|
|
 | | From: | Muz | | Subject: | Re: Eternal Security (OSAS) | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:08:47 GMT |
|
|
 | In the New Testament, the truth is further revealed to us. Even in the
womb,
before they were even born, God already knew that Esau would be a man
of the
flesh, a man not interested in a relationship with the living God, and
Jacob
would be a man after His (God's) own heart. God saw the end before the
beginning (birth) ever took place.
Well, "Loved" and "Hated" in that context refer to the ones whom God
would continue His covenant. In the ANE (ancient near east), "love"
and "hate" were covenantal words. So, when God says that He will love
one and hate the other, He is saying that His covenant will be with
the one whom He has chosen, in this case Jacob.
Which makes Romans 9 MUCH clearer. The decendents of Jacob do not have
to be known, if God has already chosen to covenant with Jacob and his
descendents.
Now, explain this to me: If God is outside of time, and all events are
current to Him, and on the cross, the Father turned His face from
Christ, which is eternally true: That the trinity is in unity and
communion with eachother, or that God the Father is eternally turned
away from God the Son?
I would agree that God is not constrained by the time in which we
exist, which is a part of our universe. But to say that God doesn't
experience a series of events and MUST see all events past and future
as an eternal "now" conflicts with the incarnation being one being with
two natures who experienced separation from God as the atoning
sacrifice for our sins. God must have first experienced communion
within the trinity, and then separation for a time as payment for our
sins, and then reunion, which indictates that God cannot be timeless.
And there is no evidence to suggest that the future must be definate
and knowable. It can be merely uncertain, with only the possibilities
of the future knowable, and still remain scriptural.
Muz
|
|
| | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Re: Eternal Security (OSAS) | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:16:30 GMT |
|
|
| Muz said: "Now, explain this to me: If God is outside of time, and all
events are
current to Him, and on the cross, the Father turned His face from
Christ, which is eternally true: That the trinity is in unity and
communion with each other, or that God the Father is eternally turned
away from God the Son?
I would agree that God is not constrained by the time in which we
exist, which is a part of our universe. But to say that God doesn't
experience a series of events and MUST see all events past and future as an
eternal "now" conflicts with the incarnation being one being with
two natures who experienced separation from God as the atoning
sacrifice for our sins. God must have first experienced communion
within the trinity, and then separation for a time as payment for our
sins, and then reunion, which indicates that God cannot be timeless."
Steve's response: The above is nothing more than conjecture and is totally
meaningless. Scripture does not address your foolish questions and
conjecture. We will understand all things when we see Him, and we are like
Him (at the rapture), or if we die before the rapture, when we are in heaven
(to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord). Until then,
unless it is revealed clearly in scripture, it is a waste of time.
1 Cor 1:25-31 tells us about Muz and others like him:
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of
God is stronger than men.
26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after
the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27. But God hath
chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath
chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God
chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29. That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30. But of him are ye in
Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption:
31. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in
the Lord.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" wrote in message
news:3gRFd.6556$pZ4.5935@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In the New Testament, the truth is further revealed to us. Even in the
> womb,
> before they were even born, God already knew that Esau would be a man
> of the
> flesh, a man not interested in a relationship with the living God, and
> Jacob
> would be a man after His (God's) own heart. God saw the end before the
> beginning (birth) ever took place.
>
> Well, "Loved" and "Hated" in that context refer to the ones whom God
> would continue His covenant. In the ANE (ancient near east), "love"
> and "hate" were covenantal words. So, when God says that He will love
> one and hate the other, He is saying that His covenant will be with
> the one whom He has chosen, in this case Jacob.
>
> Which makes Romans 9 MUCH clearer. The decendents of Jacob do not have
> to be known, if God has already chosen to covenant with Jacob and his
> descendents.
>
> Now, explain this to me: If God is outside of time, and all events are
> current to Him, and on the cross, the Father turned His face from
> Christ, which is eternally true: That the trinity is in unity and
> communion with eachother, or that God the Father is eternally turned
> away from God the Son?
>
> I would agree that God is not constrained by the time in which we
> exist, which is a part of our universe. But to say that God doesn't
> experience a series of events and MUST see all events past and future
> as an eternal "now" conflicts with the incarnation being one being with
> two natures who experienced separation from God as the atoning
> sacrifice for our sins. God must have first experienced communion
> within the trinity, and then separation for a time as payment for our
> sins, and then reunion, which indictates that God cannot be timeless.
