standingfirminChrist
New Member
and that is why no one follows you?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does “eternal life” equal “eternal security?”
- Thread starter Craigbythesea
- Start date
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Some people, of course, do read them and send me personal messages thanking me for caring enough about them to take the time to write long and detailed posts.
Matthew 24 has to do with both physically and spiritually enduring the tribulation, but the focus is incontrovertibly chiefly on spiritually enduring it. Jesus is much more concerned with our souls which are eternal than he is with our physical body which is going to die.
Matt. 24:8. "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
9. "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
10. "At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.
11. "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.
12. "Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold.
13. "But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. (NASB, 1995)
Jesus did not need to tell anyone that those who physically survive the Great Tribulation will survive it. But He did need to warn those who turn back from following him that they will not be saved in the end.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Now back to the topic of this thread,
Does “eternal life” equal “eternal security?” We do not find the doctrine of eternal security being taught by anyone for the first 1,500 years of the Church, but we do find the doctrine of conditional security being taught by many during this time. Since the Protestant Reformation, the large majority of Bible scholars, pastors, and Christian lay people have continued to reject the doctrine of eternal security as a false doctrine and to hold to the doctrine of conditional security.
The question for this thread is two fold,
1. How were the “eternal life” passages in the Bible interpreted prior to the reformation?
2. How have the “eternal life” passages been interpreted since the reformation by the large majority of Bible scholars, pastors, and Christian lay people who have continued to reject the doctrine of eternal security as a false doctrine and to hold to the doctrine of conditional security?
Please limit your replies to these two questions.
If you are KJO, please do NOT post in this thread.
Does “eternal life” equal “eternal security?” We do not find the doctrine of eternal security being taught by anyone for the first 1,500 years of the Church, but we do find the doctrine of conditional security being taught by many during this time. Since the Protestant Reformation, the large majority of Bible scholars, pastors, and Christian lay people have continued to reject the doctrine of eternal security as a false doctrine and to hold to the doctrine of conditional security.
The question for this thread is two fold,
1. How were the “eternal life” passages in the Bible interpreted prior to the reformation?
2. How have the “eternal life” passages been interpreted since the reformation by the large majority of Bible scholars, pastors, and Christian lay people who have continued to reject the doctrine of eternal security as a false doctrine and to hold to the doctrine of conditional security?
Please limit your replies to these two questions.
If you are KJO, please do NOT post in this thread.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
We've been there before. And I believe many have answered but the questioner seems to ignore until someone tickles his ears.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Crainbythesea: //But Jesus also taught that only he who endures to the end will be saved: ... //
YOur chosen passage, Matthew 24:1-13 does not show
what you say. It does show:
Jesus taught that he who endures to the end will be saved.
You have added the word "only" to the equation in direct
violation of this Word of God:
Revelation 22:13B (KJV1611 Edition):
... If any man shal adde vnto these things,
God shall adde vnto him the plagues, that
are written in this booke.
Why would someone add to clear scripture?
YOur chosen passage, Matthew 24:1-13 does not show
what you say. It does show:
Jesus taught that he who endures to the end will be saved.
You have added the word "only" to the equation in direct
violation of this Word of God:
Revelation 22:13B (KJV1611 Edition):
... If any man shal adde vnto these things,
God shall adde vnto him the plagues, that
are written in this booke.
Why would someone add to clear scripture?
DeafPosttrib
New Member
Craig,
Amen! Preach it!
I am amazing that, no one answering your two questions, they seems hopping likr as rabbit.
Craig, good job! keep up give verses with the truth to them. God bless you!
By the way, do not focus on Bible translation or manuscript issue like as KJVO vs. different versions. We have to focus on God's Word only, By the way, I see nothing wrong with your version. Your version shows NO difference between KJV. Both are almost same because of the doctrine.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Amen! Preach it!
I am amazing that, no one answering your two questions, they seems hopping likr as rabbit.
