Once saved always saved. False?

Zimmer36 said:

Im confused about salvation. What is the truth about salvation. What do we do? Ive researched lately and many are coming out saying OSAS is an end times heresy that will lead many to fall away. That only if u endure to the end u r saved. So what is true salvation how can someone know they are going to have it? theres always that what if im weak what if i dont endure what if im doing a certain sin,etc etc. im just really confused about this and really worried about where i stand with God

Click to expand...

Check out this video.

Bible Highlighter said:

So Jim, do you and or those who believe as you do following Jesus?
Can a believer sin and still be saved?

Click to expand...

1Jn_1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins, and To cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned,
we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

It also sounds like you believe in Calvinism.

Click to expand...

I know it "sounds like that"... but that is only because much
of "Calvinism" is Biblical. However, I have never read Calvin
and disagree on what is represented as "limited Atonement"...
I assume you already know that TULIP was a response to
the five points of Arminianism and was developed after
Calvin had died.

If so, how does one know they are one of the Elect?

Click to expand...

By the indwelling Holy Spirit and by our "fruit"... which includes
both correct behavior and correct doctrine.

If so, why did God change His mind about bringing wrath or judgment upon the Ninevites when He had seen that they had forsaken their evil ways? They were told by Jonah that they would be destroyed in 40 days. Yet, that did not happen. Surely God did not need Jonah to warn them. God could have just snapped His fingers and boom.... they would be Elect. But that is not what we read in the story of Jonah.

Click to expand...

Do you think that might have been a "shadow" or "type" used
as an example for those (throughout history) who are commanded
to repent?

Side Note:
John MacArthur (a Calvinist) believes that a believer who is a suicide victim will be in Heaven. As a result of this teaching in his church, Kenneth Nally took his own life and his family sued the church. MacArthur did not apologize for this false teaching, but he actually doubled down and admitted that is what he and his followers believe.

Click to expand...

First, I assume you already know that some "Calvinists" are
5 point and others 4 point and others 3 point... so there is no
"standard".

Secondly, that reality above shows that not all "Calvinists"
believe the True Gospel because there is only ONE TRUTH.

Thirdly, John MacArthur teaches MANY false doctrines.
I consider him a "neo-calvinist" because he has so many doctrines
that contradict what traditional "Calvinism" (and the Bible) teach.

Finally, pointing to MacArthur means nothing.
I would say the same for RC Sproul and many other
"Reformed" theologians.


Jim

Bible Highlighter said:

Now, do not misunderstand me, believers cannot lose their salvation (like they would a pair of car keys), but they can forfeit their salvation (i.e. they can willingly throw it away by rebelling against God). In fact,
Here is a list of believers who have forfeited their salvation:

Click to expand...

So you are saying Jesus was wrong (or lying) when He said
He will lose NONE of His sheep?


Jim

Bible Highlighter said:

To all:

Some bring up John 10:28. They read and believe John 10:27 that says that the kind of sheep that cannot be snatched out of His hand are the kind of sheep that FOLLOW Jesus. Following Jesus implies holy living.

Click to expand...

Uh, no., If you read the preceding verse, John 10:27, along with John 10:28, it is apparent that your theory is incorrect.

Bible Highlighter said:

To all:

Some bring up John 10:28. They read and believe John 10:27 that says that the kind of sheep that cannot be snatched out of His hand are the kind of sheep that FOLLOW Jesus. Following Jesus implies holy living.

Click to expand...

I bring up John 10:28 a lot to prove that once given eternal life, the recipient shall never perish. That is the single most clear statement in Scripture about eternal security.

I REJECT that v.27 is some kind of conditional clause that defines the outcome in v.28.

v.27 is simply a description of what His sheep DO, or a "policy statement" about what His sheep ought to do. There are NO WORDS that create a condition for never perishing.

Once given eternal life, the recipient shall never perish.

Albion said:

Uh, no., If you read the preceding verse, John 10:27, along with John 10:28, it is apparent that your theory is incorrect.

Click to expand...

John 10:27-28 KJB says,
[27] “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: [28] And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

Jesus says that His sheep follows Him. This is the kind of sheep that shall never perish and neither shall anyone pluck them out of His hand. So no. You are incorrect, dear sir.

