Question: What are the conditions for salvation?

FreeGrace2 · Jan 9, 2020

Oldmantook said:
Argument from silence - weakest form of argumentation proposed by you. "Abortion" ain't in Scripture either but I don't have to tell you that it's wrong. I suggest you brush up on logical fallacies.

Hey, you forgot the old saw about the "Trinity" too? lol.

Here's the deal. You know very well that there are no verses that actually say that salvation can be lost. Regardless of phraseology. The "examples" of verses typically use parables or metaphors. Neither of which could be considered plain or straightforward wording.

However, John 10:28 IS a direct, plain and straightforward verse about eternal security. On the basis of being given eternal life, the recipient shall never perish.

Try to unpack that one.

I cited Rom 8:13 and Js 5:19-20. Why are you avoiding them? As a Sunday School teacher you should be able to handle it.

With John 10:28, the case is closed. However, I have no problem with any verse.

Rom 8:13 - For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

Easy. I hope you are familiar with Paul's teaching on divine discipline, which includes physical death. 1 Cor 11:30. Also 1 Cor 10 and the Exodus generation. Or the incestous guy in 1 Cor 5:5, or Acts 5. Lot's of examples of believers who physically die for their sins.

So, Rom 8:13 is about divine discipline. Those who live sinfully will suffer God's discipline. It also refers to the fact of being out of fellowship with the Lord. But I don't expect that will go over too well with those who believe salvation can be lost, because the subject of being IN or OUT OF fellowship challenges their ideas, and they simply reject it out of hand.

James 5:19-20
19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back,
20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

v.19 refers to a fellow believer (one of you) who wanders from the truth.
v.20 teaches that a believer who is able to restore such a fellow believer will save them from God's discipline of physical death.

Why would anyone think that any sin would or could remove salvation from any believer? Don't you know that Christ died for EVERY sin?? Your theory doesn't even make sense.

The sheep who never perish are those who are LISTENING and FOLLOWING.

Please don't misread the verses so poorly. v.27 is a description of what Jesus' sheep DO. There is NOTHING about any conditions for never perishing. Or better, v.27 is a policy statement by the Lord regarding what His sheep OUGHT TO DO.

v.28 states very clearly that recipients of eternal life shall never perish.

Those sheep who choose not to listen and follow are not privy to the promises of vs. 28-29.

Except there are NO WORDS that mean this in either verse. None at all.

Are you familiar with the Greek? It would help to inform you accordingly. In Jn 5:24 akouōn translated as "hears" is a present tense participle thus more accurately translated as "hearing." Pisteuōn translated as "believe" is also a present tense participle more accurately translated as "believing." Likewise, echei translated as "has" is also a present tense participle. All of these words in the Greek are in the present tense denoting action that is ongoing and continuous.

It seems I may be more familiar with the Greek than you. First, the present tense in NO WAY MEANS any action is required to continue for the results to continue. But I invite you to search out your Greek sources and try to support your claim about the "present tense", if you can.

The present tense only means that action is occurring NOW or currently in the view of the speaker/writer. It has NOTHING to do with ongoing action out into the future in order to the results of the action to continue, which is your claim.

Are you familiar with the fact that the Bible uses the aorist tense for saving faith as well? How do you explain that, if believing has to be continuous and on-going??

Acts 16:31 is just one example.

Also, you mentioned "present tense participles" several times. Are you aware that participles aren't verbs?? They are verbal adjectives. They describe people.

Thus this verse should more accurately read: Truly, truly, I say to you that the one hearing My word and believing the One having sent Me, he is having eternal life and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

OK, and it doesn't change anything. Jesus was speaking about those who currently hear and believe. The result of believing is receiving eternal life.

And you are mistaken about "is having eternal life" as if it is an ongoing thing.

The verb is present tense. They HAVE eternal life, and have it NOW, currently. That's what it means.

And, John 10:28 tells us that those who HAVE etenral life shall never perish.

So, basically from the MOMENT one believes, and HAS presently eternal life, shall never perish.

The possession of eternal life is not only based upon a past action made in a moment of time.

What do you mean by "not only based.."?? Of course it is. What else is required?

Contrary to your notion, this verse states that one must be continually hearing and be continually believing/trusting and as one continues to do so, one possesses eternal life.

No it doesn't, as I explained above. You need to do further study of the Greek tenses. Your ideas are in error.

And as a result of those habitual actions, one has passed from death to life.

So it's an habitual action, now, huh. Unbelievable.

Here are some verses that shed more light on the truth of Scripture which also refutes your notions of the "present tense".

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.

2 Thess 2:12 - and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

These 2 verses clearly state that it is those who NEVER believed (has not believed) that will be condemned.

Once a person believes, it cannot be said of them that they "never believed", or "have not believed".

In the book, Life in the Son, Shank wrote the following:

Contrary to the assumption of many, John 5:24 does not present a privileged position, which, once attained, is forever irrevocable. Quite to the contrary, our Savior's Words depict a privileged position directly governed by the specific condition of habitually hearing and believing. Jesus declares that the happy circumstance of deliverance from present condemnation and of standing passed out of death into life is the privilege only of such as habitually hear His Word and believe the Father. It is only on the basis of a present hearing and believing that one shares the eternal life of God and enjoys deliverance from present condemnation and spiritual death. (Page 61; 1989).

He's just all wet. And wrong.

The gift of eternal life is irrevocable. Rom 11:29 says so.

The same present tenses apply to John 6:47 also which nullifies your belief.

Your error is nullified by the actual Greek grammar, which you apparently don't understand.

Clear to you because evidently you do not know the Greek

I just exposed your error regarding Greek grammar and the "present tense".

I'll make it easier for you to understand the passage.
John 10:
27 My sheep hear [present tense] my voice, and I know [present tense] them, and they follow [present tense] me. 28 I give them [the group in verse 27 that is persevering in the present] eternal life, and they [the group in verse 27 that is persevering in the present] will never perish, and no one will snatch them [the group in verse 27 that is persevering in the present] out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them [the group in verse 27 that is persevering in the present] to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them [the group in verse 27 that is persevering in the present] out of the Father’s hand.

Not even close. Your misunderstanding of the Greek present tense has led you into a very serious error. Please correct your error.

Thus Jn 10:27-29 exactly parallels Jn 5:24; 6:47 - all of which specify the present tense as being requisite for eternal life.

I do agree with your first point about the verses paralleling each other. But your ERROR about the present tense is just that; an error.

The requisite for eternal life is to believe. Period. Not "continue to believe" as you erroneously claim.

Jesus requires perseverance (hearing, believing, following) in order to be saved.

Here are verses that totally refute your claim.

Salvation:
Mark 16:16 " He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Luke 8:12 "Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Acts 11:14 and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'

Acts 16:31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Rom 10:9, 10
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

1 Cor 1:21 - For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

2 Tim 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1 Peter 1:9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

2 Thess 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Eternal Life:
John 3:15-16
15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

1 Tim 1:16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

None of these verses support your works oriented claim about salvation.

This conclusion is not an abstract theological deduction.

One can call it whatever they want. It's still in error.

All credible English translations grammatically affirm the necessity to persevere in the faith for John 5:24.

No they don't. You're just applying a FALSE idea about the present tense.

The requirement to persevere is found in other passages of Scripture especially within John's Gospel which ironically you have cited to support your belief - when in actuality according to the Greek grammar - it does not.

Of course the Bible commands perseverance, but NEVER to maintain salvation, as you assume.

Acts 11:23 - When he arrived and saw what the grace of God had done, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts.

Acts 14:22 - strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.

If your notion was true, why wouldn't the apostles include some kind of warning about the consequences of NOT remaining true to the Lord/faith?

renniks · Jan 9, 2020

scruffydog said:
How many, and what are they?

Grace and faith.

Oldmantook · Jan 10, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Please don't misread the verses so poorly. v.27 is a description of what Jesus' sheep DO. There is NOTHING about any conditions for never perishing. Or better, v.27 is a policy statement by the Lord regarding what His sheep OUGHT TO DO.

v.28 states very clearly that recipients of eternal life shall never perish.

Ought to do certainly; problem is ought is not be equated with will do. If a sheep does not choose what he/she ought to do, then eternal life is not assured of. Disobedient sheep who DON'T DO what they OUGHT TO DO are not promised eternal life.

FreeGrace2 said:
Rom 8:13 - For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

Easy. I hope you are familiar with Paul's teaching on divine discipline, which includes physical death. 1 Cor 11:30. Also 1 Cor 10 and the Exodus generation. Or the incestous guy in 1 Cor 5:5, or Acts 5. Lot's of examples of believers who physically die for their sins.

So, Rom 8:13 is about divine discipline. Those who live sinfully will suffer God's discipline. It also refers to the fact of being out of fellowship with the Lord. But I don't expect that will go over too well with those who believe salvation can be lost, because the subject of being IN or OUT OF fellowship challenges their ideas, and they simply reject it out of hand.

Baloney. Rom 8:13 is a first-class conditional sentence in the Greek which simply means that if the protasis is true, the apodosis is equally true. So if a brother lives according to the flesh (true), he will die (true). Your claim that this refers to physical death is nonsensical because every single person dies physically - irrespective of how he lives his life. One dies physically no matter if he lives according to the flesh or according to the Spirit, thus Paul is warning of spiritual death IF one lives according to the flesh.

FreeGrace2 said:
James 5:19-20
19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back,
20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

v.19 refers to a fellow believer (one of you) who wanders from the truth.
v.20 teaches that a believer who is able to restore such a fellow believer will save them from God's discipline of physical death.

Why would anyone think that any sin would or could remove salvation from any believer? Don't you know that Christ died for EVERY sin?? Your theory doesn't even make sense.

Died for every sin? Past, present and future?? Read your Bible as it NEVER states that. In fact it states the opposite of that you believe.
Rom 3:25 Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
2 Pet 1:9 But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.
Problematic ain't it?
Moreover, you conveniently overlook the fact that James specifically refers to death of the soul. While soul can refer to a person, it can also refer to spiritual death. The wages of sin is spiritual death and the Bible never guarantees automatic forgiveness for present sins unrepented of nor future sins yet to be committed. Your theory not only lacks biblical warrant but is directly contradicted by Scripture.

FreeGrace2 said:
Except there are NO WORDS that mean this in either verse. None at all.

Again your fall back argument - one of silence - which you excel in. Nevertheless, 1 Jn 3:15 states "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Everyone means anyone including believers reinforced by "hates his brother." Such a believer is referred to as a "murderer." Consequently, no murderer (a brother who hates brother) has eternal life. How's that for specificity?

FreeGrace2 said:
The present tense only means that action is occurring NOW or currently in the view of the speaker/writer. It has NOTHING to do with ongoing action out into the future in order to the results of the action to continue, which is your claim.

You are correct that the present tense does indeed indicate continuous action without reference to time of action. However your point is still moot as continuing to hear and continuing to believe (irrespective of time) is still required for eternal life. Ongoing hearing and ongoing belief is required for eternal life whether it be past, present or future. In other words, as long as one is abiding in Christ, one has eternal life. If this continuous action ceases, no assurance of salvation is to be had.

FreeGrace2 said:
Are you familiar with the fact that the Bible uses the aorist tense for saving faith as well? How do you explain that, if believing has to be continuous and on-going??

Are you familiar with the fact that salvation is described in the present and future as well as the past tense, indicative of a process not only a past moment of belief? And that is precisely how saving faith as a process is continuous and ongoing.

FreeGrace2 said:
OK, and it doesn't change anything. Jesus was speaking about those who currently hear and believe. The result of believing is receiving eternal life.

And you are mistaken about "is having eternal life" as if it is an ongoing thing.

The verb is present tense. They HAVE eternal life, and have it NOW, currently. That's what it means.

Having eternal life now is no guarantee that one will always possess it going into the future. As I pointed out earlier, will you still have eternal life if you accept the mark of the beast in the future? Of course not.

FreeGrace2 said:
And, John 10:28 tells us that those who HAVE etenral life shall never perish.

So, basically from the MOMENT one believes, and HAS presently eternal life, shall never perish.

You have the bad habit of ignoring v.27 which specifies those sheep who are obedient - hearing and following. Believers always have the choice to obey or disobey the Shepherd. Some sheep do not do what they ought to do. Those sheep perish and do not have eternal life.

FreeGrace2 said:
Here are some verses that shed more light on the truth of Scripture which also refutes your notions of the "present tense".

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.

How does this verse prove your point?? Considering the verb tense this is how it reads: The one who is believing in him is not condemned but the one not believing in him is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only son.
This verse states that the action of believing results in no condemnation while the action of not believing does result in condemnation. It bolsters my view that believing, irrespective of time of action is required for salvation. Thus it does not refer to a one-time moment of belief made in the past. Ironically rather than buttressing your point, you have instead undermined your point.

FreeGrace2 said:
He's just all wet. And wrong.

The gift of eternal life is irrevocable. Rom 11:29 says so.

Wrong how? How convenient of you to dismiss his view without any elaboration on your part. Quite unconvincing. Moreover another proof-text by you in Rom 11:29 without any explanation? Again, quite unconvincing. The word for "call" is klēsis which can also be translated as calling or invitation. God is the one who calls or invites us to salvation. He does not revoke or take back his call/invitation. How we respond to that call or invitation however is an entirely different matter. Our response is dependent upon whether we obey or disobey. Each believer has the choice whether to live a life worth of that calling. Not all do. If all believers automatically do that then verses such as these make no sense whatsoever:
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort you to lead a life worthy of the calling with which you were called, Eph 4:1
If all believers automatically live lives worthy of their calling, there would be no need for Paul to exhort them would he?

2 Thess 1:11 With this in view we pray for you constantly, that our God will count you worthy of his calling, and by his power bring to fulfillment every good resolve and work of faith,
In this verse why the need for constant prayer if all believers are automatically worthy of their calling?

2 Pet 1:10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to confirm your call and election. For by doing these things you will never come to ruin.
Again, action is required on the believers' part to confirm their call. It is not automatic but BY DOING THESE THINGS they will not come to ruin.

FreeGrace2 said:
None of these verses support your works oriented claim about salvation.

I can simply refute all of your proof-texts which don't amount to anything with one verse.
Heb 5:9 and having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all those obeying Him,
You believe Jn 3:16 don't you which states 'believing' as requisite for salvation don't you? Why do you overlook Heb 5:9 which states that 'obeying' as requisite for salvation? Or are you going to give me the excuse that obedience is works-based? Obedience to God is never referred to as works-based and is never condemned in either the OT or NT.

FreeGrace2 said:
No they don't. You're just applying a FALSE idea about the present tense.

As I already explained above, the present tense has nothing to do with time of action (except when in the indicative mood where coupled with a present tense verb indicates continued action taking place right now. Thus whether viewed from past, present or future, the continued action of believing is necessary for eternal life. Comprende?

FreeGrace2 · Jan 10, 2020

Oldmantook said:
Ought to do certainly; problem is ought is not be equated with will do.

Never suggested such either. However, are you not familiar with what a "policy statement" is and looks like? v.27 is way more likely a policy statement than a statement of fact. How do I know? Just read the Bible and see all the sins that believers throughout the ages have committed.

Those who think v.27 is a statement of fact are worse off than naive.

If a sheep does not choose what he/she ought to do, then eternal life is not assured of.

There are NO words in v.27 or v.28 that would lead anyone to that conclusion.

Disobedient sheep who DON'T DO what they OUGHT TO DO are not promised eternal life.

Show me that warning, or "reverse promise".

It should look something like this, if it exists:

v.27 "My sheep listen to Me and follow Me, and IF or AS LONG AS they keep doing that, v.28 I will give them eternal life and ONLY THEN will they never perish."

Yet, the text says nothing even close to that.

Baloney. Rom 8:13 is a first-class conditional sentence in the Greek which simply means that if the protasis is true, the apodosis is equally true.

What you fail to understand is that the Greek first class condition isn't a statement of fact.

Quoting from an actual Greek grammar scholar, Daniel Wallace, "The first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument, while the second class condition indictes the assusmption of an untruth for the sake of argument."

Both conditions are only assumptions, not facts.

So if a brother lives according to the flesh (true), he will die (true). Your claim that this refers to physical death is nonsensical because every single person dies physically - irrespective of how he lives his life.

Well, you obviously didn't bother to read my post very carefully. I DEFINED the kind of physical death is being referred to: divine discipline, and I gave verses and examples.

Don't you know that every human being is already born physically alive but spiritually dead; separated from God and in need of salvation??

How does it make sense that a person will die spiritually AGAIN for sin, since Christ already died for ALL sin??

It's your view that lacks sense.

One dies physically no matter if he lives according to the flesh or according to the Spirit, thus Paul is warning of spiritual death IF one lives according to the flesh.

The warning is God's discipline resulting in death.

Died for every sin? Past, present and future?? Read your Bible as it NEVER states that. In fact it states the opposite of that you believe.
Rom 3:25 Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
2 Pet 1:9 But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.
Problematic ain't it?

For you, yes. Very much so.

Regarding Rom3:25 I refer you to Romans 3:25 God presented Him as the atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand. and see how 29 English translations handle the verse. In context, the "past sins" or "former sins" isn't talking about one's personal sins BEFORE salvation, but sins committed before the LAW.

Here's the context:
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness is given through faith inJesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

So, after reading this you STILL think 'past sins' refers to one's sins before salvation, I will conclude that the passage isn't being read correctly, or understood correctly.

Moreover, you conveniently overlook the fact that James specifically refers to death of the soul. While soul can refer to a person, it can also refer to spiritual death.

Once again I defer to the Greek. The word is "psyche", translated 'soul'. 1st Century Greeks used that word to refer to the whole person. So "death of a psyche" meant physical death. Your views are way off track.

The wages of sin is spiritual death and the Bible never guarantees automatic forgiveness for present sins unrepented of nor future sins yet to be committed. Your theory not only lacks biblical warrant but is directly contradicted by Scripture.

Nonsense. All of humanity is born under the curse of Adam's sin. And no one dies spiritually twice, or 3 times, or even again. We are born spiritually dead. We need to be made alive again, which is regeneration or being born again.

Again your fall back argument - one of silence - which you excel in.

This is just a cheap excuse for not having any clear verses on the subject.

Nevertheless, 1 Jn 3:15 states "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Everyone means anyone including believers reinforced by "hates his brother."

John was present when Jesus spoke the words from John 15:1-7. The point of which was that UNLESS the believer "abides in Him" they can't bear fruit for Him.

In fact, Jesus made clear what He was referring to by the words "IF you abide in Me and I in you". Jesus is referring to a reciprocal relationship between Himself and the believer. In other passages we find the word FELLOWSHIP. Same thing. Unless you can prove differently. I invite your attempt. But I will say that I doubt that you understand the difference between relationship and fellowship.

Such a believer is referred to as a "murderer."

Right. Quote marks around the word. Hate is the opposite of love, and the Bible commands that we love one another. A believer who hates his fellow believer is sinning and has lost fellowship with the Lord, and cannot bear fruit.

Consequently, no murderer (a brother who hates brother) has eternal life. How's that for specificity?

No, it doesn't say "doesn't have eternal life" as you poorly paraphrase. The key word is "abiding", which you've conveniently ignored.

I recommend that you read the first chapter of 1 John very carefully and note the times John uses the word "fellowship". That's the focus of his entire epistle.

iow, a believer cannot bear fruit or even be in fellowship with the Lord if he hates another believer.

You are correct that the present tense does indeed indicate continuous action without reference to time of action. However your point is still moot as continuing to hear and continuing to believe (irrespective of time) is still required for eternal life.

You're not paying attention. There is nothing having to "continue" any action in order to receive eternal life. That's just your own ABUSE of the present tense.

I invite you to search your own Greek texts and prove your claim, if you can.

Ongoing hearing and ongoing belief is required for eternal life whether it be past, present or future.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this, it STILL doesn't make it right or correct. Do your homework and prove your claim, if you can.

In other words, as long as one is abiding in Christ, one has eternal life.

This just demonstrates a failure to even understand the issue of fellowship and the difference between fellowship and relationship.

Truth: as long as one is abiding in Christ, one is in fellowship with Christ and will bear fruit.

If this continuous action ceases, no assurance of salvation is to be had.

Please prove your theory that continuous on-going action is required for the results of that action occur. I CHALLENGE you to prove it.

Are you familiar with the fact that salvation is described in the present and future as well as the past tense, indicative of a process not only a past moment of belief?

Of course I am. In fact, salvation can be explained in 3 tenses.

past tense: was saved from the penalty of sin. Justification. John 5:24
present tense: being saved from the power of sin. Sanctification. Phil 2:12
future tense: will be saved from the presence of sin. Glorification. Rom 8:30

And that is precisely how saving faith as a process is continuous and ongoing.

Wrong. See above.

Having eternal life now is no guarantee that one will always possess it going into the future.

This is blasphemous, because Jesus said very clearly that those He gives eternal life to shall never perish. He gave NO EXCEPTIONS to recipients of eternal life.

And He previously said that those who believe CURRENTLY POSSESS (have) eternal life.

You can't even explain that! No process at all. Immediate possession to those who believe. It's given on the basis of believing, not hearing and following, as you wrongly misunderstand.

As I pointed out earlier, will you still have eternal life if you accept the mark of the beast in the future? Of course not.

You are wildly assuming that believers will take the mark. Where do you get that from? Scripture? No. No mention at all of any believer taking the mark.

Do you know WHEN the mark is given during the Tribulation? According to scholars, CH 12 of Revelation begins the second half of the Tribulation. That means the earth has already experienced the 7 seal and 7 trumpet judgments. It should be obvious to reasonable people that unfaithful and disobedient believers will be included in the carnage of those judgments, so that by the time of the mark, all such believers will have been killed through divine judgment.

So your theory is less than weak. It's non existent. You're arguing from a position of possibility, not fact.

You have the bad habit of ignoring v.27 which specifies those sheep who are obedient - hearing and following.

Hardly. You have the bad habit of failing to read correctly. Or maybe failing to understand the clear words. There is NOTHING in v.27 that constitutes a condition for never perishing. Nothing at all.

Since the Bible clearly shows the many on-going failures of believers, v.27 cannot be a statement of fact. Paul warned that some believers will "fall away from the faith" in 1 Tim 4:1. That's hardly following Him.

So, v.27 is a policy statement about what Jesus' sheep OUGHT TO DO.

Believers always have the choice to obey or disobey the Shepherd. Some sheep do not do what they ought to do.

My point exactly. Which is why Jesus gave His policy statement.

Those sheep perish and do not have eternal life.

Jesus NEVER said that. Those given eternal life (which is all who have believed) possess eternal life and shall never perish.

Your views are in direct opposition to what Jesus taught.

How does this verse prove your point?? Considering the verb tense this is how it reads: The one who is believing in him is not condemned but the one not believing in him is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only son.
This verse states that the action of believing results in no condemnation while the action of not believing does result in condemnation. It bolsters my view that believing, irrespective of time of action is required for salvation.

You're still hung up on your faulty understanding of the present tense in the Greek.

The key in both of the verses focuses on the phrase "has not believed". Do you understand what that really means? It means "never believed". If one has "never believed" it means they "have not believed".

If one has EVER believed, then it CANNOT be said of them that they "have not believed".

Thus it does not refer to a one-time moment of belief made in the past.

Yeah, it does but an admission of that truth refutes your whole point, right?

Ironically rather than buttressing your point, you have instead undermined your point.

No, you just keep misreading and misunderstanding Scripture that refutes your ideas.

Wrong how? How convenient of you to dismiss his view without any elaboration on your part. Quite unconvincing. Moreover another proof-text by you in Rom 11:29 without any explanation?

The guy is a flaming Calvinist. Full of Calvinist talking points. So what?

Regarding Rom 11:29, do you really need an explanation? OK. Rom 6:23 describes eternal life as a gift of God. And Acts 2:38 and 10:45 describes the Holy Spirit as a gift.

So, prove that Paul specifically excluded either gift from Rom 11:29.

I can simply refute all of your proof-texts which don't amount to anything with one verse.
Heb 5:9 and having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all those obeying Him,
You believe Jn 3:16 don't you which states 'believing' as requisite for salvation don't you? Why do you overlook Heb 5:9 which states that 'obeying' as requisite for salvation?

Are you serious??

Let's study the whole context;
7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.
8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered
9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

Are you going to argue from the red words in v.7 that Jesus needed salvation from sin? I sure hope not.

How do you explain Jesus' "learning obedience"? Wasn't He perfect already?

Again, in v.9 how do you explain the blue words regarding being made perfect? Wasn't He already perfect and sinless?

Because of the MANY verses that base soul salvation upon faith in Christ apart from anything else, your view is in DIRE OPPOSITION to the rest of the NT.

Since v.9 doesn't mean justification/soul salvation, the context shows how Christ was perfected for His role as Savior by obedience through sufferings, after which He experienced salvation. Now He is in a position to help His "brethren" (those already sanctified and will be brought to glory; 2:10). Through Him, they can attain to eternal salvation. btw, the word "eternal" refers to permanency; it cannot be taken away from them. If something eternal can be removed, then it really isn't eternal at all, and words just don't mean things. But they DO.

So in this context, this means a salvation in which one shares in Christ's inheritance and reigns with Him. This is not automatic for believers; it is for only those who obey Him. The same principle is stated in Rom 8:17b and 2 Tim 2:12.

Or are you going to give me the excuse that obedience is works-based?

Of course it is. What in the world are you thinking?

Obedience to God is never referred to as works-based and is never condemned in either the OT or NT.

AU CONTRAIRE. Rom 3:20 - Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

As I already explained above, the present tense has nothing to do with time of action (except when in the indicative mood where coupled with a present tense verb indicates continued action taking place right now.

Then WHY do you persist in pushing the false notion that continuing to believe is required to have eternal life?

Review lesson: both John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 teaches that condemnation is for those who "have not believed". Totally destroying your claims.

Thus whether viewed from past, present or future, the continued action of believing is necessary for eternal life. Comprende?

It's you, my friend, that does not comprende.

Oldmantook · Jan 11, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
What you fail to understand is that the Greek first class condition isn't a statement of fact.

Quoting from an actual Greek grammar scholar, Daniel Wallace, "The first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument, while the second class condition indictes the assusmption of an untruth for the sake of argument."

Both conditions are only assumptions, not facts.

What you fail to understand that the the first class condition assumes for the sake of argument that the protasis is true and the apodosis is likewise true. In other words a simple If-Then statement.

FreeGrace2 said:
Well, you obviously didn't bother to read my post very carefully. I DEFINED the kind of physical death is being referred to: divine discipline, and I gave verses and examples.

Don't you know that every human being is already born physically alive but spiritually dead; separated from God and in need of salvation??

How does it make sense that a person will die spiritually AGAIN for sin, since Christ already died for ALL sin??

It's your view that lacks sense.

One can be disciplined which does not result in death. You conflate discipline as death. Sometimes death does result but is not always the case is it? Paul wrote that living according to the flesh results in death, not discipline. He also wrote those who live according to the Spirit will live. So by using your logic, live means no discipline? How ridiculous.

FreeGrace2 said:
The warning is God's discipline resulting in death.

Every single person believer or nonbeliever physically dies no matter what lifestyle they lived so your point is quite moot.

FreeGrace2 said:
So, after reading this you STILL think 'past sins' refers to one's sins before salvation, I will conclude that the passage isn't being read correctly, or understood correctly.

Does it not say past sins? It certainly does not say all sins. It does not say present or future sins. How do you repent of sins you have not yet committed?

FreeGrace2 said:
Once again I defer to the Greek. The word is "psyche", translated 'soul'. 1st Century Greeks used that word to refer to the whole person. So "death of a psyche" meant physical death. Your views are way off track.

False dilemma fallacy. Not only physical death but spiritual death as well.

FreeGrace2 said:
Right. Quote marks around the word. Hate is the opposite of love, and the Bible commands that we love one another. A believer who hates his fellow believer is sinning and has lost fellowship with the Lord, and cannot bear fruit.

Loss fellowship?? Read it again. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Eternal life specifies salvation - NOT - loss of fellowship. Problematic for you isn't it?

FreeGrace2 said:
You're not paying attention. There is nothing having to "continue" any action in order to receive eternal life. That's just your own ABUSE of the present tense.

I invite you to search your own Greek texts and prove your claim, if you can.

Jn 3:16 has the word believes which is a present tense participle. Since the present tense does not reference time of action what do you suppose this verse means? The tense is not in the aorist either. So continuing action means what exactly?

FreeGrace2 said:
Please prove your theory that continuous on-going action is required for the results of that action occur. I CHALLENGE you to prove it.

At any given moment of time, past, present or future. One must be believing (Jn 3:16) and obeying (Heb 5:9). In other words, our relationship with Christ must be an abiding one. If one ceases believing and/or obeying, one is no longer abiding in Him.

FreeGrace2 said:
This is blasphemous, because Jesus said very clearly that those He gives eternal life to shall never perish. He gave NO EXCEPTIONS to recipients of eternal life.

This is blasphemous. The EXCEPTIONS are sheep who do not hear and follow.

FreeGrace2 said:
You are wildly assuming that believers will take the mark. Where do you get that from? Scripture? No. No mention at all of any believer taking the mark.

Another argument from silence which you specialize in! We all have the choice to sin or not don't we? Do you deny that believers are without sin? Didn't Peter who walked with Jesus face to face deny his Lord not once but thrice. What makes you so sure you or any other believer won't deny Jesus by taking the mark? Are you as confident as Peter was? Do you have a crystal ball? The most we can honestly say is that we HOPE to not take the mark especially under extreme duress and persecution. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven (Matt 10:33). And that is why Rev 14:12 exhorts: Here is a call for the endurance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This verse comes right after the warning about taking the mark thus exhorting the saints to persevere.

FreeGrace2 said:
So, v.27 is a policy statement about what Jesus' sheep OUGHT TO DO.

Of course! Not necessarily what they will do. The policy statement at my job is that employees who steal from the company will get fired. Not all employees have been known to follow that policy statement. Those that do follow are privy to continued employment. Those that don't are terminated in accordance with the policy statement.

FreeGrace2 said:
AU CONTRAIRE. Rom 3:20 - Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Can't you read the verse? Works of the law is not being condemned here. Instead it states that works of the law is the vehicle or means by which we become aware/conscious of sin. Ever heard of the 10 Commandments? Last time I checked it's still valid and its list conveys to humankind what God considers to be sin. I don't see God condemning anyone for obeying the 10 Commandments as works of the law.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 11, 2020

Oldmantook said:
What you fail to understand that the the first class condition assumes for the sake of argument that the protasis is true and the apodosis is likewise true. In other words a simple If-Then statement.

No, I haven't failed to understand the meaning and use of the 1st class condition. What you HAVE failed to understand is that the 1st class condition says NOTHING having to continue the action for the results of that action to continue. That is an abuse of the Greek grammar. I asked you to quote any legitimate Greek source. Do you have any?

One can be disciplined which does not result in death.

Of course. Paul made that point in 1 Cor 11:30 - weakness, sickness and death.

You conflate discipline as death.

No. You are confused. I understand that God's divine discipline CAN include death. I never said EVERY TIME.

Sometimes death does result but is not always the case is it? Paul wrote that living according to the flesh results in death, not discipline.

You keep missing the point. To "live according to the flesh" is to ignore all the commands about holy living in the NT and most assuredly CAN result in physical death. btw, don't think that God's discipline involving physical death will be as simple as dying in your sleep. Just read 1 Cor 5:5 about the incestuous man. Being turned over to Satan for the "destruction of the flesh" doesn't sound like any picnic.

Not only that, but note 1 Tim 1-
19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.
20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

In v.20 we see God's hand of discipline but not physical death necessarily.

He also wrote those who live according to the Spirit will live. So by using your logic, live means no discipline? How ridiculous.

Why would any parent discipline their children who are behaving?? Are you serious?

Every single person believer or nonbeliever physically dies no matter what lifestyle they lived so your point is quite moot.

No it's not. It's the METHOD of death that's the point, and a point that it seems Arminians just can't grasp.

Heb 12:11 - No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Does it not say past sins?

I pointed out what that refers to. And it doesn't refer to one's sins before salvation.

It certainly does not say all sins. It does not say present or future sins. How do you repent of sins you have not yet committed?

You don't, of course. You can only turn away from sins that you are guilty of.

Have you never studies Hebrews? Between ch 7 and ch 10 the phrase "once for all" occurs a number of times, in relation to Christ's single sacrifice. Figure that out.

False dilemma fallacy. Not only physical death but spiritual death as well.

Opinion only.

Loss fellowship?? Read it again. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Eternal life specifies salvation - NOT - loss of fellowship. Problematic for you isn't it?

No problem for me at all. Since you seem to not want to accept the reality of being in fellowship, you will not accept or grasp the concept in any passage where it is being referred to, even if the word isn't used specifically.

However, the word IS used throughout the NT; at least 14 times in reference to God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit. So it IS an important concept.

Jn 3:16 has the word believes which is a present tense participle. Since the present tense does not reference time of action what do you suppose this verse means? The tense is not in the aorist either. So continuing action means what exactly?

It DOESN'T mean "contuning action" anyway. So your whole premise is FALSE.

The present tense only means current action, action that is happening NOW in reference to the speaker/writer, as I showed from a Greek scholar, Dan Wallace, who wrote a Greek grammar text.

The point of the present tense is simple. The one who believes right now, or currently, is saved and will not perish. The present tense DOES NOT SAY OR MEAN one must continuously believe in order to be saved continuously. That is false.

I also showed WHO will be condemned; those who have not believed. John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12. These 2 verses refute your "continuous action" opinion.

At any given moment of time, past, present or future. One must be believing (Jn 3:16) and obeying (Heb 5:9).

Please quit abusing the Greek grammar.

In other words, our relationship with Christ must be an abiding one.

Yes, in order to be blessed, eternally rewarded and to bear fruit. That's what fellowship is all about.

Do you believe that a husband and wife (married) who are not in fellowship have a happy blessed marriage?

If one ceases believing and/or obeying, one is no longer abiding in Him.

That is correct. They are out of fellowship, or NOT in fellowship.

This is blasphemous. The EXCEPTIONS are sheep who do not hear and follow.

What is blasphemous is to claim that any person who has been given eternal life can perish. Jesus said the opposite.

Another argument from silence which you specialize in!

No. I just note when the Bible doesn't say or teach something being taught by another. Which seems to bew your specialization.

We all have the choice to sin or not don't we?

Yes, free will.

Do you deny that believers are without sin?

No believer is "without sin" in this life.

Didn't Peter who walked with Jesus face to face deny his Lord not once but thrice. What makes you so sure you or any other believer won't deny Jesus by taking the mark?

Because of the consequence, obviously. No believer CAN perish, because every believer is given eternal life. And on THAT basis, they shall never perish.

It is blasphemous to disagree with Jesus.

Are you as confident as Peter was? Do you have a crystal ball? The most we can honestly say is that we HOPE to not take the mark especially under extreme duress and persecution.

I have already explained the reason no believer will take the mark. You are free to accept it or reject it, but...if you seriously think that any believer will take the mark, and therefore end up in the lake of fire, then you have just proved Jesus to be a liar.

But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven (Matt 10:33).

This is parallel to 2 Tim 2:12. What's being denied is special recognition in eternity for obedience and faithfulness.

And that is why Rev 14:12 exhorts: Here is a call for the endurance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This verse comes right after the warning about taking the mark thus exhorting the saints to persevere.

It's a warning about being faithful and enduring (same principle as 2 Tim 2:12). Since the Bible is clear about God's painful discipline including physical death, it's clear that those who aren't faithful and enduring won't live long enough in the Trib to have an opportunity to take the mark.

Your speculation is far worse than my view that any believer who WOULD take the mark simply won't be allowed to live long enough to do so. Is God so inept that He doesn't know what every believer WILL DO, given the opportunity?

What is sad is that you seem to not understand that IF God did allow any believer to take the mark, His promise in Rev would contradict all that He has promised those He has given eternal life.

Of course! Not necessarily what they will do. The policy statement at my job is that employees who steal from the company will get fired. Not all employees have been known to follow that policy statement. Those that do follow are privy to continued employment. Those that don't are terminated in accordance with the policy statement.

So why can't you grasp that John 10:27 is a policy statement about what Jesus' sheep OUGHT TO DO?

Can't you read the verse? Works of the law is not being condemned here. Instead it states that works of the law is the vehicle or means by which we become aware/conscious of sin. Ever heard of the 10 Commandments? Last time I checked it's still valid and its list conveys to humankind what God considers to be sin. I don't see God condemning anyone for obeying the 10 Commandments as works of the law.

Please read all of Rom 3 and 4 and Gal 3. Where do you find anything about works or the Law involved in salvation?

What you will find is that works and the Law are excluded from salvation. They will NOT save anyone.

Do you disagree?

Oldmantook · Jan 11, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
No, I haven't failed to understand the meaning and use of the 1st class condition. What you HAVE failed to understand is that the 1st class condition says NOTHING having to continue the action for the results of that action to continue. That is an abuse of the Greek grammar. I asked you to quote any legitimate Greek source. Do you have any?

Obviously, you ignore the text itself because not only do the clauses in Rom 8:13 form 1st class conditions but their verb tenses are also in the present tense. There are many sources that reference spiritual death as the consequence of the continuing action of living according to the flesh.

Charles Simeon's Horae Homileticae
DISCOURSE: 1868
MORTIFICATION OF SIN

Romans 8:13. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

IT is of infinite importance to know our state as it is before God, and to ascertain on scriptural grounds, what our condition will be in the eternal world. Numberless are the passages of God’s word which will afford us the desired information; but there is not in the whole inspired volume one declaration more explicit than that before us. It presents to our view two momentous truths, which, as they admit not of any clearer division or arrangement, we shall consider in their order.

I. A carnal life will terminate in everlasting misery—

To “live after the flesh” is to make the gratifying of our corrupt nature the great scope and end of our lives—

[The “flesh” does not relate merely to the body, but to the whole of our corrupt nature. It is used to signify that innate principle of sin, which governs the unregenerate, and continually fights against the spiritual principle in those that are regenerate [Note: John 3:6. Galatians 5:17.]. And its fruits comprehend the actings of the mind, no less than those of the body [Note: Galatians 5:19-20.]. To “live after” this corrupt principle, is, to be governed by it in all our deliberations and pursuits. It signifies nothing what may be the immediate path which we choose for ourselves, provided our main object be to gratify ourselves. One may seek pleasure, another riches, another honour, another the knowledge of arts and sciences; but if they have no higher end of life than to attain these things, they all equally live after the flesh [Note: Compare ver. 5. with Philippians 3:19.].]

The consequence of such a life will be eternal death—

[The death mentioned in the text cannot relate to the mere death of the body, because that must be experienced by the spiritual, no less than by the carnal man. It must import that death of the soul, which is emphatically called the second death [Note: Revelation 20:14.]. Nor can there be a doubt but that this will be the fruit and consequence of a carnal life. And shall this be thought an hard saying? Surely not: for such a sentence is only a repetition of what the person has before passed upon himself: he has practically said to God, “Depart from me; I desire not the knowledge of thy ways [Note: Job 21:14-15.]; I will be a god to myself [Note: Psalms 12:4.], and make myself happy in my own way.’ God replies to him, “Thou wouldest none of me; and thou shall have none of me; depart from me for evermore [Note: Compare Psalms 81:11. with Matthew 25:41.].” The very state in which they lived, was a state of spiritual death [Note: ver. 6.]; no wonder therefore that it terminates in everlasting death.]

Hodge's Commentary on Romans, Ephesians and First Corintians
The necessity of thus living is enforced by a repetition of the sentiment of Romans 8:6. To live after the flesh is death; to live after the Spirit is life. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit, etc. The necessity of holiness, therefore, is absolute. No matter what professions we may make, or what hopes we may indulge justification, or the manifestation of the divine favor, is never separated from sanctification. Ye shall die; μέλλετε ἀποθνήσκειν, ye are about to die; death to you is inevitable. Compare Romans 4:24; 1 Thessalonians 3:4; James 2:12. The death here spoken of, as appears from the whole context, and from the nature of the life with which it is contrasted, cannot be the death of the body, either solely or mainly. It is spiritual death, in the comprehensive scriptural sense of that term, which includes all the penal consequences of sin here and hereafter,

Mark Dunagan Commentary on the Bible
Romans 8:13 for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

"ye must die"-i.e. spiritually. Paul is talking to Christians. "Are Christians capable of dying spiritually? Of course! If anyone sows to the flesh (Galatians 6:8) he reaps corruption. Some would go back to depend on their moral capital (Galatians 3:3)--that means death. Some would go back to live sinfully (2 Timothy 4:10; 2 Peter 2:20-22)..that means death. The death here cannot be physical since however a person lives he will die physically." The same truth was taught in the O.T. (Ezekiel 18:24)

Therefore the "indwelling of the Spirit" in Romans 8:1-39 isn"t some kind of "enabling power" that keeps the Christian away from sin or removes all desire to sin. It"s not a "leading" of the Spirit that violates or OVER-RULES free-will.

"by the Spirit"-it is the teaching delivered by the Spirit that reveals what "deeds of the body" we must remove. (Colossians 3:5 ff; Ephesians 4:25-32; Ephesians 5:1-11)

"put to death"-present active, "to continue to put to death". "The Spirit doesn"t do the killing for the saint as a sort of substitutionary work. Sanctification involves the sinner."

(1 Peter 1:14-16)

"ye shall live"-can the Christian treat sin in a casual manner? Certainly not! Spiritual life is conditional.

Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Romans 8:13. For, etc. If you lived thus, you would not fulfil the glorious destiny announced in Romans 8:10-11. Hence this is a proof of Romans 8:12.

Ye shall die, are about to die. Death in the fullest sense is here meant, not eternal death alone, and certainly not physical death, which comes to all men; comp. Romans 8:10.

Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable
The present tense of the verbs is significant. This tense stresses the necessity of continually putting to death the deeds of the flesh. Paul viewed the presentation of ourselves to God as an initial act of commitment ( Romans 6:13; Romans 12:1), but He wrote that we must daily and hourly choose to mortify our flesh (cf. Romans 13:14).

Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
‘For if you live after the flesh, you must die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.’

Indeed if we do live after the flesh we ‘must die’, both in this world and the next. It is a certainty. The contrast with ‘live’ indicates that this means more than just physical death. For those who live after the flesh there is no eternal life. On the other hand, if we live by the Spirit, following His leading and responding to Him, and if we by His power put to death the (sinful) deeds of our body, we will ‘live’ (a verb only used of believers). In the light of the first part of the verse we may see the deeds done in the body as referring to those wrought by the flesh which operates in our body.

Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament
Ye shall die; the death not of the body merely, but of the soul-a death which shall last for ever. Body and soul shall die the second, an eternal death.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible
If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; viz. eternally, and never partake of the glorious resurrection before spoken of. The godly themselves need this caution; they must not think, that because they are elected and justified, &c., that therefore they may do and live as they list.

Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Romans 8:13. Reason for Romans 8:12—“for so ye would attain the opposite of your destination, as specified in Romans 8:10-11.” The μέλλειν (comp. Romans 4:24) indicates the “certum et constitutum esse secundum vim (divini) fati.” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 72.

ἀποθνήσκειν] The opposite of the ζωή in Romans 8:10 f.; consequently used of the being transferred into the state of eternal death; and then ζήσεσθε in the sense of eternal life (see Romans 8:17).

FreeGrace2 · Jan 12, 2020

Oldmantook said:
Obviously, you ignore the text itself because not only do the clauses in Rom 8:13 form 1st class conditions but their verb tenses are also in the present tense. There are many sources that reference spiritual death as the consequence of the continuing action of living according to the flesh.

Charles Simeon's Horae Homileticae
DISCOURSE: 1868
MORTIFICATION OF SIN

Romans 8:13. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

IT is of infinite importance to know our state as it is before God, and to ascertain on scriptural grounds, what our condition will be in the eternal world. Numberless are the passages of God’s word which will afford us the desired information; but there is not in the whole inspired volume one declaration more explicit than that before us. It presents to our view two momentous truths, which, as they admit not of any clearer division or arrangement, we shall consider in their order.

I. A carnal life will terminate in everlasting misery—

To “live after the flesh” is to make the gratifying of our corrupt nature the great scope and end of our lives—

[The “flesh” does not relate merely to the body, but to the whole of our corrupt nature. It is used to signify that innate principle of sin, which governs the unregenerate, and continually fights against the spiritual principle in those that are regenerate [Note: John 3:6. Galatians 5:17.]. And its fruits comprehend the actings of the mind, no less than those of the body [Note: Galatians 5:19-20.]. To “live after” this corrupt principle, is, to be governed by it in all our deliberations and pursuits. It signifies nothing what may be the immediate path which we choose for ourselves, provided our main object be to gratify ourselves. One may seek pleasure, another riches, another honour, another the knowledge of arts and sciences; but if they have no higher end of life than to attain these things, they all equally live after the flesh [Note: Compare ver. 5. with Philippians 3:19.].]

The consequence of such a life will be eternal death—

[The death mentioned in the text cannot relate to the mere death of the body, because that must be experienced by the spiritual, no less than by the carnal man. It must import that death of the soul, which is emphatically called the second death [Note: Revelation 20:14.]. Nor can there be a doubt but that this will be the fruit and consequence of a carnal life. And shall this be thought an hard saying? Surely not: for such a sentence is only a repetition of what the person has before passed upon himself: he has practically said to God, “Depart from me; I desire not the knowledge of thy ways [Note: Job 21:14-15.]; I will be a god to myself [Note: Psalms 12:4.], and make myself happy in my own way.’ God replies to him, “Thou wouldest none of me; and thou shall have none of me; depart from me for evermore [Note: Compare Psalms 81:11. with Matthew 25:41.].” The very state in which they lived, was a state of spiritual death [Note: ver. 6.]; no wonder therefore that it terminates in everlasting death.]

Hodge's Commentary on Romans, Ephesians and First Corintians
The necessity of thus living is enforced by a repetition of the sentiment of Romans 8:6. To live after the flesh is death; to live after the Spirit is life. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit, etc. The necessity of holiness, therefore, is absolute. No matter what professions we may make, or what hopes we may indulge justification, or the manifestation of the divine favor, is never separated from sanctification. Ye shall die; μέλλετε ἀποθνήσκειν, ye are about to die; death to you is inevitable. Compare Romans 4:24; 1 Thessalonians 3:4; James 2:12. The death here spoken of, as appears from the whole context, and from the nature of the life with which it is contrasted, cannot be the death of the body, either solely or mainly. It is spiritual death, in the comprehensive scriptural sense of that term, which includes all the penal consequences of sin here and hereafter,

Mark Dunagan Commentary on the Bible
Romans 8:13 for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

"ye must die"-i.e. spiritually. Paul is talking to Christians. "Are Christians capable of dying spiritually? Of course! If anyone sows to the flesh (Galatians 6:8) he reaps corruption. Some would go back to depend on their moral capital (Galatians 3:3)--that means death. Some would go back to live sinfully (2 Timothy 4:10; 2 Peter 2:20-22)..that means death. The death here cannot be physical since however a person lives he will die physically." The same truth was taught in the O.T. (Ezekiel 18:24)

Therefore the "indwelling of the Spirit" in Romans 8:1-39 isn"t some kind of "enabling power" that keeps the Christian away from sin or removes all desire to sin. It"s not a "leading" of the Spirit that violates or OVER-RULES free-will.

"by the Spirit"-it is the teaching delivered by the Spirit that reveals what "deeds of the body" we must remove. (Colossians 3:5 ff; Ephesians 4:25-32; Ephesians 5:1-11)

"put to death"-present active, "to continue to put to death". "The Spirit doesn"t do the killing for the saint as a sort of substitutionary work. Sanctification involves the sinner."

(1 Peter 1:14-16)

"ye shall live"-can the Christian treat sin in a casual manner? Certainly not! Spiritual life is conditional.

Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Romans 8:13. For, etc. If you lived thus, you would not fulfil the glorious destiny announced in Romans 8:10-11. Hence this is a proof of Romans 8:12.

Ye shall die, are about to die. Death in the fullest sense is here meant, not eternal death alone, and certainly not physical death, which comes to all men; comp. Romans 8:10.

Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable
The present tense of the verbs is significant. This tense stresses the necessity of continually putting to death the deeds of the flesh. Paul viewed the presentation of ourselves to God as an initial act of commitment ( Romans 6:13; Romans 12:1), but He wrote that we must daily and hourly choose to mortify our flesh (cf. Romans 13:14).

Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
‘For if you live after the flesh, you must die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.’

