Recent Posts

This thread brings back some old memories of when I attended State Churches. When I was with the Baptist who, believe in security of the believer, I would bring up scriptures that seem to indicate that salvation can be lost. When with those who believe you can loose your salvation, I would bring up scriptures that seem to indicate that salvation can’t be lost. In the end, I discovered that both positions have some truth and falsehood in them.


My current understanding of this issue is that servants are not secure in their salvation as seen in the parable of the unmerciful servant who had received forgiveness of his debt but was then cast out because he didn’t have mercy on his fellow servant. Or in the parable of the talents in which the last servant loses his talent. These would be those who have tasted the good word but then fall away sealing their fate of being cast out.

Sons on the other hand are secure in their salvation being sealed and holding the earnest of the spirit in our hearts. Jesus taught no parable in which a son is cast out. A son may stray but Jesus is faithful and just to forgive and cleanse us.

Can one move from servant to son?

Prov. 29:21 He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son at the length.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

If you have received Jesus, you have been given the power to become the son of God and thus be secure in your salvation which he perfected. The seed that falls on good ground is never in danger of being rooted up even though tares are sown among them.

All that God created was good, we say; but it is worth noting that God didn’t say that all He created was good. When God created the firmament, separating the waters below from the waters above (Genesis 1:6-8), He didn’t say that it was good. He sort of skipped that one. But then, He knew what that water was for: in six short chapters He would wash the sins of the world way with the great flood. And when created mankind (Genesis 1:26-27), He did not say that it was good. He knew the pain that He, Himself must endure because of their creation; yet He knew that all of it: the totality of the plan and order of this creation was indeed very good.

I don’t think that I can agree with the beginning of this thread. It appears as though God is being blamed for allowing sin to exist by leaving room for it during creation. This is not much different than when Adam said “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Adam blamed God for giving him the woman who caused him to eat of the tree. In this thread God is “blamed” for not totally removing darkness/sin during creation. If the night is sin then how could Paul say in Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:. Sin did on have room on earth before Adam fell. It entered or gained a foot hold when Adam disobeyed God.

If I let my three year old hold a baby chick after warning him not to squeeze it, because it would heart the chick, can you blame me for the child crying, when I take the chick away from him for squeezing it? My actions are predicated upon what the child does. He may do as he pleases, but if he displeases me then he suffers the consequence of having the chick taken away, which was my predetermined action before handing him the chick.



Jesus answered many questions with a question of his own. My question of the agnostic that would pose the above question is: “How can you classify any thing as being evil, when every thing exists by chance? How can rape or murder be evil, when the murderer or rapist gains by their actions?”

I think you have answered the Agnostic according to his folly. And have become like him because you too appear to blame God for the evil in the world.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

There is a movement that uses the above scripture to teach Christians that they should not borrow money. In fact I know people who have sold their homes, which they were making payments on, to “get out of debt”. In my view, this movement is causing their adherents to move from servants (bound for a certain time) to slaves (bond for life). There is an end to payments but not rent. Am I missing the meaning of Romans 13:8? Is it telling me that I can’t borrow or lend money? If so please explain the following:

Deut 15:7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
8 But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.


At the other end of the spectrum on this issue is the thought that Jesus did away with the usury laws when he said:

Matt 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

On the contrary the law allows charging non-brothers usury.

Deut 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

I am a little confused. I seen ****/**** on the thread about “terms you may see on this board”. Is that what I should avoid or is it the all capital letter English translation that I should avoid? I am not part of the “Sacred Name” movement that rule #9 refers to. That was the first time I ever heard of it when I read the rule.

What I am curious about is why being able to read/speak Hebrew is so important. There are so many examples of people in the Bible who knew the language/culture of Hebrew, but it was no advantage to them as they fell away or missed the mark of God’s laws in spite of being totally immersed in the Language/Culture of the Hebrews. Th

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Does searching the scriptures have to be done in Hebrew or can they be translated to other languages? Muslims say that the Koran can only be understood in its’ original language. Translations can not convey its’ meaning. Must one know Hebrew to know God?

I have a question about Hebrew. Why is it that most Messianic people seem compelled to study God in the Hebrew language? I know a little Hebrew and a little Greek. The little Hebrew runs a clothing store and the little Greek runs a restaurant. Really there are only two languages. English and everything else is Greek to me. On a serious note, why is it wrong to say LORD? Why must it be YHWH/YHVH? LORD does seem to be the most accurate English word for conveying the meaning of YHVH/YHWH. If the use of “LORD” is wrong because it is not an accurate translation, wouldn’t it be wrong to use the English letters “YHVH/YHWH” as a transliteration of the Hebrew letters?

I speak and read English. If I come to the same conclusions about God as those who know some Hebrew or Greek and can convey those conclusions to other English speaking people who have no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, where am I profited to study Hebrew? I don’t think there is anything wrong with knowing Hebrew, Greek or any other language if you have the opportunity to interact with people who use the language as their native tongue.

Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Can it not be inferred from this verse that God wants everyone to understand him in his own language?

I Cor. 14:5 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, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Shouldn’t every language be interpreted into the language of the local assembly so that the church may receive edification?

Psalms19:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

If the stars can be understood to glorify God in any language, shouldn’t God be understood in any language?

Who created languages and why did He do it? Was it not God who created languages because when everyone was of a single language they conspired together to worship God the wrong way?

Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

If Hebrew is the only language that God can be understood in, why must God give those who speak Hebrew a pure language?

Sorry, for the long post. But these are some of my thoughts on Hebrew. And no one that I know personally has been able to answer them in a way that has convinced me of the need to study Hebrew. Instead some have just chosen to distance themselves from me.

Forgive me if I digress, but here are some more of my thoughts on this subject.

Isa 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

I have had friends use this text as proof that polygyny is good. But from the context it appears to be a curse. The previous two verses informing us that the men had fallen by the sword. So it would appear to me if you or your nation is in a situation of having too few men for the number of women, polygyny is not a way to secure the blessings of God but rather a continuation of his wrath. An example of this would be Lot’s two daughters taking hold of him to take away their reproach (not having children). Dare we say that Lot was showing compassion to his daughters by giving them seed. God forbid.

Now I would like to turn our attention to three examples of levirate marriage.

Gen 38:6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
11 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.

It appears clear that both Onan and Shelah were unmarried when faced with performing the Levirate marriage. In these cases, the levirate marriage was necessitated by wickedness on the part of Er and Onan.

Ruth 4:5 Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
6 And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.

The nearer kinsman was going to redeem the land until he found out that he had to also take on a wife that would some how mare his own inheritance. Notice he didn’t say that he did not want to but that he could not do it. The only way that I can think of it marring his inheritance is if Ruth had the first born son. So he declines the marriage possibly on the grounds that he already has a wife with whom he wants his inheritance to pass. Boaz takes Ruth to wife. We are not told if he is married but he is not worried about marring his inheritance. Ruth’s son, Obed, does become the primary offspring of Boaz. It appears as though Ruth is his only wife.

Mark 12:18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

Here the Sadducees are trying to use the levirate marriage law to prove something unscriptural.
Like wise those who would use the levirate marriage law to justify polygyny is using the levirate marriage law unlawfully.