Women Preachers: "Yes" or "No" and WHY?... book chapter and verse please!

[Yuri Solomon]

I know this is a hot topic, but I will take my chances on it. Preachers, I want to know what is your view on this subject and why or why not do you conclude as you do according to the word of God. Now let's be nice and considerate. Everyone has a right to believe what they think is right before God and to be treated with respect. However, the scripture is the final court of arbitration.

[James Pierce]

Hey, whats up Yuri,

The reason why I did not respond to it was because, to me, it looks like you were speaking more on being saved and secured, so I thought I'd jump into that.

One of my main problems that Christians have is that "simply reading the bible" does not always bring about the full meaning at all. In many cases, and in many ways, understanding the cultural/historical context is key. When you discuss with me, I shall use all resources.

I am not sola scripture in the sense that I rely on the bible to bring out ALL answers. Sola Scripture has its flaws in the sense of not bringing out the full understanding of a given scripture. I have not misused any Greek, brother.

You'd truly have to show me where and how I misused the Greek. If you want speak about not responding to post, well, you have not addressed why you misused Col 2:16-17, which is what most Torah denyers use to destroy Torah.

As far as answering the Post, we will have to agree to disagree with this. I do not have anything else to say concerning Torah, because its gonna be the same old responses lol. So, its better to move on talk about OSAS, or any "fresh" topic we can jump into.

God bless, love you,
James

[Yuri Solomon]

Col 2:16-17 is one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the book concerning the holy days, and the sabbath days.

>>> There was a false doctrine called "Ascetism", that was growing in the pagan culture that believers were in… That is why Paul said in verse 16 to let no man judge in meat, and the holy days. No where in that vese did Paul discouraged observing the holy days. This is why historical/cultural context is so needed. <

This is again the perversion of the use of historical/cultural context. The reason “WHY” Paul said “let no man judge in meat, and the holy days” those ceremonial observances are fulfilled and done away with in Christ. While these instructions may be given in relationship to "Ascetism", the ascetism situation is only one application to principle and absolute truth the “NO” one is obligated to these observances anymore.

Again, you are misusing cultural context to twist the scripture and say Paul does not mean what he is actually and clearly saying. He makes a universal negative imperative, “LET NO MAN”. There is no qualifier in the text that localizes his instruction.

You keep making argument from absence, "No where in that vese did Paul discouraged observing the holy days." Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, who never observed such day. If the keeping of these days were to be so, then Paul would have had to encourage it. But in Colossians there were Gnostics Jews doing just that and Paul is discouraging the idea that any such need is a part of Christianity; because, every typical ceremony is fulfilled in the antitype of Christ.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> I have not misused any Greek, brother. There is a scripture in John 6 that OSAS'ers love to use to prove that you are saved and always saved. Jesus said in John 6:39 - And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. Notice the phrase," That I should lose nothing". AHH yes, you see. We cant give up salvation!, but low and behold.. this is not what that phrase means in the Greek. The Greek phrase is "Apollumi me". This is a subjunctive phrase. When something is subjunctive, that means it shows uncertainty, and the possibility that it may or may not happen. In other words.. it is possible for a believer to forfeit their salvation. <

I have clearly told you how you have misused the Greek. When you use the Greek and conclude contrary to context, you have misused the Greek. For instance, “That I should lose nothing"… you want to point out the subjunctive and all that when basic context will not allow for your interpretation. Here’s what I mean. After, “That I should lose nothing” is the phrase “I will raise them up at the last day.” This assertion will not allow for the alternate “POSSIBLE” interpretation you are choosing.

Any Greek scholar knows that in translating there are options even in the Greek that must be determined first by context if possible and then secondly by leaving quoin Greek and looking at classical Greek if necessary.

In the “cultural context,” the idea is that of inheritance. It is the question of how will the son use that which the Father leaves to him; will he gain or lose. Has he learned from his Father how to preserve and utilize his resources? So again, if we employ the cultural context, the situation of it still places all the weight of any loss on Jesus; because, the only issue of this verse is Jesus living up to the will of his Father, which only involves him keeping what the Father has given Him.

A broad look at this verse makes your interpretation literally outlandish; because, believers are incidental to this verse; they are objects not subjects of the verse; this verse is about Jesus and His Father. The verse is about what the Father is giving to the son and the son’s responsibility to keep what the Father gives to him. So if anything is loss that has been given to the son by the Father, then according to this verse it is Jesus’ fault and He has failed at His responsibility to His Father. Context, context, context James, and you will stop having pretext and presuppositions that bias your Greek renderings and cause you to misinterpret the text.

