once saved always saved?

[Bible Highlighter]

Hi Jason, it seems to me that ἐλέγχω [elegcho] "reproved" means "exposed", IOW, "lest his deeds should be reproved/exposed for what they are", "evil", in contrast to v21 where the righteous deeds of he that doeth truth are shown to be "wrought in God".

​

I'm don't believe ἐλέγχω ever translates as, "repentance"! (unless you perhaps mean that his deeds, when exposed, would reveal his need to repent )

Yours and His,
David

First, you did not grow up in Biblical times to actually know what Biblical Greek actually says. You are merely guessing as to what the Greek says based on what others have said. We can know what the Bible says by simply looking at your own language, and by looking at the context, and by looking at cross references (similar passages that say the same thing). In Acts 2, God was powerful enough to communicate to people using their own language. Nowhere does the Bible teach that you have to study the original languages so as to get a better understanding of His Word. Also, the "scribes" trans-scribed the Scriptures. Yet, Jesus warned us to "Beware of the scribes." (Luke 20:46). These are the scholars of our day because they transcribe Scripture. In other words, Jesus tells you to beware of what they say and not to blindly embrace them.

Second, the word "reproved" can be defined as:

Rebuke, correct, or chastise.

When God chastises, corrects, or rebukes a person, the result is always repentance.

The Bible says elsewhere,

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." (John 16:8).

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Ephesians 5:11).

"Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (1 Timothy 5:20).

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No one will ever be in thirst for Christ's water "anymore" because once they drink it they never thirst again.

There are many examples in life whereby a person can be satiated by something and yet do not indulge in it. A person may find the love of their life, but they may feel that the call of God to be single so as to be more productive for His kingdom is greater. A person's stomach might be fulfilled or satiated with a good meal, but they can train their body to not crave food thru fasting because they have a greater hunger or thirst for spiritual righteousness instead. Do you remember when Jesus said, "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness"? 1 John 3:7 says he that does righteousness is righteous.


...

 

[brotherjerry]

Jason your analogy is bonkers

First off you compare being single to sustenance. There is a reason that Jesus used two simple things to compare receiving eternal life to. Bread and water...food and water. Two things that every human being requires in order to live. You can do without the love of your life, but you cannot go without water. You can even train yourself not to crave certain foods but you cannot train yourself to not go without food.

And in two cases Christ said if you partake of the water He provides or the bread He provides you will never thirst or hunger again. It is a very simple concept that many people simply refuse to accept and instead feel that it cannot be that simple and there must be a catch. "There must be something I have to do in order to ensure I am safe and secure. There is no way God could protect me and keep my soul (even though the Bible says He does just that), so there must be something I have to do to protect myself from Satan."
There is far too many "I"'s in that. My trust is in the power of God and His salvation and not of my own "to do" list.

 

[GoodGRACEshus]

My trust is in the power of God and His salvation and not of my own "to do" list.

Amen!!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason your analogy is bonkers

First off you compare being single to sustenance. There is a reason that Jesus used two simple things to compare receiving eternal life to. Bread and water...food and water. Two things that every human being requires in order to live. You can do without the love of your life, but you cannot go without water. You can even train yourself not to crave certain foods but you cannot train yourself to not go without food.

And in two cases Christ said if you partake of the water He provides or the bread He provides you will never thirst or hunger again. It is a very simple concept that many people simply refuse to accept and instead feel that it cannot be that simple and there must be a catch. "There must be something I have to do in order to ensure I am safe and secure. There is no way God could protect me and keep my soul (even though the Bible says He does just that), so there must be something I have to do to protect myself from Satan."
There is far too many "I"'s in that. My trust is in the power of God and His salvation and not of my own "to do" list.

The analogy still holds because we are referring to the spiritual and not the physical. I say this because a person can feel dead inside without the love of their dreams in their life and yet they can still be physically live. This is the same analogy with the water. A person can feel spiritually dead on the inside (thirsting for spiritual life and happiness) and yet they can still physically live. 1 Timothy 5:6 says, "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." Granted, the first person's love in a person's life should be God (of course). For if a person experiences the love of God and then later walks away from that love, they will then thirst again for that love. But that does not mean they cannot stay away. A person has free will. For if a person can walk away from the love of a person they love, they can surely walk away from the love of God and His good presence. We see this example in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. The son stays away from the love of his father (i.e. God) for a certain amount of time. In other words, God does not force people to love Him. We are not love robots. We have the freedom of choice. If not, then there would be no Judgment.

For do you think the unbeliever is without excuse in accepting Christ?

How can an unbeliever live (in a dead spiritual state) and yet thirst for spiritual life for many years? Shouldn't they be dead? How do they survive without the spiritual living water? If the analogy of water is to be taken to it's extreme here, then the person shouldn't even have the capacity to accept Christ on a spiritual level; Unless of course you are proposing that you believe in the erroneous doctrine Calvinism (or something) whereby God regenerates a person so as to believe. Is that what you are saying?


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

My trust is in the power of God and His salvation and not of my own "to do" list.

Amen!!