Indeed if we do live after the flesh we ‘must die’, both in this world and the next. It is a certainty. The contrast with ‘live’ indicates that this means more than just physical death. For those who live after the flesh there is no eternal life. On the other hand, if we live by the Spirit, following His leading and responding to Him, and if we by His power put to death the (sinful) deeds of our body, we will ‘live’ (a verb only used of believers). In the light of the first part of the verse we may see the deeds done in the body as referring to those wrought by the flesh which operates in our body.

Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament
Ye shall die; the death not of the body merely, but of the soul-a death which shall last for ever. Body and soul shall die the second, an eternal death.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible
If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; viz. eternally, and never partake of the glorious resurrection before spoken of. The godly themselves need this caution; they must not think, that because they are elected and justified, &c., that therefore they may do and live as they list.

Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Romans 8:13. Reason for Romans 8:12—“for so ye would attain the opposite of your destination, as specified in Romans 8:10-11.” The μέλλειν (comp. Romans 4:24) indicates the “certum et constitutum esse secundum vim (divini) fati.” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 72.

ἀποθνήσκειν] The opposite of the ζωή in Romans 8:10 f.; consequently used of the being transferred into the state of eternal death; and then ζήσεσθε in the sense of eternal life (see Romans 8:17).

There's really no point in further discussion. You simply don't want to consider the ways the Bible uses "death".

The parable of the prodigal proves my point that loss of fellowship is referred to as "death" and being "lost". Clearly the son didn't die physically, and there's no way to argue a spiritual death, apart from having to spiritualize a human story.

The son highly offended and insulted his father by asking for his inheritance while the father was still alive. In that day, the inheritance was given only after the father had died, so the son was, in effect, telling his father that he wanted him dead, so he coudl get his inheritance. That's a fact.

Do you really want to argue that IF your own son highly offended and insulted you in some way and then left, that there would be fellowship between you anyway?

And don't get try some silly very shallow idea of fellowship. Parents and children can have fellowship even when apart, just as husbands and wives can. Fellowship has to do with the feelings between the parties and distance isn't an issue.

There is NO fellowship when a child hates the parent. Even though the parent still loves the child. Just as the parable of the prodigal showed. The father still loved the son. So when the son returned, the father noted the lack of fellowship by noting it had died and was lost, even though he still loved his idiot son.

The son's return was a restoration of fellowship.

btw, note that the son was willing to end the RELATIONSHIP with his father by becoming a servant. However, Jesus in His infinite wisdom, showed how stupid that idea is by having the father interrupt the son before the idiot could even say what he had planned to say.

But you've shown a serious lack of understanding about the difference between fellowship and relationship.

The reason the Bible uses "husband and wive" and "father and son" wording to describe spiritual relationships is because these relationships are PERMANENT, which you don't believe, but fellowship is dynamic and be lost, die, etc. As the parable shows every clearly.

JLB777 · Jan 12, 2020

scruffydog said:
How many, and what are they?

Obedience to Jesus Christ as Lord.

And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, Hebrews 5:9

JLB

Oldmantook · Jan 12, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
There's really no point in further discussion. You simply don't want to consider the ways the Bible uses "death".

The parable of the prodigal proves my point that loss of fellowship is referred to as "death" and being "lost". Clearly the son didn't die physically, and there's no way to argue a spiritual death, apart from having to spiritualize a human story.

The son highly offended and insulted his father by asking for his inheritance while the father was still alive. In that day, the inheritance was given only after the father had died, so the son was, in effect, telling his father that he wanted him dead, so he coudl get his inheritance. That's a fact.

Do you really want to argue that IF your own son highly offended and insulted you in some way and then left, that there would be fellowship between you anyway?

And don't get try some silly very shallow idea of fellowship. Parents and children can have fellowship even when apart, just as husbands and wives can. Fellowship has to do with the feelings between the parties and distance isn't an issue.

There is NO fellowship when a child hates the parent. Even though the parent still loves the child. Just as the parable of the prodigal showed. The father still loved the son. So when the son returned, the father noted the lack of fellowship by noting it had died and was lost, even though he still loved his idiot son.

The son's return was a restoration of fellowship.

btw, note that the son was willing to end the RELATIONSHIP with his father by becoming a servant. However, Jesus in His infinite wisdom, showed how stupid that idea is by having the father interrupt the son before the idiot could even say what he had planned to say.

But you've shown a serious lack of understanding about the difference between fellowship and relationship.

The reason the Bible uses "husband and wive" and "father and son" wording to describe spiritual relationships is because these relationships are PERMANENT, which you don't believe, but fellowship is dynamic and be lost, die, etc. As the parable shows every clearly.

Your reply is quite disingenuous. All along besides arguing from silence, your points have been that death cannot mean spiritual death in Rom 8:13 and the verb tenses do not mean continuing action regarding the necessity to believe/obey. You stated I was wrong and challenged me to provide scholarly citation to confirm my view. I complied with your request citing no dearth of scholarship agreeing with my view and now you protest exclaiming "no further point in discussion." Yes, no point in discussion because you can no longer claim that my view has no merit. How convenient for you! Perhaps your Sunday school students would also benefit from knowing that there are academics who disagree with your view.

Moreover ironically your reference to the prodigal undermines your belief instead of supporting it. The prodigal didn't physically die but Jesus said he was dead and is alive again. Dead can therefore only refer to spiritual death. Spiritual death is NOT loss of fellowship. Death in the NT is either physical death or spiritual death. You have to come up with that excuse in order to keep believing what you do. Jesus stated that the prodigal is made alive AGAIN. Explain to me how exactly is someone made alive again? The only way to be made alive again is 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 upon genuine repentance and like the prodigal be made alive again. Your notion of loss of fellowship and your attempt to employ anthropocentric examples is contradicted by Jesus' own words. I prefer to take Jesus at his word and you certainly have the prerogative to do otherwise in order to preserve your belief.

And BTW, since you are fond of human examples/terms to describe spiritual relationships don't forget 1 Jn 3:7-8. John uses the term "little children" which of course only refers to believers. He then warns them that "Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil...." But I guess you would just interpret that verse as merely loss of fellowship?
The bottom line is that if I teach others what I believe, then those I teach will understand that a sanctified life of continuing to believe and obey is necessary for the process of being saved as salvation is not only a point of time in the past but described in Scripture in past, present and future terms. If I'm wrong but others follow what I teach, then the worst case scenario is that hopefully they would have lived sanctified lives in accordance with what I teach. Nothing wrong with living a sanctified life.
On the other hand, if your students follow what you teach and believe that they are eternally secure since all of their past, present and future sins are automatically forgiven, the possibility exists that chronic sin may overtake them like the prodigal, become lukewarm like the Laodiceans, become "of the devil," and end up becoming twice-dead (Jude 1:12). If it turns out that you are wrong in your assumption that these descriptions only refer to loss of fellowship, then the worst case scenario for you is that some of your students may in fact not be so secure after all. Frankly, if for only that reason alone, I much prefer my view.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 12, 2020

Oldmantook said:
Your reply is quite disingenuous.

Rather, I've explained that you have demonstrated a total unfamiliarity with the concept of fellowship.

All along besides arguing from silence

When the Bible doesn't teach something, what else is there to argue from??

your points have been that death cannot mean spiritual death in Rom 8:13 and the verb tenses do not mean continuing action regarding the necessity to believe/obey.

I explained my points, but you would rather dismiss them out of hand rather than considering the points.

You stated I was wrong and challenged me to provide scholarly citation to confirm my view. I complied with your request citing no dearth of scholarship agreeing with my view and now you protest exclaiming "no further point in discussion."

Excuse me, but which post are you referring to? I recall NO such scholarship presented by you. However, I quoted Daniel Wallace, who wrote Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics regarding the Greek present tense.

Yes, no point in discussion because you can no longer claim that my view has no merit.

I can and I AM.

How convenient for you! Perhaps your Sunday school students would also benefit from knowing that there are academics who disagree with your view.

lol. Don't you know that there are highly educated scholars on multiple sides of most arguments that don't agree with each other!! So what?

Moreover ironically your reference to the prodigal undermines your belief instead of supporting it.

I explained it. But you didn't understand it.

The prodigal didn't physically die but Jesus said he was dead and is alive again.

Actually, though Jesus' words, He was telling a parable. And He ascribed those words to the father regarding his son. How would a human father even know whether his son was spiritually dead? He can't know that. To say so is merely trying to spiritualize the parable. Do you know what that means?

Dead can therefore only refer to spiritual death.

Do you really not see your own dogma here?? "therefore only"?? That is nothing more than your own opinion speaking.

What father can know whether a son has died spiritually? No one can.

And that isn't even the point of the parable. It's about a no-good idiot for a son who highly offended and insulted his father before leaving. And we also have a very loving father who continues to wait for his stupid idiot son to return. Unlike the older brother, who wanted nothing to do with the idiot. The older brother showed NO GRACE, while the father showed EXTREME GRACE to the son.

But you're stuck on spiritual death, which isn't even part of the parable.

Definition of a parable:
1. A simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.
2. A comparison; similitude.
3. Specifically An allegorical relation or representation from which a moral is drawn for instruction

The lessons is here are several.
1. When a son highly offends and insults his father, fellowship is lost, dead.
2. In order to restore fellowship with the father, the son had to confess his sins and repent (turn back).
3. The father, illustrating our Heavenly Father, is MORE than gracious and loving to the son who clearly doesn't deserve it in any way.

Now, explain none of these points are valid. Specifically.

Spiritual death is NOT loss of fellowship.

I never said it was. But the parable is not about spiritual death.

Death in the NT is either physical death or spiritual death.

I just love your dogma.

How about these verses?
Rom 4:19 - Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead —since he was about a hundred years old —and that Sarah’s womb was also dead.

Heb 11:12 - And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

So, which one is it here: spiritual or physical death?

You have to come up with that excuse in order to keep believing what you do.

What are you talking about; "excuses"??

Jesus stated that the prodigal is made alive AGAIN.

I've already pointed out that Jesus NEVER said what you keep claiming He said.

Luke 15:24 - For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

Jesus NEVER said "made alive again". He did say "IS alive again". Nothing was MADE, as you wrongly claim.

Explain to me how exactly is someone made alive again?

Irrelevant, since Jesus NEVER said what you claim He said. Stick with the actual text, ok?

The only way to be made alive again is when an unsaved person comes to faith in Christ, he/she is made alive in Christ (first time).

So a human child who comes back to the father he had highly offended and insulted is born again by simply returning to his father? Are you kidding??!!

If such a believer then habitually sins such as the prodigal did when he lived a rebellious lifestyle, he/she becomes spiritually dead.

Aren't you aware that humans are born spiritually dead, separated from God, and in need of salvation?

If he/she confesses, repents of sinning and returns to the Father, as the prodigal did, then he/she is made alive again.

No one is "made alive" by these human acts. Have you really missed ALL the verses that say clearly that believing in Christ results in salvation and being born again??

Thus, one can lose their salvation but be saved again upon genuine repentance and like the prodigal be made alive again.

This would appeal to anyone who wants to involve themselves in saving themselves. But there is NO GRACE in your system. It's unbiblical.

Your notion of loss of fellowship and your attempt to employ anthropocentric examples is contradicted by Jesus' own words.

lol. I just proved your error in "quoting" Jesus, and you NEVER showed that I contradicted anything said by Jesus. I stuck with the text, unlike yourself.

Also, Jesus' parable cannot be called an "anthropocentric example". Actually, what IS anthropocentric is your claim that confession, repentance and returning is salvific. All about yourself, and what you do.

The biblical system of salvation is that the person DOES NOTHING. They simply receive when they believe.

Have you ever received a gift from someone? Have you ever bragged about how you got the gift, as if you did anything to get it?

Do you see the silliness in your argument?

John 1:12 - Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

1 Tim 1: But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

Believing is non-meritorious. It's the opposite of working for a wage, or something DUE them on the basis of that work.

Yet, God grants the gift of eternal life on the basis of believing the gospel. This is GRACE and is the direct opposite of your works salvation system.

I prefer to take Jesus at his word

No you don't, and you can't even quote Him accurately, as I've shown.

and you certainly have the prerogative to do otherwise in order to preserve your belief.

My belief is exactly what the Bible says. I don't make up words that Jesus NEVER said.

And BTW, since you are fond of human examples/terms to describe spiritual relationships

Why are you so down on Jesus' use of parables?

don't forget 1 Jn 3:7-8. John uses the term "little children" which of course only refers to believers. He then warns them that "Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil...." But I guess you would just interpret that verse as merely loss of fellowship?