But I know because of your “very particular” (can’t see the forest for the trees) personality (that is not an insult; just acknowledging the way God has made you,) the above “big picture” repudiation of your interpretation will not do for you. So let’s go to the Greek.

The word “ap-ol'-loo-mee” translated “lose”, literally means “to destroy”… So the issue of the text is Jesus not thwarting his inheritance or Him actively bringing that which is of value to waste.

You need another rationale for the use of the subjunctive; it is not about possible forfeiting of salvation, as the object of the subjunctive is "I"... lose nothing.

So simply put, you are misusing the Greek in this case by applying the verb (lose nothing) to the wrong thing (the object rather than the subject). "I" (subject) is active "nothing" (object) is passive. Your interpretation simply will not work.

[James Pierce]

Hey whats up Yuri,

I choose not to respond to the torah rebuttal because it just might be the same answers. But, what I will say is that understanding the cultural/historical context. Without understanding that, you will believe that Paul was refuting the fact that they were observing the holy days, and discouraged them to not follow it.

As I stated above, heretics were judging them about how to observe these days, but Paul said let no one judge them in regards to those, but the fact remains is that The Greek Christians kept Torah, and loved it.

What you stated about Paul was unacceptable. You said that Paul himself did not observe Torah. That cannot be more further from the truth. Paul, a Jew, of course, followed Torah. They kept the sabbath, and met with Gentile Christians EVERY sabbath. He kept the feast days, and those who followed him kept it. I will leave the Torah talk concerning these at that.

Now, to the OSAS doctrine. I agree that Apollomee, in its literal sense, means to destroy. It has other meanings as well, such as to perish, and to be lost. I stand on the fact of possibility still stands, but since it says he shall raise them up on the last day, that shows that a believer falling away is very unlikely to happen. I know a Greek scholar who agrees with this stance as well.

I believe scripture is in harmony, and in light of other scriptures, such as Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 6:4-6, Ezekiel 18:21-31, and many others, it reveals that one must remain in the teachings of God, and its very possible for one to abandon the Lord, even for good. As a Greek student, I am fully aware that context determines the meanings of the Greek language.

Jesus and his apostles consistently told followers to endure in the faith, endure to the end, remain in the teachings of Jesus, stay away from sin.. Why? because they know its very possible to give up salvation, and die in your sins(ezekiel 18). Your righteousness will be forgotten if you fall away for good.

I need no other rationale for the subjunctive case, because the fact remains that he spoke subjunctively, but "security" was added. But, guess what? It is always a condition. Jesus ALWAYS told his boys to abide in me, keep my commandments, etc.

He understood the possibilities of it all, yet he understood that its very unlikely that it'll happen. Maybe that is why you have not seen examples of people falling away in the scriptures.

Be blessed,
James

[Yuri Solomon]

>>> I choose not to respond to the torah rebuttal because it just might be the same answers. But, what I will say is that understanding the cultural/historical context. Without understanding that, you will believe that Paul was refuting the fact that they were observing the holy days, and discouraged them to not follow it. <

I do understand the importance of a cultural context. Our disagreement is not the existence of a cultural context, but whether Paul’s instructions are sourced in the cultural situation or in the principle of Christ. You say it is localized instruction that is only related to the situation itself; I say the situation only presents an opportunity for the application of the universal principle teaching that Christ fulfilled and ended all ceremonial types, symbols, and observances.

>>> As I stated above, heretics were judging them about how to observe these days, but Paul said let no one judge them in regards to those, but the fact remains is that The Greek Christians kept Torah, and loved it. What you stated about Paul was unacceptable. You said that Paul himself did not observe Torah. That cannot be more further from the truth. Paul, a Jew, of course, followed Torah. They kept the sabbath, and met with Gentile Christians EVERY sabbath. He kept the feast days, and those who followed him kept it. I will leave the Torah talk concerning these at that.<

You keep making these UNPROVEN assertions as though I should accept them as fact because you are saying so, but have not even once presented any biblical evidence to back your claim that Gentiles where taught to observe the Torah.

