What is Your Cross?

HP: Point specifically to the exact passage JJ. There is not one that supports your contentions.
Quote:
HP: In a sense, both. We receive the earnest of our hope immediately, and will receive the end, the absolute knowledge of that hope, at the final judgment.

HP: To have a hope of glory is to have a hope of ones final abode with Christ. There is no indication otherwise in Scripture, and certainly no indication of our hope of glory being anything other than the fulfillment of the earnest of salvation we are now in possession of.

HP: Show us that the glory set before us is anything other than the fulfillment of our present hope of eternal life, the earnest of things yet hoped for.
Absolutely you will be saved in a moment,………to a hope of eternal life based on sure promises and will come to total and complete fruition IF we remain faithful unto the end.

HP: A reality held by faith, not absolute knowledge. In this world there always remains the possibility of believing we are something that we are not.

HP: The grounds of my salvation is based 100% upon the grace of God. Let me repeat so as to make it extremely clear. Nothing I can do, could do, or will do could ever atone for a single sin. The willing fulfillment of a condition God says we must do in order to be saved, is not in any way to be seen as if though by something we do we then 'merit' salvation.

All conditions are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’ The prison illustration, mentioned several times on this list, illustrates this point clearly. There is nothing a prisoner can do to merit a pardon, yet there are some conditions the prisoner must meet to gain a pardon. It is impossible to work your way to a position that the governor must pardon you, yet just the same there are some conditions without which no one will receive a pardon. Such is the case in the pardon for sins that are past. Nothing man does in relationship to gaining a pardon for sins is meritorious, yet just the same no one will gain a pardon from sin apart from certain conditions being met. You meet the conditions and there is a 100 % chance, not a 50% that you will indeed be granted eternal life. If you fail to meet the conditions, there is a 100% chance you are deceived into believing you are going to receive something you will never receive. Nothing 50/50 here in the least.

HP: The devils can believe but they will never be saved, even if his name is Judas, unless salvation is offered to them and they fulfill the conditions God has mandated in His Word. Yes, we MUST continue to believe until we stand before Him in judgment to be found in Christ. Just as Satan or our first parents were right with God and fell, so can we.

HP: Just because you are unwilling or unable to understand the difference between something done meritorious and something done which is thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ does not mandate that those who can are relying on themselves for salvation.

 

Moving right along so as not to bore the list, we might address the second false accusation of JJ that claims if one does not accept his necessitated fatalistic notions that there is no security to realize.

I have no idea if in fact JJ is married or not, but I am sure that many will relate to this illustration. Does the fact that one can do despite their marriage vows, and leave the other, necessitate the elimination of security in marriage? If we would believe JJ, and the possibility exists one could severe ones vows, there could be no security in marriage. In reality is this the case?

Take any contract between man. If the possibility exists that one can break the contract does that preclude all notions of placing ones trust in the security of the agreement? If in fact it could be shown and believed that one of the parties was proven to be absolutely faithful, could one assume that it would be impossible for one to have any security in an agreement between the two parties due to the fact that one could break the agreement if they so desired?

The bottom line is, can there be any security in relationships of free agents at all, or is security only to be found in relationships that exist between unchangeable and fixed objects, like the one that exists between gravity and a rock?