Is assurance of salvation possible?

justbyfaith said:

It says that some of us were begotten a second time (i.e. "again").

Also, I edited post #218.

re #219.

Click to expand...

That's not what again means. It just means they were restored from their fallen state.

Invalidusername said:

The rebirth/regeneration can only happen once. Hebrews 6 and 2 Peter 2:19-22

Click to expand...

The question is can one be saved again(rebirth/regeneration) after falling into sin. I would answer in the affirmative. Jesus himself taught that in the parable of the prodigal son. In Luke 15:24,32 Jesus twice stated that the prodigal son was dead but alive again. This does not refer to physical death as the prodigal never died physically so it can only mean spiritual death. When an unsaved person comes to faith in Christ, he/she is made alive in Christ (first time). If such a believer then habitually sins such as the prodigal did when he lived a rebellious lifestyle, he/she becomes spiritually dead. If he/she confesses, repents of sinning and returns to the Father, as the prodigal did, then he/she is made alive again. Thus, one can lose their salvation but be saved again/rebirthed upon genuine repentance.

Regarding Hebrews 6 "it is impossible "to restore them again to repentance" precisely because they are "crucifying in themselves the Son of God and subjecting Him to open shame." The Greek verb tenses are important to note in this v.6 because they are present tense verbs; i.e. "crucifying" and "subjecting" which denote ongoing action. No forgiveness is possible because those committing these actions are still in the process of committing and continuing these sins. They have not demonstrated any repentance; therefore no forgiveness making it impossible to restore them again. If they genuinely repented, restoration would still be possible but this verse indicates that they did not do so.

Similarly, in 2 Pet 2:22 the Greek word for "overcome" is hēttōntai which is a present tense verb. They are presently overcome and therefore in a present state of sinning and therefore forgiveness is not possible. However, IF they would genuinely repent, restoration is possible.

Invalidusername said:

That's not what again means. It just means they were restored from their fallen state.

Click to expand...

Which indicates that you can be restored from your fallen state.

Hey @Invalidusername , what about 1 Corinthians 5:4-5?

"“Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

Is it not interesting that a guy is to be 'delivered over to Satan' and yet such a delivery will see his spirit saved in the day of the Lord Jesus?

Remember the sin this guy was committing - sleeping with his stepmother.

In 2 Corinthians 2:6,7, it appears that Paul might be encouraging the Corinthians to welcome the guy back.

HatGuy said:

Hey @Invalidusername , what about 1 Corinthians 5:4-5?

"“Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

Is it not interesting that a guy is to be 'delivered over to Satan' and yet such a delivery will see his spirit saved in the day of the Lord Jesus?

Remember the sin this guy was committing - sleeping with his stepmother.

In 2 Corinthians 2:6,7, it appears that Paul might be encouraging the Corinthians to welcome the guy back.

Click to expand...

That's true but he had remorse and so thus the Holy Spirit was still not finished with him.

justbyfaith said:

Which indicates that you can be restored from your fallen state.

Click to expand...

Once you've been exposed to the light and fall away it's a much more severe sin. Fallen state as in they've never seen the light.

Oldmantook said:

The question is can one be saved again(rebirth/regeneration) after falling into sin. I would answer in the affirmative. Jesus himself taught that in the parable of the prodigal son. In Luke 15:24,32 Jesus twice stated that the prodigal son was dead but alive again. This does not refer to physical death as the prodigal never died physically so it can only mean spiritual death. When an unsaved person comes to faith in Christ, he/she is made alive in Christ (first time). If such a believer then habitually sins such as the prodigal did when he lived a rebellious lifestyle, he/she becomes spiritually dead. If he/she confesses, repents of sinning and returns to the Father, as the prodigal did, then he/she is made alive again. Thus, one can lose their salvation but be saved again/rebirthed upon genuine repentance.

Regarding Hebrews 6 "it is impossible "to restore them again to repentance" precisely because they are "crucifying in themselves the Son of God and subjecting Him to open shame." The Greek verb tenses are important to note in this v.6 because they are present tense verbs; i.e. "crucifying" and "subjecting" which denote ongoing action. No forgiveness is possible because those committing these actions are still in the process of committing and continuing these sins. They have not demonstrated any repentance; therefore no forgiveness making it impossible to restore them again. If they genuinely repented, restoration would still be possible but this verse indicates that they did not do so.

