Grace and Truth ..

Originally posted by Rajk999
I am talking about how one gets eternal life.

You used the term salvation. Some use the word 'saved'.

Maybe we should define these.

Ok.

Eternal life is just that. Life eternal. It is given as a gift of God's grace to anyone that believes and trusts in what Jesus did on the cross on their behalf.

Salvation is what we need. Without salvation there is no eternal life for the believer. Our salvation was procured for us by Jesus's work on the cross in so much as we cannot earn salvation by doing anything.

Again, Ephesians 2:8&9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Through faith. Faith, believing and trusting is all we can do to be saved.

Originally posted by josephw
Ok.

Eternal life is just that. Life eternal. It is given as a gift of God's grace to anyone that believes and trusts in what Jesus did on the cross on their behalf.

Salvation is what we need. Without salvation there is no eternal life for the believer. Our salvation was procured for us by Jesus's work on the cross in so much as we cannot earn salvatio ...[text shortened]... man should boast.

Through faith. Faith, believing and trusting is all we can do to be saved.

Did you leave out the critical element of 'obedience'?

You said - Faith, believing and trusting is all we can do to be saved

I thought you agreed that obedience to God/Christ was required?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]What I understand is that you are imposing your interpretation on what the verses are saying by saying they mean something other that what they're saying.

The fact is that that's exactly what you've done.

Read the following explanation and reread the passage along with it:
[quote]Peter was not writing about how we should read or interpret G ...[text shortened]... etail exactly what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1:16-21 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.[/b]

I don't think you know what "interpret" means, nor do I think you understand what you read on GQ.

Same Webb site you referenced also has the following to say about losing salvation. I wonder if you will give it the same credence you gave the quote you posted.

A Christian is a new creation. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). A Christian is not simply an “improved” version of a person; a Christian is an entirely new creature. He is “in Christ.” For a Christian to lose salvation, the new creation would have to be destroyed.

A Christian is redeemed. “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:18–19). The word redeemed refers to a purchase being made, a price being paid. We were purchased at the cost of Christ’s death. For a Christian to lose salvation, God Himself would have to revoke His purchase of the individual for whom He paid with the precious blood of Christ.

A Christian is justified. “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). To justify is to declare righteous. All those who receive Jesus as Savior are “declared righteous” by God. For a Christian to lose salvation, God would have to go back on His Word and “un-declare” what He had previously declared. Those absolved of guilt would have to be tried again and found guilty. God would have to reverse the sentence handed down from the divine bench.

A Christian is promised eternal life. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Eternal life is the promise of spending forever in heaven with God. God promises, “Believe and you will have eternal life.” For a Christian to lose salvation, eternal life would have to be redefined. The Christian is promised to live forever. Does eternal not mean “eternal”?

A Christian is marked by God and sealed by the Spirit. “You also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:13–14). At the moment of faith, the new Christian is marked and sealed with the Spirit, who was promised to act as a deposit to guarantee the heavenly inheritance. The end result is that God’s glory is praised. For a Christian to lose salvation, God would have to erase the mark, withdraw the Spirit, cancel the deposit, break His promise, revoke the guarantee, keep the inheritance, forego the praise, and lessen His glory.

A Christian is guaranteed glorification. “Those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Romans 8:30). According to Romans 5:1, justification is ours at the moment of faith. According to Romans 8:30, glorification comes with justification. All those whom God justifies are promised to be glorified. This promise will be fulfilled when Christians receive their perfect resurrection bodies in heaven. If a Christian can lose salvation, then Romans 8:30 is in error, because God could not guarantee glorification for all those whom He predestines, calls, and justifies.

A Christian cannot lose salvation. Most, if not all, of what the Bible says happens to us when we receive Christ would be invalidated if salvation could be lost. Salvation is the gift of God, and God’s gifts are “irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). A Christian cannot be un-newly created. The redeemed cannot be unpurchased. Eternal life cannot be temporary. God cannot renege on His Word. Scripture says that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

Originally posted by josephw
I don't think you know what "interpret" means, nor do I think you understand what you read on GQ.

Same Webb site you referenced also has the following to say about losing salvation. I wonder if you will give it the same credence you gave the quote you posted.

[b]A Christian is a new creation. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; th ...[text shortened]... be temporary. God cannot renege on His Word. Scripture says that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).[/b]

I don't think you know what "interpret" means...

C'mon JW. If anyone would be in danger of not understanding what "interpret" means, it'd be you. Face it, in school you weren't exactly amongst the brightest.

I think you probably understand what "interpret" means. However, you've often shown that you struggle with reading in context.

[..nor do I think you understand what you read on GQ.

On my previous post, I asked that you do the following:
"If you still believe that you're right, then explain in detail exactly what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1:16-21 and how that supports YOUR interpretation."

Let's extend that to explaining in detail exactly what GQ is saying about 2 Peter 1:20 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.

You didn't do the former and I don't expect you to do the latter. If they did support YOUR interpretation, you would do it. But they don't, so you won't.

You're wrong and as in the past, you're not about to set aside your pride and admit it.

Same Webb site you referenced also has the following to say about losing salvation. I wonder if you will give it the same credence you gave the quote you posted.

GQ is correct in its interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20. In fact, I deliberately selected that site from amongst other commentaries about 2 Peter 1:20 BECAUSE I knew it espouses many of the same erroneous beliefs that you do. You really need to consider the fact that a website that holds the same beliefs as you on many other topics is in complete disagreement with what you believe about 2 Peter 1:20.

You're just wrong about this. Would it really hurt that much for you to simply admit it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I don't think you know what "interpret" means...

C'mon JW. If anyone would be in danger of not understanding what "interpret" means, it'd be you. Face it, in school you weren't exactly amongst the brightest.

I think you probably understand what "interpret" means. However, you've often shown that you struggle with reading in context.

[.. ...[text shortened]... 20.

You're just wrong about this. Would it really hurt that much for you to simply admit it?

"Peter was not writing about how we should read or interpret God’s Word;.."

That's right. Peter is telling us not to make private interpretations of God's Word. The implication is that God's Word interprets itself because it is God's Word.

Anyone can say what they think the scriptures mean by what they say, and they may even be right, but God hasn't given us interpreters. God has given us pastors and teachers. And even they aren't right all the time.

You are far too reliant and other men's commentaries. Apparently. Closer study of the passage in question, coupled with others along the same line, and with the aide of the Holy Spirit, may change your mind.

Here are a few. Proverbs 3:5&6, Psalm 19:7-9, 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

Perhaps you'll see the connection.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Peter was not writing about how we should read or interpret God’s Word;.."

That's right. Peter is telling us not to make private interpretations of God's Word. The implication is that God's Word interprets itself because it is God's Word.

Anyone can say what they think the scriptures mean by what they say, and they may even be right, bu ...[text shortened]... re a few. Proverbs 3:5&6, Psalm 19:7-9, 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

Perhaps you'll see the connection.[/b]

C'mon JW. If you were correct, you'd have no problem providing the following. Instead you keep trying to find ways to avoid providing it. Just admit that you're wrong.

On my previous post, I asked that you do the following:
"If you still believe that you're right, then explain in detail exactly what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1:16-21 and how that supports YOUR interpretation."

Let's extend that to explaining in detail exactly what GQ is saying about 2 Peter 1:20 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.

You didn't do the former and I don't expect you to do the latter. If they did support YOUR interpretation, you would do it. But they don't, so you won't.

You're wrong and as in the past, you're not about to set aside your pride and admit it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon JW. If you were correct, you'd have no problem providing the following. Instead you keep trying to find ways to avoid providing it. Just admit that you're wrong.

On my previous post, I asked that you do the following:
"If you still believe that you're right, then explain in detail exactly what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1:16-21 and how ...[text shortened]... 're wrong and as in the past, you're not about to set aside your pride and admit it.

You're wrong. It's not my interpretation. 2 Peter 2:20 says plainly what it means.

And you wonder why the church is in such disarray!

Originally posted by josephw
You're wrong. It's not my interpretation. 2 Peter 2:20 says plainly what it means.

And you wonder why the church is in such disarray!

Clearly you are unable to explain in detail exactly what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1:16-21 and how that supports YOUR interpretation."

Clearly you are unable to explain in detail exactly what GQ is saying about 2 Peter 1:20 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.

If you could do either you would have by now.

Instead all you seem able to do is keep insisting that you're right - like an five year old.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Clearly you are unable to explain in detail exactly what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1:16-21 and how that supports YOUR interpretation."

Clearly you are unable to explain in detail exactly what GQ is saying about 2 Peter 1:20 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.

If you could do either you would have by now.

Instead all you seem able to do is keep insisting that you're right - like an five year old.

Oh I get it. Unless it's YOUR interpretation it's not valid.

God's Word was given to man. God spoke, man wrote. Man didn't just imagine it and he certainly can't interpret it either. Unless one compares scripture with scripture he can't know what it means. The scriptures interpret themselves. To say we interpret the scriptures is akin to saying we brought them into being.

If you can't understand what I'm saying then you're just acting "like an five year old".

Originally posted by josephw
Oh I get it. Unless it's YOUR interpretation it's not valid.

God's Word was given to man. God spoke, man wrote. Man didn't just imagine it and he certainly can't interpret it either. Unless one compares scripture with scripture he can't know what it means. The scriptures interpret themselves. To say we interpret the scriptures is akin to saying we brough ...[text shortened]... ing.

If you can't understand what I'm saying then you're just acting "like an five year old".

C'mon JW. You know exactly what I've repeatedly been requesting from you:

1 ) Explain in detail exactly what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1:16-21 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.

2) Explain in detail exactly what GQ is saying about 2 Peter 1:20 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.

Oh I get it. Unless it's YOUR interpretation it's not valid.

Not at all and you know it. I've repeatedly asked you to PROVE that your interpretation is valid by doing the above.

You not only refuse, but you pretend that I haven't been repeatedly been asking you to do so.

Instead all you seem able to do is keep insisting that you're right - like an five year old. That's what makes you like a five year old.

It's really simple. Put on your big boy pants and PROVE that your interpretation is correct by doing the above.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon JW. You know exactly what I've repeatedly been requesting from you:

1 ) Explain in detail exactly what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1:16-21 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.

2) Explain in detail exactly what GQ is saying about 2 Peter 1:20 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.

[b]Oh I get it. Unless it's YOUR interpretation i ...[text shortened]... ple. Put on your big boy pants and PROVE that your interpretation is correct by doing the above.

Won't do any good ThinkOfOne. You haven't yet learned how to think on your own without the aide of others.

"Peter was not writing about how we should read or interpret God’s Word;"

That's absurd. That is exactly what Peter is saying. Peter is telling us how The Word came into being. Peter tells us, as it is said by the author of this commentary you referenced later on, that his words are God's words, that the words of scripture are of God. If that's not telling us how to read and interpret the scriptures then I don't know what is.

"...he was writing about how God gave us His Word in the first place."

Well, duh!

That's how we understand the scriptures. The scriptures are God's words telling us how to read and interpret them.

That's why they are not "of any private interpretation".

Originally posted by josephw
Won't do any good ThinkOfOne. You haven't yet learned how to think on your own without the aide of others.

[b]"Peter was not writing about how we should read or interpret God’s Word;"

That's absurd. That is exactly what Peter is saying. Peter is telling us how The Word came into being. Peter tells us, as it is said by the author of this commentary ...[text shortened]... g us how to read and interpret them.

That's why they are not "of any private interpretation".[/b]

Won't do any good ThinkOfOne. You haven't yet learned how to think on your own without the aide of others.