Of course. The entire epistle is grounded on ch 1, which IS about fellowship.

3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

But, go ahead and tell me that John didn't emphasize fellowship in the first chapter.

Frankly, if for only that reason alone, I much prefer my view.

Suit yourself. But I've shown from Scripture that my view is aligned with Scripture, unlike your view.

It is your view that is egocentric.

Oldmantook · Jan 12, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Rather, I've explained that you have demonstrated a total unfamiliarity with the concept of fellowship.

Quite an imagination you have. Adam and Eve had perfect fellowship with God in the Garden. Guess what happened? Besides losing fellowship, they experienced physical and spiritual death as a result of their sin which entered the world. Some much for your notion of fellowship.

FreeGrace2 said:
When the Bible doesn't teach something, what else is there to argue from??

Your problem is it teaches something you prefer to ignore. That is why you have to resort to arguing from silence complaining that it isn't there when it's printed right on the page. Like my citation of 1 Jn 3:14-15. Let me draw it out for you since you ignored that the verse states has NO ETERNAL LIFE - Not no fellowship. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
V.14 states that the consequence of not loving his brother is death. Per your view death = "no fellowship." However, v.15 goes on to specifically define what death means which is "no eternal life." Scripture interprets scripture which refutes your notion that death is loss of fellowship. Problematic for you isn't it? Yet you claim the Bible doesn't teach loss of eternal life when 1 Jn 3:14-15 plainly does. Care to reformulate your argument?

FreeGrace2 said:
lol. Don't you know that there are highly educated scholars on multiple sides of most arguments that don't agree with each other!! So what?

Indeed; the problem with your comments is that you act as if there is no other side. I hope you let your Sunday schools students know that so they can decide for themselves.

FreeGrace2 said:
I explained my points, but you would rather dismiss them out of hand rather than considering the points.

I responded and refuted your points. You are free to disagree.

FreeGrace2 said:
How about these verses?
Rom 4:19 - Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead —since he was about a hundred years old —and that Sarah’s womb was also dead.

Heb 11:12 - And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

Your examples are weak in the sense that we are discussing the topic of soteriology where death is referred to either in the physical and/or spiritual. Your citations though, do not refer to physical or spiritual death and thus have nothing to do with the aspects death as it relates to soteriology.

FreeGrace2 said:
Excuse me, but which post are you referring to? I recall NO such scholarship presented by you. However, I quoted Daniel Wallace, who wrote Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics regarding the Greek present tense.

In post #67 I cited a long list of those who disagree with your view. You cite Wallace as a proponent for your view. Why don't you try reading Wallace more carefully next time?? For example, Wallace seemingly rejects the idea that a substantival articular present participle [SAPP] means continually or habitually. He writes: In Matt 5:28, ‘everyone who looks at a woman’ (pas ho blepōn[SAPP]gunaika) with lust in his heart does not mean ‘continually looking’or ‘habitually looking,’any more than four verses later [5:32] ‘everyone who divorces his wife’ (pas ho apoluōn[SAPP]tēn gunaika autou) means ‘repeatedly divorces’! GGBB p.618
However it seems that Wallace cannot make up his mind as just a few pages later he wrote: John 3:16 pas ho pisteuōn [SAPP] everyone who believes. The idea seems to be both gnomic [proverbial] and continual: “everyone who continually believes.” This is not due to the present tense only, but to the use of the present participle of pisteuō, especially in soteriological contexts in the NT. p.620. Thus Wallace wrote that SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTEXT is the key when interpreting verses such as Jn 3:16. According to Wallace eternal life is promised to everyone who CONTINUALLY BELIEVES. Thank you for your scholarly citation.

FreeGrace2 said:
Do you really not see your own dogma here?? "therefore only"?? That is nothing more than your own opinion speaking.

What father can know whether a son has died spiritually? No one can.

News flash! The father in this parable is representative of God. God the Father knows everything thus my opinion is based on the substance of the text.

FreeGrace2 said:
And that isn't even the point of the parable. It's about a no-good idiot for a son who highly offended and insulted his father before leaving.

Really? Since you are a SS teacher shouldn't you know the basics of interpretation when it comes to reading the scriptures? FYI it should go without saying that when Jesus repeats something, we should take heed because he is emphasizing a point or even making it the main point of his teaching. In the parable of the prodigal Jesus repeats himself twice in vs. 24 & 32. One might even conclude that v.32 being the last verse of his parable is the summary and main point of his teaching. Thus Jesus' own words contradict your idea that the point of the parable is the good for nothing son who insulted his father before leaving. Quite poor eisegesis on your part.

FreeGrace2 said:
Jesus NEVER said "made alive again". He did say "IS alive again". Nothing was MADE, as you wrongly claim.

So let's go with simply IS ALIVE AGAIN. Suit yourself! Then explain to me how exactly is someone alive AGAIN? The unregenerate who were born dead in sin are alive in Christ upon conversion. How is someone alive AGAIN?? How exactly does that occur? Looking forward to your explanation.

FreeGrace2 said:
Why are you so down on Jesus' use of parables?

Jesus used parables correctly to illustrate spiritual truths. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of your human illustrations which distort spiritual truth.

FreeGrace2 said:
Have you ever received a gift from someone? Have you ever bragged about how you got the gift, as if you did anything to get it?

Do you see the silliness in your argument?

Such a silly example you have proposed. I give a car to my son who will be away attending college. He did not earn or work for it. I gave it freely to him out of love. He simply accepted my gift to him. However I stipulated to him that he must subsequently get good grades in college in order to keep the car. His subsequent actions determine whether he keeps the car or not. In the same way both belief (Jn 3:16) and obedience (Heb 5:9) are stipulated as requirements for persevering unto eternal life. A believer can cease believing and/or obeying at any time, for any reason. The only difference between the believer and the son example is that the consequences for not meeting the stipulations of the covenant between both parties for the believer is much more dire.

FreeGrace2 said:
Also, Jesus' parable cannot be called an "anthropocentric example". Actually, what IS anthropocentric is your claim that confession, repentance and returning is salvific. All about yourself, and what you do.

I suggest you read more carefully. I never wrote that Jesus' parables are anthropocentric. I wrote that your examples using human relationships are anthropocentric. I don't disagree with Jesus parables. I disagree with your examples.

FreeGrace2 said:
John 1:12 - Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

1 Tim 1: But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

Believing is non-meritorious. It's the opposite of working for a wage, or something DUE them on the basis of that work.

Yet, God grants the gift of eternal life on the basis of believing the gospel. This is GRACE and is the direct opposite of your works salvation system.

Of course by grace God grants eternal life on the basis of believing the gospel (Jn 3:16). He also gives grace to obey (Heb 5:9). You emphasize Jn 3:16 but overlook Heb 5:9
Upon salvation by faith which is by grace, we display good works (Eph 2:10), which are the outward evidence of our inner faith - not the cause of it. You conflate the cause with the effect which is where you err.

FreeGrace2 said:
This would appeal to anyone who wants to involve themselves in saving themselves. But there is NO GRACE in your system. It's unbiblical.

Grace to believe and grace to obey. In your system, grace is a license to sin because God automatically forgives all sins - past, present and future. Tell me, are you antinomian?

FreeGrace2 said:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

I like it when you quote verses that actually undermine your belief. Notice first of all that John wrote IF we walk in the light. If denotes a condition that must first be met in order for fellowship to occur. If indicates possibility - not certainty - therefore the possibility exists that a believer's lifestyle may not be characterized as walking in the light, therefore he has no fellowship.
So far so good, however you are oblivious to the fact that the verse does not end there. It states AND the blood of Jesus - purifies us from all sin. The same condition for maintaining fellowship must also
be met for purification from all sin - namely walking in the light. If believer is not walking in the light, he has no fellowship and Jesus' blood also does not purify him from all sin. Thus your claim of loss of fellowship only is refuted by the very verse you cite. Thanks for doing that.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 13, 2020

I said:
"Rather, I've explained that you have demonstrated a total unfamiliarity with the concept of fellowship."

Oldmantook said:
Quite an imagination you have. Adam and Eve had perfect fellowship with God in the Garden. Guess what happened? Besides losing fellowship, they experienced physical and spiritual death as a result of their sin which entered the world. Some much for your notion of fellowship.

There was no imagination in what I said about your unfamiliarity with the concept of fellowship.

Yes, Adam & Eve did have perfect fellowship. And it DIED when then sinned. Along with spiritual death and eventual physical death.

Were they IN fellowship with the Lord when He came to the Garden in the "cool of the evening"? No. They hid.

I said:
"When the Bible doesn't teach something, what else is there to argue from??"

Your problem is it teaches something you prefer to ignore. That is why you have to resort to arguing from silence complaining that it isn't there when it's printed right on the page.

So, just what is it that I "prefer to ignore"? Can you explain yourself?

If "it's printed right on the page" as you claim, why can't you show me then? My arguments aren't "from silence", but rather "about silence". Maybe you don't really grasp the difference.

You've claimed some things that aren't in the Bible. That's my argument. It's about silence. That the Bible DOESN'T teach what you claim.

So when I ask for evidence from the Bible, I expect the poster to provide evidence. So when a poster hides behind the bogus "argument from silence", then I know they don't have any evidence at all.

Like my citation of 1 Jn 3:14-15. Let me draw it out for you since you ignored that the verse states has NO ETERNAL LIFE - Not no fellowship. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
V.14 states that the consequence of not loving his brother is death. Per your view death = "no fellowship."

OK, let's start with this one. If a believer is "not loving his brother" he dies spiritually???? Are you actually serious here?

Don't you know that WHEN a person believes in Christ, they HAVE (at that moment, right now) have eternal life. John 5:24, 6:47, and 1 John 5:11, 13.

So, your argument is that some specific sin (not loving a brother) will result in the DEATH of that person's ETERNAL LIFE. Don't you see the complete folly of such an argument?

How can eternal life die? Is it really that fragile, that it shrivels up and dies over any sin that Christ died for? Or do you also argue that Christ didn't really die for every sin that a person commits?

Yes, this is an argument ABOUT silence. The Bible knows nothing about your wild claims.

However, v.15 goes on to specifically define what death means which is "no eternal life."

Well, now you're just making stuff up. Adding words to Scripture. And what did the author of the 1st epistle of John say about that?

Rev 22:18 - I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.

Yes, this refers to adding (or substracting words from the book of Revelation). However the principle applies to ALL of God's Word. Why wouldn't it?

Back to v.15. It doesn't say "no eternal life". It says "does not have eternal life abiding in him". So let's just stay with what the Word actually says.

What you seem to not want to admit or accept is John's use of "abiding". He didn't say "doesn't have eternal life in him", as you want to believe.

Recall John 15-
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunesso that it will be even more fruitful.
3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.
4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

v.3 is a confirmation that the 11 disciples were SAVED. And there is nothing about any kind of loss of that status in this passage.

The red words demonstrate the RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP between Jesus and believers. In order to bear fruit (the focus of this passage, not salvation) the believer must "remain" in Him, or "abide" in Him. Of the various translations on biblehub.com, it appears that about half use "remain" and half use "abide".

The point is the RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP for the purpose of bearing fruit, not staying saved, or getting saved.

Question: can there be a productive relationship between husband and wife if there is NO fellowship between them?

Can there be a productive relationship between parent and child if there is NO fellowship between them?

Scripture interprets scripture which refutes your notion that death is loss of fellowship.

I just refuted your notion from John 15.

Problematic for you isn't it?

No, it is for you, though.

I responded and refuted your points. You are free to disagree.

You refuted nothing.

In post #67 I cited a long list of those who disagree with your view. You cite Wallace as a proponent for your view. Why don't you try reading Wallace more carefully next time?? For example, Wallace seemingly rejects the idea that a substantival articular present participle [SAPP] means continually or habitually. He writes: In Matt 5:28, ‘everyone who looks at a woman’ (pas ho blepōn[SAPP]gunaika) with lust in his heart does not mean ‘continually looking’or ‘habitually looking,’any more than four verses later [5:32] ‘everyone who divorces his wife’ (pas ho apoluōn[SAPP]tēn gunaika autou) means ‘repeatedly divorces’! GGBB p.618
However it seems that Wallace cannot make up his mind as just a few pages later he wrote: John 3:16 pas ho pisteuōn [SAPP] everyone who believes. The idea seems to be both gnomic [proverbial] and continual: “everyone who continually believes.” This is not due to the present tense only, but to the use of the present participle of pisteuō, especially in soteriological contexts in the NT. p.620. Thus Wallace wrote that SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTEXT is the key when interpreting verses such as Jn 3:16. According to Wallace eternal life is promised to everyone who CONTINUALLY BELIEVES. Thank you for your scholarly citation.