Similarly, in 2 Pet 2:22 the Greek word for "overcome" is hēttōntai which is a present tense verb. They are presently overcome and therefore in a present state of sinning and therefore forgiveness is not possible. However, IF they would genuinely repent, restoration is possible.

Click to expand...

The problem is you're giving the tenses too much of a significance. Hebrews 6 says it is impossible to bring them back to repentance. This means they cannot repent after falling away.

Oldmantook said:

Obviously, you don't understand. Peter denied Christ. Taking the mark is the equivalent to denying Christ. Therefore they are the same.

Click to expand...

Actually is isn't equivalent at all.
One, because he didn't take the mark (because the "mark" hasn't been implemented yet) and two , Peter is a child of God.
It is impossible for those who are saved to receive the mark of the Beast.

Dorothy Mae said:

How come Jesus never preached for men to merely receive a perfect gift and they’d never be able to lose it? Frankly, neither did anyone else for that matter.
How come the gift is not called free? how come all of them required repentance if it was a gift?

Click to expand...

If it isn't free, it isn't a gift.

A gift is something given willingly to someone without requiring a payment; a present. We can't buy what our Savior already purchased for us.

Acts 20
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.



The gift of God is eternal life.

Dorothy Mae said:

How come Jesus never preached for men to merely receive a perfect gift and they’d never be able to lose it? Frankly, neither did anyone else for that matter.
How come the gift is not called free? how come all of them required repentance if it was a gift?

Click to expand...

Wages are earned; gifts are free.

God grants us repentance when He delivers us from the power of Satan! Why do you ignore every proof of eternal security? God doesn't start a work and then leave it unfinished.

2 Timothy 2
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

David Cabrera said:

God isn't the one who is preventing you, it is something you have to cooperate.

Click to expand...

Cooperate with what? I don't think you understand. I have no conviction of anything.

ItIsFinished! said:

Actually is isn't equivalent at all.
One, because he didn't take the mark (because the "mark" hasn't been implemented yet) and two , Peter is a child of God.
It is impossible for those who are saved to receive the mark of the Beast.

Click to expand...

Your understanding is deficient - but your choice. Is not taking the mark equivalent to denying Jesus as Lord and worshiping Him only? Yes or no?
Peter is a child of God because he was FORGIVEN and restored to relationship with Jesus. If it is impossible for the saints to receive the mark, then why are the SAINTS warned in Rev 14:12 to persevere by keeping the commandments and their faith in Jesus?

Invalidusername said:

The problem is you're giving the tenses too much of a significance. Hebrews 6 says it is impossible to bring them back to repentance. This means they cannot repent after falling away.

Click to expand...

Not at all. If you are familiar with Koine Greek, you would know that it is a very precise language - more so than English. If you are not familiar with parsing the Greek then I would suggest you familiarize yourself with it as it aids greatly in understanding Scripture. They cannot repent WHILE (present tense) they are falling away since their actions demonstrate they have not ceased to sin. One cannot repent of sin and keep on doing it can they?

Oldmantook said:

Not at all. If you are familiar with Koine Greek, you would know that it is a very precise language - more so than English. If you are not familiar with parsing the Greek then I would suggest you familiarize yourself with it as it aids greatly in understanding Scripture. They cannot repent WHILE (present tense) they are falling away since their actions demonstrate they have not ceased to sin. One cannot repent of sin and keep on doing it can they?

Click to expand...

It also says they've recrucified Christ unto themselves(past term) and there is no way to undo that.

Invalidusername said:

It also says they've recrucified Christ unto themselves(past term) and there is no way to undo that.

Click to expand...

It certainly does not say "recrucified" as you claim. The Greek word is ἀνασταυροῦντας which is a present tense participle:
"and have committed apostasy, to restore them to repentance, since to their own harm they are crucifying (anastaurountas | ἀνασταυροῦντας | pres act ptcp acc pl masc) the Son of God again (anastaurountas | ἀνασταυροῦντας | pres act ptcp acc pl masc) and exposing him to public shame.
Like I suggested earlier study the original Greek text lest you draw wrong conclusions.

Oldmantook said:

It certainly does not say "recrucified" as you claim. The Greek word is ἀνασταυροῦντας which is a present tense participle:
"and have committed apostasy, to restore them to repentance, since to their own harm they are crucifying (anastaurountas | ἀνασταυροῦντας | pres act ptcp acc pl masc) the Son of God again (anastaurountas | ἀνασταυροῦντας | pres act ptcp acc pl masc) and exposing him to public shame.
Like I suggested earlier study the original Greek text lest you draw wrong conclusions.

Click to expand...

Okay so you're saying it's not impossible to bring them back to repentance? That contradicts what it's saying. The previous part "have committed apostasy" is certainly in past terms. Once you've FALLEN AWAY(isn't that past?). It doesn't say "If you're falling away". It says "If you have fallen away". There's a finality to the state of fallen away. Yes when they've fallen away they enter a present state of ongoing apostasy but that does not mean that magically later they can repent when it clearly says there's in impossibility. If anything the present term indicates that it will continue and never change.

Would you at least be able to see the logic in what I'm saying?

Also the parable about the prodigal son, lost coin, and lost sheep is NOT talking about believers being dead again and then being "refound". It's talking about Christ seeking after lost sinners. They are dead but they are God's children. Jesus clearly teaches that if you're His child you will come to Him. You simply aren't aware that you're His child yet. However if you became a Christian and then fell away, you were never His child. Just like 2 Peter 2:19-22 says "A dog returns to it's vomit and the pig returns to wallowing in the mud." The dog was always a dog and the pig was always a pig. They were never sheep.

Invalidusername said:

Okay so you're saying it's not impossible to bring them back to repentance? That contradicts what it's saying. The previous part "have committed apostasy" is certainly in past terms. Once you've FALLEN AWAY(isn't that past?). It doesn't say "If you're falling away". It says "If you have fallen away". There's a finality to the state of fallen away. Yes when they've fallen away they enter a present state of ongoing apostasy but that does not mean that magically later they can repent when it clearly says there's in impossibility. If anything the present term indicates that it will continue and never change.

Would you at least be able to see the logic in what I'm saying?

Also the parable about the prodigal son, lost coin, and lost sheep is NOT talking about believers being dead again and then being "refound". It's talking about Christ seeking after lost sinners. They are dead but they are God's children. Jesus clearly teaches that if you're His child you will come to Him. You simply aren't aware that you're His child yet. However if you became a Christian and then fell away, you were never His child. Just like 2 Peter 2:19-22 says "A dog returns to it's vomit and the pig returns to wallowing in the mud." The dog was always a dog and the pig was always a pig. They were never sheep.

Click to expand...

A. "Once you've fallen away (isn't the past)"- correct logic as it is a past tense event.
B. "Later they can repent when it clearly says there's in impossibility" - incorrect logic.
B (conclusion) does not necessarily follow A (premise).
The proper understanding is that they have fallen away upon commencing and continuing to sin which is the reason for the Greek present tense verb = habitual sin that evidences no repentance whatsoever. Thus the "impossibility" is derived from the fact that they continue sinning. It simply means as long as there is habitual sin without repentance - it is impossible to restore them back to repentance.
It does not state if they ceased sinning and repented, it is impossible to restore them back. Peter fell away and denied the Lord not once but thrice. Yet he was later restored. If I as a genuine believer, develop an alcohol or drug problem or any other habitual sin, are you claiming that it is impossible to stop sinning, seek repentance and be forgiven/restored? I would find that hard to believe.

Your claim referencing the parables in Luke 15 is unsupportable based on the text. You neglected to explain how the prodigal was made alive AGAIN. One can only be made alive again, if only one was made alive (regenerated in the Spirit) in the first place. After being spiritually dead though habitual sin such as the prodigal was, one can return in repentance to the father and be made ALIVE AGAIN. Logic dictates that being made alive again can never apply to lost sinners who were never initially made alive in Christ.
Same thing with the parable about the lost sheep. The lost sheep was part of the flock of 100 sheep v.4 but was lost and became separated from the other 99 sheep. This 99 sheep are referenced in v.7 as "just persons who need no repentance." This means that the lost sheep was originally part of the 99 other sheep who NEED NO REPENTANCE and not a "lost sinner" who has not come to Christ yet as you claim. Those who need no repentance can in no way refer to unsaved, lost people. The lone sheep who needed no repentance wandered away this flock and became lost because of sin. As a result, that lost sheep is labeled as a SINNER, v.7 and is spiritually dead. However, there is joy in heaven now that that the sinner/lost sheep has repented and restored to the flock, v.7.

Jesus therefore taught that one can be saved, become lost (sheep) or dead (prodigal) but upon genuine repentance be forgiven and restored to a right relationship with God.

Lastly ironically, you use the very same argument that those who hold to OSAS use. They use the excuse that those who fall away were never his children in order to claim that those who are his children can never fall away. While it is indeed true in some scriptures that some who fell away, were never his children to begin with, it does not logically follow that all who fall away were never his children. That would be a logically fallacy of over-generalizing. Akin to saying that because some chickens lay brown eggs, all chickens lay brown eggs. There are those who fall away because they were never saved to begin with - but there are also those who fall away because of unbelief and/or sin.

Oldmantook said:

A. "Once you've fallen away (isn't the past)"- correct logic as it is a past tense event.
B. "Later they can repent when it clearly says there's in impossibility" - incorrect logic.
B (conclusion) does not necessarily follow A (premise).
The proper understanding is that they have fallen away upon commencing and continuing to sin which is the reason for the Greek present tense verb = habitual sin that evidences no repentance whatsoever. Thus the "impossibility" is derived from the fact that they continue sinning. It simply means as long as there is habitual sin without repentance - it is impossible to restore them back to repentance.
It does not state if they ceased sinning and repented, it is impossible to restore them back. Peter fell away and denied the Lord not once but thrice. Yet he was later restored. If I as a genuine believer, develop an alcohol or drug problem or any other habitual sin, are you claiming that it is impossible to stop sinning, seek repentance and be forgiven/restored? I would find that hard to believe.

Your claim referencing the parables in Luke 15 is unsupportable based on the text. You neglected to explain how the prodigal was made alive AGAIN. One can only be made alive again, if only one was made alive (regenerated in the Spirit) in the first place. After being spiritually dead though habitual sin such as the prodigal was, one can return in repentance to the father and be made ALIVE AGAIN. Logic dictates that being made alive again can never apply to lost sinners who were never initially made alive in Christ.
Same thing with the parable about the lost sheep. The lost sheep was part of the flock of 100 sheep v.4 but was lost and became separated from the other 99 sheep. This 99 sheep are referenced in v.7 as "just persons who need no repentance." This means that the lost sheep was originally part of the 99 other sheep who NEED NO REPENTANCE and not a "lost sinner" who has not come to Christ yet as you claim. Those who need no repentance can in no way refer to unsaved, lost people. The lone sheep who needed no repentance wandered away this flock and became lost because of sin. As a result, that lost sheep is labeled as a SINNER, v.7 and is spiritually dead. However, there is joy in heaven now that that the sinner/lost sheep has repented and restored to the flock, v.7.

Jesus therefore taught that one can be saved, become lost (sheep) or dead (prodigal) but upon genuine repentance be forgiven and restored to a right relationship with God.

Lastly ironically, you use the very same argument that those who hold to OSAS use. They use the excuse that those who fall away were never his children in order to claim that those who are his children can never fall away. While it is indeed true in some scriptures that some who fell away, were never his children to begin with, it does not logically follow that all who fall away were never his children. That would be a logically fallacy of over-generalizing. Akin to saying that because some chickens lay brown eggs, all chickens lay brown eggs. There are those who fall away because they were never saved to begin with - but there are also those who fall away because of unbelief and/or sin.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment of Hebrews 6 but I respect your argument.

Also point out this part "as long as there is habitual sin without repentance - it is impossible to restore them back to repentance."

There is two mistakes with that: habitual sin is not necessarily the cut off point when someone has fallen away. Sometimes Christians can fall into habitual sins and get convicted and struggle with it. As long as they are being convicted and urged by the Holy Spirit to stop the sin they are still saved. They only fall away when their conscience stops being prickled by their sins and they can sin without any inner resistance to it. This is evidence that the Holy Spirit has departed. Also the logic doesn't make any sense: if it is impossible to restore someone to repentance then he will never ever repent. Why would he repent if it's impossible to bring him around to his senses and the Holy Spirit is no longer convicting him?

So I also disagree with your assessment of the prodigal son and etc. because parables are not necessarily literal. We all are prodigal sons. Every single one of us when we were unregenerate, we all were the prodigal son. Who were those who "needed no repentance" and who was the elder son? They were the pharisees and Jewish people that believed that they did not need God/Jesus. This is why God was more pleased with the prodigal son than the elder son. The elder son did not appreciate his father AND the elder son approved of splitting the inheritance with the prodigal son. "Why is it a big deal that the elder son approved of splitting the inheritance?" you may ask. Well in the Jewish culture, asking for your father's inheritance would be basically saying, "I wish you were dead and I want your stuff NOW." It was a severe form of rejection and the elder son participated in this. There are many nuances in that story that our culture would not understand and so thus that is one of the most widely misunderstood and misapplied scriptures ever. I am appalled by it to be honest.

The prodigal son DOES NOT go back out again and slop with the pigs. If he did his father would be done with him. There's no repeat prodigals. We are only prodigals ONCE.

Yes I did use a similar OSAS argument except OSAS people misapply it and say, "I believed in Jesus so NOW I'M FOREVER A SHEEP." What they don't understand is believing in Jesus is not the criteria for being a sheep... It's FOLLOWING Him. However the Bible does seem to indicate that if you are a sheep, you are a sheep. There's no conversion from goat to sheep and then back to goat. IF you fell away then you were always a goat to begin with. Does this mean you were never saved? Absolutely not but you did not remain to the end so you failed the trail of perseverance. "Whoever looks back while at the till does not deserve the kingdom of heaven."

The only criteria to be saved is to believe in Jesus and repent of your sins. HOWEVER it does not end there. That's where the OSAS people have it wrong. You must remain in that place and never waver from it. The devil will do anything in his power to deceive you, draw you in complacency, and make you fall off the narrow path.

I know you disagree with me with Hebrews 6 but think about WHY you disagree. Is it because you actually think your interpretation is correct or is it just because you don't like the idea of the fact it may be too late for some people? The bible indicates that DEATH IS NOT THE DETERMINING FACTOR of when it's too late. There is no verse that says, "As long as you're still alive there's hope." The determining factor is left to scripture and there is a too late in this life.

HatGuy said:

Hey @Invalidusername , what about 1 Corinthians 5:4-5?

"“Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

Is it not interesting that a guy is to be 'delivered over to Satan' and yet such a delivery will see his spirit saved in the day of the Lord Jesus?

Remember the sin this guy was committing - sleeping with his stepmother.

In 2 Corinthians 2:6,7, it appears that Paul might be encouraging the Corinthians to welcome the guy back.

Click to expand...

Paul is excommunicating that person in the hope it will save him. Paul didn't say that his spirit will be saved but may be saved.

Eloy Craft said:

Paul is excommunicating that person in the hope it will save him. Paul didn't say that his spirit will be saved but may be saved.

Click to expand...

Perhaps but the point that it 'may' be saved indicates that even after being handed over to Satan, salvation is still available.

Invalidusername said:

That's true but he had remorse and so thus the Holy Spirit was still not finished with him.

Click to expand...

You seem QUITE remorseful from where I'm sitting, dude .

Invalidusername said:

Once you've been exposed to the light and fall away it's a much more severe sin. Fallen state as in they've never seen the light.

Click to expand...

Perhaps - but define 'fallen away'. What does that look like?

Invalidusername said:

Cooperate with what? I don't think you understand. I have no conviction of anything.

Click to expand...

Untrue. You seem PRETTY convicted about both the doctrine of loss of salvation AND that you have lost it.