Hebrews 6:1-6

[SeaBass]

No, He is warning them if their true faith is in christ, then stay, For if you leave, you prove your true faith was in the works of the law. and never in Christ,
If you faith is in christ you would never leave, thats said all over scripture.

The warning is about Christians falling away and becoming lost by returning back to the OT law and Judaism.

If eternal security were true, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to fall away, IMPOSSIBLE for them to return back to the OT law/Judaism becoming lost and the warnings and admonishments are non-sense.

You cannot say if they leave they were "and never in Christ" for it has been shown they were Christians. So you cannot imply that if they leave then they never really had faith in Christ.

 

[DesiredHaven]

Yes rebuked by his treatment of the Gentiles, not rebuked for giving false teachings of the word.

And even if you go to the book of Galatians, Peter was not rebuked by Paul for giving false teaching. He was rebuked by Paul for letting false teachers sneak in and teach a false gospel to the Galatians.

Second James was an Apostle, and you left off the Apostle Jude's epistle.
You can try and discredit a persons stance as an apostle all you want by saying they were just missionaries, but the word of God will not let you. As it says the Lord appointed 70 others (Luke 10:1), Apostle Paul shows there was more then 12 apostles (1 Corinthians 15:4-8), and the bible clearly calls others such as Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus as apostles.

There has been a resounding lie throughout the past few years of teaching only 11 Apostles + Paul, but that is clearly refuted by many scriptures...............

Ever notice that when Jesus rebuked Satan in Peter (per the cross of Christ) and becoming an offense to Christ (there) it was for minding not the things that be of God but of men?

That is exactly where Peter gets nailed with a rebuke by Paul in respects to the circumcision, because even Paul said the offense of the cross itself ceases in respects to the preaching of circumcision (or if Paul yet did).

Between those two pictures where Peter is there is a sameness hid in them. Both in respects to "fear of man bring a snare" and Peters "fear of the circumcision", or becoming an offense to Christ (in respects to the cross) and in contrast to the same "minding the things that be of men" Mat 12:16 And its right there ( in respects to the same) that he become an offense to Christ. And then we see that picture with Peter along with Pauls own words which he had stated And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. So there is being an offense to Christ (pertaining to the cross) which stands in direct contrast to the things that be of men and again an offense of cross which also ceases in the preaching of circumcision itself. Both have Peter (things of men, circumcision) and both offenses in the center. And Jesus in Peters face and Paul in Peters face as a check in respects to the same things (perhaps even for us).

This was to Kenneths post #92, sorry I had to edit that in

 

[kennethcadwell]

You say some troubling things. You say that the RCC teaches a lot of things contrary to the bible which is true then you say that they teach truth as well. That is a straw man argument. Jesus said a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. How much poison will you tolerate in your drinking water?

Here's the red herring. The word once saved always saved are not in the bible. Neither is the word trinity. That does not make the doctrine untrue. God does not operate in a temporal fashion like man. God inhabits eternity man inhabits the earth. When God does something it has His eternal nature attached to it. Man will live for eternity somewhere. Either with God or apart from God. When God saves someone it is for eternity.

You have fallen prey to the proof texting flaw of the apostate. Context is necessary to reveal the proof in the text. You have misrepresented the scriptures in your effort to defend yourself.

This passage is not difficult if one will simply believe God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

That is not a straw man debate, for if one is constantly going to keep showing a hate doctrine towards those of that church in their wording they use. Then how would those like it if the reverse is done to them, and another instead of showing God's love constantly points out the false teaching in the doctrine they are under.

We are called to give a mixture of both God's love with the warnings, and just because one teaches a lot of falsehoods does not mean they don't have some truths as well they teach from the bible. Even the Paulinian and OSAS doctrines both started by man has some flaws, some big some small.
Paulinians say we can cancel out all of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Jude, and Hebrews; saying they do not apply to us. OSAS use a faulty accusation on others of a works to earn salvation debate, when personal works mean nothing, but the bible does clearly say many will fall from the faith. Go back to a life of unbelief by willful sins.

