RSS

What I Believe

About God
I believe in ONE eternal Being who is God. I believe he is our Creator, and made all that exists. He is benevolent and full of grace and truth. He loves us beyond what we can imagine. He is always faithful and will never leave us or forsake us.

I believe God is our Father, and God is Jesus in the flesh, and God is the Holy Spirit that dwells within us. I am hesitant to call this a Trinity for two reasons. First, God was not defined as the Trinity until the 4th century C.E., and the doctrine was produced and confessed with great hesitancy, and the founders confessed they were erring in doing so. They intruded into a forbidden area at the command of, not God, but Constantine, the Roman Emperor, believing the alternative was Arianism, which claimed Jesus, though God, was a created being who was not one substance with the Father. The word Trinity is a man’s word meant to describe the infinite Being we call God. I simply do not believe it is possible for it to be accurate, since the wording is ours and not God’s?

Secondly, God has given us an image of himself in Adam and Eve. Both, not one alone, are the single image of God, according to Genesis 1:27. The image of God is seen in that Eve was taken out of Adam after he was put in a deep sleep, and together they became one flesh. This same image is reproduced in the work of Christ in the New Testament, where the book of Hebrews clearly says Jesus is/was the “express image” of God (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus is God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14) and the Church (his Bride) comes out of him (Ephesians 2:10; Colossians 1:16), after he was crucified and lay dead in a grave for three days (viz. Adam’s deep sleep) and rose again. I see the one who became Jesus as coming out of God or the Father, and because this is done in eternity, I believe it is timeless. Does time exist in eternity? I don’t know for certain, but I believe God created time “in the beginning.”

The Bible seems to teach that before he became man, the one who became Jesus was equal with God or the Father (Philippians 2:5-6). If this is so, then his “coming out of” the Father means he is of like essence and probably would not post date the Father since time probably doesn’t exist in eternity. God has no past or future, because he lives only in the present, or so it would seem if he created time.

The Scriptures tell us Jesus dwells in the Father’s bosom (John 1:18) and is (in his pre-incarnate existence) Light dwelling within LIGHT which no man is able to see or approach (1Timothy 6:15-16).

The Holy Spirit is the Shekinah Glory that dwelt in the Temple at Jerusalem, and it is he who dwells in each of us when we confess and receive Jesus as Lord. I believe the combined Spirits of both the Father and the Son are the Holy Spirit. At least Jesus seems to imply this in that he said he would pray that the Father would send another Comforter (John 14:16), but Jesus also says that he would come to the disciples too, presumably in the Person of the Comforter (John 14:17-18). Later Jesus specifically says he would send the Comforter or the Holy Spirit (John 16:5-7). In John 17 Jesus prays to the Father and claims that both he and his Father will come to dwell within us (John 17:23; compare 14:23). This is accomplished by the Father sending (John 14:16) and Jesus sending (John 16:5-7) their Spirits which together is the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, I cannot confess the Trinity doctrine as accurate, I do believe the doctrine has preserved the truth of plurality in monotheism, but the doctrine, as such, hides the truth of the true image of God in Genesis 1 and 2, and in so doing, does not show Jesus dwelling in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18) or that Jesus is Light, dwelling within LIGHT (1Timothy 6:15-16).

Having said this, I confess it is difficult to refer to the Godhead without speaking of the Trinity, because I can think of no other single word to express a pluralistic monotheism. The problem is Jesus did not teach it, and we are commanded to remain within the teaching of Jesus (2John 1:9), and for this reason I must find a different way to express what I see God is. I need to find a more Biblical way to say the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God–ONE God. We have used the word, Trinity, for almost 17 centuries to express who God is. I have used it, but I must find a better way to express what I believe. I say this to let anyone who reads know that I do have problems with the word, Trinity, but not with the idea that God who is the Father and the One who became Jesus and the Holy Spirit are, in fact, ONE God.

I believe the Scriptures show the Godhead does not act singularly in any of the works of God, that is, one does not act alone without the other. Jesus repeatedly claimed the Father did the works through him, or that he could do nothing except what he saw the Father doing. In the act of creation the Father created all things **in** Christ, and Christ brought them forth, like a woman brings forth or gives birth to the seed of her husband. This is not to say God is male and female. The text does not claim God has a gender of any kind, but the text does show male and female (in humanity) are together the **image** of God.

About Mankind
I believe God created a man from the dust of the earth and then brought the woman out of the man. As I stated above, in doing so, God created his physical image. This is the only physical image the Scriptures use to describe God in the Old Testament.

I believe Adam learned about death, cruelty, gentleness and caring through his assigned task of naming all the mammals and birds (Genesis 2:19). This took quite a long time and is a very rewarding endeavor, as any biologist who studies animal behavior can relate. This is how God intended to teach man concerning good and evil. He never intended man to experiment with evil, but to observe it in animal behavior and make judgments accordingly concerning his own behavior.

After studying animal behavior for awhile, Adam noticed the beasts of the field and the birds of the air had a helpmate, but he lacked one. The Scriptures conclude that once this occurred, it was not good for him to be alone. This was when the woman was brought forth (Genesis 2:20-22). Adam confessed she was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. In other words, what Adam was, the woman was as well. She was recognized as his equal and not as one to rule over, such as the rest of God’s creation. Man was created to rule over all that God made (Genesis 1:26), but man, himself, was to be ruled by God. This is seen in that God gave Adam permission to partake of anything, except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17).

Eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil represented rebellion. It was not merely disobedience. Our children disobey us and receive our punishment, but they remain under our charge. However, at times a child (usually older) may rebel and openly defy the authority of his or her parents, making it evident he or she is not satisfied living by the parents’ guidelines. This is what Adam did in partaking of the forbidden fruit. He was saying to God, “I’ll be the judge of what is good and evil. I think I can tell what is good for me and what is not. I certainly don’t need you to tell me.” God had a choice: either he could destroy mankind whom he had made or redeem us. He chose the latter.

Make no mistake: Adam was not deceived in doing what he did. He knew perfectly well what he was doing (1Timothy 2:14). He used his wife like one would use a guinea pig, causing her to eat the fruit first, while he stood by and watched to see if she would be harmed (Genesis 3:6). So, as the Scripture says, death came into the world (to mankind) through Adam. This can be true only, if it was he who tempted Eve. Adam hid his sin (Job 31:33; Genesis 3:7). It is he of whom Jesus spoke when he said: he was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). Adam even slandered God by implying everything was all God’s fault for giving him the woman as a helpmate (Genesis 3:12). Adam is referred to as the serpent in Genesis 3 and is called Satan and the Devil elsewhere in Scripture. I have shown in several of my posts in this blog that Satan could not be an angel or an archangel, but could only be a mere man (see: “Is Satan an Archangel or an Angel?“; “Satan as the Serpent“; or “The Devil, Called Satan, Unveiled!

Presently, man is still in the state of rebellion against God. When Adam rebelled, he took all of us with him. We are born with his life within us and we shall die. What is before us is death—blackness of darkness (Jude 1:13; compare Job 3:5). This is our fate without a Redeemer. Unless God saves me from my certain death, my life is limited to my days upon this earth. We have absolutely no ability to correct our fate. Even if science lengthens our days to 100, or 200 or even 1000 years, we shall inevitably die without the help of an outside Power, and that Power, of course, would have to be Almighty God.

About What Jesus Did
Jesus did not come to save Adam’s life—i.e. the life we live by Adam. Adam (his life) is our old man, which is continually becoming more and more corrupt—physically and spiritually. Jesus came to deposit new life within us—his life. This is eternal life and is called our new man in Scripture. When we confess Jesus is our Lord, believing God raised him from the dead, he deposits this life within us, and it grows more and more powerful, as we feed on Jesus. Jesus is our Way (John 14:6) out of Adam’s race and this present evil world (Galatians 1:5). If I have his Spirit I am a new creature—part of a new creation, created in him (2Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15).

Romans 5 shows what Adam did affected the entire human race, and likewise, what Jesus did affected all humanity, as well (Romans 5:18). There is a 1 to 1 relationship in Romans 5 concerning what Adam did and what Jesus did. I don’t believe there is any way around universal salvation. By this, I do not mean people will not be punished for their iniquity, nor do I believe people will be rewarded for **not** believing in Jesus when they could have. But, Jesus was sent into the world to save the world (John 3:16-17), and he claimed he accomplished the task for which he was sent (John 17:4; 19:30). Therefore, I believe salvation affects all mankind, meaning Jesus has saved everyone. I know this is a problem for most Christians, but I don’t see the Scriptures giving us a choice. This doesn’t let unbelievers off the hook—sooner or later everyone must receive Jesus as his or her Savior, and the best time is now. This is not “Second Chance Salvation” because God has not left our salvation to chance. I think this is where many Christians go wrong when thinking about this doctrine. “Chance” has nothing to do with our salvation. If you care to read a little about what I believe concerning this doctrine you might want to read: Are There Few Who Are Saved; The Three Tenses of Salvation; or Unbelief: Too Heavy a ‘Rock’ For God to Lift? Of course, if you believe strongly that universal salvation is not a Christian doctrine and would like to discuss the matter with me, we can do it HERE.

Jesus tells us there is nothing—say that again “NOTHING!”—impossible to God (Mark 10:27). If this is true, and God sent Jesus into the world to save the world, how could his Word (Jesus) return to him without doing the thing for which he was sent (Isaiah 55:11)? Specifically Isaiah 55 is speaking of the spoken word of God, but Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1; Revelation 19:13) sent with a message and a work to do (John 5:36; 7:16; 14:24). Would he return to his Father without doing the thing for which he was sent (Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:9-11)? I for one don’t believe he would. Therefore, I believe all mankind will eventually confess Jesus as Savior and Lord.

About the Gospel
The Gospel is the good news about what Jesus did. In a nutshell the Gospel message is confessing Christ as **MY** Lord (ending Adam’s rebellion through me), believing God raised him (Jesus) from the dead. Romans 10:9-10 is the theology, and Luke 23:42 is the practical application. Lots of people try to add to this, but, really, this is what gets one eternal life. Confessing by faith Jesus as Lord, thus ending Adam’s rebellion in your person, and by confessing Jesus as Lord, logically concludes he is alive, showing you believe God raised him from the dead. This is what makes me Christian, and this is what gives me eternal life. There is a lot more truth **about** the Gospel, but this is the least common denominator of all that can be said about Jesus and what he did for us. There is a lot more to be learned about the Gospel, but it cannot be reduced to less than this, but when one thinks about it, this says it all—the rest is commentary!

About the Bible
I believe the Bible contains the written word of God. It is made up of the words of men guided by God to say what God wants us to know about himself and about ourselves. I believe Scripture is true and must be read so that no Scriptural passage would contradict another verse in the Bible. If we find a contradiction, what we have really found out is: we don’t know Scripture as we ought. There are no contradictions. There are paradoxes that cause us to dig deeper for the truth, but God will not contradict himself. Therefore, the men he chose to write down his message to us would not have been led to contradict what men wrote previously for God. To be sure, there are difficult things to understand, but God provides us with the truth about every passage in the Bible—both Old and New Testaments. I believe we could study the Bible every waking moment of our lives and still not exhaust the truth that is there for us to know. Yet, I believe it is simple enough for a child to grasp what God is saying, but deep enough to confound the greatest minds of humanity. Nevertheless, many will never understand, because often men will read God’s word in order to find fault—either with man or God. God’s word is not to be used as a tool for our own ends, but as a treasure of which we have been invited to partake. If we approach God’s word in awe, we will never be disappointed.

About the Second Coming
Jesus claimed no man could know the day or the hour of his coming. I believe that, so I don’t believe any man knows or could ever know the time of his return. Hence, I don’t believe the Olivet Prophecy or even the book of Revelation speaks in the main of Jesus’ Second Coming. On the contrary, the Olivet Prophecy concerned mostly those things which would occur leading to Jesus’ judgment upon Jerusalem and the Temple. Very little concerns his Second Coming. So, too, Revelation speaks mostly of things that occurred up to our Lord’s judgment upon Jerusalem in 70 CE. Of course Revelation 21 speaks of his Second Coming, but it’s only a brief statement. All the rest of the book has to do with Jesus’ judgment upon Jerusalem and the nations afterward. Some things reveal what was true then and continues to be true today, like the messages to the 7 churches. Some believe these are also prophecies about 7 eras of church history. This may or may not be true. I can’t say at the present time, because I haven’t looked at the arguments and studied it for myself. However, I have studied it enough to know the seven different churches in Asia depict the different types of Christian churches existing even today.

I believe our future is secure in Christ whether he returns tonight or not for another thousand years. This is all I need to know. Anything more, as far as I am concerned, is rooted in the flesh. So, let men build their ministries around what they please. As for me, I am content to say Jesus will return. I believe that with all my heart, but when this will take place is entirely up to God. In the mean time I’ll walk the vale with him until he calls for me, at which time this blog and I will be done.

God bless,

Eddie

 

117 responses to “What I Believe

  1. doug

    April 16, 2014 at 09:03

    I would like to read your blog – because I like the “what I believe”. However to wade through all the uncertainties of others and your reply is so time consuming. Do you really have time to do this brother? Debating with people whom may or may not have a reprobate mind? Surely there is another way the Lord even Jesus would have for you to minister to others – there are soo many lost souls about – true?

     
    • Eddie

      April 18, 2014 at 17:57

      Hi Doug, sorry it took a couple of days to acknowledge your comment, but thank you for reading and for your concern over my efforts in my blog. Not everyone who stops by wants to debate with me. I believe most people are like you who just say they like reading what I’ve studied. A few have related questions, and some need to be encouraged in their walk with the Lord. I want to do what the Lord desires, and he opened up this avenue for me to share my faith. I’m glad he did. I’m slowing down a bit, but I believe that’s because I’m getting older and weaker in my body, but that’s okay too. Thanks again for your visit and your brotherly concern. Lord bless you.

       
  2. Vlad

    September 3, 2013 at 17:17

    I’ve been thinking… According to Mt24 all things were fulfilled by the end of 70AD. New Heaven and Earth has been established. But according to Rev20, new Heaven and Earth are to be after 1000 years. And I couldn’t fit 1000 years between Jesus’ resurection and 70AD. I used to beleive that 1000 means many, but barely 40 can not mean “a lot”.
    Then I realized that the Kingdom of God is inside of me (Lk18:16) and it lasts (inside of me) whole my life. How long is it? – It depends on when I die, but definitely not later then 969 years (like Methuselah), no one can live that long; in this case 1000 means “as long as I live”. After my body is dead, it can not provoke me to sin anymore (it will not be ‘satan’ to the will of God). So it is like ‘satan’ is thrown in to the lake of fire, forever.
    Am I right? If so, could you expand Rev20:7-10 a bit more; I’m struggling with it.

     
    • Eddie

      September 4, 2013 at 10:11

      Greetings Vlad. Please keep in mind that nothing I claim concerning prophecy is set in stone. Many people have different points of view about these things. I am only one person, and I may be wrong (I don’t think I am–but I may be). Anyway, you may be interested in reading two of my blog-posts on this issue: What is the Millennium and Does the Millennium last for 1000 years? Basically, the Millennium in my point of view is the time Jesus is away. When he returns, our time of reigning ‘with’ or ‘through’ him is over.

      Concerning the New Heavens and New Earth, certainly the heavens and earth that Jesus rules over is different from the heavens and earth over which Adam ruled. However, I am not entirely happy with spiritualizing this issue. Peter seems to clearly call for a **recreation** of what we see today. So, I’m not totally clear about how to read Revelation 21 and 22, and presently, I am unable to find the time to study it and pray for clarity. I’m on the evolution issue, and then I intend to address the Genesis account for awhile, and I seem to be thinking (lead – ???) to address the issue of the historical Jesus. I’ll probably get to seeking more clarity on the new heavens and new earth eventually (God-willing), but not in the foreseeable future.

      Lord bless you.

       
  3. Steve Duncan

    July 11, 2013 at 09:22

    Hello Eddie,

    How do you reconcile your statement on Adam as Satan (below) with the tempting of Christ in Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4?

    “Adam is referred to as the serpent in Genesis 3 and is called Satan and the Devil elsewhere in Scripture.”

    Surely Adam was not there tempting Jesus…? If so, where did Adam receive the ability to do as he did?

     
    • Eddie

      July 11, 2013 at 10:07

      Hi Steve, and thanks for reading and for your comment. Most folks who read this simply move on and never come back. I appreciate that you at least ask why I believe as I do.

      First, let me say, that Christianity is not about Satan. Whatever you or I believe about him, it doesn’t affect what has occurred on the cross. It is what we believe about Jesus that counts. I hope we can agree with that.

      Secondly, what got me thinking this way was the total lack of any evidence in the Bible to support current theology that an angelic being rebelled before man was created. Where do we get that understanding? It must come from somewhere, but it is not in the Bible. Therefore, I had to look at Genesis 3 with “new” eyes. I searched the Scriptures and found that often men are called satan, because they are or act like an enemy, which is what the word means. The only one there with Eve was Adam and the ‘serpent’, and if no angelic rebellion took place before the creation of mankind, then we are left with an allegorical understanding that Adam is the serpent. That’s how I came to the understanding.

      IF–what I believe is so, then Adam, as the leader of our race and the reason why we live in a cursed world, must have been permitted to live as a disembodied spirit. I cannot prove that, but “IF” there was no pre-creation angelic rebellion, then the Satan who tempted Jesus must be someone, and Adam, as a disembodied spirit, fits. Once Jesus rose from the dead and was taken into heaven, he (Satan/Adam) knew he had just a little time left (this according to Revelation 12). I believe Adam/Satan is dead today–i.e. he is asleep, having no thoughts etc. He isn’t able to affect our lives today, except for the fact that we live in this fallen world because of him.

      Not sure if this is enough to cause you to reconsider what you believe, but I hope it is enough for you to see why I believe how I do, and that it is a legitimate understanding–that is that we can still call ourselves brethren even though we don’t see eye-to-eye on everything. :-)

      Lord bless you.

       
  4. Anant Chandler

    October 25, 2011 at 22:53

    Deleted at the request of the poster.

     
    • RUF

      July 30, 2012 at 09:23

      “after he was crucified and lay dead in a grave for three days (viz. Adam’s deep sleep) and rose again.”

      The scriptures do not say he lay in the grave three days. The scriptures say he was in the heart of the earth and raised on the third day. The hand of the father’s protection was lifted from Jesus at Gethsemane. That is what is meant by the start of the three days.

       
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 30, 2012 at 13:20

      Greetings Doug,

      I believe you are related to my son-in-law, Dave! We spoke of you a little. :-)

      Since you say Jesus didn’t lie in the grave for three days, I presume you believe in a Friday crucifixion—most Christians do. Some also believe in a Thursday crucifixion and still others believe Jesus died on Wednesday. I favor a Wednesday crucifixion, as you may have read on my blog.

      You are correct in that the Scriptures never use the words that Jesus was “in the grave for three days.” This must be deduced from a little research. But I am curious why you believe Jesus was not in the grave for three days. Obviously, you must have done some research of your own. I am not certain I follow your reasoning concerning the Father’s protection of Jesus and how it relates to the third day. Would you mind explaining?

      Looking forward to a good discussion, Lord bless you.

      Eddie

       
    • Todd Ott

      January 28, 2013 at 05:57

      RUF
      “And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and BE KILLED, and AFTER THREE DAYS rise again.” (Mark 8:31)
      “Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS.” (Jonah 1:17)
      For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

      Where in the Bible does it say the three days began a Gethsemene? If “in the heart of the earth” doesn’t mean dead, what does it mean?

      EDDIE
      Jesus was talking about Satan, the Devil when he said “he was a murderer from the beginning,” not Adam. Adam did not use his wife to see what would happen, nor did he tempt EVE. The Serpent the Devil tempted Eve. The reason sin came into the world through Adam is because Adam CHOSE to sin; Eve was DECEIVED by the Serpent. Also, because Adam was the “federal head,” he was responsible for what Eve did. http://carm.org/adam-our-federal-head
      Revelation 12 also says:
      Next there was a battle in heaven — Mikha’el and his angels fought against the DRAGON, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But it was not strong enough to win, so that there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 The great DRAGON was thrown out, that ancient SERPENT, also known as the DEVIL and SATAN [the Adversary], the DECEIVER of the whole world. He was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.

      Sorry, but Adam is not the Serpent. Was Adam ever thrown out of Heaven? No, he was made of the dust of the EARTH, and PLACED in the garden by God. Plain and simple.

      (Also, in 1 chronicles 21:1 — Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. Did Adam magically rise from the dead to tempt David?)

      And no, universal salvation is not biblical:
      Revelation 20 Next I saw a great white throne and the One sitting on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, both great and small, standing in front of the throne. Books were opened; and another book was opened, the Book of Life; and the dead were judged from what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 The sea gave up the dead in it; and Death and Sh’ol gave up the dead in them; and they were judged, each according to what he had done. 14 Then Death and Sh’ol were hurled into the lake of fire. This is the second death — the lake of fire. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the Book of Life was hurled into the lake of fire.
      22 I saw no Temple in the city, for Adonai, God of heaven’s armies, is its Temple, as is the Lamb. 23 The city has no need for the sun or the moon to shine on it, because God’s Sh’khinah gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25 Its gates will never close, they stay open all day because night will not exist there, 26 and the honor and splendor of the nations will be brought into it. 27 Nothing impure may enter it, nor anyone who does shameful things or lies; the only ones who may enter are those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

      REV 22:14 How blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they have the right to eat from the Tree of Life and go through the gates into the city! 15 Outside are the homosexuals, those involved with the occult and with drugs, the sexually immoral, murderers, idol-worshippers, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 16 “I, Yeshua, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the Messianic communities. I am the Root and Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star. 17 The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come!’ Let anyone who hears say, ‘Come!’ And let anyone who is thirsty come — let anyone who wishes, take the water of life free of charge.”

       
    • Eddie

      January 28, 2013 at 09:18

      Greetings Todd, and thank you for dropping by to read and especially for your comment. I am always glad to discuss what I believe with someone who takes issue with me or wants further clarification. Lord bless you.

      First of all, although we disagree on some things, “Is Adam our Federal Head” is on the mark as far as I am concerned. I have implied as much in many of my posts, but probably in more specifically in Adam, Demons – Corrupt Spiritualism, To Bring in Everlasting Righteousness, and Rebellion and the Sin Principle.

      Concerning Satan as an evil being, I would be willing to believe in such a creature, if anyone could prove through Scripture that he was as men have concluded: and evil angel who rebelled against God and took 1/3 of all the angels with him. When was the rebellion to have occurred? When did Satan become God’s enemy? How did this occur? There are lots of questions such as these, but not a single logical reply comes from anyone using the Scriptures. Anyone who has ever replied has already assumed “Satan” in the Scriptures he or she quotes. In other words, the **story** men have created about Satan is assumed in each scriptural reference. If you care to try your hand at this, I am willing to read what you say and respond accordingly.

      Your reply above repeats this error. Notice: “Jesus was talking about Satan, the Devil when he said “he was a murderer from the beginning,” not Adam.

      You have not supported this with Scripture. Jesus calls Peter ‘satan’, meaning an enemy (which is what the word means) in Matthew 16:23, so just because Jesus uses the word **satan** does not indicate he refers to powerful, invisible angelic rebel called Satan.

      Again: “Adam did not use his wife to see what would happen, nor did he tempt EVE. The Serpent the Devil tempted Eve.

      How do you know Adam did not use his wife to see what would occur? How do you know he wasn’t the one tempting Eve? If **satan** is Adam, then the text in Genesis 3 clearly says Adam tempted the woman. The text is dependent upon the identity of the serpent—and Jesus described the scribes and Pharisees as serpents in Matthew 23, didn’t he? Serpents don’t talk, so the Genesis 3 serpent must be a metaphor of a hidden reality. The question is: who is the serpent?

      Concerning Revelation 12, do you really wish to support the ‘evil angel is the dragon, the serpent and the devil called satan’ by using just about the most metaphorical book in the Bible to support a literal question? I have used this same Scripture in the context of Jesus and the apostles against Satan/Adam and the scribes and Pharisees (cp. Luke 10:18). :-)

      Sorry, but Adam is not the Serpent. Was Adam ever thrown out of Heaven? No, he was made of the dust of the EARTH, and PLACED in the garden by God. Plain and simple.

      Where is **heaven** and where was **Eden**. How was Adam cast out and unable to return if Eden was an earthly place? Is there anywhere on this globe we call ‘earth’ that we are not able to go to and investigate?

      (Also, in 1 chronicles 21:1 — Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. Did Adam magically rise from the dead to tempt David?)

      You are assuming the identity of Satan is the traditional one without supporting it with Scripture. You use logical support, which is fine, if there are no holes in the logic. My reply is this. I can’t say if satan in this Scripture is the disembodied spirit of Adam, which if permitted to ‘live’ as such would be through the power of God in order for Adam to see the end of his rebellion. Another reply would be satan is a metaphor for David’s flesh. The flesh is ‘personified’ in this Scripture, but I am uncertain this could be, since nothing else in the text could be used as such.

      Many people give satan god-like powers of omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. Folks like to say things like ‘satan really tempted me this week’ yet other folks say the same thing in many other places. How does he get around to so many folks to lead them astray and keep them from accepting the Gospel, which is hidden only by his power (2Corinthians 4:4). Now, I can present a very logical argument in support of this Scripture, if Adam is satan, because we inherited his nature. However, if satan is an angelic being—how is he able to control all of humanity all at once without giving him god-like powers like omnipresence?

      Concerning the ‘great white throne judgment’ I have written a blog HERE. But, concerning universal salvation not being biblical, would you mind answering a question. In 1Corinthians 15:25-26 we are told that Christ reigns until all enemies are put under his feet (or are in subjection to him), but the last enemy, death, is destroyed. We are told in Romans 6:23 that the wages of sin is death. The question is this: if the reward of sin is death and death reigns over those who have sinned (Romans 5:17, cp. verse-12), if death is really destroyed as claimed by Paul in 1Corinthians 15:26, how can it reign over anyone who has ever lived if death is destroyed? Death doesn’t exist if no one has died. Death exists only if someone who has lived is now dead. Therefore, how is 1Corinthians 15:25-26 true if universal salvation is a lie?

      Lord bless you, Todd,

      Eddie

       
  5. AMG

    July 22, 2011 at 12:06

    You said, “Rather it is your opinion that I write things that are not Scriptural. As usual you post no Scripture in an effort to prove your case.”

    It is not just my “opinion.” Furthermore, I always use scripture. Your false witnessing says I do not use scripture. Unless someone is blind—anyone can see I use scripture.

    You said, “Yet, you don’t explain what I have misunderstood—either of you or of the Scriptures—and once more you don’t use any Scripture to prove your case”

    This is unfounded of you to say. The proof that you are wrong is my careful replies back to you. I have been carefully explaining everything to you. All you are doing is attacking me since I hurt your feelings with the truth.

    You said, “Concerning calling God an evil monster, this is not true. That is, I didn’t call the God of the Bible an evil monster. If you associate God with your doctrine rather than the Bible, then I can see how you have misunderstood what I said. What I said and a click to the comment to prove to you what I said, can be found below:“You have taken issue with my saying God would be a monster if he tortured his enemies for eternity. Is a man—Hitler, for example, tortured people for long periods of time (even short periods of time)—is he a monster? If we call someone monstrous because of how he treats people, why wouldn’t God be just as monstrous or even more so, because he does the same things to people but for unfathomable periods of time?”

    Yes, you did call God of the bible an evil monster. You then repeat your blasphemy as proof.

    You said, “Once more, you haven’t quoted a single Scripture to support your position. You merely redefine the Scriptures and expect your own words to be truth.”

    I only state the words of God. You are blind to many of God’s words, so you cannot see what I am saying is only scripture.

    You said,” Moreover, I have NEVER claimed we cannot believe **in** God. Creation alone is enough to show God exists and what kind of God he is.”

    You contradict yourself. This right here shows your twisted snare. Confess you are wrong, and you could unravel the hold that is on you. You said many times we could not believe in God without God giving us the Holy Spirit to make us believe. Anyone who is not in your same snare could easily see what you have been saying all along.

    You said, “What I have claimed is that it is impossible for men to **believe** God—that is **trust** him—without his help. Our rebellion has made this so. He didn’t create us this way, but we have become this way through sin.”

    I see that you are trying to clean up what you have been saying before about not being able to believe in God on our own, but sorry Eddie, what you say here is STILL saying humans ultimately cannot believe in God.

    You said, “Concerning the deep things of God, as above, so here—you haven’t quoted a single Scripture to support your position.”

    This is a mistake on your part. What you say here could be a matter of simple attacking, or could be blinded misunderstanding, or both.

    You said, “What are the deep things of God, AMG? Are they what **you** say? Are your words “the deep things of God”? It seems you believe they are, when all you write is opinion without any Scriptural support.”

    Again, this is an untruthful attack. Anyone with eyes to see knows I have been showing you many scriptures.

    You said, “You have taken issue with my saying that we cannot choose God. All I was stating was what the Scriptures claim. Jesus said **YOU** have not chosen me!!! **I** have chosen you (John 15:16)”

    Eddie, Jesus makes the choice whether not he will save someone. This DOES NOT mean we cannot believe on Jesus on our own. Where does it say I have chosen you and you cannot believe me unless the Holy Spirit comes in you and causes everyone to believe? The scriptures just do NOT say that, no matter how many times you claim that it does. Read what the scripture you posted says. In addition, you must realize Jesus chose the twelve apostles, this is important since the apostles to the Lamb are a very important people, to say the least. Jesus chooses these twelve. They did not come looking for Jesus to be his apostles. Christians come to Jesus after hearing about Jesus. Faith comes from hearing the word. The bible does not say faith comes from hearing the word AFTER the Holy Spirit comes in you and causes you to believe.

    You said, “Furthermore, I have pointed out that **WE** have been chosen long before we were ever born, in that God chose us in Christ before the rebellion of Adam to appear before him blameless (Ephesians 1:4).”

    I think that it was you, in an earlier post on another journal claim that I was wrong in believing that God made the plan of salvation before the creation of the world. Furthermore, you are not understanding the scripture correctly. Ephesians 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
    This scripture does not say we cannot believe in Jesus until the Holy Spirit makes us believe. In addition, God knows all things, who said God did not know who would be saved and who would not be saved?

    You said, “ I support everything I claim with the Scriptures. What have you done to support your claims?”

    I only speak from the scriptures. You however allow anger to guide you as to what you say to me. You have wasted a lot of my time and your own time with repeated personal attacks to me. I have spent too much time defending myself here.

    You said, “When I respond to you or anyone else, I include a short synopsis of the specifics in order that anyone else reading could understand, even if that person began reading at that point. It might be tedious for you, but I wish to be clear with all in as much is possible for me to do.”

    You take up more space when you do that. Consider how the unneeded explaining can be frustrating to the one you are replying too. Let us focus on the questions and comments more directly.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 22, 2011 at 14:08

      AMG

      You have wasted a lot of my time and your own time with repeated personal attacks to me. I have spent too much time defending myself here.

      I will waste no more of your time or you mine. I will leave your latest submission unanswered. I try to permit those who discuss with me to have the final word in a matter. I am no longer happy with how the discussion is going, and it has descended into something that as a rule I don’t participate in. Therefore, you can be assured that our discussions ends now. Don’t ‘waste’ your time replying any longer, because any further replies will not be approved. I will delete any further comments from you.

      Have a pleasant life,

      Eddie

       
  6. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 21:30

    You said, “ What do you mean by “You do not have to explain anything that you did to me here”? What have I said that I did to you? Or what do you perceive I have done to you that needs no explanation?”

    You misunderstand. I meant that you did not have to explain what you did explain to me about Peter, because I know. The debate is that you said Peter’s faith did not fail when he denied Jesus three times.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 22, 2011 at 10:09

      Greetings AMG, and welcome once more to my blog. I have chosen to respond to all five of your most recent comments with one of mine. Everything you have posted above is addressed in this single comment.

      Ed,
      When I said that it is hard sometimes to read what you write, it is because you write things that are not scriptural.

      Rather it is your opinion that I write things that are not Scriptural. As usual you post no Scripture in an effort to prove your case.

      You misunderstand some things that I say. You definitely misunderstand many scriptures. You also are trying to act as if you are innocent in our discussions. Do I have to remind you that you called my God an evil monster?

      Yet, you don’t explain what I have misunderstood—either of you or of the Scriptures—and once more you don’t use any Scripture to prove your case

      Concerning calling God an evil monster, this is not true. That is, I didn’t call the God of the Bible an evil monster. If you associate God with your doctrine rather than the Bible, then I can see how you have misunderstood what I said. What I said and a click to the comment to prove to you what I said, can be found below:

      “You have taken issue with my saying God would be a monster if he tortured his enemies for eternity. Is a man—Hitler, for example, tortured people for long periods of time (even short periods of time)—is he a monster? If we call someone monstrous because of how he treats people, why wouldn’t God be just as monstrous or even more so, because he does the same things to people but for unfathomable periods of time?

      You see, my friend, I don’t believe God is anything like what many religious institutions portray him. I can and do question their doctrines. Everything must line up with Scripture and make sense. If it does not, then out the window those doctrines go. I don’t have to please men. There was a time when I thought I did, but no longer. I seek to please God and write only those things about him that are true. If I mirror the image that others paint of him in order to show how ludicrous their teaching is, that’s allowed, but I will not post a blog painting an unloving or unmerciful God. The Scriptures show me that he is not anything like those evil doctrines that portray him as an evil beast.” [Comment #1154]

      Concerning my quoting 1Chronicles 28:9 and comparing it with Deuteronomy 5:29…
      What you say here does not prove that we cannot believe in God on our own. Furthermore, I have already stated before that we can believe in God, yet we cannot keep obeying God’s commands. What you say about David and Solomon has nothing to do with being able to believe in God.

      Once more, you haven’t quoted a single Scripture to support your position. You merely redefine the Scriptures and expect your own words to be truth. Moreover, I have NEVER claimed we cannot believe **in** God. Creation alone is enough to show God exists and what kind of God he is. You continually state that I have claimed man is unable to believe **in** God. Why don’t you show me where I said that? Not only do you take issue with what I do say, you put words in my mouth in order to disagree more!

      What I have claimed is that it is impossible for men to **believe** God—that is **trust** him—without his help. Our rebellion has made this so. He didn’t create us this way, but we have become this way through sin.

      You put me at opposition to you when you called my God an evil monster; you compared God to Hitler and other such things. When you say we cannot chose God…you go against the deep things of God. We have a choice, and I believe with choice, God gave us the means to love Him and obey Him, and not just programmed to do so. When you say punishment will not be forever…it is not as wrong as you saying Jesus will save all. I love the Truth, and Truth matters.

      Concerning the evil monster thing, see above.

      Concerning the deep things of God, as above, so here—you haven’t quoted a single Scripture to support your position. What are the deep things of God, AMG? Are they what **you** say? Are your words “the deep things of God”? It seems you believe they are, when all you write is opinion without any Scriptural support.

      You have taken issue with my saying that we cannot choose God. All I was stating was what the Scriptures claim. Jesus said **YOU** have not chosen me!!! **I** have chosen you (John 15:16). Furthermore, I have pointed out that **WE** have been chosen long before we were ever born, in that God chose us in Christ before the rebellion of Adam to appear before him blameless (Ephesians 1:4). I support everything I claim with the Scriptures. What have you done to support your claims?

      You misunderstand. I meant that you did not have to explain what you did explain to me about Peter, because I know. The debate is that you said Peter’s faith did not fail when he denied Jesus three times.

      When I respond to you or anyone else, I include a short synopsis of the specifics in order that anyone else reading could understand, even if that person began reading at that point. It might be tedious for you, but I wish to be clear with all in as much is possible for me to do.

      Lord bless you and yours,

      Eddie

       
  7. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 21:16

    You said, “ We need to keep in mind what are the most important things. All Scripture is given for or admonition and is profitable for our understanding, but if we disagree on some things, would they be the things that save us? No matter who is correct concerning the extent to which Jesus’ sacrifice will effect salvation, the most important fact is that Jesus and only Jesus is the Savior. Is it not? No matter who is correct—you or I—God will save whomsoever he will, and our understanding of this won’t change the outcome.”

    You put me at opposition to you when you called my God an evil monster; you compared God to Hitler and other such things. When you say we cannot chose God…you go against the deep things of God. We have a choice, and I believe with choice, God gave us the means to love Him and obey Him, and not just programmed to do so. When you say punishment will not be forever…it is not as wrong as you saying Jesus will save all. I love the Truth, and Truth matters.

     
  8. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 21:00

    You said, “Concerning 1Chronicles 28:9, these are the words of David to his son Solomon. He spoke to him from experience, but even David, after he sinned, asked God not to take his Spirit from him. The Spirit of God in some way guided those in the Old Testament. Without that Spirit, no one would seek God. Deuteronomy 5:29 has God bemoaning the fact that Israel did not have a heart in them to obey. All this had to be played out in history to show that Jesus was the only way. Solomon didn’t continue in the ways of God, and he was rejected.”

    What you say here does not prove that we cannot believe in God on our own. Furthermore, I have already stated before that we can believe in God, yet we cannot keep obeying God’s commands. What you say about David and Solomon has nothing to do with being able to believe in God.

     
  9. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 20:53

    Ed,
    You misunderstand some things that I say. You definitely misunderstand many scriptures. You also are trying to act as if you are innocent in our discussions. Do I have to remind you that you called my God an evil monster?

     
  10. Ollie Gray

    July 21, 2011 at 14:16

    Ed Bromfield
    7/21/20011
    2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so
    your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

    I happened to stumble onto your blog site and read under the heading “What I Believe” As I read, it
    became increasingly clear to me that you put a great deal of stock in your intellect. While intellect can be a wonderful gift it also can be a very dangerous stumbling block.

    1Co 1:26 For you see your calling, brothers, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not
    many mighty, not many noble, are called:

    The issue of eternal salvation of the believer’s secured place in heaven and beyond, is of the highest
    priority to our Lord. The whole story of man’s fall and redemption is the reason Jesus Christ paid such a
    high price with his own life’s blood. There was no other way, a perfect sacrifice was necessary: The lamb of God—Jesus!

    Mt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father,
    if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

    How do we come to the conclusion of these Biblical facts? Without—what we believers believe, is the
    inspired word of God—without error, and with child like faith we place our whole and complete
    confidence in His written word. Complete humility is an absolute requirement, realizing we are coming
    before a Holy God requesting that our sins be forgiven asking that He grant us His redemptive gift of
    eternal life.

    I noticed you seemed to have hesitated on the issue of Acts 5 saying you had to think a bit more about ….. Act 5:32 ……. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

    The issue here is initial fath to be saved ……… Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God
    winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: ……
    This is the obedience spoken of in Act 5:32 …. Saving Faith

    Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must
    believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

    Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

    Another issue that concerns me about Biblical understanding is the fact that you want to insert your own ideas about Hell and Eternal Judgment. Loving, gentle Jesus in His first coming came to proclaim the saving Gospel, but He warned of certain eternal damnation and judgment for those who refused His gift of salvation in this life.

    The bottom line is this: One must believe all of His Word, one cannot pick and choose …… we dare not tamper with His Word lest we be found a hieratic!

    Luk 23 …………27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me,
    all ye workers of iniquity.
    28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and
    Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
    It is not a temporary Banishment. There is no hint a temporal condition any where in scriptures!

    Psm 49:8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)

    Mr 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little
    child, he shall not enter therein.

    Some Biblical doctrines have room for honest disagreement, but salvation and Judgment are not among them.

    Ollie

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 17:32

      Ollie, greetings and welcome to our little discussion.
      2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
      I happened to stumble onto your blog site and read under the heading “What I Believe” As I read, it became increasingly clear to me that you put a great deal of stock in your intellect. While intellect can be a wonderful gift it also can be a very dangerous stumbling block.
      1Co 1:26 For you see your calling, brothers, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not
      many mighty, not many noble, are called:

      Actually, I am often embarrassed when I speak with others who are educated. I have a high school education and that is all. I read the Bible and prayerfully draw my conclusions. If I gave the impression that I am an intellectual, it was certainly by accident, because I am not. I do try to write as clearly as I am able. I often take the time to look up the meaning of words on the internet to ensure I am using words properly. Sill, others have claimed I am not very clear in what I write, so I am uncertain how to take your conclusion.

      The issue of eternal salvation of the believer’s secured place in heaven and beyond, is of the highest priority to our Lord. The whole story of man’s fall and redemption is the reason Jesus Christ paid such a high price with his own life’s blood. There was no other way, a perfect sacrifice was necessary: The lamb of God—Jesus!

      So far we are in agreement. Our salvation is important to God; our place is secure in heaven (in Christ); man’s fall and the need for redemption is why Jesus came; there is no other way than Jesus; he is the Lamb of God—the perfect Sacrifice.

      Mt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
      How do we come to the conclusion of these Biblical facts? Without—what we believers believe, is the inspired word of God—without error, and with child like faith we place our whole and complete confidence in His written word. Complete humility is an absolute requirement, realizing we are coming before a Holy God requesting that our sins be forgiven asking that He grant us His redemptive gift of eternal life.

      Other than the fact that I don’t see how Matthew 26:39 fits your statement either here or in the one before (I didn’t know where to place it in my reply), we essentially agree up to this point as well. In other words, as I indicated in “What I Believe” I trust the Scriptures are God’s words through men to us. We must believe them, and believing them is the same as believing God.

      I noticed you seemed to have hesitated on the issue of Acts 5 saying you had to think a bit more about ….. Act 5:32 ……. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
      The issue here is initial fath to be saved ……… Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God
      winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: ……This is the obedience spoken of in Act 5:32 …. Saving Faith
      Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must
      believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
      Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

      You have misunderstood the discussion that I’ve been having with AMG. I am not in doubt of the truth of Acts 5:32. AMG had correctly pointed out that the Holy Spirit was not given until we are saved. I had understood from Ephesians 2:1-10 that God had to give us his Spirit **before** calling us so we could understand—after all the spiritually dead can understand nothing spiritually. It would be like commanding a blind man to see. It cannot be done—at least not by you or me. Our commands don’t carry that kind of power.

      Ephesians 2:1-3 concludes that God quickened us who were spiritually dead; we were acting like everyone else in the world, but God quickened us in some way. I assumed in error that that meant God quickened us by giving us his Holy Spirit. I have been praying about and contemplating the issue ever since. I have come to a preliminary conclusion, but I am unwilling to share it at this time, until I am able to study it more to my satisfaction.

      Another issue that concerns me about Biblical understanding is the fact that you want to insert your own ideas about Hell and Eternal Judgment. Loving, gentle Jesus in His first coming came to proclaim the saving Gospel, but He warned of certain eternal damnation and judgment for those who refused His gift of salvation in this life.

      Concerning what I want, what I want is what I pray for—the understanding of God’s word. I don’t look to men for this understanding. I prayerfully read the Scriptures, waiting upon God to reveal what I ask.

      Concerning “Loving, gentle Jesus”, are you implying he changes? Hebrews says he is the same yesterday, today and forever. How he appeared on earth in his public ministry is how he truly is. If you think differently, then we need to take another look at who is actually looking to the Scriptures for understanding.

      Concerning eternal damnation, the Bible never shows that anyone will be damned for eternity. This is a doctrine of men, not of God.

      The bottom line is this: One must believe all of His Word, one cannot pick and choose …… we dare not tamper with His Word lest we be found a hieratic!

      This has been my point throughout the discussion you are reading. I have consistently said that one cannot merely read a single Scripture and develop a doctrine around it. All pertinent Scriptures must be read before a proper conclusion can be made.

      Luk 23 …………27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
      It is not a temporary Banishment. There is no hint a temporal condition any where in scriptures!
      Psm 49:8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)
      Mr 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little
      child, he shall not enter therein.
      Some Biblical doctrines have room for honest disagreement, but salvation and Judgment are not among them.

      Concerning Luke 23 and ‘banishment’, where is there a ‘hint’ of eternal banishment? Aren’t you reading into the text? Tell me, Jude says the fires of Sodom were an “eternal” fire—are the fires still burning? What about their punishment, is it eternal? According to Jesus they will rise up in the judgment (a future resurrection) and condemn the cities in which Jesus performed his miracles. Jesus claimed it would be more tolerable for them in that judgment than for the cities in Galilee that witness his miracles. It seems that their “eternal” fire is quite temporary. Don’t you think?

      Concerning Psalm 49:8, the Psalmist is speaking about lengthening one’s life. It cannot be done with gold or the precious things of this world. Those who trust in wealth will not be able to help themselves in the day of trouble, because our souls are much more precious to God than the wealth we may have. Only Jesus is precious enough to redeem all—even these spoken of in Psalm 49.

      Concerning Mark 10:15 and salvation and judgment, I agree that no one will enter into the Kingdom of God who doesn’t receive it as a child. I also agree that salvation is very important, but men do disagree as to whom it pertains and whether or not one could lose it. Is one opinion less honest than the other? I don’t think so, but it appears you do. That’s okay in that what we believe about this won’t change what is true. Neither one of us can hurt God’s will by believing differently on this issue. He will save whomsoever he pleases and neither you nor I can prevent it.

      I also agree that there will be a judgment and God will set all things in order. I trust he will do a good job of it. However, his word doesn’t declare that his punishment will be forever—in the manner in which we understand the word today. In the Greek it meant an age of undetermined duration. It could be the length of a man’s life as it is in Philemon or it could be as little as three days and three nights as it is in Jonah. It could last for a few thousand years as it did for those before the Flood. The point is, neither you nor I have any right to define the term for God. He hasn’t revealed how long the punishment would be for the wicked.

      I do appreciate your concern over my salvation, and may the Lord bless you and yours,

      Eddie

       
    • AMG

      July 21, 2011 at 17:52

      Ed,
      When I said that it is hard sometimes to read what you write, it is because you write things that are not scriptural.

       
  11. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 12:46

    Ed, you say we do not choose God, that only God does the choosing. Here are scriptures to show we also seek God.

    1 Chronicles 28:9 If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.

    John 4:23 yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

    Acts 17:27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

    Now instead of you rejoicing that you learned truth from God’s word, you will only repeat falseness learned from demons. Deny these scriptures say we can seek God, deny them and you will be a liar.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 17:31

      Ed, you say we do not choose God, that only God does the choosing. Here are scriptures to show we also seek God.
      1 Chronicles 28:9 If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.
      John 4:23 yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
      Acts 17:27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
      Now instead of you rejoicing that you learned truth from God’s word, you will only repeat falseness learned from demons. Deny these scriptures say we can seek God, deny them and you will be a liar.

      Am I a liar because I don’t agree with your understanding, or am I a liar because I don’t believe the Scriptures? What Scripture have I claimed was untrue? I even humbled myself before the Scriptures when you pointed out Acts 5:32. I agreed that this Scripture denied what I had been saying concerning the Holy Spirit, but I denied that you understood perfectly, because your claim denied Ephesians 2:1-10. Yet, you never once humbled yourself before the Scriptures. You either ignored them, replying only to my commentary or you redefined them disclaiming what they clearly stated. Yet in it all, I have never called you a liar, nor have I ever ceased from blessing you after each of our discussion series was complete. I do this only with one I consider my brother in Christ. It doesn’t mean I don’t consider you a difficult person. I do, yet, in it all I try to see the Lord.

      Concerning 1Chronicles 28:9, these are the words of David to his son Solomon. He spoke to him from experience, but even David, after he sinned, asked God not to take his Spirit from him. The Spirit of God in some way guided those in the Old Testament. Without that Spirit, no one would seek God. Deuteronomy 5:29 has God bemoaning the fact that Israel did not have a heart in them to obey. All this had to be played out in history to show that Jesus was the only way. Solomon didn’t continue in the ways of God, and he was rejected.

      Concerning John 4:23, this Scripture mentions nothing about our seeking God. It claims that God wants or seeks people to worship him in Spirit rather than in temples built with the hands of men.

      Concerning Acts 17:27, Paul was speaking to pagans. He told them that logic demands that God who made everything that is does not dwell in temples made with hands. If this is so, then they should have sought what kind of God had created all these things. The point is, they did not. Instead they created idols and worshiped gods of wood, and precious stones. The fact that God created all there is in such a way that it would be ludicrous to deny his power or dignity and to show men what kind of God he is and they should seek him out, does not preclude the fact that men have not done so. They have not done so, because without God initiating the salvation process, they wouldn’t seek him at all. None of the pagans sought him. Paul says they should have, but no one did. Isn’t it strange that no gentile nation has ever really sought out the truth of God on their own? Paul had to bring the word of God to them and confront them. Those whom God was calling, responded.

      AMG, I know that my understanding of the Scriptures is perhaps troublesome to you. You believe I am led by demons etc., but let’s make something clear. What are we speaking of? We have discussed Peter’s faith, and we disagree. We have discussed the salvation of God and to what extent Jesus’ sacrifice is made effective, and we disagree. We have discussed whether or not man is able to help in the process of his own salvation, and we disagree. Do we agree on anything? I think we do. Do we agree that Jesus is the Savior? I believe he is my Savior, and I trust you do as well. Do we believe there is any other name in heaven or earth through which anyone can be saved? I believe Jesus is the only way, and I trust you do as well. Would you confess these things to others? I do and have, and I trust you would too. Paul says that if we confess Jesus with our lips and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead, we are saved. I believe this, and I have confessed it to others. I trust you have as well.

      We need to keep in mind what are the most important things. All Scripture is given for or admonition and is profitable for our understanding, but if we disagree on some things, would they be the things that save us? No matter who is correct concerning the extent to which Jesus’ sacrifice will effect salvation, the most important fact is that Jesus and only Jesus is the Savior. Is it not? No matter who is correct—you or I—God will save whomsoever he will, and our understanding of this won’t change the outcome.

      Lord bless, and have a good day,

      Eddie.

       
  12. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 12:34

    You said, “I am glad you have found and continue to find our discussion fruitful. Of course, just as my own learning is hidden from you, yours is hidden from me.”

    The difference with my learning is that I learned from God, and you learned from a man made doctrine, one of the spirits you learned from is the same as Calvin. I know that sounds rough to you, but it is the truth. I show you scriptures, yet all you keep saying is that we cannot believe in God on our own, and there is no scripture saying that, but who says that? Calvin says that.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 17:30

      The difference with my learning is that I learned from God, and you learned from a man made doctrine, one of the spirits you learned from is the same as Calvin. I know that sounds rough to you, but it is the truth. I show you scriptures, yet all you keep saying is that we cannot believe in God on our own, and there is no scripture saying that, but who says that? Calvin says that.

      And you made this decision about me without ever meeting me, seeing how I live or anything that could remotely offer you evidence that I am led by a spirit other than God?

      I have accused you of no wrong doing or anything that would remotely indicate to anyone reading these comments that you are led to believe what you hold to be true by anyone other than God or that you hold opinions according to your own understanding—implying error but that those opinions are simply not inspired by God.

      I’ll let this stand as a commentary by itself that shows the difference between you and me.

      Concerning believing God on our own, I have never said we cannot believe **in** God on our own. The Scriptures conclude that to believe **in** God is clearly the conclusion that should be drawn by contemplating what has been created. What I have stated on numerous occasions in this discussion is that we will not **believe** God. There is a difference.

       
  13. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 12:01

    You said, “If we were created without sin and without the proclivity to sin—i.e. we were not tempted to do evil as a normal part of living—then God didn’t create us as we find ourselves today. Romans 5 shows that sin and death were introduced into our race by one man. God didn’t create us sinful. Adam rebelled and became sinful and produced a sinful race. You have denied my claim, and again you have done so from your own opinion, showing you have no Scriptural foundation for your claims.”

    God did NOT create us without the ability to choose. You CANNOT show from scripture your belief. Adam chose sin. That is my proof that we have a choice.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 17:29

      God did NOT create us without the ability to choose. You CANNOT show from scripture your belief. Adam chose sin. That is my proof that we have a choice.

      Are you reading my replies before you comment? You need to read my reply at this point once more, because I agreed with you that God doesn’t create anyone without the ability to choose. I also said God did not create man with a desire to sin. That desire we have today is a result of the fall. God did not create us this way. Our rebellion against God has left us this way. Indeed, Adam did have the ability to choose, and he rebelled. Do we disagree on this point?

       
  14. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 11:58

    You said, “You have addressed many things, but not all of them with Scripture. As you do here, you have done elsewhere in this discussion. I have repeatedly supported my understanding with the Scriptures. Your opinions lack Scriptural support both here and elsewhere.Above, I have shown that we don’t get to choose Christ. He chooses us (John 15:16), we simply respond to his imitative. We would not seek him unless we are drawn of God (John 6:44). The Scriptures are very clear on this. We are completely unable to return to God, without God first drawing us to himself.”

    You are wrong. I only use scripture. Furthermore, I have shown you scripture that God seeks us, AND scripture where we seek God.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 17:28

      You are wrong. I only use scripture. Furthermore, I have shown you scripture that God seeks us, AND scripture where we seek God.

      You can look at your own comments if you wish. You are using Scripture less and less in your replies, and you are not responding specifically to any Scripture that I use in my replies to you. You simply either ignore the Scriptures and respond only to my commentary, or you redefine the Scripture without using Scripture on your own behalf to show how your opinion is based upon God’s word.

       
  15. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 11:54

    You said, “Do you see any reason to suppose anyone in Matthew 25:31-46 had faith in Jesus? Is there a single verse that shows anyone **knew** he was serving or even rejecting Jesus? If all people are doing is being kind to one another during a time of trouble or, contrarily, abandoning people they could have helped, why would this be reason for giving eternal life or eternal punishment?”

    Wow. You have shown sympathy to the violent and wicked. I can show you scripture where God’s word says that we know what we are doing wrong even when we do not know God. I can show you scripture that even when we truly do not know we are doing something wrong—we will still pay for it with punishment.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 17:28

      Wow. You have shown sympathy to the violent and wicked. I can show you scripture where God’s word says that we know what we are doing wrong even when we do not know God. I can show you scripture that even when we truly do not know we are doing something wrong—we will still pay for it with punishment.

      Did I even imply that the people Jesus judged don’t realize they are doing wrong? I claimed they don’t know that what they do, they also do to Jesus.

      I also know about ignorant sin, and it will be treated differently than deliberate sin, but do you understand that when Jesus asked the Father to forgive **them** he was specifically speaking of those who actually crucified him? They were wicked and unrepentant. They mocked him and their behavior was the impetus that led the Romans to do likewise. Don’t you contemplate the words of Jesus (Luke 23:34)? Jesus claimed that they didn’t know what they were doing. Does this mean they were ignorant that they did wrong?

       
  16. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 11:50

    You said, “Jesus also said that if my right arm offend me, cut it off, and if my right eye offend me pull it out. It is better to enter into life maimed than to be whole and cast into hell. Do you take these words literally or do you interpret them in some other way? If you don’t take them literally, do you base your conclusion upon your own opinion or do you base it upon Scripture elsewhere that interprets it for you?”

    I take Jesus’ words literally! Jesus meant what he said in that passage. Evil doers will not obey to cut off their hands or pluck out their eyes—and true believers will not cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes, because we obey by stop sinning. Nevertheless, Jesus meant what he said!

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 17:27

      I take Jesus’ words literally! Jesus meant what he said in that passage. Evil doers will not obey to cut off their hands or pluck out their eyes—and true believers will not cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes, because we obey by stop sinning. Nevertheless, Jesus meant what he said!

      I can hardly believe that you actually have said this. Gouging out one’s eyes would have no control over one’s thoughts, and cutting one’s arm off would not cause a man to work righteousness. It is the carnal mind, not the body that is the enemy (Romans 8:7). We are not to yield our bodies or any part thereof as instruments of unrighteousness (Romans 6:13). Nothing that is outward defiles us. It is what is in our hearts that defiles us (Matthew 7:20-23).

      Concerning not sinning, John tells us if we claim we don’t sin we delude ourselves and make God out to be a liar (1John 1:8, 10). In other words, Christians sin, but, praise God, we have a mediator and God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (1Timothy 2:5; 1John 1:9).

       
  17. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 11:43

    You said, “If it is God’s will for a person to be healed, the person will recover. If the person’s work is finished that God wanted him or her to complete, there is no reason to presume it would be God’s will for recovery. It may be more important for us to carry one without our loved one. His will might be for us, or someone else, to take up the ministry of our fallen brother or sister. Do you believe Jesus is God with a capital “g”? Do you think God can have a second opinion? Do you believe God can have a better idea than he had earlier?”

    Eddie, we CAN argue our case to God and change outcomes according to God’s mercy and kindness!

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 17:26

      Eddie, we CAN argue our case to God and change outcomes according to God’s mercy and kindness!

      This is true, as long as it is not **against** God’s will. Yet, you argue Jesus’ prayer had no power whatsoever with the Father.

       
  18. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 11:39

    You said, “In other words, God is not Almighty. His will can be overcome in the choices we make. John 5:19 says Jesus can do nothing except what he sees the Father do. Why would Jesus pray for something that he did not see was his Father’s will to do? In v.30 Jesus says he doesn’t seek his own will (as a man) but only the Father’s will. It was the Father’s will that Peter’s faith wouldn’t fail. Is Satan more powerful than the Father? John 15:5 says we can do nothing except as we abide in Jesus. The reason the ‘plan’ failed is that Jesus was not in it. Peter acted on his own initiative. Paul says we can do nothing against the truth (2Corinthians 13:8), so if God’s will is for something to occur, nothing can be done effectually against it. God will prevail. In other words he is Almighty in all he does.”

    It is hard to try to discuss anything with you when you cannot see past Calvinism. If we sin—IT IS NOT GOD’S WILL. God’s will is that the wicked turn! Eddie, God’s wants the wicked to turn from their ways, so are their still wicked people? Yes, of course there are still wicked people. What do you mean that the reason the ‘plan’ failed is that Jesus was not in it? Of course, Peter acted on “his own.” How does that prove Peter’s faith did not fail him?

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 17:25

      It is hard to try to discuss anything with you when you cannot see past Calvinism. If we sin—IT IS NOT GOD’S WILL. God’s will is that the wicked turn! Eddie, God’s wants the wicked to turn from their ways, so are their still wicked people? Yes, of course there are still wicked people. What do you mean that the reason the ‘plan’ failed is that Jesus was not in it? Of course, Peter acted on “his own.” How does that prove Peter’s faith did not fail him?

      It is difficult for you to discuss with me, because **you** cannot see past what Calvinists believe. You presume I am getting my understanding from them, yet I have never read anything about what they believe. I have repeatedly told you I don’t study the belief systems of the different denominations. I study the Scriptures, and you ignore the Scriptures I present in this discussion, except to say “that isn’t what they say”—but you present no further Scriptural support for you conclusion that I am wrong. How is this different than being a tradition of men. If I am wrong, then use the Scriptures to support your conclusions. I do not and will not receive the testimony of men without seeing their statements supported with Scripture.

      Concerning God’s will, of course he wants the wicked to depart from his (the wicked’s) way. The problem is you are trying to put everyone in a single box and declare some will be saved and others will not. John 15:19, 30 say that Jesus will not do anything that his Father isn’t already doing, and he doesn’t have an independent will from that of the Father. They are ONE. Is God Almighty? Paul seems to think so (2 Corinthians 13:8). No one is able to work against the truth and succeed. God declares that his word goes out from him and it will not return to him without it accomplishing what he willed it to do (Isaiah 55:11). This is what the Scriptures tell me, but you have repeatedly replied in your own wisdom. How is this not a tradition of men. Am I wrong? If so, show me by referring to the Scriptures in your replies.

      Concerning Peter’s faith, Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail (Luke 22:32). Not only do you conclude that Peter’s faith failed, but that Jesus’ prayer failed. Jesus says that his Father **always** hears him (John 11:42), and John specifically tells us that, if God hears us that we have our request (1John 5:15). Knowing this, how are you not nullifying the word of God as it pertains to prayer?

       
  19. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 11:22

    You said,”You are ignoring the sin of all. Only Peter and Judas went to the high priest’s house.
    He displayed great courage and great love for the Lord in risking his life to do so. He had his mind on the “plan” and sought to protect it, because it was the means he thought would free his Lord. He didn’t realize what he had done until he heard the cock and turned to see Jesus looking at him. He wasn’t even aware of his denial until that moment. I am not ignoring his denial, but you seem to ignore the fact that none of the Apostles stood with Jesus through his trials. They were all guilty, but we see Peter’s sin magnified in the Scriptures. This is why the Lord told Peter to strengthen his brethren (the other Apostles) once Peter was converted. They were all ashamed of what they had done. No one dreamed of acting so cowardly. They all boasted of their love for Jesus at the Passover meal.”

    Again, Peter is the one who jumped in the water when Jesus appeared. You do not have to explain anything that you did to me here. The point is the reinstatement of Peter.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 17:24

      Greetings once again, AMG, and as always, your comments are welcome here,

      Again, Peter is the one who jumped in the water when Jesus appeared. You do not have to explain anything that you did to me here. The point is the reinstatement of Peter.

      Perhaps, then you should explain what Peter’s jumping into the water has to do with Jesus’ so-called reinstatement of him.

      What do you mean by “You do not have to explain anything that you did to me here”? What have I said that I did to you? Or what do you perceive I have done to you that needs no explanation?

       
  20. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 00:44

    You said, “Yeah, this is one of those “what if’s” I was talking about above. “What if the mean ol’ Devil weren’t around, I bet the Gospel would be believed unhindered!” So, Jesus chained him up and cast him into the bottomless pit (Revelation 20:1-3). The Devil isn’t around anymore to hurt us or accuse us or deceive us. He is in the bottomless pit, and Jesus rules, but still men show themselves to be too obstinate and disobedient to submit to him!”

    So do you not believe in demons either? If not, you are mistaken.

    You said, “Well, AMG, this has been a long series. Thank you for your willingness to do this with me.”

    Thank you too, Eddie. I am so glad to be able to talk about scriptures.

    You said, “Probably, nothing much has changed between us, but this would be the usual thing in such discussions. I see value in them in that I am able to see others’ perspectives more clearly. I don’t have to anticipate what someone **might** believe or say when someone like you is around to make it quite clear what can and would be said against an argument I have.”

    I know what you mean. I have learned a lot from you about people who have a universal belief. I remember there was a time when I discussed at great length with a Preterist. I do not think he changed his mind, however, at the end of our very long discussion, I have found out a major flaw in his belief. Sometimes when I try to help others to the truth, it strengthens me in what I already believed. I want you to know, I have learned from others too. lol

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 11:20

      So do you not believe in demons either? If not, you are mistaken.

      I do believe in demons. I merely do not believe they are spirit beings with minds and wills of their own.

      I know what you mean. I have learned a lot from you about people who have a universal belief. I remember there was a time when I discussed at great length with a Preterist. I do not think he changed his mind, however, at the end of our very long discussion, I have found out a major flaw in his belief. Sometimes when I try to help others to the truth, it strengthens me in what I already believed. I want you to know, I have learned from others too. lol

      I am glad you have found and continue to find our discussion fruitful. Of course, just as my own learning is hidden from you, yours is hidden from me.

      Lord bless, have a good evening,

      Eddie

       
  21. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 00:06

    You said, “You are creating your own argument here. I never said God **created** us without the ability to believe. I have said we will not believe because that part of mankind (the carnal nature, mind, man etc.) that controls us, enslaves us, has become totally and irredeemably depraved. It is not subject to God, nor can it ever be. It must be replaced in us. We are the clay that has become marred in his hands. Only he is able to make something new out of what we have become.”

    What you believe IS saying that God created us without the capability of believing, period.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 11:18

      What you believe IS saying that God created us without the capability of believing, period.

      If we were created without sin and without the proclivity to sin—i.e. we were not tempted to do evil as a normal part of living—then God didn’t create us as we find ourselves today. Romans 5 shows that sin and death were introduced into our race by one man. God didn’t create us sinful. Adam rebelled and became sinful and produced a sinful race.

      You have denied my claim, and again you have done so from your own opinion, showing you have no Scriptural foundation for your claims.

       
  22. AMG

    July 21, 2011 at 00:03

    You said, “As I claimed above, the Scriptures say (cp. Ezekiel 36:26) that God will give us a new heart. Ephesians 2:1-10 claims that God quickens us who are dead in sin. Romans 5 says God justifies his enemies. We were the enemies of God when he saved us. This is what the Scriptures say. Furthermore, Jesus himself says that he has chosen us—we have not chosen him (John 15:16). In fact, the truth of the matter is we have been chosen in Christ since before the Fall, that we would appear before God without blame and to be his children (Ephesians 1:4-5). We weren’t even born at that time. He chose us—we didn’t choose him.”

    You have only repeated falseness that I have already addressed. You are holding on to total depravity, and it is not biblical. Your beliefs go against many scriptures. I have shown you from scriptures that we can choose God, though we cannot stop sinning, and that we need a Savior. We have our Savior now, for all who would believe. Jesus our Savior gives us a new heart. Again, absolutely nothing in the bible says we cannot believe. Give up what is not scriptural. You believe a man made doctrine, which is nothing.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 11:15

      You have only repeated falseness that I have already addressed. You are holding on to total depravity, and it is not biblical. Your beliefs go against many scriptures. I have shown you from scriptures that we can choose God, though we cannot stop sinning, and that we need a Savior. We have our Savior now, for all who would believe. Jesus our Savior gives us a new heart. Again, absolutely nothing in the bible says we cannot believe. Give up what is not scriptural. You believe a man made doctrine, which is nothing.

      You have addressed many things, but not all of them with Scripture. As you do here, you have done elsewhere in this discussion. I have repeatedly supported my understanding with the Scriptures. Your opinions lack Scriptural support both here and elsewhere.

      Above, I have shown that we don’t get to choose Christ. He chooses us (John 15:16), we simply respond to his imitative. We would not seek him unless we are drawn of God (John 6:44). The Scriptures are very clear on this. We are completely unable to return to God, without God first drawing us to himself.

       
  23. AMG

    July 20, 2011 at 23:53

    You said, “I have never said God created us with an inability to choose him. I have said our rebellion has reduced us to the point where we will no longer choose God. Our hearts are evil beyond repair. We need a new heart which is part of the New Covenant.”

    It sounds as if you yourself and everyone else has lived this life for thousands and thousands of years. Some people’s hearts might be evil beyond repair, but not everyone has such a heart, especially not after the Savior and His powerful message.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 11:14

      It sounds as if you yourself and everyone else has lived this life for thousands and thousands of years. Some people’s hearts might be evil beyond repair, but not everyone has such a heart, especially not after the Savior and His powerful message.

      Once again you support nothing you claim. Romans 8:7 specifically says the carnal mind cannot become subject to God. It is part of the ‘old man’ (Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9) which must be ‘put off’ and cannot be saved. These things are a part of us, yet the Scriptures claim they cannot be subject to Christ. 1John 3:9 says that he who is born of God (i.e. our new man—Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10) cannot sin. We sin only when we allow ourselves to slip back into our carnal natures (Romans 7:23). Only Jesus is able to save us from the evil within that seeks to control our lives (compare Romans 7:18 with Romans 7:24-25).

       
  24. AMG

    July 20, 2011 at 23:38

    You said, “Yes, it does, once one realizes God did all this to show us there is no other way but Jesus. We are an obstinate people. We will argue all the “what if’s” we can think of, believing that if only we had the opportunity to do this or that, we would have been successful. No, unless God takes action, no one would come to him if all he did was stretch out his arms to us. We are too obstinate and disobedient. “

    What you say here is not biblical. God was not talking about everyone.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 11:12

      What you say here is not biblical. God was not talking about everyone.

      Yet again, you deny what I claim without your using even one Scripture as your foundation. Jesus claimed that it wasn’t possible for anyone to come to him unless the Father drew that one to Jesus (John 6:44). No one can be saved unless it is through Jesus (Acts 4:12). If no one can be saved except they believe in Jesus and no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws that one, then no one can be saved without God initiating the whole process. We are all simply too obstinate and too disobedient.

       
  25. AMG

    July 20, 2011 at 23:35

    You said, “You keep bringing this up when I told you I was considering the idea. Do you think you are able to convince me through many repetitions of the same argument? I could see your reasoning if you offered more Scripture to support your position, but up to now, all you offered came from Acts 5. Everything else has been a repetition of your original opinion.”

    If I bring up the same thing many times, it is only because you keep repeating the same falseness. I do not know why you put down one scripture, even though I have shown you more than one on this topic. However, one scripture is enough.

     
    • AMG

      July 20, 2011 at 23:35

      One word from Jesus is more powerful than a million words of your false doctrines.

       
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 11:10

      If I bring up the same thing many times, it is only because you keep repeating the same falseness. I do not know why you put down one scripture, even though I have shown you more than one on this topic. However, one scripture is enough.

      I haven’t put down any Scripture. What I have put down is your own conclusions regarding those Scriptures. Why I have acted in such a manner is that your understanding of Scripture “A” is contradicted in Scripture “B”. You take it as though I were contradicting God. I am not. I am contradicting you. There is a difference.

      One word from Jesus is more powerful than a million words of your false doctrines.

      If my doctrine is false, you have been unable to convince me. I have shown how your opinions are contradictory, but you have been unable to show how I am. The single exception to this is the Acts 5 Scripture, and even there you draw a conclusion about it that is contradicted elsewhere.
      For example, I have quoted where the heart is evil (Jeremiah 17:9), but you have claimed it is not evil and you point to Scripture where God is working with the heart. I supported my conclusion by showing that God would replace the heart (Ezekiel 36:26), but you have denied it and I don’t recollect your using any Scripture to support your conclusion. I have shown where the carnal mind is totally depraved (Romans 8:7) and cannot even be subject to God, but you simply reject it without showing any authority, saying the doctrine of total depravity is false. I have even explained where “total depravity” does not indicate the whole man, but it does refer to that which enslaves man—that only is totally depraved, and only it cannot be redeemed. It meant nothing to you, and you rejected it without further Scriptural support. These are the examples which I present to you, showing how you reject the Scriptures. What examples can you show me? Each and every time I have rejected what you have claimed, I did it with Scripture. I don’t reject anyone’s statement out of hand. I always refer to the Scriptures. Show me even one place where I have not referred to the Scriptures specifically or quoted parts from memory?

       
  26. AMG

    July 20, 2011 at 23:31

    You said, “Concerning what we are able to do, we have no ability to save ourselves. The Scriptures show that our rebellion is so conclusive that we prefer our ways over God’s even if our ways would eventually destroy the world we live in and our race in particular. If we are to be saved at all, God must do it, and it doesn’t depend on chance or our help.”

    What you say here just is not so. I have shown you many scriptures that show you that we have a choice. You prefer to believe in total depravity. I believe you are going against the scriptures and following a different spirit, when it comes to this topic. I am not saying Jesus has not saved you. However, I think you would have an even better relationship with the Lord if you stopped believing falseness.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 11:06

      What you say here just is not so. I have shown you many scriptures that show you that we have a choice. You prefer to believe in total depravity. I believe you are going against the scriptures and following a different spirit, when it comes to this topic. I am not saying Jesus has not saved you. However, I think you would have an even better relationship with the Lord if you stopped believing falseness.

      I have supported every claim I have made with Scripture. The above was in the context of John 3:19. God even complained to Israel: “Why will you die?” (Ezekiel 18:31), showing Israel was bent on doing that which would destroy them, and unless God had intervened later, they would never have returned to the Promised Land. They would have been absorbed by the gentile nations. Concerning cosmic suicide, we need only to read the papers or watch the news on TV. Mankind is bent on making a profit for today, even if it destroys the livability of our planet. I have explained to you what the Scriptures say, but you have redefined or completely ignored the clear message they offer.

       
  27. AMG

    July 20, 2011 at 23:24

    You said, “My friend, the New Testament is about Jesus and what I do with him. What I do or don’t do for others will grow out of the decision I make concerning him, but I am not condemned to eternal torment or rewarded eternal life by what I do or don’t do for others.”

    I am not sure what you are saying. You read the passage and disagree with what Jesus says.

    You said, “According to Ephesians 2 I am saved by grace through faith in Jesus. Matthew 25:31-46 does not concern grace in being called or faith in Jesus. None of the people seem to even know Jesus. The virgins know Jesus and those given the talents know Jesus, but these people don’t know him according to the implications of the text. You are basing your doctrine of eternal life and eternal punishment on something not meant to concern faith in Jesus—through which faith we are saved. “

    I do not know what you are saying. I will say this though, that you cannot just say you believe in Jesus, yet do not do what Jesus says to do. Even the demons know that there is One God.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 11:04

      I am not sure what you are saying. You read the passage and disagree with what Jesus says.

      Jesus also said that if my right arm offend me, cut it off, and if my right eye offend me pull it out. It is better to enter into life maimed than to be whole and cast into hell. Do you take these words literally or do you interpret them in some other way? If you don’t take them literally, do you base your conclusion upon your own opinion or do you base it upon Scripture elsewhere that interprets it for you?

      I do not know what you are saying. I will say this though, that you cannot just say you believe in Jesus, yet do not do what Jesus says to do. Even the demons know that there is One God.

      Do you see any reason to suppose anyone in Matthew 25:31-46 had faith in Jesus? Is there a single verse that shows anyone **knew** he was serving or even rejecting Jesus? If all people are doing is being kind to one another during a time of trouble or, contrarily, abandoning people they could have helped, why would this be reason for giving eternal life or eternal punishment?

       
  28. AMG

    July 20, 2011 at 23:16

    You said, “Peter was ashamed of what he had done, and so were the other apostles with him in John 21.”

    I do not get where you think the other apostles were ashamed. I only see from the scriptures that Peter was ashamed. Peter was the one who jumped into the water when Jesus appeared.

    You said, “Unless you wish to say each sin we commit amounts to our faith failing and represents a need to be “reinstated” in Christ, Peter’s faith didn’t fail.”

    Peter denied Jesus three times. You cannot get around that. I am not talking about your sin or my sin or anyone else’s sin; I am talking about Peter denying Jesus. When we sin, we must confess our sins. Jesus said in Luke 22:31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Jesus said, “when you have turned back…” Why is Peter turning back? Peter is turning back from his failed faith. Jesus had to reinstate Peter.

    You said, “The Lord prayed it wouldn’t—remember? You must ask yourself one of two questions. Does God answer Jesus’ prayers? Does Jesus ever pray against God’s will? An answer to either of these questions should show that Peter’s faith didn’t fail.”

    What you say here is very strange indeed. Have you ever prayed for someone who was ill, yet the person died anyway? Are you praying against God’s will? We can pray for people’s faith not failing, but if their faith still fails, then their faith fails. We are not going against God with prayers for others. Furthermore, God does not make us love Him.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 21, 2011 at 11:01

      Greetings AMG, I am happy to see you have decided to continue.

      I do not get where you think the other apostles were ashamed. I only see from the scriptures that Peter was ashamed. Peter was the one who jumped into the water when Jesus appeared.

      I was speaking why **all** seven went fishing (John 21). None of the Apostles stood with Jesus when he was arrested. The moment Jesus showed he didn’t intend to fight, they fled (Matthew 26:56). They were confused. They were ready to fight when they thought the Messiah was ready to fight (Luke 22:36; Matthew 26:51-52), but they were not ready to simply give up their lives for what seemed to them to be no good reason. All were ashamed. None felt worthy to go on and were ready to go back into the business of fishing.

      Peter denied Jesus three times. You cannot get around that. I am not talking about your sin or my sin or anyone else’s sin; I am talking about Peter denying Jesus. When we sin, we must confess our sins. Jesus said in Luke 22:31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Jesus said, “when you have turned back…” Why is Peter turning back? Peter is turning back from his failed faith. Jesus had to reinstate Peter.

      You are ignoring the sin of all. Only Peter and Judas went to the high priest’s house. He displayed great courage and great love for the Lord in risking his life to do so. He had his mind on the “plan” and sought to protect it, because it was the means he thought would free his Lord. He didn’t realize what he had done until he heard the cock and turned to see Jesus looking at him. He wasn’t even aware of his denial until that moment. I am not ignoring his denial, but you seem to ignore the fact that none of the Apostles stood with Jesus through his trials. They were all guilty, but we see Peter’s sin magnified in the Scriptures. This is why the Lord told Peter to strengthen his brethren (the other Apostles) once Peter was converted. They were all ashamed of what they had done. No one dreamed of acting so cowardly. They all boasted of their love for Jesus at the Passover meal.

      What you say here is very strange indeed. Have you ever prayed for someone who was ill, yet the person died anyway? Are you praying against God’s will? We can pray for people’s faith not failing, but if their faith still fails, then their faith fails. We are not going against God with prayers for others. Furthermore, God does not make us love Him

      In other words, God is not Almighty. His will can be overcome in the choices we make. John 5:19 says Jesus can do nothing except what he sees the Father do. Why would Jesus pray for something that he did not see was his Father’s will to do? In v.30 Jesus says he doesn’t seek his own will (as a man) but only the Father’s will. It was the Father’s will that Peter’s faith wouldn’t fail. Is Satan more powerful than the Father? John 15:5 says we can do nothing except as we abide in Jesus. The reason the ‘plan’ failed is that Jesus was not in it. Peter acted on his own initiative. Paul says we can do nothing against the truth (2Corinthians 13:8), so if God’s will is for something to occur, nothing can be done effectually against it. God will prevail. In other words he is Almighty in all he does.

      If it is God’s will for a person to be healed, the person will recover. If the person’s work is finished that God wanted him or her to complete, there is no reason to presume it would be God’s will for recovery. It may be more important for us to carry one without our loved one. His will might be for us, or someone else, to take up the ministry of our fallen brother or sister. Do you believe Jesus is God with a capital “g”? Do you think God can have a second opinion? Do you believe God can have a better idea than he had earlier?

       
  29. AMG

    July 19, 2011 at 12:24

    Here is more for you to consider about the false belief that God created us without the capability of believing.
    You say God made people not to ever be able to believe, but the bible tells us why unbelievers do not believe, it is because the god of this world has blinded their minds. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

    The bible says the god of this world (the devil) has blinded unbelievers, yet some people insist on their false beliefs that people do not believe because God created us without the ability to believe. The bible clearly tells us that the devil blinds people. If not blinded by the devil, then they could possibly believe!
    That is all for now. I think I have given you enough to study for today.
    God bless.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 11:18

      You say God made people not to ever be able to believe, but the bible tells us why unbelievers do not believe, it is because the god of this world has blinded their minds. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

      You are creating your own argument here. I never said God **created** us without the ability to believe. I have said we will not believe because that part of mankind (the carnal nature, mind, man etc.) that controls us, enslaves us, has become totally and irredeemably depraved. It is not subject to God, nor can it ever be. It must be replaced in us. We are the clay that has become marred in his hands. Only he is able to make something new out of what we have become.

      The bible says the god of this world (the devil) has blinded unbelievers, yet some people insist on their false beliefs that people do not believe because God created us without the ability to believe. The bible clearly tells us that the devil blinds people. If not blinded by the devil, then they could possibly believe!

      Yeah, this is one of those “what if’s” I was talking about above. “What if the mean ol’ Devil weren’t around, I bet the Gospel would be believed unhindered!” So, Jesus chained him up and cast him into the bottomless pit (Revelation 20:1-3). The Devil isn’t around anymore to hurt us or accuse us or deceive us. He is in the bottomless pit, and Jesus rules, but still men show themselves to be too obstinate and disobedient to submit to him!

      Well, AMG, this has been a long series. Thank you for your willingness to do this with me. Probably, nothing much has changed between us, but this would be the usual thing in such discussions. I see value in them in that I am able to see others’ perspectives more clearly. I don’t have to anticipate what someone **might** believe or say when someone like you is around to make it quite clear what can and would be said against an argument I have. I am still considering your Acts 5 submission, and have come to a preliminary conclusion, but I am not willing to share this until I have it all worked out in my mind. I hate making mistakes in the Scriptures, and when someone points out a glaring mistake I’ve made, I am all the more hesitant to share more about the matter until I certain that I understand it properly.
      I don’t know how much longer you wish to continue—the posts will get longer and longer. I let the call up to you. I will respond to you for however long you wish to participate.

      Lord bless you and yours,

      Eddie

       
  30. AMG

    July 19, 2011 at 02:13

    Hi Eddie,
    Here are some more things for you to think of:
    What is God searching us for if all are totally depraved?
    Proverbs 20:27 The lamp of the LORD searches the spirit of a man; it searches out his inmost being.
    John 4:23 yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

    You say we cannot believe on our own, but the bible tells us the world’s sin is unbelief in Jesus. If God made us without the ability to believe, then how can it be the world’s sin? God is not responsible for our sins. See John 16:8, 9 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me;

    You believe that believing is not something we can do. However, believing is like drinking water.

    For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 1 Corinthians 12:13.

    You say that the Holy Spirit caused us to believe without our knowing or wanting. However, we do not receive the Holy Spirit before Jesus saves us. We receive the Holy Spirit after we believe.

    We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him. Acts 5:32. (God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey.)

    But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” Romans 10:21. (God held his hand out. The people were obstinate to God holding his hands out.) Isaiah 65:2 All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations–

    Does it make sense that God would hold out His hands to people if He made it impossible for them to come to Him?

    This next scripture says the people were “unwilling” to listen to the LORD”S instruction. These people had a choice, and they were unwilling. Isaiah 30:9 These are rebellious people, deceitful children, children unwilling to listen to the LORD’s instruction.

    You say that God created all people with the inability to choose Him, yet in these next scriptures, it shows that God wants the wicked to turn from their ways. Why would God plead with them to turn from their ways if they cannot choose God?

    Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

    Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

    Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?’

    After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. Acts 15:7-8.

    The scripture says God who knows the heart showed that he accepted them. However, you say there is nothing in our hearts that would make God accept us.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 11:04

      You say we cannot believe on our own, but the bible tells us the world’s sin is unbelief in Jesus. If God made us without the ability to believe, then how can it be the world’s sin? God is not responsible for our sins. See John 16:8, 9 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me;
      You believe that believing is not something we can do. However, believing is like drinking water.

      Actually, the Scriptures offer an evaluation of mankind at the time of Jesus’ ministry. Light had come into the world, but the world preferred darkness. The world’s sin is the same as Adam’s—rebellion. This is rectified through faith in Jesus. The world has rebelled against God and has sought to be independent of him, to the point of even seeking to eradicate his name from all our knowledge. The original plan was to know, love and serve God. That hasn’t changed; Jesus is merely enforcing that directive.

      Concerning what we are able to do, we have no ability to save ourselves. The Scriptures show that our rebellion is so conclusive that we prefer our ways over God’s even if our ways would eventually destroy the world we live in and our race in particular. If we are to be saved at all, God must do it, and it doesn’t depend on chance or our help.

      Concerning John 16:8-9, the Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin because it didn’t believe Jesus. Jesus had been doing the same work, but it rose up against him (John 7:7). The Spirit’s work is internal and works on our conscience.

      You say that the Holy Spirit caused us to believe without our knowing or wanting. However, we do not receive the Holy Spirit before Jesus saves us. We receive the Holy Spirit after we believe.

      You keep bringing this up when I told you I was considering the idea. Do you think you are able to convince me through many repetitions of the same argument? I could see your reasoning if you offered more Scripture to support your position, but up to now, all you offered came from Acts 5. Everything else has been a repetition of your original opinion.

      But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” Romans 10:21. (God held his hand out. The people were obstinate to God holding his hands out.) Isaiah 65:2 All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations–
      Does it make sense that God would hold out His hands to people if He made it impossible for them to come to Him?

      Yes, it does, once one realizes God did all this to show us there is no other way but Jesus. We are an obstinate people. We will argue all the “what if’s” we can think of, believing that if only we had the opportunity to do this or that, we would have been successful. No, unless God takes action, no one would come to him if all he did was stretch out his arms to us. We are too obstinate and disobedient.

      This next scripture says the people were “unwilling” to listen to the LORD”S instruction. These people had a choice, and they were unwilling. Isaiah 30:9 These are rebellious people, deceitful children, children unwilling to listen to the LORD’s instruction.
      You say that God created all people with the inability to choose Him, yet in these next scriptures, it shows that God wants the wicked to turn from their ways. Why would God plead with them to turn from their ways if they cannot choose God?
      Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

      I have never said God created us with an inability to choose him. I have said our rebellion has reduced us to the point where we will no longer choose God. Our hearts are evil beyond repair. We need a new heart which is part of the New Covenant.

      After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. Acts 15:7-8.
      The scripture says God who knows the heart showed that he accepted them. However, you say there is nothing in our hearts that would make God accept us.

      As I claimed above, the Scriptures say (cp. Ezekiel 36:26) that God will give us a new heart. Ephesians 2:1-10 claims that God quickens us who are dead in sin. Romans 5 says God justifies his enemies. We were the enemies of God when he saved us. This is what the Scriptures say. Furthermore, Jesus himself says that he has chosen us—we have not chosen him (John 15:16). In fact, the truth of the matter is we have been chosen in Christ since before the Fall, that we would appear before God without blame and to be his children (Ephesians 1:4-5). We weren’t even born at that time. He chose us—we didn’t choose him.

       
  31. AMG

    July 19, 2011 at 01:07

    You said, “Greetings AMG and welcome. I’ve just read your comment and you do ask some really good questions. I have prayed, asking God to help me in this reply, just as I always do when I study his word. So, I trust he will either give me a reply to the questions you raise, or he will help me to see that your argument is true. Either way, this would be fine with me. I would have a lot of blog deleting to do if you are correct and I am wrong, but that is what I would be compelled to do, if all I am seeking is the truth.”

    Thank you so much for the greeting and welcoming. I am so glad to hear that you think I ask some good questions. I hope that God will help you in seeing the truth. Jesus says with the measure we use it will be measured to us, and more. So do not give up on searching for the truth.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:58

      Thank you so much for the greeting and welcoming. I am so glad to hear that you think I ask some good questions. I hope that God will help you in seeing the truth. Jesus says with the measure we use it will be measured to us, and more. So do not give up on searching for the truth.

      I hope God unveils his truth to both of us.

       
  32. AMG

    July 19, 2011 at 00:59

    You said, “I told you I am not a Calvinist. I don’t agree with all of the statements of the church of which I am a member, and they are not Calvinist. I am simply a Christian, perhaps I have been damaged on the way by the enemies of Christ (I did belong to what is called a cult in my youth), but if so, I probably wouldn’t know that. I have never investigated Calvinism. All I know about the sect is that they believe in partial salvation, and then only those God had predestined to be saved. I know nothing more about Calvinism, and I repudiate this single doctrine that I do understand that they believe.”

    You say you are not a Calvinist, but all your beliefs in this area are the same as John Calvin, except for the part you believe that Jesus will save all. Would you mind saying what cult you were in as a youth? Would you mind saying what denomination you are in now?

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:57

      You say you are not a Calvinist, but all your beliefs in this area are the same as John Calvin, except for the part you believe that Jesus will save all. Would you mind saying what cult you were in as a youth? Would you mind saying what denomination you are in now?

      As I said above in this series, I wouldn’t be ashamed to admit to being a Calvinist, if I embraced their theology, but, quite frankly I don’t know all of what they believe. I trust they are brethren, for I don’t believe it is “by their DOCTRINES you will know them” but by their fruits. I have known a few Presbyterians, and quite frankly, I have seen them as followers of Jesus. I try not to judge who is and who is not my brother in Christ, because I think this is a matter for Jesus to decide. I simply accept people’s declaration as to who they are. Usually, they are correct as to whether they are followers of Jesus or not. Some people, by their testimony born out in their fruits have declared themselves liars, but I wait for the fruits to be declared. I don’t decide a matter by whether or not they fit into what I believe to be true (my favorite doctrines etc.). I simply try to receive others on their own terms. At times this is difficult, but usually I find the Lord leading the way.

      I don’t mention the denomination of the church I attend, because I don’t wish to cast the wrong light upon them, for I believe so many things differently. I won’t mention their name, but I will say it is an evangelical church that embraces dispensational theology. As for the “cult” of which I was a part, I don’t wish to name it either. I have family who are still in it, and from time to time some of them read my blog. I don’t wish anyone writing out how terrible such a church is, when my family would be offended by such remarks.

       
  33. AMG

    July 19, 2011 at 00:55

    You said, “This is a tough question to answer. It is further difficult when one reads that Jesus would “**give** repentance and forgiveness to Israel.” So, in what sense does one “obey” God before one “repents”. I assume that the gift of “repentance” would also be held back until we **obey** God. What is it that we must obey or in what sense are we obedient before receiving the gifts of “repentance” and the Holy Spirit?”

    Jesus giving repentance and forgiveness to Israel does NOT mean that God makes anyone repent. We obey God when we believe in His Word. That is what we have to do.

    You said, “Ephesians 2:1-10 KJV And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (3) Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (4) But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, (5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) (6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (7) That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast. (10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

    I have already answered these scriptures previously. God quickened believers, because they believe. God does not make us believe. The scripture does NOT say God quickened us TO believe. Being dead in trespasses and sins does NOT mean dead to belief in the Truth. In verse 8, grace is the gift spoken of, not faith. Of course, we would not have saving faith, unless Jesus came to save us, because he is our saving faith. However, you misunderstand the scriptures.

    You said, “This doesn’t mean we can ignore Acts 5:32, but we do have to ask in what sense do we “obey” God according to this Scripture?”

    We obey when we believe. We believe unto every word of God and the commands of Jesus Christ.

    You said, “To be honest, I think it was 1Peter 3:18 that led me to believe that Ephesians 2:1, 3 must mean that God quickened us by giving us his Holy Spirit, but upon considering it once more, I have to admit that “quickening **by** his Spirit does not necessarily mean quickening through the gift of his Holy Spirit. Both Scriptures would work this way, but I don’t yet understand how we could be quickened in our spiritual understanding without the gift of the Holy Spirit (see 1Corinthians 2)”

    We obey by believing, AND THEN we receive the Holy Spirit.

    You said, “If we don’t understand, how can we obey? I need to consider this more. I have no appropriate answer at this time.”

    It is a false doctrine to say that we cannot understand. The bible tells us that even a child can understand the scriptures. It is when false teachers throw us into confusion that it makes it difficult.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:53

      Jesus giving repentance and forgiveness to Israel does NOT mean that God makes anyone repent. We obey God when we believe in His Word. That is what we have to do.

      Neither do I believe that God forces anyone to repent. He **GIVES** us repentance. It cannot be refused. He puts it within our hearts, and our hearts respond. We can fight it for awhile, like Paul did, but we only end up hurting ourselves, as Jesus told Paul. Eventually, we give in to that which has been placed within us.

      I agree that we obey God when we believe his word, but your point seems to presume that it is all our effort. The faith through which we are saved is given us by God. It is not conjured up within us. It is given us by God. This is what the Scriptures claim.

      I have already answered these scriptures previously. God quickened believers, because they believe. God does not make us believe. The scripture does NOT say God quickened us TO believe. Being dead in trespasses and sins does NOT mean dead to belief in the Truth. In verse 8, grace is the gift spoken of, not faith. Of course, we would not have saving faith, unless Jesus came to save us, because he is our saving faith. However, you misunderstand the scriptures.

      Indeed you have replied to these questions before, and I have taken issue with those replies. So, though mentioned nothing is resolved between us. You are correct in saying that the Scriptures do not specifically say that God quickened us in order that we believe, but you neglect to mention the purpose of God’s quickening us, when clearly we haven’t responded to him before he does so.

      You mention that “Being dead in trespasses and sins does NOT mean dead to belief in the Truth.” You do not support this with Scripture, but I have to wonder how your opinion would stand under the light of 1Corinthians 2:10-12 and especially verse-14 “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” If the natural man is dead in trespasses and sins, for he is unable to submit to God (Romans 8:7), and this natural man cannot understand Scripture, how can he come to God through faith or believing in the truth he doesn’t understand?

      Concerning faith in Ephesians 2:8, if it is not a gift from God, then we are saved through our own works, which verse-9 denies. If faith is our works then neither can grace be a gift, because grace would be owed to us by our believing (which we cannot do if we are carnal anyway). I do not see how your response fits the Scriptures.

      We obey when we believe. We believe unto every word of God and the commands of Jesus Christ.

      The Scriptures conclude that the natural mind (carnal) cannot obey God or understand his word (Romans 8:7; 1Corinthians 2:10-14).

      We obey by believing, AND THEN we receive the Holy Spirit.

      This may be true (I have to look into the particulars further), but you still have not supported you case throughout this discussion.

      It is a false doctrine to say that we cannot understand. The bible tells us that even a child can understand the scriptures. It is when false teachers throw us into confusion that it makes it difficult.

      A child can understand the basic tenets of the Gospel. To conclude that all Scripture could be understood by a mere child is simply untrue.

       
  34. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 21:48

    You said, “I agreed with you that the wicked didn’t repent. I also gave you a reason why. According to the Scriptures, “repentance” is a gift from God. Although I agree that we have a 50-50 choice, I see us in rebellion against God (unless God does something to our hearts). In such a case we will always choose to reject God. He must correct our hearts for salvation to become a reality for anyone.”

    God allowing us to repent is life saving. This does NOT mean God causes us to repent. God does NOT make us repent. That is not scriptural. We can choose God. God wants us to choose Him.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:46

      God allowing us to repent is life saving. This does NOT mean God causes us to repent. God does NOT make us repent. That is not scriptural. We can choose God. God wants us to choose Him.

      God also allows the sun to shine. He also gives us the sun and it shines whether we want it to or not. God allows it to rain. He also gives us the rain to sustain our lives. It will rain (barring judgment) whether we want it to or not. The gifts of God cannot be refused. We can try to do so, but we cannot. When he gives something, it is given, and we have no right to complain, saying: “Why have you made me so…” He’s the Creator, and we are not.

       
  35. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 21:41

    You said, “In what way would I have an honest and good heart, if I were obedient to the lusts of the flesh and no different than the children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).”

    We are not totally depraved. Total depravity is not scriptural. You can be obedient to the lusts of the flesh and yet love your family and friends. Luke 6:32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.

    You said, “This is not speaking of people who don’t listen to the Gospel with a “good and honest heart.” Paul is writing to believers, yet Paul claims **all** i.e. everyone were just as the children of wrath at one time. The question then arises, when would we listen with a “good and honest heart”? The only answer I see—if I am to be honest with **both** Scriptures—is that I will listen correctly when my heart is changed. Jeremiah 17:9 is God’s verdict upon all mankind, unless you believe that Ezekiel 18:31 and 36:26 mean only the Jews need to be changed.”

    Please reconsider all this you have to say after reading what all I wrote.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:44

      We are not totally depraved. Total depravity is not scriptural. You can be obedient to the lusts of the flesh and yet love your family and friends. Luke 6:32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.

      You are the one who have accused me of believing in the “total depravity” doctrine. I am not even certain what that doctrine entails. As I said before, I don’t study the beliefs of different denominations of Christianity. I pick up a few things in discussions like this one, but I don’t study the belief systems of any church. I simply read my Bible and let the Holy Spirit teach me.

      I do believe that our carnal nature (whatever that is: heart, spirit or whatever) **is** totally depraved. This does not mean that the whole man is this way—only our carnal nature. I say it is depraved because Scripture tells me that it is not subject to God nor can it be (Romans 8:7). Therefore, it must be replaced, so I assume, since God also says he will give us a new heart, that carnal nature = old heart (old man) etc. and is to be replace **not** saved.

      Please reconsider all this you have to say after reading what all I wrote.
      How is this a reply to my comment to you? You had been trying to disprove the “totally depraved” argument by using Matthew 18:3 and Luke 8:15. I mentioned the need to also consider Ephesians 2:1-10 where it shows us that, prior to believing in Christ, we were the children of wrath just like anyone else in the world. Yet God saves us through faith, which he gives to us. We aren’t even saved by our own belief, trust or faith; we are saved by what God gives us. If we are unable to respond to God without him helping us to do so—viz. his causing us to become reborn, giving us spiritual understanding etc.—if all this must be given us before we are actually saved, then something in us is totally depraved and keeping us from acting upon God’s word by ourselves. The whole person would not be totally depraved, for why would God want to save that, but some part of us—the part that controls us—is, in fact, totally depraved and cannot, itself, be saved. It is replaced by something new.

      You did not address this argument. Instead, you focused upon Jeremiah 17:9 and Ezekiel 18:31; 36:26 and told me to reconsider what you said earlier in response to these Scriptures. I did, and have already addressed them above.

       
  36. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 21:28

    You said, “ True! However, the Bible does say **all** shall be saved. I don’t see how people can be saved without being given the Holy Spirit, so I drew a conclusion not specifically stated in God’s word, but certainly it is implied.”

    Show scripture that says Jesus will save “all.”

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:39

      Show scripture that says Jesus will save “all.”

      I already quoted Romans 5:18, but you redefined God’s words to mean your doctrine. You have done the same with 1Timothy 2:6 and 4:10. I could also say Jesus is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (John1:29), and that he was sent into the world to save the world (John 3:15-17. I’ve tried to show that God’s word will not return to him void, but you keep nullifying the word of God in order to uphold your doctrine. I could point to 1John 2:2 where it clearly says Jesus it not only the propitiation of our sins, but the sins of the world as well. Moreover, I could point to 1John 4:14 where Jesus was sent into the world to be the Savior of the world, but you keep redefining this to mean “only those who believe.” I could go on, but to what end. You seem satisfied in what you already believe. No amount of Scripture quoting seems likely to change this.

       
  37. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 21:13

    You said, “There is not a doubt in my mind that this is what you believe. However, as I have shown above, you are willing to quote some Scripture on a given subject, but you don’t seem to be willing (or you ignorantly pass it by) to quote those Scriptures which seem to deny what you conclude. I am not accusing you of dishonesty—the heart is something that only God is able to see. I see you as a brother in Christ, just as I do those with whom I worship, and I thank God for the church I attend. “

    I am willingly to discuss all scripture with you. I do not ignorantly pass any by. You must realize that even one scripture is the powerful Word of God, and you cannot rightly discount what God says, even if God only said it once!

     
  38. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 21:04

    You said, “Once again, I need to point out that you have the proclivity of choosing only those Scriptures that seem to support your doctrines. It is the fact that you used only those Scriptures that made God out to be someone who would torture living beings for eternity that I considered monstrous. It is unlawful for us to torture animals, even those that have done us harm. Why wouldn’t it be wrong for God to torture he enemies for eternity? Wouldn’t one think God had more integrity than men? We have more consideration for animals than how you have portrayed God in the Scriptures. I don’t mean to be nasty here. I am simply stating what was done, because you don’t seem to consider the end of what you say about God. All you seem to care about is, can a Scripture be found to technically say “thus and so” is true? I defend the name of God when
    unbelievers try to tell me how monstrous he is. You are a brother in Christ, and though you seem to try to prove the unbeliever’s case, I have tried to be gentler with you.”

    I will talk about all scriptures that you want. I do not know where you get the idea that I only speak of some scriptures. Sin is evil. Men choose this over the Truth.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:36

      I will talk about all scriptures that you want. I do not know where you get the idea that I only speak of some scriptures. Sin is evil. Men choose this over the Truth.

      In another comment used a similar reply:
      I am willingly to discuss all scripture with you. I do not ignorantly pass any by. You must realize that even one scripture is the powerful Word of God, and you cannot rightly discount what God says, even if God only said it once!

      As I said in a previous comment, my reference to you not addressing Scriptures had to do with how you reply to what I write and how you support your own understanding. When you reply to the Scriptures I quote, you often redefine their meaning without using a single Scripture to support your conclusion.

      At other times, when focusing on your own submission to me, you offer a Scripture or two, but you don’t take into consideration anything that might be used against your point of view. In such a case, it is not the Scriptures that are wrong, but the point of view held that must be wrong. All Scripture relating to a particular subject must be considered before arriving at the whole truth. Let God be true though all men be accounted liars.

       
  39. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 20:44

    You said,”Perhaps you are correct here, but as I said above, I am considering my position on this. One thing is certain, however, I will not be making my decision based solely upon Acts 5, as you seem to have done. Ephesians 2 is in serious conflict with your understanding of how people are saved. For one thing, you don’t seem to consider Jeremiah 17:9, Ezekiel 18:31 or Ezekiel 36:26. I don’t pretend to know why you don’t consider these Scriptures in your overall understanding, but the evidence is clear that you seem to be leaving a lot out of what it means to be saved. “

    I am so excited to hear that you are considering your position on this topic of when we receive the Holy Spirit. I do not know why you think I have not considered the scriptures you posted. As I said before, I will answer all of them. You did not specify here which scripture in Ephesians 2 you wanted to discuss, so I will just talk of all of it. Ephesians 2:1-3 is about how all of us were before—dead in our sins before Jesus. Dead in our sins does not mean we were literally dead and unable to hear the word of God and believe. In the Old Testament, there were the righteous—those who believed in God, those who obey by believing, but cannot stop sinning, that is why they needed a Savior, and we have a Savior now, Jesus Christ. We need Jesus and His Spirit, so that we CAN stop sinning. Ephesians 2:4-10 is all about how we did nothing at all to talk God into saving us, by God’s grace we have salvation, and not by works. Ephesians 2:11-22 is about how in the past, one would have to be a Jew to have a relationship with God, and follow many works, but now Gentiles and Jews have the chance of being reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, and not through works but by faith.
    You also want to discuss Jeremiah 17:9. Jeremiah 17:9 does not mean we cannot believe in God and Jesus, it just does not say that. Read all of Jeremiah 17:1-18, nowhere is it even implied that no one could believe in God.
    You also want to discuss Ezekiel 18:31. What exactly do you want to discuss? God is telling us that He takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, yet we still have a choice!
    Ezekiel 36:26 does not even imply that we cannot believe in God. There were people in the Old Testament, as ALL people are even today—we cannot stop sinning without Jesus saving us, without Jesus giving us the Holy Spirit. This does NOT mean we cannot believe in God and Jesus. We cannot stop doing wrong without the Holy Spirit—it does not mean we do not know right from wrong. There are righteous people in the Old Testament, this means that they are righteous BECAUSE they believe, but they cannot stop doing wrong without the Holy Spirit. I can give you scripture telling us that we are righteous for believing.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:32

      I am so excited to hear that you are considering your position on this topic of when we receive the Holy Spirit.

      I wouldn’t get too excited, if I were you, my friend. As I told you, whatever I decide will not be decided upon the Acts 5 Scripture alone. I am not a “one-liner” Christian. What I believe is based upon more than one Scripture. I try to imagine what Scriptures could be used both to support and to contradict any position I take. This is why I love to discuss with people at variance with me. Many of these folks know all the Scriptures that would contradict my position. So, most of my leg-work is done for me by nice folks like you! :-)

      I do not know why you think I have not considered the scriptures you posted. As I said before, I will answer all of them. You did not specify here which scripture in Ephesians 2 you wanted to discuss, so I will just talk of all of it.

      This is not what I meant. What I had in mind was you often use only one or two Scriptures to support your position. You don’t seem to even know about those Scriptures that could contradict what you claim. When I post those Scriptures, you simply deny what they clearly say by redefining them (often without any further Scriptural support). An example of what I mean is how you replied to the Romans 5 argument. You denied what the Scripture clearly said by redefining it, and you did this solely on your own authority—no additional Scripture was used. This is what I mean about your not “considering the Scriptures in this discussion”.

      I am leaving out your commentary on Ephesians 2. It has nothing to do with this discussion, and you completely misunderstood what I was saying. Hence, it answers nothing here.

      You also want to discuss Jeremiah 17:9. Jeremiah 17:9 does not mean we cannot believe in God and Jesus, it just does not say that. Read all of Jeremiah 17:1-18, nowhere is it even implied that no one could believe in God.
      You also want to discuss Ezekiel 18:31. What exactly do you want to discuss? God is telling us that He takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, yet we still have a choice!
      Ezekiel 36:26 does not even imply that we cannot believe in God. There were people in the Old Testament, as ALL people are even today—we cannot stop sinning without Jesus saving us, without Jesus giving us the Holy Spirit. This does NOT mean we cannot believe in God and Jesus. We cannot stop doing wrong without the Holy Spirit—it does not mean we do not know right from wrong. There are righteous people in the Old Testament, this means that they are righteous BECAUSE they believe, but they cannot stop doing wrong without the Holy Spirit. I can give you scripture telling us that we are righteous for believing.

