tyuhd:
Matthew 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given
Receive which saying? According to you--that it is not good to marry.right!.At this juncture,we must honestly ask ourselves and I hope it has occured to you---WHY DID CHIRST HIMSELF SAY WHAT HE SAID THAT----IT IS NOT GOOD TO MARRY? Because the dClearly,it must be for the same reason(s) as the apostles----no flimsy divorce.since obviously there is no break in communication,neither are there objection to the disciples opinion and again since in your opinion he replies in the affirmative.
SO IN A NUTSHELL CHRIST SAID IT IS NOT GOOD TO MARRY BECAUSE THE LORD WOULD NO LONGER PERMIT FLIMSY DIVORCE.I hope you Pardon me,but this is kinda of sacrilegious.As only sinful men could say that. and again if we follow your interpretation juxtaposing v11 and v12 would only mean SOME EMBRACE CELEBACY BECAUSE THERE IS NO EASY DIVORCE.

Christ never said it is not good to marry, and He didn't even imply so. The disciples of Christ drew that conclusion on their own from His teaching on marriage; and Jesus replied their statements to caution and correct their generalized conclusion that it is not good to marry.

Jesus didn't agree or disagree with His disciples, He only cautioned their generalization by telling them that not all men can receive the saying that it is not good to marry; except those unto whom it is given. Given by who? By God.

tyuhd:
The latter part of v12,"He that is able to receive it,Let him receive it" Exposes the error in your interpretation and doesn't sound like a 'call' but rather it supports the notion of a 'choice'.See a perfect prototype Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear,let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches...See also V11,V17.So clearly,it was dependant on the Hearer:to hear or not hear and so it depends on the christain to embraces celebacy or not

The statement of Jesus in verse 12 has already been answered by Him in verse 11;

Matthew 19v12 -...He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

And who are those who are able to receive the desire and grace for kingdom celibacy? Jesus already answered that question in verse 11;

Matthew 19v11 -...All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

He that is able to receive it is He to whom it is given. Jesus already answered the question to His last statement, so there's no need speculating.

Its not choice, its calling (those to whom it is given). He that is able to receive kingdom celibacy is he to whom the calling is given by God.

Shalom

5solas:

Please give the scriptures you have in mind concerning this.

Scriptures concerning what? How that the elect are those who have put their faith in Christ?

Is Election not of grace? How else do you receive anything that is by grace? Is it not through faith in Christ?

Romans 11v5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Election is of grace. And grace is of what? Faith.

Romans 4v16 -Therefore IT IS OF FAITH, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed;

Romans 5v1 -By whom also we have access BY FAITH into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Faith in Christ is the way anything that is of grace is accessed. Election is of grace, and grace is by faith. There is no other way to receive anything that is of grace except through faith in Christ.

So the elect are those who have received God's grace through faith in Christ.

Now let me ask you a question. Can we have an unelected believer? Can we have a believer in Christ who is not an elect?

Shalom!

5solas:
Your post clearly shows you have a false notion on election.
Who are the elects and what is election?
Start from there before telling us election is not sure.

The elect are those who have put their faith in Christ. And the election is the state of being an elect. The elect are those standing by faith in Christ; the same group of people Paul warned would be cut off if they do not continue in God's goodness.

Those are the the elect and election.

vooks:
Weep instead of laughing at the absurdities of this system called Calvinism

I was just browsing the scriptures not long ago. See the verse I stumbled upon; and I know it was the Holy Spirit that led me to it, because it is relevant to what we've been saying.

2Peter 1v10 -Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

The word translated "sure" there is the greek "bebaios" and it means "stedfast, firm, unmovable".

Question is, if our calling and election is unmovable, would there be any need to tell believers to "give diligence" to making their election sure (unmovable)?

If something cannot move, do you need to make it unmovable?

The Holy Spirit through the scriptures will not warn people to make something that cannot move unmovable. It is only something that can move you give diligence to making sure it doesn't move.

Clearly, its one thing to be elected and its another thing to stay elected. To stay elected, you need to keep the faith by which you accepted the calling and the election.

This scripture flushes down the drain the doctrine that it is impossible for the elect to be lost.

That one is elected is something one needs to be diligent to keep that way. Because the election is not unmovable (sure). We wouldn't need to make our election sure, if it is sure.

Shalom!

vooks:
Debunking the never-really-saved argument


https://arminianperspectives./2008/10/16/never-really-saved-to-begin-with/

Thank you!

Paul said the jews were broken off because of unbelief. And that gentiles believers standing by faith will be cut off also if they do not continue in God's goodness by faith.

Romans 11v20 - Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

v21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

v22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Since it is because of unbelief someone is cut off from Christ, why is the warning of being cut off given to believers? Why would believers be warned of something that only befalls unbelievers?

Its clearly because it is very possible for a believer to become an unbeliever. A believer can depart from the faith and revert into unbelief.

Their argument would be those believers being warned were "never really believers" or were "never really saved".

But Paul already told them;

Rom 11v20 - ...thou standest by faith.

Can a "never really saved" believer ever be standing by faith? Or ever be joined to Christ? Or ever be a branch on His vine?

I've even heard some ridiculous interpretations, that everybody is joined to Christ; believers and unbelievers alike. Then unbelievers will eventually be cut off if they do not become believers.

But again, Paul already told them;

Rom 11v20 - ...thou standest by faith.

Meaning the people being addressed are those with faith already. Those already standing by faith. And for what its worth; you CAN'T even be joined to Christ without faith.

Clearly, the warning of being cut off from Christ through unbelief was given to believers; people presently standing by faith in Christ.

Proving that a believer can become an unbeliever by departing from the faith and reverting into unbelief. And such a person will be cut off from Christ.

There are many other examples of scriptures that debunk this "never really a believer or saved" mantra.

The Holy Spirit said that some shall depart from the faith. Can you depart from something you were never in or with? And can you depart from something and still be in or with that thing?

Clearly, to depart from the faith means you were once in the faith and you're no more in the faith.

And a "never really saved" person can never had been in the faith; because we are justified by faith (Rom 5v1) and saved by grace through faith (Eph 2v8)

So, to have been in the faith and now no more, means you were once justified and saved and now no more.

Unless they want to add to their list of heresis, and claim that you can depart from the faith but still keep the justification and salvation.

