Jump to content
Online Baptist
Roselove

Saved in 3 tenses?

Recommended Posts

What are you confused about? Is it the "three tenses"?

Examples:

[Past Tense]

(Titus 3:5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[Present Tense]

(1 Corinthians 1:18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

[Future Tense]

(1 Corinthians 3:15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Past, present, and future. Our salvation encompasses all three. I was saved many years ago in the "past", I'm "presently" saved today, and I'll be saved in the "future". It's not three different salvations; it's three aspects of one salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

What are you confused about? Is it the "three tenses"?

Examples:

[Past Tense]

(Titus 3:5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[Present Tense]

(1 Corinthians 1:18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

[Future Tense]

(1 Corinthians 3:15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Past, present, and future. Our salvation encompasses all three. I was saved many years ago in the "past", I'm "presently" saved today, and I'll be saved in the "future". It's not three different salvations; it's three aspects of one salvation.

What you're saying makes sense. The thing this person (and others that go along this belief system) was saying is that, in the greek for instance, 1 corinthians 1:18 the verbage is saying "being saved". Like, it depends on us continuing to trust and obey Him, continuing faith, your final salvation will come. 

I didn't know what to think, really. I know that some say we will continue, but then they make it seem as though our final salvation is conditonal upon our continued faithfulness. It seems to be one of the things that has a fine line, between beliefs i guess. :/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Roselove said:

What you're saying makes sense. The thing this person (and others that go along this belief system) was saying is that, in the greek for instance, 1 corinthians 1:18 the verbage is saying "being saved". Like, it depends on us continuing to trust and obey Him, continuing faith, your final salvation will come. 

I didn't know what to think, really. I know that some say we will continue, but then they make it seem as though our final salvation is conditonal upon our continued faithfulness. It seems to be one of the things that has a fine line, between beliefs i guess. :/ 

Well, I didn't want to say anything at first, but the person (and article) to whom you are referring to is using a different Bible and Greek text than the King James Version and the Greek text it was translated from. I quickly looked up the word in Greek, and the word is a different Greek word than what that gentleman quoted. He even admits that other translations translate the word differently. You have to be very careful of whom you read Roselove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Well, I didn't want to say anything at first, but the person (and article) to whom you are referring to is using a different Bible and Greek text than the King James Version and the Greek text it was translated from. I quickly looked up the word in Greek, and the word is a different Greek word than what that gentleman quoted. He even admits that other translations translate the word differently. You have to be very careful of whom you read Roselove.

http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Strongs/46001018/G4982 

i looked on here, and it's the same word, though? I took screenshots of the word he said and the one in the textus receptus, and they are the same. I could be missing something, I'm not sure. :/

σωζομενοις <--pasted from textus receptus 

σωζομενοις<--pasted from person's webpage 

im a bit confused :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all that I can go by is what I use. I'm no Greek scholar. Here's the word in my Bible program...as you can see, it's the same "number", but look at the Greek word in comparison to what you've posted...

G4982 σώζω sozo (sō'-zō) v.
to save, i.e. deliver or protect.
{literally or figuratively}
[from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saos, “safe”)]
KJV: heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 15:2 - σωζεσθε

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις

The Greek word from the Textus Receptus link that you provided of 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The screenshot's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The Greek word in my program from both 1 Corinthians 15:2 and 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σώζω (#4982)

All that I can say is...

The author has two different Greek words from the same single Greek word and "number"; which is 4982. The author, the screenshot, and the link provided show different Greek words than what mine shows. As I said, I'm no Greek scholar, and I just reference Greek occasionally. I'm wondering why the author has two different Greek words for the same Greek word...well, I think I know why, but I'll stop there.

I can't explain it to you any more than what I've shown Roselove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother McWhorter,

Actually, all of the examples provided ARE different forms of the SAME Greek verb.  The different forms simply indicate differences in tense, voice, mood, person, number, etc. (in the case of participles).

σωζεσθε -- present, passive, indicative, 2nd person, plural of σώζω

 σωζομενοις -- present, passive, participle, plural, dative, masculine of σώζω

Note: When referencing Strong's concordance of Hebrew and Greek words (in accord with Strong's numbering system), it must be understood that Strong's concordance does NOT provide all of the various forms of a particular word (as per tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, case), but only provides the ROOT form of the word.