5thKingdom said:

So you are saying Jesus was wrong (or lying) when He said
He will lose NONE of His sheep?


Jim

Click to expand...

No. You are misinterpreting the words of Jesus in John 6.

John 6:37-40 says,

First, what does Jesus mean by,


Well, we have to understand that the Father elects those based on His future foreknowledge of our free will choice concerning Him (1 Peter 1:2) (Deuteronomy 30:19). Also, we also have to understand that not everyone is going to be saved; However, it is God's will that all people should be saved, though (1 Timothy 2:4) (2 Peter 3:9) (Revelation 22:17). This is why we read in Scripture about how many are called, but few are chosen (Matthew 20:16).

Same meanings since all are given the chance to have life through Jesus. But those who are His have come so willingly in faith, repenting and turning with a sincere heart; forever to the submission of God’s commandments and desires.

Verse 39 implies that it is possible for Jesus to lose some of the flock. If it were not so, He would have said so. But if what you say is true, then Jesus would have said,


However, that is not what Jesus said. Jesus says,


John 6:39 (KJB) says,

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

Second, eternal life here is not a guarantee. Jesus says in verse 40


John 6:40
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

In other words, Jesus should lose none and all who are His should be raised, because they should all continue in the righteousness God gave them through the sacrifice of Jesus. It’s not that Jesus isn’t capable of keeping up with His sheep; it’s that He never keeps His sheep against their wills. How so?

Well, we see in Scripture that the Father gave all of the disciples to Jesus; However, Jesus kept them all except Judas, though.

John 17:12 says:

Now, allow me to rephrase this in modern-terminology:


And OSAS terminology:


Do you see now how OSAS doesn't make any sense?


Old Source Link Used:
http://conditionalsalvation.com/

5thKingdom said:

1Jn_1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins, and To cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned,
we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Click to expand...

What is helpful in understanding 1 John 1:8 is looking at its immediate context. 1 John 1:10 (of which you surprisingly included) says if we say we have not sinned. 1 John 1:10 switches gears from 1 John 1:8 in regards to time; John talks about the declaration on committing sin in verse 8 (which is present tense) to a declaration on committing sin being a past declaration (with verse 10). Verse 10 is saying there are people who said they have not sinned (past tense). This is clearly a gnostic belief. Why? Well, most believers today hold to the idea that they have sinned as a part of their old life before coming to Christ (Regardless of whether they are “OSAS,” a “Sin and still be saved” type believer, or a “Conditional Salvationist”). So this clearly is a “gnostic belief” that John was warning the brethren about (See 1 John 2:26). 1 John 1:8 is a present declaration of sin. It is saying if we say we have no sin when we do sin (present tense). This has to be the interpretative understanding of this verse because 1 John 2:4 says if we say we know Him and do not keep His commandments we are a liar and the truth is not in us. The OSAS's interpretation on 1 John 1:8 does not work because it conflicts with a normal reading on 1 John 2:3-4. You cannot always be in sin (breaking God's commands) as a part of 1 John 1:8 and yet also fulfill 1 John 2:3 that says we can have an assurance of knowing Him if we keep His commandments. Especially when 1 John 2:4 says we are a liar and the truth is not in us if we break his commandments. In other words, if the OSAS interpretation on 1 John 1:8 was true, then I would be damned if I do by obeying God's commands (1 John 1:8) and yet I would be damned if I don't by not obeying God's commands (1 John 2:4).

In fact, the New English Translation says this for 1 John 1:8,


In other words, this verse is saying that if a person sins and says they do not bear the guilt of sin (in the sense that they will not have to face any wrath or Judgment from God over their sin) then they would be deceiving themselves and the truth would not be in them. This is exactly what the Eternal Security proposes. They are saying that they do not bear the guilt of any sin (destruction of their soul and body in hell fire) if they do sin because they believe their future sins are paid for by Jesus. They are saying, they do not bear the guilt or the punishment of sin at the final Judgment because of their belief on Jesus. In short, 1 John 1:8 is a denial of the existence of sin on some level. “If we say we have no sin (in the sense that it does not exist) we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8). Christian Scientists think sin is an illusion and does not exist at all. So this verse would apply to them. Eternal Security Proponents and those who deny that “Sin Can Separate a Believer from God” deny the existence of sin partially. They believe sin exists physically but they do not believe sin exists for them on a spiritual level because Jesus has forgiven them of all their sin by their belief on Jesus. In fact, to see just how silly your argument actually is for 1 John 1:8, you would have to believe that you are sinning right now at this very moment in order for such a verse to be true because 1 John 1:8 is speaking in the present tense.

