Is Confession of Sin Necessary for Salvation?

Is confession of sin necessary for salvation?


  • Total voters
    43

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So then we are in agreement. Your "very quoted source" that disagrees with me does not prove that I am wrong, since a very quoted source is not infallible. Hence, your post in #214 is fallacious.
What was fallacious? Has the Roman Catholic church infallibly interpreted all of the Sacred Scriptures?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,982.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
What was fallacious?

Your post in #214 = "The very quoted source speaks against what you are claiming.". I am not sure what you meant by "very quoted source", but it does matter. A very quoted source is not necessarily infallible, so it matters not that it speaks against what I am claiming.
Has the Roman Catholic church infallibly interpreted all of the Sacred Scriptures?

The Church has not officially interpreted all of Sacred Scriptures. There are only about 8 verses that the Catholic must interpret a certain way. Besides that, the Church sets up broad boundaries, and its a huge yard. Within that fenced-in yard, a Catholic is free to run around and play. A Catholic can be Republican or Democrat, speaking in tongues or not speaking, etc. I have been a lot of Protestant church, mostly conservative ones. Because they do not have boundaries, they huddle together with their strict rules - such as either that everyone must speak in tongues or no one speaks in tongues, men having their hair above the ears and above the collar, women always wearing dresses, husbands subjugating their wives, etc. I knew of two evangelical ministers hounding the evangelical Anthony Campolo for saying that he sees Christ in everyone all because he said he tries to see Christ in every person he meets. There is far more freedom in Catholicism than in conservative Protestantism.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your post in #214 = "The very quoted source speaks against what you are claiming.". I am not sure what you meant by "very quoted source", but it does matter. A very quoted source is not necessarily infallible, so it matters not that it speaks against what I am claiming.
I was pointing out your response to that post did not consider what was actually quoted from John MacAruthur's article.
The Church has not officially interpreted all of Sacred Scriptures.
That much is clear.
Besides that, the Church sets up broad boundaries, and its a huge yard. Within that fenced-in yard, a Catholic is free to run around and play.
That fence seems to be expanding a lot since Vatican II.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,982.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
I was pointing out your response to that post did not consider what was actually quoted from John MacAruthur's article.
Well, I am not sure your response is considering what I actually posted.

That fence seems to be expanding a lot since Vatican II.

Of course! But the fence has expanded a lot in the Bible as well.

The Old Testament says that the Lord is one (Deut 6:4). The New Testament expanded the fence a lot by saying that God is three! The New Testament expanded the fence from the oneness of God to the three-ness of God. Under the Old Covenant, they were under the Law. In the New Covenant, we are under grace. Under the Old Covenant, the men were required to be circumcized. But under the New Covenant, that is no longer required. Under the Old Covenant, a woman caught in adultery was stoned to death. No Christian, or Jew, would advocate that today!

So the fence has been expanded a lot in the New Covenant.

The same can be said for Protestantism. The original Reformers were heavy into predestination. But most of the modern Protestants believe that we have a free will. The original Reformers had a much higher view of Mary. Martin Luther said he had a devotion to Mary. And John Calvin said that Mary was a perpetual virgin. The Reformers saw birth control as a great evil. But modern Protestants see not problem with it.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is no need for straw man arguments. "Nominal" (in name only) Christian is a term used to describe those who are not genuine Christians. Such people are especially easy to find in false religions and cults that "label" themselves as "Christian." Although the Bible does not specifically use the term "nominal" Christian, that term reflects what a false prophet/wolf in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:29) false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4) false apostle etc.. (2 Corinthians 11:13) is. The specific term "Trinity" is also not found in the Bible, yet it's a term that is used to reflect the concept of the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit one God in essence/nature; yet three distinct persons. :oldthumbsup:

I can see that arguing with you is like arguing with a lawyer who pridefully must have the last word in any argument and is also out to win his case at all costs (whatever it takes). I have not failed to address your points and I have thoroughly refuted your arguments in my previous posts, but unfortunately, you are unable to see anything beyond the veil of your biased doctrine/indoctrination. I've already heard just about every argument under the sun from works-salvationists and eternal-insecurists (including Roman Catholics and Mormons) in regards to losing salvation, so none of your arguments are anything new or enlightening. Any further discussion with you would just be a waste of time.