So you think God's Commands in the New Testament are not really Commands and they are just helpful suggestions that we can obey or disobey?
I think that kind of defeats the purpose of why they are called Commands in the first place.
Jesus says if you love me, keep my Commandments.
Do you love Jesus enough to keep His Commandments?
Jesus says, why do you call me Lord, Lord if you do not do what I say?
Jesus says, not everyone who says unto Him Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but he that does the will of the Father.
Does.... the....WILL....of the Father.
Doing the WILL of the Father implies some kind of action on your part.
In other words, these words of Jesus appear to be in contradiction to what you believe.

I mean, do you not know that even believing on Jesus Christ is a Commandment? (1 John 3:23). So if you are not under any Law or you are not under any kind of keeping of a list of Commands, then you shouldn't be under the Command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, either.


...

 

[brotherjerry]

Jason...

Sorry but no.
Sure a person can feel dead but still be alive....but "feelings" are not actual existence. However a person can be spritually dead but still be physically alive. Just as a person can be spiritually alive but physically dead. But just because a person "feels" like they are dead....does not mean they are dead. And until you have experienced something how can you accurately say you "feel" like it? Have you ever given birth? I know I have not, so I would never say that I "feel like I am giving birth" because I have not.

But back to what Christ said. If a person was thirsty (spiritually dead but physically alive) and drank of the water that Christ offered they would be spiritually alive and physically alive as they would never thirst again. There is never an example of a person who was spiritually alive, who was said to be born again, that then was no longer born again or that was reborn born again. Not once.

And please...the Prodigal Son? If the Prodigal Son represents someone who was saved and walked away from their salvation, what does the whining older brother represent that never walked away and complained? You cannot pick and choose portions of the story. If the son paints a picture of someone who was saved and walked away from salvation, then was he born saved?

And people find spiritual water, they satisfy their thirst for a while. They listen to some TV evangelist and feel better about themselves for sending in $100. But they quickly lose that feeling and have to search for more. The seeds that never take root. There are also those that do many great things in the name of the Lord but never drank of the water....and Christ exclaimed that He never knew them. But if you drink of that water then you will never thirst again is exactly what the Bible says. And to try and spin it any other way is simply adding to what was said there is it not? And the analogy taken to extreme equating to never being saved? Not certain where you extrapolate that? People get thirsty for something spiritual...something more than the mere physical life they have. There are entire pantheons of gods throughout human history to show that is true. But drinking of the kool-aid of Zeus or Ra will leave a person thirsty. But drinking of the water that Christ has will leave a person satisfied and never wanting anything else.

So you think God's Commands in the New Testament are not really Commands and they are just helpful suggestions that we can obey or disobey?

Nope not in the least. That is fallicious ideology that works based salvationist like to imagine so as to justify their own errors. There are consequences for actions, the Bible is very clear on that. God will correct those do sin, that is also spelled out clearly in the Bible. There are consequences here while we live, as well as eternal rewards apart from salvation that are mentioned in the Bible.

And Paul wrote extensivly about not yoking yourself to legalism. We do not obey commandments in order to earn salvation, this is spoken against at great length in the Bible...Ephesians is a prime example. But we obey commandments because we are saved. Works based salvation is like a dog who gets a treat for doing a trick. People who believe in that sort of salvation feel that if they roll over they will get the treat of salvation. Your loyalty and love for God only goes as far as God giving out treats. Eternal security proponents are the rescue dogs who sit at the feet of Christ because Christ rescued them from the pound and euthenasia. We are a work in progress and while we are saved and going to be put to sleep, we occasionally tear up the slippers and do get reprimanded. We learn what the master wants, but we are saved. The Bible makes it clear the master will never take us back to the pound and no dog ever runs back to the pound to be put to sleep.

 

[St_Worm2]

...you did not grow up in Biblical times to actually know what Biblical Greek actually says. You are merely guessing as to what the Greek says based on what others have said

If that's true Jason, then we all have a formidable problem, because if we don't know what the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words mean, all of our English Bibles are simply works of fiction, or at best, hopeful conjecture on the part of the translator or translation teams.

And as far as learning a language by means of others teaching it to us, isn't that how all of us learn a language, even our own?

We can know what the Bible says by simply looking at your own language, and by looking at the context, and by looking at cross references (similar passages that say the same thing). In Acts 2, God was powerful enough to communicate to people using their own language. Nowhere does the Bible teach that you have to study the original languages so as to get a better understanding of His Word.

Well, yeah, but that's because the "original languages" were the common languages of the day when the autographs were being written. As far as all of our Bibles go since then however, they're all called "translations" because they are translated from the "original" languages into more modern languages . God didn't breath the words of the King James Bible directly into the ears of those who wrote it in English, the KJV is a translation from the original Biblical languages.

μετανοέω [metanoeo] means "repent" and μετάνοια [metanoia] means "repentance". These words do not mean "reprove" anymore than ἐλέγχω [elegcho] means "repentance".

What you are insisting on would be similar to saying that, Tim walks his "dog" really means that Tim walks his "cat". μετανοέω (repent) and ἐλέγχω (reprove) are different words that mean two different things (even though they both start with "rep" in English ), just like dog and cat are different words in English that always mean two different things. This isn't the result of some deep study of the original Biblical languages, this is simply a matter of knowing what various words mean.

And while one Greek word may have several different meanings (like you saw that ἐλέγχω did in my last post), "dog" never means "cat', and "reprove" never means "repentance", in Greek or in English. If I "reprove" or "rebuke" someone because of a sin they committed, it's my hope in doing so that they would "repent" because of it.

