Seemingly Anti-OSAS Scriptures

[Dan the deacon]

They fall away from the faith. They depart from the faith.
'the faith ', but does it say 'their faith'?
So they leave the still faithful church, which shows they are not of the church, or they would not have departed 'the faith'.

1 Timothy 4:1 [ The Great Apostasy ] Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

Now such a belief is twisting scripture to the breaking point. Scripture is written to believers not the lost. I suppose you also don't Sin? Answering yes would make you untruthful (a sin).

 

[Dan the deacon]

There are not any verses that say one "departs salvation". There are verses that say one can "depart the faith". They are different.

"The faith" is the body of what one believes. It isn't salvation itself.


Excommunication is not losing salvation. Not even close.


Then you're going to have to explain why Jesus lied in John 10:28 when He taught the ONLY CONDITION for never perishing is to be given the gift of eternal life.

Please proceed.

Excommunication is being put out of Christ's Church. Now is Christ not returning to collect His Church? So how is such not losing one's salvation? I do understand it isn't something a man cannot fix by repentance. But if you are not of the Church when He returns, it is not a good thing.
Jesus didn't lie. If you believe and keep the faith, heaven is your destination. If you cease to believe. It is not for you . Our job is to believe. It is our only part in our salvation. The rest Jesus has already done.
I know I sin nearly every day. I ask for forgiveness daily. It is a primary part of my daily prayerlife. Saying I don't sin would be a lie. Knowing God knows all, I have to repent and ask Father for forgiveness. Saying I don't sin would be another sin called lying. Sorry, Calvin was either wrong on that point or misunderstood.

 

[tdidymas]

Excommunication is being put out of Christ's Church. Now is Christ not returning to collect His Church? So how is such not losing one's salvation? I do understand it isn't something a man cannot fix by repentance. But if you are not of the Church when He returns, it is not a good thing.
Jesus didn't lie. If you believe and keep the faith, heaven is your destination. If you cease to believe. It is not for you . Our job is to believe. It is our only part in our salvation. The rest Jesus has already done.
I know I sin nearly every day. I ask for forgiveness daily. It is a primary part of my daily prayerlife. Saying I don't sin would be a lie. Knowing God knows all, I have to repent and ask Father for forgiveness. Saying I don't sin would be another sin called lying. Sorry, Calvin was either wrong on that point or misunderstood.

Dan, there are 2 kinds of believing spoken of in the NT (James, for example). Some will call Jesus 'Lord' but not be saved (ever) because their lifestyle proved their 'faith' was not genuine ('saving faith' is the term used speaking of genuine faith which comes from James 2:14). Jesus said of them "I never knew you," meaning they never had salvation even though they claimed to do mighty things in His name, knew all the Christian jargon, probably had knowledge of Christian doctrine, etc. The faith that 'saves' is spiritual and much deeper than the faith exhibited by human intellect and emotions. Jesus and the apostles spoke and wrote with the assumption that not everyone in the churches were saved or had saving faith. The evidence of this is peppered throughout the gospels and epistles.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

Dan, there are 2 kinds of believing spoken of in the NT (James, for example). Some will call Jesus 'Lord' but not be saved (ever) because their lifestyle proved their 'faith' was not genuine ('saving faith' is the term used speaking of genuine faith which comes from James 2:14). Jesus said of them "I never knew you," meaning they never had salvation even though they claimed to do mighty things in His name, knew all the Christian jargon, probably had knowledge of Christian doctrine, etc. The faith that 'saves' is spiritual and much deeper than the faith exhibited by human intellect and emotions. Jesus and the apostles spoke and wrote with the assumption that not everyone in the churches were saved or had saving faith. The evidence of this is peppered throughout the gospels and epistles.
TD

The example of Matt 7 isn't about a "non-saving faith", since there was no mention of faith at all. In fact, the only basis for that crowd wanting to enter the kingdom was on their deeds. They were just religious do-gooders, expecting God to honor their deeds.

The fact that Jesus told them, "I never knew you" shows they never had faith.

The faith mentioned in James isn't about getting saved, since James was clear about addressing fellow believers by his term "my brothers". I'm unaware of any commentary that suggests his letter was for either unbelievers, or a mix of unbelievers and believers.

And his point was that those who have faith (are saved) need to demonstrate that faith to others in order to show they have faith. 2:18

The question in 2:14 isn't about eternal salvation, as commonly opined. When he asked "can such faith save him?" he was asking whether a faith without evidence will deliver/rescue/save a person from the charge of hypocrisy, even though he never used that word, a word that his half brother, Jesus used a lot against the Pharisees.

The evidence for that is found in the very net 2 verses:
15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.
16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?

The "one of you" is clearly directed toward the group of believers that he was addressing. Anyone who claims to be a Christian (have faith in Christ) yet behaves in the way of v.16 is a hypocrite. That doesn't mean they aren't saved. It means they aren't living the way they should be living.

 

[Dan the deacon]

Dan, there are 2 kinds of believing spoken of in the NT (James, for example). Some will call Jesus 'Lord' but not be saved (ever) because their lifestyle proved their 'faith' was not genuine ('saving faith' is the term used speaking of genuine faith which comes from James 2:14). Jesus said of them "I never knew you," meaning they never had salvation even though they claimed to do mighty things in His name, knew all the Christian jargon, probably had knowledge of Christian doctrine, etc. The faith that 'saves' is spiritual and much deeper than the faith exhibited by human intellect and emotions. Jesus and the apostles spoke and wrote with the assumption that not everyone in the churches were saved or had saving faith. The evidence of this is peppered throughout the gospels and epistles.
TD

Well then, I guess all calvinist would be fakers then as all of them practice sin.

 

[tdidymas]

Well then, I guess all calvinist would be fakers then as all of them practice sin.

Do you have a specific and relevant objection to what I wrote?
TD

 

[tdidymas]

The example of Matt 7 isn't about a "non-saving faith", since there was no mention of faith at all. In fact, the only basis for that crowd wanting to enter the kingdom was on their deeds. They were just religious do-gooders, expecting God to honor their deeds.

The fact that Jesus told them, "I never knew you" shows they never had faith.

The faith mentioned in James isn't about getting saved, since James was clear about addressing fellow believers by his term "my brothers". I'm unaware of any commentary that suggests his letter was for either unbelievers, or a mix of unbelievers and believers.

And his point was that those who have faith (are saved) need to demonstrate that faith to others in order to show they have faith. 2:18

The question in 2:14 isn't about eternal salvation, as commonly opined. When he asked "can such faith save him?" he was asking whether a faith without evidence will deliver/rescue/save a person from the charge of hypocrisy, even though he never used that word, a word that his half brother, Jesus used a lot against the Pharisees.

"Brothers" is a term used by the apostles for all in the church who claim faith in Christ, whether they actually be saved or not. The fact that John wrote "he who hates his brother is still in darkness" shows that "brothers" is a generic term, and does not assume salvation for them.

The fact that James writes (2:20) "But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?" and later "is dead" shows that he is indeed talking about a faith of the salvation kind. He says "is dead," not "is hypocrisy" as you suggest.

The evidence for that is found in the very net 2 verses:
15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.
16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?

The "one of you" is clearly directed toward the group of believers that he was addressing. Anyone who claims to be a Christian (have faith in Christ) yet behaves in the way of v.16 is a hypocrite. That doesn't mean they aren't saved. It means they aren't living the way they should be living.

No, "one of you" is anyone in the church, whether actually saved or not. Furthermore, anyone who discovers himself to be a hypocrite (by reading this passage, for example) better repent immediately, or they put their soul in peril. If someone does not repent of hypocrisy, it's a big red flag they aren't saved, since Jesus condemns it many times, as do the apostles in the epistles. I say that anyone who is saved will surely repent and not delay at it.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

"Brothers" is a term used by the apostles for all in the church who claim faith in Christ, whether they actually be saved or not. The fact that John wrote "he who hates his brother is still in darkness" shows that "brothers" is a generic term, and does not assume salvation for them.

I disagree with your opinion here. Are you not aware that saved people can and do actually hate other people? And such believers are "still in darkness". That means they are not living "in the light" of Scripture. John wrote about that in 1 John 1.

The fact that James writes (2:20) "But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?" and later "is dead" shows that he is indeed talking about a faith of the salvation kind. He says "is dead," not "is hypocrisy" as you suggest.

It cannot be shown that James wasn't talking about the need to demonstrate one's faith by deeds/works so others can SEE their faith. That was his whole point.

If a believer isn't demonstrating his faith by deeds/works, how will anyone else SEE his faith?

God SEES faith without any demonstration. But people NEED evidence.

No, "one of you" is anyone in the church, whether actually saved or not.

You can 'explain away' this any way you want. But to "save a soul from death" isn't about getting saved. It's about helping a fellow believer avoid God's discipline that would lead to physical death. Which John called the "sin unto death" in 1 John 5:16.

Furthermore, anyone who discovers himself to be a hypocrite (by reading this passage, for example) better repent immediately, or they put their soul in peril.

No believer's soul is "in peril". If that were true, Jesus was wrong in John 10:28. Are you going to tell me that Jesus really didn't mean that recipients of eternal life shall never perish?

But all hypocrites SHOULD repent immediately. In fact, every believer should repent of every sin they commit immediately.

If someone does not repent of hypocrisy, it's a big red flag they aren't saved, since Jesus condemns it many times, as do the apostles in the epistles.

Nonsense. Believers are capable of committing any sin that an unbeliever can commit.

King David committed rape and murder as a mature believer, but quite out of fellowship.

I say that anyone who is saved will surely repent and not delay at it.
TD

The problem with your view is thinking such action is automatic or guaranteed.

If that were true, why all the commands for holy living? Why do believers need to be chastised?

 

[tdidymas]

I disagree with your opinion here. Are you not aware that saved people can and do actually hate other people? And such believers are "still in darkness". That means they are not living "in the light" of Scripture. John wrote about that in 1 John 1.

Yet in the same epistle it says "he who does not love his brother abides in death." and "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."

It just appears to me that you are interpreting scripture according to your own agenda, and not according to the wider context of what scripture actually says. Hate is a big red flag manifested in malice, slander, envy, jealousy, faction, and every other evil behavior that the apostle Paul warned that whoever practices them shall not inherit heaven.

Therefore you can disagree all you want to, but the scripture says what it says.

It cannot be shown that James wasn't talking about the need to demonstrate one's faith by deeds/works so others can SEE their faith. That was his whole point.

If a believer isn't demonstrating his faith by deeds/works, how will anyone else SEE his faith?

God SEES faith without any demonstration. But people NEED evidence.

God doesn't need to see demonstration of your faith, but you do. The testing of our faith is more precious than gold, meaning that we don't know whether we really trust God or not if we aren't tested in it.

Deu 8:2: You shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.

Since God is omniscient, it is not He who needed to know what was in their heart; rather, it was they themselves who needed to know what was in their hearts, whether or not they had the faith to obey God in any and all circumstances. This is what testing is for.

Therefore, if I am tempted to hate someone, I am being tested to see if my faith in Christ will lead me to forgiveness. Whoever hates is not led to forgiveness, and therefore not led of the Spirit. Since the children of God are those who are led of the Spirit, those who hate (without repentance) are not children of God. Therefore Paul, James, and John are all in complete unity in this matter.

You can 'explain away' this any way you want. But to "save a soul from death" isn't about getting saved. It's about helping a fellow believer avoid God's discipline that would lead to physical death. Which John called the "sin unto death" in 1 John 5:16.

It looks to me like you're the one explaining it away.

No believer's soul is "in peril". If that were true, Jesus was wrong in John 10:28. Are you going to tell me that Jesus really didn't mean that recipients of eternal life shall never perish?

Those in peril are those who refuse to repent of their sins, seeing they are not obeying the gospel to believe in Christ's delivering power from sin. Whoever is not proving genuine faith by a lifestyle of repentance from sin doesn't have substance of evidence that he is saved. He may be, or may not, he simply won't know until he abides in Christ. This is the point of James and other epistles.

But all hypocrites SHOULD repent immediately. In fact, every believer should repent of every sin they commit immediately.

exactly my point, and a true believer will do so.

Nonsense. Believers are capable of committing any sin that an unbeliever can commit.

King David committed rape and murder as a mature believer, but quite out of fellowship.

No one said that believers are not capable of committing any sin. Theoretically, anyone is capable of committing any sin. The point of being led by the Spirit for those who belong to Christ is that they don't commit those sins, at the very least they don't live a sinful lifestyle.

I firmly believe you are committing slander against King David when you claim he committed rape. Nowhere in scripture does it say that. More evidence that you interpret scripture with an agenda.

The problem with your view is thinking such action is automatic or guaranteed.

If that were true, why all the commands for holy living? Why do believers need to be chastised?

The Holy Spirit was given to us as a guarantee of our inheritance. Whoever lives a lifestyle of sin has no guarantee of inheritance, therefore, repentance for the true believer is a sure thing. If a child of God is initially unrepentant in something, God chastises them in such a way as to force repentance. Some people need to become so miserable they just want peace with God again. Simple logic. "That we may share in His holiness." "But if anyone is not chastised, he is a bastard."
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"I disagree with your opinion here. Are you not aware that saved people can and do actually hate other people? And such believers are "still in darkness". That means they are not living "in the light" of Scripture. John wrote about that in 1 John 1."

Yet in the same epistle it says "he who does not love his brother abides in death." and "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."

Maybe you didn't read 1 John 1. The word 'fellowship' occurs 4 times. So, the believer who hates his brother is out of fellowship, or is "abiding in death".

Recall the prodigal parable. The son was not physically dead when the father described him as "dead" and "lost". The comparison was to his return, when the father described that as "alive" and "found".

Those who understand Jewish culture of the first century understand that what the son did by asking for his inheritance was, in essence, telling his father that he wished he were dead. How does that indicate a harmonious relationship with his father. It doesn't.

So we know that the son left the father out of fellowship with the father. The fellowship was dead and lost. But when the son repented and confessed, the father described him as being alive and found.

To spiritualize the parable into something about dying spiritually and being born again, or something like that is to miss completely what Jesus was teaching.

It just appears to me that you are interpreting scripture according to your own agenda

How about this: address my explanation of the prodigal parable and prove that it is in error.

Hate is a big red flag manifested in malice, slander, envy, jealousy, faction, and every other evil behavior that the apostle Paul warned that whoever practices them shall not inherit heaven.

Do you really believe that only certain sins will keep people out of heaven? I hope not.

And the 3 parallel verses about inheritance in heaven, Gal 5, 1 Cor 6 and Eph 5, are about reward IN heaven, not about entering heaven. 2 of the verses say "will not inherit the kingdom" and 1 says "have no inheritance IN the kingdom". But all 3 verses are parallel. So it's not about entering heaven, but whether or not one will have an inheritance IN heaven.

But those who believe salvation either are totally ignorant of the teaching of rewards in eternity, or they outright reject the teaching.

Therefore you can disagree all you want to, but the scripture says what it says.

It sure does. And my explanations are consistent with ALL of Scripture.

God doesn't need to see demonstration of your faith, but you do.

ANd that was James' point.

The testing of our faith is more precious than gold, meaning that we don't know whether we really trust God or not if we aren't tested in it.

If one doesn't know what they believe, they are more than confused. The reason God tests believers is to strengthen their faith. Not to show the believer whether they are saved or not. That doesn't even make sense.

Since God is omniscient, it is not He who needed to know what was in their heart; rather, it was they themselves who needed to know what was in their hearts, whether or not they had the faith to obey God in any and all circumstances. This is what testing is for.

The 40 years wandering in the desert was their discipline for NOT trusting in God's provision for them. In fact, even Moses didn't get to enter the promised land, and for just 1 sin. He struck a rock after God told him to speak to the rock for water.

1 Cor 10:1-11 summarizes the Exodus generation. They were saved. But they were unfaithful to the Lord and the result was dying in the desert. It took 40 years for all of the first generation, except Joshua and Caleb, to die off before the Lord led their children INTO the promised land.

Therefore, if I am tempted to hate someone, I am being tested to see if my faith in Christ will lead me to forgiveness.

So, you're equating a temptation to SIN as a test from God, huh? That's unbiblical.

Whoever hates is not led to forgiveness, and therefore not led of the Spirit.

Do you know who's not led of the Spirit. EVERY believer who is grieving (Eph 4:30) or quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Holy Spirit. That's who.

Since the children of God are those who are led of the Spirit, those who hate (without repentance) are not children of God. Therefore Paul, James, and John are all in complete unity in this matter.

This is far from the truth.

It looks to me like you're the one explaining it away.

No, it doesn't.

exactly my point, and a true believer will do so.

Why did Paul command believers to STOP grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit?

No one said that believers are not capable of committing any sin. Theoretically, anyone is capable of committing any sin. The point of being led by the Spirit for those who belong to Christ is that they don't commit those sins, at the very least they don't live a sinful lifestyle.

This is just very naive.

I firmly believe you are committing slander against King David when you claim he committed rape. Nowhere in scripture does it say that. More evidence that you interpret scripture with an agenda.

Apparently you are totally unfamiliar with the laws of that day. Kings had total control over the people. When David called for Bathsheba, she didn't have a choice to say "no thanks". That's the way it was back then. I suggest you read up on the laws of that day. So what David did was NOT an "affair". She had no choice in the matter. But you can call whatever you'd like. Makes no difference. He raped her.

And he had her husband killed, so David WAS a murder as well.

The Holy Spirit was given to us as a guarantee of our inheritance.

Yes, this is eternal security.

Whoever lives a lifestyle of sin has no guarantee of inheritance, therefore, repentance for the true believer is a sure thing.

You've just contradicted yourself. The Holy Spirit is given to every believer. Therefore, every believer is guaranteed heaven.

If a child of God is initially unrepentant in something, God chastises them in such a way as to force repentance.

Where in the world would anyone get the idea that repentance is forced on anyone? Certainly not the Bible.

But please provide what you think is evidence from the Bible about this so-called forced repentance. That's a new one for me.

Some people need to become so miserable they just want peace with God again. Simple logic.

While that is the purpose of God's discipline, it isn't always successful. Sometimes God has to take the child home. John referred to it as the "sin unto death" in 1 John 5:16.

Paul made note of it in 1 Cor 5:5, 10:1-11 and 11:30.

 

[tdidymas]

Part 1 of 2:

I said:
"I disagree with your opinion here. Are you not aware that saved people can and do actually hate other people? And such believers are "still in darkness". That means they are not living "in the light" of Scripture. John wrote about that in 1 John 1."

tdidymas said: Yet in the same epistle it says "he who does not love his brother abides in death." and "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."

Maybe you didn't read 1 John 1. The word 'fellowship' occurs 4 times. So, the believer who hates his brother is out of fellowship, or is "abiding in death".

So according to you this verse means that such a 'believer' does not have eternal life abiding in him, merely meaning he's "out of fellowship." IMO you have departed from the obvious meaning of the text.

Recall the prodigal parable. The son was not physically dead when the father described him as "dead" and "lost". The comparison was to his return, when the father described that as "alive" and "found".

Those who understand Jewish culture of the first century understand that what the son did by asking for his inheritance was, in essence, telling his father that he wished he were dead. How does that indicate a harmonious relationship with his father. It doesn't.

So we know that the son left the father out of fellowship with the father. The fellowship was dead and lost. But when the son repented and confessed, the father described him as being alive and found.

To spiritualize the parable into something about dying spiritually and being born again, or something like that is to miss completely what Jesus was teaching.

Did I say something about the parable of the prodigal? Or did you bring this up? It is not the same thing as saying "does not have eternal life abiding in him." If you make it to mean the same thing, then you are obviously in error.

tdidymas said: It just appears to me that you are interpreting scripture according to your own agenda

How about this: address my explanation of the prodigal parable and prove that it is in error.

You're not in error about the prodigal. You're in error about it meaning the same thing as "does not have eternal life abiding in him" in which you equated the two texts.

tdidymas said: Hate is a big red flag manifested in malice, slander, envy, jealousy, faction, and every other evil behavior that the apostle Paul warned that whoever practices them shall not inherit heaven.

Do you really believe that only certain sins will keep people out of heaven? I hope not.

Any sin will keep a non-believer out of heaven, since Adam brought death to mankind for eating the wrong fruit. But in regard to 'believers', since no one is perfect, we have to draw a line on what sins we are warned will keep people out and which won't. An obvious example is adultery compared with farting at the dinner table. Adultery is clearly a sin leading to death, since Paul wrote "those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven." Whereas farting at the dinner table is obviously offensive, but is not a sin leading to death. John makes that distinction when he wrote about sin leading to death and sin not leading to death. The point of Paul writing to the Corinthians and Galatians about which sins result in condemnation was to indicate what kind of behavior constitutes those who are still in bondage to the kingdom of darkness (i.e. have not been saved from their sins). This is where the "rubber meets the road" in the Christian faith.

And the 3 parallel verses about inheritance in heaven, Gal 5, 1 Cor 6 and Eph 5, are about reward IN heaven, not about entering heaven. 2 of the verses say "will not inherit the kingdom" and 1 says "have no inheritance IN the kingdom". But all 3 verses are parallel. So it's not about entering heaven, but whether or not one will have an inheritance IN heaven.

But those who believe salvation either are totally ignorant of the teaching of rewards in eternity, or they outright reject the teaching.

Do you honestly believe that someone who claims to believe in Christ, yet practices witchcraft his whole life until he dies, will enter heaven (yet have no inheritance in it)? I hope not.

This kind of reasoning is done by the typical antinomian who thinks that professing "Jesus is Lord" in words (but not intentions) will get him forgiveness of his sins past, present, and future. Hogwash.

Paul is warning people in the churches of what kind of behavior delineates between sons of God and sons of the devil, as John also does in 1 Jn. 3:10. Sons of God believe in Christ's delivering power, and sons of the devil don't. Therefore your response is in error.

BTW, you forgot Col 3:5-6: "Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience." It means that one who practices immorality (for example) is a son of disobedience, in which the wrath of God is coming to such a one. It is very obvious to me that you are in error in this matter.

tdidymas said: Therefore you can disagree all you want to, but the scripture says what it says.

It sure does. And my explanations are consistent with ALL of Scripture.

obviously not, as I proved above.

tdidymas said: God doesn't need to see demonstration of your faith, but you do.

ANd that was James' point.

As was also Moses' point and my point. I'm glad we agree on something.

tdidymas said: The testing of our faith is more precious than gold, meaning that we don't know whether we really trust God or not if we aren't tested in it.

If one doesn't know what they believe, they are more than confused. The reason God tests believers is to strengthen their faith. Not to show the believer whether they are saved or not. That doesn't even make sense.

Makes perfect sense if you understand the distinction between false and true faith. Knowing that we really trust God in every situation is part of faith, as it is what brings assurance. "But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the saving of the soul." The writer of Hebrews is acknowledging that distinction and confirming the assurance and confidence that comes with tested faith.

tdidymas said: Since God is omniscient, it is not He who needed to know what was in their heart; rather, it was they themselves who needed to know what was in their hearts, whether or not they had the faith to obey God in any and all circumstances. This is what testing is for.

The 40 years wandering in the desert was their discipline for NOT trusting in God's provision for them. In fact, even Moses didn't get to enter the promised land, and for just 1 sin. He struck a rock after God told him to speak to the rock for water.

1 Cor 10:1-11 summarizes the Exodus generation. They were saved. But they were unfaithful to the Lord and the result was dying in the desert. It took 40 years for all of the first generation, except Joshua and Caleb, to die off before the Lord led their children INTO the promised land.

Your application to the Christian life of this passage is weak, and doesn't follow Paul's application in 1 Cor. 10. And yes he is talking about salvation, since he says in 9:25 "we run to receive an imperishable wreath" and in 10:33 "so that they may be saved." Only the antinomian reasons that this passage is only regarding rewards, which is out of the wider context of the NT. Salvation is the point in Paul's message in which he says "Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved." Heb. 3 is a parallel passage that is talking about salvation, according to the context.

The point is that the child of God doesn't crave evil things. The child of God believes in the delivering power of Christ. Temptations to crave evil things are overcome because of their trust in Jesus and abiding in Him. This is the criteria for assurance of salvation, which the whole NT is filled with. Anyone who craves evil things and continues to do so is not led by the Spirit, thus has no evidence to assure him that he is saved, since the gospel's promise is salvation from sin.

tdidymas said: Therefore, if I am tempted to hate someone, I am being tested to see if my faith in Christ will lead me to forgiveness.

So, you're equating a temptation to SIN as a test from God, huh? That's unbiblical.

No, it is Biblical as it is clearly stated in Deu. 8:2. We are warring against evil principles, and all temptations are just as much testings of our faith as they are spiritual warfare. Exercising our faith to overcome temptations also strengthen and increase our faith, if our faith is in the One who delivers.

tdidymas said: Whoever hates is not led to forgiveness, and therefore not led of the Spirit.

Do you know who's not led of the Spirit. EVERY believer who is grieving (Eph 4:30) or quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Holy Spirit. That's who.

Yet whoever repents of it is led of the Spirit. No one is perfect, but children of God are led of the Spirit, and such leading is manifested in repentance.

tdidymas said: Since the children of God are those who are led of the Spirit, those who hate (without repentance) are not children of God. Therefore Paul, James, and John are all in complete unity in this matter.

This is far from the truth.

Paul: Rom 8:13-14 "for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God."
Gal 6:7 "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life."
James: Jas 1:15 "Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death."
Jas 1:26 "If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless."
John: 1Jo 3:10 "By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother."
1Jo 3:14 "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death."

Your responses are leading me to believe you are in the antinomian camp.

tdidymas said: It looks to me like you're the one explaining it away.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. I said "it looks to me..."

tdidymas said: exactly my point, and a true believer will do so.

Why did Paul command believers to STOP grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit?

Are you referring to 1 Thess. 5:19 and Eph. 4:30? He did not say "stop" doing that, as if they were practicing it. He simply said "do not" do it. It is where the rubber meets the road in the Christian life. The true believer believes in the delivering power of Christ, and therefore lives a lifestyle of repentance. Since they are spiritual people, they will know in the spirit when the Holy Spirit is grieved or quenched, and will work toward repentance and edification, since they believe in embracing the holiness of God. Anyone who disobeys by practice and who has no conscience about grieving or quenching the Spirit is merely proving they aren't saved. In the churches there exist both wheat and tares, both true and false believers.

All the commands and warnings in the NT are for discerning who is true and who isn't (as a part of their purpose). They cause us to ask the legitimate and meaningful question "is my faith genuine?" And where we see evidence of doubt or suspicion that it isn't, we repent. Sometimes it takes studying scripture along certain lines (or topics) in order to affirm the truth and get clear on it, in order to purify our faith. But the point is that the child of God is going the right direction toward God's holiness, by pursuing a path of righteous living which he obtains by faith in Christ. The one who does not live life in this manner has nothing to stand on for assurance of his salvation. It is a major point of all the epistles.
TD
(cont'd)

 

[tdidymas]

Part 2 of 2:

tdidymas said: No one said that believers are not capable of committing any sin. Theoretically, anyone is capable of committing any sin. The point of being led by the Spirit for those who belong to Christ is that they don't commit those sins, at the very least they don't live a sinful lifestyle.

This is just very naive.

IMO your response is naive, implying no discernment between who is a true believer and who isn't.

tdidymas said: I firmly believe you are committing slander against King David when you claim he committed rape. Nowhere in scripture does it say that. More evidence that you interpret scripture with an agenda.

Apparently you are totally unfamiliar with the laws of that day. Kings had total control over the people. When David called for Bathsheba, she didn't have a choice to say "no thanks". That's the way it was back then. I suggest you read up on the laws of that day. So what David did was NOT an "affair". She had no choice in the matter. But you can call whatever you'd like. Makes no difference. He raped her.

Your response seems to me exaggerative and unreasonable. The scripture says nothing of any resistance from her, therefore it was consensual. Wherever the scripture acknowledges rape, it says so with strong words like "raped" "violated" "defiled" and such. There is nothing like that with David's situation, therefore it wasn't rape.

And he had her husband killed, so David WAS a murder as well.

I didn't say he wasn't, and that was not the point.

tdidymas said: The Holy Spirit was given to us as a guarantee of our inheritance.

Yes, this is eternal security.

It's good that we agree on something.

tdidymas said: Whoever lives a lifestyle of sin has no guarantee of inheritance, therefore, repentance for the true believer is a sure thing.

You've just contradicted yourself. The Holy Spirit is given to every believer. Therefore, every believer is guaranteed heaven.

Not a contradiction. You misunderstand. My point is about discerning between who is saved and who isn't, who has the Holy Spirit and who doesn't. You're trying to make it about losing an obtained salvation, which is not what I said or meant. The Holy Spirit is given to true believers, not false ones. Wheat vs. tares, sheep vs. goats.

tdidymas said: If a child of God is initially unrepentant in something, God chastises them in such a way as to force repentance.

Where in the world would anyone get the idea that repentance is forced on anyone? Certainly not the Bible.

But please provide what you think is evidence from the Bible about this so-called forced repentance. That's a new one for me.

Just what in the world do you think is communicated by chastisement and scourging? If a loving father spanks the child, will the child think he should laugh with glee, or cry in agony? It is obvious to any reasonable person that putting a child in misery to force compliance with rules is a loving act when it comes to teaching that child the importance of safety, whether it be a physical or mental health issue. It is designed to change the attitude. Prov. 22:15 "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him." It kind of makes me wonder what "bible" you are reading.

tdidymas said: Some people need to become so miserable they just want peace with God again. Simple logic.

While that is the purpose of God's discipline, it isn't always successful. Sometimes God has to take the child home. John referred to it as the "sin unto death" in 1 John 5:16.

Paul made note of it in 1 Cor 5:5, 10:1-11 and 11:30.

I think your interpretation of this lacks consideration of the wider context of scripture. If you were antinomian, then I could certainly understand why you would interpret it that way.

But 1 Jn. 5:16 does't actually say that it is talking about physical death. In fact, the term "death" in 1 Jn. consistently means spiritual death. There is no reason to think that he changes the definition in this statement from the consistent usage of the word elsewhere in his epistle.

1 Cor. 5:5 isn't talking about God killing the man so his spirit can be saved - this is a speculative interpretation out of context with the whole of 1 Cor. Paul's statement is meant to enact a "destruction of his flesh" to make him miserable enough to repent and desire the peace of God. "That his spirit may be saved..." implies repentance, since that is what actually happened. Therefore, it was Paul's intention to induce an attitude of repentance in the man.

1 Cor. 10:1-11 is about discerning who are true believers vs. false, as I explained above. This passage induces us to ask the question "is my faith genuine?" The parallel to this is Heb. 3 which is obviously talking about saving faith.

1 Cor. 11:30 is simply a case having to do with the rite of communion. "Eating and drinking unworthily" is not a sin leading to spiritual death, since that is not listed in those heinous sins that "those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven." The type of sin being committed in this case is a type in which the protection of God (and supernatural healing power) is withdrawn from people because of their disrespect of the purpose of the rite and disregard of other peoples' involvement in it. Not the same category as immorality.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

Part 1 of 2:

So according to you this verse means that such a 'believer' does not have eternal life abiding in him, merely meaning he's "out of fellowship." IMO you have departed from the obvious meaning of the text.

Did I say something about the parable of the prodigal? Or did you bring this up? It is not the same thing as saying "does not have eternal life abiding in him." If you make it to mean the same thing, then you are obviously in error.

Since you're unfamiliar with the idea of fellowship and the meaning of "abiding", I'll explain what 1 John 3:15 means.

In John's writings, the concept of "abiding" is always that it is a reciprocal relationship. Since Christ Himself IS eternal life, (5:20), to say that someone does not have eternal life abiding in him is equivalent to saying that he does not have Christ abiding in him.

Also keep in mind that when Jesus told His disciples in John 15 to "abide in Me, and I will abide in you" (reciprocal relationship), it was a command. We, as humans, have no power over the gift of eternal life, to do with it as we please. While we can do with our own physical lives as we please (but certainly shouldn't), we do not have the same rights with our new life, eternal life. There are no verses that teach that we do. In fact, Rom 6:23 says God's gifts are irrevocable.

If "not have eternal life abiding in" means loss of eternal life, that would indicate that we DO have the ability to do with eternal life as we please, since Jesus commanded His disciples to abide in Him.

So He was speaking about the reciprocal relationship between Himself and every believer. This is equivalent to being IN fellowship with Him. So, to obey the command to abide in Him is equivalent to being filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18), or walking in the Spirit (Gal 5:16). And when the believer obeys these commands, there is fellowship between the believer and Christ.

However, the flip side is either grieving (Eph 4:30) or quenching the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19). When the believer does these things, they are out of fellowship and NOT abiding in Him.

You're not in error about the prodigal. You're in error about it meaning the same thing as "does not have eternal life abiding in him" in which you equated the two texts.

My only comment about "eternal life" regarding the parable is that when the father described his son as dead, it didn't mean spiritually dead, nor did "now alive" mean having eternal life.

I see nothing in the parable about eternal life abiding.

Any sin will keep a non-believer out of heaven, since Adam brought death to mankind for eating the wrong fruit.

Please read Rev 20:15. The ONLY cause for being cast into the lake of fire is because one's name is NOT in the book of life. That means they do not have eternal life. Sin is NOT the issue in who goes into the lake of fire.

But in regard to 'believers', since no one is perfect, we have to draw a line on what sins we are warned will keep people out and which won't.

If there IS a sin that would keep any believer out of heaven, then what Jesus said in John 10:28 CANNOT be true. Do you really want to defend that idea? I hope not.

Also, since Jesus Christ died for ALL sins of all people, sin cannot be the issue in who gets into heaven or not.

An obvious example is adultery compared with farting at the dinner table. Adultery is clearly a sin leading to death, since Paul wrote "those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven."

When lifestyle is connected to inheritance in heaven, it CANNOT be about entering heaven. Because lifestyle isn't the issue in entering heaven. Believing in Christ is the ONLY ISSUE in entering heaven. Sin never is.