I believe those who are truly born of God are eternally secure and preserved forever (Psalm 37:28; John 10:27-28; Ephesians 1:13-14 etc..) and you will NEVER convince me otherwise. ;)
Like I wrote earlier, there are genuine Christians who fall away and depart/apostatize from the faith and nominal/in name only people who were never in the faith to begin. You acknowledge the latter but fail to acknowledge the former. You have failed to explain how it is possible for a nonbeliever to apostatize from the faith when he/she was never in the faith to begin with. Only genuine believers are capable of apostatizing. Thus your belief remains problematic as you continue to claim that those who depart from the faith were never part of it. That is illogical.
And do you suppose you are unbiased? Hardly, in my opinion but you are free to believe in your own self-assessment. And lastly despite "heard just about every argument" you failed to explain how the prodigal son was made alive AGAIN which you are free to ignore in order to cling to your beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Like I wrote earlier, there are genuine Christians who fall away and depart/apostatize from the faith and nominal/in name only people who were never in the faith to begin. You acknowledge the latter but fail to acknowledge the former. You have failed to explain how it is possible for a nonbeliever to apostatize from the faith when he/she was never in the faith to begin with.
I already explained this in post #188. Some who are in a state of professing adherence to the apostolic faith, nevertheless will in both doctrine and practice depart from it, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. Judas Iscariot (who was not a genuine believer and was numbered among the disciples and even looked like the real deal to the other 11 disciples is an excellent example of apostasy) Also see - If our salvation is eternally secure, why does the Bible warn so strongly against apostasy? | GotQuestions.org

Only genuine believers are capable of apostatizing.
Says you. Now show me the words, "lose or lost salvation" in the Bible. My Bible says, all that the Father has given to Jesus, He shall lose none. (John 6:39) No one can snatch them from His hand. (John 10:27-28) Whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Romans 8:30) Believers are sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession/unto the day of redemption. (Ephesians 1:13,14; 4:30)

Thus your belief remains problematic as you continue to claim that those who depart from the faith were never part of it. That is illogical.
Only to those (particularly works-salvationists) who do not understand the preservation of the saints. (Psalm 37:28; Jude 1:1) Salvation is not probation. Eternal life is not temporary life. Jesus is the door. He is not a revolving door.

And do you suppose you are unbiased? Hardly, in my opinion but you are free to believe in your own self-assessment.
I've been on both sides of the fence. I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and lived in fear and bondage to IN-security prior to my conversion, yet after my conversion, I no longer live in fear and bondage to IN-security. Feel free to remain on that roller coaster ride of fear and bondage to IN-security based on your own self-assessment.

And lastly despite "heard just about every argument" you failed to explain how the prodigal son was made alive AGAIN which you are free to ignore in order to cling to your beliefs.
You really seem to have a "know it all" attitude, which stems from pride. In regards to the prodigal son, certain people will argue that the prodigal son was spiritually alive, then spiritually died (lost his salvation) and was spiritually alive again (regained his salvation) from Luke 15:32 based on certain translations which read: ..thy brother was dead, and is alive AGAIN (KJV) ..for your brother was dead and is alive AGAIN (NKJV) ..this brother of yours was dead and is alive AGAIN (NIV)

Others will argue that in this parable, being made "alive again" foreshadows the "born again" experience that Jesus spoke of in John 3:3. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about being born again spiritually again and again. We are born once physically and born "again" once spiritually.

I find it interesting that certain translations of Luke 15:32 simply say your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found (ESV); your brother was dead, but now he is alive. He was lost, but now he is found (NCV); this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found (NRS); this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found (NAS).

So alive/saved AGAIN or born AGAIN? Based on your biased opinion, of course you will go with saved all over again. In the opening chapter of Luke 15, we see the Pharisees and scribes complaining that Jesus receives sinners and eats with them. The following parables throughout the chapter are in rebuke to them. Using these parables to teach a loss of salvation to Pharisees and scribes would be pointless.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I already explained this in post #188. Some who are in a state of professing adherence to the apostolic faith, nevertheless will in both doctrine and practice depart from it, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. Judas Iscariot (who was not a genuine believer and was numbered among the disciples and even looked like the real deal to the other 11 disciples is an excellent example of apostasy) Also see - If our salvation is eternally secure, why does the Bible warn so strongly against apostasy? | GotQuestions.org
Contrary to your false belief, Judas was genuine believer. I suggest you read Jn 17:6-12 which states that Judas and the rest of the disciples were given to Jesus by the Father = ELECTION. Despite being kept in Jesus' name (which only applies to believers) Judas was still lost because he chose to depart from the faith by betraying his Savior. By definition one cannot betray someone else whom he was never loyal/faithful to begin with.

Says you. Now show me the words, "lose or lost salvation" in the Bible. My Bible says, all that the Father has given to Jesus, He shall lose none. (John 6:39) No one can snatch them from His hand. (John 10:27-28) Whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Romans 8:30) Believers are sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession/unto the day of redemption. (Ephesians 1:13,14; 4:30)
Are you not aware that you employ an argument from silence which is the weakest form of argumentation? Just because "lose or lost salvation" is not quoted in Scripture does not mean it is not untrue. The word abortion is not in the Bible either but that does not mean abortion is okay does it?
You also specialize in ignoring context. If you bothered to study the verb tenses surrounding Jn 6:39 you will find that in v.37 the Greek word for "come" is ἐρχόμενον which is a present tense participle. This is indicative of an ongoing process better translated as "coming" - not a just a one time moment in the past when one "came" to salvation. Also in v.40 the word πιστεύων is also a present tense participle better translated as "believing." Thus those continuing to believe have the assurance of eternal life. Conversely those who cease to believe, no longer have the assurance of eternal life. You have a penchant for quoting Jn 10:27-28 but totally ignore what v.27 states. The promises contained in v.28 only applies to those sheep who listen and follow Jesus. Those who don't are not entitled to the promises in v.28. And I already demonstrated to you earlier that Rom 8:30 is a false chain of salvation as the word for called in v.30 is "kaleo" which is the same word used in Gal 1:6. Paul testified that those called/kaleo Galatians were turning away from Christ to follow another gospel. Rather than resorting to proof-texting to support you beliefs, I suggest you pay attention to context and the Greek text.

Only to those (particularly works-salvationists) who do not understand the preservation of the saints. (Psalm 37:28; Jude 1:1) Salvation is not probation. Eternal life is not temporary life. Jesus is the door. He is not a revolving door.
Jesus' own words contradict what you assert. Jesus is the door and he warned the lukewarm Laodicean Church to repent and open the door to Him, lest Jesus spit them out of his mouth. A believer is free to enter the door as well as exit the door.

I've been on both sides of the fence. I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and lived in fear and bondage to IN-security prior to my conversion, yet after my conversion, I no longer live in fear and bondage to IN-security. Feel free to remain on that roller coaster ride of fear and bondage to IN-security based on your own self-assessment.
I suggest you read 1 John paying particular attention to those verses which plainly address the believer's assurance but I doubt that you even understand it. No roller coaster for those that abide in Him contrary to your false imaginings.

So alive/saved AGAIN or born AGAIN? Based on your biased opinion, of course you will go with saved all over again. In the opening chapter of Luke 15, we see the Pharisees and scribes complaining that Jesus receives sinners and eats with them. The following parables throughout the chapter are in rebuke to them. Using these parables to teach a loss of salvation to Pharisees and scribes would be pointless.
Pointless or convenient for you to ignore?? Since you choose to ignore these parables which were the main tools Jesus used for teaching spiritual truth, I'll just refer you to another scripture for you to ignore. Problem for you is that this scripture isn't a parable to the Pharisees. Refer to Jude 1:12 where John refers to those "twice dead." Just exactly how does one become twice dead? We both know that according to Heb 9:27, we physically die but once. So how does one become twice dead?
 
Upvote 0

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Contrary to your false belief, Judas was genuine believer.
Absolutely false. Judas was an unbelieving, unclean devil who betrayed Jesus. (John 6:64-71; 13:10-11)

I suggest you read Jn 17:6-12 which states that Judas and the rest of the disciples were given to Jesus by the Father = ELECTION.
John 17:12 - While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. John 18:9 - that the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, "Of those whom You gave Me I have lost none." Jesus did not lose Judas. Judas was already lost.

Syllogism

1. All given by the Father to Jesus are kept.
2. Judas was not kept.
3. Judas was not given to Jesus by the Father

Or, this way.

1. None of those given to Jesus by the Father will be lost by Jesus.
2. Judas is lost.
3. Judas was not given to Jesus by the Father.

Despite being kept in Jesus' name (which only applies to believers) Judas was still lost because he chose to depart from the faith by betraying his Savior. By definition one cannot betray someone else whom he was never loyal/faithful to begin with.
The other 11 disciples were kept in Jesus' name, but not Judas, the son of perdition.

Are you not aware that you employ an argument from silence which is the weakest form of argumentation? Just because "lose or lost salvation" is not quoted in Scripture does not mean it is not untrue.
Not weak at all and that definitive term (lost salvation) is found nowhere in Scripture, but you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

The word abortion is not in the Bible either but that does not mean abortion is okay does it?
Murder is and abortion is murder.

You also specialize in ignoring context.
You specialize is eisegesis, as demonstrated below. I don't ignore the context and I properly harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine.

If you bothered to study the verb tenses surrounding Jn 6:39 you will find that in v.37 the Greek word for "come" is ἐρχόμενον which is a present tense participle. This is indicative of an ongoing process better translated as "coming" - not a just a one time moment in the past when one "came" to salvation. Also in v.40 the word πιστεύων is also a present tense participle better translated as "believing." Thus those continuing to believe have the assurance of eternal life.
I understand that saving belief continues and is not some shallow, temporary belief that has no root, produces no fruit and withers away. Those who continue to believe demonstrate that their belief/faith was firmly rooted and established from the start and have the assurance of eternal life.

Conversely those who cease to believe, no longer have the assurance of eternal life.
Those who cease to believe demonstrate that their shallow, temporary belief was never firmly rooted and established from the start. Unlike saving belief, temporary shallow belief is not rooted in a regenerate heart. There is a stage in the progress of belief in Jesus that "falls short of firmly rooted, consummated belief resulting in salvation."

