O.B.N.C.

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Can you prove that these verses don't really mean what they say? Or just explain to me what they actually mean, if you can. Thanks.

Already have.

It is so tiring to keep reading this from those who HAVE NOT done so.

If you had, all you'd have to do it repeat yourself. Just claiming you have carries no weight whatsoever. Means nothing. The only thing that matters is verses that actually say what you claim. So far, you haven't.

I've shown you from the verses you have claimed to mean something other than what you think.

Scripture shows salvation as a past, present, and future event, something to be worked out, something to strive towards and persevere in obtaining-with sin a definite impediment to its realization.

Part correct, part very wrong.

Yes, salvation is in the 3 tenses, past present and future. But all 3 apply to the same person.

Past tense salvation: saved from the penalty of sin. Called justification.
Present tense salvation: saved from the power of sin. Called sanctification.
Future tense salvation: saved from the presence of sin. Called glorification.

Your comment above places sanctification or better called "spiritual growth" as something that can keep you out of heaven.

What you seem to be unaware of is that from the moment of faith in Christ, we HAVE BEEN saved from the penalty of sin. That's permanent.

However, sanctification may not be realized because the believer either never got proper discipling and grew up spiritually or simply failed the various tests, temptations, etc, much like the second and third soils in the parable. That doesn't mean they lost salvation. It means they never grew up and lose out on the rewards that are promised to faithful believers.

And glorification is for ALL believers, because ALL believers receive a resurrection body, that is just like our Lord's body. A body without a sin nature.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
No, that is incorrect. It's not those who heard these words is saved, as you claim. It's those who have believed in Christ. John was telling people that if they have believed in Christ they can KNOW they HAVE (POSSESS) eternal life.

No, the point was simple enough. You're implying that everyone who's ever heard those words and applied them to themselves, as you have, was/is necessarily saved.

What do you mean by "applied them to themselves"? Your word choice leaves much to be improved on. Clear as mud.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
What do you do with Acts 8 and the people who received the Holy Spirit? What do you call that?

In verse 12 the people who believe are baptized (and receive the indwelling of the Spirit (as Acts 2:38 says they will) as we do today), but they do not receive miraculous power as that is only transmitted by the laying on of hand by the Apostles.

Are you aware that at the beginning of the church things weren't unified as today. In fact, as by the time Paul wrote Gal 3. In v.2 and 5 he makes clear that receiving the Spirit is by faith or believing in Christ.

Phillip, not being one of the 12, was not able to pass on the miraculous power of the Spirit. But when Peter and John, 2 of the 12, came down, they laid on their hands and people received the miraculous power of the Spirit. That is what Simon wanted to buy, the ability to give the miraculous working of the Spirit.

So what? The Spirit was given first to Jews, upon faith in the Messiah, and for Gentiles upon laying of hands by apostles.

But, by Acts 10 we see Gentiles receiving the Spirit on the basis of faith. Then, in Acts 19, some disciples received the Spirit by Paul's laying his hands on them. So it varied in the beginning. When Paul wrote Gal 3, it was uniform. The Spirit is received by faith in Christ.

A couple of reasons: Acts 2:38 corroborates Mark 16:16 as water baptism being the point at which forgiveness is received.

First, scholars know that v.9-20 aren't in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, meaning all those verses were added later by scribes, NONE OF WHICH were inspired.

Second, can you prove that the scribe who added those verses wasn't referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that occurs at salvation? No, you can't.

And the fact that there is only one baptism in the NT Church, and we are commanded to do it, not just receive it, makes that one baptism water baptism.

The Bible shows 2 for the NT. Water baptism is a symbol of the believer's identification with the Messiah. Baptism of the Spirit places the believer in union with Christ, per Eph 1:13,14 which is a real identification as God's own possession. 1:14 says so.

“This water” was the water of the Flood, which symbolizes the water of baptism.

When Peter wrote "this water" in v.21 he was referring to literal water, like the flood from v.20. And He said literal water symbolizes the baptism that NOW saves you. iow, he was referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, EXACTLY like what we read in Acts 11 and Cornelius and family receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit when they believed.

