KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics :: :: Post new topic


Keralabrethren.net: General Forum: Hebrews 10:38-39

Post Reply
Go to bottom of the page

# 02186 :  Hebrews 10:38-39

 

Dear ‘sathyasnehi,’
 
You wrote on the thread, Salvation – To inquire and search carefully,’on 22 Sep 2011,  “Mr.GPK, you can very well start a new thread for Hebrews 10:38,29.”  Therefore, I am starting this thread in the hope that you will participate. If you refuse to do so, then this thread will remain at the place where you refused to participate.
 
Hebrews 10:38-39, “But the just shall live by faith; and if he draw back, my soul does not take pleasure in him. But we are not drawers of back to perdition, but of faith to saving the soul.”
 
You wrote on 21 Sep 2011, Reply to you
It makes me laughing to read your threatening that I have to meet bad consequences, if I sin willfully. Please note that CS doctrine I am following cautions a believer to be diligent to make one’s election and call sure to enter into God’s kingdom according to Scriptural warning (2 Peter1:10), whereas ES proponents say that one can fall into grievous sin and backslide continuously, but will be saved without any problem. This is a dangerous teaching against Scripture (Hebrew 10:38, 39). You are shutting down your eyes from this evil teaching and threatening me.
Sathyasnehi”
 
Explain how is the eternal security of the eternal salvation will become a dangerous teaching against Hebrews 10:38-39. I hope that your explanation will be using the whole epistle, if not the whole New Testament, because you wrote that the whole verse should be considered in relation to an atheist’s claim about the “There is no God” expression in the Bible. That is, you wanted to consider the expressions that preceded and followed it, and the expression by itself should not stand by itself.  That is what is known as contextual interpretation. What preceded and what followed should be considered in your explanation. You cannot establish anything by a decree, because you are not greater than God. I am asking for your explanation because the eternal security of the eternal salvation is clearly stated in those verses. If not, it is your moral obligation, if not ethical, to explain what you wrote.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Post by : George P. Koshy  View Profile    since : 22 Sep 2011


Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 23 Sep 2011 7:29:40 AM Close

The Epistle to the Hebrews 

I am considering this epistle as I consider any other epistles. Different authors have written epistles to different Churches in different ways to explain the Truth.  But in all the epistles, the Truth is one and the same. Taking into account this fact, I see that all the advices and warnings given in this epistle are pertaining to me, a believer of God in Christ. I do not see any such warning or advices are specifically meant for Hebrews only. As I think that this discussion may prolong for some time, I am taking at present Chapter 10 for my explanation and as the discussion may go on further, I will take other chapters also. If need be, I will look for other portions of the New Testament.

 

Chapter 10 

 

While reading first 18 verses, I understand how the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient for one who believes in Him. This sacrifice was a little strange for the Hebrew believers.  Until knowing Christ as Savior, they were offering sacrifices every year for their redemption. This act of routine sacrificing was burdensome for them.  After offering one sacrifice they had to wait for the same day of next year to offer the next year.  This was a period of uncertainty for their redemption. The author narrates the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice by which one is made perfect for ever, not requiring doing routine sacrifices. From verse 19 to 25, I see that the author is advising the believers to maintain their faith with confidence, to keep up fellowship in order to sustain love between fellow believers.

 

Reading the verses from 26 to 31, I find that the author speaks about how a believer once cleansed by the blood of Jesus can abuse that onetime sacrifice and turn into the group of adversaries then finally draw the wrath of God. This portion speaks very well about a person who once believed Christ, but got entangled in willful sins and denies God by his wicked deeds. In verses 32 to 34, the author finds that the believers are backsliding and their state of Christian living is not as good as it was once. Only on seeing this condition in them, author has given that statement what we read in 26 to 31.

 

To read verses 35 to 39 is crucial one. In these verses author asks not to give up the courage of faith, to keep patience and to wait of Christ’s coming. He expects that a righteous should not drawback, understandably it is backsliding. God is not pleased with a righteous one’s backsliding. Because backsliding causes perdition of soul.

 

Verse 39 is words of encouragement rather than assurance. While the author had pointed out that ‘some’ have gone astray (v25), he speaks to the rest about, noticing their backsliding, to come out the present state and continue as hot Christians.   

 

Sathyasnehi     

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 23 Sep 2011 12:44:39 PM Close

 

Dear ‘sathaysnehi,’
 
Your introduction is basically correct. When it came to the explanation of the verses under consideration, there is problem. You wrote, “…God is not pleased with a righteous one’s backsliding. Because backsliding causes perdition of soul.” This convey the idea that the ‘just’ who lives by faith ends in perdition, if he backslides. Am I wrong in this? How did you come to this conclusion, from the context of this verse? Who are the “we” in Hebrews 10:39? How did you conclude that Hebrews 10:39 is nothing but a statement of encouragement? Let us discuss this in its context, because you wrote that an atheist should consider the expression “There is no God” not by itself, but in its context. In the common use of that word in English (I do not know how that word ‘context’ is used in Malayalam. I suppose that there is no word ‘context’ in Malayalam.): “The part of a written or spoken statement that surrounds a word or passage and that often specifies its meaning.” Therefore, you should not take the verse out of its context.
 
Let me ask a question for clarification. Do you believe and accept the Bible, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God? Do you believe that it is inspired by God? Do you believe that it is immutable? Do you believe that it is inerrant? Some of your postings have a flavor that radiates contrary to these.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 24 Sep 2011 6:52:26 AM Close

Dear GPK,

‘…because you wrote that an atheist should consider the expression “There is no God” not by itself, but in its context’ – This is your remark on me regarding ‘There is no God’ issue. I have given hereunder the portion in question from my posting dt.19 Sep 2011 7:48:15AM.  Tell me where your remark reflects in my writing.

‘Mr.Koshy, I thought that you would cite some verse that will appear hard for a Christian to explain to an atheist when he falsely claims that there is no God………… To explain the verses, you need not ask for the context details. The verses themselves are sufficient to explain away an atheist’s claim. These verses do not speak about God’s existence, but about the fools who are corrupt and do abominable works and deny God. A person even with a minimum literacy and thinking rationally will not take these verses to claim that there is no God ‘.

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him – V 38

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul – V 39.

Continuing in the belief is to the saving of the soul, as we read in verse 39 and drawing back (which is just opposite to believing) in unto the perdition, that also is there in the same verse. When ‘saving’ is related to ‘soul’, we must understand that the ‘perdition’ is also related to the ‘soul’ only. It is correct logically and spiritually as well. From verse 38 I understand that a ‘just’ can backslide.  What God wants from that backslider is repentance (2 Peter 3:9). If a Just ends as a backslider, he will be no more a Just.

Ezekiel 18:  24But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

26When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

Verse 39 contains words of encouragement. Though the author finds some sign of drawing back from faith in the believers (verses 32-34), instead of rebuking them for backsliding, he adopts a positive way of dealing with the believers. So that, he includes himself with those backsliders and tells ‘…we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul’.  This is a practical understanding of Spiritual Truth.

I believe and accept the Bible, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God. I believe that it is inspired by God. I believe that it is immutable. I believe that it is inerrant.

Sathyasnehi

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 24 Sep 2011 7:06:20 AM Close

Point to add:  We can relate the word 'them' in verse 39 to 'some' in verse 25 meaningfully.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 26 Sep 2011 6:51:26 AM Close

We should not think that the backsliders are those who are waiting for the Lord’s coming.

Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life - Jude 21 

Many a time Romans 8:38, 39 are cited in support of eternal security doctrine. The author speaks here about only that external forces will not separate us from God’s love. Jude 21 clearly says that we must keep ourselves in the love of God. To those who eagerly wait for Christ with this in mind, He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation (Heb 9:28). And this salvation is Eternal Salvation.

 

Sathyasnehi

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 26 Sep 2011 10:46:14 AM Close

And if we take the second part of verse 39 as an unchangable assurance, then the warning in verses 26 and 27 can be simply brushed aside, as it does not have any meaning at all.

Sathyasnehi

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 26 Sep 2011 6:21:16 PM Close

 

Dear ‘sathyasnehi,’
 
On 24 Sep 2011 you reproduced your answer on “there is no God” expression. Let me quote it again, “Mr.Koshy, I thought that you would cite some verse that will appear hard for a Christian to explain to an atheist when he falsely claims that there is no God………… To explain the verses, you need not ask for the context details. The verses themselves are sufficient to explain away an atheist’s claim.” What you wrote clearly tells from the context that I do not have to ask for the context, because the context of the expression in the verse itself makes it clear what that should be. You want an atheist to consider the context of the expression, but that is not applicable for you. Such an attitude is hypocrisy, because it shows a double standard and a false balance that you use in all discussions.
 