>>> Now, to the OSAS doctrine. I agree that Apollomee, in its literal sense, means to destroy. It has other meanings as well, such as to perish, and to be lost. I stand on the fact of possibility still stands, but since it says he shall raise them up on the last day, that shows that a believer falling away is very unlikely to happen. I know a Greek scholar who agrees with this stance as well. <

You seem to be missing the point. The "cultural context" of John 6:39 is that of a father giving his son an inheritance. The inheritance is believers. Whatever the father is giving to Jesus cannot be loss or it is Jesus' failure. Point being, "very unlikely" is too weak and will not agree with the context of this passage.

Will you address what I am saying here? Believers are not the subject, but the object of this passage. In other words they are not active in this passage, but they are being acted upon. The only responsibility in this verse belongs to Jesus.

>>> I believe scripture is in harmony, and in light of other scriptures, such as Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 6:4-6, Ezekiel 18:21-31, and many others, it reveals that one must remain in the teachings of God, and its very possible for one to abandon the Lord, even for good. As a Greek student, I am fully aware that context determines the meanings of the Greek language. <

Bro. I would say that neither Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 6:4-6, or Ezekiel 18:21-31 is teaching what you are claiming they teach. However, I can only deal with them one at a time. So right now we are on John 6:39. Let's deal with this first. Will you address the facts I have laid out that clearly refute your idea that use of the subjunctive means believer can forfeit their salvation; because, as I have pointed out, the subjunctive used in the passage is related “to Jesus”, as He is the subject and not “the believer” which is a passive object in the passage.

>>> Jesus and his apostles consistently told followers to endure in the faith, endure to the end, remain in the teachings of Jesus, stay away from sin.. Why? because they know its very possible to give up salvation, and die in your sins(ezekiel 18). Your righteousness will be forgotten if you fall away for good. I need no other rationale for the subjunctive case, because the fact remains that he spoke subjunctively, but "security" was added. But, guess what? It is always a condition. Jesus ALWAYS told his boys to abide in me, keep my commandments, etc.<

There are two or three things to consider here. If one does not endure, he was not in the faith to begin with. He liked what he saw but never committed to what he saw. To him the church was a social club. However, when the heat came he was scorched or when his life's interest in gulped him, he was choked out. So there is a profession of faith, but not a confession of faith. There was an outward commitment but no heart commitment. So when the profession of faith failed, it was only his flesh catching up with his heart. This person never had a true saving faith. This is the person in Heb 6:4-6; this is Judas, who was participating in ministry work, but was all along thinking, plotting, and conspiring to try and get Jesus to accomplish the agenda of the zealots. This type of person is never committed to the faith positionally in heart... and thus cannot endure in the faith's practice in their walk.

Secondly, there are those who are committed to the faith positionally in heart. Abiding as use in John 15, does not have anything to do with "salvation," but with "fruitfulness." The central idea is codified in verse 5 "for without me ye can do nothing." The issue is producing. They are "saved" as it were. However, the issue is "abiding in Christ." This is not the same as not abiding in the faith. Not abiding in Christ does not threaten one's "salvation" as it were, but it does affect one’s maturation and usefulness to God. It also brings a believer subject to the chastening/judgment of God as described in, 1Co 11:32 "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." The judgment of God happens because we failed to judge ourselves and "abide" in the way of Christ as it pertains to daily living.

The distinction here is that failure to abide in the faith practically is to militate against the church and turn back to the world... this is captured in 1Jn 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

Whereas, failure to abide in Christ, is to not live according to the dictates of Christ though one continues in faith. This brings chastening even excommunication and is codified in 1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

[Rev. Eric Culberson Jr.]

WOW this conversation got WAAAAAAYYY off original topic. How be it a great conversation has arose out of it. On the original topic of conversation I believe that women are not CALLED to preach. James made a powerful statement earlier when he said women can preach if they choose to. But Romans 10 tells us that the preacher is CALLED. Sistahs preach becasue they want to, not because God called them to. And the word of God is clear on who whould preach, and its not a sexist matter its a matter of divine order!

[James Pierce]

To address the scripture of John 6:38-40. You said that the responsibility is on Jesus, and that if he loses those that God has given him, then that makes Jesus a failure. That cannot be further from the truth, Solomon. Consistently, the scriptures have shown us that we ourselves must "continue to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves are responsible for our santification, and holiness.

Man still has free will, Solomon, so if he wants to fall away, he has the free will to do so. Scriptures before Jesus said,"I shall lose none", he says,"whoever looks to the son and believes". That belief is ongoing, and one must abide in Christ teachings. His losing none has conditions, and the condition is,"IF you abide in me, THEN.

There are so many scriptures that reveals conditional security. As long as you remain in Christ, you will live. You said that a true believer cannot fall away, and you likened what happened to Judas, to the event in Hebrews 6:4-6. Hebrews 6:4-6 begs to differ, sir. For it says:

4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Also, Hebrews was written to predominately Jews who came to faith in Messiah.One of the purposes of Hebrewas was to show them that Messiah was the perfect sacrifice once and for all(Hebrews 10).

In Hebrews 6:4-6, which the context is referring to Hebrew Christians, is talking about falling away from the faith. The words enlighted, tasted, and shared, in the Greek, reveals that these people were genuine converts to the faith.

It goes on to state that if they fall away, they cannot be brought back to repentance.

Notice the phrase "to restore them again to repentance". Your logic reveals that Hebrews 6 says they were not saved in the first place. Well, True logic, and common sense would say that how can you be brought back to something you was NEVER apart of lol? How can you be brought back to a place you was never at!

It says they cannot be restored to repentance again, which reveals that they were once repentant of their sins, and living the life in Christ, hence when it said that they shared, tasted, and was enlightened by God----true conversion.

Let us look at Hebrews 3:13:

But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

Some would argue that the book of Hebrews is referring to unbelievers, but here is where that logic falls; you cannot tell unbelievers, who are not born again, to exhort each other daily, so that their heart would not be hardened by sin. There hearts are already hardened by sin!

If a believer's heart becomes hardened by sin, then the possibility of them falling away is great. You can use the double talk of,"well they werent saved in the first place." That is illogical, Solomon, because how can they be restored to repentance, when they were never repented in the first place? I say again, you cannot fall away from something you was never apart of. I cannot go "back" to California, if I never went to California to begin with... makes sense huh??

You also mentioned 1 John 2:19, where it says they left us because they were not of us. This chapter here is simply referring to false people, namely, antichrists(1 John 2:1-4). Those false apostles that left the real ones were antichrists from the beginning, and that is why they left. This verse does not refute condition security, because, as you see, there are scriptures that refute unconditional security, and that real, true christians can fall away!

Lets see some examples of People. Solomon was a true man of God. He had God's wisdom, and God's favor. He called on the Lord's name, and kept the Torah. But, in 2 Kings 11, Solomon turns from the Lord, by undulging himself with foreign women, and worshiping their gods. Solomon broke the 1st commandment in Torah, and that is you shall not worship other gods before me.

There is no evidence of Solomon repenting of his iniquity. Therefore he died in his own iniquity(Anomos, which means "no law, or lawlessness"). We know what God's word says about people dying in their sin. My question to you is," Would you say that King Solomon, one of God's most blessed servants, was never really saved in the first place? Is that your logic, Brother Yuri?

Also, to say that a professing Christian who turns away from the Lord was never saved in the first place is like saying that they can never disobey God, and can never backslide. We know that anyone who belongs to God can backslide. You might argue that they will always come back, but we know from other scriptures, that its not always the case. Again, your double talk of," They were really not saved" cannot get you out of this.

Look at Peter, He denied Jesus 3 times. Was he saved to begin with? David practiced many sins, yet always repented.. Was he unstabled in his salvation?

Ezekiel 3:20-21 is a good one: Ezekiel 18:21-24 agrees exactly with this:

20 Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul.”

When you do what the righteous man did in Ezekiel 3 & 18, and you die in your sins, then you are just as good as dead, bound to eternal destruction. Oh, how OSAS is such a false doctrine. Your righteouness will be forgotten. I am not surprised to have heard OSAS'ers tell me that these guys are still saved. How satanic of a belief this is man. Live a life of excess sin, only to still be saved.

James 5:19-20 also goes with this:

19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

This verse clearly shows that even believers can go wander off into their own destruction. But, when you bring him back.. what will happen? You will save his soul from death!

Jesus and his apostles consistently told followers to endure in the faith, endure to the end, remain in the teachings of Jesus, stay away from sin.. Why? because they know its very possible to give up salvation, and die in your sins., namely, the Believers.