Then Peter said "not the removal of dirt from the body". That is another reference to literal water, which DOES NOT SAVE. That's exactly what he said.

And it is not that the water itself cleanses our sin, it is the purification of our soul (conscience) through the power of Christ.

That comes from faith in Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Literal water is MEANINGLESS when a person gets saved, justified, receives eternal life.

 

[Bobber]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
The words "the last state" is also rendered as "worse off at the end" and "worse off than before" and "their state is worse that at the beginning".

So, does these refer to the eternal state? No. Peter was referring to a believer who got entangled in the defilements of the world, and the fact that his state in THAT condition is worse than before he got re-entangled again.

What?! The verse has already stated it would better for them not to have known the way of righteousness and to have turned away from it.

For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.

How could that have ever been better to have not known the way of righteousness if messing up they'd still be alright?

You are claiming that a believer CAN perish, which is contrary to what Jesus said.

I think you're failing to consider that believing is an everyday process. One can come out of believing by failing to utilize the process of sanctification or one in the state of believing (a verb) will always be in the process of doing so. Faith is a noun. Believing is a verb

 

[FreeGrace2]

What?! The verse has already stated it would better for them not to have known the way of righteousness and to have turned away from it.

Correct. iow, God's painful discipline (Heb 12:11) will make their lives on earth WORSE than it was before they were saved.

For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.

How could that have ever been better to have not known the way of righteousness if messing up they'd still be alright?

Peter was talking about life on earth. Unbelievers are NOT under God's painful discipline while living on earth.

I think you're failing to consider that believing is an everyday process. One can come out of believing by failing to utilize the process of sanctification or one in the state of believing (a verb) will always be in the process of doing so. Faith is a noun. Believing is a verb

I know you are confused about the present tense in the Greek. It seems to be assumed by many of those who believe that salvation can be lost that the results of believing only continue if the believing continues.

However, the present tense does NOT mean that.

To prove it, consider what Jesus told the woman at the well about drinking in John 4.

10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink (aorist), you would have asked him and he would have given (aorist) you living water.”
11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?
13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks (present tense) this water will be thirsty again,
14 but whoever drinks (aorist) the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

The aorist tense is basically a past tense verb. It is a "point in time" action, with no consideration of a time element.

So, in v.10 Jesus uses the aorist tense for having a drink.
Then, in v.13 Jesus uses the present tense for drinks but concludes WILL BE THIRSTY AGAIN. So Jesus showed that a the result of a present tense action doesn't continue.

iow, present tense drinking of water will STILL result in being thirsty again.

Then, in v.14 Jesus tells her that whoever "drinks (aorist) His water will NEVER thirst.

It should be obvious that Jesus was using drinking water as a metaphor for believing in Him.

So the length of time a person believes has NO EFFECT on the result of the action.

Which is the point of John 10:28.

 

[fhansen]

I totally disagree with your faulty conclusion. There is no "alternative". Jesus gives believers the power to live the Christian life, but that power must be accessed. While the Spirit does live in each of us, He must be accessed. There is an alternative to being filled with the Spirit. It is either grieving (Eph 4:30) or quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Spirit.

It's either life or death if we persist in "sin that leads to death", with examples outlined in Scripture. Yes, we must access it, we must live by the Spirit if we wish to live. Anything else, anything less, would be to mock God and the sacrifice of His Son, crucifying Him all over again.

Stop there. No, it won't. If that were true, then Jesus could NOT have died for all sins.

Scripture says He did. So, please provide any verse that proves that Jesus didn't die for every sin.

He may have died for all sins but not all will be saved anyway, even though He desires all to be saved.

Wrong. Are human parents concerned with the behavior of their children? Of course they are. Why would God be any different?

In fact, He is so concerned for His children He has given many warnings to them about the consequences for disobedience and unfaithfulness.

