Salvation Cannot be Lost

FreeGrace2 said:

This isn’t to defend a sinful lifestyle in any way.

Click to expand...

We have been conned into having to add this caveat.

The real concern for the workers for salvation is defending THEIR lifestyle. Sad.

FreeGrace2 said:

Well then, you're just not looking.

Consider "hath not believed". What does that mean? Can it include someone who did believe at one time and then ceased to believe?

Or, does it mean someone who NEVER believed?


Just answer my questions, please.

What does "hath not believed" mean?

Can "hath not believed" include someone who used to believe?

Click to expand...

Jesus is explaining how to be saved, not talking about the possibility of apostasy. You are trying to get something from the passage that isn't there.

FreeGrace2 said:

I said this:
"Consider "hath not believed". What does that mean? Can it include someone who did believe at one time and then ceased to believe?

Or, does it mean someone who NEVER believed?

Just answer my questions, please.

What does "hath not believed" mean?

Can "hath not believed" include someone who used to believe?"

The issue was John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 and the words "has not believed".

So, they aren't about Jesus explaining how to be svaed. The verses are talking about who will be condemned. That is, those who have not believed.

And, out of curiosity, how come you didn't answer my question regarding the words "has not believed"?

Can those words be applied to someone who used to believe?

I always take a lack of an answer to be an answer. But not in favor of the questionee.

iow, a lack of an answer reveals an inability to answer, or just plain cowardice, knowing that the obvious answer will refute their view.

Click to expand...

I get this all the time from Calvinists. "Answer the question I asked which actually has nothing to do with the verses I quoted." Uh, no, because I refuse to play that game. Scripture has to be read in context or any answers given will not be correct. You might as well ask if two plus three equals purple.

FreeGrace2 said:

I said this:
"Consider "hath not believed". What does that mean? Can it include someone who did believe at one time and then ceased to believe?

Or, does it mean someone who NEVER believed?

Just answer my questions, please.

What does "hath not believed" mean?

Can "hath not believed" include someone who used to believe?"

Click to expand...

I realize this was directed at someone else, but the answer to your question is obvious. "Hath not believed" can be someone who believed for some time, but then ceased to believe. It is no advantage for a person to believe for a little while and then stop. If that person finishes their life as a non-believer, then they will be judged as a non-believer.

From the time when they ceased to believe until the time that they stand before the throne of Jesus for judgment, they have not believed. It also is too late to become a believer when life is over and one is brought before the throne of God.

The only way that the tense would agree with your desire, is if the person died at the exact second that they ceased to believe. Then the past tense could not be used for their unbelief. But if any amount of time has been spent in non-belief, after having believed for a time, then that soul, sadly, is lost.

Question to anyone - is every believer either a Calvinist or an Armenian? What is the big difference supposed to be? I looked up both on Wiki and see very little difference. And what about Catholics and Orthodox? Are they more like Calvinist or Armenian?

Paul McGraw said:

Question to anyone - is every believer either a Calvinist or an Armenian?
What is the big difference supposed to be?

Click to expand...

Paul, here are a few considerations ...
Some Calvinists believe in strict election by God (people do not get to choose Jesus).
Some Calvinists believe salvation cannot be lost.
IMO, all Armenians believe they have chosen Jesus out of their free will.
Some Armenians believe that BACs can choose to fall away out of their free will.

BCsenior said:

Paul, here are a few considerations ...
Some Calvinists believe in strict election by God (people do not get to choose Jesus).
Some Calvinists believe salvation cannot be lost.
IMO, all Armenians believe they have chosen Jesus out of their free will.
Some Armenians believe that BACs can choose to fall away out of their free will.

Click to expand...

If there is a better forum for discussing this, please direct me. I hate to derail the current discussion. But I am finding this Arminian vs Calvinist thing a bit confusing. Why can't God chose to elect some people while letting other people come to Him by free will? Why does it have to be just one or the other?

Paul McGraw said:

Why can't God chose to elect some people while letting other people come to Him by free will? Why does it have to be just one or the other?

Click to expand...

Yes, this is possible ...
no one knows the answer (unless God has revealed it to him/her), IMO.

FreeGrace2 said:

Please don't dodge my point. You haven't shown ANY support for your historical present claim for ch 7.

Click to expand...

You must believe Paul knew of Romans 6 before he wrote Romans 7, so, if he knew his old man was dead and buried, (Rom 6:3-6), it is impossible for him to be talking about his life in the flesh in the present tense while writing Rom 7.

When he reminisced, he was clear that he was. But there is no evidence of reminiscing in ch 7. And you can't prove your claim.

Click to expand...

I have proved it but you are an unbeliever.

No, the added parentheses were to emphasize or clarify. btw, the Greeks didn't use any punctuation marks.

Click to expand...

"When we were in the flesh..." sounds like a remembrance of a past time.

Uh, the issue is the present tense in ch 7.
Uh, the issue is the present tense in ch 7.
He wasn't writing "of his past" in ch 7. You mentioned common sense, but you aren't showing any.

Click to expand...

"When we were in the flesh..."
It isn't his present.

Let's use some common sense here, ok? Paul is referring to a fact that you simply want to deny. When he says "in my flesh", he is referring to his human nature, which he STILL has.

Click to expand...

He doesn't have "it" if he followed his own words from Romans 6:3-7.

What Paul was doing was differentiating what is in him. He has the indwelling Holy Spirit and he STILL has his human nature.

Click to expand...

Then you are also an unbeliever of 2 Cor 5:17..."Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
All things includes natures.

Why do you balk at the fact that believers have 2 natures; their human sinful nature and a new born again nature, in which the Holy Spirit resides?

Click to expand...

Because 2 Cor 5:17 refutes the notion of dual personalities.

Jesus had 2 natures as well. He was fully human, although without any sin, and He was fully Deity.

Click to expand...

It is written..."A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." (James 1:8)
That doesn't seem to describe Jesus...who was one with God.
Folks with two natures, or just a fleshly one, are not one with God.

This sounds like nothing more than an opinion. Prove it with some facts, or scholarly sources.

Click to expand...

Acts 10:45 wasn't enough for you?
Show one other place where anyone in the NT received the gift of the Holy Ghost before baptism.

I said this:
"Gentile believers didn't immediately receive the Holy Spirit at faith in Christ. But after some period of time, all do receive the Spirit at faith in Christ."

Click to expand...

Neither do Jews.
They must turn from sin and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins first.

Then Gal 2:3, 5 is untrue.

Click to expand...

Hardly.
Repentance, baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of past sins, and enduring till the end are not of the Mosaic Law the Jews were attempting to saddle the Gentiles with.

I said:
"No issue, because there was no mention of receiving the Holy Spirit after water baptism."

Click to expand...

Except in Acts 2:38, and Acts 19, and Acts 8.

Didn't you read or understand what I said? There was NO MENTION of receiving the Holy Spirit after water baptism. So you are just guessing.
Why do you insist on rejecting Gal 3:2 and 5?
Why do you insist on rejecting Gal 3:2 and 5?
I said:
"Here's the ESV:
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
So, what's the problem?"

Click to expand...

"In Him...".
Don't you think he would have already told them how to "get in Him"?
We are "baptized into Christ..." (Rom 6:3)

No, I haven't. Here's the NIV:
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
Seems you're not following the discussion very well.

Click to expand...

Believers get baptized...INTO CHRIST.
Even then, if there was no turn from sin, there is no gift of the Holy Ghost from God

Yet, you have no evidence for your opinion. I have Gal 3:2,5, Acts 1:5 and what John the baptizer said about his water baptism vs Jesus' Holy Spirit baptism.

Click to expand...

I have Romans 6:3-6 and its evidence in verse 7..."For he who is dead is freed from sin."
It isn't "versus", it is updated to "in the name of Jesus Christ".
Both for the remission of past sins.
The twelve at Ephesus found that out from Paul in Acts 19.

But it seems you fail to discern the difference. Even though it was clear enough in Acts 10.
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.
It was AFTER this that they were water baptized. They received the Holy Spirit by faith, and THEN were water baptized.

Click to expand...

Again, it was a one of a kind event; and they were baptized within minutes of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost...so was still necessary.
They ended up being believes "in Christ". Baptized into Christ. (Rom 6:3-6)


And they are not saved.
I said:
"The key is those who have BELIEVED the message of truth."
Says you. Paul says Gal 3:2,5. I believe Paul.
Where does the Bible support your opinions?
Again, Paul says we receive the Spirit by faith. Gal 3:2,5
That's your freedom. To make mistake
Where does the Bible say that. What Luke said about Simon he said about the rest of the people who believed.
Acts 8-
12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.
You have opinions. I have Scripture.
Water baptism is a symbol only. 1 Pet 3:21
We are "immersed" into Christ when the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. At the moment of faith in Christ.


Free from the penalty of sin, obviously.

John 5:24 - “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
Red words are present tense. We have eternal life NOW, when we believe.
Blue words are future tense. No condemnation.
Green words are past tense. That's justification. Once justified, always justified.
My method"??? No, I followed the Bible. I placed my faith in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross for my sins to be saved.[/QUOTE]

Yet, since I still possess my human sinful nature, I, like Paul, still struggle with sin.

Click to expand...

That is the proof you are not "in Christ".
Paul had crucified his old man of sin at his water baptism...which he had just laid out in Romans 6.

Your opinion is not supported by Scripture.
By following Jesus and obedience to His word. And believing Gal 3:2,5 about how to receive the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

If I could convince you with scripture to live without sin, would you?

FreeGrace2 said:

Please show me any verse that says eternal life is by "following Jesus".
In the meantime, consider these verses:
John 5:24 - “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
John 6:47 - Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.
1 John 5:
11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life
You haven't shown any verse about having to follow Jesus to be His sheep. Why do you ignore John 10:9?
Your opinion is not supported in Scripture.
That's your choice.
But sinners, unbelievers, don't believe it either.
It would be delusional to think that Jesus would or could say that to anyone who ever HAD believed in Him.
The FACT that He said "I NEVER knew you" is a clear statement that the crowd had NEVER believed.

Click to expand...

As you have made it clear you are still in your old body, with its sinful nature, I don"t expect you to believe anything I post from God.

Phil W said:

As you have made it clear you are still in your old body, with its sinful nature, I don"t expect you to believe anything I post from God.

Click to expand...

Phil W - your post gives me the impression that you are being boastful. I know it is irritating when we get into disagreements, but each of us does the best we can do.

Do I understand correctly that you are boasting that you are without sin?

Phil W said:

I don"t expect you (the FG2) to believe anything I post from God.

Click to expand...

Thou art very wise indeed.

Paul McGraw said:

Phil W - your post gives me the impression that you are being boastful. I know it is irritating when we get into disagreements, but each of us does the best we can do.

Click to expand...

I don't recall any disagreements with you.
In fact I like your interest in Christ even if you have never heard of some point before.

Do I understand correctly that you are boasting that you are without sin?

Click to expand...

It isn't a boast.
It is the evidence of the power of God in a new creature's life.
Like Paul..."I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." (Gal 2:20)
Ever read this verse form 1 Cor 15:34?..."Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame."
Or..."Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." (2 Tim 2:19)
Paul was making known to all readers that life without sin was possible.

Paul McGraw said:

Phil W - your post gives me the impression that you are being boastful. I know it is irritating when we get into disagreements, but each of us does the best we can do.

Do I understand correctly that you are boasting that you are without sin?

Click to expand...

Why Do Calvinists and Arminians Disagree So Strongly?

BTW, it's arminian, not Armenian.
The other extreme from extreme irresistible grace is of course, the belief in sinless perfection. I find that as problematic as Calvinism, just in different ways.