      Who said anything about “belief in God”? The Jews weren’t atheists! They simply would not **obey** God. They needed a new heart, as God says and promises to give them in Ezekiel 36:26. The heart is desperately wicked and we must not lean upon it. The book of Judges is a book of apostasy, and everyone did that which was right in his own eyes. Even YOU admit above: “There were people in the Old Testament, as ALL people are even today—we cannot stop sinning without Jesus saving us, without Jesus giving us the Holy Spirit.” This is what I have been saying all along. If we are dead in our sins, we cannot do anything pleasing to God UNTIL he saves us. He must save us **first**, and then we can be obedient because of the Holy Spirit within us. But, if this is so for us, it must also be true of all those who are disobedient to the Gospel. Unless and until God saves man, man cannot do anything pleasing to him. This does not mean there is nothing good in mankind at all, but it does mean that our carnal heart cannot be saved. It must be replaced. It is not subject to God, nor can it be, according to the Scriptures. However, before we are saved, we are slaves to our carnal nature.

       
  40. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 19:16

    You said, “One thing is abundantly clear to me. I do not understand your definition of faith which you submit above.“

    If you did a Google search on Calvinism, you could read just a little before finding out that it is the same belief as yours, minus the fact that you believe Jesus will save ALL.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:26

      If you did a Google search on Calvinism, you could read just a little before finding out that it is the same belief as yours, minus the fact that you believe Jesus will save ALL.

      Would you feel better if I admitted I am a Calvinist? I have no problem with Christians of different denominations. If you want to label me a Calvinist, go right ahead. I don’t really know what they believe other than they believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus. That is good enough for me to call them brethren. What else they believe or don’t believe is filler. This is how I view all denominations, including the one, that the wonderful church, that I attend and am a member is a part of. I really don’t see your point with all this criticism of Calvinism. It has been my experience that many denominations preach very wonderful truths about Jesus and the Gospel. They also preach some error. All do. There is no such thing as a “one true church” that Jesus founded. We are all the church Jesus founded, but we have picked up some error along the way. If you think you have all your ducks in a row… Well, all I can say is, it must be nice to be perfect! :-)

       
  41. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 17:38

    You said, “Yet, Psalm 2 says of God speaking to the Messiah: “ask of me and I will give you the nations” (gentiles).”

    Eddie, what exactly are you trying to prove with Psalm 2?

    You said, “Moreover, John 6:37 implies all will come if all were given, and everyone who comes to Jesus (viz. all) would be received; i.e. he would not cast out any!”

    I do not understand what you mean by “all will come if all were given.” Not everyone searches for God, and therefore, Jesus will not save all, only those that the Father gives to Jesus. John 17:6 “I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.

    You said, “Additionally, 1Timothy 4:10 tells us that God is the Savior of **all** men—but especially he is the Savior of those who believe. If he is the Savior of unbelievers, in what sense is he their Savior? “

    Jesus is the Savior of unbelievers in that Jesus will save them if they believe. We all have a chance.

    You said, “Speaking of Jesus, Paul tells us in 1Timothy 2:6 that he is the ransom of **all** men—which will be testified in due time.”

    Jesus is the ransom of all men, but all men have to believe. In addition, the words “the testimony given in its proper time” is about the time Jesus came and revealed his gospel to us.

    You said, “Frankly, I don’t see how partial salvation could be derived from these Scriptures. In fact, in Romans 5 we are given a direct parallel between what Adam lost and what Jesus gained for humanity. We have inherited death and our proclivity to sin through Adam (v.12), but over abundantly Jesus answers Adam’s offense (v.15) in that the many (read **all** because it is a direct parallel) are saved. In Romans 5:18 judgment has come upon all men through the offense of Adam, but justification has come upon **all** men through the righteousness of Jesus. As the whole race went with Adam, the same is true with Christ, to be evidenced in due time. “

    Adam had a choice to sin or not. Through Adam came sin and ALL die. Now through Jesus, we have a choice to sin or not, and through Jesus, ALL will live and never again die. At the resurrection, Jesus will give ALL an immortal body, both the righteous and the wicked. You see, Jesus conquered death when he rose from the dead. Satan had the power over death, until Jesus. Here are scriptures for you to consider carefully:
    Acts 24:15
    and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.
    Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death–that is, the devil–

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:23

      Eddie, what exactly are you trying to prove with Psalm 2

      You claimed that **all** would not come to Jesus. In Psalm 2, which is a Messianic Psalm, has God speaking with his Son, the Messiah: “ask of me and I will give you the nations.” If God gives the nations to Jesus, the nations will flow unto him. It is a short Psalm; didn’t you read it? I quoted the part I thought pertinent to our argument.

      I do not understand what you mean by “all will come if all were given.” Not everyone searches for God, and therefore, Jesus will not save all, only those that the Father gives to Jesus. John 17:6 “I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.

      Jesus says that everyone the Father gives him will come. If he gives two, two will come, if 100, 100 will come. The concept is however many are given that amount will come to Jesus. If God gives all, then all will come. The point is, why not all, if God is interested in bringing as many as possible to salvation? You do believe God desires all to be saved don’t you (2Peter 3:9)?

      I agree that not everyone searches for God. What does that mean based upon our discussion? It must mean God—at least at this time—is not calling or drawing everyone to Jesus. Remember, Jesus said **all** that the Father draws will come. If many are not coming, then God must not be drawing **all**. But this doesn’t make sense in light of Scriptures like 2Peter 3:9 above. Consequently, how we look at John 6:37 and 2Peter 3:9 needs reconsideration in light of what is **not** happening, because God’s word is true no matter what men say or how we act.

      Concerning John 17:6-8, actually your best Scripture is verse-9 “I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which you have given me, because they are yours.” What you quoted plus verse-9 are always quoted to prove partial salvation. Dare I say it? It is **Calvinist**!!! They believe in a partial salvation too, and they try to prove their doctrine with Scriptures like Ephesians 1:4 which points out that the very people being saved now were chosen—predestined—by God from before the fall of man. While it is true that we were indeed chosen or predestined by God to be Christ’s, it makes no sense to preach the Gospel if he intends to save only us. If he intends to save others but doesn’t call them, then no others will come, so why the Gospel? If John 17:6-9 is all that Jesus receives and they have been predestined to be his from before the fall of mankind (Ephesians 1:4), then it is pointless to preach the Gospel when God knows no one else would be saved, because he doesn’t intend to draw them to Jesus.

      Jesus is the Savior of unbelievers in that Jesus will save them if they believe. We all have a chance.

      Therein lay the difference in our outlooks of the Gospel. You believe God left salvation up to “chance”, while I do not. Salvation is as sure for all as Jesus was crucified for all. Did you know that Fortuna was the goddess of ‘chance’ in the first century CE and was very popular then too?

      Concerning 1Timothy 2:6…
      Jesus is the ransom of all men, but all men have to believe. In addition, the words “the testimony given in its proper time” is about the time Jesus came and revealed his gospel to us.

      You keep placing the condition of salvation upon man. How can we help Jesus save us? The Scriptures show us that no one was with him when he bore our sins. He died alone and abandoned by all. What is it that you think we can bring to the table? You keep saying we bring “belief” or faith, but this too is a gift from God, according to Ephesians 2. Do we have to believe that we would believe once we have the gift of faith before we can receive the gift of faith? Do I have to believe in the sun before I can see it or feel its rays? Do I have to believe in the rain, before I can reap its benefits for what I grow? God gives to the just and the unjust and we don’t have to believe him in order to receive the gifts he gives. It is simply done. Your argument above is without authority. The Scripture says Jesus is the (equivalent) ransom for all. 1Timothy 4:10 says God is the Savior of those who DON’T believe in him. We know this because the Scripture makes a distinction between **all** men and those who believe. He is the Savior of **all** men, including unbelievers.

      Concerning Romans 5…
      Adam had a choice to sin or not. Through Adam came sin and ALL die. Now through Jesus, we have a choice to sin or not, and through Jesus, ALL will live and never again die. At the resurrection, Jesus will give ALL an immortal body, both the righteous and the wicked. You see, Jesus conquered death when he rose from the dead. Satan had the power over death, until Jesus.

      You are reading your doctrine into the Scriptures, my friend, I would never know what Romans 5 says by looking at your commentary above. Here is the conclusion of the matter:

      Romans 5:18 KJV Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

      Romans 8:18 says **all** men receive justification of life. When does Jesus justify men?

      Romans 5:8-10 KJV But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (9) Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. (10) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (emphasis mind)

      When we were sinners, Christ died for us (v.8). When we were sinners (v.8) we were justified (v.9). When we were still God’s enemies (v.10) we were reconciled to him. This is what Romans 5 claims. Salvation, including the battle, is the Lord’s—not yours or mine. It is all him.

       
  42. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 16:42

    You said, “There is no such thing as an unforgiveable sin. This understanding makes a sin greater than the love or mercy of God. There is a sin that will not be forgiven during an age, but not in the sense that it wouldn’t be forgiven for eternity.”

    Eddie, you have been shown scripture that plainly says there is an eternal sin. If you deny that, then there is no further discussion concerning this topic. Mark 3:28-29“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (NASB).

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:11

      Eddie, you have been shown scripture that plainly says there is an eternal sin. If you deny that, then there is no further discussion concerning this topic. Mark 3:28-29“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (NASB).

      I know you don’t like the Greek, but the NT was written in Greek. I quoted “Young’s Literal Translation” for you, but you seem to believe the NASB is much better. The Greek word is aion (G165)—he has no forgiveness into the “age”. The final phrase is he is in danger of age (G166) judgment. G165 is the noun and (G166) is the adjective. It is not speaking of an unforgivable sin. Trying to make it so places limitations upon God. He cannot save a person because a sin too great for forgiveness has been committed. There is no difference in this than is saying God created a rock too heavy for him to lift. According to this doctrine God is not Almighty. He cannot do something—therefore his power is brought into question. The doctrine fails on many counts.

       
  43. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 16:38

    You said,” Concerning Matthew 25:46 and Jesus judgment of the nations (Matthew 25:31-46), I have to admit that I have labored over these verses and have believed one way and then another, so they are not easily understood—at least not for me. One thing that stands out in my mind, as it pertains to this Scripture, is the reason for their judgment. They were judged, not for their faith, but for how they treated others. Nothing is said of their acceptance or rejection of Jesus. They don’t even seem to have known him in a spiritual sense—no one is aware of either serving him or mistreating him. They are simply judged for how they have treated their fellow man.”

    Eddie, you claim that Jesus will save all, and that punishment will be temporary. I have shown you a passage about people going to “eternal punishment.” Why are you now trying to make the topic about why these people are in eternal fire?

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:08

      Concerning Matthew 25:46
      Eddie, you claim that Jesus will save all, and that punishment will be temporary. I have shown you a passage about people going to “eternal punishment.” Why are you now trying to make the topic about why these people are in eternal fire?

      My friend, the New Testament is about Jesus and what I do with him. What I do or don’t do for others will grow out of the decision I make concerning him, but I am not condemned to eternal torment or rewarded eternal life by what I do or don’t do for others. According to Ephesians 2 I am saved by grace through faith in Jesus. Matthew 25:31-46 does not concern grace in being called or faith in Jesus. None of the people seem to even know Jesus. The virgins know Jesus and those given the talents know Jesus, but these people don’t know him according to the implications of the text. You are basing your doctrine of eternal life and eternal punishment on something not meant to concern faith in Jesus—through which faith we are saved.

       
  44. AMG

    July 18, 2011 at 16:16

    You said, “I don’t know what else I can say except to say I believe Jesus. He prayed for Peter’s faith not to fail—the Father always hears Jesus—if the Father hears, the request is granted—therefore, Peter’s faith didn’t fail, and your understanding of this Scripture cannot be sound. “

    Hi Eddie, Thank you so much for deciding to be gentler with me. I do not know why you claim I have avoided any scriptures. I will reply to every scripture you brought up in this latest reply to me. I do want to slow down and take one topic at a time, if that is all right with you. As for Peter’s faith…you said Peter’s faith did not fail, if Peter’s faith did not fail, then tell me why Jesus had to reinstate Peter? Furthermore, do you not call denying Jesus three times a failure of faith?
    Jesus does not force us to love him.

    John 21:15
    New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
    Jesus Reinstates Peter
    15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
    “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
    Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 20, 2011 at 10:05

      Greetings AMG. I am glad to begin answering your comments. I presume now you are finished for this series.

      I do not know why you claim I have avoided any scriptures. I will reply to every scripture you brought up in this latest reply to me.

      Well, that would be good, but I wasn’t referring to this in my reply, but if you do this, it should address what I had in mind.

      I do want to slow down and take one topic at a time, if that is all right with you.

      I have no problem with whatever pace you wish to set.

      As for Peter’s faith…you said Peter’s faith did not fail, if Peter’s faith did not fail, then tell me why Jesus had to reinstate Peter?

      Peter was ashamed of what he had done, and so were the other apostles with him in John 21. They didn’t consider themselves worthy of the mission Jesus had in mind. They were going to go back into the fishing business. They considered that they loved Jesus, but each one of them left Jesus to go through this alone, and Peter even denied knowing him three times. Events didn’t transpire as they would have liked—even if Jesus had to die, they thought they should have died with him.

      How do I know this? I know it by looking at what is said and done in John 21. John 21:1-3 shows Peter and 6 other disciples thought it would be a better idea to simply go back into the fishing business. Jesus came to them and after a meal addressed Peter’s problem. He asked if he loved (agapao) him but Peter responded by saying he loved (phileo) him. I presume you know the difference in these words. Jesus asked the second time using the same word and Peter responded as before, but the third time Jesus used Peter’s word for love, and that grieved Peter. He was no longer the hot-shot at the Passover meal arguing about who loved the Lord more. He was humble, knowing full well how weak he was, and he did not want that to occur again. He simply didn’t trust himself any longer.

      It is how Peter responded to the Lord’s third question that put things right. Peter admitted that Jesus knew all things. Fine, if Jesus knows all things, then he told Peter how he would glorify God in his death. That was enough for Peter. Once he understood that he would not fail the Lord like he did before the crucifixion, he would do whatever Jesus asked. Peter sinned, as we all do. Unless you wish to say each sin we commit amounts to our faith failing and represents a need to be “reinstated” in Christ, Peter’s faith didn’t fail. The Lord prayed it wouldn’t—remember? You must ask yourself one of two questions. Does God answer Jesus’ prayers? Does Jesus ever pray against God’s will? An answer to either of these questions should show that Peter’s faith didn’t fail.

      Furthermore, do you not call denying Jesus three times a failure of faith?
      Jesus does not force us to love him.

      No, and I’ll tell you why. First of all, Jesus didn’t claim Peter failed. He told Peter that he prayed he wouldn’t fail. Jesus’ prayers are always answered—therefore, Peter’s faith didn’t fail. Did Peter fall flat on his face? You can be sure he did. However, a failed plan does not mean Peter showed he didn’t love the Lord.

      Peter said he would follow the band who took the Lord to see how things would go (Matthew 26:58). In other words he was there to see what would occur and report back to the others. Jesus had friends and disciples in the city, something could be done during the Passover to get Jesus released. No one imagined what would take place in less than one day. It was illegal to hold a trial for a capital crime at night. Furthermore, it was illegal to execute anyone during the Festival. Peter didn’t dream Jesus would be executed. He was there to gain information and report back to the others. That was the plan implied in Matthew 26:58 and knowing how Jewish law was supposed to work, he thought it would probably succeed as long as he could remain anonymous.

      When people began pointing to Peter and associating him with Jesus, it wasn’t out of fear to be connected with Jesus per se. The plan was to secretly find out what was taking place and report back. This information would be helpful to perhaps gain Jesus’ release later. Peter, therefore, couldn’t allow himself to become known. He had a mission—the plan had to be protected. Peter acted to keep the plan from being discovered. After all, it was because Peter loved the Lord that he risked the danger in which he placed himself—this is my thinking and it fits the events. Peter loved the Lord, but he trusted in his own methods or the methods of the group to gain Jesus’ release. That is why he was there, and that is why he sought not to be discovered. It was only when the cock was heard for the second time that Peter remembered, and looked up at Jesus and found Jesus looking at him. He knew then that he did wrong. The plan wouldn’t work. All was lost.

      Peter didn’t want anything like that to occur again, so he planned to go back to the fishing business. Judas’ faith failed. Peter’s did not.

       
  45. AMG

    July 17, 2011 at 23:37

    Eddie, it is difficult to read what you write sometimes, but I think you are worth taking the time to explain things too.

    You said, “Notice that the Scripture says “all that are increased against him shall be ashamed.” God doesn’t make junk. We have rebelled; that’s true, but once certain elements are taken out of the way and we are given the Spirit of God all of us will submit to him. The elect submit today only because we have the Spirit of God. All men do not have what we have.”

    This sounds very Calvinistic of you, or maybe Lutheran. We do not get the Holy Spirit THEN submit to God; rather we submit to God THEN receive the Holy Spirit. Please see this next passage:
    Acts 5:30-32 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
    “…the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

    You said, “You are making a mistake in viewing the wrath of God as a tool to get people to repent. People—all people, which includes you and me—will not repent through force. Someone could get us to recant due to pain, but as soon as the ‘strong’ man is out of sight we would do what we had been doing, unless, of course, our spirits are broken. In such a case one would do anything to avoid pain.”

    Eddie, All I did was post the scriptures to you. God’s Wrath was on the wicked, but the people left alive STILL did not repent. That is what God’s Word says. The wicked could have repented after the plagues, and this repenting is acceptable
    Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood–idols that cannot see or hear or walk.

    You said, “No, according to the Scriptures repentance is a gift. The plagues are brought down upon man for two reasons: punishment and to express the need for God’s grace. Unless he gives us the gift of repentance, no one would sincerely repent (1Timothy 2:25). When one is dead in sins, there is absolutely nothing he could do, spiritually, to please God. Dead people can do nothing, and spiritually dead people can do nothing spiritually including repenting.”

    Eddie, you said you were not a Calvinist, but what you speak is from John Calvin. Your belief is total depravity. Total depravity is a false doctrine. Look at these passages. Matthew 18:3 (Jesus says to become like little children.) He would not tell us to do this if children were truly born totally depraved. Luke 8:15 “… these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.” (If total depravity is true, then there is no such thing as “good and honest” hearts.)

    You said, “On the contrary, the Scriptures show the wicked will be punished. The difference between you and me is—for how long? I don’t believe the wicked will be punished for eternity. They will be punished, be given the Holy Spirit and all the spiritual gifts that implies and will begin to enjoy eternity with God with the rest of us.”

    The Bible does NOT say that the wicked will be punished then given the Holy Spirit.
    You said, “You see, my friend, I don’t believe God is anything like what many religious institutions portray him.”

    I am only speaking what the scriptures say; you just do not like the God of the bible.

    You said, “That’s not their choice to make. First of all, they are unable to make an honest choice given the fact they don’t have the Holy Spirit. Repentance, according to the Scriptures is a gift. It is not something we find in our hearts because someone came along and made us feel regret for what we have been doing to others etc. Repentance is a gift God gives to those he draws to Christ. The spiritually dead have no spiritual choice to make. First, they must be made alive in the spirit before they can make any spiritual choices that honor God.”

    Again, you are confused and led astray by Calvinism. Choose God, and Choose the Truth. We do have a choice. Read my journal on Calvinism. It just might help to open your eyes. I still cannot figure out why you denied being a Calvinist. Lol

    You said, “I don’t think God is monstrous, but I do believe the partial salvation doctrine (especially when coupled with eternal torture) is a monstrous portrayal of him and his works. The wicked will accept true doctrine because they will be given the Holy Spirit.”
    I spoke only of what the bible says, and you did say that makes God an evil monster.
    You said, “No one—not even you or I—would receive the truth without first having the Holy Spirit.”

    Again, that is not scriptural.

    You said, “You are correct, but faith/trust/belief is a gift of God.”

    Again, you repeat what Calvin taught. If what you say were true, then why did not God give the gift of faith to everyone before the wrath? Lol Faith is a gift in the sense that if we did not have Jesus—then we would not have faith in Jesus to have. You greatly misunderstand the scriptures.

    You said, “I don’t see how this applies to my statement and question: “Jesus said that all the Father gives him will come to him (John 6:37). If this is true, why wouldn’t the Father give Jesus all?”
    That is such an easy question to answer. The reason the Father does not give Jesus every person, is that not every person believes.
    You said, “According to John 6:37, ALL that the Father gives Jesus will come to Jesus—all, without anyone lost. ALL will come. If ALL the Father gives Jesus will come to Jesus, why doesn’t the Father draw ALL mankind? My point is that there is something more going on than what we have been taught by the “partial salvation” preachers.”
    You are greatly confused. I would really like to help you, but you will not listen. If Jesus saves all, as you say, then how is it that there is an unforgiveable sin? Read Mark 3:28-29 where Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (NASB).
    You said, “All I know is that Jesus said the Father ALWAYS answers his prayers. If you conclude that Peter’s failure meant that God didn’t answer Jesus’ prayer concerning Peter’s faith, then I think you have a problem with the text. Jesus says God ALWAYS answers his prayers (John 11:41-42), and you say… (what?).”

    Peter’s faith failed, BUT WHEN PETER TURNED BACK, Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers. Peter’s faith DID fail. God does NOT make us love Him. You have allowed yourself deception by a false spirit. You claim Jesus will save all, and that punishment is short. Since you like Greek, please read this: in Matt. 25:46 Jesus said, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” The same Greek word (aionion) used to describe both punishment and life. If eternal (aionion) life is indeed eternal (aionion), then eternal (aionion) punishment is also eternal (aionion).

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 18, 2011 at 12:51

      Greetings AMG and welcome. I’ve just read your comment and you do ask some really good questions. I have prayed, asking God to help me in this reply, just as I always do when I study his word. So, I trust he will either give me a reply to the questions you raise, or he will help me to see that your argument is true. Either way, this would be fine with me. I would have a lot of blog deleting to do if you are correct and I am wrong, but that is what I would be compelled to do, if all I am seeking is the truth. :-)

      Eddie, it is difficult to read what you write sometimes, but I think you are worth taking the time to explain things too.

      I don’t claim to be the greatest communicator in the world, but I do my best. Thank you for your kind intentions.

      This sounds very Calvinistic of you, or maybe Lutheran. We do not get the Holy Spirit THEN submit to God; rather we submit to God THEN receive the Holy Spirit.

      I told you I am not a Calvinist. I don’t agree with all of the statements of the church of which I am a member, and they are not Calvinist. I am simply a Christian, perhaps I have been damaged on the way by the enemies of Christ (I did belong to what is called a cult in my youth), but if so, I probably wouldn’t know that. I have never investigated Calvinism. All I know about the sect is that they believe in partial salvation, and then only those God had predestined to be saved. I know nothing more about Calvinism, and I repudiate this single doctrine that I do understand that they believe.

      Please see this next passage:
      Acts 5:30-32 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
      “…the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

      This is a tough question to answer. It is further difficult when one reads that Jesus would “**give** repentance and forgiveness to Israel.” So, in what sense does one “obey” God before one “repents”. I assume that the gift of “repentance” would also be held back until we **obey** God. What is it that we must obey or in what sense are we obedient before receiving the gifts of “repentance” and the Holy Spirit? Let’s look at another Scripture:

      Ephesians 2:1-10 KJV And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (3) Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (4) But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, (5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) (6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (7) That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast. (10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

      In verses 1 & 5 the texts says God quickened those who were dead in sins. No reason is given for his action. All it says is we were all once dead in sins (verse-3), but God quickened us. Why? It is implied that it was done out of Grace. God did it because he wanted to. God is rich in mercy and love, which begs the question: “Whom does God love?” John 3:16 tells us that God so loved the world… We are saved, the text says, by Grace **through** faith! But even the “faith” through which we are saved by Grace is a gift from God. So, I have to ask what have we brought to the table that allows God to do his saving work in us? Repentance is a gift, and so is faith or trust in Jesus or the Gospel. What is left?
      This doesn’t mean we can ignore Acts 5:32, but we do have to ask in what sense do we “obey” God according to this Scripture? To be honest, I think it was 1Peter 3:18 that led me to believe that Ephesians 2:1, 3 must mean that God quickened us by giving us his Holy Spirit, but upon considering it once more, I have to admit that “quickening **by** his Spirit does not necessarily mean quickening through the gift of his Holy Spirit. Both Scriptures would work this way, but I don’t yet understand how we could be quickened in our spiritual understanding without the gift of the Holy Spirit (see 1Corinthians 2). If we don’t understand, how can we obey? I need to consider this more. I have no appropriate answer at this time.

      Eddie, All I did was post the scriptures to you. God’s Wrath was on the wicked, but the people left alive STILL did not repent. That is what God’s Word says. The wicked could have repented after the plagues, and this repenting is acceptable

      I agreed with you that the wicked didn’t repent. I also gave you a reason why. According to the Scriptures, “repentance” is a gift from God. Although I agree that we have a 50-50 choice, I see us in rebellion against God (unless God does something to our hearts). In such a case we will always choose to reject God. He must correct our hearts for salvation to become a reality for anyone.

      Eddie, you said you were not a Calvinist, but what you speak is from John Calvin. Your belief is total depravity. Total depravity is a false doctrine. Look at these passages. Matthew 18:3 (Jesus says to become like little children.) He would not tell us to do this if children were truly born totally depraved. Luke 8:15 “… these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.” (If total depravity is true, then there is no such thing as “good and honest” hearts.)

      The problem I see here is that you don’t seem to take all the Scriptures to consider how they all agree. You are willing to take Matthew 18:3 and Luke 8:15, but you don’t seem to be willing to sift those same Scriptures through Ephesians 2:1-10. In what way would I have an honest and good heart, if I were obedient to the lusts of the flesh and no different than the children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). This is not speaking of people who don’t listen to the Gospel with a “good and honest heart.” Paul is writing to believers, yet Paul claims **all** i.e. everyone were just as the children of wrath at one time. The question then arises, when would we listen with a “good and honest heart”? The only answer I see—if I am to be honest with **both** Scriptures—is that I will listen correctly when my heart is changed. Jeremiah 17:9 is God’s verdict upon all mankind, unless you believe that Ezekiel 18:31 and 36:26 mean only the Jews need to be changed.

      Concerning Calvinism, I don’t really know what ‘Calvinism’ is. I have enough trouble defining what a Christian is. I study the Scriptures, holding fast what I believe is true, and worship with people with like faith—not necessarily like doctrines.

