|
| |
Who is God referring to? |
|
|
|
Gen 1:26
|
| |
I have learned that often kings refer to themselves in a plural way. The word for God in Hebrew (Elohim) is plural, so the statement likely indicates that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity - in the unity of God there is plurality. Some believe this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels. |
| |
WHAT DOES JESUS MEAN BY THIS VERSE |
|
|
|
John 14:6
|
| |
Please read Hebrews chapter 9
To come to the FATHER you must believe on Jesus whom the FATHER sent.......... |
| |
Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's? |
|
|
|
Heb 11:4
|
| |
Heb. 11:4 says that Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain. That is a clear statement in Scripture. We next need to ask, "Why was Abel's offering better?" It is clear from the Gen 4 account that first each person's offering is described and then the text says the LORD had regard (or did not have regard) for that person AND their offering. So, the person was connected to the offering because -- as Hebrews points out -- the kind of offering brought was a clear demonstration of the person's faith. Finally, if one studies the nature of sacrifices made throughout Scripture, it is clear that God requires a blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of His people. It is completely a sound inference to say that Abel's offering was pleasing because it was a blood sacrifice. In the previous chapter, God kills an animal (blood) to get the skins for Adam and Eve's clothes. Later, Abraham is about to make a blood offering of his son Isaac, (though he substitutes a ram instead). This is the most important reason for understanding that - IN CONTEXT - Abel's offering was preferred was because it was a blood offering: because it was a type of the ultimate blood sacrifice and substitute, Jesus Christ. Abel's blood even cried out from the ground! Abel himself was a picture of Jesus Christ: though innocent he was killed, and the Lord replaced him, "resurrecting" the line of the promised Seed of the woman, by causing Eve to give birth to Seth. Just like the word "trinity" is not in the Bible but is clearly taught, so it is legitimate to infer the meaning of something like this when so much of the rest of Scripture in totality is in support of it.
|
| |
Daniel: Son of man? |
|
|
|
Dan 8:17
|
| |
In Hebrew, "son of man" means an individual man. The Lord used this phrase in addressing Daniel, and over 80 times in addressing Ezekiel. |
| |
Could someone explain these descendances |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
I looked this up in my Bible dictionary, I don't think it will help you much, but give it a read. .................. LAMECH (Heb. lemekh, meaning undetermined). 1. A son of Methushael (Gen 4:18-24) and a descendant of Cain, who had two wives, Adah and Zillah. His sons founded the nomadic life and the musical arts, and invented metalcrafts and instruments of war. Lamech's song (4:23-24) expresses every feature of Hebrew poetry (alliteration, parallelism, poetic diction, etc.). 2. The son of Methuselah (5:28-31). This man, a descendant of Seth, became the father of Noah. His faith is attested by the name he gave his son, Noah (meaning "rest"), and by the hope of "comfort" (5:29) that he anticipated in his son's life. ................... I'm just a layperson without much Bible study (just Bible study at home and at church), but I'll keep trying to answer posts here - it help's me understand God's Word better too! |
| |
Why is the Apocrypha not included? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
The Hebrew Bible just has our OT part, the Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha, while the Protestant Bible does not. The overriding reason for the exclusion of the Apocrypha is to say Protestants believe they're not inspired, thus not Word of God. Under this heading, various reasons are suggested, some being 1 factual fallacies (say regarding historical facts) are found, 2 they have no recognized Hebrew originals, 3 they're not in the Hebrew Bible traditionally used, 4 if they're included, the resultant "Bible" (OT) doesn't fit the descriptions in the NT |
| |
Bible differences, Christian-Catholic |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
The Apocrypha are interspersed among the canonical books of the Old Testament in the LXX and Vulgate, but not found in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Jewish people, who produced the Old Testament from the inspiration of God, and Protestants do not consider the Apocrypha canonical. The Roman Catholic Church received the Apocrypha as deuterocanonical at the Council of Trent in 1546. |
| |
Why "son of man"? |
|
|
|
Dan 8:17
|
| |
I don't know the difference in the Greek and Hebrew, but was there an obvious or logical reason that God chose in His word to call Daniel, Ezekial, etc., "son of man", but also refered to Christ as this also? |
| |
Why is the Apocrypha not God inspired? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
There are many reasons that the Apocrypha are not considered to be part of the Hebrew Canon; but, I'd like to address at this time the two books of Macabees. Malachi was the last prophet to speak exclusively to Israel. Even I Maccabees 9:27 and 14:41 confirm that "prophets [had
ceased to appear
among the people." Therefore I and 2 Maccabees could not have been inspired by God and consequently were not part of Scripture. Aside from the errors found in these books I think the above illustration is a valid enough reason to exclude these books from the Canon of Scripture. Which of course they were prior to the 16th century when the Council of Trent proclaimed them scripture. I hope this helps. In Christ, |
| |
Can anyone give me more reasons? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
More Reasons .. ok
1.Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is only in Latin.