You have a penchant for quoting Jn 10:27-28 but totally ignore what v.27 states. The promises contained in v.28 only applies to those sheep who listen and follow Jesus.
Pure eisegesis. In John 10:27, Jesus said My sheep hear My voice, (not some of them do and some of them don't) and I know them, (not some of them He knows and some of them He doesn't know) and they follow Me, (not some of them follow Him and some of them don't follow Him) And I give them eternal life, (not some of them He gives eternal life and some of them He doesn't give them eternal life) and they shall never perish; (not some of them shall never perish and some of them will perish) neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. (not some of them will never be snatched out of His hand and some of them will be snatched out of His hand).

Those who don't are not entitled to the promises in v.28.
All of His sheep are entitled to the promises in verse 28. Those who are not entitled to the promises in verse 28 are those who do not believe because they are NOT of His sheep. (verse 26)

And I already demonstrated to you earlier that Rom 8:30 is a false chain of salvation as the word for called in v.30 is "kaleo" which is the same word used in Gal 1:6. Paul testified that those called/kaleo Galatians were turning away from Christ to follow another gospel. Rather than resorting to proof-texting to support you beliefs, I suggest you pay attention to context and the Greek text.
Rather than hastily rushing to accommodate your preconceived ideas, I suggest that you pay attention to the context, the Greek text and be sure to properly harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching your conclusion on your biased, cynical doctrine. The present tense indicates that the action is in progress, but was not yet complete. Paul knows there is hope of recovery and restoration.

Just as in Galatians 5:4, in which these Galatians were contemplating justification by the law. They were getting side tracked by legalistic teachers. "You who are trying to be justified by the law have fallen away from grace," but had they fully come to that place yet? Galatians 3:3 reads: Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? The middle voice implies "making yourselves perfect" by means of self effort. The present tense indicates that the action is in progress and that there is still time to correct the error. If these Galatians lost their salvation and it was a done deal, then why didn't Paul simply say you "lost your salvation" and I'm done with you? Instead, in verse 10, he said - I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.

We know the end result for those who are predestined, called and justified: (regardless of getting sidetracked along the way) and whom He justified, these He also glorified. *ALL of them. :oldthumbsup:

Jesus' own words contradict what you assert. Jesus is the door and he warned the lukewarm Laodicean Church to repent and open the door to Him, lest Jesus spit them out of his mouth. A believer is free to enter the door as well as exit the door.
Jesus said that He is the door and not a revolving door. Revelation 3:17 - Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked-18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

His sheep hear His voice. (John 10:27) Obviously, these churches in Revelation did not consist of all believers. Just like today, in any given church at any given location, it's not hard to find unbelievers/make believers mixed in with believers. Jesus points out the lifeless state of the church in Sardis - "..you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead." This church may have had a name of being alive, but they were spiritually lifeless. In other words, the church was filled with unsaved people going through the motions who needed to wake up and repent IN CONTRAST with a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Jesus in white. *So no loss of salvation here. *Only a need to receive it.

I suggest you read 1 John paying particular attention to those verses which plainly address the believer's assurance but I doubt that you even understand it.
I understand 1 John just fine, regardless of your eisegesis.

No roller coaster for those that abide in Him contrary to your false imaginings.
The Greek word for "abide" is "meno" which means to remain, tarry, not to depart, continue to be present.
Abiding in Christ is not a special level of Christian experience that is only available to a few, elite believers, but is the position of all genuine believers. 1 John 4:13 - By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. I have witnessed the despair of those who are on that roller coaster ride of fear and bondage to IN-security first hand. Prior to my conversion several years ago, while still attending the Roman Catholic church, I was on that roller coaster ride.

Pointless or convenient for you to ignore?? Since you choose to ignore these parables which were the main tools Jesus used for teaching spiritual truth, I'll just refer you to another scripture for you to ignore. Problem for you is that this scripture isn't a parable to the Pharisees.
I did not ignore those parables and I thoroughly explained the parable of prodigal son in context using scripture, but you conveniently chose to ignore it in favor of your biased belief. As I already stated in post #227, the parables were used to rebuke the Pharisees and scribes. In the opening chapter of Luke 15, we see the Pharisees and scribes complaining that Jesus receives sinners and eats with them, but go ahead and disregard that and believe what you want to believe, which you will do regardless.

Refer to Jude 1:12 where John refers to those "twice dead." Just exactly how does one become twice dead? We both know that according to Heb 9:27, we physically die but once. So how does one become twice dead?
Jude 1:12 is yet another verse that is misunderstood by eternal IN-securists. A tree being dead to the core as such a tree was utterly incapable of producing good fruit then being uprooted is twice dead. The NAS reads "doubly dead."

*Notice in Jude 12 that these trees will be "uprooted."

*Notice in Matthew 15:13, Jesus said - Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be "uprooted."

Jude did not say that these certain men who have have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ were saved and then lost their salvation. You really need to read the entire chapter of Jude and don't merely isolate one verse.