So which is it? Can a believer sin wantonly, gravely, persistently, and still be saved- or not?? Is his love so perfected, to put it another way, that sin would be excluded? Or is he simply guaranteed never to sin in that manner, as just a puppet now maybe, even as a non-believer may sin less and still not be saved according to some strange theologies. Or can he sin a little bit, mildy perhaps, not overtly or so seriously as to compromise and oppose and destroy love in him, as the ugliest of sins are certainly wont to do? Which is it? Even good parents must eventually give up on a truly bad child at some point as it reaches adulthood and persists in awful behavior.

They include painful discipline (Heb 12:11) in time, and loss of reward in eternity.

Loss of eternal life.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's either life or death if we persist in "sin that leads to death", with examples outlined in Scripture.

Correct. But to clarify, "death" refers to physical death, of which Scripture is full of examples.

Yes, we must access it, we must live by the Spirit if we wish to live. Anything else, anything less, would be to mock God and the sacrifice of His Son, crucifying Him all over again.

Can you explain HOW to access living by the Spirit? Or it is simply a part of being a Christian, and therefore automatic?

He may have died for all sins but not all will be saved anyway, even though He desires all to be saved.

Yep, that's what the Bible says.

So which is it? Can a believer sin wantonly, gravely, persistently, and still be saved- or not??

Jesus has given us an answer to that question. Those who believe in Him for savlation possess eternal life (John 5:24). And recipients of eternal life shall never perish (John 10:28).

Even good parents must eventually give up on a truly bad child at some point as it reaches adulthood and persists in awful behavior.
Loss of eternal life.

So you think that God finally "gives up" on His truly bad children?

Well, that doesn't square with Scripture.

Believers possess eternal life (John 5:24). Recipients of eternal life shall never perish (John 10:28).

The dots are very easy to connect.

Scripture teaches that His "truly bad children" will be painfully disciplined, which may include physical death. There are many examples in Scripture.

 

[Hammster]

OBNC equals OSAS.

So, what does it stand for? Once Belief, No Condemnation. iow, once a person believes in Christ for salvation, they cannot be condemned.

Does the Bible teach this? Of course it does.

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.

So, what does "have not believed" mean exactly? Real simple. It means "have NEVER believed".

Some have argued that "have not believed" does NOT mean "have never believed". So, I will demonstrate why it does mean that exactly.

If you (the reader of this post) have NEVER murdered anyone, it means you "have not murdered" anyone. See how that works?

However, if you (reader) EVER DID murder anyone, it means that you "have murdered" anyone.

So, the terms "have not" and "never" are synonymous.

Therefore, once a person HAS BELIEVED in Christ for salvation, it means you cannot say that they "have not believed".

Therefore, Chuck Templeton and Simon the sorcerer are both in heaven right now.

Why? Both had believed in Christ for salvation. Therefore, neither one can be condemned.

So says the Bible.

Where is the covenant in this? Every covenant has blessings and cursings. You are blessed if you do good, and cursed if you do bad. So while this initial belief may put you into the convent, it seems that complete disregard would bring cursings. God isn’t one to be mocked.

 

[FreeGrace2]

OBNC equals OSAS.

So, what does it stand for? Once Belief, No Condemnation. iow, once a person believes in Christ for salvation, they cannot be condemned.

Does the Bible teach this? Of course it does.

Where is the covenant in this?

I quoted Scripture. Isn't that enough?

Every covenant has blessings and cursings.

Right. Blessings and consequences.

You are blessed if you do good, and cursed if you do bad. So while this initial belief may put you into the convent, it seems that complete disregard would bring cursings. God isn’t one to be mocked.

Your point isn't clear. Could you clarify, please?

And I don't see how your comments relate to what I posted.

 

[Hammster]

OBNC equals OSAS.

So, what does it stand for? Once Belief, No Condemnation. iow, once a person believes in Christ for salvation, they cannot be condemned.

Does the Bible teach this? Of course it does.

I quoted Scripture. Isn't that enough?


Right. Blessings and consequences.


Your point isn't clear. Could you clarify, please?

And I don't see how your comments relate to what I posted.