Again, "reprove" doesn't mean "repent" or "repentance".

Beyond that however, it's clear (in the English alone) from both the surrounding context and from the verse all by itself that you cannot replace "reprove" with the word "repentance" and have the last part of the v20 make any sense at all (unless I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying here .. if I am, please let me know that).

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
​

--David

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If that's true Jason, then we all have a formidable problem, because if we don't know what the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words mean, all of our English Bibles are simply works of fiction, or at best, hopeful conjecture on the part of the translator or translation teams.

And as far as learning a language by means of others teaching it to us, isn't that how all of us learn a language, even our own?



Well, yeah, but that's because the "original languages" were the common languages of the day when the autographs were being written. As far as all of our Bibles go since then however, they're all called "translations" because they are translated from the "original" languages into more modern languages . God didn't breath the words of the King James Bible directly into the ears of those who wrote it in English, the KJV is a translation from the original Biblical languages.

μετανοέω [metanoeo] means "repent" and μετάνοια [metanoia] means "repentance". These words do not mean "reprove" anymore than ἐλέγχω [elegcho] means "repentance".

What you are insisting on would be similar to saying that, Tim walks his "dog" really means that Tim walks his "cat". μετανοέω (repent) and ἐλέγχω (reprove) are different words that mean two different things (even though they both start with "rep" in English ), just like dog and cat are different words in English that always mean two different things. This isn't the result of some deep study of the original Biblical languages, this is simply a matter of knowing what various words mean.

And while one Greek word may have several different meanings (like you saw that ἐλέγχω did in my last post), "dog" never means "cat', and "reprove" never means "repentance", in Greek or in English. If I "reprove" or "rebuke" someone because of a sin they committed, it's my hope in doing so that they would "repent" because of it.

Again, "reprove" doesn't mean "repent" or "repentance".

Beyond that however, it's clear (in the English alone) from both the surrounding context and from the verse all by itself that you cannot replace "reprove" with the word "repentance" and have the last part of the v20 make any sense at all (unless I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying here .. if I am, please let me know that).

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
​

--David

If I cannot trust one word in my Bible today then what makes me trust other words in my BIble? In other words, either God preserved His Word perfectly because He is a perfect God and does things with pin point precision (like with the Creation) or God did not perfectly preserve His Word (Whereby we would be scrambling so as to guess what God is really saying). Also, you did not repent hearing the Hebrew and Greek. You did not grow up speaking Hebrew or Greek. Scholars disagree on what the Hebrew and Greek means. For it is difficult enough to understand the Bible for many just using their own language and now you want to throw in a language that people do not have any experience speaking or writing as a part of their natural culture? Okay.

As for the word "reproved" meaning "repentance" in John 3:20: When God reproves someone, what do they do? They repent. It is pretty simple logic unless of course you do not believe repentance is not a form of reproving (correcting) people. Granted, I have heard Christians today say that repentance is just a mental change of mind. Maybe that is what you believe. I don't know. But Jesus defines repentance for us so we cannot squirm our way out of what it really means. In Matthew 12:41 Jesus says the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. If you were to turn to Jonah chapter 3, and read verses 6-10 you would see that the King of the Ninevites had to declared unto the people to cry out unto God and to turn from their evil deeds. Then God had seen that the Ninevites had turned from their wicked ways and God had then did not bring Judgment or Wrath upon them as a result of this. This truth in Scripture is also confirmed in Proverbs 28:13, 1 John 1:9 and 1 John 1:7.


...

 

[Albion]

If I cannot trust one word in my Bible today then what makes me trust other words in my BIble?

It depends on which words they are.

In other words, either God preserved His Word perfectly because He is a perfect God and does things with pin point precision (like with the Creation) or God did not perfectly preserve His Word

That's entirely possible. If he'd wanted to make absolutely certain that we'd all know exactly what to do, he'd have communicated with us by means of something other than writing!

 

[Job8]

Jesus says, not everyone who says unto Him Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but he that does the will of the Father.

This teaching is in line with the fact that (1) eternal life is a gift from God, (2) those who have eternal life cannot lose it because they have been born again, (3) those who have eternal life have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, which means that they have the power to obey Christ, and (4) those who have the Holy Spirit will do the will of the Father because they love God (which corresponds to the commandment of Christ). But each thing must be in its proper place.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason...

Sorry but no.
Sure a person can feel dead but still be alive....but "feelings" are not actual existence. However a person can be spritually dead but still be physically alive. Just as a person can be spiritually alive but physically dead. But just because a person "feels" like they are dead....does not mean they are dead. And until you have experienced something how can you accurately say you "feel" like it? Have you ever given birth? I know I have not, so I would never say that I "feel like I am giving birth" because I have not.

No. Having the joy of salvation and experiencing the good fruits thereof is a part of one's salvation. One knows that they are saved by the Spirit, too.

But back to what Christ said. If a person was thirsty (spiritually dead but physically alive) and drank of the water that Christ offered they would be spiritually alive and physically alive as they would never thirst again. There is never an example of a person who was spiritually alive, who was said to be born again, that then was no longer born again or that was reborn born again. Not once.

