Why did not God offer some kind of Salvation to Fallen angels?

Originally Posted by mfblume

To be closed minded about hearing another's differing view is simply wrong because we must ask ourselves what good would that make your views to someone else in return, if they held that opinion? We need each other. Someone in the body has something I do not know and I have something for the others as well. No man is an island. God works in a BODY in this earth and does not give all revelation to any one man so that he needs no help from anyone else.

When we think we cannot be wrong about something, then we know not as we ought to know.

Thanks for your thoughts as well.

I do not consider myself to be closed minded about anything which pertains to the sound precepts of the written Word of God, however, this is not to say that I will allow my fundamental beliefs to be altered because of the cleverly worded arguments and contentions of others. There exists only one way in which you, and anyone else, might ever realize a degree of success in causing me to alter such fundamental beliefs, and that is by proof of a multiplicity of sound passages from the Bible which pertains specifically to the matter under discussion. Jesus said that one is His disciple when they allow ONLY the precepts of His written Word to be their guide, and not the fallible words of mortals such as we are. And when He said that the Spirit of Truth would lead and guide me into ALL truth, then like a little child I accepted that He would do just that. And He has, even beyond my wildest expectations!

Without knowing me on a personal level, you could never begin to comprehend my reverence for the written Word of God. Although I have never taken a typing class in my entire life, and truly do employ the old "seek and ye shall find" method of typing, I have expended more than a year in carefully typing each word of the Bible, not once, but on two separate occasions. Why? Because as a young man I recall my Daddy telling me that if I should ever confront a question, the answer to which I was confident no man could ever answer properly, all I needed to do to have that answer was pick up the Bible and start reading. He equated this to locating the proverbial "needle in a haystack." He told me that it was possible to locate that "needle," although it might entail having to dismantle the entire haystack one straw at a time. I typed the Bible, word-for-word, in a search to locate an answer to something which was of great concern for me. I found it too, although not by typing it, rather it came when, in total frustration, I literally cried before God and asked Him why. The answer was found the very next time I opened my Bible and began to read. Guess God wanted to see my faith in Him before giving me the answer I sought, but I would do it all over again, if necessary, for in so doing I learned much more than the answer I had been seeking. I always expend more time in carefully researching the things which are taught from the pulpit than I do in time expended in sitting on the pew listening. I simply refuse to allow the words of others, regardless of the love, admiration or respect that I might hold for them, to ever become a part of my fundamental beliefs in God and the precepts of His written word, that is, unless that which is asserted as truth can be fully, and indisputably supported by a multiplicity of passages from the Bible. I was deceived once, and for an extended period of time, and this because I failed to do this simple task. By the grace and loving assistance of the ever-abiding Spirit of Truth, I am assured that I shall never become deceived again!

I do appreciate your humility about this matter, and once again, I would hope that you might find the time to pause and prayerfully reflect upon the merits of the things I have written to you this day.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Let's not turn this into a Blume's prophecy errors thread again, please.

For the record NEW HEAVENS AND EARTH can refer to new covenant. Otherwise the following makes no sense.



But, also for the record, when everything is said and done, AND THE END COMES, which has not come yet, I believe God foresaw we would not sin. We have proved to God that we would not, and He foresaw it as so. And maybe PDon has a point in us not remembering the former things. But that does not answer whether or not we will sin. Lucifer knew nothing about sin before he sinned.

See!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

How do you guys do it? I guess I just don't type that fast.

Elder Blume pushes a button all this is prewritten stuff at his fingertips.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by PaPaDon

I would hope that you might find the time to pause and prayerfully reflect upon the merits of the things I have written to you this day.

But, brother, you do not show the same courtesy to others' writings.

You said...

It matters none to me what Gill, Barnes or any other FALLIBLE mortal asserts concerning anything that is found written in the Bible! What matters to me, and it is the ONLY source that I rely upon, EXCLUSIVELY, for the things which I embrace as a part of my fundamental beliefs in God and the precepts by which He operates with each entity of His creation, is the sacred written "Oracles of God," otherwise known as the Bible. Should you choose to quote them as a source of proof to validate your beliefs, then that is your privilege, and I would never think of denying you that right. But not me, and so I would ask that you refrain from quoting such men, for I will NOT consider the merits of their words, ever!

Jesus said that one is His disciple when they allow ONLY the precepts of His written Word to be their guide, and not the fallible words of mortals such as we are.

When you ask me to

prayerfully reflect upon the merits of the things I have written to you this day

And then you say,

I will NOT consider the merits of their words, ever!

...in order for me to mirror your personal thoughts, I COULD NOT CONSIDER ANY MERITS IN YOUR WORDS.

Brother, we cannot expect everyone to treat our thoughts with respect of consideration if we refuse to do so with their thoughts. I just need the bible, and have no need of even considering your words, to use your manner of thinking.

Mat 7:12 KJV Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Elder Blume pushes a button all this is prewritten stuff at his fingertips.

What Bro Eastman referred to in my words with PDon was written by me there on the spot when I replied. Nothing was prewritten.

(Some folks will strain in unreasonable lengths to find SOMETHING against their need to respond to others' words). lol hee hee

Originally Posted by mfblume

But, brother, you do not show the same courtesy to others' writings.

Oh! But I certainly do! In fact, my library consists of almost every book published by the Pentecostal Publishing House, as well as an assorted variety of writing by those who are NOT of the Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal persuasion. I read extensively, and yes, even consider seriously the views/opinions of others concerning the doctrinal teachings of the Bible. My primary reason for doing so is that I might become better equipped with an understanding of the position of others, thereby equipping me with the knowledge that I need to refute assertions which do NOT conform to the sound teachings of the sacred Writ. When I first entered the US Army, many, many years ago, I spend an extended period of time learning of the tactics employed by ones enemies in combat. How else was I to be prepared to fight if I did not know at least something about the tactics which would be emplolyed against me? Such extensive training is much alike the training one MUST undergo if they are to ever become successful in their confrontations with the multitude of [B]"false prophets"[B] which Christ Jesus has said would be present upon the earth during the closing days of the present age (a period of time in which I am persuaded we now live in). Don't ASSUME that in the absence of any reference to the writings of others that I do not possess concordances, commentaries, or other types of writings by mortals, for the truth of the matter is that I do! I simply refuse to quote their words as evidence in support of the things which I embrace and publish as truth. The Bible is the ONLY thing I depend upon as a source of truth!

[mfblume]

PaPaDon,

You seem to contradict yourself now. You said you would not consider any merit in thier words and then say you do and have. Which is it?

Everyone knows the bible is the only infallible source of truth. But you would not even consider what Gill and Barnes said about issues, seemingly because they did not agree with your preconceived idea.

Everyone stands on the bible alone. I simply showed you how others saw the same thing I did in the verses mentioned, and proved it. It is sort of like saying, when everyone seems to be out of step except one person, then maybe it is the one person who is out of step and not all the others.

What difference is there in not considering ANY MERIT in a commentary's words and yet owning one to use in study? Sounds like MERIT to me.

No, I did NOT say that I would not consider the merits of the writings of others, else why would I purchase their works? I am of the belief that God has given a measure of truth to everyone, but it depends upon the manner in which one has built upon such truths. If I determine that they have failed to do this, and instead have built their expressed beliefs upon the words of others mortals, then I reject them forthwith! I even purchase books written by those whom I know beforehand that I disagree with, yet do so for the purpose of determining if there exists even more to the things they believe than what I was already aware of.

And, while I might agree with you that it be true "everyone stands on the Bible alone," this does NOT imply or infer that I am of the belief that they are "rightly dividing the word of truth." That is where the major problems lie. Far too many today are guilty of a failure to do this, although I believe they do so unwittingly, therefore we find such a wide range of varying opinions with regards to practically every passage of the Bible.

I might add, that the ONLY time I would seriously consider the merits, or even consider embracing the beliefs of others, when reading any of their writings, is in those instances when the writer is one whom I am reasonably confident of being a member of the Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal movement (not necessarily the UPCI only). Even in such instances, the things they assert as truth MUST be supported by the sound precepts of the Bible, else I would be inclined to reject their assertions as well. In fact, I would reject even the words of my beloved Dad (if he were yet living), IF the things he asserted as truth could NOT be indisputably proven by such means. Indeed, I did this very thing when I was converted to the Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal faith, because my Dad was a lifelong, devout member of the Church of Christ, a "professing" Trinitarian organization.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Will the saints in the resurrection have the ability to sin?
I say, yes.

Consider:

1. Sin is transgression of the law. Therefore sin is an act of the will, and not a substance. Purification (sanctification) of the believer therefore involves not the purification of the corporeal substance of the body, but rather a purification or sanctification of the will, heart, affections, desires of the soul, and of the spirit.

2. That being the case, sin is a direct result of the exercise of the will. Sin occurs when a moral agent (one who is accountable to God for his actions) chooses (wills) that which is contrary to the will of God, His "moral law". Since the moral law of God presupposes what is generally known as "free will" (ie the ability of a moral agent to choose to obey, or disobey, relative to his abilities) then it follows that sin can only exist where there is free will. Furthermore, the possibility (though not necessarily the fact) of sinning must always exist wherever the will is free.

3. Therefore, in order for the saints in the resurrection to be rendered unable to sin they must not have free will. Yet free will is part of the imago Deo which constitutes one of the chief distinguishing characteristics of human nature, made in the likeness of God. Therefore, the resurrected saints will indeed continue to have free will in the resurrection.

4. And if the saints continue to have free will in the resurrection, they must of necessity have the ability to disobey God, to choose that which is contrary to the will of God. This however does not require that resurrected saints actually do sin. The problem people have with understanding this is that many people have a distorted view of the nature and character of sin. They believe sin is an involuntary thing. But sin is simply the exercise of one's will in a forbidden manner. The ability of sin does not presupposes the existence of sin, nor of the necessity of sinning. Adam was not sinful when he was made, yet he sinned anyway. Thus, sin is a moral action, not a physical element.

The fact is, the resurrected saints will have free will, and so could theoretically sin, yet they will not in fact sin, because their volition will have been perfected in holiness, eternally fixed on God and His perfect will. And they will have been thus perfected in this life, not in the next. There is no Purgatory for purification but what we experience in this life as the Spirit of God purges us from all dross and moral imperfections, getting us ready for the eternal state.

Romans 7:20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

Is Paul describing an involuntary action in this verse? This passage is difficult to understand with what you are saying in your post.

It seems Paul attributes sin to the flesh. Upon our resurrection will our fleshly glorified bodies still contain a sinful nature?

22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

[Bro-Larry]

Wow, WOW, Wow!!!!

I was thinking, some of you can really complicate a simple issue. But then I remembered that there are no two people on the face of this Earth, that believe exactly alike on every issue.

God did not provide salvation to fallen angels, because they have no legal right to make a wrong choice. Ps 103:20-21 tells me that angels have been assigned the job of hearkening to the word of God, and doing His pleasure. Heb 1:14 says that ALL angels are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. These two options seem to be the only assignments of angels.

Mankind, on the other hand, was given the legal right to make the wrong choice, therefore; God's righteousness and His great love for us, demanded that He offer salvation to mankind.