Those who really love Jesus prove it -- unto eternal life

[FreeGrace2]

I agree with the Bible "experts" that almost every NT reference
to "death" refers to none udder than spiritual death!

I'm glad you put the word 'experts' in quotes, because they aren't really experts at all if that's their view.

That's just plain false on its face.

Some people on Christian forums seem forced to say that:
Jesus goes around killing people who insist on sinning!

No one is forced to say that one of God's methods of divine discipline is physical death.

The Bible itself says so. 1 Cor 11:30 - That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

The context very clearly is about God's discipline.

Dis is what is called rationalization to uphold one's belief about something.

Nonsense.

Everything is about:
"the doctrines of man" --vs-- Scripture + the Holy Spirit

Those having the indwelling Holy Spirit' ...
are supposed to be taught "all things" by Him (John & 1 John).

And man is free to learn or not learn.

However, certain hindrances can block this.
Such as being deceived by the first part of the blue!
IMO, no one is deceived who totally trusts ONLY in the second part.

The biggest deception of all time is the false doctrine that one can lose their salvation.

 

[ZacharyB]

No one is forced to say that one of God's methods of divine discipline is physical death. The Bible itself says so.
1 Cor 11:30 - That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

I'll take the view of most Bible commentators:
almost every mention of death in the NT is referring to spiritual death.

IMO, this means they are going against the popular OSAS view.
The context of each of these verses has led them to hold their view.

And I'll take their view on all of these verses against your one verse,
which is talking only about taking communion unworthily.
Perhaps this is the one unconditional issue re: physical death,
which parallels the one unforgivable sin re: spiritual death.

I won't be addressing this issue any more.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'll take the view of most Bible commentators:
almost every mention of death in the NT is referring to spiritual death.

Please cite at least 3 of these "most Bible commentators" to prove your claim. I don't believe your claim.

 

[brotherjerry]

Everything is about:
"the doctrines of man" --vs-- Scripture + the Holy Spirit

That is one of the funniest things I have read in a while. Considering you have provided not one verse that clearly states salvation can be lost. And others have shown you verses that speak of eternal security clearly....and you want to accuse them of doctrines of men? You have no Scripture while others do and you claim they are adhering to doctrines of men?

 

[ZacharyB]

... you have provided not one verse that clearly states salvation can be lost.

And others have shown you verses that speak of eternal security clearly ...

I have posted dozens of 'em here in the past.

Yes, there definitely are some which teach eternal security.

The Lord has all of the bases covered ... that's all there is to it.
(Sorry, you probably don't understand baseball terminology.)
He can do (and does) whatever He pleases.

I don't see Him out-and-out lying in either case ...
because He clearly has balanced the views which oppose each other.
But, of course, they're not balanced to those who have been
spiritually blinded by one or more unfortunate negative influences.

Oh yes, I forgot, believers don't think it possible to be spiritually blind
(i.e. ignorant) about any spiritual Truths! ... an endless string of lols

P.S. Believers really need to be "OPEN" to hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit
regarding matters about which they have been deceived. Make any sense?
Sure hope so!

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have posted dozens of 'em here in the past.

Yes, there definitely are some which teach eternal security.

OK, so you have made it clear that you believe that the Bible teaches both eternal security AND conditional security. That is contradictory.

The Lord has all of the bases covered ... that's all there is to it.

Are you actually accusing our Lord to be contradictory?

The phrase "cover all bases" means to believe anything and everything.

(Sorry, you probably don't understand baseball terminology.)
He can do (and does) whatever He pleases.

I will tell you what He cannot do: be inconsistent or contradictory. If He ever were, then He couldn't be God.

I don't see Him out-and-out lying in either case ...

If He believes both issues, and neither can be true at the same time, or even one after the other, then He actually IS lying.

because He clearly has balanced the views which oppose each other.

This is a very UNbalanced statement! But at least you're being honest about what you believe. Which is contrary to reason, and unbalanced.

But, of course, they're not balanced to those who have been
spiritually blinded by one or more unfortunate negative influences.