God's Word does not always use words (we prefer) so as to always hit it's readers over the head as to what it is saying. The Bible uses other words so as describe how a person can go from a state of being unsaved, to being saved, then unsaved again. In the book of Jude, it says that there are certain individuals who are twice dead who are plucked up by the roots. Now, this is obviously speaking in spiritual terms and not physical terms. So if a person can be dead twice spiritually, this means that they went from being unsaved (dead), to saved, and then back to being unsaved again (dead again, i.e. twice dead) (See Jude 1:12). The Bible confirms this truth elsewhere. In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, when the prodigal son returned home, his father said twice that his son was "dead" and he is now "alive again." This parable was of course speaking in spiritual terms. The prodigal son was spiritually dead (when he went prodigal) and he became alive again spiritually when he returned home desiring to admit his sin against Heaven and before his father (Luke 15:11-32). James tells the brethren that if another fellow brother does err away from the truth, and they convert them back to the faith, they would in effect have saved a soul from death (i.e. spiritual death) and they would have helped to cover this brother's sins (Which obviously be by getting their brother to repent of their sins to God so as to be forgiven again) (See James 5:19-20).

And please...the Prodigal Son? If the Prodigal Son represents someone who was saved and walked away from their salvation, what does the whining older brother represent that never walked away and complained? You cannot pick and choose portions of the story. If the son paints a picture of someone who was saved and walked away from salvation, then was he born saved?

The Parable has a two fold message. The brother represents Israel who did not value the love of the Father that was right in front of them (Thru Jesus). The Prodigal Son is a lesson that teaches that even the elder brother had the capacity to admit his sin before heaven and before his father, whereby he would also continue to have favor with him, as well. The elder brother was jealous. Just as Israel is jealous of the Gentiles. But the primary message of the Parable is one of repentance and getting one's heart right with God (By returning home to Him).

And people find spiritual water, they satisfy their thirst for a while. They listen to some TV evangelist and feel better about themselves for sending in $100. But they quickly lose that feeling and have to search for more. The seeds that never take root.

What does the seed represent? It is God's Word. If they were to open their Bible and to continue to read more of God's Word from that TV program, then the Word would take root in strength within their heart. Either a person truly desires to want to continue in the Lord and please Him or they do not ultimately want to please the Lord and they just want to do their own thing and or sin. This is the problem I have with Eternal Security. It makes an allowance for sin on some level (Which is wrong).

There are also those that do many great things in the name of the Lord but never drank of the water....and Christ exclaimed that He never knew them.

Well, first, God knows everyone and what they do.

Second, Scripture has to be compared with other Scripture; And Scripture teaches that God identifies with a person (relationship wise) who is righteous.

Acts 10:34-35 says, "God is no respecter of persons:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him"

1 John 3:7 says, "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous,"

In fact, the Bible says we can have an assurance of knowing God (personal relationship) if we find that we are keeping His Commandments (i.e. if we are being righteous).

For 1 John 2:3-6 says,
3 "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."

However, when the righteous turn away from their righteousness and they commit iniquity, all his previous righteousness shall not be remembered. Meaning, God can no longer identify with a person on a personal level anymore (relationship wise) if they start to sin again.
For it is written...

"But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die." (Ezekiel 18:24).

But if you drink of that water then you will never thirst again is exactly what the Bible says. And to try and spin it any other way is simply adding to what was said there is it not? And the analogy taken to extreme equating to never being saved? Not certain where you extrapolate that? People get thirsty for something spiritual...something more than the mere physical life they have. There are entire pantheons of gods throughout human history to show that is true. But drinking of the kool-aid of Zeus or Ra will leave a person thirsty. But drinking of the water that Christ has will leave a person satisfied and never wanting anything else.

People can know what it is like to be doing the good thing and even enjoy it for a time, but they can also slip back into doing the wrong thing too (despite a satiisfaction of their thirst in abiding in what is good and right). Jesus is what is good and right. Just because a person quenches their thirst threw abiding in Jesus, does not mean they cannot fight against his goodness of in abiding in Him. Jesus is merely talking about never thirsting again if one drinks of this type of water. You are taking this phrase to it's uttermost extreme beyond what it was intended to be so as to defend the doctrine of Eternal Security (Which is a teaching that does not clearly exist within the Bible).

Nope not in the least. That is fallicious ideology that works based salvationist like to imagine so as to justify their own errors. There are consequences for actions, the Bible is very clear on that. God will correct those do sin, that is also spelled out clearly in the Bible. There are consequences here while we live, as well as eternal rewards apart from salvation that are mentioned in the Bible.

No. Believers are not just chastised for their sins. They can also be cast into hell bodily for their sin, too. Otherwise why would Jesus tell people that their whole body could be cast into hell fire if they look upon a woman in lust? (Matthew 5:28-30). Why would Jesus say if you do not forgive your father will not forgive you? (Matthew 6:15). Why would John say that all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire? (Revelation 21:8). Would not all liars include believers who lie?

And Paul wrote extensivly about not yoking yourself to legalism. We do not obey commandments in order to earn salvation, this is spoken against at great length in the Bible...Ephesians is a prime example. But we obey commandments because we are saved.