So, what does 'inheritance' refer to regarding lifestyle? It refers to reward in eternity. Paul listed lifestyles that will have NO INHERITANCE in the kingdom, or will NOT inherit the kingdom.

Do you honestly believe that someone who claims to believe in Christ, yet practices witchcraft his whole life until he dies, will enter heaven (yet have no inheritance in it)? I hope not.

The key here, as always, is about what one "claims". The Bible is NEVER about what one claims. It's ALWAYS about what one BELIEVES.

If the person actually did believe in Christ, regardless of what they do later on has no effect on their entering heaven, as much as that grinds you and many others.

However, such a person as you describe, if they did believe, will live a life under God's hand of discipline, which Heb 12:11 says is PAINFUL, and they will lose out on all reward. They will have NO INHERITANCE in the kingdom.

This kind of reasoning is done by the typical antinomian who thinks that professing "Jesus is Lord" in words (but not intentions) will get him forgiveness of his sins past, present, and future. Hogwash.

I've NEVER supported this idiocy. Again, it isn't what one professes or claims, but what one actually BELIEVES.

Anyone who has ever placed their faith in the finished work of Christ for them IS saved and IS going to heaven. Whether they will have any reward in eternity is determined by how they lived their lives.

Any pastor who teaches that salvation can be lost is totally ignorant of the doctrine of rewards, and ignorant of what Jesus said in John 10:28.

Makes perfect sense if you understand the distinction between false and true faith.

The Bible makes no such distinction. When it mentions faith, it means faith in Christ for salvation. The Bible does mention false brethren twice. That's a different thing.

Your application to the Christian life of this passage is weak, and doesn't follow Paul's application in 1 Cor. 10.

Please read the first 5 verses slowly, for comprehension.
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.
11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.

How can you argue that the first generation weren't saved, given v.3 and 4? Paul was clearly identifying them as believers in the Messiah.

Note v.5 - though saved, God was not pleased with most of them (all but 2, actually).

And, how can you argue that what happened to the first generation of the Exodus were unbelievers after Paul uses them as "examples" for US?

How can any unbeliever be used as an example for any believer? That's just apples to oranges. There is no comparison.

And yes he is talking about salvation, since he says in 9:25 "we run to receive an imperishable wreath" and in 10:33 "so that they may be saved."

The verse is clearly a statement about Paul's evangelistic ministry, not specifically, so 10:33 isn't in any way connected to 9:25.

Your responses are leading me to believe you are in the antinomian camp.

You've made a lot of erroneous conclusions. This is one of them.

Are you referring to 1 Thess. 5:19 and Eph. 4:30? He did not say "stop" doing that, as if they were practicing it. He simply said "do not" do it.

Erroneous. The English says" do not do". But the Greek word actually means to cease from doing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Part 2 of 2:
IMO your response is naive, implying no discernment between who is a true believer and who isn't.

Wrong assumption again. I've implied no such thing. Of course there is. A true believer is one who believes that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ), and that He died for our sins and gives eternal life to those who believe in Him for it.

Those who don't believe these things aren't saved.

Your response seems to me exaggerative and unreasonable. The scripture says nothing of any resistance from her, therefore it was consensual.

You really don't understand this. Resisting the king in that day would lead to death. Remember Esther? Even entering the king's presence without an invite could lead to death. Your impression of life back then is extremely naive.

The account is described as David seeing her, lusting for her, and having her brought to him. Where do you read anything about consensual on her part?

Wherever the scripture acknowledges rape, it says so with strong words like "raped" "violated" "defiled" and such. There is nothing like that with David's situation, therefore it wasn't rape.

You have lots to learn, young grasshopper.

But 1 Jn. 5:16 does't actually say that it is talking about physical death.

It also doesn't anything about spiritual death either. And I gave EXAMPLES of physical death in regard to sinning. Want them again?
1 Cor 5:5, 10:1-11, 11:30, 1 Tim 1:19.

In fact, the term "death" in 1 Jn. consistently means spiritual death.

This is your opinion. Not fact.

1 Cor. 5:5 isn't talking about God killing the man so his spirit can be saved - this is a speculative interpretation out of context with the whole of 1 Cor.

lol. Of course it isn't about God killing anyone. Paul specifically said to hand the incestuous man over to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh". What in the world does that mean to you? To me, it means Satan being allowed to kill him, any way he wants.

Do you think Satan is capable of killing a person, if allowed by God? You'd better because they Bible indicates that. Read Job 2, where God allows Satan to attack Job's flesh, and gives the only prohibition of "don't kill him". So obviously Satan DOES have the power to do that if allowed. And 1 Cor 5:5 is one of those places where he was given that permission.

Why do you think Peter wrote this? Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 1 Pet 5:8

Paul's statement is meant to enact a "destruction of his flesh" to make him miserable enough to repent and desire the peace of God. "That his spirit may be saved..." implies repentance, since that is what actually happened. Therefore, it was Paul's intention to induce an attitude of repentance in the man.

Yes, it was. But the words are clear enough for objective minds. The destruction of the flesh certainly would lead to death. Do you think Satan would be satisfied to kill someone quickly? Of course not. Like the Roman army, the goal would be to make the person suffer for as long as possible.

1 Cor. 10:1-11 is about discerning who are true believers vs. false, as I explained above.

Your explanation falls flat. v.3,4 clearly indicate that they were all saved. But you're free to have your own opinion.

1 Cor. 11:30 is simply a case having to do with the rite of communion. "Eating and drinking unworthily" is not a sin leading to spiritual death, since that is not listed in those heinous sins that "those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven." The type of sin being committed in this case is a type in which the protection of God (and supernatural healing power) is withdrawn from people because of their disrespect of the purpose of the rite and disregard of other peoples' involvement in it. Not the same category as immorality.
TD

Are you denying that Paul included physical death in v.30? He mentioned weakness, sickness, and "some who sleep", a euphemism for physical death.

Notice the progression. Weakness can lead to sickness, which in turn can lead to physical death.

There is no reason to limit these things only to abusing communion. They are examples of God's hand of discipline for being out of line.

Your naivety is stunning.

 

[tdidymas]

Since you're unfamiliar with the idea of fellowship and the meaning of "abiding", I'll explain what 1 John 3:15 means.

In John's writings, the concept of "abiding" is always that it is a reciprocal relationship. Since Christ Himself IS eternal life, (5:20), to say that someone does not have eternal life abiding in him is equivalent to saying that he does not have Christ abiding in him.

Also keep in mind that when Jesus told His disciples in John 15 to "abide in Me, and I will abide in you" (reciprocal relationship), it was a command. We, as humans, have no power over the gift of eternal life, to do with it as we please. While we can do with our own physical lives as we please (but certainly shouldn't), we do not have the same rights with our new life, eternal life. There are no verses that teach that we do. In fact, Rom 6:23 says God's gifts are irrevocable.

If "not have eternal life abiding in" means loss of eternal life, that would indicate that we DO have the ability to do with eternal life as we please, since Jesus commanded His disciples to abide in Him.

So He was speaking about the reciprocal relationship between Himself and every believer. This is equivalent to being IN fellowship with Him. So, to obey the command to abide in Him is equivalent to being filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18), or walking in the Spirit (Gal 5:16). And when the believer obeys these commands, there is fellowship between the believer and Christ.

However, the flip side is either grieving (Eph 4:30) or quenching the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19). When the believer does these things, they are out of fellowship and NOT abiding in Him.

You just don't get it. "Does not have eternal life abiding in him" means he is not saved and never was, since he is "still in darkness," "remains in death," and "is of the devil." I never said nor implied that it means loss of an eternal life he once had. It means the one who hates his brother is "still in darkness," meaning he has not entered into new covenant relationship with God in Christ, and does not have the Holy Spirit living in him. Period. Now I just wonder if you will continue to claim that I am teaching loss of eternal life. No?

My only comment about "eternal life" regarding the parable is that when the father described his son as dead, it didn't mean spiritually dead, nor did "now alive" mean having eternal life.

I see nothing in the parable about eternal life abiding.

Since you're the one who brought up the parable, I'm not sure why you keep harping on this as if I said something about it being literal or allegory of Christianity. It is a parable, the same as saying "God's love is like this." Therefore, as I said before, it has nothing to do with John's statement "does not have eternal life abiding in him." Your response makes me wonder if you are even reading what I wrote. I'm wondering if instead of reading, you're skimming for certain words you want to nitpick at, since your response on this item seems to be irrelevant to what I wrote about it.

Please read Rev 20:15. The ONLY cause for being cast into the lake of fire is because one's name is NOT in the book of life. That means they do not have eternal life. Sin is NOT the issue in who goes into the lake of fire.