Craig, good job! keep up give verses with the truth to them. God bless you!
By the way, do not focus on Bible translation or manuscript issue like as KJVO vs. different versions. We have to focus on God's Word only, By the way, I see nothing wrong with your version. Your version shows NO difference between KJV. Both are almost same because of the doctrine.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
Craig,
Amen! Preach it!
I am amazing that, no one answering your two questions, they seems hopping likr (sic) as rabbit.
Craig, good job! keep up give verses with the truth to them. God bless you!
By the way, do not focus on Bible translation or manuscript issue like as KJVO vs. different versions. We have to focus on God's Word only, By the way, I see nothing wrong with your version. Your version shows NO difference between KJV. Both are almost same because of the doctrine.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Ed
saturneptune
New Member
To the moderators and administrators,
Please close this thread as the originator is mocking Baptist and Christian ideals. Healthy, Christian debate is one thing, mocking and making game of Bible teachings is quite another.
Please close this thread as the originator is mocking Baptist and Christian ideals. Healthy, Christian debate is one thing, mocking and making game of Bible teachings is quite another.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
The question for this thread is two fold,Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
Craig,
Amen! Preach it!
I am amazing that, no one answering your two questions, they seems hopping likr as rabbit.
Craig, good job! keep up give verses with the truth to them. God bless you!
By the way, do not focus on Bible translation or manuscript issue like as KJVO vs. different versions. We have to focus on God's Word only, By the way, I see nothing wrong with your version. Your version shows NO difference between KJV. Both are almost same because of the doctrine.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
1. How were the “eternal life” passages in the Bible interpreted prior to the reformation?
2. How have the “eternal life” passages been interpreted since the reformation by the large majority of Bible scholars, pastors, and Christian lay people who have continued to reject the doctrine of eternal security as a false doctrine and to hold to the doctrine of conditional security?
Please limit your replies to these two questions.
Good one Ed! Nice of ya to help Craig point that one out. LOL
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Please lim...
Ed </font>[/QUOTE]Please limit yer repl...
Craig, the Calvinists rob people of joy and hope by declaring God has chosen only a few to be saved and the rest will go to hell.
In your own way, you are doing the exact same thing by telling those who have been born again -- ahhh, be careful, you can lose it all! You can still go to hell!
The Bible is strongly opposed to both views. A person can choose God, and once that choice is made and the person 'killed' and born again, there is no way back. It is a permanent thing to be adopted into the family of God.
What we can lose is rewards. What we can not be saved from by bad actions and attitudes is tribulation -- either THE Tribulation or other lesser ones which come into lives.
But once bought by the blood of the Lamb, that sale is final, and nothing, but nothing can separate us from the love of God. I have full and permanent security in Christ.
And that's coming from one of His old ewes. Not an accomplished scholar like yourself, granted. But I know my Shepherd and I know I am His forever. I am marked with the Holy Spirit and I have a new nature, a new heart in me. The flesh may still be alive for a short time more, but the old heart is truly dead. This new heart is from the Lord and cannot be killed.
In your own way, you are doing the exact same thing by telling those who have been born again -- ahhh, be careful, you can lose it all! You can still go to hell!
The Bible is strongly opposed to both views. A person can choose God, and once that choice is made and the person 'killed' and born again, there is no way back. It is a permanent thing to be adopted into the family of God.
What we can lose is rewards. What we can not be saved from by bad actions and attitudes is tribulation -- either THE Tribulation or other lesser ones which come into lives.
But once bought by the blood of the Lamb, that sale is final, and nothing, but nothing can separate us from the love of God. I have full and permanent security in Christ.
And that's coming from one of His old ewes. Not an accomplished scholar like yourself, granted. But I know my Shepherd and I know I am His forever. I am marked with the Holy Spirit and I have a new nature, a new heart in me. The flesh may still be alive for a short time more, but the old heart is truly dead. This new heart is from the Lord and cannot be killed.