      The Bible does NOT say that the wicked will be punished then given the Holy Spirit.

      True! However, the Bible does say **all** shall be saved. I don’t see how people can be saved without being given the Holy Spirit, so I drew a conclusion not specifically stated in God’s word, but certainly it is implied.

      I am only speaking what the scriptures say; you just do not like the God of the bible.

      There is not a doubt in my mind that this is what you believe. However, as I have shown above, you are willing to quote some Scripture on a given subject, but you don’t seem to be willing (or you ignorantly pass it by) to quote those Scriptures which seem to deny what you conclude. I am not accusing you of dishonesty—the heart is something that only God is able to see. I see you as a brother in Christ, just as I do those with whom I worship, and I thank God for the church I attend.

      Again, you are confused and led astray by Calvinism. Choose God, and Choose the Truth. We do have a choice. Read my journal on Calvinism. It just might help to open your eyes. I still cannot figure out why you denied being a Calvinist. Lol

      First, I must know what a Calvinist is before I can claim to be one. All I really know about Calvinism, namely, that God chooses or predestines certain ones to be saved and condemns the rest of the world, I completely reject.

      I spoke only of what the bible says, and you did say that makes God an evil monster.

      Once again, I need to point out that you have the proclivity of choosing only those Scriptures that seem to support your doctrines. It is the fact that you used only those Scriptures that made God out to be someone who would torture living beings for eternity that I considered monstrous. It is unlawful for us to torture animals, even those that have done us harm. Why wouldn’t it be wrong for God to torture he enemies for eternity? Wouldn’t one think God had more integrity than men? We have more consideration for animals than how you have portrayed God in the Scriptures. I don’t mean to be nasty here. I am simply stating what was done, because you don’t seem to consider the end of what you say about God. All you seem to care about is, can a Scripture be found to technically say “thus and so” is true? I defend the name of God when unbelievers try to tell me how monstrous he is. You are a brother in Christ, and though you seem to try to prove the unbeliever’s case, I have tried to be gentler with you.

      Concerning the need to have the Holy Spirit before one repents…
      Again, that is not scriptural.

      Perhaps you are correct here, but as I said above, I am considering my position on this. One thing is certain, however, I will not be making my decision based solely upon Acts 5, as you seem to have done. Ephesians 2 is in serious conflict with your understanding of how people are saved. For one thing, you don’t seem to consider Jeremiah 17:9, Ezekiel 18:31 or Ezekiel 36:26. I don’t pretend to know why you don’t consider these Scriptures in your overall understanding, but the evidence is clear that you seem to be leaving a lot out of what it means to be saved.

      Again, you repeat what Calvin taught. If what you say were true, then why did not God give the gift of faith to everyone before the wrath? Lol Faith is a gift in the sense that if we did not have Jesus—then we would not have faith in Jesus to have. You greatly misunderstand the scriptures.

      One thing is abundantly clear to me. I do not understand your definition of faith which you submit above. :-)

      Concerning why doesn’t God give everyone to Jesus, if everyone God gives will come to him (John 6:37)…
      That is such an easy question to answer. The reason the Father does not give Jesus every person, is that not every person believes.

      Yet, Psalm 2 says of God speaking to the Messiah: “ask of me and I will give you the nations” (gentiles). Moreover, John 6:37 implies all will come if all were given, and everyone who comes to Jesus (viz. all) would be received; i.e. he would not cast out any! Additionally, 1Timothy 4:10 tells us that God is the Savior of **all** men—but especially he is the Savior of those who believe. If he is the Savior of unbelievers, in what sense is he their Savior? Speaking of Jesus, Paul tells us in 1Timothy 2:6 that he is the ransom of **all** men—which will be testified in due time. Frankly, I don’t see how partial salvation could be derived from these Scriptures. In fact, in Romans 5 we are given a direct parallel between what Adam lost and what Jesus gained for humanity. We have inherited death and our proclivity to sin through Adam (v.12), but over abundantly Jesus answers Adam’s offense (v.15) in that the many (read **all** because it is a direct parallel) are saved. In Romans 5:18 judgment has come upon all men through the offense of Adam, but justification has come upon **all** men through the righteousness of Jesus. As the whole race went with Adam, the same is true with Christ, to be evidenced in due time.

      You are greatly confused. I would really like to help you, but you will not listen. If Jesus saves all, as you say, then how is it that there is an unforgiveable sin? Read Mark 3:28-29 where Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (NASB).

      There is no such thing as an unforgiveable sin. This understanding makes a sin greater than the love or mercy of God. There is a sin that will not be forgiven during an age, but not in the sense that it wouldn’t be forgiven for eternity. Consider “Young’s Literal Translation:

      Mark 3:28-29 YLT `Verily I say to you, that all the sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and evil speakings with which they might speak evil, (29) but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness–to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;’

      All this means is that there is a sin that cannot go unpunished. God can and will forgive people and not require them to endure punishment for what they had done. This is not always true, for consider alcoholics and drug addicts. Some, indeed, come to Christ and are never drawn back into their addiction, but others struggle with the desire throughout their walk with Christ. This is not the “unforgiveable sin”(so-called), but it does show that punishment can be required even when forgiveness is given. What Jesus seems to be saying in Mark 3 is that when rejecting the Gospel, it is possible to go too far, and God’s gift of repentance will be withdrawn for the age. In other words, we will not be given the opportunity to repent in this life or age. Peter told Simon the Sorcerer to repent and pray to God that **perhaps** he might be forgiven. Paul admitted to blasphemy but said he was forgiven because he did it in ignorance. There is a line that cannot be crossed. It is a sin whose punishment we will bear to our deaths (1John 5:16).

      Peter’s faith failed, BUT WHEN PETER TURNED BACK, Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers. Peter’s faith DID fail. God does NOT make us love Him. You have allowed yourself deception by a false spirit. You claim Jesus will save all, and that punishment is short. Since you like Greek, please read this: in Matt. 25:46 Jesus said, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” The same Greek word (aionion) used to describe both punishment and life. If eternal (aionion) life is indeed eternal (aionion), then eternal (aionion) punishment is also eternal (aionion).

      Concerning Peter, I don’t know what more I can say that I have not already stated. It is clear in the above Scripture that Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. I have presented to you the Scripture in John 11 whereby Jesus says the Father **always** hears Jesus. We also know from John’s 1st epistle that, if God hears us, we have received our request. I don’t know what else I can say except to say I believe Jesus. He prayed for Peter’s faith not to fail—the Father always hears Jesus—if the Father hears, the request is granted—therefore, Peter’s faith didn’t fail, and your understanding of this Scripture cannot be sound.

      Concerning Matthew 25:46 and Jesus judgment of the nations (Matthew 25:31-46), I have to admit that I have labored over these verses and have believed one way and then another, so they are not easily understood—at least not for me. One thing that stands out in my mind, as it pertains to this Scripture, is the reason for their judgment. They were judged, not for their faith, but for how they treated others. Nothing is said of their acceptance or rejection of Jesus. They don’t even seem to have known him in a spiritual sense—no one is aware of either serving him or mistreating him. They are simply judged for how they have treated their fellow man.

      What can we say about these things? Well, certainly **eternal life** could not be in view as a gift, because **eternal** life has to do with what we do with Jesus. Therefore, whatever we may decide this judgment actually means, how could **eternal** torment or punishment be in view?

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  46. AMG

    July 7, 2011 at 17:08

    This is my last discussion with you. You deny the scriptures and twist them. In addition, you are a Calvinist, which means you go against the very essence of God. God gave us a choice. Just because God had foreseen that we would rebel, that does not mean that God should have stopped it. You have called my God evil, monstrous, and guilty of the sins of the world. Goodbye.

     
  47. AMG

    July 7, 2011 at 01:54

    You said, “Actually, this is a mistake many have made concerning Philippians 2:9-11. The last phrase of this excerpt is “to the glory of God.” There is no glory for God in forced submission or insincere repentance. God is glorified in that people agree that they have been wrong in their rebellion and return to God by the blood of Christ.”

    The scripture says, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
    You can see that the scripture says every knee SHOULD bow…
    You really have not proven universal salvation from that scripture.
    What do you think about God’s Wrath on the wicked? I guess that is not too mean for you. What if people DID repent after the plagues? Would you think that God forced the repenting? Please see the next scriptures”
    Revelation 15:1 I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues–last, because with them God’s wrath is completed.
    Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood–idols that cannot see or hear or walk.

    You said, “The wages of sin is death according to Romans 6:23 and the ‘Lake of Fire’ is the second death. According to 1Corinthians 15 death will be destroyed. You must make a choice here. Either everyone in the ‘Lake of Fire’ will die a second death or God simply loves to see his enemies suffer.”

    You need to make the choice. You say all will be saved, and then you say those who will not be saved will die in the lake of fire.

    You said, “The Scriptures conclude that God has no pleasure in punishing men. He takes pleasure in repentance and mankind’s return to God. Why would God torture the wicked for eternity?”

    The fact that God does not take pleasure in punishing men does not mean He will not punish men. We all do things we do not like to but we must anyway. In addition, you said in another post that you believed people would be punished. You are now starting to sound contradictory.

    You said, “Wouldn’t simple death be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Law? God is merciful, so the worst case scenario would have to be simple death. Anything more would make God into a monstrous evil being that would make Hitler look like an unruly school boy. At least when Hitler was threw with his victims they were dead and suffered no more.”

    God is the righteous judge. You should be very careful what you call God, especially since have admitted being wrong about some of your beliefs in the past.

    You say, “On the other hand, no one has been able to explain to me why God would demand double duty of the wicked. If Jesus paid the price—the demands of the Law in total—why would want the debt to be paid twice.”

    Jesus paid the price. The wicked and unbelieving refuse the payment.

    You say, “If I pay for my daughters speeding ticket, the debt is satisfied according to the demands of the Law. “

    The ticket is that we have to believe.

    You said, “Now I understand discipline with a view of making a person a better citizen. The Law may require my daughter to take a course in safe driving etc. if she was a repeat offender, but the ticket debt is satisfied no matter what. So too, God would desire to rehabilitate the wicked before permitting them into the Kingdom. This would require sincere agreement that rebellion is wrong and sincere submission to Jesus, and sincerely trusting God for our provision.”

    You think that is in the bible. Since you think that my God is evil and monstrous, you probably also believe that God will rehabilitate the wicked with gentle teaching that they will just accept? Jesus already came to do that, but when he comes again, he will come for those waiting for him.

    You say, “For example, Jesus said if Sodom had seen what Capernaum had witnessed in the miracles that Jesus performed, they would have repented and their cities would have remained to that day (Matthew 11:23). Unless there is more to what God is doing, why wouldn’t he have done something to save those cities? It doesn’t make sense for our loving God to allow their destruction, if there was hope for them, unless (as I said) there is something more to salvation than what we are being taught.”

    You KNOW that God destroyed Sodom, and you think it was wrong of God not to do something to save those cities. Why does God have to reveal Himself to wicked people? The scriptures say that God reveals Himself to those who love Him. God is all wise. Why do you question God?

    You say, “Paul concludes that all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:26), and if all Israel is to be saved, then it demands a just God to include the Gentiles as well.”

    You misunderstand that scripture, just like many do. When Paul says that all Israel will be saved, he means because God did not harden the Jews forever that they still have a chance at salvation along with the Gentiles—if they do not persist in unbelief, in that way all Israel will be saved because Jews are not excluded. Jews have a chance at salvation just like the Gentiles, even though many of the Jews were hardened, it must have seemed like Jews were cut off forever. Did I explain that clearly enough for you? Israel is all who believe in God through Jesus. Maybe you might read my Israel post. All believers (Israel) will be saved, and no nation or race will be excluded.

    You said, “To this Paul also speaks when he testifies that Jesus died for all and saved all (1Timothy 4:10).”

    However, we have to believe.

    You said, “Jesus said that all the Father gives him will come to him (John 6:37). If this is true, why wouldn’t the Father give Jesus all?”

    All who come to and want to know God—they must come to God through Jesus, they were God’s, but God gives them to Jesus.

    You said, “Jesus asked God to forgive everyone because no one knew what he was doing (Luke 23:34). Did the Father answer Jesus’ prayer? Did he pray according to the Father’s will? He said the Father always answers his prayers (John 11:42).”

    Did Jesus pray that Peter’s faith not fail him when Satan would sift him like wheat? Peter’s faith did fail him, he denied Jesus three times.

    You said, “I don’t claim that no one will be cast into the Lake of Fire. What I claim is the Lake of Fire will not destroy anyone. People will repent and survive the 2nd death. It won’t be a walk in the park, but for some there simply is no other way.”

    How can you say what you just did here, yet in an argument you say it would be God forcing others to repent.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 7, 2011 at 16:15

      Greetings AMG, and once more, welcome!

      The scripture says, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
      You can see that the scripture says every knee SHOULD bow…
      You really have not proven universal salvation from that scripture.

      There is no glory in what I “should” do but don’t do. There is no glory in that, my friend. Paul wasn’t merely making a statement here. He was quoting Scripture. The “should” is a carry over from the old English, and it doesn’t imply possibility. The quote can be found without the “should” in Isaiah. Notice:

      I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. Isaiah 45:23-25 KJV)

      Notice that the Scripture says “all that are increased against him shall be ashamed.” God doesn’t make junk. We have rebelled; that’s true, but once certain elements are taken out of the way and we are given the Spirit of God all of us will submit to him. The elect submit today only because we have the Spirit of God. All men do not have what we have.

      Concerning what I have or have not proved, I don’t base my knowledge upon a single verse. Single verses may cause me to think of possibilities, but they are discarded if they are not supported elsewhere in Scripture.

      What do you think about God’s Wrath on the wicked? I guess that is not too mean for you. What if people DID repent after the plagues? Would you think that God forced the repenting? Please see the next scriptures”
      Revelation 15:1 I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues–last, because with them God’s wrath is completed.
      Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood–idols that cannot see or hear or walk.

      You are making a mistake in viewing the wrath of God as a tool to get people to repent. People—all people, which includes you and me—will not repent through force. Someone could get us to recant due to pain, but as soon as the ‘strong’ man is out of sight we would do what we had been doing, unless, of course, our spirits are broken. In such a case one would do anything to avoid pain. No, according to the Scriptures repentance is a gift. The plagues are brought down upon man for two reasons: punishment and to express the need for God’s grace. Unless he gives us the gift of repentance, no one would sincerely repent (1Timothy 2:25). When one is dead in sins, there is absolutely nothing he could do, spiritually, to please God. Dead people can do nothing, and spiritually dead people can do nothing spiritually including repenting.

      You need to make the choice. You say all will be saved, and then you say those who will not be saved will die in the lake of fire.

      You missed my point, my friend. I was writing as though you had two choices concerning the Lake of Fire. (1) either the wicked are tortured for eternity, which seems out of character for a loving and merciful God, and (2) to permit them to die in the Lake of Fire which is called the second death—if death is the cessation of life then how could it be called the 2nd death if it didn’t take one’s life? But no matter which one you choose death is to be destroyed and the Lake of Fire is called the second death. If death is destroyed, then no one could take part in the Lake of Fire for eternity.

      The fact that God does not take pleasure in punishing men does not mean He will not punish men. We all do things we do not like to but we must anyway. In addition, you said in another post that you believed people would be punished. You are now starting to sound contradictory.

      On the contrary, the Scriptures show the wicked will be punished. The difference between you and me is—for how long? I don’t believe the wicked will be punished for eternity. They will be punished, be given the Holy Spirit and all the spiritual gifts that implies and will begin to enjoy eternity with God with the rest of us.

      God is the righteous judge. You should be very careful what you call God, especially since have admitted being wrong about some of your beliefs in the past.

      Are you saying you have been 100% correct in all that you have ever believed? Have you never changed your mind about anything in the Bible? Tell me what is the difference between calling God something he is not and teaching that God is something he is not but denying that you are doing it? You have taken issue with my saying God would be a monster if he tortured his enemies for eternity. Is a man—Hitler, for example, tortured people for long periods of time (even short periods of time)—is he a monster? If we call someone monstrous because of how he treats people, why wouldn’t God be just as monstrous or even more so, because he does the same things to people but for unfathomable periods of time?

      You see, my friend, I don’t believe God is anything like what many religious institutions portray him. I can and do question their doctrines. Everything must line up with Scripture and make sense. If it does not, then out the window those doctrines go. I don’t have to please men. There was a time when I thought I did, but no longer. I seek to please God and write only those things about him that are true. If I mirror the image that others paint of him in order to show how ludicrous their teaching is, that’s allowed, but I will not post a blog painting an unloving or unmerciful God. The Scriptures show me that he is not anything like those evil doctrines that portray him as an evil beast.

      Jesus paid the price. The wicked and unbelieving refuse the payment.

      That’s not their choice to make. First of all, they are unable to make an honest choice given the fact they don’t have the Holy Spirit. Repentance, according to the Scriptures is a gift. It is not something we find in our hearts because someone came along and made us feel regret for what we have been doing to others etc. Repentance is a gift God gives to those he draws to Christ. The spiritually dead have no spiritual choice to make. First, they must be made alive in the spirit before they can make any spiritual choices that honor God.

      The ticket is that we have to believe.

      In other words, unbelief is just too heave a “rock” for God to lift—correct? Did God create something he finds that he is unable to rule? Why would he do that? If God couldn’t rule the outcome, why would he have done such a hazardous act as creating people who would suffer for all eternity?

      The Scriptures show that God forgives unbelief. You can read about it in Numbers 14. There is absolutely nothing that is possible at all that God cannot do, and by the way, faith or trust is also a gift from God. We cannot find it in our carnal hearts. We need a new heart filled with the Holy Spirit to be able to trust God.

      You think that is in the bible. Since you think that my God is evil and monstrous, you probably also believe that God will rehabilitate the wicked with gentle teaching that they will just accept? Jesus already came to do that, but when he comes again, he will come for those waiting for him.

      I don’t think God is monstrous, but I do believe the partial salvation doctrine (especially when coupled with eternal torture) is a monstrous portrayal of him and his works. The wicked will accept true doctrine because they will be given the Holy Spirit. No one—not even you or I—would receive the truth without first having the Holy Spirit. The Apostles believed truth before they had the Holy Spirit, but they had Jesus with them, but even then there were things they couldn’t understand until Pentecost.

      You KNOW that God destroyed Sodom, and you think it was wrong of God not to do something to save those cities. Why does God have to reveal Himself to wicked people? The scriptures say that God reveals Himself to those who love Him. God is all wise. Why do you question God?

      I don’t question God except to gain more knowledge about him. I want to know him like Paul said in Philippians 3:10-12. If you would reread my comment at this point you would find that I spoke hypothetically. IF there were nothing more concerning salvation THEN it would have been wrong for a just God to destroy those he knew would repent, if he had someone do the works of Jesus in their cities. Why waste his time with Capernaum, if that is a failure (assuming there is nothing more concerning salvation) when he could have succeeded with Sodom and the other cities doing the very same works? This doesn’t make sense. Therefore, because it makes no sense, and because I believe in an all wise God, I know there MUST be something more to salvation than what I have been taught. Because if there isn’t, why would an all wise God be doing all the wrong things to get people saved?

      You misunderstand that scripture, just like many do. When Paul says that all Israel will be saved, he means because God did not harden the Jews forever that they still have a chance at salvation along with the Gentiles—if they do not persist in unbelief, in that way all Israel will be saved because Jews are not excluded. Jews have a chance at salvation just like the Gentiles, even though many of the Jews were hardened, it must have seemed like Jews were cut off forever. Did I explain that clearly enough for you? Israel is all who believe in God through Jesus. Maybe you might read my Israel post. All believers (Israel) will be saved, and no nation or race will be excluded.

      First of all, the context of Romans 11:26 shows Paul is speaking of the nation of Israel. They are enemies for the Gospel sake (verse-28). God doesn’t change his mind simply because the choice he made doesn’t seem to be working out (Romans 11:29). Secondly, Salvation is not gained by chance. God hasn’t left it up to chance—he doesn’t gamble. Notice:

      So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11 KJV)

      In the New Testament God sent his Word (John 1:14) into the world, to save mankind (John 3:16-17). Jesus said that he accomplished what he was sent to do (John 17:4; cp. John 19:30). My question is this: did the Word of God return to the Father void or did he accomplish all the will of the Father—which he was sent into the world to do? According to 2Peter 3:9, God is not willing for any to perish, but it is his will that all come to repentance, and according to Daniel 4:35, God does all things according to his will, and no one can keep him from doing his pleasure! The question is: does this include the unrepentant and the wicked or is God unable to defeat their purposes?

      However, we have to believe.

      You are correct, but faith/trust/belief is a gift of God.

      All who come to and want to know God—they must come to God through Jesus, they were God’s, but God gives them to Jesus.

      I don’t see how this applies to my statement and question: “Jesus said that all the Father gives him will come to him (John 6:37). If this is true, why wouldn’t the Father give Jesus all?”

      According to John 6:37, ALL that the Father gives Jesus will come to Jesus—all, without anyone lost. ALL will come. If ALL the Father gives Jesus will come to Jesus, why doesn’t the Father draw ALL mankind? My point is that there is something more going on than what we have been taught by the “partial salvation” preachers.

      Did Jesus pray that Peter’s faith not fail him when Satan would sift him like wheat? Peter’s faith did fail him, he denied Jesus three times.

      All I know is that Jesus said the Father ALWAYS answers his prayers. If you conclude that Peter’s failure meant that God didn’t answer Jesus’ prayer concerning Peter’s faith, then I think you have a problem with the text. Jesus says God ALWAYS answers his prayers (John 11:41-42), and you say… (what?).

      Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of all those unrepentant unbelievers who crucified him. Did the Father hear Jesus’ prayer?

      How can you say what you just did here, yet in an argument you say it would be God forcing others to repent.

      I think I need to see where I said what you claim in argument. You have misunderstood me a few times in our discussion, and I believe were looking at another example here. But I need to know where in our discussion you think I have made this claim.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  48. AMG

    July 6, 2011 at 17:28

    You said, “If you wish to find texts to support a doctrine, you will find them in abundance. If you
    wish to know the truth, you need to put away preconceived ideas and just study the texts.”

    You know that is so not me and completely unfair of you to say.

    You said, “What we have in the above Scripture may or may not have anything to do with a miracle. The text is not clear in how the Spirit caught Philip away.”

    If it is not clear, then do not try to go against me with it.

    You said, “Therefore, unless you wish to read your own thoughts into the text, we are stuck with what is there. Namely, the One who became Jesus was just as responsible for creation—all of it—as the Father is.”

    You are the one who attempts to change the written word. The scripture clearly says Jesus was the first born over all creation. You change that to first born over the brothers in a spiritual way. Yes, Jesus is the first fruits, but that is another scripture.

    You said, “You are making an assumption here that the text never concludes. According to Philippians 2:6, the One who became Jesus was always equal with the Father (God), before he became a man.”

    You are making the assumptions here. I never said Jesus was not equal to God. I am talking about before creation of the world, but you skip to Philippians 2:6, that is about Jesus on earth.
    You said, “So, how could the Father have “created” Jesus, when all he did was prepare the body in Mary’s womb?”

    Preparing a body for Jesus is a creation from God.

    You said, “The Scriptures conclude we are composed of body, soul and spirit (1Thessalonians 5:23), yet Paul claims we could be absent from the body and present with the Lord (2Corinthians 5:8). Therefore, our body permits us to partake of the things of this world, but it is not who **we** are.”

    The scriptures do not say we are composed of a body, soul, and spirit. The scriptures tell us that we are a living soul when we have our spirit in our body, if not; a body is dead without the spirit. I do not understand the rest of your comment.

    You said, “Those who disagree with me challenge me to make sure what I believe is true.”

    I am just studying WITH you, not to challenge you to make sure what you believe is true. We can bounce ideas off each other, does not mean anything bad at all.

    You said, “Organizations are not as apt to admit error. I do not seek to eradicate the organizational point of view. Rather I merely state mine. For some, this causes them to rethink the teaching and investigate on their own. That is fine with me if they do. As for others, they are spurred onward to defend what they’ve been taught. I don’t rejoice in this, but I understand there is a place for it in coming to know the truth.”

    You are correct when you say Organizations are not as apt to admit error. That is so very true. As for me, I will speak about the lies organizations have told, Organizations have misled me in past times, and so are many people misled, including people I love. We are supposed to contend, argue, defend, and debate the truth. That is a big part of what I do.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 7, 2011 at 02:06

      You know that is so not me and completely unfair of you to say.

      It is difficult in a discussion such as this one to make accurate judgments, not seeking who one speaks with, expressionless etc. I apologize for my remark.

      If it is not clear, then do not try to go against me with it.

      I am uncertain of your meaning here. What are you saying?

      You are the one who attempts to change the written word. The scripture clearly says Jesus was the first born over all creation. You change that to first born over the brothers in a spiritual way. Yes, Jesus is the first fruits, but that is another scripture.

      I have changed nothing. Psalm 89:20 says God anointed David and would make him his “firstborn” which is higher in authority over the kings of the earth (Psalm 89:27). In Jeremiah 31:9 God says that he is a Father to Israel and Ephraim is his “firstborn”. However, in neither of these cases was the one in question a literal “firstborn” of anyone. In order to claim Colossians 1:15 means that Jesus is a literal firstborn would take the Scripture out of context. The term ‘firstborn’ is a term of authority. It can be given to a literal firstborn, or the status can be given to another. It was the choice of the father in question. Now, if you wish to include Colossians 1:18 into the argument, then yes, Jesus is a literal firstborn—from the dead. He is the Beginning of the new creation. That is to say, he is not a created being, but the head or one in authority over the new Creation. He was literally resurrected and is a literal “firstborn” from the dead. However, to seek to make Jesus the first created being of the physical creation is not supported in the Bible.

      You are making the assumptions here. I never said Jesus was not equal to God. I am talking about before creation of the world, but you skip to Philippians 2:6, that is about Jesus on earth.

      It seemed to me that by saying Jesus is a created being that he could not be equal to the Father. I apologize if this was not your intent, but the argument itself would make Jesus less in authority and less in essence than God. You are wrong about Philippians 2:6, however, it speaks about what occurred before Jesus became man. Before he became man, Jesus was equal with the Father. There is no reason to believe this was not equally so before creation.

      Preparing a body for Jesus is a creation from God.

