You may know (absolutely) ye have eternal life

[steaver]

Steaver, I've added my own empahasis to the above verse. I ask you, what are the, these things, that St. John is referring to?

In XC

Are you asking because you don't know?

"These things" would be everything in the letter that pertains to the knowledge of eternal life through Jesus Christ. Just read the letter.

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: God never brings our sins up again. He puts them under the blood and never remembers them again; they are buried in the depths of the deepest sea.

HP: When God chastises a believer He is bringing it up to our attention again. How can they be buried in the depths of the sea, and yet God not only remembers that for which He is chastising one for, but is bringing the issue(s) to the forefront of our minds as well.

Your position is self-contradictory DHK. You have stated that God never brings up sin that you also tell us that He remembers. You cannot have it both ways. Does He remember that which He has stated is forgotten? If He has forgotten, He cannot chastise one for it, for that would be at antipodes with His promise to forget, would it not?

 

[DHK]

HP: When God chastises a believer He is bringing it up to our attention again. How can they be buried in the depths of the sea, and yet God not only remembers that for which He is chastising one for, but is bringing the issue(s) to the forefront of our minds as well.

Your position is self-contradictory DHK. You have stated that God never brings up sin that you also tell us that He remembers. You cannot have it both ways. Does He remember that which He has stated is forgotten? If He has forgotten, He cannot chastise one for it, for that would be at antipodes with His promise to forget, would it not?

No, not at all.
The one has to do with salvation; the other has to do with sanctification.
The one has to do with an unsaved person coming to Christ; the other has to do with the chastisement of a believer.
The one has to do with a child of the devil; the other with a child of God.

Unless you understand and accept the doctrine of eternal security you will foever be confused.

 

[steaver]

Let's not stray to far from the OP. I presented to you a dilemma HP. Can you reconcile your beliefs with John's declarations of knowing (past tense) ye have eternal life?

HP, stay on the OP :thumbs:

Your answer to the OP has been to point to other scriptures. This is ok as long as the other scriptures do not contradict the OP scripture.

Here is your dilemma. John states that eternal life "has been" granted. Therefore the "IF" part has been satisfied which is "born again". Now John says you "have" eternal life. Eternal cannot end!! If you believe it can, you will have to give us another alternative definition for "eternal".

Here are the OP points once again; 1) "know ye have" points to a past experience. 2) that past experience was having received "eternal life". 3) "eternal" cannot end!

You want to add to this equasion the truth of God's "promise". This is good as long as you put God's promise into proper context. The "promise" is to give "eternal life". This promise God fulfills at regeneration, John declares as much.

The only way you can escape these truths of John's words is to make eternal life something that is not given until a future judgment. This you cannot justify doing when John declares it is a "past" event.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Your answer to the OP has been to point to other scriptures.

HP: So what? If the OP would have been started my myself, and I had posted the other passages, how would it be wrong or unfair for you or others to present other passages that need to be addressed on the issue? I think not.

Proper interpretation always is about harmonization of texts, not the lifting of ones favorite proof text above all other relevant texts as you and DHK seem bent on doing here.

 

[steaver]

HP: So what? If the OP would have been started my myself, and I had posted the other passages, how would it be wrong or unfair for you or others to present other passages that need to be addressed on the issue? I think not.

Proper interpretation always is about harmonization of texts, not the lifting of ones favorite proof text above all other relevant texts as you and DHK seem bent on doing here.

You have presented Heb 3:6 "IF we hold fast" as a rebuke to 1 John 5:13 "ye may know ye have eternal life". You have presented no harmony, only contention between the two.

You believe "IF we hold fast" means it is possible for one that is saved to then become unsaved. This does not harmonize with John saying the saved have been given eternal life. This belief only contradicts John.

To properly harmonize Heb 3:6 with 1John 5 one has no choice but to interpret Heb 3:6 as saying those who hold fast are truly the saved. IF we hold fast, then we are truly in Christ. Jesus said the same, "If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;" Those who do not continue are exposed as false disciples, as was Judas. With this interpretation we have harmony, one text does not contend with the other. With your interpretation we are left with contention.

You speak of "proper interpretation always is about harmonization of text". How do you say such and then totally disharmonize these two text? You can't take Heb 3:6 and say there, John's eternal life does not mean eternal life. That is not harmonization. That is dismissing one text in favor of another more to your liking for presuppositional reasons. As you say, you must harmonize!

I presented to you a dilemma HP. Can you reconcile your beliefs with John's declarations of knowing (past tense) ye have eternal life? Your interpretation of Heb 3:6 will not harmonize for you. You could try another or try refuting the following;

Here is your dilemma. John states that eternal life "has been" granted. Therefore the "IF" part has been satisfied which is "born again". Now John says you "have" eternal life. Eternal cannot end!! If you believe it can, you will have to give us another alternative definition for "eternal".

Here are the OP points once again; 1) "know ye have" points to a past experience. 2) that past experience was having received "eternal life". 3) "eternal" cannot end!

You want to add to this equasion the truth of God's "promise". This is good as long as you put God's promise into proper context. The "promise" is to give "eternal life". This promise God fulfills at regeneration, John declares as much.

The only way you can escape these truths of John's words is to make eternal life something that is not given until a future judgment. This you cannot justify doing when John declares it is a "past" event.

 

[Amy.G]

Steaver, are you a pastor or teacher? If not, you should be. Great post. :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

Steaver, are you a pastor or teacher?

Thank you for the kind words. God has blessed me with the teaching care of our fifth and sixth graders for the new school year. I only desire God to be glorified and ALL credit be dirrected towards Him. We have nothing but that which we have received of Him. This is why I stand firm on by grace through faith in the works of Jesus Christ alone for anyone's salvation. I will go to me grave saying Jesus saved me for nothing I did nor could do could. All Jesus!!

:jesus:

 

[Amy.G]

I will go to me grave saying Jesus saved me for nothing I did nor could do could. All Jesus!!

:jesus:

Amen! We all come to Jesus empty handed. What could I possibly have to offer the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Nothing but my filthy rags.

Thank you :jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: I will go to me grave saying Jesus saved me for nothing I did nor could do could. All Jesus!!

HP: Certainly our salvation is not merited by anything we can do or will do. That does not negate the fact that Jesus said that there are some things that man must do to inherit eternal life, without which no man shall see God. Exercising faith and repentance are two of those things and remaining faithful to the end in obedience is another.

“Cleanse your hands ye sinners, purify your hearts ye double minded’ is a Scriptural command to establish and maintain a right relationship with God. Yes man is involved in his salvation, NOT by doing anything meritorious, but rather by fulfilling the conditions He has stated in His Word man must do and keep on doing in this present world to inherit eternal life in the end, without which no man shall see God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: What could I possibly have to offer the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Nothing but my filthy rags.

HP: One could start by offering to God spiritual sacrifices, which are no filthy rags in the sight of God. 1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: One could start by offering to God spiritual sacrifices, which are no filthy rags in the sight of God. 1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Your righteousness is as filthy rags to the Lord. You have nothing to offer in return for salvation. Spiritual sacrifices can only be offered by a justified, saved child of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Your righteousness is as filthy rags to the Lord. You have nothing to offer in return for salvation. Spiritual sacrifices can only be offered by a justified, saved child of God.

HP: I thought you were saved? I certainly entertain a hope of eternal life. Would it be OK for us as believers (for that is who this passage is directed is it not?) to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God just as commanded and as my comments were specifically directed to?

 

[steaver]

HP: Certainly our salvation is not merited by anything we can do or will do. That does not negate the fact that Jesus said that there are some things that man must do to inherit eternal life, without which no man shall see God. Exercising faith and repentance are two of those things and remaining faithful to the end in obedience is another.

“Cleanse your hands ye sinners, purify your hearts ye double minded’ is a Scriptural command to establish and maintain a right relationship with God. Yes man is involved in his salvation, NOT by doing anything meritorious, but rather by fulfilling the conditions He has stated in His Word man must do and keep on doing in this present world to inherit eternal life in the end, without which no man shall see God.

Here you have plucked out a verse from James and rhetorically link it with a condition for eternal life. James says nothing about eternal life here but rather we should submit ourselves to God as does many other scriptures which tells us to live holy. Does James say "or else" you are not saved? No, that is your add on.

Secondly, have you harmonized your rhetoric here with 1Jo 5? No, it does not harmonize, something you yourself said must be done.

Shall we go through every verse one by one in the scriptures, or will you address the following and if there does exist a verse that harmonizes with John's eternal life declarations, but yet proves your view correct, it will come forth and we will take it from there. As of now, you are on strike two......

Here is your dilemma. John states that eternal life "has been" granted. Therefore the "IF" part has been satisfied which is "born again". Now John says you "have" eternal life. Eternal cannot end!! If you believe it can, you will have to give us another alternative definition for "eternal".

Here are the OP points once again; 1) "know ye have" points to a past experience. 2) that past experience was having received "eternal life". 3) "eternal" cannot end!

You want to add to this equasion the truth of God's "promise". This is good as long as you put God's promise into proper context. The "promise" is to give "eternal life". This promise God fulfills at regeneration, John declares as much.

The only way you can escape these truths of John's words is to make eternal life something that is not given until a future judgment. This you cannot justify doing when John declares it is a "past" event.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Here you have plucked out a verse ....

HP: Holiness is not an option. Either one will be holy or deception as to ones salvation is the only other alternative. “Without holiness, no man shall see God.” Holiness is indeed a condition of eternal life. That by the way is God linking it to eternal life, not myself or my rhetoric as you falsely state. There happens to be a gulf fixed between holiness and sinning, between a heart fixed on obedience to God and one that is double minded and unstable.

Steaver: Secondly, have you harmonized your rhetoric here with 1Jo 5? No, it does not harmonize, something you yourself said must be done.

HP: Please show us what is not in harmony. Your simply stating that it is not in harmony is mere ‘rhetoric’ to use words that you seem to understand well.:wavey:

Steaver: Shall we go through every verse...

HP: Just more rhetoric without substance. Oh well, whats new?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[EdSutton]

Amy: Your righteousness is as filthy rags to the Lord. You have nothing to offer in return for salvation. Spiritual sacrifices can only be offered by a justified, saved child of God.

HP: I thought you were saved? I certainly entertain a hope of eternal life. Would it be OK for us as believers (for that is who this passage is directed is it not?) to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God just as commanded and as my comments were specifically directed to?

And I thought you said you did not ever question a person's relationship with God, but I obviously was mistaken.

Or was I? Since I know my memory is not all it once was, I better check, just to be sure.

Yep, I found it!!

HP: I have not, nor would I ever, question a person’s relationship with God on a debate forum. For what purpose would it serve? It certainly would add nothing at all to the debate on the issue, now would it? I do not have to claim innocence, nor naivety, for my motives were nothing more or less than to look at a passage mentioned and to present it to the list for self introspection, letting the chips fall where they may. I in no way was button-holing ______ or anyone else in particular. If ______ was, let ______ answer for himself. I never got that indication from what he said as I read him.

One thing is for certain, you had no cause to impinge my motives from what I wrote. Why not try and debate the issues that I presented to you instead of attacking personally, impinging motives you have not the slightest clue about.

I will tell you the facts, whether or not you accept it is your own decision. I did NOT have ______’s relationship with the Lord in mind in the least when I wrote that post, nor was I in any way trying to even draw a reflection or innuendo concerning his relationship with the Lord. I simply saw a verse that I believe we all can gain some good insight from if we will allow the Holy Spirit to use it to its best advantage.

(All emphases are mine, and actual names are deleted from other post. - Ed)

Your words, not mine.

And your 'questioning' comment does question the relationship with God, of another poster!

What I posted is fact; not an attack.

Ed

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: What I posted is fact; not an attack.

HP: You are twisting the intents in which I wrote that comment, and as such it is an unwarranted attack. I was not questioning her salvation by any stretch of the imagination Ed. I was simply bringing to her attention that SHE IS a professing believer, therefore she can indeed offer spiritual sacrifices! You need to read the comments I was referring to before you make such an unfounded accusation. You are exhibiting an unusual love of unwarranted animosity Ed that this board could do without.

 

[steaver]

HP: Holiness is not an option. Either one will be holy or deception as to ones salvation is the only other alternative. “Without holiness, no man shall see God.” Holiness is indeed a condition of eternal life. That by the way is God linking it to eternal life, not myself or my rhetoric as you falsely state. There happens to be a gulf fixed between holiness and sinning, between a heart fixed on obedience to God and one that is double minded and unstable.

Posting more rhetoric without substance towards the dilemma of harmonizing John's declarations of eternal life with anything you have referenced so far does not help your case.

HP: Please show us what is not in harmony.

I did. I believe you just glance over people's post rather than contemplating the minute possibility that you might be wrong about something.

You have presented Heb 3:6 "IF we hold fast" as a rebuke to 1 John 5:13 "ye may know ye have eternal life". You have presented no harmony, only contention between the two.

You believe "IF we hold fast" means it is possible for one that is saved to then become unsaved. This does not harmonize with John saying the saved have been given eternal life. This belief only contradicts John.

To properly harmonize Heb 3:6 with 1John 5 one has no choice but to interpret Heb 3:6 as saying those who hold fast are truly the saved. IF we hold fast, then we are truly in Christ. Jesus said the same, "If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;" Those who do not continue are exposed as false disciples, as was Judas. With this interpretation we have harmony, one text does not contend with the other. With your interpretation we are left with contention.

You speak of "proper interpretation always is about harmonization of text". How do you say such and then totally disharmonize these two text? You can't take Heb 3:6 and say there, John's eternal life does not mean eternal life. That is not harmonization. That is dismissing one text in favor of another more to your liking for presuppositional reasons. As you say, you must harmonize!

I presented to you a dilemma HP. Can you reconcile your beliefs with John's declarations of knowing (past tense) ye have eternal life? Your interpretation of Heb 3:6 will not harmonize for you. You could try another or try refuting the following;

Here is your dilemma. John states that eternal life "has been" granted. Therefore the "IF" part has been satisfied which is "born again". Now John says you "have" eternal life. Eternal cannot end!! If you believe it can, you will have to give us another alternative definition for "eternal".

Here are the OP points once again; 1) "know ye have" points to a past experience. 2) that past experience was having received "eternal life". 3) "eternal" cannot end!

You want to add to this equasion the truth of God's "promise". This is good as long as you put God's promise into proper context. The "promise" is to give "eternal life". This promise God fulfills at regeneration, John declares as much.

The only way you can escape these truths of John's words is to make eternal life something that is not given until a future judgment. This you cannot justify doing when John declares it is a "past" event.

Will you show me how eternal life does not mean without end?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: I believe you just glance over people's post rather than contemplating the minute possibility that you might be wrong about something.

HP: Then why do you respond? Please do not waste your time with posts you feel do not warrant a response. I would hate to be responsible for wasting your time.