John prescribes that we do not think that sin is an illusion, and we are automatically saved, but John is telling us to "sin not" and go to our advocate Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1), and confess our sins so as to be forgiven of sin and to be cleansed of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). How can you confess and be forgiven of sin if all your future sin is paid for? It makes no sense.

You can say that John is talking about a break of fellowship by one's sins and not a loss of salvation, but that would not be consistent with Scripture. 1 John 5:12 says he that has the Son has life, and he that does not have the Son does not have life.

I know it "sounds like that"... but that is only because much
of "Calvinism" is Biblical. However, I have never read Calvin
and disagree on what is represented as "limited Atonement"...
I assume you already know that TULIP was a response to
the five points of Arminianism and was developed after
Calvin had died.

Click to expand...

Calvinism is not biblical in the slightest sense. There are so many verses that refute Calvinism it is not even funny. Only those who want Calvinism to be true will enforce such a belief upon the text. The problem with Calvinism is that God chooses some to not be saved and He chooses some to be saved based on no conditions within the individual. Hence, why it is called UNconditional Election. It really is simply an attack upon the good character of GOD in the Bible. Scripture says that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Of course, you have your own way of twisting that verse around to defend a belief that does not exist in the Scriptures.

Bible Highlighter said:

If so, how does one know they are one of the Elect?

Click to expand...

You said:

By the indwelling Holy Spirit and by our "fruit"... which includes
both correct behavior and correct doctrine.

Click to expand...

See, this is what is contradictory about your belief. A moment ago, you were suggesting that 1 John 1:8 is proof that a believer will always sin in some way or they will have sin in their life. So how can you have correct behavior and yet also have wrong behavior? One either has correct behavior or bad behavior. You cannot have it both ways.

You said:

Do you think that might have been a "shadow" or "type" used
as an example for those (throughout history) who are commanded
to repent?

Click to expand...

Nope. Nothing happenend in 40 years time. The 40 days were real and literal days. If they were not, then God was using deception to scare them into seeking forgiveness towards Him, and in forsaking their evil ways.

Bible Highlighter said:

Side Note:
John MacArthur (a Calvinist) believes that a believer who is a suicide victim will be in Heaven. As a result of this teaching in his church, Kenneth Nally took his own life and his family sued the church. MacArthur did not apologize for this false teaching, but he actually doubled down and admitted that is what he and his followers believe.

Click to expand...

You said:

First, I assume you already know that some "Calvinists" are
5 point and others 4 point and others 3 point... so there is no
"standard".

Secondly, that reality above shows that not all "Calvinists"
believe the True Gospel because there is only ONE TRUTH.

Thirdly, John MacArthur teaches MANY false doctrines.
I consider him a "neo-calvinist" because he has so many doctrines
that contradict what traditional "Calvinism" (and the Bible) teach.

Finally, pointing to MacArthur means nothing.
I would say the same for RC Sproul and many other
"Reformed" theologians.


Jim

Click to expand...

I am surprised that you do not align with MacArthur, Many today do. But you would not know of Calvinism if it was not from Calvnistic teachers or a serious misreading of Romans 9 out of context.

Bible Highlighter said:

Well, we have to understand that the Father elects those based on His future foreknowledge of our free will choice concerning Him (1 Peter 1:2)

Click to expand...

No... 1 Peter does NOT say men are elected based on our
"free will" decision... you ADDED that to the verse.


Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,


In fact NONE of your "proof texts" show that men decide to
be elect or that God elects them based on knowing what they
would do. Rather, the Gospel teaches that God elects based
ONLY on His pleasure and NOT on the works of man and
some men were CREATED to be "vessels of destruction"


Jesus clearly taught that some men CANNOT believe
and were NEVER MEANT to be forgiven.


And any "gospel" that teaches MEN are elected based on
something they do... is a false "works gospel" or
a "boaster's gospel".


It is the BROAD WAY that leads MANY Christians into destruction
While the narrow way that leads FEW into live is the Gospel
of a Sovereign God who elects who HE chooses.

.

Bible Highlighter said:

Jesus says that His sheep follows Him. This is the kind of sheep that shall never perish and neither shall anyone pluck them out of His hand.

Click to expand...

...meaning that those who are His is already set. This is not uncertain. They are known to him and will not be lost...exactly what Election and Eternal Security are all about.

Albion said:

...meaning that those who are His is already set. This is not uncertain. They are known to him and will not be lost...exactly what Election and Eternal Security are all about.

Click to expand...

But only if they meet the condition of following Jesus will they then have security. It is a conditional security and not unconditional. If it was unconditional, then it would say that the sheep are dragged by their necks on leashes to do what the Master desires. But that is not what John 10:27 says. The fact that they follow Jesus determines if they are sheep or not. We can decide to be a sheep or a goat by our actions (See: Matthew 25:31-46).

5thKingdom said:

No... 1 Peter does NOT say men are elected based on our
"free will" decision... you ADDED that to the verse.


Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,


In fact NONE of your "proof texts" show that men decide to
be elect or that God elects them based on knowing what they
would do. Rather, the Gospel teaches that God elects based
ONLY on His pleasure and NOT on the works of man and
some men were CREATED to be "vessels of destruction"


Jesus clearly taught that some men CANNOT believe
and were NEVER MEANT to be forgiven.


And any "gospel" that teaches MEN are elected based on
something they do... is a false "works gospel" or
a "boaster's gospel".


It is the BROAD WAY that leads MANY Christians into destruction
While the narrow way that leads FEW into live is the Gospel
of a Sovereign God who elects who HE chooses.

.

Click to expand...

I am not going to endlessly argue with you over the ridiculousness of Calvinism. A person only believes in Calvinism because of Calvinistic teachings that appeal to their own unique personality.

I mean, stop and think for a moment, if God ordains or chooses some to be unsaved, (When He has the power to snap His fingers and save them), then that means God is not a loving and good God. In the world of Calvinism: God is essentially desiring to create beings just so that they can suffer for all eternity. That is their destiny. To be tortured for all eternity. Yet, God could have stopped it, but He simply doesn't.

But thankfully God is not described that way in Scripture.
If you really cannot see the inherent self contradictory problem of Calvinism, I really cannot help you. Ask God and seek the truth on this matter according to what His Word plainly says and not what you want it to say.

Bible Highlighter said:

But only if they meet the condition of following Jesus will they then have security.

Click to expand...

The verses themselves do not say that, however.

It is a conditional security and not unconditional.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in the verses to indicate that what is said there is conditional.

If it was unconditional, then it would say that the sheep are dragged by their necks on leashes to do what the Master desires.

Click to expand...

That's quite a conjecture. And illogical also. Eternal Life is the most desperately sought-after goal of men throughout history. And it is a main theme that runs throughout the Bible.

The idea that we don't really want to live after physical death...and to live in glory and supreme happiness as well...and that we are going to resent God's greatest gift of it because, you see, we don't want such a gift and, furthermore, that we would resent God forcing it upon is...is ludicrous on its face.

Albion said:

The verses themselves do not say that, however. There is nothing in the verses to indicate that what is said there is conditional.

Click to expand...

They don't have to. There are plenty of other verses that lets us know that we have to obey as a part of eternal life. Just read Luke 10:25-28, 1 John 3:23, Hebrews 5:9, Revelation 22:14.

You said:

That's quite a conjecture. And illogical also. Eternal Life is the most desperately sought-after goal of men throughout history. And it is a main theme that runs throughout the Bible.

Click to expand...

1 John 5:12 says he that has the Son has life, and he that does not have the Son does not have life.

So we need to abide in the Son in order to have life.
How can we have an assurance that we know the Lord (i.e. the Son)?
1 John 2:3 basically says we can have an assurance in knowing the Lord if we find that we are keeping His commandments. Jesus says if you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15).
Jesus says we will abide in his love if we keep His commandments (John 15:10).
So if one is not obeying, then they are not abiding in the love of Christ.
Is this a problem? Yes, Paul says if any man loves not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed (1 Corinthians 16:22).

You said:

The idea that we don't really want to live after physical death...and to live in glory and supreme happiness as well...and that we are going to resent God's greatest gift of it because, you see, we don't want such a gift and, furthermore, that we would resent God forcing it upon is...is ludicrous on its face.

Click to expand...

Not sure I understood what you said here. Are you saying God forces some to be saved kind of like in Calvnistic Unconditional Election?

Side Note:

Oh, and still did not answer my posts #42, and #43.

Bible Highlighter said:

They don't have to. There are plenty of other verses that lets us know that we have to obey as a part of eternal life.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, the verses in John 10 do indeed "have to" indicate that there are conditions placed on the salvation of those people if you are going to claim that these verses do that--which you did.

So this is why you have now switched to saying that there are other verses which do it.

And yes, there may be such other verses. I was simply pointing out that your interpretation of John 10:27-28 was incorrect and that they stand as proof texts of Election and Eternal Security.

Albion said:

On the contrary, the verses in John 10 do indeed "have to" indicate that there are conditions placed on the salvation of those people if you are going to claim that these verses do that--which you did.

So this is why you have now switched to saying that there are other verses which do it.

And yes, there may be such other verses. I was simply pointing out that your interpretation of John 10:27-28 was incorrect and that they stand as proof texts of Election and Eternal Security.

Click to expand...

If you isolate John 10:27-28 in a vacuum, then sure, a person can make a proof text for just about anything these days if there is no other Bible verses taken into account.

Albion said:

On the contrary, the verses in John 10 do indeed "have to" indicate that there are conditions placed on the salvation of those people if you are going to claim that these verses do that--which you did.

So this is why you have now switched to saying that there are other verses which do it.

And yes, there may be such other verses. I was simply pointing out that your interpretation of John 10:27-28 was incorrect and that they stand as proof texts of Election and Eternal Security.

Click to expand...

Besides. You don't have to go too far in John to learn the truth.
John says in John 3:20 says that all everyone who does evil hates the light. The light is Jesus Christ. Jesus said in John 12:48 that if we do not receive His words, those very words will judge us on the last day. Sure, we can receive Jesus, but if we do not receive His words, then things will not go well for us. There will be no eternal security to save a person if they do not receive His words. Yet, that is what I hear many times. I hear Christians rejecting the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 6:15, Matthew 25:31-46. They don't believe His words here apply for us today. Therefore, they are not receiving His words.

Bible Highlighter said:

If you isolate John 10:27-28 in a vacuum, then sure, a person can make a proof text for just about anything these days if there is no other Bible verses taken into account.

Click to expand...

And if you made it a proof text for your own POV concerning this matter...only to have gotten it wrong? What then?

Oh, that's right. THEN the verses you used yourself no long matter. LOL

Albion said:

And if you made it a proof text for your own POV concerning this matter...only to have gotten it wrong? What then?

Oh, that's right. THEN the verses you used yourself no long matter. LOL

Click to expand...

The context of the gospel of John does not support a sin and still be saved type belief or Belief Alone-ism. See post #77.

Bible Highlighter said:

In fact, to see just how silly your argument actually is for 1 John 1:8, you would have to believe that you are sinning right now at this very moment in order for such a verse to be true because 1 John 1:8 is speaking in the present tense.

Click to expand...

Of course we (saints) are sinning in the present tense (Rom 7),
BUT it is not me that sins... but the sin in my flesh. I thought
you understood there is no condemnation for those who are
in the Spirit... I guess you do not understand the Gospel at all.


Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.


1Jn_3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

How can you confess and be forgiven of sin if all your future sin
is paid for? It makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Read the verses above again... slowly.
The fact that we confess and regret and ask forgiveness
for are daily sins does NOT mean they were not PAID already.
You like to ADD to the Gospel... that's why you're so confused.

You can say that John is talking about a break of fellowship by one's sins and not a loss of salvation, but that would not be consistent with Scripture. 1 John 5:12 says he that has the Son has life, and he that does not have the Son does not have life.