It's obvious that Wallace is contradictory. And you picked what you wanted to accept. Slick.

But, I asked you for evidence that the Greek present tense means that the action must continue in order for the result to continue. That's the only issue here. And you have FAILED to prove your case.

The present tense refers to action in the present from the perspective of the writer/speaker. There is NOTHING about the result continuing only IF the action continues, which is your REAL ARGUMENT. And it is FALSE.

News flash! The father in this parable is representative of God.

Of course! And all the while one of His children is out being sinful, stupid, etc, He waits patiently and lovingly for that child to return. And, all the while, the stupid son remains a son.

In your theory, the son loses sonship while in sin. But not in Jesus' parable.

God the Father knows everything thus my opinion is based on the substance of the text.

Hardly. The son remained a son. Your theory would have the son UNsaved, lost his salvation, and no longer a son. But the text doesn't support your theory in the least.

I said:
"And that isn't even the point of the parable. It's about a no-good idiot for a son who highly offended and insulted his father before leaving."

Really? Since you are a SS teacher shouldn't you know the basics of interpretation when it comes to reading the scriptures? FYI it should go without saying that when Jesus repeats something, we should take heed because he is emphasizing a point or even making it the main point of his teaching.

Are you really arguing that my statement isn't true? So prove that this son wasn't stupid, nor an idiot then.

In the parable of the prodigal Jesus repeats himself twice in vs. 24 & 32. One might even conclude that v.32 being the last verse of his parable is the summary and main point of his teaching. Thus Jesus' own words contradict your idea that the point of the parable is the good for nothing son who insulted his father before leaving. Quite poor eisegesis on your part.

You may want to look internally at your own reading skills.

So let's go with simply IS ALIVE AGAIN. Suit yourself!

No, this isn't about suiting myself. It's about being TRUE to Scripture, which it seems you are rather loose about.

Then explain to me how exactly is someone alive AGAIN?

Here's the clue. Jesus used metaphors to explain the principle. The son "is alive again" in the sense of fellowship with his father.

Are you going to argue that fellowship wasn't restored between father and son? I'd love to see you wriggle out of this question.

The unregenerate who were born dead in sin are alive in Christ upon conversion. How is someone alive AGAIN?? How exactly does that occur? Looking forward to your explanation.

You see, here's your problem. You think that eternal life can DIE. Pure nonsense.

Once given eternal life, the recipient "shall never die". Jesus said so in John 10:28.

Jesus used parables correctly to illustrate spiritual truths. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of your human illustrations which distort spiritual truth.

Jesus' parables used human illustrations to illustrate spiritual truth. But your eyes and ears are closed to the truth about fellowship. And you still haven't shown that you understand that 'fellowship' and 'relationship' are different. That's a huge problem for you.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 13, 2020

Your post was so long I couldn't reply to all of it in one post. So here's the rest of my response:

I said:
"Have you ever received a gift from someone? Have you ever bragged about how you got the gift, as if you did anything to get it?

Do you see the silliness in your argument?"

Such a silly example you have proposed.

It is your own example that is quite silly, as I'm about to prove.

I give a car to my son who will be away attending college. He did not earn or work for it. I gave it freely to him out of love. He simply accepted my gift to him. However I stipulated to him that he must subsequently get good grades in college in order to keep the car.

Here's your problem: "however, I stipulated to him that he MUST subsequently get good grades to keep the car". Your so-called "gift" had strings attached. That's no gift. Your son had to EARN the car by getting good grades.

But thanks for the example, for it shows the FOLLY of your ideas and theories. God did NOT give the gift of eternal life with STRINGS ATTACHED, as you obviously assume.

A gift with strings attached is NO GIFT at all. But, do you even understand this?

His subsequent actions determine whether he keeps the car or not.

Right. He has to EARN that car in order to keep it. And that's exactly the problem with your ideas. That heaven is ultimately EARNED.

So, you have just demonstrated your total failure to understand God's GRACE.

I'll take your example and turn it into a parable. You give your son a car and sign it over to him. Regardless of how he does in college, or elsewhere, the car is HIS. He owns it.

And that, my friend, is the gift of eternal life/salvation. When Jesus gives this gift, it is OWNED by the recipient, which is why Jesus said that recipients of etenral life, which is given on the basis of faith in Him, shall never perish.

In the same way both belief (Jn 3:16) and obedience (Heb 5:9) are stipulated as requirements for persevering unto eternal life.

No, you just fail to understand GRACE. We are saved BY GRACE, through faith. Eph 2:8. Your theology has no room for GRACE.

A believer can cease believing and/or obeying at any time, for any reason.

Yep. Sadly.

The only difference between the believer and the son example is that the consequences for not meeting the stipulations of the covenant between both parties for the believer is much more dire.

Yeah. In your unbiblical theory, salvation must be earned. There are STRINGS ATTACHED. That's not GRACE in the least.

I suggest you read more carefully. I never wrote that Jesus' parables are anthropocentric. I wrote that your examples using human relationships are anthropocentric.

lol. Jesus used parables that used human relationships. How are my examples anthropocentric yet Jesus' weren't??

I don't disagree with Jesus parables. I disagree with your examples.

You don't even understand His parables. At least the prodigal parable.

You don't understand GRACE, and you don't understand the difference between fellowship and relationship. So how could you understand His parable about the prodigal?

Of course by grace God grants eternal life on the basis of believing the gospel (Jn 3:16).

Then why in the world do you add STRINGS ATTACHED to God's salvation?

He also gives grace to obey (Heb 5:9). You emphasize Jn 3:16 but overlook Heb 5:9

I agree that God gives grace to obey, but that doesn't mean all believers take advantage of His grace. Grace, btw, that you still don't understand.

You treat Heb 5:9 as STRINGS ATTACHED to salvation. You could 't be more wrong.

Upon salvation by faith which is by grace, we display good works (Eph 2:10)

And you just keep misreading Scripture. We are saved BY GRACE, which is through faith. Maybe you just don't appreciate the difference here. But anyway, you quoted Eph 2:8 WRONGLY. At least quote a verse correctly.

which are the outward evidence of our inner faith - not the cause of it. You conflate the cause with the effect which is where you err.

You have totally misunderstood me, just as you misunderstand so much Scripture.

v.10 isn't about what every believer WILL DO, but rather, what every believer WAS SAVED TO DO. Do you appreciate the difference here?

v.10 says we were created FOR or UNTO good works. It says NOTHING about every believer DOING good works. Go ahead and read v.10 again, but a bit more carefully this time.

Grace to believe and grace to obey.

Amen!

In your system, grace is a license to sin because God automatically forgives all sins - past, present and future.

No, you just keep misunderstanding most of what I post. Actually, it's YOUR OWN system that views GRACE as a license to sin. Because nearly EVERY Arminian I encounter keeps bringing up this ridiculous "license to sin" argument regarding eternal security.

It seems the only way to keep believers on the "straight and narrow" is to threaten them with spiritual death and the lake of fire if they step out of line.

Have you forgotten all my warnings about God's painful discipline for his wandering children? Why can't you understand that God's warnings about about discipline, which are painful (did I mention that?). Heb 12:11 say PAINFUL DISCIPLINE.

And I've given plenty of exampls of what they looks like.

So you can put away the lame argument about "license to sin". In fact, because every believer retains their human (sinful) nature, they don't need a license to sin. They have been commanded to stop sinning.

Tell me, are you antinomian?

Of course not. I believe and agree with Paul on this matter:
Rom 7:25 -
Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

I like it when you quote verses that actually undermine your belief.

Which I haven't done yet.

Notice first of all that John wrote IF we walk in the light. If denotes a condition that must first be met in order for fellowship to occur.

Absolutely!! Which has been my point all along.

If indicates possibility - not certainty - therefore the possibility exists that a believer's lifestyle may not be characterized as walking in the light, therefore he has no fellowship.

Exactly!!

So far so good, however you are oblivious to the fact that the verse does not end there. It states AND the blood of Jesus - purifies us from all sin. The same condition for maintaining fellowship must also be met for purification from all sin - namely walking in the light.

Well, here is where you continue to misunderstand.

The "purification from all sins" is parallel to v.9 about confession "cleansing/purifying us from all transgressions". So it's saying the same thing. Which has been my point all along.

If believer is not walking in the light, he has no fellowship and Jesus' blood also does not purify him from all sin.

That is correct. Unconfessed sins result in loss of fellowship with the Lord, and therefore, loss of blessings.

Thus your claim of loss of fellowship only is refuted by the very verse you cite. Thanks for doing that.

Lol. How does v.7 refute my view? You need to carefully and clearly explain that.

However, my thanks to you for your excellent example of your so-called "gift" to your son, if he gets (read that EARNS) good grades in order to keep the car.

I've been arguing about adding works to salvation to Arminians for years. Now I have a better argument. The view of loss of salvation is a view that the gift of eternal life comes with STRINGS ATTACHED, which is so bogus and unbiblical.

Everyone understand what "strings attached" means when associated with a gift.

iow, it's NO gift at all. It's just something that MUST BE EARNED to possess.

Thanks again!

Oldmantook · Jan 13, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Yes, Adam & Eve did have perfect fellowship. And it DIED when then sinned. Along with spiritual death and eventual physical death.

So you agree that not only was fellowship lost but also physical and spiritual death occurred as well??
How is that different from the believer today? OH, YES grace. FYI grace is not a license to sin is it? Or are you antinomian? Still waiting for your answer.

FreeGrace2 said:
So, just what is it that I "prefer to ignore"? Can you explain yourself?

You ignore the fact that death can indeed mean spiritual death; not just physical death or loss of fellowship.

FreeGrace2 said:
So when I ask for evidence from the Bible, I expect the poster to provide evidence. So when a poster hides behind the bogus "argument from silence", then I know they don't have any evidence at all.

I gave you scriptures. You simply miniumize them as pertaining to loss of fellowship or physical death.

FreeGrace2 said:
OK, let's start with this one. If a believer is "not loving his brother" he dies spiritually???? Are you actually serious here?

That's what the text states. Are you blind? Perhaps you need reading glasses.

FreeGrace2 said:
Don't you know that WHEN a person believes in Christ, they HAVE (at that moment, right now) have eternal life. John 5:24, 6:47, and 1 John 5:11, 13.

Of course they do. Don't you know that a believer subsequently has the choice to continue believing and obeying?

FreeGrace2 said:
So, your argument is that some specific sin (not loving a brother) will result in the DEATH of that person's ETERNAL LIFE. Don't you see the complete folly of such an argument?
That's what the text says. It is folly for you to ignore its plain meaning but that's your choice.

How can eternal life die? Is it really that fragile, that it shrivels up and dies over any sin that Christ died for? Or do you also argue that Christ didn't really die for every sin that a person commits?
What a lame argument. Eternal life goes on being eternal irrespective of whether you or I possess it. You could possess a $100 bill in your pocket but you unfortunately lose it. Does the $100 bill cease to exist anymore or lose its value? Of course not; same thing with eternal life. Comprende?

Yes, this is an argument ABOUT silence. The Bible knows nothing about your wild claims.

Or your wild interpretations.

FreeGrace2 said:
Well, now you're just making stuff up. Adding words to Scripture. And what did the author of the 1st epistle of John say about that?

He said IF WE ARE WALKING IN THE LIGHT which indicates possibility not certainty that we will walk in the light. Comprende?

FreeGrace2 said:
Back to v.15. It doesn't say "no eternal life". It says "does not have eternal life abiding in him". So let's just stay with what the Word actually says.

What you seem to not want to admit or accept is John's use of "abiding". He didn't say "doesn't have eternal life in him", as you want to believe.

Not have eternal life abiding in him means no possession of it. Comprende?

FreeGrace2 said:
v.3 is a confirmation that the 11 disciples were SAVED. And there is nothing about any kind of loss of that status in this passage.