You said something about abiding in Christ means to produce fruits, and not salvation. I know you will agree that if a tree stops bearing fruit, that it will die. Notice what Jesus said in John 15:5-6:

5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do not hing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

If you stop producing fruit for the Lord, then you are of no use to him, and you will be cut off. You are right, apart from Jesus, you can do nothing, AND apart from Jesus, you cannot live a holy life. The biggest key of not living a obedient life is to not produce fruit towards repentance, thus wither away and die.

Take note of 2 John 1:9:

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

If you as a Christian does not remain in the teachings of Jesus, you do not have God. You might argue and say," He didnt have God in the first place." But that is not what it saying. When you leave God, then at that time, you do not have God. The Holy Spirit was taken away from Saul, because he left God by his habitual disobedience.

You must abide in Jesus, and produce fruit to repentance, and fruit to holy living.

The parable of the sower is a good one Luke 8:13:

And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.

They believe for awhile, and they fell away. They were planted, but no root, and it was easy for them to fall away when troubles come.

Hebrews 10:26-31:


26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

If a believer goes on sinning after receiving God's truth, then there is nothing remaining for atonment, but he will face God's judgment, if he does not repent.

Peter said it would have been better if he had not known the way of truth. Then he said dogs return to their vomit.

Do you not know that OSAS gives a liscense to sin? If you are OSAS, and you sin, then it cancels out repentance. Everytime you sin, you need not to repent, because you are saved anyways. You would argue that God gives us repentance. But, let me correct that. God gives us the ABILITY to repent, but its up to YOU on what to do with that ability. God does not violate human free will, Solomon. WE ARE NOT ROBOTS, i repeat, WE ARE NOT ROBOTS.

If a Christian wants to fall away, then he has the free will to do so. I like what a good friend of mine said, who is a Bishop," If I cannot forfeit Salvation, then it is not something I possess but rather something that possesses me. I am its prisioner and must go to heaven even if my heart yerns for hell. I don't think it works like that."

That itself proves that are not robots, Solomon.

Here are some more scriptures that proves CONDITIONAL SECURITY.

2 Peter 2:20-22 -
20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has bec ome worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

2 Pet 3:17 - You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

Rev 2:4-5 - But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. 5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Rev 3:5 - The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

Gal 5:4 - You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

2 Timothy 2:16-18 - But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.

1 Tim 4:1 - Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

These scriptures here are showing apostates. The meaning for this word is those who fell away from what they were LOYAL to. But you'll say that they were never saved in the first place. Well, they cannot fall away from what they were never loyal to in the first place!

Mr. Solomon, you have truly seen that OSAS is a complete heresey, and it gives a false security, and to some, gives them a liscense to sin. But, grace will not abound where there is wilfull iniquity. For it is ONLY those who keep the commands of the Lord that will live.

One of the greatest deceptions the enemy can reveal is that we are saved unconditionally, we can do nothing to lose salvation, even if we go back into a life of sin. You cannot say they were not saved in the first place.. That is double talk, and you know it is. Evidence reveals otherwise, that salvation is conditional, ONLY IF YOU ABIDE IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

If we have unconditional security, then Jesus' and the Apostle's exhortation of the saints to endure to the end, endure in the faith, abide in the faith, do not stray away from the truth or let your heart be hardened, is a waste of good breath!.

I stand firm in what the scriptures really say, and give no way for a false security. Mount up, and abide in all his teachings! THEN you will be called his disciple!

[Yuri Solomon]

>>> To address the scripture of John 6:38-40. You said that the responsibility is on Jesus, and that if he loses those that God has given him, then that makes Jesus a failure. That cannot be further from the truth, Solomon. Consistently, the scriptures have shown us that we ourselves must "continue to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves are responsible for our santification, and holiness. br />

I agree that Christian’s are responsible for their maturity and/or the lack thereof. Pertaining to John 6:39 however, the language used is redemptive language. It only refers to Jesus as having been given an inheritance by the Father (cultural context.) My only point about this passage is, if you are faithful to the “language” and the “context” there is nothing here about the responsibility of the believer, but only the responsibility of Jesus to keep what (lose nothing) the Father has given him.

Listen James, we can only talk reasonably about one thing at a time. You brought up John 6, let’s deal with it. I want you to acknowledge and understand what I am saying about John 6 whether we come to agreement or not. At least get an understanding.

I am saying that the use of the subjunctive here cannot prove that a Christian can lose his salvation; because, the subject “I” is active and “nothing” is passive. The verb “shall lose” refers to “I”.

