Lordship Salvation?

JJump:

It has been proven repeatedly with scripture, but are unwilling to accept it. You don't believe Strong's is a reliable source and you evidently don't believe the translators from the KJV up to modern day versions have enough sense to translate the word eternal as ETERNAL.
Do you go through these grammatical gymnastics with every word in the Bible? If so, how do trust anything you read? Maybe all the words in the Bible really mean something different than what they actually say. Maybe sin isn't really sin?

 

Really . . . I guess you've never heard anyone say man that line took forever. Do you think they meant that line moving was without beginning and without end? Or how about sitting at a traffic light and some say "that light lasted an eternity." Ever heard that? Did that traffic light have a beginning and an end.

So it seems clear that these words even today can mean something other than what you want them to mean.

 

I don't understand this has to do with anything, but...

1. Jumbo shrimp
2. Black whitefish
3. Tan rouge
4. Global village
5. Friendly fire

Need more?

 

JJump:

This is such a ridiculous argument. A new doctrine is not made valid because most people reject it.

And you are definitely NOT Jesus and you are not an apostle. There are no "new" doctrines that have been sent by God. Paul said that ANY other gospel that is preached besides the gospel he taught is to be accursed. There is nothing written by Paul that even remotely teaches M.E.

 

Well you can say that all you want to, but that doesn't make it so. All you have done is repeat church tradition. I know because I used to believe that same way about two years ago. You are not dealing with Scripture you are dealing with what tradition has taught you Scripture means.

Again please show me how Strong's is THE one and only source and how the sources we have cited are garbage. Please show me in Scripture where it says Strong's is incapable of being wrong.

Actually that is incorrect, because a number have shared with you that the word didn't mean without beginning and without end when it was translated by the KJV people.

The only people doing any kind of gymanstics is you people saying that a word that means a specific period of time can somehow change into without beginning and without end just because it becomes an adjective instead of a noun.

Now that is gymnastics. Maybe you can give us some linguistic experts that will support how a noun that means A can suddenly mean Z when it becomes an adjective.

See Scripture says there is "life" in every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. So to me it would behoove us to understand what every word means as it was originally given to us.

 

So youve been taught by chitwood, craig and faust.

No sir. This is false. The people who accused Jesus of a false doctrine were lost people. They were unsaved. See John 3:16 for evidence of this.

Do you have scripture that says Strongs is wrong what verse says" Pay ye not attention to Strong's. For it is in error for eternity. By the way your question on this is just as ridiculous as mine.

I have not had such a conversation with you. you have pulled this out of the air.

You assume that there was a majority in Jesus day. And you continue to ignore and disbleieve the fact that the people against Jesus wereas lost as the day is long. I use scripture you use grammatical gymnasitcs and psuedo-intellectual reasoning taught to you by your fathers chitwood, craig, and faust.

 

We all know that lights, lines, etc. do not last forever. When one uses "eternity" in this sense, it is called hyperbole. "What must I do to inherit eternal life" doe not leave itself open to be interpreted as hyperbole. Again, you're invoking one of many logical fallacies. You can't apply examples of hyperbole to the English translation of a Greek word. Well, you can, if you want to swim in your sea of self-deception.

 

Neither is an old doctrine validated just because most people accept it.

 

I have said it and it is so. I am not dealing with tradition, I'm dealing with facts.

Show us where Strong's is unreliable. Show us in scripture where it says JJump is incapable of being wrong.

Don't know what you're talking about.

You've got that backwards. You are the one saying the word has changed.

Yes, it would behoove you to do so.

 

And as part of an answer to your question, I asked you, "What happens if a person who really, really, really, TRULY believes stops believing?

I asked this because if you think that your spiritual salvation can be forfeited, then it's pointless to answer this question to you, and begs a different verse.

However, if you see the reality that our spiritual salvation cannot be forfeited, earned, or kept by our works, then it's an easy answer directly.

So, what happens if this person stops believing?

 

originally posted by amyg

More like show us in scripture where it says that chitwood, craig , and faust cannot be wrong.

 

No evidence scriptual or other wise this can happen. But good luck with that.

 

It would be kind of funny if you could use the examples of hyperbole to interpret scripture. In this case, the rich young ruler would really have been asking, "How may I inherit life that doesn't actually last forever, but is so incredibly boring and tedious, it feels like it lasts forever?"

If I were Jesus, I'd answer, "Get into an argument with J. Jump."

 

You continue to believe that if you want to, but you have been given an overwhelming amount of Scripture evidence that says otherwise. But you are entitled to continue on following the masses if you like.

Nice dodge. Please show me where Strong's is incapable of making a mistake. I have already shown that I made a mistake in following church tradition when it was lifeless, so that is kind of silly for you to even bring up such a statement.

You and others are the ones holding up Strong's as if it was next to Scripture, so the proof is on you. We have already shown you where they have made a mistake.

Go back through this thread. Evidence has been given that eternal didn't mean nor was it used in the sense of without beginning and without end. And evidence was given from Scripture as well as early church leaders as well as secular writers. I guess all those folks didn't have a clue what they were talking about either, huh?

This is unbelievable. No the word DID NOT MEAN THAT THEN. And the word DOES NOT MEAN THAT NOW. How am I saying the word has changed. This is unreal. I know it shouldn't be, but it is.

The ENGLISH MEANING of the word has changed. The GREEK HAS ALWAYS and WILL ALWAYS mean the same thing. Aion means "age" and aionios means "age-lasting." It did back then, and it does today despite what some would want us to believe.

 

Actually, "aionios" cannot, under any circumstances, properly mean "forever".

An adjective's semantic domain cannot exceed the semantic domain of the noun from which it is formed.

Oh, except for this one instance, right?

Show me another example of where this is permitted.

 

How can you stop believing? Oops. I only thought God existed, but I found out He doesn't. That is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the meaning of the word eternal as Jesus used it in John 3:16.

 

166 aionios {ahee-o'-nee-os}
from 165; TDNT - 1:208,31; adj
AV - eternal 42, everlasting 25, the world began + 5550 2,
since the world began + 5550 1, for ever 1; 71
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and
(strong's number 166)

 

It's amazing that you would throw people's names out there and act as though we were saying they were perfect when you act yourself like you make no mistakes.

Please show me in Scripture where it says AmyG, Netreply and II Timothy can not be wrong. Betcha that's not in there either. What do you think?

 

You mean, they might come up with an example of another adjective that properly exceeds the semantic domain of its noun?

Or, they might come up with an example of an ancient writer using "aionios" to mean what they claim it means?

Or, they might look at the standard etymology dictionaries and... Oh, wait, that one proved them wrong in English. They're smart enough to ignore that one.

 

What is your source besides chitwood craig and faust.