(By the way, how are you typing out words using actual Greek letters?  I would like to know that for future posting.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother McWhorter,

Actually, all of the examples provided ARE different forms of the SAME Greek verb.  The different forms simply indicate differences in tense, voice, mood, person, number, etc. (in the case of participles).

σωζεσθε -- present, passive, indicative, 2nd person, plural of σώζω

 σωζομενοις -- present, passive, participle, plural, dative, masculine of σώζω

Note: When referencing Strong's concordance of Hebrew and Greek words (in accord with Strong's numbering system), it must be understood that Strong's concordance does NOT provide all of the various forms of a particular word (as per tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, case), but only provides the ROOT form of the word.

(By the way, how are you typing out words using actual Greek letters?  I would like to know that for future posting.)

Thanks Bro. Markle...I was kind of hoping you might chime in on this. :)

I was suspicious that it may have been the case as you described; however, since I haven't studied Greek, I wasn't about to try to "explain" something that I knew nothing about. LOL!

When I "type" a Greek word, I don't actually type it out. I just highlight it with my mouse cursor in my Bible program, then I copy and paste it here (or in my examples above...copy and paste the word from those websites).

I hope you're doing well friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother McWhorter,

Actually, all of the examples provided ARE different forms of the SAME Greek verb.  The different forms simply indicate differences in tense, voice, mood, person, number, etc. (in the case of participles).

σωζεσθε -- present, passive, indicative, 2nd person, plural of σώζω

 σωζομενοις -- present, passive, participle, plural, dative, masculine of σώζω

Note: When referencing Strong's concordance of Hebrew and Greek words (in accord with Strong's numbering system), it must be understood that Strong's concordance does NOT provide all of the various forms of a particular word (as per tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, case), but only provides the ROOT form of the word.

(By the way, how are you typing out words using actual Greek letters?  I would like to know that for future posting.)

I'm a bit confused 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, No Nicolaitans said:

When I "type" a Greek word, I don't actually type it out. I just highlight it with my mouse cursor in my Bible program, then I copy and paste it here (or in my examples above...copy and paste the word from those websites).

Understood.  The "copy and paste" method (from your posting) is how I was able to post such in my posting. 

1 minute ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I hope you're doing well friend.

Doing quite well.  Just been so busy this whole year that I have very, very little time for Online Baptist posting.  However, I do continue to read and follow those discussion that "catch my eye."

(In this particular case, I received a private request for help on this matter.  As such, I believe that the Lord would have me to make the time to provide what help that I am able.)

Just now, Roselove said:

I'm a bit confused 

Sister Rose,

About what in particular are you confused?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Understood.  The "copy and paste" method (from your posting) is how I was able to post such in my posting. 

Doing quite well.  Just been so busy this whole year that I have very, very little time for Online Baptist posting.  However, I do continue to read and follow those discussion that "catch my eye."

(In this particular case, I received a private request for help on this matter.  As such, I believe that the Lord would have me to make the time to provide what help that I am able.)

Excellent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Understood.  The "copy and paste" method (from your posting) is how I was able to post such in my posting. 

Doing quite well.  Just been so busy this whole year that I have very, very little time for Online Baptist posting.  However, I do continue to read and follow those discussion that "catch my eye."

(In this particular case, I received a private request for help on this matter.  As such, I believe that the Lord would have me to make the time to provide what help that I am able.)

Sister Rose,

About what in particular are you confused?

Well, No Nicolations said that it's 2 different words, but you said it's the same word, i think? I think he was saying it that way, to further disprove the man who wrote the article? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, No nicolations), I wasn't sure really where both of your trains of thought lined up, I guess. I'm just trying to figure out how you all's view is different from the article writer's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Roselove said:

Well, No Nicolations said that it's 2 different words, but you said it's the same word, i think? I think he was saying it that way, to further disprove the man who wrote the article? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, No nicolations), I wasn't sure really where both of your trains of thought lined up, I guess. I'm just trying to figure out how you all's view is different from the article writer's.

Sister Rose,

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article.  However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.).

Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help).  However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle.  As such, I would request patience, if I may.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article.  However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.).

Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help).  However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle.  As such, I would request patience, if I may.

I'm still a little ignorant to the greek and everything, so my comprehension of everyone's answers is still a bit hard to grasp, but I'm sure when we get further, it'll make more sense. And yes, I will be patient! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Roselove said:

Well, No Nicolations said that it's 2 different words, but you said it's the same word, i think? I think he was saying it that way, to further disprove the man who wrote the article? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, No nicolations), I wasn't sure really where both of your trains of thought lined up, I guess. I'm just trying to figure out how you all's view is different from the article writer's.

 

7 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article.  However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.).

Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help).  However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle.  As such, I would request patience, if I may.

My apparent "combativeness" wasn't necessarily against the man himself, the article itself, or the ideas of the article; rather, it was against the Bible that he uses, and therefore; its underlying Greek text. As far as the general message underlying the article...I had no problem with that. I agree with being saved in "three tenses". I apologize for letting my rancor show in regards to a Bible version other than the King James. :99_muscle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

My apparent "combativeness" wasn't necessarily against the man himself, the article itself, or the ideas of the article; rather, it was against the Bible that he uses, and therefore; its underlying Greek text. As far as the general message underlying the article...I had no problem with that. I agree with being saved in "three tenses". I apologize for letting my rancor show in regards to a Bible version other than the King James. :99_muscle:

Thank you for your clarification, Brother McWhorter.  Indeed, the author DOES use a different English translation than the King James translation.  However, the Greek terms that he references are the SAME as in the Received Text (from which the King James translation was translated).

Note: I do NOT believe that an apology was necessary; for I do NOT believe that you did anything sinfully wrong.  On the other hand, I do believe that a clarification was necessary; and you have now provided such. 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way -- May I say that I do NOT AT ALL like the the "question" forum for such thread discussions, since postings can be moved through rating; and thereby the line of comment and response can become distorted.  (I wonder if this thread discussion could be moved to a different forum structure by one of the moderators.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thank you for your clarification, Brother McWhorter.  Indeed, the author DOES use a different English translation than the King James translation.  However, the Greek terms that he references are the SAME as in the Received Text (from which the King James translation was translated).

Note: I do NOT believe that an apology was necessary; for I do NOT believe that you did anything sinfully wrong.  On the other hand, I do believe that a clarification was necessary; and you have now provided such. 

Since the words the writer uses are the same as kjv, how is it that he's wrong about our security being conditional? That's where i was a bit confused. :4_6_2v:

I mean, in the way that he's trying to disprove it, that is.

(Sorry if this counts as impatience) :7_sweat_smile:

Edited by Roselove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Well, all that I can go by is what I use. I'm no Greek scholar. Here's the word in my Bible program...as you can see, it's the same "number", but look at the Greek word in comparison to what you've posted...

G4982 σώζω sozo (sō'-zō) v.
to save, i.e. deliver or protect.
{literally or figuratively}
[from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saos, “safe”)]
KJV: heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 15:2 - σωζεσθε

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις

The Greek word from the Textus Receptus link that you provided of 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The screenshot's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The Greek word in my program from both 1 Corinthians 15:2 and 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σώζω (#4982)

All that I can say is...

The author has two different Greek words from the same single Greek word and "number"; which is 4982. The author, the screenshot, and the link provided show different Greek words than what mine shows. As I said, I'm no Greek scholar, and I just reference Greek occasionally. I'm wondering why the author has two different Greek words for the same Greek word...well, I think I know why, but I'll stop there.

I can't explain it to you any more than what I've shown Roselove.

Okay, I just installed the TR in my Bible program...

1 Corinthians 15:2, the word for saved is σωζεσθε

1 Corinthians 1:18, the word for saved is σωζομενοις

First, thanks to Bro. Markle for pointing out the situation with Strong's. I wasn't aware of that.

Second, I've learned a lesson from this, and though I originally tried to tread carefully, I realize that I need to tread even more carefully from this point forward. I will bow out of this conversation from here on out. Thank you Bro. Markle for addressing Roselove's concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sister Rose,

I have now read through all of the postings in your various other threads concerning the matter of eternal security.  At present I am reading through the article that you referenced in another thread concerning "the tense readings of the Greek New Testament."

In this posting, I wish to present some initial thoughts (which we may then consider in more detail as the discussion proceeds):

1.  Concerning the matter of eternal security -- Those who hold strongly unto this doctrine (as I do) will place their primary focus upon God's authority and power to maintain a believer's eternal security.  However, those who unto the doctrine of required perseverance (lest salvation be lost) will place their primary focus upon the believer's effort and power to maintain that security.  In my own case, I begin with the passages concerning God's authority and power in the matter and then build upon that foundation in consideration of other passages.

2.  Concerning the article about the tense readings -- Although I am only half-way through the article, I have a number of conflicts with the article already.  First, I believe that the article immensely distorts the meaning of the Greek present tense, as well as somewhat distorts the meaning of the Greek aorist tense.  Second, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration with favor.  (By the way, if the author actually does/did hold that water baptism is necessary for regeneration and salvation, then he held unto a false gospel which included human works.  As such, I must question the very salvation of the author, and thereby also question the ability of the author to discern Scripture correctly.)  Third, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of purgatory with favor.  Fourth, the author of the article strongly teaches the false doctrine of complete sanctification upon this earth.

3.  Concerning the article about 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 -- I myself would contend that the author of the article mishandles the grammatical structure of the single sentence in these two verses.

I suppose that I must now ask which of these matters you desire to consider in detail first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 2:12 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

I have now read through all of the postings in your various other threads concerning the matter of eternal security.  At present I am reading through the article that you referenced in another thread concerning "the tense readings of the Greek New Testament."

In this posting, I wish to present some initial thoughts (which we may then consider in more detail as the discussion proceeds):

1.  Concerning the matter of eternal security -- Those who hold strongly unto this doctrine (as I do) will place their primary focus upon God's authority and power to maintain a believer's eternal security.  However, those who unto the doctrine of required perseverance (lest salvation be lost) will place their primary focus upon the believer's effort and power to maintain that security.  In my own case, I begin with the passages concerning God's authority and power in the matter and then build upon that foundation in consideration of other passages.

2.  Concerning the article about the tense readings -- Although I am only half-way through the article, I have a number of conflicts with the article already.  First, I believe that the article immensely distorts the meaning of the Greek present tense, as well as somewhat distorts the meaning of the Greek aorist tense.  Second, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration with favor.  (By the way, if the author actually does/did hold that water baptism is necessary for regeneration and salvation, then he held unto a false gospel which included human works.  As such, I must question the very salvation of the author, and thereby also question the ability of the author to discern Scripture correctly.)  Third, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of purgatory with favor.  Fourth, the author of the article strongly teaches the false doctrine of complete sanctification upon this earth.

3.  Concerning the article about 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 -- I myself would contend that the author of the article mishandles the grammatical structure of the single sentence in these two verses.

I suppose that I must now ask which of these matters you desire to consider in detail first?

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Roselove said:

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

Sister Rose, I am not sure what you mean when you say that "eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church." If you are talking about "extra-biblical" writings instead of actual scripture, then I have no answer for you. If you are talking about scripture, then I would respectfully submit that every time you see the words "eternal life" written in the New testament, these are the writings of the early church.

Once such instance is one that has been submitted already and bears being resubmitted:   Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 
 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

These words are from the lips of Jesus, the one who instituted the very first church and as such, are in fact the writings of the first church. Jesus is very specific here in saying that He gives to believers "eternal life."  The word "eternal" means life without end, as such it can never be temporary, nor can it be lost since it is without end. Please notice that Jesus also includes further explanation to clarify what he means by saying, "and they shall never perish."

I have in my files a sermon by the late Dr. Harry Ironside that addresses this subject in great detail. I will attach it to this post for your consideration. Just click on the attachment.

ETERNAL SECURITY.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Roselove said:

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

And how do you know the writers of the so called early "church" were actually even saved believers and not heretics? 

The word of God is the final authority not the writings of the early "church".

We never find the validity of a document based on its absence or presence in the uninspired writings of the early "church"

And if you really want to get into Calvinism, Augustine popularized it, and seems very likely that his views of predestination and free will came from the Manichianism that he believed before his "conversion", Ironically Calvin quoted from Augstine ferquently, in fact Calvin said that he could teach his doctrines of election and predestination completely from the words of Augustine. 

And even besides that, I doubt whoever is making the claims that the early church did not believe in eternal security has even read all the writings of the early "church". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Roselove said:

Thank you for taking time to help me, I appreciate it!

Point 1 for now, I suppose. I've heard that our faith produces works, and i know that faith isn't a work in of itself, since we must utilize it to be saved, but I've heard that we must continue to utilize the faith He provides in order to stay in His grace. We need to endure chastising, so that He can rid us of our sin and idols, and if we endure it we will produce fruit, but if we don't endure, He will cast us off like a branch, because no fruit came. In Hebrews 12, it talks about Esau selling his birthright, which I'm pretty sure is paralelled in that context, for the birthright we get once we are born-again, so therefore he basically sold what he was going to get, for the pleasure of the world. It says right after, a few verses later, that ones like this, couldn't endure God's commandments. I see this in the parable of the talents kinda, too. They weren't willing to produce fruit for God, they thought He was too harsh, so they didn't persevere. Also, the vine and branches parable, Jesus says if you abide in Him, you'll produce fruit and if you don't you'll be cast into the fire. If we are to "abide" that means these were already in Him, so they must be saved I would think. 

After we get through the first part of this question, can you please let me know why the early church, even before the catholics tried to take over, eternal security was nowhere in the writings of the early church? Why it seems to have been totally derived from calvinism? Anytime i look into the early church stuff, only calvinists and armenians debate it, because only their beliefs appear to be a thing back then. Though, calvinism came later. From what i can see, eternal security + free will, was quite a recent belief, possibly started in the later 1800's, actually.

in reference to John 15,

 

"Some think this verse is referring to unbelievers due to the reference of fire. The assumption is that since fire is mentioned, it must be referring to Hell.

But the Judgment Seat of Christ also speaks of fire. Also, the flow of thought in John 15 refers to believers. Jesus urges those “in me” (15:2) to “Abide in me” in order to “bear fruit” (15:4-5). So what gets burned in verse six?

The verse says, “If a man [singular] abide not [present tense, lit. “is not abiding”] in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them [neuter], and cast them into the fire, and they [singular, lit. “it”] are burned.”

The purpose of a branch in the vine is to bear fruit. This occurs as the branch abides in the vine. Jesus is the true vine. He said, “without me ye can do nothing.” This implies with Him you can do anything you ought to do, because He is the source of life. Therefore the words of Jesus here define the word “abide” as depending on Jesus.

So if one who is in Christ (15:2) does not abide in Christ (15:4-5), he will not bear fruit. His purpose “as a branch” is unfulfilled. So the useless wood with no fruit, because of a lack of abiding, is cast out and burned. The “them” in verse six is neuter, and “it” is cast out, not “they” the people. This fits in perfectly with the teaching that the wood, hay and stubble represents the self-dependent aspects of one’s life which will be incinerated at the Judgment Seat (1 Cor. 3)."

 

http://revivalfocus.org/q6-what-gets-burned/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By Jordan Kurecki
      Thanks to those who prayed for me, and gave to me to go to Uganda last summer. For those who saw my video update, I mentioned a man named Fanuel, I had gotten to go and share the Gospel with him at his hut and he got saved, then proceeded to come to our meetings that same evening and gave a public testimony of salvation:
      Here is a picture of him from the day he got saved in summer of 2016. Then I received another picture from my friend over in Uganda of this second picture, which was him at the Church today, one year later, attending soul winning training! Praise God
       


    • By Roselove
      So, I've been wondering something for quite sometime. 
      Ive noticed that people who have a struggle with doubting their salvation and those who are afraid of having committed the unpardonable sin, tend to have these fears, for a very long time. It seems that it's nearly impossible for them to have enough assurance for them to stop fearing and obsessing over it. 
      Ive been going through this for over 5 years and have read many others talking about this, too. It tends to take years for people to get over these fears, that is, if they ever do. 
      Why is this particular problem, so extremely hard to get under control? I have clinical OCD, so I'm sure it contributes, the others might have this problem, too, but why won't God take away these terrible fears and obsessions, over whether or not we are saved or have committed the unpardonable sin? 
      I know that He wants us to know whether we are saved or lost or if we are forgiveable. I know that someone cannot effectively do His will, without this i would think, so why is this particular problem so hard to overcome, even with fervent prayer? I understand that God works in His timing and that we have to suffer at times in this life, sometimes for many years, but I wouldn't think that this kind of thing, would be one of the things that would be helpful to go through? I'm not sure? 
      What do you all think, about this? 
    • By Roselove
      My husband is worried about not having eternal security. He heard that one can be born again, but still die spiritually from starving, by not going from the milk to the meat of the word and I guess continuing with God. Also he heard that when it talks about us having eternal life in the Bible, it means Jesus, but that He's walking with us but we can choose to turn away and jump out of His hand. My husband is very upset and it's upsetting me and making me nervous, too. I think this stuff is hurting his faith, please help... I'm having a panic attack.. 
      its hard for me to explain all the stuff he heard, but it's worrying him very much. I'm not as knowledgeable as i should be, please someone help me out. 
    • By BabeinChrist
      Repentance CANNOT save
       
      I'm writing on the topic of repentance in regards to salvation because this is a subject that is very misinterpreted today, (even amongst Independent, Fundamental Baptists) and there’s a LOT of false teaching out there under the guise of repentance that is actually teaching a works-based salvation. The mistake that most people make is that, whenever they see the word "repent" in the Bible, they add these words after it:  “of your sins”.
      So whenever they see the word "repent" they just automatically add "of sin"... repent of your sin.
      In fact, they often think that just the word "repent" means to turn from sin, but the Bible does not teach that, and since the King James Holy Bible is the Word of God, it should be our final authority on doctrine.
      I've noticed that typically, one can find the meaning of a word used in the Bible by searching for its first appearance, where it is often defined.  So before we study repentance in regard to salvation, let’s just get an understanding of what the word "repent" even means in the Bible, by going to its first use. To the best of my knowledge, that is in Exodus 32:12, we have Moses speaking to God:
       “Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath and repent of this evil against thy people.”
      So we can see repent means "to turn".  Moses is pleading with God to turn from His anger or wrath towards his people. It continues...
      “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.” “And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”
      That proves that repenting does not mean "repent of your sins" because we KNOW God doesn’t have any sins, God never has sinned and God is perfect in EVERY way ---and yet--- did God repent in this scripture?
      Yes, He did.
      He turned..... He turned from one course of action unto another. He didn’t turn from sin, He turned from anger, He turned from his wrath, He turned from the judgement He was going to pour out. So we can be sure that repent does not mean to repent of your sins in order to be saved.
      It's interesting to note, that if you do a word study on the word "repent" in the King James Bible (the ONLY Bible I will use), you'll discover that the one who "repents" the MOST in the entire Bible is : God!
      "Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?  And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." (Jonah 3:9-10)
      “And God saw their works,” What did God see? Works. “ God saw their works,” now he is going to tell us what those works were: “that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”
      That right there says when you turn from your evil way, that is your WORKS, so if you believe that a person has to turn from their evil way and believe on Christ, then here’s what you're saying is required to be saved: to believe on Christ and have works!
      The Bible says salvation is without works and Jonah 3:10 says turning from your sins or turning from your evil ways is works, so that’s why this is such an important doctrine to understand and be clear on! 
      Of course, the devil wants to get you to trust in your works to save you --- this goes all the way back to Cain and Abel, where Cain is trusting his works instead of the blood of the lamb, all the way back to the Tower of Babel, where they’re trying to do their works/build their way to heaven, and all throughout Galatians he warns us: It's a false gospel when you think that you are justified by works, all throughout Romans he tells us we are not justified by works.
      All throughout the Bible God warns us.. 'trust Christ for salvation, don’t trust works' !
      The devil wants to get in the back door, he doesn’t just want to come right out and say, 'trust works!' knowing good and well that the Bible says NOT to trust works, so he wants to deceive you so you think: 
      "Well... it's not works but you do have to repent of your sins",
      .....OR....
      "Well.... I’m not saying it’s works but you can’t just live however you want, you gotta do something right... You gotta at least go to church three times a month or something, I mean you know you gotta do something right?"
      NO !!
      You have to do nothing because Jesus did everything, you believe on Christ, HIS works are sufficient, we don’t have to add anything to His works, JESUS CHRIST PAID IT ALL. 
       


    • By JacquelineDeane55
      Even if it was just two, it was all worth it. Their eternal destiny is now forever changed. Praise GOD He saved their souls.
      I helped invite people to VBS, but I don't know how many children actually came.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 44 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online



×