Thanks again vooks

God bless.

osewanu:
An elderly Zimbabwean Christian man has died after he allegedly attempted to emulate Jesus Christ by going without food or water for 40 days and 40 nights, according to African news sites
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-man-dies-emulating-jesus-40-day-40-night-fast-in-the-wilderness-142764/#FuycTPCsSLdeUCDQ.99

Where in the bible did it say or even suggest that Jesus didn't drink water during His fast? Jesus didn't do a dry fast. And a 40 days and 40 nights water fasting is very possible.

Infact prolonged water fast comes recommended. Many people even do it for health and fitness benefits, not just spiritual alone.

scully95:
[img]http://1.bp..com/-wBEa3SjRafI/VcymVIXCufI/AAAAAAAAYLI/Tu93fDlICgE/s1600/pastor.png[/img]

Isn't this the height of religious blasphemy and intolerance against the traditional religion of the land the pastor was born ?
What make this pastor any difference from the boko haram terrorist sect that are hiding under the pretext of religious conflict to carry out their massacres ?
Are we still living in the 20th century ? The last time I checked it is 21st century and 2015 for that matter. I hope this pastor face the law and maximum sentence for blaspheming the religion of the land.

Source: http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/breaking-news/and-the-religous-war-against-traditional-religion-continues-as-an-anambra-pastor-burns-the-ukolo-uga-shrine-photo/

Personally I think, this was too forward of the Pastor to have done this. If the idol worshippers had been the ones that burnt his own church, he would have involved the police or made it a matter of court dispute.

The way this is done is to convert the people of those land first through the preaching of the gospel. Then when the idol worshippers accept the gospel, they will now bring all their idols to be burnt, including all their shrines and stuff.

That's the way it was done in the scriptures.

Acts 19v17 -And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

v18  And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds.

v19  Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

See that?

Paul won over the city of Ephesus first through the gospel; and then the people of their own accord brought their idols, magic books and occultic items to be burnt publicly in celebration of their new faith.

It wasn't Paul that just went about people's homes burning their stuff or setting their shrines and temples ablaze, just because they were false gods. He won their hearts first, then they burnt their own stuffs.

When Paul went to Athens and saw the entire town given to idolatry; he didn't go on rampage and start burning stuff. He preached to them.

Acts 17v16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

v17  Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

Paul always won over the hearts of the people first, then they discard of their false gods and idolatry on their own. That's the bible way.

If we christians can burn the temples and shrines of other people's idols because they are false gods to us; then we shouldn't have issues with those who burn churches and bibles since they too consider Jesus and our faith as false. Since its what we would do too -according to such people.

But that's wrong.

My opinion

Shalom!

A healthy and nourished human body can go 40 days on only water. Infact on only water, it takes a healthy body 60 days before starvation sets in. And even after that, the body can still add five more days before starvation becomes acute.

So if someone dies fasting. The causes could be:

1. He was malnourished before he embarked on the fast.

It takes three days of a water fast for the body to move from glycogen (sugar as fuel) to ketosis (ketone or fat as fuel). And seven days after that for the daily ketone production to reach peak rate. If you've not been nourished before the fast, your body will lack fat to convert to energy when glucose is used up.

2. He had an underlying sickness that he didn't treat or manage before embarking on the fast.

Fasting is good, and it can even help remove toxins from blood and cure sicknesses. But there are some sicknesses that needs to be treated or managed beyond risk before you embark on a prolonged fast (10 days and above).

3. He didn't drink enough water.

You can't do a prolonged dry fast, its near impossible. Even Jesus drank water. The body can hardly do above a week without water, but can last well above 40 days on just water. If you are doing a prolonged water fast, you need atleast 2 litres of water per day. Prolonged fast without adequate water can get harmful from above day 14. Especially if you're also a little active during the day and you are under the sun.

All things being equal, fasting is very good. There is nothing to be afraid of about fasting. Fasting is not only healthy when done right, it is even advisable. Most people who express fears about prolonged fasting have not even attempted it before.

With God's grace, strong determination, and basic knowledge about fasting; 40 days water fasting is possible. And I'm talking from experience.

For more info:

www.gaianstudies.org/articles4.htm

Or just google 40 day water fasting.

Shalom!

tyuhd:
Now Pls notice the context Christ made the statement. You would clearly observe Christ wasn't refering to celebacy by that phrase and it's totally disconnected from it.

Mattew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Here Christ is forbiding divorce and remariage for any other grounds whether it's wife battery, drunkiness, lying and on and on EXCEPT adultery

Mattew 19:10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

The disciples react appropriately to Christ statement saying emphatically marriage must be a very rigid and difficult union since He doesn't allow for divorce. And So Here is His reply

Mattew 19:11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word,but only those whom it has been given".

So Which word was Christ referring to Here,I mean V11? The Call to celebacy? No! No! No! No! No!

Obviously He hadn't even begun to discuss celebacy here so It must be His rigid restriction on divorce and remarriage as it's evident from V10 and the disciples response to His restriction on it,and so He says," ...only those to whom it has been given" Given what? Given the ability to grapple with the fact that can't divorce a spouse for any other reason except for sexual sin....Simple!

You didn't set any record straight, you got the context wrong; infact you twisted the statement of Jesus. When Jesus made that statement, He was talking in reply to the words of His diciples that "it is not good to marry". That is the saying that Jesus said not every man can receive.

He wasn't referring to His own statement about divorce. Please look at it again.

Matthew 19v9 -And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

v10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

v11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive THIS SAYING, save they to whom it is given.

v12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Which saying can all men not receive? It is the saying by his disciples that It is not good to marry.

That is the saying that Jesus said "All men cannot receive EXCEPT those unto who it is given." Not His own statement about divorce.

tyuhd:
And I hope You realise; You've unavoidably concluded,"Marriage is a calling"

So this are questions failed to ask:
1. Have the unsaved couples who got married yesterday,Have they being called to it?
2. If a Man decides to get married solely to gratify His sexual lust,has He being called to it?

On 2. I really think it would be needless as long as we come to grapple with the joke of,"Celebacy is a calling"

How did you come about the logic that once celibacy is a calling; marriage must therefore be a calling too? You're only called into celibacy, you're not called into not being celibate (marriage)

Marriage is not a calling. Procreation and parenthood is the default design of every human being. That is why from puberty, every woman begins to produce ovaries naturally; and every man begins to produce sperm.

That proves that procreation and parenthood is wired naturally by God into the make-up of every person. And since God only wants procreation and parenthood in the confines of marriage, it means then that marriage is a default design by God for every person.

Everyone by default design is wired for procreation and parenthood (or marriage); then those who are given the calling of celibacy, receive the grace and ability not to marry or even desire it. Marriage is not a calling; procreation and parenthood is the default design for every human. Celibacy is the calling.