No. Paul was referring to the heresy of circumcision salvation (Which was a part of the Law of Moses) in Romans and Galatians and he was not referring to the Commands of Jesus or his own words that he regarded towards us as being the Lord's Commandments. For Paul said that if you consider yourself spiritual you should regard what he has written as the Lord's Commandments (1 Corinthians 14:37). Also, if you believe that no Command of God does not relate to salvation in any way then you are sadly mistaken. 1 John 3:23 says, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."

Works based salvation is like a dog who gets a treat for doing a trick. People who believe in that sort of salvation feel that if they roll over they will get the treat of salvation. Your loyalty and love for God only goes as far as God giving out treats. Eternal security proponents are the rescue dogs who sit at the feet of Christ because Christ rescued them from the pound and euthenasia. We are a work in progress and while we are saved and going to be put to sleep, we occasionally tear up the slippers and do get reprimanded. We learn what the master wants, but we are saved. The Bible makes it clear the master will never take us back to the pound and no dog ever runs back to the pound to be put to sleep.

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of his mouth from God (Matthew 4:4).
Surely one does not live physically by speaking the Word of God but they live spiritually.
Jesus says he that is ashamed of Him and His words, He will be ashamed of them when He comes into His glory (Luke 9:26).
How can one be saved if Jesus is ashamed of them?

Also, believers are also sanctified by the washing of the water of the Word, too (See Ephesians 5:25-26).
This is important to understand because Jesus says not everyone who says unto Him Lord, Lord will enter the kIngdom of Heaven but he that does the will of the Father (Matthew 7:21). We learn in 1 Thessalonians 4:3 that the will of the Father or the will of God is our Sanctification or holiness; And Hebrews 12:14 says without holiness no man shall see the Lord.


...

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

If one person whom Jesus has saved is now in hell-fire. Then God's record in His business of Salvation is not perfect. Nor could He be trusted to be 100% the Saviour of man. He as God must be 100% perfect. For it is impossible for God to fail. God the Father would never,and I mean never allow His Son to suffer for the sins of a soul He already knew would be in the very pits of hell. God would also never "save" some one who He already knew would lose their Salvation. Men are stupid, but not God. Say that two people are saved at the same time today, God takes one of them home this very night,but leaves the other to live 30 + years longer and he loses his salvation. Would this at all be Just~&~Fair of God? Christ is the "Author and Finisher" of my faith. Shall I trust in a God who Author's my salvation, and ends it in condemnation,and hell. NO...God is my SAVIOUR, not the little ant called me. God is the Omnipotent Sovereign over me...not the little ant called me,and my so called "freewill", over God. I glorify God! It's not my job to hold on to God, and save Him so that He doesn't lose me. But His Job to hold on to me, and SAVE me. I have much more to say on this....

-Jon_2:9 But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.

 

[brotherjerry]

Jason,

The Bible uses other words so as describe how a person can go from a state of being unsaved, to being saved, then unsaved again.

Never does.

Not even in your example of Jude. Double dead is physically dead, and spiritually dead. Those are people that will suffer a physical death as well as the spiritual death. This is made clear in vs 15 who we are talking about.
This matches up with what is spoken of quite a bit in the Bible...A physical birth, a physical death. A spritual birth, a spiritual death. However, one can never experience the spiritual birth (being reborn), and only suffer the second death.
Revelations 2:11 "....He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death"
Revelations 20:6 "Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power"
Revelations 21:8 "...and sorcerers and idolataters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with the fire and brimstone, which is the second death"

You cannot say there is more than two deaths unless in Revelations "second" is just a place holder and it really meant "third" or "fourth" or "one thousand six hundred and eighty second".

The Prodigal son, if you desire to apply the son coming back as the message of salvation then keep in mind the son was spirtually dead before he left. Unless you are going to say we are born with the inheritance. The Bible gives a different picture of people. It paints a picture that we are all born spiritually dead. We are born in the image of Adam.

If the older brother represents Israel, then the prodigal must represent some other nation. It is the parable of the Prodigal son that people more often butcher interpretive standards. No other parable gets treated this way. Typically most people ignore half of this parable and only focus on the Prodigal. But you simply cannot ignore him. And treating one as the nation of Israel and the other as a picture of an individuals salvation is also really a corrupted process as well. That would be like saying the parable of the talents, one of the slaves represents Israel, another is Peter, and one was a picture of salvation. This sort of interpretation is just making the BIble say whatever you want. When looking at parables all of the pieces have to fit together otherwise they have no meaning.

Your quoting Ezekiel...keep in mind OT righteousness is different than in the NT when it comes to the believer.
Romans 6:18 says that we "having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" - A slave cannot walk away.
Romans 9:31 says that Israel pursued the law of righteousness but never got there.
Romans 10:3-4 "For not knowing about God's rightousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of hte law of righteousness to everyone who believes" We are no longer bound to the law of righteousness spoken of in Ezekiel. Christ was the end of that law.
1 Corinthians 1:30 "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption." Christ became our righteousness.

There are many verses that explain that before the Father, our righteousness is Christ. Our faith is accounted as our righteousness before judgement, not our deeds.

People can know what it is like to be doing the good thing and even enjoy it for a time, but they can also slip back into doing the wrong thing too (despite a satiisfaction of their thirst in abiding in what is good and right). Jesus is what is good and right. Just because a person quenches their thirst threw abiding in Jesus, does not mean they cannot fight against his goodness of in abiding in Him. Jesus is merely talking about never thirsting again if one drinks of this type of water. You are taking this phrase to it's uttermost extreme beyond what it was intended to be so as to defend the doctrine of Eternal Security (Which is a teaching that does not clearly exist within the Bible).