Helen, I am sorely tempted to follow you around, and every time you post this respond with:
[person's name], the free willers are out to rob God of his Glory and claim that man is sovereign over God.
Neither statement is true, but if you're going to keep accusing Calvinists of robbing people of their joy, I might as well repeat the lie about the intent of free willers.
Get off your crusade against Calvinists, Helen.
MikeinGhana
New Member
I am not KJVO, I am OKJV so I can reply!
The reason there is little written by scholars prior to the reformation is because the religionists were killing all the true Bible believers. The ones freely writing were Catholic scholars. That does not take a rocket scientist to see.
For what it is worth, this is about the dumbest post I have seen yet on the BB.
The reason there is little written by scholars prior to the reformation is because the religionists were killing all the true Bible believers. The ones freely writing were Catholic scholars. That does not take a rocket scientist to see.
For what it is worth, this is about the dumbest post I have seen yet on the BB.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Now back to the topic of this thread,
Does “eternal life” equal “eternal security?” We do not find the doctrine of eternal security being taught by anyone for the first 1,500 years of the Church, but we do find the doctrine of conditional security being taught by many during this time. Since the Protestant Reformation, the large majority of Bible scholars, pastors, and Christian lay people have continued to reject the doctrine of eternal security as a false doctrine and to hold to the doctrine of conditional security.
The question for this thread is two fold,
1. How were the “eternal life” passages in the Bible interpreted prior to the reformation?
2. How have the “eternal life” passages been interpreted since the reformation by the large majority of Bible scholars, pastors, and Christian lay people who have continued to reject the doctrine of eternal security as a false doctrine and to hold to the doctrine of conditional security?
Please limit your replies to these two questions.
If you are KJO, please do NOT post in this thread.
Does “eternal life” equal “eternal security?” We do not find the doctrine of eternal security being taught by anyone for the first 1,500 years of the Church, but we do find the doctrine of conditional security being taught by many during this time. Since the Protestant Reformation, the large majority of Bible scholars, pastors, and Christian lay people have continued to reject the doctrine of eternal security as a false doctrine and to hold to the doctrine of conditional security.
The question for this thread is two fold,
1. How were the “eternal life” passages in the Bible interpreted prior to the reformation?
2. How have the “eternal life” passages been interpreted since the reformation by the large majority of Bible scholars, pastors, and Christian lay people who have continued to reject the doctrine of eternal security as a false doctrine and to hold to the doctrine of conditional security?
Please limit your replies to these two questions.
If you are KJO, please do NOT post in this thread.
Craig,you have already made your request on who can answer and who can't and what they are to talk about onlly about twenty times.
I think that allowing everybody who is qualified as a Baptist to post on this board is only fair and just because you started the thread, you do not own this bulletin board.
If this continues in the same style it has for the past six pages, I am going to shut it down.
You are not a moderator, so therefore, leave the moderating to those who have that task.
This thread has gone way off track and contains an attitude that I don't think exhibits Christian principles; therefore if it continues---and you make such demands on your fellow Christians limiting who can post, then we'll just cut it off.
I don't like to do this, but this needs to stop.
Please, understand that I am trying to maintain the Christian like attitude that this board wishes to uphold.
This will be the only warning before we lock it down.
Thank you,
Phillip
I think that allowing everybody who is qualified as a Baptist to post on this board is only fair and just because you started the thread, you do not own this bulletin board.
If this continues in the same style it has for the past six pages, I am going to shut it down.
You are not a moderator, so therefore, leave the moderating to those who have that task.
This thread has gone way off track and contains an attitude that I don't think exhibits Christian principles; therefore if it continues---and you make such demands on your fellow Christians limiting who can post, then we'll just cut it off.
I don't like to do this, but this needs to stop.
Please, understand that I am trying to maintain the Christian like attitude that this board wishes to uphold.
This will be the only warning before we lock it down.
Thank you,
Phillip