      When we are born from the womb of our mothers we are born: spirit, soul and body. It is clear from Philippians 2:6 that this was not so for Jesus. His human body may have been prepared by the Father (Hebrews 10:5), but Jesus already existed in soul and spirit. His human birth was not a creation. John 1:3 speaks against this and you have not acknowledged that Scripture.

      The scriptures do not say we are composed of a body, soul, and spirit. The scriptures tell us that we are a living soul when we have our spirit in our body, if not; a body is dead without the spirit. I do not understand the rest of your comment.

      If we are not composed of body, soul and spirit, why does Paul pray “…your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”?

      My argument concerning 2Corinthians 5:8 is that Paul was saying he could be absent from his body and be present with the Lord. Read the Scripture. How can this be if our bodies are all we are?

      I am just studying WITH you, not to challenge you to make sure what you believe is true. We can bounce ideas off each other, does not mean anything bad at all.

      Again, I apologize for my remark. Most people who challenge me (and you have made a point of disagreeing with me) are merely here to debate with me, and try to expose me in error. It is difficult to allow myself to be exposed without being defensive. Sorry. :-)

      You are correct when you say Organizations are not as apt to admit error. That is so very true. As for me, I will speak about the lies organizations have told, Organizations have misled me in past times, and so are many people misled, including people I love. We are supposed to contend, argue, defend, and debate the truth. That is a big part of what I do.

      I have misjudged your intensions in this discussion. No one has ever admitted to me on this blog what you have said here. Perhaps we can begin again from this point? :-)

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  49. AMG

    July 5, 2011 at 22:15

    I do not agree with your beliefs of universal salvation.
    Read these scripture on what will happen to some:

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

    Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

    Did you see that? There will be people placed in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. It is the second death.

    There are people who will not repent. Read the next scriptures:

    Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood–idols that cannot see or hear or walk.

    Revelation 9:21 Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.

    Revelation 14:10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.

    Revelation 21:27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

    Revelation 22:15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

    I believe some believers have punishment coming for the times of not obeying. I believe this because of the scriptures about some having fewer blows (see Luke 12:48).

    Read what Jesus says in Revelation 2:11 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.”

    We who overcome are the only ones assured that we will not be hurt at all by the second death.

    I believe that some will not be thrown in the lake of fire because they were spiritually blind (see John 9:41).

    Here are more scriptures about being guilty and not guilty:

    John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin

    John 15:24 If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father.

    So what do you think?

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 6, 2011 at 09:28

      AMG, greetings and thank you once again for your interest in my blog and especially for your comments. This subject has been a very trying one for me. Many who read it have no interest in what I have to say afterward. I have wished that I did not understand this subject as I do, but when I look again into the Scriptures, I see it all the more clearly that God never fails. What he sets out to do, he always completes.

      Are there Scriptures that seem to say the unrepentant will suffer many things for a long time? Yes, there are such Scriptures, but there are also Scriptures that show they will repent eventually. Will God turn a deaf ear to them? No, he will not, because he is not interested in the death or punishment of the wicked. He is interested in their heartfelt repentance, and will welcome them—not as the wicked, but as repentant sons and daughters into his realm.
      Perhaps you would like to read some blog-posts I have written on this subject. Some can be found HERE, or simply click on the “Salvation” tab on the top of the page.

      My journey began when I could not adequately answer questions I found in Romans 5 and still hold to a partial salvation of humanity. Here we see that Adam pulled all humanity into a hell-bent fall away from God. However, Jesus’ sacrifice, we are told, paid the price for **all** in an overabundant fashion. In other words, his work of righteousness is much more valuable than the rebellion of Adam is wicked. Jesus overcame and paid the price for all evil committed by humanity. Read it for yourself.

      Another Scripture can be found in Philippians 2:9-11. How can every knee bow to Jesus and every tongue confess him, if some remain unrepentant? A final Scripture can be found in 1Corinthians 15:23-28. If Christ’s reign concerns putting down or subjecting all enemies to God, and he doesn’t return the Kingdom of God to the Father until the work is complete, viz all enemies are now in subjection, then everyone must be repentant. Furthermore, if death is destroyed, how can it be destroyed if any are still dead? As long as one human is dead, death reigns over one soul that was found unrepentant. Death is destroyed only when everyone is made alive—when no one is dead. All this presumes that there will be later ages in which people will be resurrected and be compelled to live until they repent.

      It has been my experience to take God seriously the first time. Delaying always makes circumstances more difficult. In other words, today is the best time to repent. In later ages life will be much more difficult. If I am correct in this assumption about this difficulty, even those whose lives were made miserable by the wicked will be cheering them on to overcome, because their living conditions will be that pitiable. God will not renew this earth until all repent. So, in later ages the living conditions will be more and more spartan.

      I hope this helps you to see that I am not trying to be overly sentimental by giving the wicked a free ride in the name of **love** (falsely so-called).

      Lord bless,

      Eddie.

       
    • AMG

      July 6, 2011 at 12:12

      You said, “How can every knee bow to Jesus and every tongue confess him, if some remain unrepentant?”
      Well, people can bow but not truly be repentant. It is a fact that God did not like the sacrifices of those in the Old Testament because they gave sin offerings for sins they did not truly repent of. And since the scriptures do tell us that some still did not repent even after they were punished, does not that reveal to you that they would not be sorry while they bowed?

      You said, “Furthermore, if death is destroyed, how can it be destroyed if any are still dead? “ I do not understand what you mean when you say that. If people are in the lake of fire, they will not die while in the lake of fire; there is no longer any death, death thrown in the lake of fire, so how can they die?

      You said, “As long as one human is dead, death reigns over one soul that was found unrepentant.”
      It will be that the righteous and wicked resurrected with an undying bodies. Satan had the power over death. Jesus took that power away from Satan. Jesus conquered death when he rose from the dead.

      You said, “However, Jesus’ sacrifice, we are told, paid the price for **all** in an overabundant fashion.”
      Jesus died for all, but we still have to obey. To say that everyone will have a right heart with God after some time and punishment is something I do not see in the scriptures.

      I do have beliefs that are not like many Christians, in that I believe that some that are believers and disobey here on earth, that it is possible some punishment they will have to endure, but that the punishment will stop. However to say that no people will be put in the lake of fire forever is hard to convince. Please read the parable of the weeds:

      Matthew 13
      24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
      27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
      28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
      “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
      29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

      Eddie, you are saying that the wicked will be burned and then gathered with the wheat later is not there.

       
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 6, 2011 at 23:17

      AMG, greetings and welcome.

      Well, people can bow but not truly be repentant. It is a fact that God did not like the sacrifices of those in the Old Testament because they gave sin offerings for sins they did not truly repent of. And since the scriptures do tell us that some still did not repent even after they were punished, does not that reveal to you that they would not be sorry while they bowed?

      Actually, this is a mistake many have made concerning Philippians 2:9-11. The last phrase of this excerpt is “to the glory of God.” There is no glory for God in forced submission or insincere repentance. God is glorified in that people agree that they have been wrong in their rebellion and return to God by the blood of Christ.

      I do not understand what you mean when you say that. If people are in the lake of fire, they will not die while in the lake of fire; there is no longer any death, death thrown in the lake of fire, so how can they die? It will be that the righteous and wicked resurrected with an undying bodies. Satan had the power over death. Jesus took that power away from Satan. Jesus conquered death when he rose from the dead.

      The wages of sin is death according to Romans 6:23 and the ‘Lake of Fire’ is the second death. According to 1Corinthians 15 death will be destroyed. You must make a choice here. Either everyone in the ‘Lake of Fire’ will die a second death or God simply loves to see his enemies suffer. The Scriptures conclude that God has no pleasure in punishing men. He takes pleasure in repentance and mankind’s return to God. Why would God torture the wicked for eternity? Wouldn’t simple death be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Law? God is merciful, so the worst case scenario would have to be simple death. Anything more would make God into a monstrous evil being that would make Hitler look like an unruly school boy. At least when Hitler was threw with his victims they were dead and suffered no more.

      On the other hand, no one has been able to explain to me why God would demand double duty of the wicked. If Jesus paid the price—the demands of the Law in total—why would he want the debt to be paid twice. If I pay for my daughters speeding ticket, the debt is satisfied according to the demands of the Law. Now I understand discipline with a view of making a person a better citizen. The Law may require my daughter to take a course in safe driving etc. if she was a repeat offender, but the ticket debt is satisfied no matter what. So too, God would desire to rehabilitate the wicked before permitting them into the Kingdom. This would require sincere agreement that rebellion is wrong and sincere submission to Jesus, and sincerely trusting God for our provision.

      Jesus died for all, but we still have to obey. To say that everyone will have a right heart with God after some time and punishment is something I do not see in the scriptures.

      Well, I do see it, and there is no adequate answer for it, unless there is more to salvation than is taught by most Christian organizations. For example, Jesus said if Sodom had seen what Capernaum had witnessed in the miracles that Jesus performed, they would have repented and their cities would have remained to that day (Matthew 11:23). Unless there is more to what God is doing, why wouldn’t he have done something to save those cities? It doesn’t make sense for our loving God to allow their destruction, if there was hope for them, unless (as I said) there is something more to salvation than what we are being taught. Peter claimed that if the Jewish and Roman leadership had really known who Christ was, they would never have killed him (Acts 3:17), and Paul said likewise (Acts 13:27; 1Corinthians 2:8). Paul concludes that all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:26), and if all Israel is to be saved, then it demands a just God to include the Gentiles as well. To this Paul also speaks when he testifies that Jesus died for all and saved all (1Timothy 4:10). Jesus said that all the Father gives him will come to him (John 6:37). If this is true, why wouldn’t the Father give Jesus all? Jesus asked God to forgive everyone because no one knew what he was doing (Luke 23:34). Did the Father answer Jesus’ prayer? Did he pray according to the Father’s will? He said the Father always answers his prayers (John 11:42).

      I do have beliefs that are not like many Christians, in that I believe that some that are believers and disobey here on earth, that it is possible some punishment they will have to endure, but that the punishment will stop. However to say that no people will be put in the lake of fire forever is hard to convince.

      I don’t claim that no one will be cast into the Lake of Fire. What I claim is the Lake of Fire will not destroy anyone. People will repent and survive the 2nd death. It won’t be a walk in the park, but for some there simply is no other way.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  50. AMG

    July 5, 2011 at 20:58

    I really enjoy how you like to discuss deeply. I do not agree with everything you say, however,
    you would be a good choice of a Christian to have studies. =)

    There are topics you brought up and I would like to discuss them more with you. What do you think of the possibility that God, who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see, only Jesus has seen Him, the invisible God, created an image of Himself, before the creation of the world, and who is the reincarnate Jesus?

    I want to make clear that I believe in One God, and that Jesus is God in the flesh. However, what is so wrong with possibly believing that God created Himself as Jesus, first in Heaven, then later as the human Jesus? The Bible says that Jesus is first over all, so then, what is wrong with believing that Jesus was Jesus before he came to earth?

    Please study these scriptures carefully with me:

    1 Timothy 6:16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

    John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

    1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
    God is invisible. Jesus is God made visible—

    Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

    Colossians 1:16-17 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    So you see in Colossians 1:15-17 tells us that the human Jesus was made in the image of God AND by him all things were created, AND THROUGH whom also he made the universe (see Hebrews 1:2).

    The next scriptures lead me believe that Jesus existed as Jesus before coming to earth. Jesus was with God from the beginning—

    John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

    John 17:24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

    Psalm 110:1 Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

    So what do you think?

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 6, 2011 at 03:34

      Greetings AMG, it is good to read again what you have to say.

      I really enjoy how you like to discuss deeply. I do not agree with everything you say, however, you would be a good choice of a Christian to have studies. =)
      There are topics you brought up and I would like to discuss them more with you. What do you think of the possibility that God, who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see, only Jesus has seen Him, the invisible God, created an image of Himself, before the creation of the world, and who is the reincarnate Jesus?

      I believe God is unapproachable Light, and I believe Jesus in his preincarnate glory was Light dwelling LIGHT (1Timothy 6:16). God is one Being, and I don’t believe Jesus was created. Rather, all things were created through him and without him nothing—not even one thing—was created (John 1:3).

      I want to make clear that I believe in One God, and that Jesus is God in the flesh. However, what is so wrong with possibly believing that God created Himself as Jesus, first in Heaven, then later as the human Jesus? The Bible says that Jesus is first over all, so then, what is wrong with believing that Jesus was Jesus before he came to earth?

      You are correct to understand that Jesus lived before he became man, but God did not create himself. Perhaps you didn’t mean to put it this way and are having a difficult time expressing what you mean. Anyway, God does not change (James 1:17), so he couldn’t have been involved in creating himself. That presumes there was a time when he was not what he is today.

      Please study these scriptures carefully with me:
      1 Timothy 6:16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
      John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
      1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
      God is invisible. Jesus is God made visible—
      Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
      Colossians 1:16-17 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
      So you see in Colossians 1:15-17 tells us that the human Jesus was made in the image of God AND by him all things were created, AND THROUGH whom also he made the universe (see Hebrews 1:2).

      I would be happy to discuss the Scriptures you mention above with you, but I am not certain I see the connection you see in them.

      In 1Timothy 3:16 Paul is saying that Jesus dwells in the Light or in the Father, and Jesus told us in John 17 that the Father also dwells in Jesus. Paul, however is speaking of the glory of God. I am reminded here of the difficulty the priests had in officiating their duties in the Temple that Solomon built. The presence of God was so obvious and powerful that the priest simply could not approach. Jesus, however, has no problem approaching the Father. They are one Being. He proceeds out of the Father like Eve was brought out of Adam. All that was Eve (before the female was separated from the male) was present in the single individual God created on the 6th day (Genesis 1:26-27; cp. Genesis 2:21-24). All of humanity came into existence through Eve. All of creation came into existence through the One who became Jesus. He dwells in and proceeds out from the Father. Mankind was created in this image.

      John 1:18 is more correctly translated in other versions, saying that the Word dwells in the bosom (position) of the Father. Until Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, knowledge of God was simply vague at best. He brought God out of the shadows so man could see him—expressed in Jesus.

      1Timothy 1:17—indeed, Jesus is God made visible, but in his glorified body, Jesus is invisible as well. He can make himself seen, but he also walks through locked doors. He is able to vanish at will. God is God and Jesus is God made flesh.

      Colossians 1:15—Jesus is the indeed the Image of he invisible God. The One who became Jesus dwells in and proceed out from the Father—this is God—Jesus proceeding from the Father. They are one Being.

      How is Jesus the “Image” of this? A deep sleep came upon Jesus (after the crucifixion; cp. God causing a deep sleep come over Adam in Genesis 2). When Adam awoke, he found Eve had been taken out from him. After Jesus rose from the dead (viz. the “deep sleep”) the Woman (the Church) proceeded from the glorified Jesus. We dwell in and proceed out from HIM—Jesus our Lord and King who is God. Jesus being the “Firstborn” over all creation points to his authority. Adam was the “Firstborn” of humanity. Jesus is the “Firstborn” of the new creation. All who are saved are saved in and through Jesus. We are begotten by him and our new birth is in him. Also, the term “firstborn” is a title of authority given to David the King of Israel and is also given to the tribe of Ephraim.

      Colossians 1:16-17—The prepositions are very important for understanding what Paul is saying here. Let me quote it with the pertinent prepositions capitalized for emphasis:

      16 For IN him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created THROUGH him and for him.

      17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

      I have two daughters. I could say of them IN my wife my daughters were formed… I brought them into this world THROUGH my wife and for my wife.

      I don’t mean to suggest that the Godhead is male or female—it is not. However, male and female humanity are the image of God. All things were formed first IN the One who became Jesus, and came into existence THROUGH him similar to how a woman gives birth to her young, except for God it is all that exists.

      You seem to be saying something similar in your own remarks concerning Colossians 1:15-17 and referencing Hebrews 1:2.

      The next scriptures lead me believe that Jesus existed as Jesus before coming to earth. Jesus was with God from the beginning—
      John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
      John 17:24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
      Psalm 110:1 Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
      So what do you think?

      I am not certain what you mean by “Jesus existed as Jesus before coming to earth.” If you are saying that the One who became Jesus, i.e. became flesh, existed prior to his humanity, then I agree. He lived as God and with God (the Father) prior to his becoming man. He existed in the form of God, i.e. equal in every way to the excellence of the Father (Philippians 2:6-7).

      I am uncertain how deeply you wish to go here. Let me know if this is an adequate response for what you are seeking.

       
    • AMG

      July 6, 2011 at 11:35

      You say, “I am not certain what you mean by “Jesus existed as Jesus before coming to earth.” If
      you are saying that the One who became Jesus, i.e. became flesh, existed prior to his humanity, then I agree. He lived as God and with God (the Father) prior to his becoming man.” From what you say here, it sounds as if you are suggesting that God is separate from Jesus, yet just living together.
      I do not really understand what your point is when you said “1Timothy 1:17—indeed, Jesus is God made visible, but in his glorified body, Jesus is invisible as well. He can make himself seen, but he also walks through locked doors. He is able to vanish at will. God is God and Jesus is God made flesh.” Again, not sure why you say what you do here, for even Philip disappeared and reappeared at a different location (see Acts 8:39-40).
      You said “Jesus being the “Firstborn over all creation points to his authority.” Of course, Jesus has authority! In addition, how do you discount the fact that once the scripture says that Jesus is first born over all creation, the scripture proceeds with speaking of a literal and physical creation.
      I have no idea how you can accept that the Jesus who walked on the earth as a human, whom God created with an earthly body, but that you believe it is out of the question that God created Jesus before the creation of the world.
      Well, Eddie, as iron sharpens iron, I am glad to have this opportunity to study with you, of course it would be wonderful if we could agree more.
      God bless you.

       
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 6, 2011 at 15:58

      AMG, greetings and, as always, welcome. :-)

      From what you say here, it sounds as if you are suggesting that God is separate from Jesus, yet just living together.

      No, you misunderstand. I’ll try to be clearer. In Genesis 1:27 Eve was not simply **with** Adam. The human being God created was both male and female. This was what God said was his “image”. God then pronounced all that he created “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Yet, in Genesis 2:18 we have a problem. It is “not good” for man to be alone. What occurred by this time to change what was “very good” into something that was “not good”?

      It seems to me the problem was with Adam. God brought all the animals before him and he observed them, showing that he was different. Yet, God said that Adam’s original condition was “very good”. Therefore, Adam’s difference could not have been the problem. Knowing what occurred in Genesis 3, perhaps Adam was already not expressing the true image of God. Therefore, God brought out the female part of him, so he had to address his two sides. According to Genesis 2:24, though they were two, they were still **one** flesh. Neither was of any use to humanity without the other. They were essentially “one” even though they were two persons. So too, it is with the Godhead.

      When the LORD came down to judge Sodom, he first spoke with Abraham in Genesis 18. There were two with him there, and these same two visited Lot and brought him out of Sodom practically by force—in answer to Abraham’s prayer. When they brought him out, they took him to the third who was the LORD (Genesis 19:17). We know that this is the LORD speaking with Lot, because he later called down fire and brimstone from heaven upon those ancient cities in verse-24. Notice that it was the LORD (YHWH) calling down this judgment upon the cities, and he called it out from the LORD (YHWH) in heaven. There is only one YHWH according to Deuteronomy 6:4, yet two are called by that name in this Scripture.

      Our God is a complex unity, not a singularity. Many try to simplify what they do not understand. I prefer to see God for who he is. I may not be able to explain him properly to others, but I’d rather appear foolish than to be wrong and make God into something his is not.

      Again, not sure why you say what you do here, for even Philip disappeared and reappeared at a different location (see Acts 8:39-40).

      If you wish to find texts to support a doctrine, you will find them in abundance. If you wish to know the truth, you need to put away preconceived ideas and just study the texts. What we have in the above Scripture may or may not have anything to do with a miracle. The text is not clear in how the Spirit caught Philip away. Did he merely take him by force, like the Romans did Paul when the two groups of Jews were about to pull him apart (Acts 23:10), or did the Spirit take Philip by force in such a manner as will occur when we are caught up to meet Jesus in the air (1Thessalonians 4:17). The same Greek word is used in all three Scriptures, but this word is not used when Jesus vanished before the two on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:31), or when he was suddenly among the disciples despite the locked doors (John 20:19). You mentioned in a previous comment that you thought it would be good to **study** with me. Is this a “study” or are you merely throwing out Scriptures to support a particular doctrine? It is good to defend one’s faith, but a good defense also supports one’s thoughts with logical argument, using the meaning of the Greek and pointing out how it is used elsewhere.

      Of course, Jesus has authority! In addition, how do you discount the fact that once the scripture says that Jesus is first born over all creation, the scripture proceeds with speaking of a literal and physical creation.

      Being the ‘Firstborn’ points to authority, like king. It is not necessary to be “created” in order to have authority over creation. Adam was created. Jesus was not. The Scriptures tell us that not even one thing that has come into existence was created without the One who became Jesus (John 1:3). You referred to Colossians 1:15-17, so let’s look at these verses:

      Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:15-17 KJV)

      Notice that in verse-16 we see that **all** things were created **IN** him (remember the prepositions are important). Now **all** things in heaven and on earth couldn’t possibly have been created **IN** the One who became Jesus, if he is also a created being. However, the test makes no referrals to an exception here, as it does concerning authority in 1Corinthians 15:27. Therefore, unless you wish to read your own thoughts into the text, we are stuck with what is there. Namely, the One who became Jesus was just as responsible for creation—all of it—as the Father is.

      I have no idea how you can accept that the Jesus who walked on the earth as a human, whom God created with an earthly body, but that you believe it is out of the question that God created Jesus before the creation of the world.

      You are making an assumption here that the text never concludes. According to Philippians 2:6, the One who became Jesus was always equal with the Father (God), before he became a man. Nevertheless, he didn’t seek to preserve that equality, but instead took to himself the form of a servant and became a man. He did this to himself. The Father prepared the body in Mary’s womb, but the one who became Jesus acted upon himself in order to make it happen. So, how could the Father have “created” Jesus, when all he did was prepare the body in Mary’s womb? The Scriptures conclude we are composed of body, soul and spirit (1Thessalonians 5:23), yet Paul claims we could be absent from the body and present with the Lord (2Corinthians 5:8). Therefore, our body permits us to partake of the things of this world, but it is not who **we** are.

      Concerning our not agreeing, this is pretty much up to the Lord. I am content as things are. It is with people who disagree with me that I grow in the knowledge of Christ most. Those who disagree with me challenge me to make sure what I believe is true. I have seen what lies can do to folks, so I don’t wish to teach one. I have been wrong before, but when I realize I am wrong, I change what I believe. Organizations are not as apt to admit error. I simply trust God to keep me. I don’t seek to eradicate the organizational point of view. Rather I merely state mine. For some, this causes them to rethink the teaching and investigate on their own. That’s fine with me if they do. As for others, they are spurred onward to defend what they’ve been taught. I don’t rejoice in this, but I understand there is a place for it in coming to know the truth.

      Lord bless and have a good day,

      Eddie

       
  51. Julia Kline

    March 5, 2011 at 14:29

    Hi Ed! I have always enjoyed the conversations I have had in your house. (Note- I have been friends with Ed’s daughters for many years) and I am looking forward to exploring your blog!

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      March 5, 2011 at 14:43

      Julia, hello. How pleasant it is to find you here. I hope you enjoy whatever you read.

       
  52. Vlad

    November 25, 2010 at 01:55

    Hello, I’m very pleased to see studies that make sense. Thank you for what you do and for making it available for others.
    I have a question for you as you seems to be an unbiased person. I would like to know your opinion about satan. I realized that word satan actually doesn’t mean any superhuman entity but rather adversary. In light of this many things became clear to me such as 1Chronicles 21:1 vs 2Samuel 24:1. Also, when Jesus said to Peter “Get thee behind me, satan”, He meant that Peter was opposing Gods plan and not that some entity was working through Peter.
    Basically, could it be that original understanding of satan was just like we understand “laziness”. I can say that laziness makes me ignore work and keeps me in the bed for far too long instead of doing something. But I don’t mean that laziness is the name of some supernatural intelligent being. May be that is what we did with the word ‘satan’?

     
    • Eddie

      November 25, 2010 at 07:43

      Vlad, hi!

      Thank you for taking such an interest in my blog and for your encouraging remarks in your comment.

      Concerning Satan, I agree that he is not a superhuman figure, but I do believe he is/was a real person–a very powerful person. I think Scriptures like Luke 10:18 and 2Corinthians 11:14-15 would preclude him being a fault in our character such as laziness. I have done several blogs on the figure, Satan, and they can be found in the “problem” section of my Salvation menu tab above. Just click on it and you will find the first seven of my eight blogs in the “problem” section to be all about who I believe Satan is. The long-story-short is Satan is Adam, but how I come to this conclusion involves more space than can be allotted in comment. Of course, Adam lived less than 1000 years, but I believe he lived on as a powerful disembodied spirit until just after the time of Christ. The studies are in the tab above, but if you have anymore questions about this or any other subject, I’ll try to answer them promptly. Again, thank your for your interest and your kind thoughts.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  53. ra

    September 28, 2010 at 19:37

    good luck on your spiritual journey!!1

     
  54. ra

    September 28, 2010 at 18:13

    look one last thing I want to tell you I hate what I am doing I really hate going out of my clothes.I don’t want to speak about jesus like that bec jesus or yeshau to me is a person who attained divine realization. but I don’t like the jesus of the dogma, and if u love jesus you will rescue him from dogma bec this is just not him. the jesus of the bible is opposite of the true essenian jesus the nazarene of mount carmal, the enlightened master who had a lot of wisdom. really I am not telling you to change your believes atleast not over night. but I just ask you to read and research, and just think deep inside what is the truth.
    let me tell you I am very happy with what I attained, when i go with the organization im in to retreats i fell like I entered heaven. its unbelievable

     
    • Eddie

      September 28, 2010 at 19:27

      Good for you, Ra. As for the clothes thing, I think we all speak from our hearts. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks–whether for good or for evil. I think you are mature enough to understand how this discussion is going. Have a pleasant evening.