No extreme whatsoever. It is simply what the Bible says "drink of the water I give and you will never thirst" It is very simple. No one is saying that people become perfect. We are human we fail all the time. What Christ talked about was not us abiding in Him. You seem to ignore that Christ abides in US as well.
John 6:56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him"
You said "Jesus is merely talking about never thirsting again if one drinks of this type of water."...exactly...If one drinks of the water that He is giving then one will never thirst again. That is what the Bible says. He sure was not talking about the water from that well that he asked the woman to give Him.

And pretty much everything else you cited...agree. Granted most of it had nothing to do with salvation. You seem to confuse salvation with sanctification. Two completely different things, while related they are not the same.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If I cannot trust one word in my Bible today then what makes me trust other words in my BIble?

It depends on which words they are.

So you believe in a holey Bible (i.e. a book that is full of holes) and not the Holy Bible which is divine and perfect?
However, God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); Because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

In other words, either God preserved His Word perfectly because He is a perfect God and does things with pin point precision (like with the Creation) or God did not perfectly preserve His Word

That's entirely possible. If he'd wanted to make absolutely certain that we'd all know exactly what to do, he'd have communicated with us by means of something other than writing!

Sorry, you are not God to think what God should do or not do, my friend. He provided His Word and we are to have faith within it. For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If one person whom Jesus has saved is now in hell-fire. Then God's record in His business of Salvation is not perfect. Nor could He be trusted to be 100% the Saviour of man. He as God must be 100% perfect. For it is impossible for God to fail. God the Father would never,and I mean never allow His Son to suffer for the sins of a soul He already knew would be in the very pits of hell. God would also never "save" some one who He already knew would lose their Salvation. Men are stupid, but not God. Say that two people are saved at the same time today, God takes one of them home this very night,but leaves the other to live 30 + years longer and he loses his salvation. Would this at all be Just~&~Fair of God? Christ is the "Author and Finisher" of my faith. Shall I trust in a God who Author's my salvation, and ends it in condemnation,and hell. NO...God is my SAVIOUR, not the little ant called me. God is the Omnipotent Sovereign over me...not the little ant called me,and my so called "freewill", over God. I glorify God! It's not my job to hold on to God, and save Him so that He doesn't lose me. But His Job to hold on to me, and SAVE me. I have much more to say on this....

-Jon_2:9 But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.

But how do you not see your belief as not being a license for immorality? The Bible already warns us against such a thing when it says,

"For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality" (Jude 1:4 NIV).

In other words, if there was no penalty anymore for speeding on the high way, guess what is going to happen. More people are going to break that new speed limit law and drive more unsafe on the high ways. For it is only natural for man to do the wrong thing especially if he knows there is no major consequence in doing that wrong thing.


...

 

[Albion]

So you believe in a holey Bible (i.e. a book that is full of holes) and not the Holy Bible which is divine and perfect?

If you want a discussion with me, you'll have to address what I think and have written, not what you want me to think so that you can offer a rebuttal to that instead.

 

[FreeGrace2]

But how do you not see your belief as not being a license for immorality?

This tired charge against eternal security is false. No one needs a license for immorality. We all have a sin nature. Sinning is natural. No license needed.

What IS needed, and desperately, is to be forgiven of our sins, and to have a new nature, with which to serve God. And God has provided in both in grace.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason,

Never does.

Not even in your example of Jude. Double dead is physically dead, and spiritually dead. Those are people that will suffer a physical death as well as the spiritual death. This is made clear in vs 15 who we are talking about.

No. They are not just sinners in general. They professing believers who have slipped in among us. Verse 12 itself that mentions how they are twice dead says "these are spots in your love feasts, when they feast with you." In other words, they are defiled members in your weekly fellowship in celebrating the Lord's supper. For they feed themselves in the Lord's supper without fear. The Eternal Security Proponent today tells me that the word "fear" in regards to the "fear of the Lord" does not really mean "fear" despite what Philippians 2:12 says. These spots who feed themselves among us are also described as trees whose fruit that withers, too. Now, the picture here is that they once had fruit but then it later withers and dies. So these individuals were once fruitful for the Lord, but then they later became unfruitful. Here is verse 12 again,

"These are spots in your love feasts, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about by winds; trees whose fruit withers, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;" (Jude 1:12).

Also, these individuals are plucked up by the roots. This is an allusion to the Parable of the Sower. They that did not have root in God's Word and therefore they fell away for different sinful reasons. This is why David essentially said he hid God's Word within his heart so that he may not sin against Him (Psalms 119:11). Anyways, those who endured for a short time were saved initially because they received the seed of the Word of God with joy (i.e. they believed the gospel message) whereas the person whose seed was cast by the way side could not even receive the seed of the Word of God in their heart because the devil stole it out of their heart before it could be sown within their heart. In other words, this is the unbeliever and the rest of those in the parable are believers (with two of them falling away from the faith and becoming unsaved again). They are plucked up by the roots. Twice dead (dead once before they came to Christ and dead again by allowing sin to take hold in their life again).

This matches up with what is spoken of quite a bit in the Bible...A physical birth, a physical death. A spritual birth, a spiritual death. However, one can never experience the spiritual birth (being reborn), and only suffer the second death.
Revelations 2:11 "....He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death"

Sorry, Revelation 2:11 does not in any way support the false theological teaching that ALL those who had a second birth will endure or overcome in their faith until the end. On the contrary, it refutes what you actually believe. The verse says he that OVERCOMES will not be hurt by the second death (i.e. the Lake of Fire). OVERCOMES is an action on your part. However, no doubt you believe 1 John 5:4 teaches that all who overcome are those who are born of God. Here is the verse,

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (1 John 5:4).

So does this verse teach that ALL who are born of God overcome he world? Well, we know that the word "whatsoever" is used elsewhere in Scripture as not to refer to ANYTHING or ALL THINGS.

For Scripture says,

"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son." (John 14:13).

Surely, we (or the disciples of Christ) cannot ask for ANYTHING we want and then expect to receive that thing just because we asked for it in the name of Jesus. It doesn't work like that. The "whatsoever" is in context to only things that promotes the goodness of God and His will and plan. However, if you think John 14:13 is not talking to you but it is talking excusively to the disciples and you are determined that "whatsoever" always means all in every case, then you must also conclude that is what it says in Revelation 21, too.

Let's go ahead and read that.

10 "And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:10, Revelation 21:27).

Did you catch that?

Whatseover works or makes a lie will not be able to enter the city of Jerusalem. In other words, a believer who lies (because they erroneously think all their future sin paid for) will not be able to enter God's holy city on the Eternal New Earth. In fact, they won't even be on the New Earth. The destiny of all liars is the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8) and not God's Kingdom.

Revelations 20:6 "Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power"

The first resurrection is talking about the bodily resurrection and not the new birth. The context show us this fact.

4 "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."
(Revelation 20:4-5).

Revelations 21:8 "...and sorcerers and idolataters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with the fire and brimstone, which is the second death"

This verse refutes what you believe. The verse says ALL liars will have their part in the lake of fire. This means you cannot die in the unrepentant sin of lying. Proverbs 28:13 says he that confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy. This is confirmed by 1 John 1:9, 1 John 1:7 and Matthew 12:41 and Jonah 3:6-10.

You cannot say there is more than two deaths unless in Revelations "second" is just a place holder and it really meant "third" or "fourth" or "one thousand six hundred and eighty second".

No. Those who are twice dead and plucked up by the roots does not mean that these individuals have faced the Second Death yet. The Second Death is something that is yet future. They are twice dead and plucked up by the roots in the present tense. You are suggesting that it is a future tense word when verse 12 makes it clear that they are believers who have fallen away from the faith because it says they once had fruit and then they later became fruitless.

The Prodigal son, if you desire to apply the son coming back as the message of salvation then keep in mind the son was spirtually dead before he left. Unless you are going to say we are born with the inheritance. The Bible gives a different picture of people. It paints a picture that we are all born spiritually dead. We are born in the image of Adam.

All babies who die in this life go to be with the Lord. This lines up nicely with the picture of the Parable of the Prodigal Son. We were once in favor with God as a baby and then we squandered our inheritance by our sinful living and we admitted our sin before Heaven and before the Father in returning back home to Him (Thru Jesus Christ).

If the older brother represents Israel, then the prodigal must represent some other nation. It is the parable of the Prodigal son that people more often butcher interpretive standards. No other parable gets treated this way. Typically most people ignore half of this parable and only focus on the Prodigal. But you simply cannot ignore him. And treating one as the nation of Israel and the other as a picture of an individuals salvation is also really a corrupted process as well. That would be like saying the parable of the talents, one of the slaves represents Israel, another is Peter, and one was a picture of salvation. This sort of interpretation is just making the BIble say whatever you want. When looking at parables all of the pieces have to fit together otherwise they have no meaning.

No. The Bible itself says many times that there are two entities (Israel and the Gentiles). This is how the Bible speaks. To ignore it is to ignore the Bible. Romans 11:11 says,

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy." (Romans 11:11).

This is exactly what we see happen in the Parable. The son returns; For Adam was not an Israelite. Adam was a representation of all the nations (Gentiles). So when the son (Gentile nations) returned, they provoked jealousy within Israel. This is what happens in the Parable. The brother gets jealous when the son returns home.

Your quoting Ezekiel...keep in mind OT righteousness is different than in the NT when it comes to the believer.

Surely if Ezekiel said something that lines up with your belief, you would quote it, no?
In other words, you are only ignoring what he said here because it does not line up with your belief system.
What Ezekiel says in Ezekiel 18:24 still stands as a true today.
God does not change in regards to common basic morality.

Besides, the New Testament also confirms this truth, as well.

20 "For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog has turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." (2 Peter 2:20-22).

Romans 6:18 says that we "having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" - A slave cannot walk away.

Jesus says if you sin you are a slave to sin (John 8:34). Paul says you yield yourselves to whatever servant you obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness (Romans 6:16).

Romans 9:31 says that Israel pursued the law of righteousness but never got there.