Let us explore Hebrews 10:38-39 from their context. There are two groups mentioned. One lives by faith and the other draws backs after making a profession. Judas Iscariot is a good example of the drawing back group. All the other eleven disciples are good examples of those who live by faith. This group that lives by faith is further given in detail from the Old Testament in the following two chapters. Those who make a profession without accepting the Lordship of the Son and change His teaching, as Judas did, are those who are in the ‘drawing back’ group. In the other group, those who live by faith, is those who make the profession and accept the Lordship of the Son. In other words, these are the true believers in Christ and have the eternal salvation and know the eternal security of their salvation. The members of this group will be called heroes of faith by God as we read in Hebrews 12. All the members of this group, as listed in Hebrews 11, could be accused of having more than one failure that are so bad, but they did not lose their position of being the heroes of faith before God. They did not have to wait for the coming of the Lord to find about their salvation. They went to be with God, at the ascension of Christ. Those who believed in the Son received their eternal life and eternal salvation that has the attribute of Eternal God. When they die, they go to be with the Lord and not to a place of uncertainty and wait for the appearance of the Son of Man on the earth, as you claim.
 
In the Old Testament time, there were people who tried to live according to God’s command. They were called “righteous” in the Old Testament. They were mentioned as righteous in the Scriptures. Lot is included in this group of righteous. They would turn away and practice the abominations of the wicked. Balaam is a good example of this, along with Lot. He died with Balak. Though Lot and his daughters were taken out of Sodom, Sodom was not taken out of them. (It is something like:
You can take the Salem out if the country but;
You can’t take the country out of Salem.
Note: ‘Salem’ was a brand of cigarette.)
Without this understanding, if you try to create a doctrine from the Old Testament, by denying the context of New Testament verses that are given for Christian doctrine is another drawing back. This you do as Balaam did. You must turn away from you evil ways of contradicting the Son, who taught us about ‘eternal life’ and ‘eternal salvation.’ This He did, even when He was on the cross.
 
You wrote, “Verse 39 contains words of encouragement. Though the author finds some sign of drawing back from faith in the believers (verses 32-34), instead of rebuking them for backsliding, he adopts a positive way of dealing with the believers. So that, he includes himself with those backsliders and tells ‘…we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul’. This is a practical understanding of Spiritual Truth.” This explanation on Hebrews 10:39 shows how much you are misled by your willful refusal to accept the Scriptures and read them as they are in context. The Word of God did not identify the author or any of those who are listed in Hebrews 11 with those who drew back. It is written that those who drew back are destined for perdition or destruction, because they only professed but did not come to the saving knowledge. They are like the thief on the left on the cross. On the other hand, the thief on the right went to be with the Lord on the same day, without waiting for the appearance of the Son of Man on the earth in His kingdom. He represents those who are living by faith and ‘not drawers back.’ You confounded the ‘drawers back’ and ‘not drawers back’ into the same group to justify the unscriptural ‘conditional salvation’ in opposition to the teachings of Christ. The ‘drawers back’ are destined for perdition. They do not have to wait for the coming of the Lord to find that out. The wrath of God abides on them. Those who are ‘not drawers back’ are those who live by faith and they are the one with eternal life through the Son, because God so loved them while they were yet sinners and wanted to call them His children in the Son. We who believe in the ‘eternal salvation’ have received the ‘eternal life,’ and we know that our salvation is ‘eternally secured’ in Christ and not on our works. You could not see this truth. This truth is what tells us about the relationship between “eternal life” and “eternal salvation” with ‘eternal security of our salvation.’
 
Hebrews 10:39 could be paraphrased as; “We belong not to those who are afraid unto destruction, but who believe to the saving of the soul.” There is, “We belong not” and “Who believe to.” If you want to be with those who ‘belong to destruction’ and not with “who belong not” and those who ‘believe to the saving of the soul’ now, “to day.” The reason is that you are a ‘conditional security’ man and denies the free gift of the “eternal life” that is the “eternal salvation” from God through the Son. We who “belong not to those who are afraid unto destruction” belong to who believe to the saving of the soul,” today and not at the judgment day. We will not see that judgment. We are on the other side of the judgment, because our Lord was judged for us. We are with Him, on the other side of the death. Those who are still on this side of the death without Christ are afraid of death because it is appointed to them one to die and then the judgment. They try to justify their refusal to accept the teachings of the Son on an imaginative ‘conditional security’ doctrine.
 
A free translation of Hebrews 10:38-39, could be, “… And my righteous servant shall live from his faith: yet, if he shrinks back (because not having faith), my soul has no pleasure in him. But our principal action is not that shrinking back that ends in destruction, but faith to possession of the soul.”
 
If you read Hebrews 10 correctly, then you will find that there is a change in the content from verse 32. There we read “But call to mind the earlier days.” Before that, the subject was the current days, and verse 25 belongs to the former subject. It was a nice try, but did not work. Please read the verses in their context, without taking them out-of-context.
 
You wrote on 26 Sep 2011, “Many a time Romans 8:38, 39 are cited in support of eternal security doctrine.” Why are you bringing this verse into the discussion? You wrote in another thread that you have no time to discuss the verse from Matthew 25. The verse from Matthew 25 was your second point in the 13 points that you want others to make time for discussion. All these days, after your posting of the 13 points in June, you find ways to avoid their discussion. In order to do that, you created more than one thread in addition to your thread with 13 points. If you are pressed for time, you should discuss one verse at a time in its context. We will discuss Romans 8:38-39 in another thread in the future. As Romans 8:38-39 was not one of the points in your initial 13 points for discussion; we will discuss it after we complete the 13 points. You are trying your best to clutter this thread.
 
Though you went at length to cite from Ezekiel 18, you cleverly managed not to refer to Habakkuk 2, from where Hebrews 10:38-39 are quoted. In Habakkuk 2:4 we read, “Behold his soul is fuffed up, it is not upright within him: but the just shall live by his faith.” There the prophet was pronouncing the impending judgment over Jerusalem. The people were puffed up after receiving God’s words about His ways and rejected those words of God. Those who continued in His ways are the just and they shall live by faith. After receiving the Old Testament, if they decided not to live by faith but to live according to ways of the wicked, then they shall perish. That was always Gods’ warning to them. The New Testament Christianity, in its outward form, is in analogous to that of the Old Testament. In both the Old and New Testament times there are two groups among those who are known as God’s people; ‘those who live by faith’ and ‘those who ‘draw back’ from what they received. The ‘draw back’ group consists of the professing only, while the ‘living by faith’ is those who trusted God and His words. These two groups are governed by their state of mind to not-to-obey or to-obey.
 
In closing this posting, let me remind you that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not include himself along with the backsliding unbelievers, as you wrote. It is not only dishonest before God, but also is well pleasing the Devil (Διαβολοs – DIABOLOS).  This is what you wrote about the author of Hebrews, “So that, he includes himself with those backsliders.”
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 27 Sep 2011 1:13:04 PM Close

 

Dear ‘sathyasnehi,’
 
I wanted to post this separately with enough time between my postings. My intent was to make sure you understand that you are not truthful and forth coming in your exposition of the Scriptures. You wrote on 24 Sep 2011 6:52:26 AM, “I believe and accept the Bible, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God. I believe that it is inspired by God. I believe that it is immutable. I believe that it is inerrant.” Are you truthful, when you wrote and posted this paragraph as the concluding remarks on that posting? Of course not. You changed the immutable, inerrant, and inspired Word of God in your exposition of Hebrews 10:38-39. This is what you wrote as the paragraph that preceded the above quoted paragraph. “Verse 39 contains words of encouragement. Though the author finds some sign of drawing back from faith in the believers (verses 32-34), instead of rebuking them for backsliding, he adopts a positive way of dealing with the believers. So that, he includes himself with those backsliders and tells ‘…we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul’. This is a practical understanding of Spiritual Truth.” Could you read what you wrote? Of course you could. Do you understand what you wrote? Of course you do not understand. Why did I say that you do not understand what you wrote? Read what I quoted the second time. Let me shorten what you wrote by focusing on an important and serious manipulation of the Scriptures. This is what you should focus your attention and repent before God. You wrote, “… So that, he includes himself with those backsliders …” Did the author include himself and identified himself with the backsliders, as you wrote? What he wrote was, “But we are not drawers back to perdition …” You quoted it as written, but willfully did not read it as it was written in KJV. You violated the requirement of reading the Scriptures by Lord Jesus Christ as written in Luke 10:26. You distorted what is written in your explanation. When the author writes that “We are not,”he is not including himself with those who were. You changed the immutable, inerrant, and inspired Word of God to your willful distortion of truth, though you claim that you believe that the Word of God is immutable, inerrant, and inspired.
 
YOU MUST REPENT OF YOUR EVIL WAYS OF CHANGING THE WORD OF GOD TO ESTABLISH YOUR UNSCRIPTURAL IDEAS.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 28 Sep 2011 12:39:12 PM Close

Dear GPK,

As a response to your latest posting, I am writing this. When I say that the author adds himself with the backsliders, it does not mean that he is also a backslider. Instead of keeping himself away from the listeners, he includes himself with them, so that it will be a moral boost for them.  It is a psychological understanding. When you read verses from 32 to 34, you can surely find that the believers to whom the author speaks with are undergoing a sort of backsliding experience. While pointing out this backsliding to them in verses 32-34, the author at the meantime encourages them saying ‘But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul’.