2.None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3.The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4.The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church.
5.The Apocrypha contains statements which not only contradict
the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6.The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
(2Maccabees 12:43-45), 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:
(Ecclesiasticus 3:30), Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
(Tobit 12:8-9, 17), It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Magic:
(Tobit 6:5-8), If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
(Wisdom 8:19-20), And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
|
| |
Is Hades Hell? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term “Sheol,” which refers in general to the place of the dead. In some translations it is translated 'hell'.The word Sheol occurs sixty-five times in the Hebrew Bible. The King James Version translates thirty-one of the occurrences as “hell”; another thirty-one occurrences as “grave”; and three occurrences as “pit” The Septuagint—the earliest Greek translation of the Old Testament—used hades to translate the Hebrew word Sheol.“Gehenna,” more precisely refers to hell. |
| |
So then, what is Hades? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
"In the Septuagint, Hades is virtually synonymous with the Hebrew Sheol, the place-name of the abode of the dead. Thus, the word has in itself no doctrine of reward or punishment: see Ac. 2.27; Rev. 20.13. It appears, however, in Matt. 16.18 as the locus of opposition to the church, and this leads on to Matt. 11.23 (Lk. 10.15) and Lk. 16.23 where Hades is the place of punishment of the wicked dead." (Taken from - - EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY. Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Baker Books).
It would seem that Hades and hell are synonymous. |
| |
Who were the son's of God in Job? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
The NIV translates the "sons of God" to "Angels". The Hebrew word used is Ben-elohiym and roughly translates to "A group, sons of, or descendents of a mighty one or God" Because they were there with God and Satan would imply Angels rather than man. The Nephilim mentioned in Gen 6:4 could potentially refer to these Angels. This could explain why the children of the Nephilim and women were bigger and stronger than man. (also see Num 13:33, Num 13:28, Deut 1:28, Josh 11:22 and Josh 14:12 in this order) |
| |
COULD A BELIEVER LOSE THEIR SALVATION? |
|
|
|
Hebrews
|
| |
See notes on Luke 8:13 and Hebrews 6:4 |
| |
Take Your Holy Spirit from me? |
|
|
|
Ps 51:11
|
| |
THE HEBREW WORD USED HERE IS VERY CLEAR.Qodesh AND MEANS DONT REMOVE YOUR SACREDNESS , OR YOUR CLEANSING POWER FROM ME.WE KNOW THAT WE ONLY CAN DO NOTHING OF OURSELVES BUT NEED HIM TO DO THAT WHICH IS GOOD.IT IS HIS HOLY SPIRIT THAT MAKES US CLEAN NOT OURS.AS WE SEE IN VERSE 10 ONLY HE CAN GIVE A NEW HEART.VERSE 11 HE DOSENT ASK FOR HIS SALVATION ONLY A NEW ATTITUDE VERSE 12 DAVID ASKED FOR THE JOY OF HIS SALVATION BACK NOT HIS SALVATION. IF THE LORD TOOK HIS SPIRIT FROM US WE WOULD CEASE TO EXIST.DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR FRIEND WAS TALKING ABOUT.HOPE THIS HELPS LOVE YOUR BROTHER IN CHRIST RC.SCROLL |
| |
God, Satan, and Job's sons discuss dad? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
I admit I'm not a Hebrew scholar but in verse 4 (not 5) when it mentions Job's sons, it uses the word "ben" by itself. (translates to sons, children, descendents...") In verse 6 it uses the words ben-elohiym which translate to Sons of God. Putting this in context then tells us the Sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came with them. The Hebrew word for present themselves is "yasab" which translates "to stand before". This implies that the sons of God as well as satan were literally standing in God's presense. How could you interpret this as being Job's sons? Do you really think that God, satan, and Job's sons were standing around talking about Job's faith?