So listen, maybe you can now argue that "no, Jesus want lose you, but you can walk away…" I would say fine at this point! And we can move on. However, what I need you to do is acknowledge that IN THIS PASSAGE the subjunctive proves nothing of the sort because this passage is about Jesus’ responsibility to the Father and not the believer’s responsibility contextually.

[James Pierce]

Hey whats up Yuri,

I already addressed it brother. Its under a conditional basis, man. You will raise up at the last day IF you continue in the faith. If you do not continue in the faith, then you will rise up to judgement. I already addressed that it would not be on Jesus' part if he loses his saints. We have free will brother.

I dunno if you read the WHOLE article, but I pretty much addressed everything.

If you come to say that THIS verse shows us that we cannot lose salvation, in light of all other scriptures that say otherwise, then you have a contradiction. I believe scripture is in harmoney, bro. But I believe that I am all out of answers lol, because i pretty much exhaust myself in the article above. But, I would like to give you yet another verse that shows a person can get eternal life taken away from them.

Rev 22:19 - and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

OSAS is simply heretical bro. We are not robots, and we can choose whether to stay, or to leave Christ. It is not Christ's failure, as you said in another article, but it is our failure.

We would just have to agree to disagree. I do not know what else to say on this topic being that I simply exhaust myself above lol.

Be blessed,
James

[Yuri Solomon]

You have not proven anything. You have only rambled from one passage to another confidently misinterpreting all of them, yet continuing to avoid looking at this one closely. Then you speak as though you are the only one who believes the bible is harmonious.

You made a scandalous misinterpretation of John 6:39 applied it to the believers actively, by misusing the Greek language, and ignoring the cultural context. The latter two interpretive tools mention, you championed! Now you won’t even come and look at this passage under their scrutiny. I have proven that you are not as committed to the cultural context, nor the lower critical context (Greek) as you claimed to be, unless you perceive it to be to your advantage,

Simply put, you are not in pursuit of truth and clarity, but only a rambunctious distortion of the historical truths of the Christian church. I allowed this conversation to go so far out of the way, because it was not too far in when I came to realize that you are not a Christian but a pseudo Christian cultist or at least well on the way there if you have not yet fully abandoned the church physically.

OSAS is a secondary issue. There are genuine Christians who stand on both sides of that debate. However, you deny, salvation by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ, by making the Torah a standard apart from which one cannot be saved. This is not a historical doctrine of Christianity and by virtue of your institution of it you have condemned all Christians to hell who did not hold to this before you. This is the problem of the cults and their innovations to Christianity. Furthermore the Trinity Doctrine falls in the same category of essential church teaching.

To deny either of the two doctrines you are logically, and to a large extent overtly denying, places you squarely outside of Christianity. Perhaps the Spirit of God will make your heart open to this truth I have said to you repeatedly:

One who focuses on keeping the Torah will, without fail, become self-righteous and consequently not fulfilled the Torah, and in fact break it constantly to his own damnation.

Let me speak to you finally, in a more personable way. You seem to be on a journey of sorts trying to find peace. However the only peace is to rest in Christ alone as both the One who saves and the One who keeps the believer.

I agree that people cannot live absolutely contrary to the Spirit of God and truly be saved; however, the answer you think you have found to this epidemic of unrighteousness is only a trap for you to be sealed in unrighteousness through self-righteousness. God warns us that saparating is His responsibility and not our's.

“Nothing happens apart from God will, thus God wills everything that happens” – Yuri Solomon

Peace Bro.

[James Pierce]

You have not proven anything. You have only rambled from one passage to another confidently misinterpreting all of them, yet continuing to avoid looking at this one closely. Then you speak as though you are the only one who believes the bible is harmonious.

Actually, I have not rambled from one passage to another. I explained them both collectively, and individually. I did not avoid John 6 at all, but you fail to see the conditional security of a man--that man must continue to stay in Christ.

I do apologize if I have spoken as if I was the only one who believes the bible is in harmoney. Believe me, I do not believe that. I believe the bible is truly in harmoney, but it is men that takes that harmony away from it.

You made a scandalous misinterpretation of John 6:39 applied it to the believers actively, by misusing the Greek language, and ignoring the cultural context. The latter two interpretive tools mention, you championed! Now you won’t even come and look at this passage under their scrutiny. I have proven that you are not as committed to the cultural context, nor the lower critical context (Greek) as you claimed to be, unless you perceive it to be to your advantage,

You proved nothing at all. You are simply stuck on this one verse to prove that you are right about OSAS, but to bring all scriptures together concerning this, OSAS is heresey, right from the fires of Geenna. If you want to talk about proving scriptures, well prove all the scripture that I posted, and connect them with John 6.

