Lordship Salvation?

Well, that settles my confusion. I am simply unable to understand scripture (even though I have the Holy Spirit) because I don't know what a semantic domain is. :BangHead:

Semantic domain is obviously the key to understanding scripture.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Try going back and re-reading the thread where Scripture was given, where early church leaders were cited and where secular writers were given. I guess all those folks were as clueless as we are, huh?

 

:laugh: That old doctrine was taught by men chosen by God 2000 years ago. I think I'll stick to their "old" doctrine.

 

No problem. Same exact word as in John 3:16...

Or are you suggesting Peter is saying "To him glory and dominion for an age, after which the glory and dominion can be to someone else."

You want more? I would think one is enough to pop your balloon.

 

So your understanding of Scripture is perfect and without flaw (even though you have the Holy Spirit) right?

Still wondering what you are doing with those warnings. Why can't you answer that question. Have you decided they really aren't to believers? Or can believers lose their eternal salvation?

Really why can't you answer that question? I've answered all yours.

 

That has nothing to do with this discussion. I am sorry I ever asked a question about that because you have beaten me over the head with it ever since. If you would like to discuss warnings start another thread. I am still studying the issue.

 

No answer huh?

 

Well here is a perfect example that actually pops your own balloon. I Peter uses a double use of the word aion. If aion means forever why would the Holy Spirit have to use it twice when just the use of the word aion would have sufficed?

 

Yeah it's called it's already been answered for you. Try hitting the back arrow and going back a few pages and reading. That might work.

 

I've challenged you to show me two historical examples, and you've failed to do so.

Go back to the ancient writers (ie the time the Scriptures were written or earlier) and show me an example of a writer using "aionios" to mean "without beginning or ending".

Go back to the ancient writers and show me an adjective the properly exceeds the semantic domain of its noun.

Until you do this, you're just blustering under your own "knowledge" and wisdom.

Yet, I have shown historical documents that predate Strong's, and you reject it. Odd.

But, I think I understand your perspective: Historical is good, but not too historical.

Once again, I challenge you to show me another adjective whose semantic domain properly exceeds the semantic domain of the noun from which it's formed.

One of the basics of the language is that it cannot properly do so.

There may be an example of it, but I'm not aware of it. And, unlike you, if I'm shown that I'm wrong, I'm willing to change.

But, no one has yet been able to show me an example of that in the Scriptures, although there are examples of it in English, particularly in modern slang.

But, I guess that we need to use your perspective of, "Ancient Greek is wrong, KJV times English is wrong, but I'm right."

So, you embrace Catholocism?

 

Sure it does. These warnings were given to saved individuals telling them they could lose something. So again you are only left with two options. Either these warnings are not to believers or they can lose their eternal salvation. At least that's what modern-day Christendom says. And since you believe modern-day Christendom is correct those are you only two options.

Again this has everything to do with this discussion, because if you do keep studying the matter out you are going to get to the point where you are going to say okay these warnings really aren't to believers or you are going to agree with what we've been saying all along.

Those are the only "real" options available, because Scripture is clear that eternal salvation is something that can not be lost or forfeited.

 

Because the literal expression is endless ages. That's why it's used twice - once for endless (eternal, adjective, aionos), again for ages (noun, aion). There you have, in one neat little package, both the adjective and noun meaning two different things.

Here's another with just aionos:

So, is the gospel everlasting, or is the gospel only for an age?

I could cite at least a dozen verses. Are you saying that all the translators for all times were wrong? They should have been saying "for an age" instead of "eternal" or "everlasting" in all these places? Our Bibles are totally screwed up. Can you create a translation for us that fixes all these errors?

 

Which one of us has ever said they cannot be wrong?

Although I respect Arlen, I do have some differences with him. The difference being, we don't think we're infallible. Same with Faust, Craig, White, Wilson, etc.

By the same token, show me someone who has an advanced degree in Greek who uses Strong's for anything other than the numbering system.

Strong's is more a concordance than a lexicon.

 

Really?

Then why all the warnings to saved people to remain faithful?

BTW, let me ask you a question:

What must I do to be saved?

 

If you want eternal life, just tell me you've obeyed the law from your youth. Don't worry, I'll believe you if you say you have.


:BangHead:

 

Galatians 1:8
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Show us where Paul preached M.E.

 

Do you mean eternally or for 1000 years? Oh wait, they mean the same thing.

 

I find it almost funny that you quote 1 Peter 5:11, which does use something besides "aionios", which is what I pointed out that does mean "forever".

It [FONT=&quot]is [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εις τοὺς αιωνας των αιώνων or literally “from the ages unto the ages”. It's used in 16 places in the NT.

I find it odd that in your mind that God was so inarticulate that he used the word for "eternal" in some places, the phrase for "forever" in some places, but he just couldn't express himself well, so he had to use "age-lasting" to mean "forever". And here, I always figured God was capable of saying just what he means and meaning just what he says!
[/FONT]

 

Ooh, here's another good one...

1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The King, the only wise God, is not eternal. He's only here for 1,000 years. I guess that means "immortal" can't be right, either.