Jude is exhorting believers to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (vs. 3) because certain ungodly men who have crept in unnoticed. Jude further describes these ungodly men as ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit (vs. 19) IN CONTRAST to those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and PRESERVED in Jesus Christ (vs. 1). Psalm 37:28 - For the Lord loves justice, And does not forsake His saints; They are PRESERVED FOREVER, But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off. :)
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Absolutely false. Judas was an unbelieving, unclean devil who betrayed Jesus. (John 6:64-71; 13:10-11)
Absolutely true. I'll use your tactic. Where do the scriptures state that Judas was unbelieving? They never state that Judas was an unbeliever so your claim is baseless. However that is an argument from silence so I'll refrain from using your tactic as I have better refutations by simply employing Scripture itself.
For instance, you continue to have the bad habit of ignoring context. In the John 6 passage you cite, we know that many of the disciples went back and no longer walked with Jesus (v.66). This verse cannot refer to Judas because at that point he remained with the other 11 disciples (v.67). Notice that in v.69, Peter declares WE BELIEVE AND KNOW THAT YOU ARE THE CHRIST.... Obviously, Peter thought Judas like them - was a believer by his use of the word "we." Contrary to your belief about Judas I choose to believe Peter's assessment of Judas that Judas like the rest of them believed. In v.70 Jesus himself states that He has CHOSEN YOU TWELVE = ELECTION. Judas being of the twelve, was chosen and of the elect = BELIEVER. Yet Jesus also adds that Judas IS A DEVIL. Do you remember our discussion about the practice of sin in 1 John 3:8. You allege that those who practice sin were never believers in the first place. So here we have Jesus himself directly contradicting your own belief. Jesus chose Judas along with the other 11 disciples = election meaning all 12 disciples were saved. However, Judas was of the devil because he stared to practice sin. What sin did Judas practice? Judas was a thief because he had the bad habit of stealing from the money bag of which he was put in charge (John 12:6). Conclusion: Judas was genuine believer chosen by Jesus himself but became a child of the devil because he practiced the sin of stealing - not because he never believed as you allege.
Your reference to Jn 13:10-11 is moot as well. Did you not read v.11? V.11 itself supplies the reason for Jesus stating that "not all of you are clean." The reason is that one of them (Judas) was going to betray Him. As I wrote above, Judas was a genuine believer because he believed along with the rest of the disciples according to Peter's own testimony and also the fact that he was of the elect - chosen by Jesus. V.11 states that he was going to betray Jesus, thus making him unclean. One cannot betray Jesus unless he is first a believer. An unbeliever cannot betray Jesus to whom he never placed his trust in the first place and betray Jesus to whom he was never loyal to.

Murder is and abortion is murder.
Missing the point again? The problem with your statement is that murder is a word found in the scriptures whereas the word abortion is not found in any of the scriptures. So even though the word abortion is not specifically mentioned in Scripture, we still know that it is morally wrong based on other contexts. So going back to your logical fallacy, just because the particular phrase ("lost salvation") is not found in the scriptures, it does not logically follow that the scriptures don't address it and even go against your belief that one can indeed "lose salvation."

You specialize is eisegesis, as demonstrated below. I don't ignore the context and I properly harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine.
You are free to believe as you wish about yourself despite my pointing out to you your error.

I understand that saving belief continues and is not some shallow, temporary belief that has no root, produces no fruit and withers away. Those who continue to believe demonstrate that their belief/faith was firmly rooted and established from the start and have the assurance of eternal life.
Yes those who persevere evidence that their faith is genuine. However, it is not logical to assume that that those who don't persevere never had faith to begin with. One can have faith to begin with but end up not persevering. That is why we are admonished to fight the good fight and to finish the race set before us. If every single believer automatically fights the good fight and finishes the race, such an admonition is unneeded and senseless.

Those who cease to believe demonstrate that their shallow, temporary belief was never firmly rooted and established from the start. Unlike saving belief, temporary shallow belief is not rooted in a regenerate heart. There is a stage in the progress of belief in Jesus that "falls short of firmly rooted, consummated belief resulting in salvation."
You fail to distinguish between having NO root and NOT FIRMLY rooted. No root only applies to unbelievers who are unregenerate and thus have NO ROOT. Believers being regenerated have a root to start with but of course not firmly established as all of us start out as baby Christians, not yet firmly established in the faith but our roots take hold as we become established in the faith. If we fail to become established in the faith, then our root withers and dies.

Pure eisegesis. In John 10:27, Jesus said My sheep hear My voice, (not some of them do and some of them don't) and I know them, (not some of them He knows and some of them He doesn't know) and they follow Me, (not some of them follow Him and some of them don't follow Him) And I give them eternal life, (not some of them He gives eternal life and some of them He doesn't give them eternal life) and they shall never perish; (not some of them shall never perish and some of them will perish) neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. (not some of them will never be snatched out of His hand and some of them will be snatched out of His hand).
In v.27, the verb tenses are in the present tense. Thus, "listening" and "following" are ongoing actions required of the sheep in order to be privy to the promises of vs.28-29. Not all sheep choose to listen/follow as sheep being dumb animals have the tendency to wander and get lost. Likewise, believers being sheep have the tendency to wander and get lost as we have the choice whether to live according to our flesh or choose to take up our crosses and follow Him. Those that take up their crosses and follow Him, have eternal life. Those that don't, don't have eternal life.