Simply put, you are not in pursuit of truth and clarity, but only a rambunctious distortion of the historical truths of the Christian church. I allowed this conversation to go so far out of the way, because it was not too far in when I came to realize that you are not a Christian but a pseudo Christian cultist or at least well on the way there if you have not yet fully abandoned the church physically.

Well, at least you have one part correctly on the fact that I am not a Christian. I am Messianic---the true practice of the Christian Church. There is no trace of OSAS until hundreds of centuries later.

It is pretty normal for me to be called a cultist, because my beliefs are not theirs. But, you see I seek ORIGINAL beliefs, and not traditional, regurigated beliefs that many bible colleges, and pastors teach.

OSAS is a secondary issue. There are genuine Christians who stand on both sides of that debate. However, you deny, salvation by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ, by making the Torah a standard apart from which one cannot be saved. This is not a historical doctrine of Christianity and by virtue of your institution of it you have condemned all Christians to hell who did not hold to this before you. This is the problem of the cults and their innovations to Christianity. Furthermore the Trinity Doctrine falls in the same category of essential church teaching.

For some reason, you consistently misunderstand me and my belief on Torah. As I stated before, I do not believe that Torah justifies, and I do not believe that Torah saves.. Each Christian is called to live a holy life, and we have a holy standard to live by.

The biggest lie in Christianity is that the law is done away with. They simply push Jesus' words aside in matt 5, when he said the law is not abolished.

I believe that we are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and we obey him by observing God's commandments. There is NO way around this. You will either obey God, and keep his Torah, or you will not.

I'd like to say that the trinity falls into the essential doctrines of 3rd-4th century Christianity. Throughout the centuries, the Church has moved away from its Jewish roots, and its Jewish thought. Jews NEVER, in any way, shape, or form, believed that God was "trinitarian". According to Duet 6:4, the shema screams that God is ONE.

This was said to Literally refute the idea of God being polytheistic(which includes trinity). The culture around Israel at the time were polytheistic, and the sh'ma was very precious to them. Yahweh is ONE, and not 3, 3 in 3, or 3 separate ones.

Trinitarians will continue to use the double talk of,"Well, Jesus, God, and the spirit are one, but 3." That does not make sense. God is not a trinity at all.

To deny either of the two doctrines you are logically, and to a large extent overtly denying, places you squarely outside of Christianity. Perhaps the Spirit of God will make your heart open to this truth I have said to you repeatedly:

I do not have a problem with being placed outside of "Christianity". It full of too many heresies, and false doctrines. I only want hardcore truth from the spirit of God, and not some false doctrine that clearly rules out repentance.

One who focuses on keeping the Torah will, without fail, become self-righteous and consequently not fulfilled the Torah, and in fact break it constantly to his own damnation.

Again, the focus is not on keeping the law for salvation, but keeping the law for obedience to God through Christ Jesus.

Let me speak to you finally, in a more personable way. You seem to be on a journey of sorts trying to find peace. However the only peace is to rest in Christ alone as both the One who saves and the One who keeps the believer.

We who are Messianics sees peace in Jesus Christ just as clear as Christians

I agree that people cannot live absolutely contrary to the Spirit of God and truly be saved; however, the answer you think you have found to this epidemic of unrighteousness is only a trap for you to be sealed in unrighteousness through self-righteousness. God warns us that saparating is His responsibility and not our's.

ha ha again, One keeps the Torah for obedience to God through Christ Jesus, and not for ones salvation.

You be blessed,
James

[Elder J. W. Honeysucker]

Hey Yuri, This is a topic you know will stir more emotion than reason for many. I will not go into a long theological debate on this point, but I have been let to this stand according to scripture. ALL born again believers are called to be proclaimers (Mt.28:19-20). As you know the term "proclaimate" means to 'preach'. Preaching is done through evangelist and missionary avenues as well as through the way we live our lives. Pastoring however is a different issue. Pastoring is a ministry that God calls his men to.

[Yuri Solomon]

I have no problem with the Idea that every Christian has the mandate to proclaim the gospel... we have traditionally called that "witnessing."

Do you believe that a woman should be in the pulpit "preaching" to a congregation of men and women???