God is going to punish people for their sin, their evil deeds. Their names are not in the book of life because they weren't redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and so they remained in darkness. "They loved the darkness rather than the light." "Depart from Me into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his messengers... you workers of iniquity." "It is on account of these [sins] that the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience."

You are in error in this matter. In fact, I think it is becoming quite obvious that your method of interpretation is inadequate, since you are taking scripture out of context (especially the wider context of the NT) and turning it into something other than its original meaning.

If there IS a sin that would keep any believer out of heaven, then what Jesus said in John 10:28 CANNOT be true. Do you really want to defend that idea? I hope not.

And herein is your commitment to falsely accuse me of teaching the idea that a believer can lose salvation. I have explained this 3 different ways and you still don't get it, unless you are purposely twisting what I wrote just so you can propagate your agenda. If the case is that you just don't get it, then perhaps I'm speaking to deaf ears. Perhaps you just don't get the basic gospel yet. "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil." If you cannot explain clearly in NT context of what that means, then my advice to you is to keep studying the scripture for the basic truth of the gospel before you try to debate about it here.

Also, since Jesus Christ died for ALL sins of all people, sin cannot be the issue in who gets into heaven or not.

Read what I wrote above; condemnation is coming on the general population because of sin. Sin is what makes men culpable for eternal judgment. Refusal to trust in Christ is one of those sins. Therefore if you say that the issue of who doesn't make it is refusal to trust in Christ, then it is sin that keeps them out, since that is also sin.

When lifestyle is connected to inheritance in heaven, it CANNOT be about entering heaven. Because lifestyle isn't the issue in entering heaven. Believing in Christ is the ONLY ISSUE in entering heaven. Sin never is.

Failure to believe in Christ is sin. "Whoever does not believe in the Son of God is calling God a liar." And that is certainly sin. Therefore it is sin that keeps people out. The lake of fire is the wrath of God, and that is the result of sin, wickedness, transgression, and iniquity, which is what men are culpable for. "It is on account of these things [sins] that the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience."

If a person is not living a lifestyle of obedience to Christ, that is, repentance from sin, such a person is not abiding in Christ, and therefore is not saved. Such people are "cut off, thrown into the fire, and burned." IOW, condemned. This is basic gospel stuff. You are in error about it.

So, what does 'inheritance' refer to regarding lifestyle? It refers to reward in eternity. Paul listed lifestyles that will have NO INHERITANCE in the kingdom, or will NOT inherit the kingdom.

Not inheriting the kingdom means condemnation, since "on account of these things the wrath of God is coming."

The key here, as always, is about what one "claims". The Bible is NEVER about what one claims. It's ALWAYS about what one BELIEVES.

If the person actually did believe in Christ, regardless of what they do later on has no effect on their entering heaven, as much as that grinds you and many others.

However, such a person as you describe, if they did believe, will live a life under God's hand of discipline, which Heb 12:11 says is PAINFUL, and they will lose out on all reward. They will have NO INHERITANCE in the kingdom.

Inheritance means inheriting eternal life. It is true that there will be various rewards. But when Paul says "will not inherit the kingdom" he means they will not inherit eternal life. The whole NT shouts of this truth. God is not winking at sin. If someone goes apostate, they have no solid ground to believe they have eternal life. If they do 'believe' they have it, it is a false sense of security. Jesus warned people about dying in their sin. If someone dies in their sin, they are cast into hell. Believing in Christ is not a ticket to heaven nor a get-out-of-hell-free card. It is the beginning of a lifetime (and lifestyle) relationship of going toward God and His holiness. The gospel is nothing less than this, although you are trying to make it less.

I've NEVER supported this idiocy. Again, it isn't what one professes or claims, but what one actually BELIEVES.

Anyone who has ever placed their faith in the finished work of Christ for them IS saved and IS going to heaven. Whether they will have any reward in eternity is determined by how they lived their lives.

Any pastor who teaches that salvation can be lost is totally ignorant of the doctrine of rewards, and ignorant of what Jesus said in John 10:28.

And I have never supported the idiocy you cite here. Yet you still have not acknowledged that the gospel promises deliverance from sinful ways. By saying that a person can trust in the finished work of Christ and then forsake the Christian life and live a life of debauchery and still be saved because judgment is not about sins, you are making a false claim about the Christian faith, and that makes you a false teacher. Just because you know Christian jargon and some truths about the gospel, doesn't mean you really have the essence of the gospel. The fact that you claim an unrepentant sinner can still make it into heaven puts you right on the edge of the antinomian camp.

"Anyone who is not disciplined is a bastard." And the fact that you claim that a person can receive chastisement from God and still not repent (but live in misery, perhaps), leads me to believe that you doubt that the grace of God is powerful enough to change the disposition of the heart. The word of God accomplishes what it is sent to do. Yet you claim that it doesn't always do so. I think your faith needs purification, since your reading of scripture is erroneous in this matter.

The Bible makes no such distinction. When it mentions faith, it means faith in Christ for salvation. The Bible does mention false brethren twice. That's a different thing.

The whole point of James 2 is making the distinction between true and false belief.

Please read the first 5 verses slowly, for comprehension.
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.
11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.

How can you argue that the first generation weren't saved, given v.3 and 4? Paul was clearly identifying them as believers in the Messiah.

Note v.5 - though saved, God was not pleased with most of them (all but 2, actually).

And, how can you argue that what happened to the first generation of the Exodus were unbelievers after Paul uses them as "examples" for US?

How can any unbeliever be used as an example for any believer? That's just apples to oranges. There is no comparison.

You still don't get it, although it is explained clearly in Heb. 3. That example is a physical event that points to a spiritual reality. "They did not enter because of their unbelief." Typology here. Just as Moses was a type of Christ (explained in Hebrews), so also Israel was a type of the church. Paul is using their physical fall in the wilderness (because of their unbelief and disobedience and sin) as an analogy of our spiritual peril if we follow their example of unbelief, disobedience, and sin.

This is simple wisdom for the spiritually minded. Warnings of peril are given for two purposes: (1) to further the condemnation of those who are unrepentant (that is, unbelieving), and (2) to induce the believer to take heed to the warning and as quickly as possible to get into gospel relationship with God.

The verse is clearly a statement about Paul's evangelistic ministry, not specifically, so 10:33 isn't in any way connected to 9:25.

It's the same context.

You've made a lot of erroneous conclusions. This is one of them.

"Beginning to believe" is a suspicion, not a conclusion.

Erroneous. The English says" do not do". But the Greek word actually means to cease from doing.

I disagree with you. I trust the translators of 14 versions a lot more than what you say.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Wrong assumption again. I've implied no such thing. Of course there is. A true believer is one who believes that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ), and that He died for our sins and gives eternal life to those who believe in Him for it.

Those who don't believe these things aren't saved.

I suspect that we differ in the definition of believing. I take it that your definition of belief is if someone has an emotional or intellectual experience and makes a claim to believe in Christ, knows some doctrine and starts to live like a Christian, that this is saving faith in your mind. I don't hold to that definition. Saving faith is that faith that actually bears the fruit of salvation, namely love of the brethren, overcoming sin, and the kind of lifestyle that exhibits Christlikeness, and does indeed endure through all sorts of tribulations. My definition includes the spiritual root needed to cause a person to endure in faith and faithfulness to Christ. I see this written throughout the pages of the NT. I don't see you including that in your definition.

Incidentally, in regard to falsely accusing me of teaching loss of salvation, you definitely implied it several times since you keep harping on the idea. As long as you keep responding to my posts that a believer can't lose his salvation, the obvious implication is that you think I said he could.

But in regard to my saying your response was naive, it is about your definition of believing. It is naive to say that someone who has an appearance of believing is a true believer. It is naive to say that someone can forsake the Christian life and live in sin and still be saved - in fact, the NT clearly teaches against such an idea, as I showed previously.

You really don't understand this. Resisting the king in that day would lead to death. Remember Esther? Even entering the king's presence without an invite could lead to death. Your impression of life back then is extremely naive.

The account is described as David seeing her, lusting for her, and having her brought to him. Where do you read anything about consensual on her part?

David inquired about her. It wasn't a command. He would not have killed her if she refused. If she were a godly woman at the time considering faith in God, she would have refused, and would have gone to her death if necessary. It says nothing about David raping, violating, or defiling her. The fact that she freely and willingly went to him after his inquiry shows that she was consenting. Such consent gave him cause to suppress his conscience and excuse himself from the adultery (which led ultimately to his murderous conspiracy, as the dominoes fell).

You have lots to learn, young grasshopper.

Yes, oh master!

It also doesn't anything about spiritual death either. And I gave EXAMPLES of physical death in regard to sinning. Want them again?
1 Cor 5:5, 10:1-11, 11:30, 1 Tim 1:19.

This is your opinion. Not fact.

I've already explained these. Actually my 'opinion' is established by the context of scripture, which IMO you have difficulty with.

lol. Of course it isn't about God killing anyone. Paul specifically said to hand the incestuous man over to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh". What in the world does that mean to you? To me, it means Satan being allowed to kill him, any way he wants.

Do you think Satan is capable of killing a person, if allowed by God? You'd better because they Bible indicates that. Read Job 2, where God allows Satan to attack Job's flesh, and gives the only prohibition of "don't kill him". So obviously Satan DOES have the power to do that if allowed. And 1 Cor 5:5 is one of those places where he was given that permission.

Why do you think Peter wrote this? Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 1 Pet 5:8

God did not allow it, obviously, therefore it didn't mean physical death. If it meant that, the man would have died immediately if not sooner.

1 Pet. 5:8 is a spiritual statement. To make it mean physical death is a speculative interpretation that doesn't fit the context. Satan wants to devour people spiritually, as he wants to have great company in the lake of fire. This is what spiritual warfare is about.

Yes, it was. But the words are clear enough for objective minds. The destruction of the flesh certainly would lead to death. Do you think Satan would be satisfied to kill someone quickly? Of course not. Like the Roman army, the goal would be to make the person suffer for as long as possible.

Pure speculation. Your own example of Job contradicts you.

Your explanation falls flat. v.3,4 clearly indicate that they were all saved. But you're free to have your own opinion.

No, it doesn't say they were saved.

Are you denying that Paul included physical death in v.30? He mentioned weakness, sickness, and "some who sleep", a euphemism for physical death.

Notice the progression. Weakness can lead to sickness, which in turn can lead to physical death.

There is no reason to limit these things only to abusing communion. They are examples of God's hand of discipline for being out of line.

Your naivety is stunning.

I did not deny that v. 30 did not include physical death. My point is that it doesn't equate to handing someone over to Satan because of immorality. The two situations are not correlated.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

You just don't get it.

I'm thinking the same about yourself.

"Does not have eternal life abiding in him" means he is not saved and never was, since he is "still in darkness," "remains in death," and "is of the devil." I never said nor implied that it means loss of an eternal life he once had. It means the one who hates his brother is "still in darkness," meaning he has not entered into new covenant relationship with God in Christ, and does not have the Holy Spirit living in him. Period. Now I just wonder if you will continue to claim that I am teaching loss of eternal life. No?

You just don't believe or understand the doctrine of fellowship.

God is going to punish people for their sin, their evil deeds. Their names are not in the book of life because they weren't redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and so they remained in darkness.

So from your first sentence above, it seems you don't believe that Jesus died for all sins then. Please provide evidence from Scripture that He didn't.

In the meantime, here are some verses about the scope of His death for sin:
2 Cor 5:14,15
Heb 2:9
1 Tim 2:6

You are in error in this matter. In fact, I think it is becoming quite obvious that your method of interpretation is inadequate, since you are taking scripture out of context (especially the wider context of the NT) and turning it into something other than its original meaning.

Please provide explanation for HOW I have taken verses "out of context". Just throwing out a charge does not equal truth or fact.

And herein is your commitment to falsely accuse me of teaching the idea that a believer can lose salvation. I have explained this 3 different ways and you still don't get it, unless you are purposely twisting what I wrote just so you can propagate your agenda. If the case is that you just don't get it, then perhaps I'm speaking to deaf ears.

I believe this post of your is the first one to actually make your position clear. From the other ones, it seemed to me that you thought those who had believed could end up in hell.

Now I know that you believe that it's only those who "claim" to be Christian that will end up there.

I still disagree, since believers are capable of any sin that any unbeliever can commit. And the Bible is clear that believers can apostatize.

Perhaps you just don't get the basic gospel yet. "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil." If you cannot explain clearly in NT context of what that means, then my advice to you is to keep studying the scripture for the basic truth of the gospel before you try to debate about it here.

Of course I understand that verse about Jesus appearing to destroy the works of the devil. He died for ALL sin, so sin isn't an issue at all regarding who goes to hell.

Read what I wrote above; condemnation is coming on the general population because of sin. Sin is what makes men culpable for eternal judgment. Refusal to trust in Christ is one of those sins.

No, it's the ONLY ONE. John 3:18 - Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

John 3:36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

Therefore if you say that the issue of who doesn't make it is refusal to trust in Christ, then it is sin that keeps them out, since that is also sin.

It seems you don't really believe Rev 20:15 then. Why not?

Failure to believe in Christ is sin.

Did Christ die for all sins, or just some or most sins?

"Whoever does not believe in the Son of God is calling God a liar." And that is certainly sin.

Do you have a verse that says this, or are you just making up your own verses?

Therefore it is sin that keeps people out.

How do you not understand that if this is true, then Christ could NOT have died for all sin?

The lake of fire is the wrath of God, and that is the result of sin, wickedness, transgression, and iniquity, which is what men are culpable for. "It is on account of these things [sins] that the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience."

Bottom line is that those who never received the free gift of eternal life will be cast into hell. Their sins were paid for on the cross.

What gets them to hell is rejecting the one thing that would keep them out of hell.

If a person is not living a lifestyle of obedience to Christ, that is, repentance from sin, such a person is not abiding in Christ, and therefore is not saved.

This is a great example of your claims that leads me to believe that your view (whether admitted to or not) is that a believer can end up not saved, and in hell.

If you don't think a believer is capable of living a disobedient lifestyle, you are woefully naive. What about believers who cease to believe? Do you just wave your magic wand and pronounce them unbelievers all along? That's just blindness to the truth.

Jesus Himself made the point of some who believe (and are therefore saved) but only for a while and in time of testing/temptation they fall away. Go ahead and discount what Jesus clearly said about them; that they believed. Did He not really mean it? Of course He did.

Not inheriting the kingdom means condemnation, since "on account of these things the wrath of God is coming."

God's wrath (anger) comes on His own children who are disobedient.

Does Rom 13:4 not apply to believers as well as non-believers?
" For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Believers can be guilty of being a wrongdoer. And will be punished by God's servants, who are "agents of wrath".

Again, your views show how naive you are about what the Bible teaches.

Inheritance means inheriting eternal life.

How come there are 2 "heirships" (inheritance) mentioned in Rom 8:17?
"Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory."

One heirship is guaranteed on the basis of being a child of God. The other one is CONDITIONAL on sharing in His sufferings.

It is true that there will be various rewards. But when Paul says "will not inherit the kingdom" he means they will not inherit eternal life.

I will point out again the FACT that when lifestyle (works/deeds) are mentioned regarding inheriting eternal life, it CANNOT be about the gift of eternal life. That gift is solely based on faith in Christ. It is NOT based on one's lifestyle. Again, you are very naive.

Do you understand what a reward means? It means something EARNED. By definition.

Now, is your salvation earned or is it by grace? I'll give you no hints.

And I have never supported the idiocy you cite here. Yet you still have not acknowledged that the gospel promises deliverance from sinful ways.

This is the first time you'v made this silly charge. So let me inform you of my view.

Salvation:
Past tense: saved from the penalty of sin. Justification
Present tense: saved from the power of sin. Sanctification.
Future tense: saved from the presence of sin. Glorification.

Now you can re-adjust your erroneous view of my belief. Did you notice that all 3 tenses involve being saved from sin? Hopefully you'll quit making these wildly erroneous mistakes.

By saying that a person can trust in the finished work of Christ and then forsake the Christian life and live a life of debauchery and still be saved because judgment is not about sins, you are making a false claim about the Christian faith, and that makes you a false teacher.

And this statement from you demonstrates that you really do believe a person can believe in Christ (get saved) but end up not saved and end up in hell.

If you really do either understand or believe John 10:28, you'd not make this kind of error.

In that verse, the SINGLE CONDITION for never perishing is to receive eternal life. Lifestyle is not an issue for those who have believed.

Just because you know Christian jargon and some truths about the gospel, doesn't mean you really have the essence of the gospel.

All the errors you've espoused demonstrates how much you do NOT know about the Bible.

The fact that you claim an unrepentant sinner can still make it into heaven puts you right on the edge of the antinomian camp.

If that unrepentant sinner had believed in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for their sins, their lifestyle has no bearing on their eternal destiny.

However, it has TREMENDOUS bearing on their life on earth and whether they will be rewarded in eternity. You can bet your boots.

"Anyone who is not disciplined is a bastard." And the fact that you claim that a person can receive chastisement from God and still not repent (but live in misery, perhaps), leads me to believe that you doubt that the grace of God is powerful enough to change the disposition of the heart.

I think what you fail to grasp is that God doesn't force anyone. It seems you think He does. Of course God is powerful enough to make the "stones cry out" as Jesus said, and from those stones make MUCH BETTER people than human beings are. But He didn't.

He created humanity with a free will. Who can obey or rebel. Don't take my word for it.

But maybe you'll take Isaiah's word for it.

Isa 1:18-20
18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the good things of the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

2 choices every human being faces.

The word of God accomplishes what it is sent to do. Yet you claim that it doesn't always do so.

I never said that. Quit putting FALSE words in my mouth.

I fully understand Isa 55:7.

The whole point of James 2 is making the distinction between true and false belief.

How many times did James use the word "false" anywhere in James? None.

See? You yourself don't even understand what he wrote. He said nothing about a false faith. Maybe you've real too many faulty commentators.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I suspect that we differ in the definition of believing.

It's clear that we differ on a lot of things.

I take it that your definition of belief is if someone has an emotional or intellectual experience and makes a claim to believe in Christ, knows some doctrine and starts to live like a Christian, that this is saving faith in your mind.

And you couldn't be any farther from the truth.

Saving faith, or believing in Christ means to put your full trust and assurance on Jesus Christ to save you because He is the Son of God who died for your sins and promises to give you eternal life for trusting in Him.

What's your definition?

I don't hold to that definition.

As I just showed, neither do I.

Saving faith is that faith that actually bears the fruit of salvation, namely love of the brethren, overcoming sin, and the kind of lifestyle that exhibits Christlikeness, and does indeed endure through all sorts of tribulations.

Oh, I see. A saving faith is something that causes you to do something. Sounds nice and all, but where are the verses that say this? You'll not find any.

In fact, just count up all the verses in the NT that exhort holy living. Why is that, if saving faith actually produces holy living? There wouldn't be any need to exhort a saved person to be holy. Haven't you thought of that?

My definition includes the spiritual root needed to cause a person to endure in faith and faithfulness to Christ.

Please provide evidence from Scripture that plainly says what you claim.

I see this written throughout the pages of the NT.

Then it should be rather easy to provide at least a few verses that say what you claim.

I don't see you including that in your definition.

Because the Bible does say what you claim.

Incidentally, in regard to falsely accusing me of teaching loss of salvation, you definitely implied it several times since you keep harping on the idea. As long as you keep responding to my posts that a believer can't lose his salvation, the obvious implication is that you think I said he could.

I've pointed out exactly WHERE I get that idea from.

But in regard to my saying your response was naive, it is about your definition of believing. It is naive to say that someone who has an appearance of believing is a true believer.

Where did I ever mention anything about an "appearance of believing". You just keep making stuff up, huh? When I speak of believing, I actually mean to believe, accept as true, trust.

I REJECT any notion of any kind of "appearance of believing". I don't even believe there's such a thing.

It is naive to say that someone can forsake the Christian life and live in sin and still be saved - in fact, the NT clearly teaches against such an idea, as I showed previously.

So then, they either:
1. never believed.
2. they did believe but are no longer saved.

#1 is just a denial of reality. The Bible very plainly tells us that believers can cease to believe.

David inquired about her. It wasn't a command. He would not have killed her if she refused.

Stop making stuff up. You have no idea what he would have done. You're just denying the reality of that day. Kings were supreme. He killed her husband. You don't think he would have killed her for refusing him? More naivety.

btw, he did send for her. She didn't ask to come over.

If she were a godly woman at the time considering faith in God, she would have refused, and would have gone to her death if necessary.

Quite the story teller, huh.

It says nothing about David raping, violating, or defiling her.

What we know is he was king and she got pregnant. In that day, no one refused the king. Just the thought of refusal kept people from rebelling.

The fact that she freely and willingly went to him after his inquiry shows that she was consenting.

Please stop making up this stuff.

Such consent gave him cause to suppress his conscience and excuse himself from the adultery (which led ultimately to his murderous conspiracy, as the dominoes fell).

Please quit this story telling.

Pure speculation. Your own example of Job contradicts you.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but when I disagree with you, I explain WHY I do. But you just lob false claims. No evidence to back up your claims.

 

[Gr8Grace]

It's clear that we differ on a lot of things.


And you couldn't be any farther from the truth.

Saving faith, or believing in Christ means to put your full trust and assurance on Jesus Christ to save you because He is the Son of God who died for your sins and promises to give you eternal life for trusting in Him.

What's your definition?


As I just showed, neither do I.


Oh, I see. A saving faith is something that causes you to do something. Sounds nice and all, but where are the verses that say this? You'll not find any.

In fact, just count up all the verses in the NT that exhort holy living. Why is that, if saving faith actually produces holy living? There wouldn't be any need to exhort a saved person to be holy. Haven't you thought of that?


Please provide evidence from Scripture that plainly says what you claim.


Then it should be rather easy to provide at least a few verses that say what you claim.


Because the Bible does say what you claim.


I've pointed out exactly WHERE I get that idea from.


Where did I ever mention anything about an "appearance of believing". You just keep making stuff up, huh? When I speak of believing, I actually mean to believe, accept as true, trust.

I REJECT any notion of any kind of "appearance of believing". I don't even believe there's such a thing.


So then, they either:
1. never believed.
2. they did believe but are no longer saved.

#1 is just a denial of reality. The Bible very plainly tells us that believers can cease to believe.


Stop making stuff up. You have no idea what he would have done. You're just denying the reality of that day. Kings were supreme. He killed her husband. You don't think he would have killed her for refusing him? More naivety.

btw, he did send for her. She didn't ask to come over.


Quite the story teller, huh.


What we know is he was king and she got pregnant. In that day, no one refused the king. Just the thought of refusal kept people from rebelling.


Please stop making up this stuff.


Please quit this story telling.


Maybe you haven't noticed, but when I disagree with you, I explain WHY I do. But you just lob false claims. No evidence to back up your claims.

Good stuff brother. Keep up the good fight.

It truly saddens me to watch brothers and sisters who are "stuck on salvation" and think that living our lives in a particular way is all about getting saved, remaining saved or proving salvation.

They miss out on living the Christian way of life and truly Glorifying The Lord Jesus Christ. And are stuck on 'living a saving way of life.' Glorifying themselves and their particular lifestyle.

And reading through the debate.....a core issue is 'abiding in eternal life.' From 1 John 3:15.

"whoever hates his brother/fellow believer...." is very noteworthy. The 'whoever' refers to a believer/saved person. An unbeliever/unsaved person is never a brother to a saved person. So this verse pertains to saved individuals.

So a brother who hates his brother is not abiding/staying in the sphere of his eternal life(Christ.)

Like you said, we are out of fellowship and not abiding in the simple principles of the Christian way of life.
Preaching to the Choir, I Know!

In 1 John 3:15 'whoever' is the subject. And 'abiding' is the ACTIVE verb. So the subject is not actively staying in the sphere of eternal life. When given eternal life, Christ is ACTIVE in Giving the gift to us. We are passive. ALWAYS indwelt by the Spirit, but not always filled and walking in the spirit.

We are active as to whether or not we are going to live in it.....Hence the commands of not quenching,grieving the Spirit. And being filled and walking in the Spirit. And 1 John 1:9 gets us back in the sphere of abiding in Him/eternal life.......fellowship.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Good stuff brother. Keep up the good fight.

It truly saddens me to watch brothers and sisters who are "stuck on salvation" and think that living our lives in a particular way is all about getting saved, remaining saved or proving salvation.

They miss out on living the Christian way of life and truly Glorifying The Lord Jesus Christ. And are stuck on 'living a saving way of life.' Glorifying themselves and their particular lifestyle.

And reading through the debate.....a core issue is 'abiding in eternal life.' From 1 John 3:15.

"whoever hates his brother/fellow believer...." is very noteworthy. The 'whoever' refers to a believer/saved person. An unbeliever/unsaved person is never a brother to a saved person. So this verse pertains to saved individuals.

So a brother who hates his brother is not abiding/staying in the sphere of his eternal life(Christ.)

Like you said, we are out of fellowship and not abiding in the simple principles of the Christian way of life.
Preaching to the Choir, I Know!

In 1 John 3:15 'whoever' is the subject. And 'abiding' is the ACTIVE verb. So the subject is not actively staying in the sphere of eternal life. When given eternal life, Christ is ACTIVE in Giving the gift to us. We are passive. ALWAYS indwelt by the Spirit, but not always filled and walking in the spirit.

We are active as to whether or not we are going to live in it.....Hence the commands of not quenching,grieving the Spirit. And being filled and walking in the Spirit. And 1 John 1:9 gets us back in the sphere of abiding in Him/eternal life.......fellowship.

Thanks. And good words, my brother!!