My point is clear. You are just trying to filter it through your belief. Every covenant in scripture has a way for the convent to become void. Otherwise it’s not a covenant. So if someone isn’t faithful to the covenant, then they will be cut off. Your view seems to state that this isn’t so. It looks as if you are teaching that entering into the covenant (belief) means that regardless of your actions in life, there’s no way you can be cursed and cut off. So if a 12 year old make a sincere profession of faith, yet there’s no fruit ever in his or her life, they will still be blessed with eternal life. That would mean that the covenant has blessings, but no real cursings.

 

[FreeGrace2]

My point is clear. You are just trying to filter it through your belief

"filter it through my belief"??? What in the world does that mean?

Every covenant in scripture has a way for the convent to become void.

Oh, I see. So now it seems you are arguing that the new covenant, which is in Christ's death, can become void? So are you claiming that salvation can be lost? Sure seems so.

Otherwise it’s not a covenant. So if someone isn’t faithful to the covenant, then they will be cut off.

Please explain the "obligation" or whatever you want to call it of the 2 parties of the salvation covenant.

Your view seems to state that this isn’t so.

This also suggests that you believe that the salvation covenant can be broken.

It looks as if you are teaching that entering into the covenant (belief) means that regardless of your actions in life, there’s no way you can be cursed and cut off.

Sorry, but your definition of "covenant" here isn't one. How can "belief" be a covenant?

Now, the "new covenant in My blood" IS a rea covenant.

So if a 12 year old make a sincere profession of faith, yet there’s no fruit ever in his or her life, they will still be blessed with eternal life. That would mean that the covenant has blessings, but no real cursings.

So, to be clear, do you believe that a true believer can perish? Sure sounds like it.

 

[Hammster]

"filter it through my belief"??? What in the world does that mean?


Oh, I see. So now it seems you are arguing that the new covenant, which is in Christ's death, can become void? So are you claiming that salvation can be lost? Sure seems so.


Please explain the "obligation" or whatever you want to call it of the 2 parties of the salvation covenant.


This also suggests that you believe that the salvation covenant can be broken.


Sorry, but your definition of "covenant" here isn't one. How can "belief" be a covenant?

Now, the "new covenant in My blood" IS a rea covenant.


So, to be clear, do you believe that a true believer can perish? Sure sounds like it.

Do you know what a covenant is? If not, then nothing I say will make sense.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Do you know what a covenant is? If not, then nothing I say will make sense.

That is my conclusion of your comments about covenants.

If you would just kindly answer my questions, we might be able to have a productive discussion about it. My questions will help me understand your view of what a covenant is.

If not, then we can't.

But, as it stands now, your comments highly imply that the salvation covenant can be broken, meaning that salvation can be lost.

If you are unwilling/unable to answer my questions, then it seems to me that you've flipped from Calvinist to Arminian. It's happened before with others. So nothing new.

 

[Hammster]

That is my conclusion of your comments about covenants.

If you would just kindly answer my questions, we might be able to have a productive discussion about it. My questions will help me understand your view of what a covenant is.

If not, then we can't.

But, as it stands now, your comments highly imply that the salvation covenant can be broken, meaning that salvation can be lost.

If you are unwilling/unable to answer my questions, then it seems to me that you've flipped from Calvinist to Arminian. It's happened before with others. So nothing new.

A covenant in the Bible is an agreement. It dictates the authority of the agreement, the representative of the agreement, the terms of the agreement, what it takes to enter the agreement, and the succession of the agreement.

So you can have God as the authority. The representative is someone like Moses or Jesus. The conditions are blessings and cursings. The oath is what’s required to enter the covenant. And the succession is just that.

So in salvation, God the Father is the authority, the Son is the representative, obedience is the condition, belief is the oath, and the promise to the generations is the succession.

Granted, this is a simplified overview, but I thought it was a good place to start.

 

[FreeGrace2]

A covenant in the Bible is an agreement. It dictates the authority of the agreement, the representative of the agreement, the terms of the agreement, what it takes to enter the agreement, and the succession of the agreement.

Of course. Now, can you apply this to the salvation covenant, maning the representative, terms, entrance requirements and succession?

So you can have God as the authority. The representative is someone like Moses or Jesus. The conditions are blessings and cursings. The oath is what’s required to enter the covenant. And the succession is just that.

So in salvation, God the Father is the authority, the Son is the representative, obedience is the condition, belief is the oath, and the promise to the generations is the succession.

But all of your previous comments highly suggested that a covenant can be broken.

You didn't include this aspect in your explanation.

Granted, this is a simplified overview, but I thought it was a good place to start.

Now please explain your comments that highly suggest that a covenant can be broken.

It's ok to admit that you've flipped from Calvinist to Arminian, if you have.

 

[Hammster]

Of course. Now, can you apply this to the salvation covenant, maning the representative, terms, entrance requirements and succession?


But all of your previous comments highly suggested that a covenant can be broken.

You didn't include this aspect in your explanation.


Now please explain your comments that highly suggest that a covenant can be broken.

It's ok to admit that you've flipped from Calvinist to Arminian, if you have.

The covenant can be broken. Just look at the parable of the sower and the seeds.

Your view has no consequences for breaking the covenant. It’s too simple and ignores all of the biblical examples of covenant breaking.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The covenant can be broken.

This isn't helpful at all. Why won't you just admit your view about my questions?

Just look at the parable of the sower and the seeds.

I've looked at it many times. What is your point?

btw, there is NO covenant that parable.

Your view has no consequences for breaking the covenant.

So then, you have become an Arminian? Is that correct?

It’s too simple and ignores all of the biblical examples of covenant breaking.

Yes, the gospel is "too simple". But that's God's plan. I didn't come up with it.

You fail to answer any of my questions, and all you do is criticize my view.

btw, if you can prove that salvation is a covenant, and one that can be broken, prove it please.

I say you can't prove it.

 

[Hammster]

This isn't helpful at all. Why won't you just admit your view about my questions?

I don’t know what you mean.

I've looked at it many times. What is your point?

btw, there is NO covenant that parable.

There are three that entered the covenant. Only one kept it.

Blessings and cursings.

So then, you have become an Arminian? Is that correct?

No.

Yes, the gospel is "too simple". But that's God's plan. I didn't come up with it.

You fail to answer any of my questions, and all you do is criticize my view.

btw, if you can prove that salvation is a covenant, and one that can be broken, prove it please.

I say you can't prove it.

for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
— Matthew 26:28

Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s a different type. There’s still blessings and cursing. All the covenants have them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
This isn't helpful at all. Why won't you just admit your view about my questions?

I don’t know what you mean.

Well, I think you do. My questions are about your comments that highly suggest that the "salvation covenant" can be broken. Is that your view or not?

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
btw, there is NO covenant that parable.

There are three that entered the covenant. Only one kept it.

This is so typical of your style. Where is any mention of a covenant in the parable of the soils? Would you be so kind as to point it out?

Blessings and cursings.

Where do you find any blessings or cursings in that parable?

for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
— Matthew 26:28

You've been saying that covenants can be broken. So, please explain how this one can be broken.

Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s a different type. There’s still blessings and cursing. All the covenants have them.

Please explain the cursings in the covenant in Matt 26:28.

You quoted the verse but failed to point out who the 3 are that enter the covenant and what the cursing is.

Could you do that?

 

[Hammster]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
This isn't helpful at all. Why won't you just admit your view about my questions?

Well, I think you do. My questions are about your comments that highly suggest that the "salvation covenant" can be broken. Is that your view or not?

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
btw, there is NO covenant that parable.

This is so typical of your style. Where is any mention of a covenant in the parable of the soils? Would you be so kind as to point it out?


Where do you find any blessings or cursings in that parable?


You've been saying that covenants can be broken. So, please explain how this one can be broken.


Please explain the cursings in the covenant in Matt 26:28.

You quoted the verse but failed to point out who the 3 are that enter the covenant and what the cursing is.

Could you do that?

You think it has to say “covenant” to be a covenant? Then you really will never understand covenant theology at all.

Anyway, you can’t point out the cursings in the covenant, and it’s your OP. I’ll guess I’ll move on.