 

Here you have to carefully note that in verses 26 & 27 also the author includes himself with the believers and says ‘For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries’. This is absolutely a warning to believers only.  If a believer has fallen in sin and willfully continuing in that sin, he has to expect the fiery indignation the devours the adversaries, i.e., the enemies, more clearly speaking ‘unbelievers’. You must understand every believer, as a human being is vulnerable to falling down. Author of the epistle is not exceptional. To expose this human tendency and also to show himself along with the believers, the author added himself when he warned the believers. Falling down is forgivable, but continuing in the fallen state. To understand Truth, theology is not sufficient, you must read the mind of a follow believer, must realize the weakness of a fellow believer, you have to keep yourself among those weak believers, though you may be spiritually strong, and help them in the growth of their faith.

 

Now let me go to your posting dt.26.09.11. Regarding ‘There is no God’ issue, you wrote:’ you want an atheist to consider the context of the expression, but that is not applicable for you’. Nowhere had I said I wanted an atheist to consider the context of the expression and I never expect an atheist to do so. Because, when he says that there is no go, citing the verses in Psalm, I can straight away reject his claim saying that that the verses do not speak about the existence of God, but about the fools like him who deny God.  As I have already said, a person even with a minimum literacy and thinking rationally will not take these verses to claim that there is no God.

 

Hebrews 10:38, 39 is very transparent. Verses are very clearly speaking against eternal security. This transparency causes you to ‘explore’ the passage against its clarity.  For this, you need the assistance of some ‘free translation’ and find out that the ‘drawing back’ in V38 is ‘shrinking back’. With your exploration skill, you are making out difference between both the ‘drawing backs’ in v38 & v39. Mr.Koshy, both are same. Refer to Malayalam bible. It is ‘Pinmaatram’ in both the verses. You said that those who are drawing back are not true believers, only professing ones.  But V38 clearly says they are Just i.e., righteous ones. You are daringly twisting verses for your convenience. A person without faith will not drawn back, because he is not already a Christian. Read 1 Tim 6:21: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Here the persons professing Christianity were originally with faith and then they erred from their faith.  A true believer can give up his faith. 

 

 

having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme  - 1 Tim 1:19,20                                                                                                                   (to be contd.....)

              

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 28 Sep 2011 12:40:38 PM Close

(contd.....)

When we read these verses, we find that Hymenaeus and Alexander initially good conscience and faith and later on rejected the good science and shipwrecked their faith. They could not shipwreck what they had not. They were originally believers. You must also notice that Paul had cautioned that Timothy should, by them he might wage the good warfare, having a faith and good conscience. You must alos think over the necessity of this warning. I can quote other examples also.  A believer can forfeit his faith and thus become an apostate. So, those who drawback in Heb 10:38 were Just, not mere professors. Believers listed in Heb 11 were maintained their faith till the end amidst many odd things. Epistle writer gives the list as an example to follow them. After reading the whole list, we could read what said in the opening of Chapter 12. We must run with endurance to keep our faith.  That is a strong advice we have to follow. Only when you are finishing your race you will be a hero, otherwise you will be zero.

 

Whoever is called ‘righteous’, whether it is in Old Testament or New Testament, he is righteous before God, he is a God’s child. On reading your writing I understand that Lot’s righteousness is not that of Abraham.  You do not look at Lot as God’s child. For you he is an unsaved man. Silly, read 2 Peter 2:6-8:

 

‘and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds).

 

What is that ‘Salem’ ‘cigarette’ nonsense’s?  Don’t write childish things.

 

Mr.Koshy, I do not link V25 and V32. In v25, Authors cautions the believers not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some. In V32, we understand that the believers were not as illuminated now as they were in the former days. So that the author advices them not to cast away their confidence.

 

I have brought in Romans 8:38, 39 not for discussion, but for a reference only. This quoting of Romans is not relevant for your way of thinking, because according to you backsliders are not truly saved ones. But according to Scripture, a person once believed God should be vigilant to continue in faith, should not draw back and if draws back should turn unto God and Keep himself in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life (Jude 21).  This keeping of ourselves in God’s love is our responsibility ES doctrine’s explanation of Roman 8:38, 39 is contrary to this Truth.

 

In Scripture there are many parallel verses appearing many where. I can not remember ever verse all the time. I have used Ezekiel 18 to explain how a righteous can go unrighteous if he draws back. It is good that you have brought in the verses of Habakkuk.

 

“After receiving the Old Testament, if they decided not to live by faith but to live according to ways of the wicked, then they shall perish” – This is your quote and I agree with this statement and exactly this is what I am emphasizing every time. Deciding to live by faith or to live according to ways of wicked is our choice. Continuing in that faith is a must.

 

Mr.Koshy, the author included himself with the believers who were loosing their enlightenment and drawing back from their hot Christian life. Not only in verse 39, but also he included himself with these same lukewarm believers who were drawing back when he warned them not to sin willfully so that they might not fall into the fiery indignation that pertains to unbelievers.                                                                           (to be contd.....)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 28 Sep 2011 12:41:50 PM Close

 

 (contd....)

But we have done wickedly. Nehemiah 9:33

Because of our sins – Nehemiah 9:37

 

These are the words of the prominent Levites Jeshua, Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, Bunni, Sherebiah, Bani, and Chenani. Mr.Koshy here you have to notice that these Levites included themselves with other Israelites when they cried before the Lord for the sins of their people.  Do you think that these Levites too had committed wickedness with others? I don’t think so. Yet they included themselves with others.  Why? To make the people realize their sin and turn unto God. In Hebrews epistle also the author adopts the same way.  Whatever you have written in your posting are absolutely anti Scriptural and it is you to repent, not me Mr.Koshy.

 

If you are willing, you can explain verses 26 & 27 of Hebrews 10.

 

Sathyasnehi

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 30 Sep 2011 2:49:54 PM Close

Dear ‘sathaysnehi,’  -- Part 1

There are few subjects of interest from your last posting. To make it simple, I am posting them with subtitles.
 
Abraham and Lot:
 
I am glad that you appreciated the ‘Salem’ cigarette commercial. I thought that you would appreciate it and you did. The context of that was Lot. This is what you wrote about Lot. “Whoever is called ‘righteous’, whether it is in Old Testament or New Testament, he is righteous before God, he is a God’s child. On reading your writing I understand that Lot’s righteousness is not that of Abraham. You do not look at Lot as God’s child. For you he is an unsaved man. Silly, read 2 Peter 2:6-8: ‘and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds).”
Let us examine what you wrote about Lot. I do not want to misunderstand what you wrote. Therefore, I ask you the following questions. Please answer.
1.       Do you think that Lot was ever to be understood as not to be righteous?
2.      Do you think that Lot has to wait to the appearance of the Son of Man on this earth to realize that he was saved?
3.      What made you to think that I think that he was an unsaved man?
I think that these three are simple questions for you to answer.
 
Are you ready to look into the life of Abraham and Lot? Do you know that Abraham was the only one who was called by God to go into the land that God will give him? Abraham, who was called by God, took Lot who was not called to go with him. Lot attached himself with Abraham who was called by God to go into the promised land. Lot went with him, pretending to be another one who was called by God. Then he was ‘drawn back’ because he was a pretend-to-be-a-called-one while he was not. When he ‘drew back,’ he went and lived in Sodom. To the servants of Abraham and Lot, Lot had all the appearances of a called-to-be. It was all over and the falsehood was made manifested when Lot ‘drew back’ from Abraham. This calling and pretending-to-be-called is a shadow or type of the New Testament time. In the New Testament time, there are people who are called and came to the faith in Christ as their Savior, Lord, and God. Along with these, there are many who attach themselves without being born from above, but for a time pretend-to-be-called-and-saved. In the New Testament time these are not only pretending-to-be-called, but also claim to be saved. They will ‘draw back,’ as time progress. The author of the Hebrews did not add himself along with these ‘drawers back,’ because he wrote, “We are not drawers back to perdition.” In this phrase, he told the true followers of faith that they and he are not like the ‘drawers back.’ He also told that the drawers back are destined for perdition or destruction. After that, he also told the true faithful people are in possession of a faith to saving their souls, as he is. He did not say that they will know about their true position of salvation at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, but he said that they are of faith to saving the soul, now and not later. You should read the verses in their context.
 
Before we go into another subject, let me tell you this is the third or the fourth time you argue vehemently for ‘eternal salvation.’ This time it was for Lot. With two or three witnesses, everything should be settled. When a “conditional security’ adherent discard his position and argue for the ‘eternal security of salvation,’ that is refreshing. The sad part is that you go back to what you rejected, ‘conditional security.’ It is what the dog and the sow do. 
 
The Psychology of Conditioning by the Conditional Security People:
 
You wrote on 28 Sep 2011, “As a response to your latest posting, I am writing this. When I say that the author adds himself with the backsliders, it does not mean that he is also a backslider. Instead of keeping himself away from the listeners, he includes himself with them, so that it will be a moral boost for them. It is a psychological understanding.” Are you trying to teach psychology after you are finished with being a Malayalam teacher? The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not add himself with the backsliders. Such a teaching of adding to the rank of ‘drawers back’ exists only in the imagination of those who falsify the Holy Scriptures. What the author wrote was “We are not drawers back to perdition…”  You make that to be, “we are drawers back to perdition.” He did not add himself to the drawers back, nor with did he subtract himself from the drawers back. He did not subtract himself from the drawers back to perdition, because he did not add himself to that group, to begin with. He placed himself with those “of faith to saving the soul.”  You introduce an alien idea that no one will find in that verse, except those who hold an unscriptural teaching of ‘conditional security.’
 
“Conditional security’ itself is a contradiction in itself. When there is a condition, then there is no security.  A condition is not a security, but a threat to security or the lack of it. A conditional salvation does not offer an eternal salvation, while what a believer in Christ has is ‘eternal salvation.’ A believer in Christ also has ‘eternal life’ and it is not a ‘conditional life.’ In another thread you wrote about your misconception on ‘eternal life.’ Let us hear about the nature of ‘eternal life’ from the lips of the Son. In John 17:3, Lord Jesus Christ defined ‘eternal life’ in the prayer to the Father. “And this is the eternal life that they should know you, the only God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” You do not hold this truth. That is the reason why you are arguing for a ‘conditional security’ that is embedded in a ‘conditional life’ and not an ‘eternal life.’
 
Hebrew 16:26-27:
 
Since you insist on to include Hebrews 10:26-27 in this discussion, I will be glad to include them, here and now. Do you know that verse 26 begins with a word “For” (γαρ – GAR in Greek)? Why is that “for” there? It tells that you should read verse 26 after you read verses 19-25. What do you read there? I will expand on this after you tell me what was the context of verses 26-27? You should give the answer in your own words. By neglecting the context, you are relying on your theology of ignoring the Holy Scriptures. You replace the Holy Scriptures with an unholy idea.
 
The Meaning and Importance of ‘Context”:
 
You also wrote, “Nowhere had I said I wanted an atheist to consider the context of the expression and I never expect an atheist to do so.” Is this true? Your ignorance about the meaning of the word “context” becomes clearer and clearer. I gave you the common meaning of the word “context” before. On this posting, let me repeat it in another way. In order to accomplish it, I have to quote your posting on 24 Sep 2011, “Mr.Koshy, I thought that you would cite some verse that will appear hard for a Christian to explain to an atheist when he falsely claims that there is no God………… To explain the verses, you need not ask for the context details. The verses themselves are sufficient to explain away an atheist’s claim.” To this my reply was “What you wrote clearly tells from the context that I do not have to ask for the context, because the context of the expression in the verse itself makes it clear what that should be. You want an atheist to consider the context of the expression, but that is not applicable for you. Such an attitude is hypocrisy, because it shows a double standard and a false balance that you use in all discussions.” It appears that you do not know the meaning of the word “context.” Therefore, I am taking some time to explain the meaning of the word “context,” so that you could grasp the concept of that word. Please read carefully:
 
In all languages when we write, we use alphabets. In “English, there are 26 alphabets and this include some vowels also. There are many English words, may be close to a million. The words are written in the context of the alphabets. Let us consider two alphabets “n” and “o.” When they are placed next to each other, they could be placed as “n” followed by “o” or vise-a-versa. When we do so, we get two different words “no” or “on.” They have different meanings and the order of the alphabets is the context of the letters in those words. The context of letters in a word is crucial to what the word stands for. Words are things with meaning that should not be overlooked or neglected. Another example could be using three letters of alphabets: “n,” “o,” and “t.” Placing them next to each other we could get “not” and that shows the context of the letters in that word. If we reverse the order of the letters, their context, then we will get another word “ton.” These two words made with the same three letters convey different meaning. One indicates negation and the other is a unit of measure of weight. I hope that you understand the significance of the context of letters or alphabets in words. Now let us consider a sentence. A sentence is a series of words strung-up like beads in a necklace. The meaning of a sentence depends upon the context of the words in that sentence. For example, instead of asking “Who are you,” if one say “Are who you;” it won’t make any sense. Therefore, the context of words in a sentence is crucial to communicate our ideas. That is why all languages rely on their own grammar. A sentence may contain more than one expression. If that happens, then their context also decides the meaning of a sentence. Let us consider an expression, “blind man.” This expression consists of a noun and an adjective. It tells us about a man who is blind. Let us replace the noun with another but keep the same adjective, “blind curve.” Now we are not talking about curve that cannot see, but it is about a curve that a traveller will have difficulty to see to the other side. Again, let us consider another expression, “blind gut.” It is about a gut with only one opening.  I hope you could see the importance of context in an expression. In a sentence this will become more complex. When there is more than one sentence, then the context of a sentence should include all these contexts.
 
Therefore, when you wrote, “The verses themselves are sufficient to explain away an atheist’s claim,” you were asking to consider the context of the expression under consideration along with its context with other expressions in that verse, which is a sentence. It is time for you to understand this fact which is also true in Malayalam. You being a Malayalam teacher to Malayalees, I thought you should know this. Evidently, you are ignorant of this basic principle. As a Malayalam teacher, do you know the difference between “ANNAN” and “AMA?”

(To be continued -- Part 2)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 30 Sep 2011 2:52:09 PM Close

Dear 'sathyasnehi,' -- Part 2

PINMAATRAM, A Wonderful Word:

The question of “ANNAN” and “AMA” was necessary, because you once again tried in vain to take refuge under the umbrella of your knowledge of Malayalam that is peppered with holes that look like salt. May be you are using white pepper. This is what you wrote, “Refer to Malayalam bible. It is ‘Pinmaatram’ in both the verses.” Could you tell me about this wonderful “PINMAATRAM?” Tell me all about it. I cannot find it in the Malayalam Bible. What is it? Think about “ANNAN” and “AMA,” before you talk about “PINMAATRAM.” When you told me that you are my Malayalam teacher, I thought that you may be my Karthiyani teacher (Elementary School), Saramma teacher (Middle School), Narayan Namboothiri Shastri (Middle School), or Bhaskaran Nair (High School). When you wrote about “PINMAATRAM” and said that it is in the Malayalam Bible, then you showed your ignorance not only about Malayalam language, but also about the Malayalam Bible. When you wrote about “PINMAATRAM,” did you mean PIN-MAATRAM? If so, then PIN should mean “back” as in backward, and MAATRAM should mean “only,”  If so, PINMAATRAM should stand for ‘back-only.’ I think that you wrote about some who are ‘only back’ without a front, which does not make any sense. Also remember that Bible was originally written not in Malayalam for you to take refuge in the Malayalam Bible. I believe, you used the same word, PINMAATRAM,  in another posting and the person who responded pointed out your error, but you turned your ‘back’ as the “back-only’ people, your PINMAATRAM-people. Is PINMAATRAM a legitimate word in Malayalam? Do not forget to tell me about “ANNAN” and “AMA.”
 
You asked me, “Read 1 Tim 6:21: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee.”  I read that verse. It tells me that some have made a profession. However, they erred in the required faith or missed that faith. It tells about some people professing without faith. Your explanation is something like your Malayalam PINMAATRAM that you claim is in Hebrews 10:38-39, while it is not.
 
You quoted 1Timothy 1:19-20. How did you get the idea that the two persons mentioned there were ‘drawers back’ as in Hebrews 10:38-39? Of course, you could cite many more verses out of their contexts. But with the given verses, I ask you to explain from their contexts that Hymenaeus and Alexander were ‘drawers back’ as you claim by a decree. You cannot establish that by a decree, but you could try it by exposition. Do you know that there is a difference between blasphemy and apostasy? The Greek word used in 1 Timothy 20 is βλασφημειν (BLASPHEMEIN = blasphemy), it is very different from apostasy.    Even an exposition using PINMAATRAM will not help.
 
Hero-To-Zero:
 
You wrote about a ‘hero to zero’ theory. Could you tell me when a person will finish his race to be a ‘hero to zero?’ Please do not overlook this question on ‘hero to zero.’
 
On Apostasy:
 
You should start another thread on Romans 8:38-39, after we finish your original 13 points, because it is not about apostasy, while Hebrews 10:38-39 are about apostasy. Confounding them will lead to errors of mega-proportion. On the other hand, if you wish to clutter this thread with too many ideas to escape from being unclothed about your false ideas, I cannot stop you from doing that. If you think that is the best way to conduct yourself, you may follow your strategy. But remember, you said that you are not ready to progress with the second point, but you have time to discuss another subject by force-fitting a verse into this thread. I cannot stop such an act from you. It is up to you, but I will not be a party to clutter this thread that you started with intent and an agenda. I will reply on romans 8:38-39 when we discuss it on another thread.
 
Do you know what apostasy is? The Greek words that are used in the New Testament are υποστασιs (UPOSTASIS), υποστελλω (UPOSTELLO), and υποστολη (UPOSTOLE). The Greek word υποστασιs (UPOSTASIS) appears in 2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3; 3:14; and 11:1; υποστελλω (UPOSTELLO) appears in Acts 20:20, 27; Galatians 2:12; and Hebrews 10:38; and υποστολη (UPOSTOLE) appears only in Hebrews 10:39. If you read all these verses, then you will realize the meaning of “drawers back” in Hebrews 10:38-39 is not what you think. It is about certain people who falsely claimed to be what they were not, and afterwards showed their true nature by drawing back from what they claimed to be in the past. Your example from 1 Timothy does not match that criterion.
 