But the disciples were Israelites and they surely found favor with the Messiah. What makes them different? Did God just choose people at random? Do you not know that Jesus had a problem with the Iraelites in not keeping the Law? Did Jesus ever say that their problem was in keeping the Law? No. That wasn't the problem. Granted, the New Covenant believer today does not follow the Old Covenant Law or Laws anymore. They follow the Commands given to them in the New Covenant (or New Testament). For the Old Law was fulfilled when Christ died upon the cross. This is obvious by the fact that the Temple veil was torn from top to bottom in the Jewish temple.

Romans 10:3-4 "For not knowing about God's rightousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

Yes, exactly. The Jews did not submit to the actual laws of God under the Old Covenant and they went out and created their own traditions and laws in addition to the Law of Moses (See Matthew 15:3).

For Christ is the end of hte law of righteousness to everyone who believes" We are no longer bound to the law of righteousness spoken of in Ezekiel. Christ was the end of that law.

Ezekiel speaks of spiritual truth that has remained the same in the New Testament. If that was not the case, then God would be a respecter of persons (Treating some individuals differently on a righteous level than others). Such a thing would not be fair and just. Yes, Christ is the end of the Law of Moses, but Christ is not the end of the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2), the Royal Law (James 2:8) or the Law of Liberty (James 1:25). Christ is not the end of the Laws or Commands in the New Covenant. If that was the case, then the Command to believe on Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23) would also be null and void, too.

1 Corinthians 1:30 "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption." Christ became our righteousness.

There are many verses that explain that before the Father, our righteousness is Christ. Our faith is accounted as our righteousness before judgement, not our deeds.

I believe in the Substitionary Atonement. But I believe the Substitionary Atonement only works if you have the right kind of faith. For the Bible says, faith without works is dead (James 2:17). How can a dead faith access the saving grace of God (Which is a gift)? The short answer is that it can't.

No extreme whatsoever. It is simply what the Bible says "drink of the water I give and you will never thirst" It is very simple.

Yes, you are taking this verse out of context just as someone who might take the word "all" out of context in a passage that is not referring to "all" people in existence when it is referring to only "all" those people in the surrounding area. Scripture has to be compared with other Scripture to get the proper understanding.

No one is saying that people become perfect. We are human we fail all the time.

Jesus says be ye perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect.
The Father is perfect because he is holy and sinless.
God also says in His Word, "Be ye holy as I am holy."
Is Jesus and God's Word lying? No, of course not.

What Christ talked about was not us abiding in Him. You seem to ignore that Christ abides in US as well.

No, John 14:23 says,

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man loves me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

And 1 John 2:3-6 says,
3 "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."

John 6:56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him"

You have no idea what the eating of Christ's flesh even means. It means to do the will of the Father.

"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34).

As for the blood: You think it is just automatically applied to you with having a belief on Jesus alone. But the Bible says,

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:7).

You said "Jesus is merely talking about never thirsting again if one drinks of this type of water."...exactly...If one drinks of the water that He is giving then one will never thirst again. That is what the Bible says. He sure was not talking about the water from that well that he asked the woman to give Him.

In Jude, there are professing believers among us who are said to be "clouds without water." They are "Trees whose fruit withers."

Jesus tells us to abide in Him and His Words (John 15:7). This does not suggest that Christ is the One who will take control of abiding in you regardless of what you do.

In other words, a person will never thirst for the type of water Christ gives to them as long as they abide in Christ and His words. it is not like the physical water that we keep needing to take because we can continually abide in Christ and His words all the time. This is not the case with water. We cannot continually drink water 24/7 or we would get water poisoning. Besides, why would Christ give the water of life to someone who does not want to abide in Christ and His Words anymore? Is your free will eliminated after coming to Christ? Does Christ keep a person captive against their free will?

And pretty much everything else you cited...agree. Granted most of it had nothing to do with salvation. You seem to confuse salvation with sanctification. Two completely different things, while related they are not the same.

No. That is not true. Jesus says in Matthew 7:21 that not everyone who says unto Him, Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but he that does the will of the Father. The Bible says the will of the Father or the will of God is our Sanctification or holiness (1 Thessalonians 4:3); And Hebrews 12:14 says, without holiness no man shall see the Lord.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This teaching is in line with the fact that (1) eternal life is a gift from God,

If I were to give you a car as a gift, does that mean you can be irresponsible with that gift by ignoring the traffic laws and or the general maintenance of that car? No. Most certainly not. In fact, Ephesians says we are saved by grace THRU faith. In other words, you cannot be saved without faith. But what does one's faith look like? James says faith without works is dead (James 2:17). Can a dead faith save somebody?

(2) those who have eternal life cannot lose it because they have been born again,

Actually, the Bible says we (Gentiles) are to continue in his goodness otherwise we can be cut off just like the Jews were cut off (Romans 11:22).

(3) those who have eternal life have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, which means that they have the power to obey Christ, and (4) those who have the Holy Spirit will do the will of the Father because they love God (which corresponds to the commandment of Christ). But each thing must be in its proper place.

Saul once had the Spirit but the Spirit departed from Saul and evil spirit came upon him then.
David pleads with God not to take his Holy Spirit from him.
Also, Scripture says God set his seal upon the type of believe who labors for the food that leads unto eternal life.
Are you laboring for the food that leads unto eternal life whereby you would have the seal of God?

...