Believers and unbelievers who get married are not "called" into marriage. Procreation and parenthood is not a calling; it is default design; just like eating and drinking is. Are we called into eating and drinking? No! It is wired naturally into our make-up by God. Just like procreation and parenthood is wired naturally. It is so natural, that it takes being called into celibacy not to desire it.

That was what Jesus was telling His disciples when the disciples said It is not good to marry.

Jesus replied that not everyone can receive that saying that it is better not to marry, except those unto whom the calling is given.

Saying that if celibacy is a calling, marriage must therefore be a calling is a wrong logic. Stop using logic to form doctrine.

Shalom!

A healthy and nourished human body can go 40 days on only water. Infact on only water, it takes a healthy body 60 days before starvation sets in. And even after that, the body can still add five more days before starvation becomes acute.

So if someone dies fasting. The cause can be:

1. He was malnourished before he embarked on the fast.

It takes three days of a water fast for the body to move from glycogen (sugar as fuel) to ketosis (ketone or fat as fuel). And seven days after that for the daily ketone production to reach peak rate. If you've not been nourished before the fast, your body will lack fat to convert to energy when glucose is used up.

2. He had an underlying sickness that he didn't treat or manage before embarking on the fast.

Fasting is good, and it can even help remove toxins from blood and cure sicknesses. But there are some sicknesses that needs to be treated or managed beyond risk before you embark on a prolonged fast (10 days and above).

3. He didn't drink enough water.

You can't do a prolonged dry fast, its near impossible. Even Jesus drank water. The body can hardly do above a week without water, but can last well above 40 days on just water. If you are doing a prolonged water fast, you need atleast 2 litres of water per day. Prolonged fast without adequate water can get harmful from above day 14. Especially if you're also a little active during the day and you are under the sun.

All things being equal, fasting is very good. There is nothing to be afraid of about fasting. Fasting is not only healthy when done right, it is even advisable. Most people who express fears about prolonged fasting have not even attempted it before.

With God's grace, strong determination, and basic knowledge about fasting; 40 days water fasting is possible. And I'm talking from experience.

For more info:

www.gaianstudies.org/articles4.htm

Or just google 40 day water fasting.

Shalom!

mabeni:
Brothers and Sisters,
Is it common for your congregation to
read the Word during services with a
smartphone or tablet or some other
device with a screen? For me, I have a
tablet that has the Bible on it but have
never felt right to bring it to Church.
As technology grows, will our children
have the discipline to dive into God's
Word with a smartphone or tablet? Or will
it be too much of a distraction?


In other words, what's anybody using smartphones Bible in the church regarded as?

As for me I can't even remember the last time I carried a paper-back or leaflet bible to church. My smartphone bible is what I've been using for a long time. Even before smartphone, I've been using my nokia phone java bible.

My smartphone bible is what I use for my study at home and take to church too. Apart from the fact that its so easy to open to books and navigate to verses, I can also open many versions and translations simultaneously; not to talk of switching between concordance and chain references and strong's hebrew and greek transliteration all at once. Its also super fast and convenient for word search or verses look-up.

To me, its not the paper-back or leaflet that makes the bible the word of God; it is the content or message in it. So whether it comes in manuscript (hand-written) format or printed format or e-format; its still the Word of God if the message is the same.

So no format should be discouraged, its all about the one you're more conversant with; which to me has always been the smartphone or e-format.

I think the reason some churches are against smartphone bibles is because some youths will be browsing in church during message while pretending to be opening verses and following the preaching. So to prevent this, some churches discourage smartphone bibles.

But the problem in that case is indiscipline, not the smartphone bible per se.

For me, nothing wrong with app-based bibles; its the way I've studied bibles and gone to church for the past three years or even longer. Even before smartphones -since java days.

I believe, if you're really serious about studying the word, the format it comes in will not be an issue or a distraction. Infact the app-based ones can help you study better because you can do a lot of things simultaenously on it compared to the printed format. My opinion.

Shalom!

ABDULADINO:
The first question was wrongly answered. Romans 11:22 does not in any way indicate loss of salvation of a believer. Read Romans 11:29 where God's gift is irrevocable and that includes salvation.

You said CUT OFF does not indicate loss of salvation?

Let me put you through the context in which Paul used the word "cut off". It is the same context in which he said the jews were cut off.

He said;

Romans 11v22 - ...otherwise ye ALSO shall be CUT OFF

He said if the believers don't continue in God's goodness, they will also be cut off like the jews. How were the jews cut off?

Romans 11v20 -Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.

Can you see? The jews were cut off because of unbelief. And that is the same context he warned that the gentile believers would be cut off if they do not continue in God's goodness by faith.

Question: Why would Paul warn believers of something that only befalls an unbeliever; since only unbelievers can be cut off?

Easy answer: Because a believer can revert or fall away into unbelief and become an unbeliever. And a de-converted unbeliever will surely lose salvation.

So the context in which Paul warned the gentile believers about being cut off is in the context of the loss of salvation through becoming an unbeliever.

If a believer can NEVER revert into unbelief and become an unbeliever, the scripture will never warn believers of something that only befalls unbelievers -BEING CUT OFF.

"Cut off" as used by Paul in warning the gentile believers is only in the conext of the loss of salvation; the way someone in unbelief is cut off from Christ. And if it was impossible for a believer to be cut off in that context, scripture will never say "otherwise ye also shall be cut off".

And please stop trying to make "wreck the faith" and "depart from the faith" to mean the same thing. "I wrecked my car" and "I departed from my car" don't mean the same thing in any universe.

You can still have in possession something that is wrecked or damaged, but you can't still have or be with or in something you've departed from.

To depart from the faith is to abandon or forsake the faith. It means you reverted into unbelief, you became an unbeliever. Your faith was not just injured or damaged by false doctrine, YOU LEFT THE FAITH.

Don't insult my intelligence, or worse, twist the words of the Holy Spirit. Let the scripture say what it said.

Shalom!

ABDULADINO:
The first question was wrongly answered. Romans 11:22 does not in any way indicate loss of salvation of a believer. Read Romans 11:29 where God's gift is irrevocable and that includes salvation.

You said CUT OFF does not indicate loss of salvation?

Let me put you through. The context in which Paul used the word "cut off" is the same context in which he said the jews were cut off.

How were the jews cut off?

Romans 11v20 -Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. [/b]

Can you see? The jews were cut off because of unbelief. And that is the same context he warned that the gentile believers would be cut off if they do not continue in God's goodness.

Question: Why would Paul warn believers of something that only befalls unbelievers; since only unbelievers can be cut off?

Easy answer: Because a believer can fall away into unbelief and become an unbeliever. And de-converted unbeliever will lose salvation.

So the context in which Paul warned the gentile believers about being cut off is in the context of the loss of salvation by becoming an unbeliever.

If a believer can never become an unbeliever, the scripture will never warn believers of something that only befalls unbelievers -BEING CUT OFF.

ABDULADINO:
I take revelations as symbolic and not literal. Thanks.

So the city of Ephesians is a symbolic city, not literal? Or the city of Laodicea is a symbolic city? Or the city of Sardis is a symbolic city too?

You just don't say "I take Revelation as symbolic not literal. Thanks". The Word of God is not subject to how you choose to take it. The Word of God is what it is. You take it as it is.

The cities in the book of Revelation are literal cities not symbolic. Ephesus, Laodicea, Sardis etc, are all literal cities. And the churches in those cities that Jesus wrote to are literal churches too, with literal believers that lived in a literal era (around 90AD).

So all the instructions and warnings Jesus gave those believers about their names being blotted out of the book of life and being hurt of the second death (lake of fire), are all literal warnings to literal believers. Instructions and warnings that are relevant to every believers in every era of the church age.

Names being blotted out of the book of life is a literal warning; and according to Jesus, it will happen to believers who depart from the faith and don't end as overcomers.

The Word of God is not subject to how you choose to take it. It is what it is.

Shalom!

ABDULADINO:
Context. Paul warned timothy to ministerial faithfulness. It IS possible to have your faith wrecked by false teachers. To depart is NEVER to fall from salvation but from accurate bible doctrine.The entire context IS not SALVATION.

Faith and faithfulness are not directly the same thing, and they are not synonyms. They can't be used interchangeably in sentences.

Eph 2v8 -For by grace are ye save through faith is not the same thing as Eph 2v8 -For by grace are ye save through faithfulness

When scripture talks about "Faithfulness" it is talking in terms of service. That's why you keep hearing the expression "faithful servant"

Matthew 25v21 -...weldone, thou good and faithful servant:

Matthew 25v23 -...weldone, thou good and faithful servant:

But when the scripture talks about "The Faith" it is talking about saving faith; the faith by which we are saved, justified and made believers. The faith in Christ which if we lack makes us unbelievers.

Eph 2v8 -For by grace are ye save through faith (not faithfulness)

Romans 5v1 -Therefore being justified by faith (not faithfulness); we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the faith the Holy Spirit said some shall depart from in the last days. The faith by which we are saved and justified in Christ Jesus -not faithfulness.

1Timothy 4v1 - Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times SOME SHALL DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.

Ofcourse the believers who depart from this faith became unbelievers, and clearly lost salvation.

And since you brought up the issue of context; let me ask you.

In what context did Paul mean that the gentile believers will be cut off from Christ if they don't continue in His goodness in this verse?

Romans 11v22 -Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be CUT OFF.

In what other context can a believer be cut off from Christ other than in the context of the loss of salvation? Because branches that are cut off are cast into the fire, according to Jesus.

John 15v6 -If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth (cut off) as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

The only context in which a branch is cut off from its vine is the context that ends in the fire.

To be cut off from Christ is to lose salvation and end in the lake of fire. And scripture warns that it is possible.

Then also, in what context will names in the book of life be blotted out? Because there is only one end for those whose names are not found written in the book of life -lake of fire.

And remember He said the names will be blotted out, not that the name won't be written in. Meaning the name was there before. So, in what context will it be blotted out other than the context of the loss of salvation?

Shalom!

hahn:


"While others are struggling, you'll be strolling"

There IS something morally wrong with this prayer. Don't you think?

I was addressing only the picture not the quote.

But the prayer can be wrong or right depending on context.

If you are praying that others will be struggling, the prayer is wrong. But if you're praying in the context that what others are struggling with will not be your portion, that is a good prayer.

It is similar to this prayer:

Job 22v29 -When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, there is lifting up;

Or this prayer

Psalm 91v7 -A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come night thee.

You are not praying for others to be cast down or for a thousand to fall; it is just an expression that means what others suffer will not be your portion or experience in Jesus' name.

Praying that what others are suffering will not be your portion is not a bad prayer. And it doesn't mean you're praying for others to keep suffering.

TheDauraMallam:
Not only questionable, but you are a_fucking hypocrite.

There is nothing morally wrong with the picture.

What would be wrong and unfair is if the person that offered the tortoise the skate-board did not offer the rabbits as well.

But if the rabbits were offered the same skate-board but they refused it and chose rather to use their legs instead, then the speed of the tortoise is not injustice, inequality or favoritism.

LordReed:


This logic is poor. It is like saying since lust is a sin and it is created when you see then seeing is a sin. Since gluttony is a sin which is done by eating then eating is a sin. Follow this kind of logic and everything is a sin.

Thanks so much for this example; I wouldn't even had replied if I had seen this your explanation first. Its exactly the point I was making. That logic of arriving at what sin is is so wrong.

biggerboyc:
I disagree here sir. Maybe tyuhd should shed more light on His stance. This is it:If Scripture forbids fornication and we know lust is the womb of fornication,then of course it is also a sin though the scripture be silent about it. So tyuhd is saying through procreation man inherits original sim then it must also follow that sex is a sin. Correct me on any error but i think he should elaborate more.

And what is fornication? Fornication is sex between two people who are not married to eachother. Fornication is what scripture forbids not sex. Sex is undefiled when done between two couples. Don't compare fornication and lust, with original sin and sex.

Lust is not a sin because it leads to fornication, even without fornication, lust is also a sin. But sex is not a sin.

If we are to use your logic that since through procreation, the original sin of Adam is passed on, therefore sex is a sin. Then the logic should also apply that since through the eyes lust enters our heart, then our eyes are sinful.

You see how wrong that logic is?

And let me also ask you. How was Jesus made in the likeness of sinful flesh, when His conception and birth did not involve sex?

This should show you that the issue of the original sin has nothing to do with sex; but simply being conceived and born of a woman in the image of the first Adam; even if without sex.

I think you need to let the scripture say what it said, instead of confusing yourself with logic that many verses contradict. Let the word of God form your doctrine, not logic.

Shalom!

biggerboyc:
I must confess young man with all your arguement and bible knowledge you must be very sound

Thank God and thank you.

biggerboyc:
@ayoku tyuhd raised some question which you never really answered there are many more but here are 3 question i will cut and paste them here
1. You insisted celebacy is a calling and he(tyuhd) said it must necessarily follow with marriage then he said
SO HOW CAN A MAN BE IN A CALLING
BEFORE HE IS EVEN CALLED?