Rather than hastily rushing to accommodate your preconceived ideas, I suggest that you pay attention to the context, the Greek text and be sure to properly harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching your conclusion on your biased, cynical doctrine. The present tense indicates that the action is in progress, but was not yet complete. Paul knows there is hope of recovery and restoration.
Of course there is still hope of recovery and restoration. I never said there wasn't. But in their present state of turning away and following another gospel, there is no hope for them - unless they repent. Their ongoing actions provide ample evidence that they have not yet repented and Paul gives no indication that they ever will. If you as a believer, turn from Christ to follow another gospel, are you still saved absent repentance? Yes or No?

We know the end result for those who are predestined, called and justified: (regardless of getting sidetracked along the way) and whom He justified, these He also glorified. *ALL of them. :oldthumbsup:
I do agree with you that those Galatians, if they repented and went on to persevere in the faith are eventually glorified. That is why Paul cannot unequivocally state that they lost their salvation as there is always hope that they will return to the faith. However that does not apply to those kaleo Galatians who failed to repent as unrepentance is evidence of no return to the faith. That is why Paul wrote that he is "amazed" because genuine kaleo Christians are turning away from Christ to follow another gospel. If these were unbelievers, Paul would certainly not be amazed at their actions as that would be normal for unbelievers.

In other words, the church was filled with unsaved people going through the motions who needed to wake up and repent IN CONTRAST with a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Jesus in white. *So no loss of salvation here. *Only a need to receive it.
Bogus claim. A writer has both the ability and prerogative to address a specific audience to whom his letters are intended to be read by. Thus the writers of the NT epistles start their letters indicating whom they are writing to in their salutations. They addressed their letters to the Church at a specific location. The Church consists of the body of believers - no unbelievers. Unlike a speaker who has no control over who is in his audience, a writer can control who he is writing to. Thus your claim that the NT epistles can apply to unbelievers has no support. You are comparing apples with oranges.

I did not ignore those parables and I thoroughly explained the parable of prodigal son in context using scripture, but you conveniently chose to ignore it in favor of your biased belief. As I already stated in post #227, the parables were used to rebuke the Pharisees and scribes. In the opening chapter of Luke 15, we see the Pharisees and scribes complaining that Jesus receives sinners and eats with them, but go ahead and disregard that and believe what you want to believe, which you will do regardless.
Why don't you read the chapter again instead of being selective in you verse quotations? You cite v.2 but fail to notice v.1 which also includes the "publicans and sinners" in Jesus' audience along with the Pharisees and scribes. Thus these parables were also intended by Jesus for plain old sinners like us - a fact that you have grossly overlooked or ignored.

Jude 1:12 is yet another verse that is misunderstood by eternal IN-securists. A tree being dead to the core as such a tree was utterly incapable of producing good fruit then being uprooted is twice dead. The NAS reads "doubly dead."
What?? Any tree that is uprooted is ONCE DEAD. Any living tree no matter if it is fruitful or unfruitful that is uprooted is once dead; not twice dead. A tree dies but once. Care to take another stab at it?

*Notice in Matthew 15:13, Jesus said - Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be "uprooted."
So your point is? Jesus was clearly referring to the Pharisees. They were never saved were they? How can they be "twice dead" when they remained dead in their sins? Your attempt to buttress your doctrine raises more questions than answers.

Jude did not say that these certain men who have have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ were saved and then lost their salvation. You really need to read the entire chapter of Jude and don't merely isolate one verse.
Don't you even read what you quote? Explain to me how can one "turn the grace of into lewdness" unless one had the grace of God to begin with. Unbelievers can never be said to turn God's grace into lewdness as they remain lewd and dead in their sins. You really need to read your citations as they undermine rather than buttress your belief.

Jude is exhorting believers to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (vs. 3) because certain ungodly men who have crept in unnoticed. Jude further describes these ungodly men as ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit (vs. 19) IN CONTRAST to those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and PRESERVED in Jesus Christ (vs. 1). Psalm 37:28 - For the Lord loves justice, And does not forsake His saints; They are PRESERVED FOREVER, But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off. :)
I agree that this epistle is exhorting the saints to contend for the faith - in order that we might not forsake God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Absolutely true. I'll use your tactic. Where do the scriptures state that Judas was unbelieving?
John 6:64 - But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. (context) Was betraying Jesus the fruit of belief or unbelief? John 6:70 - Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Is a "devil" descriptive of a believer or an unbeliever? John 13:10 - Jesus said to him, "He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you." 11 For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, "You are not all clean." Is being "unclean" (in contrast to the other 11 disciples who were clean) descriptive of a believer or an unbeliever? I rest my case. ;)

They never state that Judas was an unbeliever so your claim is baseless. However that is an argument from silence so I'll refrain from using your tactic as I have better refutations by simply employing Scripture itself.
My claim is anything but baseless and I just proved my case using scripture. You can't figure out that "unbelieving, unclean devil" who "betrays Jesus" is descriptive of an unbeliever? o_O

For instance, you continue to have the bad habit of ignoring context.
Not at all.

In the John 6 passage you cite, we know that many of the disciples went back and no longer walked with Jesus (v.66). This verse cannot refer to Judas because at that point he remained with the other 11 disciples (v.67). Notice that in v.69, Peter declares WE BELIEVE AND KNOW THAT YOU ARE THE CHRIST.... Obviously, Peter thought Judas like them - was a believer by his use of the word "we." Contrary to your belief about Judas I choose to believe Peter's assessment of Judas that Judas like the rest of them believed.
These many disciples who set out to be disciples of Jesus, yet went back and walked with Him no more because they were offended by His words, turned out to NOT TRULY be His disciples. John 8:31 - If you continue in My word, then you are TRULY disciples of Mine. Peter said, WE believe and know that you are the Christ, assuming that Judas also believed, (who to the rest of the disciples looked like the real deal), but Jesus knew his heart and said, "he is a devil!" Don't be so naive.

In v.70 Jesus himself states that He has CHOSEN YOU TWELVE = ELECTION. Judas being of the twelve, was chosen and of the elect = BELIEVER.
FALSE. Pure speculation on your part. Judas was not chosen as the elect and was not given to Jesus by the Father, as I already explained in post #229. He was chosen as one of the 12 disciples, yet for what purpose? John 13:18 - I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; BUT that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.'

Yet Jesus also adds that Judas IS A DEVIL.
A DEVIL is NOT a believer.

Do you remember our discussion about the practice of sin in 1 John 3:8. You allege that those who practice sin were never believers in the first place.
I allege? John clearly stated in 1 John 3:9 - No one who is born of God practices sin.. yet you disagree with John.

So here we have Jesus himself directly contradicting your own belief. Jesus chose Judas along with the other 11 disciples = election meaning all 12 disciples were saved. However, Judas was of the devil because he stared to practice sin. What sin did Judas practice? Judas was a thief because he had the bad habit of stealing from the money bag of which he was put in charge (John 12:6). Conclusion: Judas was genuine believer chosen by Jesus himself but became a child of the devil because he practiced the sin of stealing - not because he never believed as you allege.
False and already refuted. More eisegesis on your part. Judas was a thief because he was a child of the devil and not in order to become a child of the devil. You have it backwards. Your bias continues to blind you from accepting the truth.

Your reference to Jn 13:10-11 is moot as well. Did you not read v.11? V.11 itself supplies the reason for Jesus stating that "not all of you are clean." The reason is that one of them (Judas) was going to betray Him. As I wrote above, Judas was a genuine believer because he believed along with the rest of the disciples according to Peter's own testimony and also the fact that he was of the elect - chosen by Jesus. V.11 states that he was going to betray Jesus, thus making him unclean. One cannot betray Jesus unless he is first a believer. An unbeliever cannot betray Jesus to whom he never placed his trust in the first place and betray Jesus to whom he was never loyal to.
Once again, absolutely false. Judas was unclean BEFORE he betrayed Jesus and the fact that Judas was going to betray Jesus demonstrates an unclean heart and unbelief. Judas did not believe along with the other disciples, which explains why Jesus referred to him as unclean, in contrast to the other 11 disciples who were referred to as clean. (John 13:10-11) A make believer who professes trust and loyalty in Jesus (who even looks like the real deal to the remaining 11 disciples) absolutely qualifies as one who betrayed Jesus. Don't be so naive.

Missing the point again? The problem with your statement is that murder is a word found in the scriptures whereas the word abortion is not found in any of the scriptures. So even though the word abortion is not specifically mentioned in Scripture, we still know that it is morally wrong based on other contexts. So going back to your logical fallacy, just because the particular phrase ("lost salvation") is not found in the scriptures, it does not logically follow that the scriptures don't address it and even go against your belief that one can indeed "lose salvation."
Still grinding on this? I see that you still have not found the words, "lose or lost salvation" in the Bible, which are definitive terms. How about UN-saved or UN-regenerated or UN-sealed by the Holy Spirit. You won't find those definitive terms either. All you will find is verses in scripture that "on the surface" appear to teach the loss of salvation, yet are inconclusive. Why are you so obsessed with that doctrine anyway?

You are free to believe as you wish about yourself despite my pointing out to you your error.
Back at you. ;)

Yes those who persevere evidence that their faith is genuine.
Amen! :oldthumbsup:

However, it is not logical to assume that that those who don't persevere never had faith to begin with. One can have faith to begin with but end up not persevering.
Inconclusive.

That is why we are admonished to fight the good fight and to finish the race set before us. If every single believer automatically fights the good fight and finishes the race, such an admonition is unneeded and senseless.
Where does the Bible say that genuine believers will not fight the good fight of faith at all or not finish the race at all? An exhortation is not necessarily a warning.

You fail to distinguish between having NO root and NOT FIRMLY rooted. No root only applies to unbelievers who are unregenerate and thus have NO ROOT. Believers being regenerated have a root to start with but of course not firmly established as all of us start out as baby Christians, not yet firmly established in the faith but our roots take hold as we become established in the faith. If we fail to become established in the faith, then our root withers and dies.
In Luke 8:13, numerous translations say no root and "no firm root" still does not help your case. The end result is the same. Not firmly rooted and established. Unlike saving belief, temporary, shallow belief is not rooted in a regenerate heart. How can no depth of earth, no root, no moisture, no fruit, represent saving belief? It can't.

In v.27, the verb tenses are in the present tense. Thus, "listening" and "following" are ongoing actions required of the sheep in order to be privy to the promises of vs.28-29. Not all sheep choose to listen/follow as sheep being dumb animals have the tendency to wander and get lost. Likewise, believers being sheep have the tendency to wander and get lost as we have the choice whether to live according to our flesh or choose to take up our crosses and follow Him. Those that take up their crosses and follow Him, have eternal life. Those that don't, don't have eternal life.
Of course the action is ongoing and HIS sheep hear His voice and follow Him. No exceptions. You are thinking in terms of faulty human logic and are dangerously close to teaching salvation by works.

Of course there is still hope of recovery and restoration. I never said there wasn't. But in their present state of turning away and following another gospel, there is no hope for them - unless they repent. Their ongoing actions provide ample evidence that they have not yet repented and Paul gives no indication that they ever will. If you as a believer, turn from Christ to follow another gospel, are you still saved absent repentance? Yes or No?
If turning from Christ and following another gospel is your final answer, then No, yet this was not proven to be the case. Romans 8:30 settles it for me.

I do agree with you that those Galatians, if they repented and went on to persevere in the faith are eventually glorified. That is why Paul cannot unequivocally state that they lost their salvation as there is always hope that they will return to the faith. However that does not apply to those kaleo Galatians who failed to repent as unrepentance is evidence of no return to the faith. That is why Paul wrote that he is "amazed" because genuine kaleo Christians are turning away from Christ to follow another gospel. If these were unbelievers, Paul would certainly not be amazed at their actions as that would be normal for unbelievers.
They were believers, yet Paul did not offer no hope for them or state that this was their final answer and they lost their salvation.

Bogus claim. A writer has both the ability and prerogative to address a specific audience to whom his letters are intended to be read by. Thus the writers of the NT epistles start their letters indicating whom they are writing to in their salutations. They addressed their letters to the Church at a specific location. The Church consists of the body of believers - no unbelievers. Unlike a speaker who has no control over who is in his audience, a writer can control who he is writing to. Thus your claim that the NT epistles can apply to unbelievers has no support. You are comparing apples with oranges.
Bogus claim on your part. I backed up my argument with scripture, so your argument is with scripture and not with me. All the letters are written to believers, yet not everyone in a group of professing believers is a genuine believer.

Why don't you read the chapter again instead of being selective in you verse quotations? You cite v.2 but fail to notice v.1 which also includes the "publicans and sinners" in Jesus' audience along with the Pharisees and scribes. Thus these parables were also intended by Jesus for plain old sinners like us - a fact that you have grossly overlooked or ignored.
The point of mentioning "publicans and sinners" in verse 1 is to show in verse 2 that the Pharisees and scribes were complaining that Jesus receives sinners and eats with them, so the rebuke is towards the Pharisees and scribes. It's you who has grossly overlooked the heart of the issue.

What?? Any tree that is uprooted is ONCE DEAD. Any living tree no matter if it is fruitful or unfruitful that is uprooted is once dead; not twice dead. A tree dies but once. Care to take another stab at it?
Wow! I can see that the truth went right over your head here. You are missing the spiritual application. Again, a tree being dead to the core as such a tree was utterly incapable of producing good fruit then being uprooted is twice dead. The NAS reads "doubly dead." I also see that you completely ignored what Jesus said in regards to every plant that His heavenly Father did not plant being "uprooted" in Matthew 15:13. Try not to ignore what Jesus said in Matthew 7:17-20. Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. *The implication is spiritually dead, even though the unbeliever who represents a bad tree is physically alive.

So your point is? Jesus was clearly referring to the Pharisees. They were never saved were they? How can they be "twice dead" when they remained dead in their sins? Your attempt to buttress your doctrine raises more questions than answers.
I made my point very clear in post #229, but the truth continues to go right over your head, which raises more questions than answers.

Don't you even read what you quote? Explain to me how can one "turn the grace of into lewdness" unless one had the grace of God to begin with. Unbelievers can never be said to turn God's grace into lewdness as they remain lewd and dead in their sins. You really need to read your citations as they undermine rather than buttress your belief.
Here you go again with your continued confusion based on faulty human logic. On what planet does marked out for condemnation/ungodly men/deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ/void of the Spirit etc.. equate to believer? :eek:

I agree that this epistle is exhorting the saints to contend for the faith - in order that we might not forsake God.
At least we agree on that. :)
 
Upvote 0