You keep going from making one ridiculous claim to another.

If anyone would be in danger of not " think[ing] on [his] own without the aide of others", it'd be you. From what I can tell, your beliefs are mostly lock-step with the dogma of evangelical Christianity. That's the epitome of NOT "think[ing] on your own".

The only reason that I looked for commentaries on 2 Peter 1:20 was to be able to show you that even an evangelical Christian site disagrees with you.

As I wrote earlier:

In fact, I deliberately selected that site from amongst other commentaries about 2 Peter 1:20 BECAUSE I knew it espouses many of the same erroneous beliefs that you do. You really need to consider the fact that a website that holds the same beliefs as you on many other topics is in complete disagreement with what you believe about 2 Peter 1:20.

C'mon JW. You know exactly what I've repeatedly been requesting from you:

1 ) Explain in detail exactly what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1:16-21 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.

2) Explain in detail exactly what GQ is saying about 2 Peter 1:20 and how that supports YOUR interpretation.

I've repeatedly asked you to PROVE that your interpretation is valid by doing the above.

It's really simple. Put on your big boy pants and PROVE that your interpretation is correct by doing the above.

You can't, so you keep going from making one ridiculous claim to another.

Either PROVE it or set aside your pride and admit that you're wrong.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Won't do any good ThinkOfOne. You haven't yet learned how to think on your own without the aide of others.

You keep going from making one ridiculous claim to another.

If anyone would be in danger of not " think[ing] on [his] own without the aide of others", it'd be you. From what I can tell, your beliefs are mostly lock-step with the dogma o ...[text shortened]... culous claim to another.

Either PROVE it or set aside your pride and admit that you're wrong.[/b]

There's no point. The dogma you're in lock-step with prevents you from being anything but wrong.

You accuse me of being in lock-step with the dogma of evangelical Christianity, yet you also say I don't agree with an "interpretation" given by those you say I'm in lock-step with.

That's screwy. Don't expect me to debate an issue with you if your thinking is going to be that twisted up. There's no point. You're simply hell bent on making a mockery of me because I don't agree with YOUR interpretation.

Besides that you don't seem to have much of a sense of humor either. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
There's no point. The dogma you're in lock-step with prevents you from being anything but wrong.

You accuse me of being in lock-step with the dogma of evangelical Christianity, yet you also say I don't agree with an "interpretation" given by those you say I'm in lock-step with.

That's screwy. Don't expect me to debate an issue with you if your thinking ...[text shortened]... YOUR interpretation.

Besides that you don't seem to have much of a sense of humor either. 😉

You accuse me of being in lock-step with the dogma of evangelical Christianity, yet you also say I don't agree with an "interpretation" given by those you say I'm in lock-step with.

That's screwy. Don't expect me to debate an issue with you if your thinking is going to be that twisted up.

My thinking isn't "twisted up" at all.

What I actually wrote was the following:

From what I can tell, your beliefs are MOSTLY lock-step with the dogma of evangelical Christianity.

I think that you're intelligent enough to understand that difference. If you are, then you're being blatantly dishonest. If you aren't, then that's a problem in and of itself.

This is the way it always seems to go with the likes of you, CB, DG, SS, KJ, et al.

You go into denial mode, avoidance mode and/or manufacture a reason to pitch a hissy fit rather than admit that you're wrong.

Here you've done all three. Congrats. You've made the trifecta.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]You accuse me of being in lock-step with the dogma of evangelical Christianity, yet you also say I don't agree with an "interpretation" given by those you say I'm in lock-step with.

That's screwy. Don't expect me to debate an issue with you if your thinking is going to be that twisted up.

My thinking isn't "twisted up" at all.

What I actu ...[text shortened]... han admit that you're wrong.

Here you've done all three. Congrats. You've made the trifecta.[/b]

So what's the brand of Christianity you're in lock-step with? I don't recall you ever mentioning it. Is it the "We're right and you're wrong" branch?

To be honest I think you're faking it.