In the bible and by the standard of the word of God, everyone is meant to be celibate before getting married. But that doesn't mean they have the calling of celibacy, they are only celibate because they are not yet married.

But when a christian is celibate because He doesn't want to get married for the sake of the kingdom of God, he is able to receive it because it is given him as a calling.

You understand? Celibacy because you're not yet married is not a calling, it is obedience to the doctrine of "no sex before marriage". But celibacy because you don't want to marry for the kingdom's sake is not a doctrine, it is a calling. And only those who are given the calling from God can receive the desire and ability to do it, according to Jesus.

Matthew 19v11 -But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

biggerboyc:
2. on superiority he said
IF SOME HAVE BEEN BESTOWED WITH GREATER GIFT,WHY SHOULDN'T OTHERS BE CALLED TO HIGER CALLINGS

Gifts according to the scripture can be greater than eachother.

1Cor 14v5 -I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues,

But you can covet and earnestly desire any of the gifts you want.

1Cor 12v31 -But covet earnestly the best gifts:

1Cor 14v39 -Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

So gifts can be greater than eachother; and even though God can share them sovereignly; the choice of who gets which is ultimately in the hands of the seeker.

But unlike gifts, callings are not greater than eachother. A Pastor is not greater than a Teacher; an Apostle is not spiritually superior to an Evangelist; and a celibate is not greater than a married believer.

1Cor 3v5-7 - Who then is Paul (the Apostle), and who is Apollos (the Teacher), but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

What determines greatness in calling is in how Christlike we are in the discharge of the calling; and our faithfulness in the labour of it. It is not the calling itself that is greater.

1Cor 3v8 -Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

A Teacher who is more Christlike and faithful in his calling will be greater than an Apostle who is less Christlike and faithful in his calling. And a married man who is more Christlike and faithful in His marriage will be greater than a celibate who is less Christlike and faithful in his.

So there are greater gifts, but no greater calling. Only greater Christlikeness and faithfulness in the labour of the calling.

biggerboyc:
3. He said In Psalms 51:5 David cries out,"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me".If David confesses to have being conceived in sin the it must necessarily follow that THE DEED(sex) which produced the ACT(conception) must necessarily be sinful too! no escaping that logic!

When David said;

Psalm 51v5 -Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

He was not talking about the act of sex. He was talking about the concept of the "original sin"; the sin of being conceived and born in the image of the first Adam.

When Adam fell and became a sinner, everyone conceived and born of a woman, was born in the image of the first Adam, who was a sinner.

Genesis 5v3 -And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

So sin there is not the act of sex, but the image of sinful Adam in which everyone born of a woman is conceived and born.

Even Jesus that was conceived and born without the act of sex was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Romans 8v3 -For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

So even Jesus that was conceived and born of a virgin birth, without the act of sex was also born in the likeness of sinful flesh. That was why He too could suffer temptation and death.

So being conceived in sin, according to David is not in the act of sex; but the image of sinful Adam in which everyone born of a woman is conceived and born. It is the sin of the image of the first Adam, not the sin of the act of sex.

Sex is not a sin.

Shalom and God bless.

freecocoa:
"And the lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man"
Genesis:2:21-23.

I came across this and was wondering, because I know that the DNA in the rib when used in creating a clone, will give a replica of the original rib owner, so how come a woman was created out of a man's rib?

Please Bible people help me out here.

You see, when you bring the God factor into an act, you must be willing to think outside the box of the scientific to understand how He does what He does.

God is a spirit, and a supernatural being. And even though He created scientific laws to govern and order His physical creation; He himself is not bound by them.

You don't demand a scientific explanation for all the actions of a supernatural being who can suspend, by-pass and modify scientific laws at will to do what He wants to do.

You want us to explain the acts of a supernatural God for you, but you're not willing to think outside the box of the scienific. That's like asking someone to calculate the area of a circle for you, but you insist he must use L x B (lenght x breadth) -the formula for the area of a rectangle.

How do you explain how God made grown adults at the Tower of Babel learn, understand and immediately begin to communicate in a new language in a split second, when He confused their languages? You can't explain it without thinking outside the small box of the scientific.

As long as you cocoon your mind to believe only the physical realm exists and is governed only by scientific laws; you will have more questions than answers about the acts of a supernatural God.

And your questions will seem smart to you. But they are actually as ignorant as asking someone to calculate the area of a cirlce for you but he must use the formula for the area of a rectangle.

Shalom!

Sheggy13:

The scripture said some made themselves eunuchs(celibate) for the sake of the kingdom. They made a decision,a choice and were not called into it as you've been trying to make us believe in this thread. Read other bible translations and not only sticking with the part of KJV saying let those who can receive it,receive it to mean that they're being called into such life. Let's be honest with ourselves, you have more time to dedicate yourself to the things of God being celibate than when you're thinking of your wife's and children's needs (financial, physical, emotional etc)which are the central things to a married man's mind.

Those who made themselves eunuchs or celibate for the kingdom were able to make themselves because it was given them. They couldn't receive the desire or ability for kingdom celibacy unless the calling was given them. Those are the words of Christ.

And what do you mean a celibate has more time to dedicate himself to "the things of God"?

According to the bible, the family is part of "the things of God". Taking care of your family is part of the work of God.

Infact Paul said, the way a man takes care of his family is a measure and proof of how he will take care of the flocks of God. So much that he made taking care of your home one of the criterias for being a bishop and a deacon.

1Tim 3v4-5 -One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

I think the mistake you're making is that you think when a man is taking care of his family and home, he is being distracted from the work of God. You don't realise that taking care of the home is part of ministry work (the work of God) -not a distraction from it.

Shalom!

ABDULADINO:
The questions which you have never answered clearly with scriptures is:

1. Can a child of God lose his salvation?

If he departs from (forsakes, abandons) the faith in Christ by which he is saved, yes he can.

Apostle Paul told the gentile believers.

Romans 11v22 -Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be CUT OFF.

If it was impossible for a believer to be cut off from Christ, scripture will not warn us about it. If we are warned it is because it can happen, and to be cut off from Christ is to lose salvation.

ABDULADINO:
2. Are there any elect in hell?

An elect is a believer in Christ. For you to be in hell you need to be an unbeliever. You can't be a believer or elect and go to hell. But a believer can depart from the faith and become an unbeliever and go to hell.

