toldailytopic: Once in heaven, will you have the option to leave?

[Ps82]

There is no leaving until you have mastered harp 101.

Whew! Now, I know for sure I will have "eternal life" with my LORD.

 

[sky.]

I won't want to leave but I won't mind if I'm in charge of cleaning those pearly gates.

 

[Stripe]

:thumb:

 

[Stripe]

:thumb:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

:up:

 

[Nick M]

The glorified body is irreversible/unconditional/unilateral since it is a metaphysical/ontological change that God will not reverse. Salvation is not metaphysical (confusion of categories on your part), but a reciprocal love relationship that is conditional and involving two parties. As in marriage, it is reversible (divorce is possible; analogies can be used both ways, so are limited). Spiritual rebirth is relational, not ontological like physical birth (so the unborn or unparent argument is lame).

 

[john w]

The glorified body is irreversible/unconditional/unilateral since it is a metaphysical/ontological change that God will not reverse. Salvation is not metaphysical (confusion of categories on your part), but a reciprocal love relationship that is conditional and involving two parties. As in marriage, it is reversible (divorce is possible; analogies can be used both ways, so are limited). Spiritual rebirth is relational, not ontological like physical birth (so the unborn or unparent argument is lame).

My view stands up to Greek exegesis and context, but yours does not. Tell us the significance of the imperfect tense (was), logos (historical background; Johannine use), pros/with, anarthrous/qualitative, whether Colwell's rule applies or not, etc.

We are not under your so-called multiple gospels theory so it is a moot point. It is an insult to the majority of true believers and to the Holy Spirit to say only a handful of modern MAD-types understand the ark and the annointing or experience true liberty. My experience is that you guys are sectish and more legalistic than the rest of us.

It is nonsense to say you quote and I interpret. We all interpret verses that we quote (JWs mistranslate 'a god', something more sinister). Every cult quotes the same Bible verses, but twists the interpretations.

You have no exegetical basis for your nonsense, but simply beg the question. MAD has issues with wrong paradigms. Proof texts out of context are used to support the preconceived idea (eisegesis) rather than exegesis and all relevant verses and right paradigms/principles leading to right conclusions (wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions).You need to make an exegetical vs anecdotal case.Your position is rationalism, naturalism, unbelief, not biblical. Sheer eisegesis on your part. You are ignorant of exegesis of Genesis-Revelation. This is not exegesis, just rambling of an unbiblical view. Put the verses in context (go verse by verse) for a proper understanding. I have done it here before, but it would probably be a waste of time with you. Your fundie ignorance/arrogance is ridiculous.

Who is your pastor?

What was the topic, again?

etc.

 

[patrick jane]

Yes. That's why we'll be reduced in size to be little fat babies with big wings, so we can fly at will from cloud to cloud playing our ten stringed harps.

:chuckle:

 

[patrick jane]

I can only go where Christ goes, I'm part of his Body.

And so we will be with the Lord forever

1 Thessalonians 4:17 KJV -

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Salvation is not metaphysical (confusion of categories on your part), but a reciprocal love relationship that is conditional and involving two parties. As in marriage, it is reversible (divorce is possible; analogies can be used both ways, so are limited). Spiritual rebirth is relational, not ontological like physical birth (so the unborn or unparent argument is lame).

Once a person believes he receives eternal life and the Lord Jesus says that those to whom He gives eternal life shall never perish.

How simple can it be?

 

[Nick M]

Once a person believes he receives eternal life and the Lord Jesus says that those to whom He gives eternal life shall never perish.

How simple can it be?

You have been around long enough. I hope you recognize when I was mocking/quoting godrulz. And all the other worker bees.

 

[patrick jane]

My view stands up to Greek exegesis and context, but yours does not. Tell us the significance of the imperfect tense (was), logos (historical background; Johannine use), pros/with, anarthrous/qualitative, whether Colwell's rule applies or not, etc.

We are not under your so-called multiple gospels theory so it is a moot point. It is an insult to the majority of true believers and to the Holy Spirit to say only a handful of modern MAD-types understand the ark and the annointing or experience true liberty. My experience is that you guys are sectish and more legalistic than the rest of us.

It is nonsense to say you quote and I interpret. We all interpret verses that we quote (JWs mistranslate 'a god', something more sinister). Every cult quotes the same Bible verses, but twists the interpretations.

You have no exegetical basis for your nonsense, but simply beg the question. MAD has issues with wrong paradigms. Proof texts out of context are used to support the preconceived idea (eisegesis) rather than exegesis and all relevant verses and right paradigms/principles leading to right conclusions (wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions).You need to make an exegetical vs anecdotal case.Your position is rationalism, naturalism, unbelief, not biblical. Sheer eisegesis on your part. You are ignorant of exegesis of Genesis-Revelation. This is not exegesis, just rambling of an unbiblical view. Put the verses in context (go verse by verse) for a proper understanding. I have done it here before, but it would probably be a waste of time with you. Your fundie ignorance/arrogance is ridiculous.

Who is your pastor?

What was the topic, again?

etc.

:rotfl: