Ah, but we're not talking about people. Jesus was referring to sheep.I agree. If a person can pluck themselves from His hand then that would mean the claim "no man" would be false.
Then I have to disagree with you.
How do you know you cannot “pluck” yourself out of somewhere? Mark 9:47 talks about plucking out your own eye.
I believe "no man" means exactly what it says "no man". That includes the person in His hands since they are part of man.
So you don't believe other people can lead believers astray?
No one who accepts a gift would consider it kidnapping or being held against there will.
Can you give an example of someone who would like to snatch us out of His hand.
Like I said, Esau's birthright wasn't a gift, it was a payment. I gift doesn't ask anything back in return.
So you don't belive you can get your salvation back if you lose it even if you repent?
No it doesn't, it talks about not giving up on doing good so we can reap a harvest . Not the same thing.
So you don't believe someone who repents like the prodigal son can get their salvation back if they walked away from it?
The eyeball did not jump out of its socket and can’t.
Christians have the gift of salvation which no one can take away and even God will not take it back. The individual Christians owns his own salvation, since a gift that is given becomes that person’s possession. If God was holding you back against your will He would be a kidnapper, so is that what you think God is?
No man can take you away, kidnap you from God’s family, but like the prodigal son you can leave and God will allow you to leave, just as the Father allowed the prodigal son to leave.
The person has to “allow” others to lead them astray, just as Eve had to allow Satan to tempt her,
he said what she wanted to hear, she was to be busy help Adam, she did not cut the satan off to seek counseling from Adam and/or God.
Wait just a minute here: people accept the gift of USA citizenship and a life in the USA, yet give it up sometimes, if they could not give it up would they be held against their will?
Satan, demons, evil living people?
Individuals Christians, themselves get caught up in the perceived pleasures of sin for a season, to the point they no long desire being “Loved” in spite of what they have done and/or will do. People become so engrossed in being loved for the way they want others to perceive them to be and no longer want to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure charity (Godly type Love) and thus place no value on Godly Love so they will give it up.
“What?” Esau was gifted his birthright of the first born, by being the first born (nothing Esau did), but that does not mean Esau cannot sell or give away his birthright.
I am not saying: “Esau gifted Jacob with his birthright”,
but am just trying to show something that cannot be lost, stolen, taken back or earned can have the ownership transferred to another only by the individual himself, if that included some payment or not is insignificant since no payment is worth, Esau giving up his birthright, yet he gave it up for a bowl of soup. Satan will buy our birthright to heaven on the cheap any time.
Sin is not what takes your birthright to heaven away, but getting caught up in a sinful life to the point you no longer desire God’s Love after experiencing God’s Love, will cause you to fall away without a recovery path, because what else can be done, you have experienced God’s Love and no longer want Godly type Love.
You’re giving up sowing good seed, which means at one time you did sow good seed and would have a harvest of eternal life, but now the you will not have eternal life. That giving up resulted in the loss of eternal life, so by giving up you are also giving up eternal life.
It is not just a wandering away like some lost sheep, but giving up what you knowing have experienced.
The prodigal son prior to leaving never embraced the attitude of unconditional selfless Love, like a Christian does with conversion.
The prodigal son from what he said to the father (virtually saying: “I wish you were dead so I could have my inheritance”) shows he choose not to Love the Father to begin with.
Christians that “fall away” can be like the lost coin or lost sheep, but to be like the prodigal son you do not start out as a Christian, since the prodigal son does not love the father prior to leaving.
It's the judgement of mankind. It's the criteria for who is saved and not. Eternal Security is not compatible with it.The sheep and goats time is just ahead of the new earth.
It is not about the church nor the great tribulation.
It is first of all necessary to distinguish between works of obedience to God which the Bible always commends versus works of the flesh and the Law which the scriptures condemn. If one works to earn one's salvation by relying on one's own strength and good works then of course salvation cannot be earned. Nor can salvation be gained by observing the OT Law.Yes Eternal Security. It's implied by the gospel itself and stated explicitly in places. I've written an article on the subject at http://bcbsr.com/topics/etsec.html
I guess for the anti-eternal security Christians I would ask, What work must one do to lose their salvation. And doesn't that make salvation contingent upon works?
1 Cor 5:5 refers to the sinning brother who had sexual relations with his father's wife. In this verse Paul wrote that he had decided to deliver this sinning brother to Satan for the destruction of his flesh in order that his spirit would be saved on the day of the Lord. The pertinent question is what does Paul mean by "destruction of the flesh?" Paul later elaborated on this when he penned his second follow-up letter to the Corinthian church. Note in 2 Cor 2, this chapter is devoted to some unspecified male whom Paul identifies as causing him and the entire church sorrow (v.5). That male person was punished by the Corinthian church (v.6). That person was made sorrowful for his sin and forgiven by the church (v.7); reaffirmed in love by the brethren (v.8).I'm undecided on eternal security. Both sides make good points. So I'd like to ask a couple of questions.
For those who believe in eternal security how do you explain Matthew 13:18-23 ?
For those who don't believe in eternal security how do you explain 1 Corinthians 5:5 ?
Paul warns the Galatian brethren: "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:19-21).Yes Eternal Security. It's implied by the gospel itself and stated explicitly in places. I've written an article on the subject at http://bcbsr.com/topics/etsec.html
I guess for the anti-eternal security Christians I would ask, What work must one do to lose their salvation. And doesn't that make salvation contingent upon works?
Paul warns the Galatian brethren: "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:19-21).
Works of disobedience (habitual sin) may cause one to lose his/her salvation.
One must ask if it "doesn't occur in the case of those born of God, why then would the apostle Paul direct his warning to the Galatian brethren? In v.21 Paul specifically wrote "I WARN YOU...." So if those sins don't apply to believers, why then would Paul even issue such a warning as that would be nonsensical. Thus I think your interpretation does not fit with the text itself.Doesn't occur in the case of those born of God, and thus such are eternally secure.
"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." 1John 3:9
"We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him." 1John 5:18
How exactly is Eternal Security Biblical?
One must ask if it "doesn't occur in the case of those born of God, why then would the apostle Paul direct his warning to the Galatian brethren? In v.21 Paul specifically wrote "I WARN YOU...." So if those sins don't apply to believers, why then would Paul even issue such a warning as that would be nonsensical. Thus I think your interpretation does not fit with the text itself.
You cited 1 Jn 3:9 and 1 Jn 5:18. I don't think you are implying that Christians don't/cannot sin because that directly contradicts what John already writes in 1 Jn 1:8,10 which states that if we claim we are without sin, we deceive ourselves and make God a liar. So the fact is, Christians do sin but the question remains why does 1 Jn 3:9 then say that believers "do not sin"? The answer is the translation you cited is a poor translation of this particular verse. 1 Jn 3:9 contains the words "poiei hamartian" more accurately translated as "practice of sinning." Thus this verse accurately reads: "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God" (ESV). It does not mean those born of God do not sin at all. It does mean that Christians who continue to practice or engage in habitual sin, no longer have the assurance of being born of God. This fits perfectly with Gal 5:21 which I cited earlier that those who are do or practice such sins will not inherit the kingdom of God. Habitual sin not repented of disqualifies the believer from having eternal life - thus no eternal security.
Those who have been born of God don't characteristically sin, and so don't fit in the category of people you're referring to as not inheriting the kingdom of God, or whom you hypothetically claim lose their salvation. (Can't lose what you didn't have in the first place)
Both 1John 3:9 and 1John 5:18 use the perfect tense for "born of God", and thus anyone who has in the past been born of God never loses that state. Likewise in 1John 2:19 John uses the phrase "if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us" (later to be known as the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints) as an indicator of whether such people had been saved to begin with, proving again - Once Saved, Always Saved, which many unbelievers reckon a doctrine of the Devil.
As for warnings, just like John, how does Paul know whether or not his audience has been born of God or whether they may be individuals who have not? "I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." Gal 4:11 Yes, he's questioning whether the Galatians had come to faith, and likewise the Corinthians. "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you— unless, of course, you fail the test?" 2Cor 13:5
those [Christians/born of God] who choose practice such sins will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Good to know that the Western world still thinks that using the gift of salvation is salvation by works.Thanks for sharing your hypotheses, though clearly you support a salvation by works soteriology. But just to point out the obvious note your statement above that those who have been born of God choose to practice sin in comparison with the following statement:
"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." 1John 3:9
So how is it that one who does not have the ability to practice sin due to the nature of regeneration then go on to practice sin as you allege?
And again 1John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
It's not that the concept of Eternal Security is not clear in scripture, it's just that you can't believe it, just like salvation being apart from works is unbelievable to you.
Thanks for sharing your hypotheses, though clearly you support a salvation by works soteriology. But just to point out the obvious note your statement above that those who have been born of God choose to practice sin in comparison with the following statement:
"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." 1John 3:9
So how is it that one who does not have the ability to practice sin due to the nature of regeneration then go on to practice sin as you allege?
And again 1John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
It's not that the concept of Eternal Security is not clear in scripture, it's just that you can't believe it, just like salvation being apart from works is unbelievable to you.
Good to know that the Western world still thinks that using the gift of salvation is salvation by works.
While it is true that a person whose salvation is finished won't sin, those people are in heaven. You and I are not sinless.
And while it is true that works so not earn salvation, using salvation is a work. I was given a beard trimmer/hair trimmer for Christmas. Now, if I never charge it and use it, will I ever benefit from it? No. Does my charging it and trimming my beard with the trimmer take away from the fact that the trimmer was a free gift? Of course not. Does my washing my new jeans and shirt take away from them being a free gift? Of course not.
A person who never uses a gift will never benefit from it. The gift of salvation enables us to do works of good. But if we never use it, then we never benefit from it and will find ourselves without it in the end.
You mean the rhetoric of branches being removed from the vine? They can't be removed from the vine if they aren't truly in the vine. You cannot remove something that isn't in it. Scripture also uses the rhetoric that we "are being saved".Salvation being loseable is inconsistent with the rhetoric the Bible utilizes. Salvation being loseable is to say a person's salvation status is not actually determined until the end, in which case one cannot say that a person "has been saved" (rhetoric the Bible uses), but merely that a person "has the possibility of being saved". In the scenario you present a person's "final" salvation, which is really the salvation we're talking about here - salvation from the wrath of God in hell fire - is, according to you, based upon a person's works. And thus you support a salvation by works soteriology, which is consistent with the Neo-Circumcision sect you identify with.
You mean the rhetoric of branches being removed from the vine? They can't be removed from the vine if they aren't truly in the vine. You cannot remove something that isn't in it. Scripture also uses the rhetoric that we "are being saved".
And no, I never said it is based on a person's work. You obviously didn't read what I wrote.
So, let me make this really big, because if you ever say I support a by works soteriology, I will simply call you a liar to your face:
I do not support a by works soteriology. Anyone who says I do after having been told this is a liar.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?