Actually, the other way around. They only seem balanced to the spiritually blind.

2 opposites cannot be both true. That is a FACT that your probable denial will mean nothing.

 

[ZacharyB]

No comment to da above post, which is beyond ridiculous!

 

[brotherjerry]

No comment because what he said was true Zach.

You claimed that God has "all the bases covered" indicating you believe in conditional security and eternal security all at the same time. That is its own conflict.

The very FACT you agree that there are verses that clearly teach eternal security should give you pause. You simply CANNOT be eternally secure if there are also conditions...IE you have to work to keep it.

Another fact of the matter is that NO you have not provided verses that clearly state salvation can be lost. Not once. Verses that say "if you continue you will be saved" sort of thing...you have to imply the inverse in order to get salvation lost...they do not say themselves that salvation can be lost, that is an implication you have to make. But on the other hand there are clear verses that state salvation cannot be lost.

John 6:39-40 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up on the last day"
- If Christ can lose nothing, then those who behold and believe receive eternal life and cannot be lost. Otherwise Christ failed to do the will of the Father.

John 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My father who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
- Christ gives eternal life, we do not see any condition upon it. There is no "I give it to them as long as they do....".
- Shall never perish is stated as a condition of being given eternal life. It is because we were given eternal life that we shall never perish. Again no condition on that. It does not state "as long as they do...."
- What we also see is the tie in to the verses in Chapter 6 above....The Sheep are given to Christ by the Father..."all that He has given me I lose nothing." If we are given to Christ by the Father, then Christ loses nothing. If any were lost, then Christ did not do the will of the Father.

There is just a couple that clearly talk about eternal life and how it is not conditional.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No comment to da above post, which is beyond ridiculous!

What is 'beyond ridiculous' is to hold to two completely antithetical positions.

 

[ZacharyB]

You claimed that God has "all the bases covered" indicating you believe in conditional security and eternal security all at the same time.
That is its own conflict.

God having all the bases covered is NOT conflict.
It is merely part of His incredible genius!
Is it okay with you that He is such, and does such?

Yes, God most incredibly-obviously has provided verses
for both sides of the equation.
Just because you boys 'n gals don't understand and/or accept
and believe these passages does NOT mean they are not there!
Forum rules do not allow me to say any more.

P.S. I've already explained who Jesus' real sheep are
(re: your John 10:27-29), which is VERY restrictive indeed!
If someone needs to have it explained again, please just ask.

 

[FreeGrace2]

God having all the bases covered is NOT conflict.

Apparently you are not aware of how the phrase is used, and what it means. To say "all bases" means all sides of an argument.

The truth is not on all sides of any argument. Truth is on its own side. All other sides are untruth, or false.

It is merely part of His incredible genius!
Is it okay with you that He is such, and does such?

Your claim has not been validated from Scripture.

Yes, God most incredibly-obviously has provided verses
for both sides of the equation.

Utter nonsense. That would mean that God teaches two ANTITHETICAL ideas. Making God totally contradictory. But you've already noted that you don't see it that way. So there is no use in further discussion.

Just because you boys 'n gals don't understand and/or accept
and believe these passages does NOT mean they are not there!

That means that those who believe that salvation can be lost are right, and those that believe that salvation cannot be lost are right. Boy, are you wrong.

Forum rules do not allow me to say any more.

Thank goodness!!

P.S. I've already explained who Jesus' real sheep are
(re: your John 10:27-29), which is VERY restrictive indeed!
If someone needs to have it explained again, please just ask.

No need. Jesus actually told us how restrictive He was, in John 10:9 - I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

iow, His sheep are restricted to ONLY those who have believed. No one else.

 

[brotherjerry]

I can add nothing to what FG2 said about that nonsense.

Praying for you Zach.

 

[ZacharyB]

John 10:27-29
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;
and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish;

Since so many have asked, I will respond ...
'Tis wonderful that you boys 'n gals are involved in all 3 of the blues!
You guys who love dem blues, keep up the good work.

P.S. even this little verse destroys OSAS.

 

[ZacharyB]

I came across this little verse, which seems to be hiding ...

1 Corinthians 8:3 “But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.”

If anyone loves God, he/she will be known (approved) by God through obedience.
Because Jesus said several times (see the OP) ...
those who love Him will obey His commandments.
This obeying is what makes a believer "approved".

Love Jesus >>> Obey His commands >>> Be approved & known by Him

1 John 2:
1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin.
And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (through His blood, see 1 John 1:7-9)
2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins,
and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments,
is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him.
By this we know that we are in Him.

 

[brotherjerry]

Zach by your very own verses you defeat yourself.

If we say we know Him but do not keep His commandments that person is a liar...and by the theology you espouse that person is not saved...they have lost their salvation. But yet you also refer to 1 John 1. And if we say we have no sin, then we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

The Bible makes it very clear that "all have sinned". 1 John clearly states that we still have sin and commit sin. Even basically calling us liars if we claim we do not.

What John clearly states is that if we claim to have no sin, then the TRUTH is not IN us. Christ said in John 14 "I am the way, and the TRUTH". So John is saying that if we claim to have no sin, then Christ is not IN us.

And 1 Corinthians 8...it is "known" not "approved" They carry two different meanings. The Greek word there is ginōskō and its meaning is more akin to "to become acquainted with, to know"
Also note that 1 Corinthians says that in order for God to know that person, they merely have to love the person.
Just like your other verses of Christ saying if you love me keep my commandments. Keeping the commandments is a show of love, it is not the love itself. It is something you would do because you love someone, but it is not something you do in order to keep your love.
And everyone shows their love differently. Now that is not to justify sinning in the least. But it does show that salvation is not linked to the actions we do in order to show we love God, but salvation is linked to our loving God. God knows us because we love him, not because we go to church every Sunday.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I came across this little verse, which seems to be hiding ...

1 Corinthians 8:3 “But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.”

If anyone loves God, he/she will be known (approved) by God through obedience.
Because Jesus said several times (see the OP) ...
those who love Him will obey His commandments.
This obeying is what makes a believer "approved".

Now the challenge for you is to prove that being "approved" means being saved.

You have linked performance to being saved, when the Bible most clearly says otherwise. We are saved by grace through faith, per Eph 2:8.

Those believers who are approved will be rewarded by Him. Those disapproved will lose their reward. Not their salvation.

2 verses on rewards:
1 Cor 3:14,15 -
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

It is clear from v.15 that what is lost isn't salvation, but the reward of v.14.

2 John 8 -
Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.

Your theory cannot reconcile these verses.

 

[ZacharyB]

Your theory cannot reconcile these verses.

My theory of reconciling all of the NT verses (both blessings & curses)
includes MANY dozens of various & sundry dire warnings for believers,
of which about 20 obviously warn believers of losing salvation!
You have seen and rejected all of these.

 

[FreeGrace2]

My theory of reconciling all of the NT verses (both blessings & curses)
includes MANY dozens of various & sundry dire warnings for believers,
of which about 20 obviously warn believers of losing salvation!
You have seen and rejected all of these.

I reject what doesn't "obviously warn of losing salvation" because it isn't obvious that they do warn about that.

What is far more obvious is that once saved, the person remains saved, all because of God's grace. The grace that we're saved by is the same grace that we're kept by.

Why should anyone think that God saves by grace, and after believing in Christ, He pulls the grace away and forces His children to stay saved by their own actions???

 

[ZacharyB]

Why should anyone think that God saves by grace, and after believing in Christ, He pulls the grace away and forces His children to stay saved by their own actions???

1) Becoose it is just common sense ... can you relate?
By grace, daddy-o gives his 16-year-old son a new car,
but takes it away from him because he radically misuses it.

2) Becoose of all of the dire warnings about the believer's responsibility.

 

[brotherjerry]

Now the challenge for you is to prove that being "approved" means being saved.

The challenge is first showing how "known" is to equate to being approved