       
  55. ra

    September 28, 2010 at 14:54

    IF YOU WISH TO WORSHIP THIS FAKE PERSON THEN ITS YOUR PROBLEM. BUT I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT CHRISTNAITY IS A DOGMA AND A LIE

     
    • Eddie

      September 28, 2010 at 19:21

      Ra, I will worship the God you label “fake” — but thank you for your concern. As for what you wish others to know, anyone who reads this will at least know your opinion. :-)

       
  56. ra

    September 28, 2010 at 14:52

    look mr eddie you are a fundamentalist who dotn want to know the truth, bec it seems that u are aruging that you can say thigns agianst me. try me and see what you can bec I know a lot about philosophy and civilization, and that jesus was not unique there were many great people. the virgin birht is an old cliche mythical story, whether you liek it or not what I tell you is that everyone is entitled to their own faith but not to their own facts
    you cant limit god into one man. this is stupid and illogical

    The “logos”
    As mentioned in the Introduction, Christian and Catholic theologians have misused the Greek word “logos” in John 1:1 to represent the Pre-Incarnate Christ. Unknowingly, such theologians derive their concepts about the “Word” (Greek = logos) from early Greek and Jewish philosophers. They say that the “Word” mentioned in John 1:1 and John 1:14 both refer to Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Triune Godhead:
    • John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (NAS)
    These well-meaning, but deceived individuals say that the phrase, “In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God,” refers to Jesus (the Word or logos a.k.a. “God the Son”) being with God (the persons of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit) during the time when the entire creation was being made. This study will debunk such a notion, and show that the “Word” is not a person as they suppose, but rather the “reasonings, or thoughts, of God.”
    Just because theologians misuse the word “logos” in their attempts to apply it to the Pre-Incarnate Christ, does not mean that “logos” has no proper application in scripture. The Greek word “logos” was used by the Hellenistic empire hundreds of years before the New Testament was written. Thus, it was the language God used to inspire the apostles to write their letters (epistles). The Greek language itself is not pagan, although many of its words were derived from pagan theology, ideology, or philosophy.
    For example, the Greek word for “wisdom” is “sophia,” and comes from the Greek goddess of wisdom and knowledge whose name was “Sophia.” Just because this word originated from a pagan goddess, does not mean its use is limited exclusively to her. We now use the word wisdom in the NT in a completely different sense. Yet, knowing the origin of such a word can help us understand what Paul was writing about when he said the Greeks seek “wisdom”:
    • 1 Cor 1:22-29 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom (sophia): But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom (sophia) of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are; that no flesh should glory in his presence.
    Pagan deities and the origin of the Trinity
    The Graeco-Roman world had multiple deities. The three most popular deities were: Isis, Serapis, and Cybele. A Greek Trinity if you will. Also popular amongst the Roman soldiers of the day was the pagan god, “Mithras,” who was said to be united with the sun, and who was considered the champion of light and darkness, good & evil.
    Because the gods of one country within the Roman Empire were united with similar deities in another country, it was often decided they could be mutually worshipped under one banner. This set a precedent for the Trinity as well; the uniting of three persons of God under the banner of one Triune Godhead. The Graeco-Roman practice of uniting deities was known as “syncretism.” They “syncretised” multiple gods into one common form of worship. So too, with the Trinity, you have the syncretising of three divine beings into one Godhead, to be worshipped simultaneously.
    The Graeco-Roman religions were cult like, and were labeled as “mystery religions.” They had secret ceremonies that were not communicable to outsiders. This laid the foundation for the Roman Catholic churches division between the priests, and the laity. The priests were the secret initiates to the “mysteries” of the Catholic Church, which included a mystical understanding of the Godhead.
    The influence of Plato
    Philosophy was considered the religion of the intelligent people in the Graeco-Roman world, drawing mainly from the teachings of Plato and Aristotle.
    Pyrrho of Elis (300 BC) also taught skepticism, a philosophy espousing knowledge is impossible, and that suspense of judgment is the only rational attitude. This prepared the way for the acceptance of the illogical nature of the Trinity; the idea that God was altogether “incomprehensible.” Again, from the Athanasian Creed:
    “The Father incomprehensible: the Son incomprehensible: and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.”
    It is essential to understand Plato (429-347 BC) and his philosophy to understand the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Plato taught an abstract, transcendent world of forms and ideas which can be apprehended by the intellect alone.
    Plato’s philosophy was that the human senses are being subject to great numbers of material objects, which are constantly changing. The “intellect” therefore focuses on groups of common characteristics perceived by the senses. For example, the sense of smell perceives a variety of changing odors. The intellect takes these various odors, and groups them together into categories (e.g. fragrant and pungent). These collective categories were called “forms” or Ideas” of the intellect.
    Plato believed that what the intellect perceived as “forms” or “ideas” was what was real, not the senses by which the thoughts were collected. Plato was the first New Age in this regard. He was not unlike Christian Science religion, which also denies the existence of evil matter. Plato believed the “forms” and “ideas” perceived by the “intellect” was what was real, unchanging, and eternal, and transcended what the material senses experienced.

    The influence of Aristotle
    Plato’s pupil Aristotle (384-322 BC), also a philosopher, modified Plato’s teaching. Aristotle taught that the mind analyzes things in 10 categories: substance (the essence of the individual thing), then quantity, quality, relation, place, date, position, state, action, and passivity.

    Aristotle was more of a realist than Plato. He accepted the reality of the material world. His 10 “Categories” represent not only how the mind perceives the material world, but also the “modes” in which those material things objectively exist. Aristotle’s “modes” or “forms” were unlike Plato’s…to Aristotle, the intellectually perceived “forms” of material were united in a “composite form” with material elements. This made him somewhat of a pantheist, speaking from a theological viewpoint.
    For example, Aristotle taught that the body and soul constitute a composite unity. The physical body was like matter to the soul, but it was the soul that constituted the actual “form” which the body had taken. Further, Aristotle taught that the “soul” is immortal, and “self-moving” (i.e. self perpetuating)…he believed the soul was the source of motion itself. Aristotle contributes to the doctrine of Christ as the Pre-Incarnate God, a self-moving, self-perpetuating deity, through whom the worlds were “formed” or created. Quoting again from the Athanasian Creed:
    “But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such is the Father, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated: the Son uncreated: and the Holy Ghost uncreated…The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal…for as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ.”
    CHRISTIANITY WILL DIE SOON TRUST ME BEC IT IS A FAKE MAN MADE MYTH OF THE SUN GOD

     
    • Eddie

      September 28, 2010 at 19:17

      “look mr eddie you are a fundamentalist who dotn want to know the truth, bec it seems that u are aruging that you can say thigns agianst me. try me and see what you can bec I know a lot about philosophy and civilization, and that jesus was not unique there were many great people. the virgin birht is an old cliche mythical story, whether you liek it or not what I tell you is that everyone is entitled to their own faith but not to their own facts
      you cant limit god into one man. this is stupid and illogical…”

      But—Mr. Ra—you are not interested in a debate. If you were, why would you let others speak FOR you? All that you posted after your remarks here came from the website: Greek Philosophy and the Trinity . I am not in the habit of responding to websites, but I’ll give it a read and decide later whether or not to respond to its claims—to which you seem to aspire. I promise nothing, because, after all, I am more interested in discussing with you, not seeking to debunk a website.

      “CHRISTIANITY WILL DIE SOON TRUST ME BEC IT IS A FAKE MAN MADE MYTH OF THE SUN GOD.”

      Well, Ra, how long must I wait before I can call you a false prophet?

       
  57. ra

    September 26, 2010 at 06:21

    jesus wa snot god jesu swas a man and i dotn worship him chrisntiay is a pagan shit, ur jesus prayed to god lol how cna he be god

    .1. Mithraism and Christianity (200BCE +)
    Many have realized that as Christianity copied, re-named and inherited many Pagan myths, such as those of Mithraism, that it is hard to pin down a “start” date for Christian ideas. If you go back far enough, Christian history is actually pagan history.
    “Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. [...] The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity.”
    2.3. Ebionite Christians (1st-4th Century)

    Ebionite Christians believed that all the Jewish Laws had to be obeyed; including the Sabbath and circumcision for all males. As such, they considered St Paul to be the archenemy of Christianity as he taught that people did not have to obey the Law in order to be saved. They believed Jesus was Human, and adopted by God as a perfect sacrifice.
    “The Ebionites were some of the original Christians: Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They populated the legendary Jerusalem Church. ‘Ebionite’ was sometimes used as a term to describe all Christians. Those who we now know as Pauline Christians opposed the Ebionites, after discovering them and realizing that their beliefs differed. Authors such as Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria, and many other intolerant “heresy-hunters” wrote at great length against the Ebionites. Many of the claims made against them were based on misunderstandings of their beliefs, and many anti-Ebionite claims were plainly ridiculous. [Ehrman, 2003]. Pauline Christians eradicated the Ebionites, burning all of their books (none survived) and harassing and arresting the people until none were left. They edited Luke 2:32 and 2:48 where Joseph was twice called the ‘father’ of Jesus so that it did not say so, and they also edited Luke 3:22 where it plainly stated, in accordance with Ebionite beliefs, that God adopted Jesus. Pauline Christians, as non-Jewish Romans, handily came across a mistranslated prophecy that said Jesus would be born of a virgin (like other Roman sons-of-gods), adding a whole two chapters to the beginning of Matthew to prove their point. These edits, now they are uncovered, show that the Ebionites were treated very cruelly and unfairly, and that the original readings of Matthew and Luke both support Ebionite Christianity, rather than the Pauline Christianity that the West has inherited.
    If we were to guess which group was the more austere, holy and godly, we would have to guess it was the Ebionites rather than the Pauline Christians who slaughtered, slandered and oppressed them. Unfortunately the victors get to write history, and it is Pauline Christianity that became the legacy of the Roman Empire. After the fourth century, the Ebionites were vanquished.”
    SHAKEN CREEDS: The Virgin Birth Doctrine By Jocelyn Rhys – Published 1922
    THE VIRGIN BIRTH STORY
    OTHER STORIES OF VIRGIN BIRTHS
    It may be thought that the story of a virgin birth is too wonderful to have been invented merely to show that a misunderstood prophecy had been fulfilled, and that so miraculous a doctrine could not, without some basis of fact, suddenly be created by any brain, however fertile. But a study of ancient literature discloses the fact that myths of virgin births were part of many if not of all the surrounding pagan religions in the place where, and at the time when, Christianity arose.
    “The gods have lived on earth in the likeness of men” was a common saying among ancient pagans, and supernatural events were believed in as explanations of the god’s arrival upon earth in human guise.
    About two thousand years before the Christian era Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, was said to have given birth to the Pharaoh Amenkept (or Amenophis) III, who built the temple of Luxor, on the walls of which were represented:-
    1. The Annunciation: the god Taht announcing to the virgin Queen that she is about to become a mother.
    2. The Immaculate Conception: the god Kneph (the Holy Spirit) mystically impregnating the virgin by holding a cross, the symbol of life, to her mouth.
    3. The Birth of the Man-god.
    4. The Adoration of the newly born infant by gods and men, including three kings (or Magi ?), who are offering him gifts. In this sculpture the cross again appears as a symbol.
    In another Egyptian temple, one dedicated to Hathor, at Denderah, one of the chambers was called “The Hall of the Child in his Cradle”; and in a painting which was once on the walls of that temple, and is now in Paris, we can see represented the Holy Virgin Mother with her Divine Child in her arms. The temple and the painting are undoubtedly pre-Christian.
    Thus we find that long before the Christian era there were already pictured in pagan places of worship virgin mothers and their divine children, and that such pictures included scenes of an Annunciation, an Incarnation, and a Birth and Adoration, just as the Gospels written in the second century A.D. describe them, and that these events were in some way connected with the God Taht, who was identified by Gnostics with the Logos.
    And, besides these myths about Mut-em-ua and Hathor, many other origins of a virgin birth story can be traced in Egypt.
    Horus was said to be the parthenogenetic child of the Virgin Mother, Isis. In the catacombs of Rome black statues of this Egyptian divine Mother and Infant still survive from the early Christian worship of the Virgin and Child to which they were converted. In these the Virgin Mary is represented as a black regress, and often with the face veiled in the true Isis fashion. When Christianity absorbed the pagan myths and rites it adopted also the pagan statues, and renamed them as saints, or even as apostles.
    Statues of the goddess Isis with the child Horus in her arms were common in Egypt, and were exported to all neighbouring and to many remote countries, where they are still to be found with new names attached to them-Christian in Europe, Buddhist in Turkestan, Taoist in China and Japan. Figures of the virgin Isis do duty as representations of Mary, of Hariti, of Kuan-Yin, of Kwannon, and of other virgin mothers of gods.
    And these were not the only pre-Christian statuettes and engravings of divine mothers and children. On very ancient Athenian coins such figures were stamped. Among the oldest relics of Carthage, of Cyprus, and of Assyria figures of a divine mother and her babe-god are found. Such figures were known under a great variety of names to the followers of various sects; the mothers as Venus, Juno, Mother-Earth, Fortune, etc., and the children as Hercules, Dionysos, Jove, Wealth, etc. In India similar figures are not uncommon, many of them representing Devaki with the babe Krishna at her breast, others representing various less well-known Indian divinities.
    In Egypt we also find that “Apis, the sacred bull of Memphis, was believed to have been begotten by a deity descending as a ray of moonlight on the cow which was to become the mother of the sacred beast; hence he was regarded as the son of the god.”
    This miracle was said to be constantly repeated.
    An Apis-so, according to Plutarch, said the Mathematici-was conceived every time a cow “in season” happened to be struck by a beam of light from the moon.
    The Mathematici, of course, realized that the light of the moon was really the reflection of the light of the sun, and they therefore believed that the moon received her male generative power as proxy for the sun, the creator of all things.
    Apis, the living calf, was regarded as a re-incarnation of Osiris, or at any rate as an emblem of the spirit or soul of Osiris.
    It is difficult to assign the exact position in the divine hierarchy which polytheists believed their various gods to occupy. Their beliefs probably differed, and were certainly vague. The better-educated classes were doubtless then, as at all times, inclined to be sceptical, and to regard all these stories of different manifestations of divinity as more or less allegorical or symbolic; and, when they were not sceptical, their minds became so entangled in the complexities of metaphysical speculation that the stories they told grew very confused. On the other hand, the ignorant classes, both rich and poor, certainly believed in the most miraculous explanations of the pantheon which the priests could invent. By such people, the more improbable the alleged fact, the better was the story liked.
    From this myth of a cow impregnated by a ray from the moon probably originated the story of the rape of Europa by Jove in the guise of a bull; the idea of a god incarnate in a bull easily giving rise to variants of that kind.
    Perhaps the most curious and best known variant of the bull-lover theme is the story about Pasiphae, the wife of Minos. She was said to have conceived a violent passion for the bull which Poseidon (Neptune) had sent to her husband. So, with the aid of an artist, named Daedalus, she disguised herself as a cow, and resorted to the meadow in which the bull grazed. The fruit of her union with the bull was the celebrated Minotaur, partly human, partly bovine, which Minos shut up in the Labyrinth. The ancient superstition that monsters have been born from the union of human beings and animals survived until quite recently, and probably still exists among the uneducated and semi-educated. Exact, or comparatively exact, knowledge of the possibilities of hybridization is a science of quite recent growth.
    It will be observed that the Minotaur was named after the husband of his mother, as well as after his real father the Tauros. That is a peculiarity of many of these stories.
    Another Egyptian god, Ra (the Sun), was said to have been born of a virgin mother, Net (or Neith), and to have had no father.
    In many other countries besides Egypt similar stories of the virgin birth of gods were told.
    Attis, the Phrygian god, was said to be the son of the virgin Nana, who conceived him by putting in her bosom a ripe almond or pomegranate.
    Dionysos, the Grecian God, was said in one version of the myth concerning him to be the son of Zeus out of the virgin goddess Persephone, and in another version to be the miraculously begotten son of Zeus out of the mortal woman Semele. He, according to this story, was taken from his mother’s womb before the full period of gestation had expired, and completed his embryonic life in Zeus’s thigh. Dionysos was thus half human and half divine, born of a woman and also of a god.
    His myth, which was current long before the Christian era, is a remarkable example of the kind of story which could be, and was, invented about a man-god. He was said to have been persecuted by Pentheus, :King of Thebes, the home of his mother; to have been rejected in his own country; and, when bound, to have asserted that his father, God, would set him free whenever he chose to appeal to him. He disappears from earth, but re-appears as a light shining more brightly than the sun, and speaks to his trembling disciples; and he subsequently visits Hades. The story of his birth is alluded to, and the story of his persecution related, in “The Bacchae,” which Euripides wrote about 410 B.C., when the myth was already very old and very well known.
    Jason, who was slain by Zeus, was said to have been another son of the virgin Persephone, and to have had no father, either human or divine.
    Perseus was also said to have been born of a virgin; and it is this story which Justin Martyr, the second-century Christian “Father of the Church,” stigmatizes as an invention of the Devil, who, knowing that Christ would subsequently be born of a virgin, counterfeited the miracle before it really took place.
    The “Fathers of the Church” frequently gave this explanation of the numerous pre-Christian virgin birth stories to which their rivals tauntingly referred.
    Adonis, the Syrian god; Osiris, the first person of the principal Egyptian Trinity; and Mithra, the Persian god whom so many of the Roman soldiers worshipped-all had strange tales told about their births.
    At the time when Christianity arose all these gods were worshipped in various parts of the Roman empire.
    Attis, Adonis, Dionysos, Osiris, and Mithra were the principal gods in their respective countries; and those countries together formed the greater part of the Eastern provinces of the Roman empire, and of its great rival, the Persian empire.
    Classical mythology is full of kindred stories, and the idea of a virgin birth was familiar to all men of that time.
    Of Plato it was related that his mother Perictione was a virgin who conceived him immaculately by the god Apollo. Apollo himself revealed the circumstances of this conception to Ariston, the affianced husband of the virgin.
    Virginity, perhaps on account of its rarity in those days among women of a marriageable age, had always a halo of sanctity cast over it by barbaric and semi-civilized tribes; and even in civilized Rome itself the Vestal Virgins were looked upon as peculiarly sacred.
    This reverence for virginity seems to have sometimes been contemporaneous with the institution of religious prostitution on a large scale. There is, indeed, no reason why this should not have been the case, incongruous though it seems to us, as such religious prostitution was looked upon very differently from the way in which it would now be regarded.
    In origin it was an institution designed to bring fertility to the fields (by sympathetic magic). The sacrifice of chastity in the service of the goddess was an act of devotion, and not an act of licentiousness. Once again the reader must be reminded that when studying these customs we must remember that we are dealing with men and women brought up in an entirely different psychological climate from our own. A veneration for chastity was with them not incompatible with periodic orgies, nor with places set aside for sacred prostitution, asceticism and such prostitution being regarded as alternative ways of making a sacrifice for the public good.
    Doubtless an historian of the future may find it difficult to reconcile our own professions and our own practice in kindred matters, and will be confused by the protestations of virtuous horror which he reads alongside of accounts given by the same authors of conspicuous lapses from virtue.
    The conventions of romance are not always the same as the customs of the people. They reflect the theory rather than the practice. Extremes are always more conspicuous than the mean.
    An old story which curiously illustrates this same reverence felt for virginity by the ancients, in romance rather than in reality, is the myth about the children of AEgyptus and of Danaus.
    The former had fifty sons; the latter fifty daughters. The former ruled over Arabia; the latter over Libya. They quarrelled over the kingdom of Egypt which the former had conquered, and when AEgyptus tried to patch up the quarrel by sending his sons to marry the daughters of Danaus the latter pretended to consent, but provided his daughters with daggers and with instructions how to use them. On their wedding night all the daughters of Danaus, save one, murdered their husbands in their sleep. Hypermnestra spared her husband Lyncous because he had respected her virginity, and not availed himself of his marital privileges.
    So Lynceus survived the slaughter of his brethren, and lived happily ever after with Hypermnestra, by whom he had at least one son.
    It is not possible here to enter at length into the origin and history of the curious veneration for virginity which was current at this period, but it is of interest to note that the belief that some occult power was attached to this state of unblemished purity survived even up to the Middle Ages of our era.
    For example, it was thought that virgins were peculiarly efficient as bait for Unicorns. The Unicorn, or rather his congener, the Monoceros-for it is of him that our present authority writes-was evidently a fastidious beast; only a virgin could attract him. On finding one tied up in the forest as a lure he was wont to kiss her, and then to fall asleep on her breast. Whereupon the brave hunter came up and slew him in his sleep. If the young woman was not really a virgin, the Monoceros immediately killed her, and disappeared before the hunter arrived.
    This method of hunting the Monoceros is described in the “Bestiary” of Philip de Thaun, written in the twelfth century, and is but one of the many strange facts alleged by authors of that period in support of the theory that virginity had special virtues when dealings were had with animals, with demons, and with human beings.
    It was a semi-romantic, semi-religious halo which was cast over this particular physical condition.
    To the Vestal Virgins in Rome were attributed the faculty of prophesying and many sacred virtues. All virgins were immune from death at the hand of the executioner, and the Vestals enjoyed many other privileges so long as they preserved their chastity.
    The same idea is found “in the histories of miraculous virgins that are so numerous in the mythologies of Asia. Such, for example, was the Chinese legend that tells how, when there was but one man with one woman upon earth, the woman refused to sacrifice her virginity even in order to people the globe; and the gods, honouring her purity, granted that she should conceive beneath the gaze of her lover’s eyes, and a virgin-mother became the parent of humanity.”
    One of the legends which arose as Buddhism degenerated from its original lofty idealism was to the effect that the Buddha Gautama was given birth to by Maya, an immaculate virgin who conceived him through a divine influence.
    Gautama, the Buddha, was the son of a Hindu rajah named Suddhodana, and was born, in the ordinary course of nature, in 563 B.C. He never claimed to be a god, neither did either he himself or his disciples claim that his birth was miraculous.
    But in after years a myth arose among Buddhists to the effect that his mother Maya, having been divinely chosen to give birth to the Buddha, was borne away by spirits to the Himalayas, where she underwent ceremonial purifications at the hands of four queens. The Bodhisattva then appeared to her, and walked round her three times. At the moment when he completed his peregrinations the Buddha (the incarnate Bodhisattva) entered her womb, and great wonders took place in heaven, on earth, and in hell.
    The Ebionites, the first Jewish followers of Jesus accepted Joseph as the natural father. An attempt was made by the early Christians to justify the virgin birth story by referring to Isaiah 7:14 where is written, “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son”. The word employed in the Greek version of the Old Testament was parthenos. But a reference to the original Hebrew yields the word almah. Both parthenos and almah did not necessarily mean a virgin as we understand it, a woman who had never had intercourse. In Greek it could mean youth, the state of unmarriage, or even a person who is first married. In Hebrew it could mean beside the usual meaning, an immature girl who could not conceive because she had not yet started to menstruate. The idea of a virgin as a premenstrual girl allows her to have children and still be a virgin. If she were to conceive from her very first ovulation, she would not have menstruated but would be a mother and still a virgin. If she conceived at the first ovulation after the birth, she could be a virgin mother of two children of different ages. Since Jewish girls often married before menstruation – in Joel 1:8 an almah’s husband is mentioned – virgin mothers were not unusual. Now Mary was described as “betrothed” to Joseph implying that she was a minor under the age of twelve and a half. After that age she could become his wife. Thus the “virgin” Mary could have given birth. If she did, the truth was misunderstood in the gentile world of the Roman Empire, and indeed beyond, where it was de rigeur not only for gods but also great men to be born of virgins. Ra, Hatshepsut, Amenophis III, Cyrus the Great, Julius Caesar, Perseus, Plato, Apollonius of Tyana, Fohi, Lao Kium, Zoroaster and Attis all came of virgin births according to their followers.
    Herodotus explained that such conceptions occurred by way of a ray of light and according to Plutarch’s book on Isis and Osiris it entered through the ear. Tertullian confirms it was a ray of light. Thus medieval pictures of Mary at the moment of conception show a ray of light entering her ear. Furthermore it is common for gods and those akin to gods to have mothers called Mary or a cognate name. Adonis was born of Myrrha, Hermes of Maia, Cyrus of Mariana or Mandane, Joshua of Miriam, Buddha of Maya and Khrishna of Maritala.
    THE LINK TO ASTROLOGY
    And the tradition of divine Saviors being born of undefiled and undeflowered virgins has an astronomical chapter we must not omit to notice. The virgin, with her God-begotten child, was pictured imaginarily in the heavens from time immemorial. They are represented on the Hindu zodiac, at least three thousand years old, and on the ancient Egyptian planispheres. And if you will examine Burritt’s Geography of the Heavens, you will find the infant God-son (the sun) is represented as being born into a new year on the 25th of December (the very date assigned for Christ’s birth), and may be seen rising over the eastern horizon, out of Mary, Maria, or Mare (the Latin for sea), with the infant God in her arms, being heralded and preceded by a bright star, which rises immediately preceding the virgin and her child, thus suggesting the text, “We have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him.” (Matt. 2:8).
    If you have not you need to refresh yourself with the 280 cycle from the vernal equinox to Dec. 25 which the ancients believed was the gestation of the Sun-god impregnation of “mother earth.” The ancients believed this “child god” was to be born of a Virgin. This, of course represents the constellation of Virgo. Virgo had command of teh Fall equinox at the time this passage was edited by the Gentile priesthood. And Virgo, as such, represented the fall of the fetus in the third trimester, before it’s birth. A human fetus enter’s it’s third trimester after 186-187 days. The Fall equinox, Sept. 22 (when the fetus falls toward the vagina, birth) is 186 days from the Conception at the vernal equinox (March. 21). Again, we see the link between the human body and the Cosmos and the ancients interpreted this as man being made in the image of the Cosmos which delcared to them God.
    your beleive is very wrong andnot true u christin sshould die soon

     
    • Eddie

      September 26, 2010 at 08:25

      Good Morning, Ra.
      I have been reading your “comment” with great interest. I have left your comment as you have submitted it for anyone to read who wishes to do so. Instead of merely commenting on what you have claimed, I plan to use parts of what you have said here in future blogs. In this manner I can present my understanding in a clear way against what you have said. Just to make sure everything I quote from you is in context, your comment in its entirety will remain here for all to see. Thank you for reading my blog, and especially for commenting. I really appreciate those who are so moved by what I say, pro or con, that they take the time to write a reply. May the Lord God richly bless you. Eddie

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers