✪ In Rev. 4:3, the Sardius stone and the Jasper represent the "first and last," especially as it pertains to Israel. The Sardius was the first stone on the priest's breastplate (Ex. 28:17; Ex. 39:10) representing the firstborn of Jacob -- Reuben. The Jasper was the last stone on the priest's breastplate (Ex. 28:20; Ex. 39:13) representing the last born of Jacob -- Benjamin. "There are many approaches to authority in a secular worldview, e.g., 1. oligarchical - authority exercised by a powerful few, 2. democratic - authority exercised by the people, 3. hereditary - authority exercised by those in a particular family, 4. despotic - authority exercised by one or more in an evil fashion, 5. - personal - authoriy exercised by one person. However, with the biblical worldview, original authority and ultimate authority reside with God and God alone. God did not inherit His authority -- there was no one to bequeath it to Him. God did not receive His authority -- there was no one to bestow it on Him. God's authority did not come by way of an election -- there was no one to vote for Him. God did not seize authority -- there was no one to steal it from. God did not earn His authority -- it was already His. God inherently embodies authority because He is the great “I AM” (Ex. 3:14; John 8:58)." Richard L. Mayhue, The Authority of Scripture, Ref-0164, Vol. 15 No. 2, Fall 2004, 227:236, p. 228. "Where did God come from? He came from nowhere! The reason God came from nowhere is that there was nowhere for him to come from. Coming from nowhere, He stood on nothing. The reason He had to stand on nothing is there was nowhere for Him to stand. And standing on nothing, He reached out where there was nowhere to reach and caught something where there was nothing to catch and hung something on nothing and He told it to stay there. Now standing on nothing, He took the hammer of His own will; He struck the anvil of His omnipotence and sparks flew. He caught them on the tips of His fingers, flung them out into space and bedecked the heaven with stars, but no one said a word. The reason no one said anything is that there was nobody there to say anything. So God Himself said, ‘That is very good.’" S.M. Lockridge, "Seeking God" (Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2000) 186, cited by Richard L. Mayhue, The Authority of Scripture, Ref-0164, Vol. 15 No. 2, Fall 2004, 227:236, p. 220.
✪ See exegesis - John_15:6. Scriptures used against eternal security are generally less clear than those which strongly support eternal security. When examining these passages, questions which must always be asked include 1) is this passage dealing with individuals who were ever truly saved? and 2) is their resulting condition one of eternal damnation or merely loss of reward (1Cor. 3:15)? Note that if Heb. 6:4-6 is describing loss of salvation, then it also teaches the impossibility of restoring a previous salvation, now lost. This does not square with the generally held view of those who reject eternal security that salvation may be gained and lost multiple times. "And does not the logic of the Arminian system tell us that the wise thing for the Christian to do is to die as soon as possible and thus confirm the inheritance which to him is of infinite value? In view of the fact that so many have fallen away, is it worth while for him to remain here and risk his eternal salvation for the sake of a little more life in this world?" Ref-0096, p. 194.
✪ See salvation - assurance. "We are often mistaken in our judgment of others. . . John gave the true solution for these cases [which appear to involve loss of salvation] when he wrote [1Jn. 2:19]. All of those who fall away permanently come under this class." Ref-0096, p. 191. "The chief wonder is that she [the Church] abides perfect. Not one of God’s elect has gone back; not one of the blood-bought has denied the faith. Not one single should which ever was effectually called can be made to deny Christ, even though his flesh should be pulled from his bones by hot pincers, or his tormented body flung to the jaws of wild beast." Ref-1324, p. 33. "Paul presented the gospel message in the book of Romans. He argued that justification is received by grace in Jesus Christ alone. He also argued that the believer is totally and completely secure in their salvation. However, he anticipated the question that would arise. He knew that someone would question the security of the believer based upon the apparent rejection of the nation of Israel. He knew that some might find cause to question God's promises of salvation based upon their own assumption that God had not fulfilled his promises to his chosen nation. Based upon that assumed or anticipated question, Paul commenced a preemptive answer found in Romans 9—11." David Q. Santos, Israel and Her Future: An Exegesis of Romans 11:24-29, Ref-0785 Volume 19 Number 56 (Spring 2015), 69-91, p. 69. "Just as national Israel is secure in her promises, so the church is secure in its promises." David Q. Santos, Israel and Her Future: An Exegesis of Romans 11:24-29, Ref-0785 Volume 19 Number 56 (Spring 2015), 69-91, p. 84. "God has demonstrated the security of the believer through his eternal faithfulness to his promises to Israel. Ultimately, the objection to eternal security of the believer based upon a perceived failure to fulfill promises to Israel is proven to be an error. A study of Israel actually affirms the Christian's eternal security." David Q. Santos, Israel and Her Future: An Exegesis of Romans 11:24-29, Ref-0785 Volume 19 Number 56 (Spring 2015), 69-91, p. 84.
✪ "Peter Singer's meltingly "reasonable" advocacy of prudential infanticide, for instance, naturally reminds one of the ancient world's practice of exposing supernumerary infants (though lacking in the ancient piety that left the ultimate fate of the abandoned child to the gods)." Ref-1290, p. 238.