Millenial Exclusion, the gospel of fear

I was told recently that Dr. Stanley supports the two salvation theory (ME). I would be very disappointed in this.

 

1. I hope you guys have a moment for a little humor. But I notice that Hope of Glory, you are on a Rescue Operation.

2. I will not bore you with the fact that deilia occurs only here in the GNT and that its cognate verb, deilao, once in John 14:27 and its adjective deilos in Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:40 and Rev.21:8. Always in a bad, unhealthy sense.

3. I am aware that a different word is used in 1Pet.2:17, and it has both a bad and positive sense (Matt 17:6; 27:54 and Lk 1:50; Acts 10:35).

4. But both deilao and phobeo are used as synonyms by Matthew (8:26; 14:26, 30), Mark (4:40, 41), and Luke (8:25). Now this is the negative side of phobeo.

5. Since deilia is only used once and negatively, but its cognate verbs are used interchangeably with phobeo/phobos, that is why I used 2 Tim 1:7, although I could have gone straight to the gospel narratives.

6. Therefore my point still stands.

 

1. Unless you can tell me what "the faith", pistis with the definite article means, there's no sense discussing anything else.

2. When I share my comments, they are "preconceived ideas." But when you do the same, I guess they are on the same level with the inspired writers.

3. No where does Jude define what is the "Common Salvation", but you have taken the liberty to define it (see your post #19). I hope you are implicating yourself with the "preconceived idea" label.

4. Post #24.

 

So, they're different words that mean different things that are used in different ways, so they're the same.

That makes no sense.

I'll take a look at the verses later, as I have no time right now.

 

Why do we have to contend for something that is free?

 

1. Please, avoid the fallacy.

2. You cannot get that conclusion from the Synoptic gospel narratives: Matthew, Mark and Luke use both words interchangeably, meaning in the same way, respecting the fact that they have nuances. But don't fall for fallacies. You know better than that. I hope so.

3. In your own words you have not taken a look at the references that I have given to prove my point, but somehow you are able to dismiss what I say.

4. How does it work?

 

1. Great choice of Scripture.

2. BTW, the words behind "fear" are phobos and phobeomai in 1 John 4, which are clearly in the negative, unhealthy sense.

 

Despite your admintance to Jude not defining the word you too seem to have taken the liberty to define the word as something "other than" salvation by grace through faith apart from works.

So you say that I can't define words, but you can? Isn't that what you have accussed me of? Oh yes it is.

While you are not directly defining the word you are giving it a meaning by saying that it doesn't mean salvation by grace through faith.

So unless you can show me how he "isn't" talking about salvation by grace through faith my point still stands.

 

Yet I don't see a single verse where John says they are unhealthy or negative. I do see that if you have progressed past fear and into love that the more you progress in love the more fear is driven out, but he never says what you want the text to say. Not one time in the Greek and/or English are the words unhealthy and negative used. That would be "your" interpretation of the text. Again we can ONLY stick with what the words actually SAY. And all is says is love drives out fear. It doesn't qualify fear in any way.

 

You shouldn't if you are loving God, because if you are loving God you are keeping His commandments. And if you are keeping His commandments then there will be nothing but gold, sliver and precious stones.

However, if you are not loving God, that means you are not keeping His commandments and there is something to fear. Why do you think the author of Hebrews said it was a fearful thing to fall into the hand's of the living God? That was written to believers.

Wonder what "salvation" these "saved" folks were to receive? I love it each time you all go to the Scriptures. It's just keeps proving our points. So by all means do continue!

Since it says Christ Jesus I guess there are some folks that are going to received condemnation. Wonder who that could be? Hmmm . . .

Another subjunctive which means possibility not certainty. And yes you are quite correct in that He is ABLE, but that doesn't mean He WILL.

 

I am still realing over an earlier post that said Christ "will" be Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

 

Here's the passage:

Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God {is} for us, who {is} against us?
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;
Rom 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
Rom 8:35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

J, you surely can't be serious. God is the one who justifies. Christ is interceding for us. Why would He intercede if He condemns? You have blown yourself out of the water on this one. If you read this verse to mean Christ Jesus condemns, then you need to go back to school and learn how to read.



JJump:

Here's the verse:

1Th 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 5:24 The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.


It doesn't mean He will???? It says right there, HE WILL. "and He will do it". It's right there. How can you say it doesn't mean He will??

You have twisted (scripturally) yourself right into a corner.

 

Context, Np, context!

From the American Herectical Dictionary
Context: noun. a form of scripture twisting to justify your false doctrine.