The Prophecy of Habakkuk:
 
After admitting your incapacity to recollect the verse in Habakkuk and in error citing Ezeliel 18, you wrote, ““After receiving the Old Testament, if they decided not to live by faith but to live according to ways of the wicked, then they shall perish” – This is your quote and I agree with this statement and exactly this is what I am emphasizing every time. Deciding to live by faith or to live according to ways of wicked is our choice. Continuing in that faith is a must.” Where did you get the idea that those who were addressed by Habakkuk professed faith once? Please provide the scriptural evidence, in its context. You do not have to go very far. There are only 56 verses in that book and they are divided into three chapters for our convenience.
 
After writing about the verses from Habakkuk, you wrote, “Mr.Koshy, the author included himself with the believers who were loosing their enlightenment and drawing back from their hot Christian life. Not only in verse 39, but also he included himself with these same lukewarm believers who were drawing back when he warned them not to sin willfully so that they might not fall into the fiery indignation that pertains to unbelievers.” Habakkuk does not have 39 verses. What is the context? Could you clarify, be specific.
 
The Book of Nehemiah:
 
You cited Nehemiah 9:33 and 37. Do you read in these verses that they were saved once and they do not know about the reality of their salvation? Do you read that they will know about the reality of their salvation only at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ? What is the reason for citing these two verses, other than showing their admission that the children of Israel have done wickedness and committed sin, but God still showed His mercy (loving-kindness). Is not that the best support from the Old Testament on the eternal security of the ‘eternal salvation’ with the ‘eternal life?’ Of course, it is. Thank you for providing one more admission of your error in holding on to the unscriptural ‘conditional security’ teaching.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 4 Oct 2011 8:16:39 AM Close

 

Dear GPK,

 

You have asked three questions about the righteous Lot. The first one is the question which actually I have to ask you and you to answer. Read what I have said: “Whoever is called ‘righteous’, whether it is in Old Testament or New Testament, he is righteous before God, he is a God’s child. So, your question is meaningless when you ask it at me.

 

In the Old Testament time, there were people who tried to live according to God’s command. They were called “righteous” in the Old Testament. They were mentioned as righteous in the Scriptures. Lot is included in this group of righteous. They would turn away and practice the abominations of the wicked. Balaam is a good example of this, along with Lot. (Your posting dt. 26 Sep 2011 18:21:16).  You have segregated Lot into a different “righteous” group. When read the above passage of your posting, it is clear that, according to you, Lot was not in the genuine righteous group. You said that In the Old Testament time, there were people who tried to live according to God’s command. What do you mean by this statement? Do you appose the desire of this people (here it is Lot) to live according to the Command of God? Do you say that Lot tried to live according to God’s command, but without faith? To understand how obeying God’s command is necessary, read James 2:20-22: But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?  Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

Do you say that Lot turned away and practiced the abominations of the wicked? (Refer to the passage of your posting).  Mr.Koshy, be careful before judging a righteous man (I don’t say you should not, but be careful). The untoward incident that took place in his life on the mountains out of Zoar was, as I trust, a one time incident and Lot surely would not have practiced that sin wickedly always as you said. When Peter called him a righteous, I am sure that God had forgiven his sin (apparently Lot must have repented for that sin). Your comparing of Lot with Balaam is really horrible, Mr.Koshy. You have wrongly asked the first question to me.

 

I do not understand your second question.

 

Regarding your 3rd question, let me say that in the 2nd Para of your posting dt. 26 Sep 2011 18:21:16, while explaining about Heb 10:38-39, there too you have mentioned about two different groups.  According to you the persons drawing back are mere professors and they are unsaved. Your narration of a different “righteous” group aptly suits here and it is easily understandable that Lot was, according to your logic, an unsaved and you have specifically said that he was in the group of who would turn away and practice the abominations of the wicked. Scripture says a wicked person will enter into God’s Kingdom. When I pointed out 2 Peter 2:6-8, you got scared and now you have asked that 3rd question reversely.

 

Life of Abraham and Lot:

 

When God command Abraham “Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you” you must observe that Abraham was not in his native land, Ur. He had already left his native land along with his father, wife and Lot. They were on the way to Canaan. After the death of his father at Haran, Abraham was about to decide where to go without his father, whether to go back to Ur, his native land or to proceed further to towards Canaan, as his father was thinking?

 

At this juncture God declared the above mentioned command to Abraham. Mr.Koshy, Do you say that the righteous Lot, who was depending on Abraham, should have gone back to                                                         (to be contd)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 4 Oct 2011 8:19:04 AM Close

(contd....)

Ur from Haran, not following the righteous path of Abraham? If you think so, then you are anti Gospel. Lot has taken the right step of following Abraham. Here you remember the story of Rut for a right understanding.


When God said that Abraham should get out of his country, from his family and from his father’s house that means he should not go back to Ur and does not mean that no one should follow him.  Lot, who already left Ur along with Abraham before God’s command, took the right decision of following Abraham.  Not only that, Abraham along with his wife and Lot, the people whom he had acquired in Haran.  Lot was not pretending in following as you falsely accuse, but was a genuinely following. In fact, it would have been abominable before God, had he not followed Abraham.

 

 Your ‘drawing back’ explanation about Lot is absolutely wrong. He had not given up following Abraham and drawn back to their native land Ur. It was Abraham’s decision to get separated from each other and the reason is obvious as you may know (Now the land was not able to support them, that they might dwell together, for their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together -Gen 13:6)

 

Under this circumstance, Lot preferred to journeyed east.  I don’t know it was right or wrong Mr.Koshy.  Think over that had he preferred to journey west, what would have happened? Naturally, Abraham should have journeyed to East, which was not a Promised Land.  To my understanding all was God’s plan and God protected righteous Lot even when he was in Sodom and Gomorrah. Mr.Koshy, do not spin a story of your own against Scriptural facts. You are cruel, Mr.Koshy, when you called Lot a pretender.  In no way, your comparison of Lot with “draw backers” of Hen 10:38 is acceptable.

 

Now you explain your statement: ‘In the New Testament time, there are people who are called and came to the faith in Christ as their Savior, Lord, and God. Along with these, there are many who attach themselves without being born from above, but for a time pretend-to-be-called-and-saved. In the New Testament time these are not only pretending-to-be-called, but also claim to be saved. They will ‘draw back,’ as time progress’ not comparing wrongly with Old Testament believers.

 

As I have already told, Verse 39 is only words of encouragement and you must understand that there was a sign of lukewarmness and nature of drawing back when you read verses 32 & 33 and also you must bear in mind the caution the author made to the same lukewarm believers through verses 26 & 27. Before we go into another subject, let me tell you this is the third or the fourth time you argue vehemently for ‘eternal salvation.’ This time it was for Lot. – Your statement of this is a good joke. You are the person who compared Lot with Balaam and called his “righteous” is not true, manifested him as unsaved and now charging me as if I have undermined Lot’s reputation. So notorious you are, Mr.Koshy.

 

‘When there is a condition, then there is no security’ – A wrong idea:

 

To be not affected by electric shock, you must wear rubber glove. If you do not abide by that condition, there is no security for you.  Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time (1 Peter 5:6) – ‘humbling’ is a condition, if not humbling, you will not be exalted in due time. What is this ‘exalting’ what is this ‘in due time’. Eternal life is not a conditional life. Once you attain literally at the end, you will be eternally with the Lord.  But until then, you must, as long as in the world, you must continue in your faith, should not continue in willful sin.     (to be contd.....)

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 4 Oct 2011 8:20:46 AM Close

 

(contd....)

 

“And this is the eternal life that they should know you, the only God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”  A good verse you have quoted.  And at the same time you must aware that after knowing God for eternal life and sin willfully what will happen?. Read Hebrew 10:26, 27.

 

Hebrew 16:26-27:

 

Reason for my insisting Hebrews 10:26-27 in this discussion is , it has a direct contextual relation with verses 38, 39. All these verses are within the same chapter. The author speaks all these verses with the same believers and at the same time.

 

I am not denying that verses 19-25 are negligible. keeping in mind the assurance as told in verses 19 to 21, we should be diligent to draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Holding fast the confession of our hope without wavering is our responsibility. We should not forsake the assembling of ourselves together. If we are careful enough as read above and fall into will ful sins and continue without any repentance, we have to face the fiery indignation that pertains to adversaries. i.e., unbelievers.  The fiery indignation of the unbelievers is hell fie only.  Because of our disobedience like them, we will become partakers with them in their destiny. (Eph 5:6, 7).

 

‘You asked me, “Read 1 Tim 6:21: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee.”  I read that verse. It tells me that some have made a profession. However, they erred in the required faith or missed that faith. It tells about some people professing without faith’

 

Mr.Koshy, ‘Professing’ here speaks about practicing the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. Not professing of Christianity, as you think. Let me clearly say that some who were professing Christianity with faith, now started professing profane and idle babblings and contradictions.  By doing this profession contrary to Christianity, they have erred from faith.  If they did not have faith at all once, they could not err. 

