lost or saved but not both. Jesus NEVER knew these as they NEVER built their house upon the rock.

HP: I do not want to be short, but I am out of time.

Ask yourself if every one that in the end will stand before God and try to convince Him that they are believers. If your position is correct, and this passage speaks of everyone that will not enter in, every one without exception must do precisely this. Will those of differing faiths try to convince God they were of the faith? I certainly do not believe so, and neither will the agnostics and atheists. Some sinners will simply be honest that they in no way deserve eternal life. Your position is not supported by the Word of God on this issue or logic.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Christ NEVER knew them in regard to salvation. You cannot walk both WAYS at the same time. You cannot build upon both foundations at the same time. You are either lost or saved but not both. Jesus NEVER knew these as they NEVER built their house upon the rock.

HP: You are reading into my post your own false notions of what I said. Where did I ever say that one can be lost and not lost at the same time????? I simply did not. My point was simply that you cannot read into the text the manufactured notion that if one ends up lost it is proof that God never knew them at one time. Possibly you have other evidence to support ‘if God says he never knew some that are lost He could have never known any that are lost?’

Can you reason apart from assuming your positions without proof? You continue to simply beg the question every time you so desire to force Scripture to say what your presupposition needs for support.

Her are some that die that Christ knew, or are you going to tell us that God does not know the righteous????
Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The problem I have with the eternal security mindset and of the churches that hold this position is lack of spiritual discipline and emphasis on obedience to God.

Since Salvation is already gained discipline and obedience are not necissary and thus overlooked. I think this is an issue in our churches.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Sorry, but you cannot change Matthew 7;23 to read "I ONCE knew you but don't now." He NEVER knew those at any time in regard to salvation. This context before and after this text provides only TWO possible but contrasting options and those who take the broad way or sand foundation were NEVER KNOWN by Christ in salvation.

Ezekiel 18 is taken out of context. Look at verses 3-5. He is talking about the proper guidelines for the CIVIL administration of capital punishment "IN ISRAEL" not judgement seat before God.


3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,

HP: You are reading into my post your own false notions of what I said. Where did I ever say that one can be lost and not lost at the same time????? I simply did not. My point was simply that you cannot read into the text the manufactured notion that if one ends up lost it is proof that God never knew them at one time. Possibly you have other evidence to support ‘if God says he never knew some that are lost He could have never known any that are lost?’

Can you reason apart from assuming your positions without proof? You continue to simply beg the question every time you so desire to force Scripture to say what your presupposition needs for support.

Her are some that die that Christ knew, or are you going to tell us that God does not know the righteous????
Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The problem I have with the eternal security mindset and of the churches that hold this position is lack of spiritual discipline and emphasis on obedience to God.

Since Salvation is already gained discipline and obedience are not necissary and thus overlooked. I think this is an issue in our churches.

It is the scriptures that determine the truth of a doctrine, not the mindset or an unbalanced application by those who believe the scriptures.

I agree with you that many churches do not put enough stress on holy, sanctified, godly living. Those who deny the grace of God but teach works for salvation are legalistic in their stress of holiness as fear of failure to obtain salvation is what primarily promotes their stress on holiness.

The true balance is salvation by grace without works with the response of holiness motivated by love.

The true child of God lives in a tension. His salvation is a free gift but his new inward nature and the Indwelling Spirit cannot co-exist PEACEFULLY with known sin (peace of God comes only with dealing with guilt of sin by confrontation and confession) - there is a tension between the two natures and their competition for control. Also, the inward man strives for sinless perfection (Philip. 3:10-12) in spite of persistent failure as there is no other goal that satisfies that nature and so the child of God presses on for the impossible in spite of it. Spiritual growth lives with the tension of increased awareness of shortcomings as both grow equally as the closer one walks to the light the better one can see their own flaws in comparison to Christ. The true child of God continues to hunger and thirst after righteousness but there is a repetitive cycle in the first four beatitudes that never ceases in this life as hungering and thirsting after righteousness causes us also to be more aware of our own spiritual impoverishment in light of the righteousness that satisfies us as found in Christ and so tha leads to remorse over sins which in turn leads to self-denial which in turn leads to hungering and thirsting for what self cannot provide.

 

[DHK]

The problem I have with the eternal security mindset and of the churches that hold this position is lack of spiritual discipline and emphasis on obedience to God.

It is not a "problem" I have. Then those "problems" become my philosophies, opinions which I hold above and more authoritative than the Bible. Regardless of what my understanding of what God has said in His Word, I must accept it as truth. The reason that J.W.'s don't accept the trinity is the very reason you express here: they can't understand it--they have a "problem with it."

Since Salvation is already gained discipline and obedience are not necissary and thus overlooked. I think this is an issue in our churches.

Practical Christian living aside--that is another topic for another day, what does the Scripture teach about our eternal destiny? That is the question one must answer from the Scripture not from our thinking or our ideas.

 

[RAdam]

Eternal Security doesn't lead to licentious living. That's a lie. If a person truly understands that they were a wretched sinner, separated from God, under condemnation, and would rightly have been cast into eternal hell but for the great mercy and grace of God who saved them by Himself and preserves them by Himself then I contend just as strongly as I can that the person will be motivated to live a life of godliness.

Grace is always used in scripture as the motivation for godly living.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is not a "problem" I have. Then those "problems" become my philosophies, opinions which I hold above and more authoritative than the Bible. Regardless of what my understanding of what God has said in His Word, I must accept it as truth. The reason that J.W.'s don't accept the trinity is the very reason you express here: they can't understand it--they have a "problem with it."

Practical Christian living aside--that is another topic for another day, what does the Scripture teach about our eternal destiny? That is the question one must answer from the Scripture not from our thinking or our ideas.

DHK, I put forth my opinion. I am allowed those. Dr. Walter responded in a manner much more respectful and thought provoking than your post. You seem to just want to insult and espouse your view as greater. I promoted a view I have about the decline of churches as I see it. your response is

It is not a "problem" I have. Then those "problems" become my philosophies, opinions which I hold above and more authoritative than the Bible.

In essense you are saying because I am of this opinion that I hold my opinion above the bible. YOu are in effect concluding that I hold my opinion as the sole arbetration of Gods word. Which assumption I can assure you is wrong. You follow up with

The reason that J.W.'s don't accept the trinity is the very reason you express here: they can't understand it

equating my opinion with that of the Jehovah's witnesses because I don't "understand it". However, in my post I don't suggest I don't understand anything. I proposed an idea that eternal security mentality has had the effect of christians loosing their disciplines and obedience to God. That was my promoted idea. Nowhere do I say Jesus is a created being and nowhere have I suggested that we prohibit ourselves from donating blood. Since your statement seems irrelevant to my post by which you use to 1)accuse me of something 2) and to espouse your supposed greater understanding. I can but not come to the conclussion you are using every avenue you can think of to attack my person.
Since you attack me I will purposely take up the opposition to your view. And take up a banner not my own to oppose you and your perspective.

Practical Christian living aside--that is another topic for another day, what does the Scripture teach about our eternal destiny? That is the question one must answer from the Scripture not from our thinking or our ideas

Initially my consern is one of practicle christian living. However, you want to fight so I will argue with you.
God makes it clear that the faith Abraham was justified for having is based on the actions of Abraham.

4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring [a] all nations on earth will be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."

Jesus clearly responds to the pharisees his position on entrance to the coming kingdom of God (now here or chrisitianity)

Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments

Nothing about faith alone here. Further Jesus clarifies his teaching that obedience is key to the faith, faith at work. Jesus specifically says

He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice. To believe that all you need to do is believe something and your saved is contrary to good scripture teaching. To believe is to act on it not to have some vague belief about something. Also obedience keeps you in the faith

If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love

If obedience and a disciplined life is not taken by the christian it is very clear that Jesus suggest they will apostate. Note how he explains this in this passage

5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

Note the finality of the last passaged and the symbolism of fire which is equated with the lake of fire. Therefore, the term remains is one of consistent work to maintain lest seperation leads to destruction.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I put forth my opinion. I am allowed those. Dr. Walter responded in a manner much more respectful and thought provoking than your post. You seem to just want to insult and espouse your view as greater. I promoted a view I have about the decline of churches as I see it. your response is

First, if you go back and read RAdam's post it is far more insulting than mine when he came right you and called your post a lie. It was very blunt, whereas I simply tried to explain point by point why yours was going contrary to Scripture and was not in harmony with Scripture. Opinions seldom are, and that is what you expressed. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Reread my post. What insulting thing did I say?

You said it was because I accused you of holding your opinions of greater authority than the Bible. Well, did you? Where did you support your opinion from the Bible. Your opinion is nowhere supported from the Scripture, and as you started your post it was simply, "I believe," without any basis in Scripture. So what have I done wrong?

In essense you are saying because I am of this opinion that I hold my opinion above the bible. YOu are in effect concluding that I hold my opinion as the sole arbetration of Gods word. Which assumption I can assure you is wrong. You follow up

Again, you provided no Scripture. You provided an opinion with no Biblical basis. My authority is the Word of God. I judge all things by the Word of God. I hold up your opinion to the word of God and I find your opinion wanting. If you give me Scripture than we have something to go on.

You said:

I follow up with:
The reason that J.W.'s don't accept the trinity is the very reason you express here: they can't understand it

with equating my opinion with that of the Jehovah's witnesses because I don't "understand it". However, in my post I don't suggest I don't understand anything. I proposed an idea that eternal security mentality has had the effect of christians loosing their disciplines and obedience to God. That was my promoted idea. Nowhere do I say Jesus is a created being and nowhere have I suggested that we prohibit ourselves from donating blood. Since your statement seems irrelevant to my post by which you use to 1)accuse me of something 2) and to espouse your supposed greater understanding. I can but not come to the conclussion you are using every avenue you can think of to attack my person.
Since you attack me I will purposely take up the opposition to your view. And take up a banner not my own to oppose you and your perspective.

It seems that you have lost all perspective. I did not compare you to a J.W. I compared you line of reasoning to a J.W. The J.W. uses the line of reasoning that if we can't understand the doctrine the we have "a problem with it," and therefore will reject it. I never named any doctrine. You have done the same thing. "I have a problem with...and therefore reject it". It is the same thinking as the J.W.; not the same doctrine; the same thinking or reasoning. You go off the deep end here accusing me of saying that you believe that Jesus is a created being, and that we should not donate blood. I said no such thing! Where do you get that idea?? I never attacked you at all. Please reread my post more carefully.

Furthermore, as RAdam pointed out the doctrine of eternal life or living in grace has never given anyone the license to sin. In fact it does quite the opposite.

Initially my consern is one of practicle christian living. However, you want to fight so I will argue with you.
God makes it clear that the faith Abraham was justified for having is based on the actions of Abraham.

Here is the verse you quoted:
4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring [a] all nations on earth will be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws.

Here is the Scripture you ignored:
Romans 4:1-3 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
--Very plainly Paul says Abraham was justified by faith. He could not glory in his works. If he gloried in his works they would fail him. He had nothing to glory in when it came to works. God justified him when he believed God, which was in the Ur of Chaldees far before he did any works.

Jesus clearly responds to the pharisees his position on entrance to the coming kingdom of God
Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments
(now here or chrisitianity) Nothing about faith alone here.

You have misquoted this passage and taken Scripture out of context. I hope you don't do this with all the Scripture you use. What is the context?

A rich young ruler comes to Jesus. He pushes the crowd aside, comes running, kneels down before him, and asks: "Good Master What must I do to have eternal life?" He want to know what to do to obtain eternal life.
Jesus rebukes him: Call no man good; There is one good, and that is God.
Jesus was making a claim to deity. If I am good then I am God. If I am not good then I am not God. There is only one that is good. That is God. And I am He. It was His claim to deity.
Then he proceeds: Thou knowest the law: Do not commit adultery, Do
not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not,
Honour thy father and mother.
The young man lies. He states: "All these things have I done from my youth up. We know that no man can keep the law.
Jesus proceeds to demonstrate that lie, by showing him how he has broken that law.
He is an unsaved man, and being unsaved it is interesting that in the next verse it says: Jesus beholding him "loved him." Yes, he loves the unsaved, those that are not the elect.
He then told him what he must do:
Sell all that thou hast, give to the poor; take up your cross, and come follow me.
The response: The man went away sorrowful for he had many riches.
The conclusion: Jesus demonstrated his sin of covetousness, that he could not keep the law. He coveted his riches more than he coveted Christ. He would not forsake his riches in order to believe in Christ.
Then read the following verses about what Jesus says about those who have riches.
Context is everything.

Further Jesus clarifies his teaching that obedience is key to the faith, faith at work. Jesus specifically says
He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice.
To believe that all you need to do is believe something and your saved is contrary to good scripture teaching. To believe is to act on it not to have some vague belief about something. Also obedience keeps you in the faith

First, look at your misuse of Scripture. Jesus didn't clarify anything. This Scripture has nothing to do with the story of the rich young ruler just related to you from Mark chapter 10.
Secondly, it is pre-cross, as is most of the Scripture that you are quoting.
Thirdly, at Pentecost those who believed were not only filled with the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit came and permanently indwelt the believer. From that time onward, a truly saved person has the desire to be more like Christ; not more like the devil. Following Christ is a natural thing for one who has come to believe in Christ. The name "Christian" was given in Acts 11:26 for a reason, and believe it or not, it was a name given in derision.

If obedience and a disciplined life is not taken by the christian it is very clear that Jesus suggest they will apostate. Note how he explains this in this passage

5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
--The passage has been difficult for many throughout the years. I believe it is simply this. Those that did not remain were never of him in the first place. It harmonizes with what John says:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Note the finality of the last passaged and the symbolism of fire which is equated with the lake of fire. Therefore, the term remains is one of consistent work to maintain lest seperation leads to destruction.

If they were never Christians in the first place then they never lost anything, and of course they will stand before God in the Great White Throne Judgement.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First, if you go back and read RAdam's post it is far more insulting than mine when he came right you and called your post a lie. It was very blunt,

This is true but his was after yours. He's on my short list as well.

whereas I simply tried to explain point by point why yours was going contrary to Scripture and was not in harmony with Scripture. Opinions seldom are, and that is what you expressed. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Reread my post. What insulting thing did I say?

I was espousing an opinion based on an observation. I observe a thing I made an opinion on it. You immediatly stated that I hold my opinion above scripture. Scripture is not the case in this instance but the observation of mall adjusted churches.

You said it was because I accused you of holding your opinions of greater authority than the Bible. Well, did you? Where did you support your opinion from the Bible. Your opinion is nowhere supported from the Scripture, and as you started your post it was simply, "I believe," without any basis in Scripture. So what have I done wrong?

I again I based an opinion based on an observation. It was presented as such.

Again, you provided no Scripture. You provided an opinion with no Biblical basis. My authority is the Word of God. I judge all things by the Word of God. I hold up your opinion to the word of God and I find your opinion wanting. If you give me Scripture than we have something to go on.

Again it was an opinion based on an observation and presented as such.

It seems that you have lost all perspective. I did not compare you to a J.W. I compared you line of reasoning to a J.W.

You say TOmato and I say TomATo.

The J.W. uses the line of reasoning that if we can't understand the doctrine the we have "a problem with it," and therefore will reject it. I never named any doctrine.

Irrelevant. I wasn't commenting on whether the doctrine was true but the results of such as I observed it.

You have done the same thing

Not at all.

"I have a problem with...and therefore reject it".

No again you are wrong. If I don't understand something I say I don't understand it and call it a mystery since to me it is. However, where you'll find problematic issue for me is in the definition and meaning of words.

It is the same thinking as the J.W.; not the same doctrine; the same thinking or reasoning.

Not at all the same.

You go off the deep end here accusing me of saying that you believe that Jesus is a created being, and that we should not donate blood. I said no such thing!

You compared my idiology with JW which those are other perspectives they hold. If I hold to JW idiology I would have mentioned those at some point.

Where do you get that idea??

I Just explained it.

I never attacked you at all. Please reread my post more carefully.

I'm not certain of that DHK it sure seemed like you did to me. However, since you said that you did not mean it as an attack I will accept it from you and apologise and hold that you did not mean to attack me.

Furthermore, as RAdam pointed out the doctrine of eternal life or living in grace has never given anyone the license to sin. In fact it does quite the opposite.

ok RAdam attacked me and thus I will take up a banner that is not my own and argue against his positions.

Here is the verse you quoted:
4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring [a] all nations on earth will be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws.

Here is the Scripture you ignored:
Romans 4:1-3 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The verses aren't ignored. The context of Genesis is Genesis not Romans however lets look at Romans 4:1-3 in light of Genesis when the event occured Lets look at the term

Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness

Here believe is not just a vague idea of something but a knowledge so great that it was acted upon. We can equally say that if Abraham did not obey God he did not believe. Thus believe is followed by action Hebrews makes it clear

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

Which in context of Romans 4, Hebrews 11 and Genesis we see that it was becuase Abraham obeyed that we place belief on to him. Note Context would have included more passages from Genesis not obtain an opinion from a different book that occured 1,700 years later.

--Very plainly Paul says Abraham was justified by faith

Which he could say because Abraham acted on his faith otherwise he would have no faith Paul does not distinguish between the faith and the action based on the faith.

He could not glory in his works. If he gloried in his works they would fail him. He had nothing to glory in when it came to works.

It wasn't his works as God's promise. Note Abraham did not 1st attempt to please God and then God said. No God made the proposal and Abraham acted on his belief in that proposal so the action is based on the offering of God not Abrahams premptive attempt to please God.

God justified him when he believed God, which was in the Ur of Chaldees far before he did any works.

Scriptures do not say that. You infer it.

You have misquoted this passage and taken Scripture out of context. I hope you don't do this with all the Scripture you use. What is the context?

As you see I did not take it out of context it is you that quotes supportive positioning from a book writen 1700 years after genesis rather than quoting a greater passage of genesis.

Context is everything.

I agree context is everything but nothing you've shown me here changes the clear simple meaning of the passage

First, look at your misuse of Scripture. Jesus didn't clarify anything.

No Jesus didn't clarify I showed clarity by comparing two consistent teachings of Jesus.

This Scripture has nothing to do with the story of the rich young ruler just related to you from Mark chapter 10.

Actually I was Quoting Matthew 19 here is a fuller contex

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Jesus explains simply what it was the man needed to do but the man presses

18"Which ones?" the man inquired

Showing he didn't understand the application of the laws.

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

then he show's he can't give up everything and obey Christ by giving away everything. thus he has misapplied the law and cannot gian eternal life by sacrificing all that he has to follow Jesus.

Secondly, it is pre-cross, as is most of the Scripture that you are quoting.

Always an excuse

Thirdly, at Pentecost those who believed were not only filled with the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit came and permanently indwelt the believer.

And empowered them to live rightly as it empowered the apostles to work miracles.

From that time onward, a truly saved person has the desire to be more like Christ; not more like the devil.

and Thus will stive to obey and serve God with everything lest they be branches broken off and thrown into the fire. 5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

--The passage has been difficult for many throughout the years. I believe it is simply this. Those that did not remain were never of him in the first place.

you can't abide if you were never apart of it.

harmonizes with what John says:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
If they were never Christians in the first place then they never lost anything, and of course they will stand before God in the Great White Throne Judgement.

John was refering to docetist. Who never believed in Jesus humanity to begin with.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Grace is always used in scripture as the motivation for godly living.

I can agree with this however

Eternal Security doesn't lead to licentious living. That's a lie.godliness.

Not at all. Even Paul had to ensure the Romans didn't use it that way when he said.

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means!

Not only that he futher explains this is not the case

We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

So Paul is letting the Romans know this freedom from Law isn't a license to sin. Niether is the reason of feeling eternally secure a reason to sin either.

all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God...20For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.

Yes the power to over come sin and live life rightly in a way pleasing to God But if you use your liberty to sin what then doesn paul say?

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were.

If a person truly understands that they were a wretched sinner, separated from God, under condemnation, and would rightly have been cast into eternal hell but for the great mercy and grace of God who saved them by Himself and preserves them by Himself then I contend just as strongly as I can that the person will be motivated to live a life of

righteousness? Yes they would be motivated such but that doesn't mean they aren't tempted to sin and tempted not to abide either.

 

[RAdam]

First I didn't attack you, I attacked the old lie that eternal security leads to licentiousness. It is a lie, and I'll go a step further and say it is a doctrine of devils.

Paul isn't telling the Romans not to use grace as a right to sin, he is cutting off his opponents who would make that claim. Paul asks the question at strategic points, knowing what those that fought against the true doctrine of the bible would say. His problem wasn't good godly people who understood grace, his problem was people who hated the doctrine and tried to mischaracterize it, or make a straw man to beat up on. Man hasn't changed one bit, those that preach the same doctrine Paul does deals with the same charges he had to deal with.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First I didn't attack you, I attacked the old lie that eternal security leads to licentiousness. It is a lie, and I'll go a step further and say it is a doctrine of devils.

Paul isn't telling the Romans not to use grace as a right to sin, he is cutting off his opponents who would make that claim. Paul asks the question at strategic points, knowing what those that fought against the true doctrine of the bible would say. His problem wasn't good godly people who understood grace, his problem was people who hated the doctrine and tried to mischaracterize it, or make a straw man to beat up on. Man hasn't changed one bit, those that preach the same doctrine Paul does deals with the same charges he had to deal with.

Then you have to seriously ask yourself then why would paul then say

15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?