>
> And there is no evidence to suggest that the future must be definate
> and knowable. It can be merely uncertain, with only the possibilities
> of the future knowable, and still remain scriptural.
>
> Muz
>
>
"Muz" wrote in message
news:3gRFd.6556$pZ4.5935@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In the New Testament, the truth is further revealed to us. Even in the
> womb,
> before they were even born, God already knew that Esau would be a man
> of the
> flesh, a man not interested in a relationship with the living God, and
> Jacob
> would be a man after His (God's) own heart. God saw the end before the
> beginning (birth) ever took place.
>
> Well, "Loved" and "Hated" in that context refer to the ones whom God
> would continue His covenant. In the ANE (ancient near east), "love"
> and "hate" were covenantal words. So, when God says that He will love
> one and hate the other, He is saying that His covenant will be with
> the one whom He has chosen, in this case Jacob.
>
> Which makes Romans 9 MUCH clearer. The decendents of Jacob do not have
> to be known, if God has already chosen to covenant with Jacob and his
> descendents.
>
> Now, explain this to me: If God is outside of time, and all events are
> current to Him, and on the cross, the Father turned His face from
> Christ, which is eternally true: That the trinity is in unity and
> communion with eachother, or that God the Father is eternally turned
> away from God the Son?
>
> I would agree that God is not constrained by the time in which we
> exist, which is a part of our universe. But to say that God doesn't
> experience a series of events and MUST see all events past and future
> as an eternal "now" conflicts with the incarnation being one being with
> two natures who experienced separation from God as the atoning
> sacrifice for our sins. God must have first experienced communion
> within the trinity, and then separation for a time as payment for our
> sins, and then reunion, which indictates that God cannot be timeless.
>
> And there is no evidence to suggest that the future must be definate
> and knowable. It can be merely uncertain, with only the possibilities
> of the future knowable, and still remain scriptural.
>
> Muz
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Re: Eternal Security (OSAS) | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:17:22 GMT |
|
|
| Muz said: "which indictates that God cannot be timeless."
Steve's response: The entire Bible, the entire Word of God cries out against
your statement. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.
Genesis 21 tells us: 33. And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and
called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God." Etc. , Etc. Etc.
throughout the Old and New Testaments. I won't even waste my time looking it
all up.
Even Atheist scientists of this day and age have come to the conclusion that
time started with the creation of this planet and our solar system.
God, who is outside of time and space created everything out of nothing, He
spoke it into existence. He moves in and outside of time at will. How do you
suppose He creates His miracles? He is not restrained by time or space, as
we finite creatures are. Your posts continue to make me think that you
believe that just because we are created in His image that we are like Him.
We will never be like him, as the Mormon or the New Ager believes. We will
be allowed to worship Him forever and ever and ever. That is more than
anyone could ask for or want.
God bless,
Steve
"Muz" wrote in message
news:3gRFd.6556$pZ4.5935@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In the New Testament, the truth is further revealed to us. Even in the
> womb,
> before they were even born, God already knew that Esau would be a man
> of the
> flesh, a man not interested in a relationship with the living God, and
> Jacob
> would be a man after His (God's) own heart. God saw the end before the
> beginning (birth) ever took place.
>
> Well, "Loved" and "Hated" in that context refer to the ones whom God
> would continue His covenant. In the ANE (ancient near east), "love"
> and "hate" were covenantal words. So, when God says that He will love
> one and hate the other, He is saying that His covenant will be with
> the one whom He has chosen, in this case Jacob.
>
> Which makes Romans 9 MUCH clearer. The decendents of Jacob do not have
> to be known, if God has already chosen to covenant with Jacob and his
> descendents.
>
> Now, explain this to me: If God is outside of time, and all events are
> current to Him, and on the cross, the Father turned His face from
> Christ, which is eternally true: That the trinity is in unity and
> communion with eachother, or that God the Father is eternally turned
> away from God the Son?
>
> I would agree that God is not constrained by the time in which we
> exist, which is a part of our universe. But to say that God doesn't
> experience a series of events and MUST see all events past and future
> as an eternal "now" conflicts with the incarnation being one being with
> two natures who experienced separation from God as the atoning
> sacrifice for our sins. God must have first experienced communion
> within the trinity, and then separation for a time as payment for our
> sins, and then reunion, which indictates that God cannot be timeless.
>
> And there is no evidence to suggest that the future must be definate
> and knowable. It can be merely uncertain, with only the possibilities
> of the future knowable, and still remain scriptural.
>
> Muz
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Re: Eternal Security (OSAS) | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:16:12 GMT |
|
|
| Muz said: "Now, explain this to me: If God is outside of time, and all
events are
current to Him, and on the cross, the Father turned His face from
Christ, which is eternally true: That the trinity is in unity and
communion with each other, or that God the Father is eternally turned
away from God the Son?"
Steve's response: The above is nothing more than conjecture and is totally
meaningless. Scripture does not address your foolish questions and
conjecture. We will understand all things when we see Him, and we are like
Him (at the rapture), or if we die before the rapture, when we are in heaven
(to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord). Until then,
unless it is revealed clearly in scripture, it is a waste of time.
1 Cor 1:25-31 tells us about Muz and others like him:
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of
God is stronger than men.
26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after
the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27. But God hath
chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath
chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God
chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29. That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30. But of him are ye in
Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption:
31. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in
the Lord.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Muz" wrote in message
news:3gRFd.6556$pZ4.5935@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In the New Testament, the truth is further revealed to us. Even in the
> womb,
> before they were even born, God already knew that Esau would be a man
> of the
> flesh, a man not interested in a relationship with the living God, and
> Jacob
> would be a man after His (God's) own heart. God saw the end before the
> beginning (birth) ever took place.
>
> Well, "Loved" and "Hated" in that context refer to the ones whom God
> would continue His covenant. In the ANE (ancient near east), "love"
> and "hate" were covenantal words. So, when God says that He will love
> one and hate the other, He is saying that His covenant will be with
> the one whom He has chosen, in this case Jacob.
>
> Which makes Romans 9 MUCH clearer. The decendents of Jacob do not have
> to be known, if God has already chosen to covenant with Jacob and his
> descendents.
>
> Now, explain this to me: If God is outside of time, and all events are
> current to Him, and on the cross, the Father turned His face from
> Christ, which is eternally true: That the trinity is in unity and
> communion with eachother, or that God the Father is eternally turned
> away from God the Son?
>
> I would agree that God is not constrained by the time in which we
> exist, which is a part of our universe. But to say that God doesn't
> experience a series of events and MUST see all events past and future
> as an eternal "now" conflicts with the incarnation being one being with
> two natures who experienced separation from God as the atoning
> sacrifice for our sins. God must have first experienced communion
> within the trinity, and then separation for a time as payment for our
> sins, and then reunion, which indictates that God cannot be timeless.
>
> And there is no evidence to suggest that the future must be definate
> and knowable. It can be merely uncertain, with only the possibilities
> of the future knowable, and still remain scriptural.
>
> Muz
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Re: Eternal Security (OSAS) | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:16:44 GMT |
|
|
|
Steve's response to this post from the Muz:
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's
just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
"Muz" wrote in message
news:3gRFd.6556$pZ4.5935@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In the New Testament, the truth is further revealed to us. Even in the
> womb,
> before they were even born, God already knew that Esau would be a man
> of the
> flesh, a man not interested in a relationship with the living God, and
> Jacob
> would be a man after His (God's) own heart. God saw the end before the
> beginning (birth) ever took place.
>
> Well, "Loved" and "Hated" in that context refer to the ones whom God
> would continue His covenant. In the ANE (ancient near east), "love"
> and "hate" were covenantal words. So, when God says that He will love
> one and hate the other, He is saying that His covenant will be with
> the one whom He has chosen, in this case Jacob.
>
> Which makes Romans 9 MUCH clearer. The decendents of Jacob do not have
> to be known, if God has already chosen to covenant with Jacob and his
> descendents.
>
> Now, explain this to me: If God is outside of time, and all events are
> current to Him, and on the cross, the Father turned His face from
> Christ, which is eternally true: That the trinity is in unity and
> communion with eachother, or that God the Father is eternally turned
> away from God the Son?
>
> I would agree that God is not constrained by the time in which we
> exist, which is a part of our universe. But to say that God doesn't
> experience a series of events and MUST see all events past and future
> as an eternal "now" conflicts with the incarnation being one being with
> two natures who experienced separation from God as the atoning
> sacrifice for our sins. God must have first experienced communion
> within the trinity, and then separation for a time as payment for our
> sins, and then reunion, which indictates that God cannot be timeless.
>
> And there is no evidence to suggest that the future must be definate
> and knowable. It can be merely uncertain, with only the possibilities
> of the future knowable, and still remain scriptural.
>
> Muz
>
>
|
|
|