 

My quote of 1Timothy 1:19-20

 

According to you a ‘drawer back’ is an unsaved person.  When you want to say that Hymenaeus and Alexander, you do not call them drawer backs.  So you say that they are believers.  But what Scripture says is they have rejected faith and good conscience and thus damaged the ship which is essential for their salvation.  Moreover we read in verse 20 that they were blaspheming the Truth like some as we see in Acts 19:9.

 

Mr.Koshy, for want of time, I will write to you later about your sub titles Hero-To-Zero, On Apostasy, The Prophecy of Habakkuk & The Book of Nehemiah. 

 

Sathyasnehi

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 6 Oct 2011 5:05:22 AM Close

In my posting4 Oct 2011 08:16:39, the sentence I have written ‘Scripture says a wicked person will enter into God’s Kingdom’ has to be read as ‘Scripture says a wicked person will not enter into God’s Kingdom’

The word ‘not’ is added now

 

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 6 Oct 2011 10:40:00 AM Close

Dear Mr.Koshy

 

In continuation of my posting dt. 4 Oct 2011 08:20:46, I am writing this:

 

Hero-To-Zero:

 

You wrote about a ‘hero to zero’ theory. Could you tell me when a person will finish his race to be a ‘hero to zero?’ Please do not overlook this question on ‘hero to zero.’

 

Regarding this ‘hero to zero’ theory (is it a theory?), I will give here an example of a man who started a ‘hero’ but ended as zero. You have said that all the believers whose name we read in Hebrews 11 are Heros. But have you noticed that the name of King Solomon does not appear in that long list? If you closely analyse his life history, you can find the ‘hero to zero’ matter.  I will assist you in your need of understanding, if necessary.

 

Apostasy:

 

‘You should start another thread on Romans 8:38-39’. – Your words

 

Mr.Koshy, don’t cultivate this habit of commanding (at least me) to start a thread.

I am quoting various verses for cross reference throughout my postings, but not to clutter the main subject. It is only for a comparative study.  When you are not able to stomach the facts that I expose through such references, you are falsely accusing me that I am cluttering a thread. It is not you to decide that who should start a thread and when should start. Don’t act a master over all the participants of this forum.  You are one among us, that’s all.

 

Regarding ‘what apostasy is’, you have given an explanation through your ‘knowledge’ of some Greek words and this knowledge is already in question. I don’t even know the alphabets of Greek and I can not discuss on the basis of your knowledge of a language which I don’t have. Instead of explaining to you about ‘what apostasy is’, I will remind you to look in the life history of Solomon and find out what apostasy is.

 

The Prophecy of Habakkuk:

 

‘Not recollecting one verse’ is not incapacity, Mr.Koshy. Don’t be silly. When explaining a subject, I make use of a relevant verse which is appropriately needed.  There may be other verses somewhere in the Scripture, equivalent to the verse I have quoted.  It is not necessary for me to search out all such verses and feed them into your mouth.

 

What error you have found out in my quoting Ezekiel 18? Tell me, Mr.Koshy.

 

 Mr.Koshy, try to understand, if you are willing, what I am saying here. You have said “After receiving the Old Testament, if they decided not to live by faith but to live according to ways of the wicked, then they shall perish”. Let me make my point clear from your statement itself.  Deciding to live by faith is what one has to doWher  Taking that decision in one’s responsibility.  Your understanding is that if one has decided once to believe, he becomes a robotic machine and he will never cease to believe and will be believing always.  That is a notion contrary to what is said in Ezekiel 18:24, 25. A person once decided to live by faith can reverse that decision.  When Scripture says But the just shall live by his faith,’ you must understand that it is an expectation from God about a Just and that Just should not                                                              (To be conttd.....)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : sathyasnehi   View Profile   Since : 6 Oct 2011 10:41:27 AM Close

(contd……) 

go an Unjust as we see in Ezekiel.  Try to understand Scripture more practically than theoretically.

 

Your quote:

After writing about the verses from Habakkuk, you wrote, “Mr.Koshy, the author included himself with the believers who were loosing their enlightenment and drawing back from their hot Christian life. Not only in verse 39, but also he included himself with these same lukewarm believers who were drawing back when he warned them not to sin willfully so that they might not fall into the fiery indignation that pertains to unbelievers.” Habakkuk does not have 39 verses. What is the context? Could you clarify, be specific.

 

Mr.Koshy, your above comment speaks how poor your are in your understanding.

What I have said about Hebrew 10:39 which is the main subject of this thread.

 

The Book of Nehemiah:

 

Your quote: You cited Nehemiah 9:33 and 37. Do you read in these verses that they were saved once and they do not know about the reality of their salvation? Do you read that they will know about the reality of their salvation only at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ? What is the reason for citing these two verses, other than showing their admission that the children of Israel have done wickedness and committed sin, but God still showed His mercy (loving-kindness). Is not that the best support from the Old Testament on the eternal security of the ‘eternal salvation’ with the ‘eternal life?’ Of course, it is. Thank you for providing one more admission of your error in holding on to the unscriptural ‘conditional security’ teaching.

 

Mr.Koshy, I am not speaking here about the Salvation of either the Levites or the Israelites.  Here I am comparing Godly Levites including themselves with while crying for the sins and wickedness of their own people, with Hebrew author including himself with the believers not only while encouraging as in verse 39, but also when he warns the same believers against willful sinning as in verse 26, 27.

 

Can you tell me how your pet doctrine, ES has a best support in Old Testament?

 

Thank you for providing one more admission of your error in holding on to the unscriptural ‘conditional security’ teaching – Where have I admitted that CS doctrine is an error?

 

Sathyasnehi

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 14 Oct 2011 2:29:25 PM Close

Dear ‘sathyasnehi,’ (Part 1/2)

Are All Righteous Saved?
 
You wrote on 4 Oct 2011, “Read what I have said: “Whoever is called ‘righteous’, whether it is in Old Testament or New Testament, he is righteous before God, he is a God’s child. So, your question is meaningless when you ask it at me.” Could you show me that those who are mentioned in the Old Testament as “righteous’ were all saved people? I know that the word ‘righteous’ is used in the Old Testament to indicate that he or she did that which was right. I also know that only faith in God’s word is what saved the Old Testament and New Testament saints. Faith in God’s word is indicative of their faith in God, and it was the right thing to do. That is why it is written in the Old Testament and the New Testament, “The just shall live by faith.” Could you show me that Lot lived by faith? If he lived by faith, then he should have lived according to his calling. Lot is mentioned as a righteous man, when he vexed his soul when he lived among the Sodomites. God delivered him from the people that perished at Sodom. However, he was not a called one. Lot knew Abraham was called and tried to be with him. However, he decided to ‘draw back’ from the call of Abraham and went to live in the world and lived vexing his soul about the people with whom he identified, the Sodomites. Lot was not saved with Abraham, but he was saved only from the destruction of Sodom. There is a great difference. Abraham’s faith is mentioned in the Scriptures by God. My question on this matter was meaningful and you have no answer. If you read 2 Peter 2:8 in its context, the truth will become clear to you. We read in 2 Peter 2:8, Lot as a righteous man who vexed his soul because of what he saw and heard in Sodom, but he lived there tolerating their unlawful deeds. He never wanted to leave Sodom and he did not desire to live with Abraham. We also read in 2 Peter 2:9, God delivers the godly from temptations. The godly are those who vex their souls in what they see and hear but tolerate the evil by justifying them, using their logic and rhetoric. Lot justified what he vexed his soul about. Lot’s justification of the life style of Sodom is evident by the fact that he had sons-in-law who participated in the life style of the Sodomites. 2 Peter 2:8-9, in their context, do not say that God saves Lot’s kind of righteous people.   However, it states that God save those who vex their souls will be delivered from temptations. Delivering from temptation is a part of a prayer as Christ taught. He taught the disciples to pray, “Deliver us from evil.”  (Matthew 6:13)  Delivering from temptations is not the salvation of soul from sin. Delivering from sin and judgment is salvation. We also read in that verse in 2 Peter that the deliverance from temptation is to punish them at the day of judgment. You do not want to read verses in their context. That is done only for the purpose of propagating your ill-conceived ideas that are not in the Scriptures.
 
The Righteous and Salvation:
 
Lord Jesus Christ is my authority in answering this question on righteous and salvation. What He taught is written in Matthew 9. We read in Matthew 9:13, “But you go and learn what that is; I will have mercy and not sacrifice; for I have not come to call righteous men but sinners.” The “But” in the beginning of the verse tell us that this verse should be studied in connection with the preceding verses. When the Lord said that He did not come to call righteous men, what do you think about the righteous? The Lord Jesus Christ said that all those who are righteous are not called by Him for salvation. However, He also added that He came to call sinners to salvation. Your statement, as I quoted before, is not supported by the Word of God and even by the Son. In this verse, Lord Jesus Christ taught the disciples that the salvation is by the mercy of God and not a reward for works. Salvation is never provided to man as a wage for his righteous works, but by the mercies of God by His grace. Sacrifice mentioned in the verse is the work of man that he brings to God because it was required of him to do so.  
 