We are called to rebuke, exhort, and then esteem others by God's word, and we are to do it out of love.
Some forget the love aspect and just want to rebuke people harshly and even go as far as condemning them. We must lead others out of the lies they have been taught by love through His Word. And we are not to judge others until the Lord returns as Apostle Paul clearly says.

 

[SeaBass]

Not true.

Because one who has true faith in God has no desire to sin, thus your red herring/straw man is refuted.

Your the one excusing your sin, as long as you do not murder commit sexual sin, your ok. you can do all the little sins you want, it is only a mistake.

News flash. all those little sins are just as evil in the eyes of a perfect God as murder and sexual sin. When you realise that MAYBE you can finally start to see Gods truth.

Sure it' s true, using his own "deductive reasoning".

1 John 1:7-10 proves that Christians do sin, and for Christians to commit sin means there must be a desire in the heart to commit those sin, sins have their beginning in the heart then acted upon.

Secondly, if eternal security were true making salvation UNconditional then the Christian CAN UNCONDTIONALLY desire ANYTHING and not lose his salvation. Or are you suggesting a Christian's salvation is CONDITIONAL upon what he desires?

 

[DesiredHaven]

Its pretty cool how sin can mean mistaken too.

Just do a word play on mistake

Separate the word as MIS-STAKE

Like ya

MISSED the STAKE

Get it?

The cross is... an upright STAKE

Ya missed it...?

Mis- stake...?
(I thought that was cute)

 

[kennethcadwell]

I guess it is time to once again prove you a liar.



Your so deep into it, you can't even see your own flaws. or when you lie.

Don't expect us to come crawling to your gospel. when you can not even admit or confess to us you were wrong, how can we expect that you actually went to God and confessed?

Once again you did not prove nothing with your false accusation !!!

You said I told you to go somewhere besides the bible, in which I told you no such thing.
What I showed was quotes from the early church leaders who showed OSAS was not taught in the early church. I never said you had to believe them, as I said if you want to deny what they say that is on you. Once again it is your choice to choose, just like God said it is our choice to choose life through Christ or death through sins.

You reposted the quotes I gave but nowhere in it did I say you have to go by them, to deny quotes from Holy Spirit lead people is your choice.
What I did say and keep mentioning is Barnabas who was recognized as a true Apostle in the bible gave some of those quotes around 70 AD as it showed, and Polycarp who wrote many writings was an understudy and worked side by side with the Apostle John in the faith.

So once again you are throwing around false accusations that you did not prove or back up.
Choose what you wish, as I will continue to go by Gods Word, and His Holy Spirit and what He directs me to.....

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The warning is about Christians falling away and becoming lost by returning back to the OT law and Judaism.

If eternal security were true, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to fall away, IMPOSSIBLE for them to return back to the OT law/Judaism becoming lost and the warnings and admonishments are non-sense.

You cannot say if they leave they were "and never in Christ" for it has been shown they were Christians. So you cannot imply that if they leave then they never really had faith in Christ.

It is impossible to fall away.

That why the author said to stop giving the gospel

Thats why the author said that if the ground produces thorns and thistles it is useless and NEAR to being cursed, (it is not cursed, thus no loss of salvation)

Thats why he said he was more concerned with BETTER things, things which ACCOMPANY being saved. (moving on from what saves us)

Thats why he said to keep going to realise the FULL assurance of hope. even till the end, (there is NO HOPE if one can lose salvation) so we do not get sluggish (caused by fear of losing salvation, or a loss of hope)

Thats why he mentioned Gods OATH to abraham, WAS HIS OATH (unconditional. God has to keep his word) and God wants to make that SAME OATH with us, thus we can tke refuge in Gods eternal promise of hope and not fear losing salvation (which the law teaches)

He said this hope is the anchor of the soul (not an anchor if it can be lost, and anchor is held fast so it does not slip. the anchor is Christ, which is both sure and steadfast

Which is Christ is high priest forever in order of melchisedeck, and not the faulty arronick preist, who could never forgive sin, which cased salvation to be of NO HOPE. LOST every time you sinned, And NO ASSURANCE

Sorry seapuppy, The whole passage refutes your claim.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Once again you did not prove nothing with your false accusation !!!

You said I told you to go somewhere besides the bible, in which I told you no such thing.
What I showed was quotes from the early church leaders who showed OSAS was not taught in the early church. I never said you had to believe them, as I said if you want to deny what they say that is on you. Once again it is your choice to choose, just like God said it is our choice to choose life through Christ or death through sins.

You reposted the quotes I gave but nowhere in it did I say you have to go by them, to deny quotes from Holy Spirit lead people is your choice.
What I did say and keep mentioning is Barnabas who was recognized as a true Apostle in the bible gave some of those quotes around 70 AD as it showed, and Polycarp who wrote many writings was an understudy and worked side by side with the Apostle John in the faith.

So once again you are throwing around false accusations that you did not prove or back up.
Choose what you wish, as I will continue to go by Gods Word, and His Holy Spirit and what He directs me to.....

dude, You told us to search what the early church fathers said.

Your denying your own example. and proving how decieved you are and unwilling to admit when you have been proven wrong.

Admit you made a mistake. how hard is that?

Oh thats right, it is just a small sin, so it is not major (rolls eyes)

 

[DesiredHaven]

I heard some of the early church fathers taught universalism they really seem to be a smorgasbord of doctrines among themselves.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Its pretty cool how sin can mean mistaken too.

Just do a word play on mistake

Separate the word as MIS-STAKE

Like ya

MISSED the STAKE

Get it?

The cross is... an upright STAKE

Ya missed it...?

Mis- stake...?
(I thought that was cute)

Everybody uses word play when it suits or doesn't suit the doctrine they have been taught.
Just like the word rapture; How many believe it will happen, and how many believe it will not just because that word is not in the bible?

The word rapture is a new term but an old teaching throughout the church.
The one thing people have when reading is they are so use to now day English that they do not fully understand the context of how things were worded back then. They do not realize some Greek and Hebrew words have multiple meanings and used different ways just like some of our English words can be. Strong's Greek Concordance shows pisteuo (belief/believe) is used in different ways/context in scripture, and one of which way that seems to get overlooked is a continuance leading to.....

Word play will always be an issue in study if one does not let the Holy Spirit give the knowledge to them...

 

[kennethcadwell]

dude, You told us to search what the early church fathers said.

Your denying your own example. and proving how decieved you are and unwilling to admit when you have been proven wrong.

Admit you made a mistake. how hard is that?

Oh thats right, it is just a small sin, so it is not major (rolls eyes)

Search by the Holy Spirits guidance and choosing to believe what you read is two separate things.

The Holy Spirit can show you personally or by another His truth all day long, but if you still choose to deny what was shown to you that is on you. God does not force anybody to obey His will, He wants us out of love to choose to obey Him.

I will not admit to a false allegation you have made, so keep up your belittling if you choose.............

 

[dcontroversal]

Deductive reasoning 102:

1) Do you believe one can lose salvation? NO
2) If one CANNOT lose salvation, then salvation is NOT based upon what one does or does not do/works....


....therefore one can UNconditionally do any works he desires to do, do all the sinful works he desires to do and still be saved having been given a license to sin.

You got point one right...glad to see you finally admit the truth....point two is where your logic falls apart for one must trust into Christ to be saved...it is called faith which is a GIFT from GOD...now when you can acknowledge that truth you will be on the way to understanding and actually being born from above.....

 

[SeaBass]

It is impossible to fall away.

Heb 6:6 "If they shall fall away...."

Gal 5:4 "...ye are fallen from grace."

Acts 1:25 ".... from which Judas by transgression fell."

Lk 8:13 "..... which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away."

1 Cor 10:12 "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

1 Tim 3:6,7 "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride hefall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

Heb 4:11 "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."

James 5:12 ".... but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

2 Pet 2:10 "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall neverfall:"

2 Pet 3:17 "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

Christians certainly can fall away.

That why the author said to stop giving the gospel

Where did he say this???

Thats why the author said that if the ground produces thorns and thistles it is useless and NEAR to being cursed, (it is not cursed, thus no loss of salvation)

Thats why he said he was more concerned with BETTER things, things which ACCOMPANY being saved. (moving on from what saves us)

Thats why he said to keep going to realise the FULL assurance of hope. even till the end, (there is NO HOPE if one can lose salvation) so we do not get sluggish (caused by fear of losing salvation, or a loss of hope)

Heb 6:7,8 "For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned."

The Hebrew writer was just talking about Christians that fall, v6. To drive that point home, he makes an analogy to the fact men burn fields that are grown over and useless. If those Jewish Christians allow themselves to become grwon over, useless, unproductive they too will be burned. Near to being cursed is those Jewish Christians had not yet reached that point,

Thats why he mentioned Gods OATH to abraham, WAS HIS OATH (unconditional. God has to keep his word) and God wants to make that SAME OATH with us, thus we can tke refuge in Gods eternal promise of hope and not fear losing salvation (which the law teaches)

He said this hope is the anchor of the soul (not an anchor if it can be lost, and anchor is held fast so it does not slip. the anchor is Christ, which is both sure and steadfast

Which is Christ is high priest forever in order of melchisedeck, and not the faulty arronick preist, who could never forgive sin, which cased salvation to be of NO HOPE. LOST every time you sinned, And NO ASSURANCE

Sorry seapuppy, The whole passage refutes your claim.

Where did God make an oath to Abraham (or us today) that Abraham would be saved UNconditianlly no matter what Abraham did, whether Abraham obeyed or disobeyed God?

 

[kennethcadwell]

I heard some of the early church fathers taught universalism they really seem to be a smorgasbord of doctrines among themselves.

Universalism has nothing to do with a varitey of doctrines.
It means that everybody no matter what background or race they come from has the right to salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is only one doctrine we are to follow, and that is the Words of the Lord Himself that the Holy Spirit will guide us in all truth. If Paul, Mark, Matthew, John, Jude, and Peter are all true Holy Spirit lead Apostles then the rest that the Lord choose also have to be recognized as such. If not then that puts a damper on some of these men started doctrines floating around. Because if we do not recognize all the one's chosen by God, why should we recognize any of them? They should all get the same do credit as saints of our God that did His will.

 

[dcontroversal]

dude, You told us to search what the early church fathers said.

Your denying your own example. and proving how decieved you are and unwilling to admit when you have been proven wrong.

Admit you made a mistake. how hard is that?

Oh thats right, it is just a small sin, so it is not major (rolls eyes)

I see that KENNY is doing the twist again....how many times did he say the HOLY SPIRIT will guide you to the truth including extra biblical sources.......now it appears that it not the case.....it is impossible to reason with someone who will say one thing and deny and or change what they said when they get called on it.......IMPOSSIBLE for sure......!

 

[DesiredHaven]

Everybody uses word play when it suits or doesn't suit the doctrine they have been taught.
Just like the word rapture; How many believe it will happen, and how many believe it will not just because that word is not in the bible?

The word rapture is a new term but an old teaching throughout the church.
The one thing people have when reading is they are so use to now day English that they do not fully understand the context of how things were worded back then. They do not realize some Greek and Hebrew words have multiple meanings and used different ways just like some of our English words can be. Strong's Greek Concordance shows pisteuo (belief/believe) is used in different ways/context in scripture, and one of which way that seems to get overlooked is a continuance leading to.....

Word play will always be an issue in study if one does not let the Holy Spirit give the knowledge to them...

I use word plays all the time in my head. Suitable or not.

 

[valiant]

Ever notice that when Jesus rebuked Satan in Peter (per the cross of Christ) and becoming an offense to Christ (there) it was for minding not the things that be of God but of men?

That is exactly where Peter gets nailed with a rebuke by Paul in respects to the circumcision, because even Paul said the offense of the cross itself ceases in respects to the preaching of circumcision (or if Paul yet did).

Between those two pictures where Peter is there is a sameness hid in them. Both in respects to "fear of man bring a snare" and Peters "fear of the circumcision", or becoming an offense to Christ (in respects to the cross) and in contrast to the same "minding the things that be of men" Mat 12:16 And its right there ( in respects to the same) that he become an offense to Christ. And then we see that picture with Peter along with Pauls own words which he had stated And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. So there is being an offense to Christ (pertaining to the cross) which stands in direct contrast to the things that be of men and again an offense of cross which also ceases in the preaching of circumcision itself. Both have Peter (things of men, circumcision) and both offenses in the center. And Jesus in Peters face and Paul in Peters face as a check in respects to the same things (perhaps even for us).

This was to Kenneths post #92, sorry I had to edit that in

Peter was not arguing about circumcision. he was separating himself from the gentile Christians because they ate unclean food. and were not seen as ritually clean

 

[DesiredHaven]

Universalism has nothing to do with a varitey of doctrines.
It means that everybody no matter what background or race they come from has the right to salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is only one doctrine we are to follow, and that is the Words of the Lord Himself that the Holy Spirit will guide us in all truth. If Paul, Mark, Matthew, John, Jude, and Peter are all true Holy Spirit lead Apostles then the rest that the Lord choose also have to be recognized as such. If not then that puts a damper on some of these men started doctrines floating around. Because if we do not recognize all the one's chosen by God, why should we recognize any of them? They should all get the same do credit as saints of our God that did His will.

I said thats what I heard but I surely dont know, because I dont have my nose in every doctrine out there, there were a few debates on some really weird and crazy stuff over at this other board.

I wouldnt touch their doctrines after some of those conversations.

I only prefer men who speak the scriptures and who speak less from themselves, theres just less twisting of things that way and really easy to correct by rehandling the scriptures when they are off.

 

[MarcR]

Yes rebuked by his treatment of the Gentiles, not rebuked for giving false teachings of the word.
And even if you go to the book of Galatians, Peter was not rebuked by Paul for giving false teaching. He was rebuked by Paul for letting false teachers sneak in and teach a false gospel to the Galatians.

Second James was an Apostle, and you left off the Apostle Jude's epistle.
You can try and discredit a persons stance as an apostle all you want by saying they were just missionaries, but the word of God will not let you. As it says the Lord appointed 70 others (Luke 10:1), Apostle Paul shows there was more then 12 apostles (1 Corinthians 15:4-8), and the bible clearly calls others such as Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus as apostles.

There has been a resounding lie throughout the past few years of teaching only 11 Apostles + Paul, but that is clearly refuted by many scriptures...............

Cite them!

 

[dcontroversal]

I see that KENNY is doing the twist again....how many times did he say the HOLY SPIRIT will guide you to the truth including extra biblical sources.......now it appears that it not the case.....it is impossible to reason with someone who will say one thing and deny and or change what they said when they get called on it.......IMPOSSIBLE for sure......!

NOTE posts 28, 29, 40, 41, 53, 54 and the extra biblical sources that he trusts into and points to so as to prove his theology.....I know there is more, but I figured these would be enough.....The Holy Spirit points to the inspired word of God...not some men who did not make the cannon of scriptures.....!

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

dude, You told us to search what the early church fathers said.

Your denying your own example. and proving how decieved you are and unwilling to admit when you have been proven wrong.

Admit you made a mistake. how hard is that?

Oh thats right, it is just a small sin, so it is not major (rolls eyes)