Gen 6:4 does use the same "ben-elohiym" when talking about the Sons of God. Whether or not the Nephilim are the offspring of the Sons of God and the daughters of man, I haven't investigated thoroughly enough to make a definite conclusion.
Keep in mind that the ASV and KJVs are a word for word translation while the NIV is a thought for thought translation. When doing a word for word translation you run the risk of loosing the original meaning because some words could have more than one meaining and also the the way the words were used together could have different meanings. A thought for thought translation tries to take this into account. Granted, you rely upon how the interpreter translates but same goes for what words the word for word translators choose. |
| |
Sabbath laws....do? or don't? |
|
|
|
Col 2:16
|
| |
Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today?
. . . We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view.
. . . In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
. . . The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.
. . . The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.
. . . In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).
. . . Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.
. . . There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.
. . . When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.
. . . The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.
. . . In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).
. . . In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).
. . . The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).
. . . Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).
. . . So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath."
. . . (www.gty.org Click on Issues and Answers. Click on Previous Topics) |
| |
What is the nature of the beast (666)? |
|
|
|
Rev 13:18
|
| |
First of all, you must admit that the name of Jesus is not english. Nor is the number 666 english. Jesus was a Jew, and his name in peoples mouth were "Joshua". Me, as a swedish man, has another alphabeth then the english one. Also the greek differs from the english, as well as the hebrew. If we are to get involved in telling and counting - at least we have to hold on to the original languages.
If we are supposed to do these countings, addings and dividings, is another question. How do you know that the number 666 should be divided in 76, to get the right understanding of the number? Why isn't it supposed to be subtraction och multiplication? The world "calculate", I think, is not supposed to be understood as should we be mathematical genius to understand the bible, but furthermore that we must have the knowledge of the spirit, that Paul tells us about in Ephesians.
There are more things to be asked in this matter, but let him who has understanding calculate...
Excuse my bad english... |
| |
Do you have to be baptized to be saved? |
|
|
|
Rom 6:3
|
| |
Would you then say that the thief on the cross was not saved because he was not baptized? And how about Abraham and David? And Moses. Is it not faith in God through His grace which saves (Ehesians 2: 8,9), as exemplified by Abraham?
Read Hebrews chapter eleven gives a list of heroes of the faith, and they are commended for believing God, not for being baptized.
Consider this: the records in Acts have people being saved, then being baptized. They are not saved because they are baptized, but baptized because they are saved. |
| |
How best to translate Ps. 45:6? |
|
|
|
Psalm
|
| |
I was wondering if Ps. 45:6 could be translated any other way than "Thy throne O God, is forever and ever..." This is directly quoted in Hebrews chapter 1. Some groups, notably Jehovah's Witnesses, claim that this should be translated in Hebrews as "God is thy throne forever and ever..." This is an alternate reading in some Bibles, but it makes no sense to me. But if the verse in the Psalms can ONLY be translated this one way, then that would invalidate the alternate translation. I know that these verses are vocative tenses, with no verb, which can make it a little dicey sometimes translating. And I'm aware that both "throne" and "God" in Hebrews end in the same nominative ending, supposedly making them interchangeable. But again, "God is thy throne," makes no sense. A throne is the place from which one rules, and God isn't a place.
Thanks for any help anyone can give me! Bonnie |
| |
God, Satan, and Job's sons discuss dad? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
I'll try and further investigate the "sons of God" as to whether it means man or angels.
As far as the NIV version, I believe that God also inspired the translators when pulling out the meaning of what the original authors wrote. I guess to really know, we'd all have to learn Hebrew and Greek and study the original manuscripts. But if I am remembering correctly, the New Testiment (or parts of it) was most likely written in Aramaic and was later translated to Greek. Since we no longer have the original, we must rely on those early translators. |
| |
What are the Nephilim? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
The Nephilim in the Bible are "people of great size and strength. The Hebrew word means 'fallen ones.' In men's eyes they were the 'mighty men...of old, men of renown,' but in God's eyes they were sinners ('fallen ones') ripe for judgment." (Zondervan NASB Study Bile, p. 12) |
| |
Uprightness is...scepter of Thy kingdom |
|
|
|
Psalm
|
| |
As an addition to the comment about the Jehovah's Witness bible, it could be noted that it would be a small "g" as in "the Word was a god."
I would think with you also, Bonnie, that God is not a place so "God is thy throne forever" would be a difficult reading. However, if you thought of the throne as an attribute of God, it could be meaningful. I would connect the idea of throne with the attribute of righteousness. God rules in righteousness. Ps. 92:15 says that there is no unrighteousness in Him. Hebrews l:9 speaks of the Son saying that "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness...and Thou remainest...and Thy years will not come to an end." God's throne is forever and He will always be righteous. More than that, God is our righteousness, and our eternal life is in His Son. I Jn 5:ll
So I don't think that God is a place but He is love, He is light andor Light, He is good, He is a rock andor Rock; our King and Ruler.
Ps. 39:4 Sing praises to the Lord, you His godly ones. Ray V.H. |
| |
Is there no volition? |
|
|
|
John 15:4
|
| |
Dear fellow, Please understand that I mean dear, and I mean fellow. I am in no way being condescending. I don't know your name, your gender, your age, or your place of domicile. I know you only as a Christian. You are apparently well-read and fervent in your faith in Christ Jesus. I injected irony into my comments, and I did say, "...you believe...," which was inappropriate. You are correct in stating that you never mentioned the word election. For these I humbly apologize. This forum is for the benefit of all who read, of the many-membered body of Christ. It seems to me that your answers tend to be more theological or philosophical. I can see that you have spent a great deal of time studying the Bible and the works of others (dead and alive) that dedicated themselves to the study of the Bible. Though I also study, my calling leads me to be more concerned with the application of faith in everyday terms dealing with common folk. Very few people understand (or care) about how Hebrew and Greek applies to them. Few people really grasp the difference between 'produce' and 'bear' fruit. Even I know that my good works do not purchase my salvation, and I think that anybody who has come to a personal relationship with Jesus understands this. "Credit for us?"(scoff) Yes, I think we do participate in the battle against sin. I do understand that "all praise is God's," but we also enter the fray. Maybe you live in an environment with little temptation or trial. Where I live there are less than 1 percent professing Christians. Theoretical faith has little use. When someone asks me, "How do I abide in Christ?" I have to give them some practical direction, not a theological discourse. Winning arguments doesn't win souls here. It only further alienates those who are already convinced that all Christian are pedantic and arrogant. Please understand my point of view, and I will try to reciprocate. Back to this forum, I am under the impression that many who participate are searching for practical means of serving God. I hope be share with them, giving and receiving as we work out our salvation.
Peace to you, in Jesus' name. |
| |
Is John 6:66 the answer to 666 riddle? |
|
|
|
John 6:66
|
| |
The present chapter divisions in our Bibles were invented in 1205 by Stephen Langton, a professor in Paris (he later became Archbishop of Canterbury), who put these into a Vulgate edition of the Bible. These chapter divisions were first used by the Jews in 1330 for the Hebrew Old Testament in a manuscript and for a printed edition in 1516. This system of chapter divisions likewise came into the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the 1400s.
It was Robert Stephanus, a Parisian book printer, who added the verse divisions we use today. He took over the verse divisions already indicated in the Hebrew Bible by the soph pasuq (these were gaps in the text to help scholars find their place) and assigned numbers to them within the chapter divisions already assigned by Stephan Langton. While riding on horseback from Paris to Lyons he affixed his own verse divisions to the New Testament and numbered them within Langton's chapter divisions. Consequently the quality of his work was not the best...