In that case; an elect or believer did not go to hell. An elect or believer became an unbeliever (departed from the faith) and went to hell.

ABDULADINO:
3. Can Jesus lose any He died for?

Jesus cannot lose those He died for, but those He died for can depart from Him and from faith in Him. And He won't force them to stay.

Jesus didn't lose Judas (in the context of someone snatching Judas), Judas departed from Jesus and went his way. And Jesus didn't force him to stay.

Jesus cannot lose us but we can depart from Jesus and from faith in Him.

Hebrew 3v12 -Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

ABDULADINO:
4.Am i saved by my works?

No, you're saved by grace through faith.

Ephesians 2v8 -For by grace are ye saved through faith:

ABDULADINO:
5. Can i be saved without works?

You are saved without works. You are saved by grace through faith.

Ephesians 2v8 -For by grace are ye saved through faith:

ABDULADINO:
6.Is "perseverance of the saints" the solution?

The solution to what? Staying saved? Since we are saved by grace through faith, we stay saved by keeping the faith through which we are saved.

Paul said;

2Tim 4v7 -I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have KEPT THE FAITH:

Its your choice to keep the faith or depart from the faith.

ABDULADINO:
7.Can i fall from grace?

Ofcourse you can! We have access by faith into grace.

Romans 5v2 -By whom also we have access BY FAITH into this grace wherein we stand

If you depart from that faith (which is possible); you will fall from grace.

ABDULADINO:
8.Can the elect's Faith be overthrown?

The elect are the believers. Can a believer depart from (abandon, forsake) the faith? The Holy Spirit told Paul they can; and some will.

ABDULADINO:
9. Does severe chastening mean i am going to hell?

Going to the lake of fire is not chastening. It is the second death. The end place of everyone who died as an unbeliever in Christ.

ABDULADINO:
These are some of the questions we need answers sir! It is not done by selective picking of scriptures and quoting symbolic revelation to promote doctrinal opinions.

These letters of Christ and His warnings to the seven churches in revelation are more literal than symbolic.

These letters were dictated by Jesus to John; and were written to literal churches with literal believers in Christ, who lived in literal cities in a literal era (around 90AD to 100AD).

And the messages and warnings are relevant to every believer and every church in every era of the church age.

A believer's name being blotted out of the book of life, and him being hurt of the second death (lake of fire) is a literal warning.

Shalom!

5solas:

Sadly, you don't understand what it means to be ordained unto eternal life.

Unfortunately for you, I understand well enough what it means to be ordained unto something. And it is clear from scripture that what a man is ordained unto does not override his freewill or his right of choice to decide where he ends up.

Judas Iscariot was ordained by Jesus to be among those who will sit on twelve thrones in the age to come judging the twelve tribes of Israel. But he chose to go his own way -the way of perdition; contrary to what he was ordained unto by God.

Matthew 19v28 -And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also (Judas inclusive) shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

But Judas chose to become a son of perdition and go the way of perdition.

Acts 1v25 -That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Judas was ordained to sit on a throne in the age to come, but he fell by transgression, and went his own way.

You see that?

A man can choose to go his own way, what he was ordained unto not withstanding. Just like names written in the book of life can be blotted out.

A man can by his own choice to depart from the faith, cause his own name to be blotted out of the book of life and end up in the lake of fire; even though his name was once in the book (that is, he once had eternal life).

You can argue with me, but not with scripture. Names can be blotted out of the book of life, according to Jesus.

Tip-toe round these verses all you want, they won't mean any other thing other than the obvious -that salvation and eternal life can be lost by someone who once had it.

Shalom.

5solas:

Of course! Because He had said before that:
Matthew 24

So you will do well to explain who His elects are, why those terrible days will be shortened for their sakes,why they cannot be deceived and why the angels will gather them together. Let's see if it all adds up to ,''so that they can lose their salvation!"



Blah blah blah.

Study your bible very well sir.

The elect of Matthew 24v22 are the believers who did not fall away or depart from the faith like some.

The endtimes is divided into three stages. The beginning of sorrows (Matthew 24v8), the final preaching of the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 24v14); and the tribulation (Matthew 24v21).

Believers and elects who are still standing in the faith by the time of the tribulation have already proven their love for God and for the truth.

The departure from the faith, and the great falling away into apostasy will take place during the beginning of sorrows and the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom. That is when the love of many shall wax cold because of the increase in wickedness (Matthew 24v12); and the love of others will be proven.

By the time of the tribulation, when God will pour out His wrath without mixture on the ungodly, the world would have already been divided into sons of God and sons of perdition. And the elect still standing would have already proven their love for God and for the truth.

Those are the elect Jesus was referring to in Matthew 24. The ones who didn't depart from the faith or fall away into unbelief and apostasy like some during the beginning of sorrows. Those believers are the elect of Matthew 24v22, for whose sakes the days of the tribulation would be shortened.

Shalom.

tyuhd:

God's commandment aren't graffiti merely used to decorate to comfort and instruct us.No! there is something in them that tells us alot about God's attributes,character and how He views his creation.for instance God commanded and even providentially set some wars King david and yet He forbade him building a temple in Honour of His name.From this, we may see that though God ordains and even providentially set those wars and sometimes David himself inquired of the Lord before setting out for warfare it was still contrary to God's essence.Now! if we honestly take a very brief survey through the law and the prophet we would get a glimpse of how God perceives Sex.In Psalms 51:5 David cries out,"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me".If David confesses to have being conceived in sin the it must necessarily follow that THE DEED(sex) which produced the ACT(conception) must necessarily be sinful too! no escaping that logic!.In Exodus 19:15 when God was to appear to the isrealite He forbade sex and only sex three days prior to His arrival?A question begs to asked,but why?In the law of God when a man defiles Himself by several forms of Impurity such as touching a creeping animal or any other means He was for for most cases declared unclean till sundown.but when a man has sexual relations,Yes even with His wife he was declared unclean for TWO DAYS.Leviticus 15:18 After a man and a woman have sexual intercourse, they must each bathe in water, and they will remain unclean until the next evening.and when a Man accidentally engages in sexual relation with a woman during her period of menstrual impurity he was declared unclean for SEVEN DAYS.Leviticus 15:24 If a man has sexual intercourse with her and her blood touches him, her menstrual impurity will be transmitted to him. He will remain unclean for seven days, and any bed on which he lies will be unclean.And I would remind you they were 'created' by God?When a priest was to carryout His religous duty He was to refrain from sex and even david knew the truth of this.1 Samuel 21:4-5 “We don’t have any regular bread,” the priest replied. “But there is the holy bread, which you can have if your young men have not slept with any women recently.” “Don’t worry,” David replied. “I never allow my men to be with women when they are on a campaign. And since they stay clean even on ordinary trips, how much more on this one!” and the same is also true of christains in NT times.1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to PRAYER AND FASTING.Afterward,you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of SELF-CONTROL.Why must we abstain from intimacy just as from food Ay,there must be something inherently wrong in it!.So we can see God's estimation of it.One of the major function of marriage is procreation--Sex but even marriage itself would become worthess soon.Luke 20:34 Jesus replied,“Marriage is for people here on earth Luke 20:34-35 Jesus replied, “Marriage is for people here on earth. But in the age to come, those worthy of being raised from the dead will NEITHER MARRY NOR BE GIVEN in marriage".So,The phrase "bride of Christ" doen't mean marriage in the proper sense of the word.it's simply using human lang to express spiritual truth.Marriage is not ETERNAL.Did I can hear you say,"That was the OT" Yes but they tell us alot about How God perceives things and He doesn't change Mal 3:6.there is more i would love to write but off to class.
NB:I'm not a celebate and may not be one but I must always stand for the truth.I'm very busy,test here and there and as such I may not reply for a while.
SHALOM!

Don't get selective on the things God called unclean or wrong under the law contained in carnal ordinancies. It is not just sex that was termed as sin or unclean or wrong under the old covenant.

Even shaving your beards was a sin under the law. Also, people with physical deformities are also not allowed to be priests or to minister in God's house. Even menstruating women are not also allowed in the house of God and the congregation of His people.

So even if a woman is celibate and does not have sex, by your standard she would still be unclean in God's eyes because of her menstruation.

So a woman can never be fully clean in the eyes of God, if we define sin and uncleanliness by the standard of the law, which you claim still reveals God's character even now under the new covenant.

Me and you both know that is so untrue now. God does not change but He changes things. And He has changed the definition of what defiles a man now. It is no more what enters a man or woman that defiles them now as it was the case under the law, but what comes out of their heart.

So now under the new covenant, someone with physical deformities can minister in God's house, a menstruating woman can enter into God's presence. Shaving your beards is no more a sin; and sex no longer defiles in the confines of marriage.

Honestly bro, I am really tired now. We are beginning to argue in circles now.

Let's just end it here. It was nice engaging you, doctrinal differences not withstanding.

God bless you.

tyuhd:

I really do think we're going theological and it has to do with whether a Man can resist God's will or Not.Well for me As well might a worm seek to resist the tread of an elephant; as well might a babe step between the railroad tracks and attempt to push back the express train; as well might a child seek to prevent the ocean from rolling, as for a creature to try and resist the outworking of the purpose of the Lord God.If it's a calling it can never be resisted for Acts 9:5 .....it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.God has a will and Man also has a will but who is sovereign?So Yes they're mutually exclusive.
Shalom

Let the scriptures refute your claim for you. And show you that man can choose to reject the call and offer of God.

John 1v5 -He (Jesus) came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Luke 13v34 -O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not (ye refused)!

Romans 10v21 -But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Acts 13v46 -Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

All these scriptures show that God's invitation can be rejected, His offer can be turned down; and His call unto salvation or service can be rescinded by man.

God's will is not always done; and it is not always imposed over man's freewill or right of choice to accept or reject the call.

If God's will is always done, then no one will perish or go to hell. Because God is NOT WILLING that any should perish.

2Peter 3v9 -The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.

1Tim 2v3-4 -For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

God is not willing that ANY will perish but that ALL should repent; and that ALL MEN would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Yet people still perish, and all men are not saved -because God's will is not always done.

It means calling and choice are not mutually exclusive. God's call does not overide our choice. We have the choice to reject God's call. We have the freewill to reject God's will.

Unless ofcourse you believe those who perish, perish because it is the will of God for them to perish.

But let's not digress from celibacy vs marriage into freewill vs predestination. There are threads where that has been discussed and extensively dealt with.

Shalom

ABDULADINO:
No need for greek and semantics. Can the elect's faith be overthrown? Yes from 1 Tim4. U guys quoted. Can the elect lose their salvation?Emphatically NO. Can any elect be in hell?Emphatically NO. Two diff things. The word "elect" means that God chose a person to eternal life before the world began.( 1 peter 1:2).So God knows the end from the beginning.

The churches that Jesus warned in Revelation that if they don't overcome, their names will be blotted out of the book of life; were they not believers and elect too? Is it not by faith in Christ you become an elect of God?

Or you think someone can be a christian, a believer in Christ Jesus, and still not be an elect. Don't come up with heresis just to establish your false doctrine.

Every believer is an elect. So if Jesus warned believers that their names written in the book of life can be blotted out if they do not end as overcomers and keep the faith; then there is no such thing as "once saved always saved".

Names written in the book of life can be blotted out, according to Jesus. How much more prove do you need that salvation and eternal life can be lost other than that?

What does it mean for someones name to be written in the book of life? It means to have eternal life or be ordained unto eternal life.

Then what do you think is the implication of a name in the book of life being blotted out by Jesus? It means to lose eternal life.

And what did the bible say will happen to those whose names are not found in the book of life? They will be cast into the lake of fire.

This stern warning was given by Christ Himself to believers in the churches; members of His body; the elect of God according to grace through faith.

So what are you saying?

Shalom!

tyuhd:

I really think you're getting it wrong.You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.Why are you trying to escape the obvious?saying A implies B but B doesn't imply A. Here is the State of the question:Is celebacy a calling or merely a matter of Human choice?If it's a calling?Why does the scripture makes it a matter of choice?"...some CHOOSE not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.......V12" and not "Some where Called not not marry" infact in the same V12 He tells us,"Let anyone accept this who CAN".You seem to stress,"save they to whom it is given".But what were they given since Christ had made it a matter of choice?I think the NLT captures it accurately,“Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said.“Only those whom God helps".God helped them lived the celebate life after they were determined and resolved by their choice to live the good life.Simple! it wasn't because God called them to it and again Like I've always spoken,if celebacy is a calling then so is marriage-- but this will certainly lead to absurd conclusion.

Who told you calling and choice are mutually exclusive? Does call you and then force you to answer the call? If God calls you, you still reserve the choice to answer the call or not.

So if God calls you into kingdom celibacy, you can choose not to receive it. But you can't even choose to receive kingdom celibacy in the first place unless you were given the charge or calling by God.

So those who can choose to receive and make themselves celibate for the kingdom can receive it because the calling was given them.

And please, Jesus didn't say, "only those God helps after they have determined to be celibate". That's a lie! He said "only those it is given can even receive the saying or charge of celibacy". Please don't add to or twist the words of Christ. He said only those to whom the charge or calling is given can receive kingdom celibacy.

Matthew 19v11-12 -But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

See that? Don't add to or twist Christ's words.

Shalom!

vooks:
One's salvation is guaranteed in Christ in the sense that nothing external to you can pluck you from His side. And this point is behind several verses in Romans and John. But Jesus can't hold you against your will. You can walk away from all thT just like Adam. Satan could not rob him of his fellowship with God, but he certainly could and did incite him to rebel and walk away.

I like to think of the prodigal son. In his father's house he was secure. He opted to stray and out there he was perishing unless he returned back. If he had died out there, his Sonship would have been worthless. This is the fate of those who depart from faith. And this is why it is disastrous.

A common argument I keep on hearing which to me is but a lame excuse to avoid the truth is,the believer who departs from faith was not truly saved. But in this case,why would Holy Spirit warn about these non-genuine believers falling off into apostasy? Are they not doomed already?

You're absolutely correct.

An unbeliever cannot depart from the faith because he was never in the faith. And an unbeliever cannot fall away because he was never standing by faith.

So only someone who once had faith in Christ and no longer does can be said to have departed from the faith or fallen away.

So the warning and statement of those who will depart from the faith or fall away in the endtimes is definitely referring to christians who will become unbelievers

And the consequence of departing from the faith through which we are save is the loss of the salvation.

God bless

5solas:

We do not read of believers losing their salvation in that verse. It is your wrong conclusion despite innumerable verses to the contrary. Please give us the methodology of salvation lose. We are entitled to that. The number of sins we ought to have committed , their severity, how we can be saved again, If Christ gets to die again, e.t.c

So you want the Spirit to say, "Some shall depart from the faith and lose their salvation" for you to know such christians definitly lost their salvation?

Are we not saved by grace through faith? If we depart from the faith through which we are saved, do we still stay saved? Ofcourse not!

Scripture says we are made overcomers by faith.

1John 5v4 -...and this the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

And we end as overcomers by keeping the faith unto the end.

The Holy Spirit told Paul that some christians will not keep the faith unto the end; they will depart from the faith.

1Timothy 4v1 - Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times SOME SHALL DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.

Now, christians that the Holy Spirit said will depart from the faith will not end as overcomers.

And what will happen to christians who depart from the faith and don't end as overcomers?

According to Jesus, christians who depart from the faith and don't end as overcomers will have their names blotted out of the book of life;

Revelation 3v5 -He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in whote raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before His angels.

And they will be hurt of the second death (the lake of fire);

Revelation 2v11 -...He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

So according to the Holy Spirit; a christian can depart from the faith. And according to Jesus such a christian will end up in the lake of fire just like every other unbeliever.

Revelation 20v15 -And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

So yes, salvation can be lost. Once a believer is not automatic always a believer. And once an overcomer is not automatic always an overcomer.

Faith can be departed from. And salvation will be lost by those who depart from the faith.

Shalom

ABDULADINO:
It means there is a possibility of having your faith wrecked by false teachers,persecution or temptations.Hymenaeus and philetus overthrew the faith of some by teaching the resurrection had already come and gone. BUT God still knew those who were His, which is the real issue of eternal life anyway.(2 tim 2:15-19).

The word "depart from" used in 1Tim 4v1 is the greek "aphistemi"; and it means, "to leave, to abandon, to get away from, to dissociate from"

It is the same word used in,

Luke 13v27 -But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me (aphistemi), all ye workers of iniquity.

And also here;

Hebrew 3v12 -Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from (aphistemi) the living God.

You see;

When you depart from the faith, it doesn't just mean your faith is wrecked or damaged or broken; it means you left the faith, you abandoned the faith -you became an unbeliever.

Let me ask you; Can you become an unbeliever and still remain a christian? Can you depart from the faith through which we are saved and still be saved?

Emphatically NO! You can't depart from the faith through which we are saved and still keep the salvation.

Those christians that the Holy Spirit said will depart from the faith in the last days definitely lost the salvation.

Shalom!

tyuhd:

So I still insist that Celebacy is way way superior to marriage.See what Scriptures say in same chapter 1 Corinthians 7:9,32-34 An unmarried man can spend his time doing the Lord’s work and thinking how to please him. But a married man has to think about his earthly responsibilities and how to please his wife. His interests are divided. In the same way, a woman who is no longer married or has never been married can be devoted to the Lord and HOLY IN BODY AND SPIRIT.But a married woman has to think about her earthly responsibilities and how to please her husband.
It is very obvious from this verse that THE UNMARRIED HAVE A MEASURE OF HOLINESS THAT THE MARRIED DO NOT HAVE BY VIRTUE OF STATUS and like rev14vs11 has said,there is a sense in which SEX MAKES EVEN A SAINT LESS HOLY.
SHALOM.

About sex making a saint less holy. Let me quote the scripture you're refering to in full:

Rev 14v3-4 -And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

These 144,000 are not necessarily literal virgins as if they are not married. Virginity is used contextually in scripture when refering to the purity and sanctification of the church or the people of God. When God's people are redeemed from the world and her ways, and set apart unto Christ; they become "virgins".

Look at this verse:

2Cor 11v2 -For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

These Corinthians are not literal virgins either. God's people that are redeemed from the world and her ways and set apart unto Christ are as a chaste virgin. This is the context in which these 144,000 are called virgins. They are not literal virgins as if not married. They are virgins in the context of being redeemed from the earth and its evil ways.

Verse 3 makes that context very clear;

Rev 14v3 -...the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.

And also, the "women" that these 144,000 didn't defile themselves with are not literal women. The women are Babylon and her daugthers. Remember Babylon is called the Mother of Harlots.

Rev 17v5 -And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Babylon is the satan-controlled system of this world; and her daughters are the satan-controlled religious systems, political systems, and economic systems of this world.

These are the "women" that these 144,000 did not defile themselves with -Babylon and her harlot daughters (the world system and her anti-Christ religions, politics and economies).

This is the context in which this 144,000 are called "virgins" and "were not defile with women".

Literal marriage and literal sex with your spouse is not a sin and it does not defile in any way. And the scriptures make that clear.

Hebrews 13v4 - Marriage is honourable in ALL, and the bed UNDEFILED: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

The bed of sex in marriage is undefiled. You don't get defiled having literal sex with your partner within the covenant of marriage.

Shalom.