The red words demonstrate the RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP between Jesus and believers. In order to bear fruit (the focus of this passage, not salvation) the believer must "remain" in Him, or "abide" in Him. Of the various translations on biblehub.com, it appears that about half use "remain" and half use "abide".

The point is the RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP for the purpose of bearing fruit, not staying saved, or getting saved.

Of course they were saved - because the abided/remained. They could have also chosen to not remain or abide in which case they would not remain saved. This is not rocket science but apparently it is for you. Bearing fruit; are you kidding?
Lk 12:45 But suppose the servant [believer] says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

FreeGrace2 said:
But, I asked you for evidence that the Greek present tense means that the action must continue in order for the result to continue. That's the only issue here. And you have FAILED to prove your case.

The present tense refers to action in the present from the perspective of the writer/speaker. There is NOTHING about the result continuing only IF the action continues, which is your REAL ARGUMENT. And it is FALSE.

Can't you read? Unlike English, Greek present tense is focused primarily on the action irrespective of time. So from the standpoint of the writer, at any time, whether it be past, present of future, the action refers to ongoing action. Did you not read Wallace's own quote which you mistook for proving your point?

FreeGrace2 said:
Jesus' parables used human illustrations to illustrate spiritual truth. But your eyes and ears are closed to the truth about fellowship. And you still haven't shown that you understand that 'fellowship' and 'relationship' are different. That's a huge problem for you.

You have not explained how someone is alive AGAIN. Evasive aren't you - still a huge problem for you.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 13, 2020

I said:
"Yes, Adam & Eve did have perfect fellowship. And it DIED when then sinned. Along with spiritual death and eventual physical death."

Oldmantook said:
So you agree that not only was fellowship lost but also physical and spiritual death occurred as well??

The spiritual death was instant, but the physical death was a slow process.

How is that different from the believer today? OH, YES grace. FYI grace is not a license to sin is it?

No. I explained that. Why don't you read my posts?

Or are you antinomian? Still waiting for your answer.

Since you don't read my posts, why should I bother repeating myself?

However, this is what I posted in ANSWER to that question previously:
you asked:
"Tell me, are you antinomian?"

my answer:
"Of course not. I believe and agree with Paul on this matter:
Rom 7:25 -
Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

You ignore the fact that death can indeed mean spiritual death; not just physical death or loss of fellowship.

Let me be clear. NOT in the context of a saved person, who has received the gift of eternal life. Eternal life, by definition, CANNOT DIE. Period.

I gave you scriptures. You simply miniumize them as pertaining to loss of fellowship or physical death.

You're the one trying to minimize the FACT of loss of fellowship.

Not have eternal life abiding in him means no possession of it. Comprende?

I explained what the "abiding" means. If John had meant no possession, he wouldn't have included the word "abiding". But John was present when he quoted Jesus' words in John 15:1-7, which is about abiding in Him as He abides in the believer for bearing fruit. This shows that "abiding" is a reciprocal relationship.

Greek present tense is focused primarily on the action irrespective of time.

That is true. So, how come you persist in your fantasy that one must continue to believe in order to continue to be saved?

You still haven't proven your opinion from any legitimate source. I don't consider your opinion to be such a source.

So from the standpoint of the writer, at any time, whether it be past, present of future, the action refers to ongoing action.

I'll help to clarify for your to be able to grasp. Think of the ongoing action as simply action that is occurring right now, or presently.

It sure doesn't mean the results of the action require the "ongoing action" to be ongoing, as you presume.

Did you not read Wallace's own quote which you mistook for proving your point?

This was my answer in my last post:
"It's obvious that Wallace is contradictory. And you picked what you wanted to accept. Slick.

But, I asked you for evidence that the Greek present tense means that the action must continue in order for the result to continue. That's the only issue here. And you have FAILED to prove your case.

The present tense refers to action in the present from the perspective of the writer/speaker. There is NOTHING about the result continuing only IF the action continues, which is your REAL ARGUMENT. And it is FALSE."
How come you ignored this? You've failed to prove your opinion/presumption about the Greek present tense.

You have not explained how someone is alive AGAIN. Evasive aren't you - still a huge problem for you.

Well, just another HUGE example of your failure to read what I post.

This is from my last post to you on this question:

you said:
"Then explain to me how exactly is someone alive AGAIN?"

My answer:
"Here's the clue. Jesus used metaphors to explain the principle. The son "is alive again" in the sense of fellowship with his father.

Are you going to argue that fellowship wasn't restored between father and son? I'd love to see you wriggle out of this question."

You didn't answer my red question. Was fellowship restored between father and son, or not?

And you totally dodged my point that your example of a "gift" was nothing other than a gift with strings attached, and everyone understands that gifts with "strings attached" are NO gifts at all.

Don't you understand that "strings attached" is just another way to say "works"?

A gift with strings attached is an object that must be EARNED.

So you blatantly think that salvation must be EARNED.

That is heretical and blasphemous. Salvation is by grace, through faith, which refutes your earned salvation theology.

A peson who NEVER believed that salvation is by grace through faith, but that it must be EARNED is not saved.

Oldmantook · Jan 13, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Since you don't read my posts, why should I bother repeating myself?

Then please. don't even bother to reply. I'm not forcing you to. Your posts unbeknownst to you make little sense logically or scripturally. You can cease replying at anytime and we agree to disagree.

FreeGrace2 said:
Let me be clear. NOT in the context of a saved person, who has received the gift of eternal life. Eternal life, by definition, CANNOT DIE. Period.

Let me be clear. Of course eternal life cannot die. Why do you propose such a straw man argument. But you can die, spiritually as well as physically.

FreeGrace2 said:
You're the one trying to minimize the FACT of loss of fellowship.

Not at all. Loss of fellowship does occur but loss of eternal life can also occur and therein lies the difference which you fail to grasp.

FreeGrace2 said:
That is true. So, how come you persist in your fantasy that one must continue to believe in order to continue to be saved?

For the simple fact that once can cease believing - can they not? At any time, can someone who is a genuine Christian recant his faith and become a Buddhist, Muslim, New-Ager or whatever suits their fancy? I surmise you may protest and claim that they were never true believers to begin with. That would be another logical fallacy of yours commonly known as an over generalization. That would be like saying since some chickens lay brown eggs, all chickens lay brown eggs. In the same way, indeed some were never true believers but one cannot rightly conclude that all were never true believers.

FreeGrace2 said:
How come you ignored this? You've failed to prove your opinion/presumption about the Greek present tense.

I cited your own scholar. Can't your read? Since it appears to be the case I'll quote him again for your reading pleasure. Wallace whom you cited contradicts your view. How ironic.
John 3:16 pas ho pisteuōn[SAPP]everyone who believes[.] The idea seems to be both gnomic [proverbial] and continual: “everyone who continually believes.” This is not due to the present tense only, but to the use of the present participle of pisteuō, especially in soteriological contexts in the NT. (GGBB pg. 620.)

FreeGrace2 said:
Are you going to argue that fellowship wasn't restored between father and son? I'd love to see you wriggle out of this question."

Easy peasy. Of course fellowship was restored. Also eternal life was restored at the same time since the prodigal was no longer dead. Any more questions?

FreeGrace2 said:
A peson who NEVER believed that salvation is by grace through faith, but that it must be EARNED is not saved.

No one earns salvation; it's by grace. However grace also enables the believer to obey and lead a sanctified life - for without holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb 12:14). Again you will protest and explain that believers already have the righteousness of Christ but you conveniently ignore the part where we must practice righteousness to be considered righteous. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 1 Jn 3:7
Are you being deceived and do you teach the same to others? Just asking.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 14, 2020

Oldmantook said:
Then please. don't even bother to reply. I'm not forcing you to. Your posts unbeknownst to you make little sense logically or scripturally. You can cease replying at anytime and we agree to disagree.

Let me be clear. Of course eternal life cannot die. Why do you propose such a straw man argument. But you can die, spiritually as well as physically.

Not at all. Loss of fellowship does occur but loss of eternal life can also occur and therein lies the difference which you fail to grasp.

For the simple fact that once can cease believing - can they not? At any time, can someone who is a genuine Christian recant his faith and become a Buddhist, Muslim, New-Ager or whatever suits their fancy? I surmise you may protest and claim that they were never true believers to begin with. That would be another logical fallacy of yours commonly known as an over generalization. That would be like saying since some chickens lay brown eggs, all chickens lay brown eggs. In the same way, indeed some were never true believers but one cannot rightly conclude that all were never true believers.

I cited your own scholar. Can't your read? Since it appears to be the case I'll quote him again for your reading pleasure. Wallace whom you cited contradicts your view. How ironic.
John 3:16 pas ho pisteuōn[SAPP]everyone who believes[.] The idea seems to be both gnomic [proverbial] and continual: “everyone who continually believes.” This is not due to the present tense only, but to the use of the present participle of pisteuō, especially in soteriological contexts in the NT. (GGBB pg. 620.)

Easy peasy. Of course fellowship was restored. Also eternal life was restored at the same time since the prodigal was no longer dead. Any more questions?

No one earns salvation; it's by grace. However grace also enables the believer to obey and lead a sanctified life - for without holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb 12:14). Again you will protest and explain that believers already have the righteousness of Christ but you conveniently ignore the part where we must practice righteousness to be considered righteous. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 1 Jn 3:7
Are you being deceived and do you teach the same to others? Just asking.

I can summarize the entire problem with your theology.

You think that salvation comes with "strings attached". iow, there is no grace in your theology. None at all.

You are your own savior in your theology. Meet the conditions of the strings that are attached, and you get into the kingdom.

Nonsense.

Oldmantook · Jan 14, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
I can summarize the entire problem with your theology.

You think that salvation comes with "strings attached". iow, there is no grace in your theology. None at all.

You are your own savior in your theology. Meet the conditions of the strings that are attached, and you get into the kingdom.

Nonsense.

I quoted Wallace whom you quoted who disagrees with your view as he references Jn 3:16 as meaning "everyone who continually believes." But you know more that he does don't you? Frankly, I sympathize with the students in your SS class as they are being taught that they cannot lose their salvation. As I wrote earlier, if you are incorrect in your belief and a student in your class fails to persevere in the faith through subsequent unbelief and/or disobedience because they were taught by you that all of his/her sins are automatically forgiven - past, present, future - then how would you feel? You are certainly entitled to
believe/teach as you wish but don't say you weren't informed otherwise.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 14, 2020

Oldmantook said:
I quoted Wallace whom you quoted who disagrees with your view as he references Jn 3:16 as meaning "everyone who continually believes."

All you did was to show his own inconsistency because he never described the present tense and an action that MUST BE continued in order for the results of that action to continue.

So, again, where is the source that the Greek present tense supports your theory; that one must continually believe in order to continually be saved?

But you know more that he does don't you? Frankly, I sympathize with the students in your SS class as they are being taught that they cannot lose their salvation.

All sympathy should be on those, like you, who have a 'STRINGS ATTACHED' salvation.

The Bible is clear that salvation and eternal life are GIFTS.

And everyone knows what a "gift" with strings attached is: and it isn't a gift.

As I wrote earlier, if you are incorrect in your belief and a student in your class fails to persevere in the faith through subsequent unbelief and/or disobedience because they were taught by you that all of his/her sins are automatically forgiven - past, present, future - then how would you feel?

The problem with your fantasy here is that I'm not incorrect. Actually, how are you going to feel when you enter eternity and THEN realize that you weren't even close to being correct?

By adding strings to salvation, you have removed grace from it altogether. It is faith that pleases God, not your smelly old strings that you are trying to attach to salvation.

Actually, a "STRINGS ATTACHED" salvation is NO salvation at all. You are certainly entitled to believe/teach as you wish but don't say you weren't informed otherwise.[/QUOTE]
The guilt will all be on you and your types who teach false doctrine.

Rom 11:6 - And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Do you know what the "it" refers to?

Here's the previous verse: So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

We know from 1 Cor 1:21 that God chooses to save those who believe, and we know that we are saved by grace through faith, apart from works, from Eph 2:8 and 9.

So, the "it" in v.6 is salvation. Because it is by grace, it cannot be based on works.

As Paul wrote, "if it (salvation) were (based on works), it would no longer be grace.

That's what Arminians have done to God's grace. They have trampled grace under foot.

Heb 10:29 - How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is grace and truth and came by grace and truth.

John 1-
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Question: What are the conditions for salvation?

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads