Elon, North Carolina
II Peter 3:15-16 says, “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction”.
The Apostle Peter poked some fun at the Apostle Paul in one of his epistles. Peter was a simple fisherman. Paul was a deep thinker, a great theologian. Peter said that some things in Paul’s epistles were “hard to understand”.
It is pretty bad when some of your fellow apostles do not even understand what you are writing because it is too deep for them. Today, we will be looking at two statements by the Apostle Paul which are very difficult to understand.
Last week, we looked at several lessons on death and resurrection in the last section. We saw that death is unnatural, universal, representative, reversible and temporary.
We saw that Jesus was the first fruits, the first to be raised from the dead with a glorified body and we are the later fruits. We saw that the Bible teaches that everyone who dies will be raised from the dead (though not all at the same time) and that Jesus will be the one to raise people from the dead.
Today, we will be looking at some very deep doctrines. Some may be Christians all their life and never study these doctrines. We are looking at them because we are going through the Book of I Corinthians. To start off, I want to go back to some of those same verses to look at what Paul believed about the end times. What was Paul’s eschatology?
Paul gives a brief timetable of future events. He doesn’t list everything. There is no mention of the tribulation but notice he lists six events that go from 33 AD until the eternal state. What is Paul’s brief timetable of future events?
Paul’s Timetable of Future Events
1. Christ, the first Fruits, is raised from the dead (15:20).
2. The resurrection of Christians who died, the later fruits (15:23).
3. The Second Coming of Christ (15:23).
4. Jesus rules on earth in the Millennial Kingdom (15:25).
5. All enemies are destroyed – death, Satan, sin (15:24, 26).
6. The Son will be subject to God the Father (15:28) in the eternal state.
1. Does this mean that Jesus stops ruling and turns everything over to the Father?
I Corinthians 15:25 seems to say this. “For he must reign UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet”. If you just read this passage, you might think that Jesus will stop ruling and turn everything over to the Father.
Once all of his enemies have been defeated, his ruling may take a different form but he will still rule. He will not rule as a conquering King but will continue to rule as the prince of Peace. The form of his rule will change but Jesus will continue to rule. How do we know this?
- Luke 1:33 says that Jesus will reign FOREVER (a quotation of Isaiah 9:7).
- Luke 1:33 also says His kingdom will NEVER end (Luke 1:33).
- Other passages say that Christ’s kingdom will be ETERNAL (II Peter 1:11; Daniel 7:14, 27).
- God says that Christ’s throne will last FOREVER AND EVER (Hebrews 1:8). In fact, Revelation 22 mentions the throne of God and the lamb in the New Jerusalem (22:1, 3).
Revelation 22:3 says that Christ’s servants will serve him for all eternity. So Christ will continue to rule in eternity but he will rule under the authority of the Father. He will NOT reign independently of the Father. He reigns for the purpose of glorifying the Father (cf. Philippians 2:9-11). That is exactly what he did when he was on earth.
2. How can Jesus be equal to the Father in power and authority and be subject to the Father?
I Corinthians 15:28 says, “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him”. That is very easy to answer. I would make several points.
First, you can have submission and equality at the same time.
Husbands and wives are equal but one is supposed to be subject to the other. In fact, the same Greek word is used that is used here (ύποτάάσω) is used of wives submitting to their husbands (Ephesians 5:25).
The same Greek word is also used in Luke 2:51. Jesus was subject to his parents but was not inferior to his parents.
Second, this submission of the Son to the Father is functional, not ontological or metaphysical. It does NOT refer to nature or essence but to office or position.
Third, this submission of the Son to the Father is voluntary, not involuntary subjection. He was not coerced or forced by the Father to submit. He submitted Himself to the Father.
Baptism for the Dead
In 15:29 we come to a rather strange verse. The verse says, If the dead will not be raised, what point is there in people being baptized for those who are dead? Why do it unless the dead will someday rise again? There is one group of people today who believe in this today.
Today, this is a Mormon rite performed in Mormon temples. They baptized deceased ancestors. Mormons believe that people who die can be baptized by proxy and given the chance to accept the gospel after death. Spirits cannot be baptized in water. It must be done by proxy.
The reason Mormons do so much genealogical study is so that they can do proxy baptisms. This is a very big deal to them. It is one of the most important things they believe that they can do. How did this doctrine begin?
You might be surprised but the Book of Mormon (1830) does not say anything about baptism of the dead. It began in 1841 based on a supposed revelation that Joseph Smith received.
Is this a biblical doctrine? How do we answer the Mormons? It is actually very easy. There are several major problems with the Mormon view and several assumptions that they make. Whenever you encounter a strange interpretation, you might stop and think about the assumptions it makes.
Problems with the Mormon Interpretation
1. It builds a major doctrine of their faith on one verse of Scripture.
Now if the Bible says something only one time it is true. God does NOT have to say something one hundred and fifty times for it to be true. However, you should NEVER base a major doctrine of faith on just one passage of Scripture.
Any true doctrine of God will be found in many places in the Bible. There is only one verse in the Bible that talks about baptism of the dead. This is a problem of methodology.
2. There is another problem of methodology.
Another rule of biblical interpretation is that you should NEVER base theology or doctrine on obscure passages. This is an obscure verse. No one knows exactly what it means. There are forty different interpretations of the passage.
There are very few passages in the Bible that we simply do not know what it means but this is one of them. Most of the Bible is clear but this passage is not. We should never use an obscure passage to contradict a plain passage of Scripture (because the Bible does not contradict itself) but that is exactly what cults do.
3. It is based on the assumption have you have to be baptized to be saved.
That is why the Mormons do this. The assumption is that if you die unbaptized you cannot be saved. Is baptism essential for salvation? No. If that was the case, then the thief on the cross never went to heaven. Baptism is important. It is a command. If you are not baptized, you are disobedient to a clear command of Scripture but baptism is not what saves you.
There are many who believe that you do have to be baptized to be saved, especially people who are members of the Church of Christ, and they have verses that they use. Some of them have some fairly strong arguments. I want to look at one of those verses.
Mark 16:16 and Baptismal Regeneration
What does the verse say? “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”. What arguments from the text supports the idea of baptismal regeneration?
1) Most Baptists believe that “He who believes will be saved” but that is not what the verse says. It says, “He who believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved”. Who is the person that Jesus says will be saved?
Not just the person who believes but the person who believes AND is baptized. Note the conjunction “and” in the verse. It means not just one thing but an additional thing as well. The first argument is that faith and baptism are terms of salvation.
2) We also describe baptism as the first step after salvation but they would point out that the order is faith, baptism and then salvation. Baptism precedes salvation. It does not follow it.
What do you think of this argument? Is it valid? It sounds like a strong argument but there are several problems.
First, it is a logical fallacy.
The statement “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” is a true statement. The question is whether we can turn the statement around to say, “Whoever does not believe and is not baptized will not be saved”. We cannot.
It is a logical fallacy (negative inference fallacy or denying the antecedent). It is called the fallacy of modus tollens in Latin. It takes the logical form.
If A then B.
Therefore, not B.
It would be like saying, “If a man lives in North Carolina, he lives in the United States. If he does not live in North Carolina, he does not live in the Unites States”. The first statement is true.
The second statement may or may not be true. He may be a resident of Florida or California and still be in the US. The Bible says if you do not believe you will be condemned (Mark 16:16b). Nowhere does it say, “If you are not baptized, you will be condemned”.
Second, baptism precedes salvation in the passage because final salvation is in view.
We know that from the future tense of the verb and because of the opposite of being saved is being condemned. So what is Mark 16:16 saying? Baptism was an outward symbol of faith. The two always went together but it was a symbol. F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) was a very famous biblical scholar. He lived in England.
He wrote over forty books. He died over twenty years ago. I have a personal letter from F.F. Bruce written over twenty-five years ago. In that letter, Bruce paraphrases this verse: “He who believes (belief being normally attested outwardly in baptism) will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned”.
4. It is based on the assumption that people will get a second chance.
If they did not believe the gospel on earth, they can believe it in the next life. That is unbiblical. The Bible teaches that NOW is the day of salvation (II Corinthians 6:2). It says that “it is appointed unto man once to die and after this THE JUDGMENT” (Hebrews 9:27).
We also have the account in Luke 16 of the rich man who went to Hades. He wanted a second chance but was not given one. If people who suffer in the next life are given a second chance, that would have been the perfect time to say so.
One passage they use is I Peter 3:18-20. After his death Jesus made proclamation to the spirits in prison. We are not quite sure if he preached to human spirits or angelic spirits (i.e., fallen angels) but it was probably the latter. There is only one time in the NT where the word “spirits” refers to people (Hebrews 12:23), every other time, it refers to angels.
After his death, Jesus preached to fallen angels who were imprisoned. The text does NOT say that he preached the gospel to them or that anyone got saved, just that proclamation was made. Were these spirits given a second chance? II Peter 2 makes clear that these spirits are held in chains until the final judgment (2:4-5, 9).
5. It is based on the assumption that the baptism of the living person is credited to the dead person.
The Bible teaches that salvation is a personal matter. That is clear from Ezekiel 18:20. Each person is accountable before God for His own life. No one can be saved for you, Romans 14:12 says, “Each of us will give an account of himself to God”.
No one can do it for us. Wives cannot believe for their husbands. Parents cannot repent for their kids. We cannot be baptized for our ancestors. That is one of the problems with infant baptism. Little infants are baptized on the basis of the faith of the parents. That is not biblical.
I know I come from a Mormon background but I don’t believe that you can be baptized for the dead or that you get another chance after death, Don’t believe it at all. though I have always believed that baptism is a requirement of salvation because of that passage of scripture.
I mean just like repenting is a requirement, isn’t it?
I know it dose not say that whoever is not baptized is condemned as you pointed out, but I always took it to mean that if you are baptized and don’t believe, baptism isn’t enough alone to save you. Not that you didn’t have to be baptized.
I do have some thoughts. This is a very controversial topic. Heated debates have taken place over it. I believe that the only condition of salvation is repentance and faith. They go together. However, I believe that baptism is a command and it is the way to publicly show your faith to the world. One of the main reasons that I do NOT believe that baptism is essential to salvation is that The Gospel of John says that salvation is by belief alone. It does not just say this once but repeatedly. You know John 3:16 (“whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”). If baptism were a condition of salvation, none of these statements in John would be true. I go into this topic in a little more detail in my comments on Acts 2:38. You can find my comments in the following post:
There are many things that come across as contradictions in scripture, I know that confuses people a lot! It does me I know. And sometimes its not easy to resolve these issues, Where the Lord tells us not to eat food with blood in it and not eating foods that hadn’t been grown for a couple or a few growing cycles, I know that isn’t an exact quote, but it is with the scripture that tells us not to get tattoos, but later in the bible he tells us we can eat these things if I am not mistaken, so that was a contradiction that was fairly easy to resolve, but not all are as easy to understand, like baptism or even that scripture that tells us that faith without works is dead even though you cant work your way into heaven, that scripture almost makes it sound like faith alone wont save you but yet that isn’t was most including myself have been told to believe.
Now I don’t read my bible like I should I will admit to that, but I do know that in Revelations if I am not mistaken it talks about our rewards in heaven and the more you do for the lord the more rewards you receive correct? Well I figured that baptism and these ‘works’ while they might not be required for salvation maybe they count towards our rewards. That is how I resolve the contradiction. Though I have no clue if I am correct.
Others say that the ‘works’ will be proof of our salvation, though as someone who know people with great faith who still struggle with sin and commit the same one many times, I don’t know what type of changes people are expecting to see.
You say “That is how I resolve the contradiction. Though I have no clue if I am correct”. You are absolutely correct. Good works are NOT a condition of salvation. Salvation CANNOT be earned. It is a GIFT to be received. However, the Bible does teach that we will be rewarded in heaven for good works done on earth. It also clearly teaches that a genuinely saved person will show good works. As Jesus put it, “A good tree will bring forth good fruit. A bad tree brings forth bad fruit.”
Most of the contradictions you mentioned have resolutions if you look for them but each one is different. James says that faith without works is dead. He is NOT saying that faith PLUS works saves people. He is saying that Faith without works is evidence of false faith. True faith always gives evidence of works. As Martin Luther once said, “It is faith alone that saves but the faith that saves is never alone”.
If you believe that James teaches that works are a condition of salvation (the view of the Roman Catholic Church), then Paul and James DIRECTLY contradict one another, because Paul says the exact opposite in his epistles.
Some food laws were rescinded. For example, in the OT people were not supposed to eat pork but all meats are said to be clean in the NT. The prohibition against blood, however, is in the OT and the NT. I do not believe that one has been abolished. Hope this helps. Hope I did not confuse you.
I had a thought it kind of distrubs me and I dont know why I thought of it. And you probably have a post about this but the Bible says that blief is all we need/ But isnt repentence a requirement as well. I man if it wasant a requrie ment of salvation, then people who believe in the lord who are gay, (for lack of a better example) would still be saved even if they didnt repent of being in a homosexual relationship. Now as I have addmitted I dont real my bible like I should. But if it is mentioned in the bible that we need only believe to be saved then says we need to repent also somewhener else in the bible isnt that also a contradiction?
as a side note I thought the one about blood was about eating meats. If not what was it refearing to? I mean does it mean my steak cant be rare or that I cant go all vampire on someone.
You said, “But isnt repentence a requirement as well. I man if it wasnt a requirement of salvation, then people who believe in the lord who are gay, (for lack of a better example) would still be saved even if they didnt repent of being in a homosexual relationship”.
You are absoltuely right that you cannot just believe and continue in a life of gross sin (whatever form that takes). Salvation can still said to be “by faith alone” if you have the correct definition of faith. Bibilical faith is not just intellectual. it is not just academic and mental. It is something that changes your whole life.
If someone’s faith does not result in a changed life, he or she does not have saving faith but a false faith. Many passages in the Bible speak of a false faith. James, for instance, speaks of a “dead faith.”
okay so I do have another question and I am a little confused about it, the bible tells us to believe to be saved, but then latter tells us we also need to repent right? isnt that a contradiction? If repentence wasnt a requirement then people who live a homosexual life and believe wouldnt need to repent to be saved. But if I am not mistaken when the bible tells us we need to blieve to have everlasting life, it dosent tell us we need to repent does it? Because if if mentiones repentence at a different time then that would make it a contradiction would it not?
There are two ways to look at this. Some see repentance and faith as separate consitions. I see them as two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot come to Jesus as a Savior unless you first believe that you are a sinner in need of a Savior. That is where repentance comes in. You cannot get saved unless you first see your need. Paul describes the gospel as “repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ”.
The two ideas definitely go together. Faith without repentance results in just an intellectual or mental faith without a changed life. It results in someone who says, “I believe in Jesus but I am still going to continue to live in sin”. That is the sign of a person who is not saved. Repentance without faith is just humanistic moral advancement apart from Christ.
I realize my writing may be hard to follow since I write like I talk but here we go.
I see what you are saying, though I would say I am one of the people who see them as two separate things since they were not initially mentioned together in john 3, this may not be true but you would think that all the things required to be saved would always be mentioned together. Being mentioned at a different time makes it seam like a separate thing or contradiction. Kind of like he was saying ‘o ya by the way you have to do this to’ kind of like an after thought. That’s why I always thought that baptism was a requirement also, I thought well just because it wasn’t mentioned with belief all the time, didn’t mean it isn’t a requirement.
However, thinking of them as 2 different things, and if that does cause you to wonder what other requirements there may be like I did, that does lead some people to do things like go on a biblical egg hunt to find the requirements to salvation, they make a list of things to do and not do. Don’t lie, steal, cheat, fornicate, masturbate, commit adultery, get drunk, or high, don’t cuss (though I am not sure of cussing is one of them I personally cuss all the time) don’t get a tattoo, don’t cut yourself (thought I see intentional cutting as more of a sickness than anything)
If we considered them 2 sides of the same coin as you put it, then people wouldn’t go on such a search. And I suppose repentance does kind of take care of the entire list I just gave doesn’t it?
I don’t want it to come across like I am arguing with ya I’m not really, Just trying to wrap my head around this. It really bothers me for some reason.
I see your point. You can see them as separate conditions but that does lead to a little bit or a problem. In passage after passage in John, we are told explicitly that theose who believe will have eternal life (3:16). Those who believe will not come into judgment (5:24). Those who believe will not be condemned (3:18). It says it repeatedly. If there are ten other conditions of salvation, then John 3:16 is false. It would be an error. Someone could believe with all of their heart and still perish (contrary to John 3:16) if they do not keep the other nine conditions. I take the many statements in the Gospel of John at face value but I see how many could take the other viewpoint. We can still look at what the Bible says about all of the topics you mentioned but that does not necessarily mean that they are conditions of salvation. God wants us to go to church but church attendance is not a condition of salvation.
Sorry I didn’t notice that you had answered both posts, and sorry again about there being 2, I didn’t notice my first one had posted so I made the second one. I’m a dunce LOL!
No problem whatsoever. Enjoy talking to you.
People use the belief that the bible cant contradicti its self to explain a lot of things. But does the bible actually say it cant contradict its self? Or is that a belief that people came up with to explain why some things dont alwayse make since in the bible?
It is not a belief that people came up to explain contraditions. It is a doctrine explicitly taught in Scripture. The Bible claims to be inspired. I go into this in detail at http://www.elonsmallgroup.com/inspiration-of-the-bible/. Of course, other books also claim to be inspired. The Koran claims to be inspired but Jesus also taught that the Bible in inspired. I have another teaching on that topic at http://www.elonsmallgroup.com/jesus-view-of-biblical-inspiration/. If you reject the idea that the Bible is inspired, you also have to say that Jesus was wrong but check out those two lessons to learn more about this topic.
I know I should wait for your response to my last . I honestly do try to not pile them up on you, but I did have a question and I am afraid I will forget to ask it. Um…well was John written to cover the time when Jesus was on earth? If so would that maybe mean that repentance was a requirement after Jesus ascended?
I mean don’t get me wrong I do think that repentance is a requirement. But even so I still cant understand why else it isn’t mentioned with believing in John unless it wasn’t a requirement at first. After all a lot of things changed in the way we are saved after Jesus was crucified. People didn’t need animal sacrifices anymore for example. right?
And this is kind of a branch off of this topic yet still related to it. Isn’t the Holy Spirits job to bring us to repent? Among other things of cores. And if they were 2 different things and not just 2 sides of the same coin. would that really change how we interpret what some passages mean?
You write “Was John written to cover the time when Jesus was on earth? If so would that maybe mean that repentance was a requirement after Jesus ascended?”. The answer is, I don’t think so. Here’s why. John was written towards the end of the first century, according to most scholars. All of the four Gospels were written by 100 AD.
Therefore, John was writing to people who lived AFTER Jesus died. Furthermore, the stated purpose of the book is to explain HOW you get saved. he says he wrote the book to tell people how to get eternal life (20:31). He wrote it so that people in his day might believe and by believing have life in Jesus’ name, according to John 20:31. It would be a big problem if that is not the way that you get eternal life.
Yes, it is Spirit who draws people to Christ. I did not get the question related to that. What exactly were you asking?
“Yes, it is Spirit who draws people to Christ. I did not get the question related to that. What exactly were you asking?” Honestly the thought occured to me that it it were not a requrement to be saved, why would one the HS jobs be to draw people to repent. If drawing people to repent and drawing people to christ are the same thing that is.
Okay so you said that “Salvation can still said to be “by faith alone” if you have the correct definition of faith. Bibilical faith is not just intellectual. it is not just academic and mental. It is something that changes your whole life. ” So what is the biblical deffinition of faith? Does the word have a different meaning in Hebrew or Greek than it does today?
I mean what lead you to believe that faith and repentence are not 2 different things?
Like I said I do believe it to be a condition of salvation, it just feels like a contradiction. Maby my concept of what makes something a contradiction is wrong. I figured it to be a contradiction since it wasnt mentioned in john right along with belief, would that make it a contradiction?
Thanks again for all of your help
It is not a different word for faith. It is just PISTIS in Greek but in Greek, as in English, we can use the word in a lot of different ways. Sometimes we can use faith as just intellectual, like we believe that George Washington was the first President. Saving faith in the Bible involves much more than that. It radically transforms a person’s entire life.
It would be a contradiction (answering your second question) because if you believe but do not repent, you would not have eternal life and John 3:16 would be wrong. This is true if the two are completely separate conditions of salvation. Not sure if this helps.
Wait a second……Let me ask this. Is repentence something that comes after belief? Is it a result of faith like ‘works’ are?
Usually it comes before faith. The Bible says “repent and believe” (Mark 1:15). It says “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). In no passage, does it say “believe and repent’ or “be baptized and repent” to my knowledge.
What do you mean by “Salvation can still said to be “by faith alone” if you have the correct definition of faith. Bibilical faith is not just intellectual. it is not just academic and mental. It is something that changes your whole life. ”
I had thought maby that repentence was one of the works, that didnt count for salvation but our rewardsd in heaven but that would mean that anyone could sin and get away with out wouldnt it.
No. Repentance is a prerequisite to salvation. You cannot get saved without it. It is not a good work that God rewards people for after salvation but a condition before salvation. Salvation can still be “by faith alone” if repentance is seen as just the other side of faith and not something completley unrelated. Not sure if I answered your questiion
So are we to say that there not the same thing but that we cant have one without the other, Like an ink pin you have the cylinder that we hold in our hand and then the ink we put in it, but yet a pin is considered one single thing?
That is how I understand it. Faith and repentance are difference concepts. They are not synonyms perse but are related. Biblical faith has to have some repentance and biblical repentance to salvation will have faith as well.
I just don’t get it sorry. O well no big deal.
I apologize too for not doing a better job of explaining it.
You don’t have anything to apologize for. I don’t understand things very well, I have always been that way. If I don’t get it the first time then I probably wont. Sometimes I can get it if its explained differently but honestly when you have a conversation online there is only so much you can convay. I mean you can write the words you would say if you were talking to a person, but even then a lot is lost in translation just by not hearing the tone of voice even. So its really not your fault at all.
I have just never herd of the belief that belief/faith and repentance as being one and the same. Honestly before I asked about it, I had never thought of them being contradicted. It just randomly occurred to me. But I don’t remember ever reading a scripture saying that they were connected, I actually don’t even remember that many scriptures that mention them at the same time to be honest. I mean there are some scripture telling us to believe and repent yes, but there is also scripture telling us to repent and be baptized to but a lot of people don’t think being baptized is a requirement like they do repentance. I mean I get the concept that those who believe are convicted by the Holy Spirit to repent, or vice versa and there fore you cant have one without the other, I understand the words, but I don’t grasp the concept I mean to me its like saying to be saved you need to like the color red, then at a different time saying to be saved you need to like green, then coming to the conclusion that it must mean you need to like both. it feels like such a weak explanation that it comes across as people trying to explain away the contradiction as best they can to be honest. I’m not saying that’s what people are doing that’s just what it sounds like to me,
I mean don’t get me wrong I want repentance to be a requirement and I Do believe it is, or else I would have to change how I feel about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and four someone who still struggles with that fear from the moment I wake to the moment I fall asleep everyday I don’t need to add to it. But that doesn’t change the fact that it really sucks that saying all we have to do to be saved is believe in Jesus is…well.. not all you have to do.
I have not done the best job in answering your question. You might want to read some other people on this question. Below are just a few websites I found that deal with this question.
I also feel terrible that you still struggles with the fear of committing the unpardonable sin from the moment I wake to the moment I fall asleep everyday. I was hoping that I had helped remove some of those fears from you.
I was hoping that I had helped remove some of those fears from you.
You did. I dont know why I still have that problem about B of the HS, unless its just that change that I am wrong about not haveing done it. I have the dumbest thoughts about it to. I mean I take things in the bible and connect it to B of the HS when there is no real connection at all. Like I think it is unfair that people who have never hurd of Jesus still go to hell, now that has nothing to do with B of the HS but I draw the paralles that if something so unfair is true then something that seams unfair like saying a few words can get you sent to hell must be true.
Now dont get me wrong I know that its not my standards that I will be judged by, Im not complaining I have just come to and unwanted and unintentional belief that if one thing that seams unfair is true that all things that seam unfair must be as well. But then I think well if it were so easley done then they would have been told about it in Matthew 9 when they first did it. And when I think about that I start to feel better but then the fears come back, I start telling myself that mabye its not unforgivable because we cant ask for forgiveness, maby God jsut wont forgive it even if we ask for forgiveness, but that would be a contradiction of askign for forgiveness and you will get it wouldnt it?
Well I digress. I will read the links you gave me thank you.
Good point. The one thing that is important to remember is that no verse should ever be taken out of context. If you read the passage in Matthew 12 by itself apart from the rest of the Bible (or even the rest of the Gospel of Matthew), it can lead one to be tormented unnecessarily. The problem, however, is that when we do this we misinterpret Scripture. It was never intended to be taken in isolation apart from other statements in God’s Word. The whole counsel of God must always be heard on any topic. Happy Thanksgiving.
So I did read the articles and I think the second one was actually quite helpful believe it or not.
Great. Others can say things better than I could. Have a great day.