Could You Provide Clarification?
 
You wrote, “I do not understand your second question.”  Let me write about my difficulty. What was the second question? Could you tell me, at least about the question? If you could do that, then it will help me to clarify that question, because it is my responsibility to clarify my question for you to answer. I am not asking you to clarify my question or statement. I am only asking you to answer or reply my questions.
 
On 2 Peter 2:6-8:
 
You wrote about a third question, “…When I pointed out 2 Peter 2:6-8, you got scared and now you have asked that 3rd question reversely.” I am really scared about people who takes Scriptures out of their context and declare that they can do that and context have no relation to understanding words, expression, and sentences or verses. Therefore, I go to read what is written in the Scriptures as written, obeying the wishes of my Lord Jesus Christ as written in Luke 10:26. When I pointed out the context of the verse you referred from 2 Peter 2, you admitted that what I wrote was correct, but when that verse is not considered in its context, you could say whatever you want.
 
On Abraham, Lot, and “The Story of Rut”:
 
You asked the following question on Abraham and Lot: At this juncture God declared the above mentioned command to Abraham. Mr.Koshy, Do you say that the righteous Lot, who was depending on Abraham, should have gone back to Ur from Haran, not following the righteous path of Abraham? If you think so, then you are anti Gospel. Lot has taken the right step of following Abraham. Here you remember the story of Rut for a right understanding.” Your question and calling me ‘anti-gospel’ is rooted in a false assumption that Abraham was planning to go back to Ur. Where did you get this idea? Please provide the scriptural support. (So far, in our discussion, whenever I asked for a scriptural support you failed to provide them.) Lot was not righteous in all his life. Was he righteous in selecting Sodom and willfully move to Sodom to live there? He was righteous in vexing his soul while he was in Sodom. It is faith that saves and not doing what is right in this world. Doing the right things for salvation is Karma Marg and it is different from salvation by faith.
 
I have no idea about what you mentioned as “the story of Rut.”  Without that knowledge, how can I have your kind of understanding? In relation to your “Rut,” I have to ask the following question. Why are you referring to a cyclical mammalian sexual activity (that is what ‘RUT’ is) in the context of Abraham and Lot? Did Lot practice it? Are you referring to the incident in Lot’s life as we read in Genesis 19:30-38? It was not planned and executed by Lot, but by his daughters. If you could bring into the discussion those incidents that are unrelated, why cannot you read the verses in their context? While answering this question, you should keep in mind that the whole series of our postings are the result of your refusal to read the verses in their context.
 
Did Lot elect to go to Sodom and live there? Had he reasons to do so? If he had reasons, why are you contemplating on what would have happened if Lot went west, instead of to the east? By rhetorical questions, you are trying to change history after over 4,000 years. You cannot change history, but you could change your recollection of history to mislead others.
 
You wrote, “Now you explain your statement: … not comparing wrongly with Old Testament believers.” The beginning of this quote is a request from you to me for some explanation.   Unfortunately, you failed to say where you had difficulty to understand. If you could clarify your difficulty, I will be glad to explain. It will be helpful, if you could tell why I cannot use the Old Testament history in my explanation. Don’t you know that the Old Testament is written for our edification and we read it in the first letter to the Corinthians? The Old Testament is written for our edification and not to distort New Testament doctrines, as you do. 
 
You Rejected CS Doctrine in Favor of Eternal Security of the Eternal Salvation:
 
You wrote, “‘Before we go into another subject, let me tell you this is the third or the fourth time you argue vehemently for ‘eternal salvation.’ This time it was for Lot. – Your statement of this is a good joke.” Is my statement about your position of Lot a joke?   Did you write about Lot to the effect that Lot did not lose his salvation or not? If you forgot what you wrote, let me quote it for you, “…he is a God’s child. On reading your writing I understand that Lot’s righteousness is not that of Abraham. You do not look at Lot as God’s child.” Did you write this? Yes, you did write it. Does that mean Lot was a saved person? Does that mean that he will not lose his salvation? Of course, it does. Your statement tells that Lot was eternally saved. You are arguing earnestly and vehemently for the eternal security of salvation. You denied your CS doctrine and embraced the eternal security of salvation. Why do you deny CS doctrine? Let me tell you the secret for your denial of CS doctrine. You should keep it as a secret between you and me. The secret is, your CS doctrine is nothing but a fiction of your imagination. This was not the first time you argued for the eternal security of salvation.
 
It appears that according to your misrepresentation, 1 Peter 5:6 is all about not having ‘eternal life’ at present, and it is conditioned upon humbling oneself to another. If that is true, are you doing that now?  Since you are not humbling yourself, you are denying CS doctrine in favor of the eternal security of the eternal salvation. You call those who expose your unscriptural teaching with names, even to the extent as ‘diabolical.’ Are you humbling to receive ‘eternal life’ sometime in the future? The answer is an affirmation in the negative. What do you read in 1 Peter 5:10? That verse contradicts your assertion by creed. I forgot; you do not consider the context. You are a superior person and the context of verses given by God is not applicable to you. That attitude is not the manifestation of humbling yourself before God. Of course, 1 Peter 5:5 is also out of consideration, because according to you the context of 1 Peter 5:6 is not applicable to understand that verse.
 
On the Prayer of Lord Jesus Christ:
 
You wrote, ““And this is the eternal life that they should know you, the only God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”  A good verse you have quoted. And at the same time you must aware that after knowing God for eternal life and sin willfully what will happen?. Read Hebrew 10:26, 27.”  Why did you refer to Hebrews 10:26-27? Why don’t you consider John 17, the whole prayer of the Son to the Father in the upper room? If you do, then you are considering the context of the verse. Do you know that Lord Jesus Christ did not pray for the world? The world is those who did not know the Father and the Son. That is, the Son did not pray for those who did not know the Father and the Son, because they did not have the eternal life and eternal salvation. Are you one of the world’s or are you one who know the Father and the Son? The son included in His prayer to the Father those who have eternal life then (the disciples in that upper room) and later by hearing the words of those who have the eternal life to be kept in the world from the enemy. He also prayed that those who have eternal life should be united as one as the Father and the Son are. When you insist that you do not have eternal life, I am not contradicting it. However, those of us who know the Father and the Son have eternal life, because our Lord Jesus Christ said so. We rely on His unchanging word. Unfortunately, you are not with those who know the Father and the Son, by your own admission and your refusal to humbling yourself as required in 1 Peter 5:6.
(To be continued, Part 2/2)
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 17 Oct 2011 6:33:17 PM Close

 

Dear 'sathyasnehi,' (Part 2/2)

 

On Hebrews 10:26-27:
 
Are you the same person who writes that contextual explanations are not needed? Are you the same person that context of a verse need not be considered? Now you write, “Reason for my insisting Hebrews 10:26-27 in this discussion is , it has a direct contextual relation with verses 38, 39.” What a change? Now you want contextual explanation, because you think that is for your advantage. You should not change your argument about contextual explanation from now onwards. What a “direct contextual relation?”  It is similar to your argument on the security of Lot’s salvation.
 
You wrote that the “adversaries” in Hebrews 10:27 are unbelievers? How did you come to this conclusion? The Greek word for ‘unbeliever’ is απιστοs (APISTOS) and that is contrast with πιστοs (PISTOS), which means ‘faith’ or ‘belief.’ However, the Greek word for “adversaries’ is υπεναντιοs (HUPENANTIOUS = opponents). This word is a compound word from υπο (HUPO = under) and εναντιο (ENANTIOS = opposite). Therefore the adversaries are those who are ‘opposing under’ or those who pretend to be believers but who oppose the faith from their undercover position. The ‘adversaries’ in Hebrews 10:27 are not believers, but who pretend to be believers and oppose the truth that is to be believed. This is what the Holy Spirit inspired the author of the epistle to write. You should not change the inspired writings.
 
I have to write about another Greek word that is translated as “adversary’ when it was about Satan. That word Greek word is αντιδικοs (ANTIDIKOS = opponent). This Greek word is a compound word from αντι (ANTI = opposite) and δικη (DIKE = justice or right). It is used for Satan to tell us that he is the one who opposes the justice of God. 
 
The ‘adversaries’ in Hebrews 10:27 are those who oppose the truth about a saved person being under the care and mediation of the “Great High Priest,” who is over the house of God. The saved have the right to approach with a right heart; have the full assurance of faith; sprinkled as to a heart from wicked conscience; washed in pure water; holding fast the confession of the hope without any waver. All these are possible not because of our works, but we received it as a promise from the one who is faithful – Lord Jesus Christ. These we read in Hebrews 10:19-23. You do not think that it is that important. If you consider that they are important, then you have to abandon your falsification of truth of the eternal security of our salvation. Hebrews 10:24-25 tell us about what we should do to one another. Then in Hebrews 10:27, we read about those who are among us pretending to be believers, but they are not; they are the adversaries. To them there is the certainty of a fearful expectation of judgment. That judgment will have the high heat that will devour those adversaries. Are you one of them? If you are, now is the time for you to turn away from your folly and come to know Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, Lord, and God.
 
On 1 Timothy 6:21:
 
On 1 Timothy 6:21, the Greek word translated as “professing” in KJV is επαγγελλομενοι (EPAGGELLOMENOI = asserting). With this in mind, you should consider 1Timothy 6:21, in its context. (You should remember about your contextual argument before.) Then it will become clear that the author of this epistle is writing about some who made a profession of being holders of eternal life, but began to assert that which were wrong using various methods, including false science, and erred in the faith that they claim to be holding. Timothy was asked to avoid them. You come very close to denying the hope of the eternal security of salvation, though you occasionally admit that no one will lose their salvation. Your argument on Lot is an example.
 
On 1Timothy 1:19-20: 
 
You wrote, “According to you a ‘drawer back’ is an unsaved person. When you want to say that Hymenaeus and Alexander, you do not call them drawer backs. So you say that they are believers. But what Scripture says is they have rejected faith and good conscience and thus damaged the ship which is essential for their salvation. Moreover we read in verse 20 that they were blaspheming the Truth like some as we see in Acts 19:9.”  Could you quote the Scriptures that tell that the two people mentioned here ‘drew back’ from faith? Have you ever thought that according to the Word of God, a blasphemy may not be a ‘drawing back,’ as you tried to convey? If you disagree, I ask you to show from the Scriptures what you say that these two individuals should be categorized as “drawers back.” If you cannot, you are trying to change the Word of God that is established in heaven. If you have any desire to follow the Scriptures, please read Matthew 12:31. You will learn from the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
On Hero-to-Zero:
 
You wrote on 28 Sep 2011, “… Believers listed in Heb 11 were maintained their faith till the end amidst many odd things. Epistle writer gives the list as an example to follow them. After reading the whole list, we could read what said in the opening of Chapter 12. We must run with endurance to keep our faith. That is a strong advice we have to follow. Only when you are finishing your race you will be a hero, otherwise you will be zero.” This was the background for my question on Her-to-Zero theory. My question on Hero-to-Zero was, You wrote about a ‘hero to zero’ theory. Could you tell me when a person will finish his race to be a ‘hero to zero?’ Please do not overlook this question on ‘hero to zero.’” What I wrote before was that all those who are listed in Hebrews 11 are heroes of faith. In your last reply you wrote the following, “Regarding this ‘hero to zero’ theory (is it a theory?), I will give here an example of a man who started a ‘hero’ but ended as zero. You have said that all the believers whose name we read in Hebrews 11 are Heros. But have you noticed that the name of King Solomon does not appear in that long list? If you closely analyse his life history, you can find the ‘hero to zero’ matter. I will assist you in your need of understanding, if necessary.” You correctly observed that Solomon’s name was not in that list in Hebrews 11. Therefore, you should conclude that he was not mentioned in Hebrews 11 as one of the heroes of faith. One who is not mentioned as a ‘hero of faith’ cannot be force-fitted to become a ‘zero of faith,’ as you did.  Therefore, your example is not an appropriate one to establish your ‘hero-to-zero’ theory. It appears that your attempt is to establish your pet theory by comparing apples and oranges, and conclude that an apple is not an orange.   We know that.
 
On Apostasy:
 
I asked you to start another thread, because you were mixing apostasy and blasphemy and confounding them to be the same. They are not. This is another attempt in the line of comparing apples and oranges. The Scripture is clear on that and you take the verses out-of-context. I am really fascinated with your ability to confound apostasy, blasphemy, drawing-back, and top-it-off with PINMAATRAM (= back only). You do all these even without the knowledge about their differences.
 
On Habakkuk and Ezekiel:
 
It is interesting to know that my self-appointed Malayalam teacher with PINMAATRAM (back only) is standing ready to feed me from Habakkuk on PINMAATRAM (back only). What is PINMAATRAM (back only)? I asked this before, but you just overlooked it. Your excuse about not knowing the verse from Habakkuk is mute, because that is the verse that is quoted in Hebrews 9:38-39 and you are trying to distort what is taught in Hebrews. My question was why you are using Ezekiel 18, where there is no mention of “faith.” If you are what you try to claim to be, then you would have referred to Habakkuk and not to Ezekiel. After that, you have a made-up word PINMAATRAM (back only). That is what is wrong.
 
Oh!  My self-appointed Malayalam teacher!  How wrong are you in your exposition of Ezekiel 18:24-25? This is what you wrote, A person once decided to live by faith can reverse that decision. When Scripture says ‘But the just shall live by his faith,’ you must understand that it is an expectation from God about a Just and that Just should not go an Unjust as we see in Ezekiel. Try to understand Scripture more practically than theoretically.”  In Ezekiel no one could read the expression, “But the just shall live by faith.” We read that in Habakkuk. Is that the reason why you did not quote the verses from Habakkuk? Let me quote Ezekiel 18:24-25, “And when the righteous turns from his righteousness and practices what is wrong, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked does, shall he live? None of his righteous acts which he has done shall be remembered; in his unfaithfulness which he has wrought, and in his sin which he has sinned, in them shall he die. And you say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear then, house of Israel. Is not my way equal? Are not your ways unequal?” We read about ‘righteousness’ and not ‘faith’ in these verses. Lord Jesus Christ said that He did not come to call righteous (Matthew 9:13). We read in 2 Peter 2:9, “The Lord Knows how to deliver the godly out of trials, and to keep the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished.” Delivering out of trials is not salvation in Christ. It is an escape from a situation in which men placed themselves. Habakkuk told us about faith and its role in the life of a just man for his salvation. Ezekiel tells us that a righteous need not be a saved person, but who lives by doing right and if he goes back and do that which is evil, then all the right things he did before will not be counted in favor of him. Ezekiel told us that doing right will not save any and it has nothing to do with salvation. Rather than jumping from one verse to another at the fancy of your mind, you should take time to read and study them in context.
 
Thank you for clarifying about your statement, “Not only in verse 39.” In the middle of Habakkuk when you wrote about verse 39, it was confusing. Contrary to your idea, I do not have to clarify your statements. Once again thank you for clarifying your statement.
 
On the Book of Nehemiah 9:33, 37:
 
In your recent reply to my question on Nehemiah 9:33, 37, your explanation was, Mr.Koshy, I am not speaking here about the Salvation of either the Levites or the Israelites. Here I am comparing Godly Levites including themselves with while crying for the sins and wickedness of their own people, with Hebrew author including himself with the believers not only while encouraging as in verse 39,but also when he warns the same believers against willful sinning as in verse 26, 27.” You said that the godly Levites need not be saved, but they are just godly or righteous. These godly people identified with the rest of the children of Israel, because the godly were also children of Israel. They not only identified with the children of Israel, but also cried to God for forgiveness of the sin of the children of Israel. Did you read the pronouns “us,” “we,” and “our” in those verses? Did you read the pronoun “they” or “them” in those verses? Now let us look into Hebrews 9:38-39.   Do we read about “we” in verse 39? Do we read about “them” in verse 39? What is the difference between these pronouns? Do the pronouns “we” and “them” stand for the same group of people or two contrasting groups? As you are my self-appointed Malayalam teacher with PINMAATRAM (back only), what about this verse in Malayalam? While waiting for you to search and report from Malayalam translation, let me tell you that the pronouns “we” and “them” stand for two different and distinct groups of people. Your effort to make Apostle Paul to be with the ‘drawers back’ failed miserably, as soon as your fingers did the walking over the keys. 
 
Let me remind you that Nehemiah was one of the children of Israel and he was praying to Jehovah as a child of Israel? The godly people of the children of Israel always confessed before Jehovah that the sins of their fathers were their sins also and they asked for forgiveness. It has nothing to do with others who were with Nehemiah. They all came to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, and they prayed together the same prayer.
 
On Eternal Security of the Eternal Salvation:
 
You wrote, “Can you tell me how your pet doctrine, ES has a best support in Old Testament?”  Why do I have to provide support from the Old Testament, when there is the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Please answer. You should know that the eternal security of the eternal salvation is taught by Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a pet doctrine. It is a scriptural doctrine that was taught by the Son. One who makes a scriptural doctrine a ‘pet doctrine’ is the one who does not have any fear of God. The eternal security of the eternal salvation is a doctrine that was taught by the Son, when He came to save sinners and not the righteous. He even taught the eternal security of His eternal salvation, when He was on the cross dying in my place. If you are interested, I could tell you about it. I have repeatedly offered this, free of charge. My eternally secured salvation is also free to me from God, through the Son, by the works of the Holy Spirit. All you have to do is to ask for it, but you have to ask. You cannot attain it by works when the Son is judging the nations, at a future date. You have to come with Him, when He sets His feet on Mount Olive to rescue Israel and judge the nations.
 
Conclusion:
 
By introducing various unrelated subjects, you tried to clutter this discussion on verses from Hebrews 10. The verses you brought into this discussion do not support your theories. On the other hand, they contradict your assertions. Lord Jesus Christ taught the eternal security of salvation that He provides.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page


Post reply Here

please login to continue..

Registered Users, Login below:

Username Password
Problem Login?

New User? Register Now

Forgot User Name or Password? Click Here

Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::



HOME
Back to Top