From this brief survey of the history of the Bible's chapter and verse divisions it is very apparent that these are nothing more than a handy method of reference. They do not necessarily represent those units of composition present in the author's mind as he strove to impart his thoughts. ...
There is no doubt that the chapter divisions which we have inherited from Langton leave much to be desired. These divisions do not rest upon a comprehension of the literary structure of the Biblical books. ... All that we can do is to realize that this system falls far short of doing justice to the inherent units of Scripture.
(The above is exerpted from the web site "Chapters and Verses -- Late Comers" by Daniel P. Fuller; www.fuller.edu. Text restrictions in the answer format prevent me from listing the complete web site address - it won't allow the backslash character.) |
| |
What is the best version of the Bible? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
. . . The best Bible version is the one YOU use -- the one you can understand AND trust.
. . . If you asked 20 different people what's the best version, you would get 20 different answers.
. . . First you have to answer the question, best for what? What will you be using this Bible for -- general reading, devotional reading, personal study, evangelism, teaching youth, etc.?
. . . I personally use 16 different versions of the Bible. What are my top recommendations?
. . . They are, in alphabetical order:
. . . The Amplified Bible
. . . New American Standard Bible
. . . New International Version
. . . New King James Version.
. . . Which is my personal favorite over all, for reading, study, teaching, memorization, devotional reading, etc.?
It's the New American Standard Version of the Bible. The New American Standard has been widely acclaimed as "the most literally accurate translation" from the original languages. Today the NASB remains the most literally accurate Bible in the English language. I use many translations every week, but after 30 years of reading, studying, teaching and praying in the NASB, it is my personal favorite over all the others.
. . . The advocates of the King James Only movement are violently opposed to any and all modern translations. Their view is the KJV is the only perfect (without error) English Bible in existence. I merely define their views, as I understand them. I refuse to be drawn into a dispute over the King James Only controversy. I personally love and respect the King James and have done all my memory work in it. But is it the most literally accurate Bible in the English language? No. While it contains a remarkable degree of general accuracy, it cannot and does not make the claim for itself of being the only perfect English translation. NO TRANSLATION IS PERFECT, INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE. Inerrancy can be said to apply only to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. No honest Bible scholar would claim otherwise.
. . . Brothers and sisters, let us live at peace with one another. Back to my original answer: The best Bible version is the one you use -- the one you can understand AND trust. |
| |
What is the best version of the Bible? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
NASB is the most literal to the Hebrew and Greek. From personal experience in studying the languages I have found this to be true. Sometimes the traslation can be a bit "wooden" and literal, however, I would rather err on the literal side |
| |
Do those in heaven know what's happening |
|
|
|
Heb 12:1
|
| |
Do those in heaven know what's happening on earth?
...Some teach that our deceased Christian loved ones can see us from heaven. They frequently cite from Hebrews 12:1, which says: "Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us . . . run with endurance the race that is set before us."
...They interpret that to mean our departed loved ones watch us like spectators do in a stadium, seeing our every move and cheering us on. While that may seem comforting, is the Bible really teaching that?
|
| |
COULD A BELIEVER LOSE THEIR SALVATION? |
|
|
|
Hebrews
|
| |
Is it possible for redeemed people to lose their salvation?
. . . The Bible says no. One who is saved "has everlasting life, and . . . is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24). Eternal life by definition cannot be temporary. It is the present possession of all those who have truly trusted Christ. Romans 8:28-39 reveals clearly that there is nothing in the universe that can separate the elect from the love of God. The One who chose to save you "is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 24).
. . . According to Scripture, people who profess to know Christ at one time but later deny Him were never really saved to begin with. First John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us." A true believer will never depart from the faith (Philippians 1:6), so those who do so are revealing that they were never truly saved (John 8:31; Hebrews 3:14).
. . . Even true Christians can sin, however, and because of that may lack assurance of salvation (Psalm 51:12). A failure to grow spiritually can also rob us of the confidence that we are God's children (2 Peter 1:9). But anyone indwelt by the Holy Spirit is secure eternally, because He is the "deposit guaranteeing our inheritance" (Ephesians 1:14).
. . . For further study:
John MacArthur, Eternal Security (tape series). © 2000 Grace to You |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