Click to expand...

That is completely consistent...
We (real) saints HAVE eternal life. Christ loses NONE of us.
Is this a "new" teaching to you?

Calvinism is not biblical in the slightest sense. There are so many verses that refute Calvinism it is not even funny.

Click to expand...

Why did you not NAME some?
Total Depravity... Men are born spiritually DEAD
Unconditional Election... God is Sovereign (our works are nothing)
Limited Atonement... Even MORE SO than the "Calvinists" know
Irresistible Grace... God is Sovereign in a (True) monergistic Gospel
Preservation of the saints... Eternal means eternal

What PART of the (monergistic) Gospel do you not understand?

You think that DEAD MEN decide to elect themselves?
You think God elected men based on THEIR GOOD WORKS?
You think Christ PAID for all... even those in hell (LOL)
You think puny men can resist the Will of the Creator (LOL again)
You think that Eternal means LESS than eternal?

Calvinism is that God chooses some to not be saved

Click to expand...

No... that is you pretending.
The Gospel teaches that ALL MEN are born spiritually DEAD
and destined to hell because of Adam (not God)


It is only by the MERCY of God that SOME have a Savior.
You complain that God cannot save some if not all. LOL

and He chooses some to be saved based on no conditions within the individual.

Click to expand...

At least you got that part correct....
otherwise it would be a "works gospel" and a "boaster's gospel"
and the BROAD WAY that leads many Christians into destruction,
a synergistic heresy where man pretends he saves himself.
Not THAT is a strong delusion


So we see you do not understand Total Depravity
and you do not understand Sovereign Grace...
no wonder you are so confused.

Hence, why it is called UNconditional Election. It really is simply an attack upon the good character of GOD in the Bible.

Click to expand...

No... just the opposite.
God elected to save SOME (based only on His Good Pleasure)
instead of allowing ALL to go to hell (as we all deserve)
You are a very confused. God was under no obligation
to say ANY.

Scripture says that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

Click to expand...

No... Scripture does not say that at all. You do not understand
the context of the passage.


If God was NOT WILLING that any should perish,
then NONE would perish because NOTHING can prevent
God's purpose.


But you pretend puny men can be Sovereign over God...
or that man can be Autonomous "like God"....
that is just hilarious.

See, this is what is contradictory about your belief. A moment ago, you were suggesting that 1 John 1:8 is proof that a believer will always sin in some way or they will have sin in their life. So how can you have correct behavior and yet also have wrong behavior? One either has correct behavior or bad behavior. You cannot have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Read the verses I posted above.
I need not correct your SAME MISTAKE over and over.

Nope. Nothing happenend in 40 years time. The 40 days were real and literal days. If they were not, then God was using deception to scare them into seeking forgiveness towards Him, and in forsaking their evil ways.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about 40 days NOT being literal...
are you fighting strawmen now? That proves NOTHING.


I already told you the REASON God did not destroy the city.
You cannot see it as a "shadow" or "type" of the mercy He
has on His elect... well, that is your lose, not mine.

I am surprised that you do not align with MacArthur, Many today do. But you would not know of Calvinism if it was not from Calvnistic teachers or a serious misreading of Romans 9 out of context.

Click to expand...

Again you PRETEND to know something you know NOTHING about.
You do that a lot.


I understood the Gospel of the Bible years before I ever heard
of Calvin. I understood the Gospel teachings BEHIND "Tulip"
years before I ever heard of Tulip.


And you make a HUGE mistake about Romans 9.
You make this mistake because you FAIL to UNDERSTAND
God often talks about BOTH the corporate body and the
individuals that make up that body.


I will give you an example: Many claim that God has promised
to protect His church... and they are 100% correct. What they
(and you) fail to understand that God talks about the collective
corporate body (Israel or the Church) and the individuals in it.


BTW: Most of Romans 8 talks about the individual being saved
and NOT the corporate body (Israel or the church) and Romans 9
is just a continuation of Romans 8. Yes, God uses Israel for
EXAMPLES... since God was ONLY saving Jews at the time.
And the TRUE Israel are the elect Jews and Gentiles.


So... while God PROMISES to protect the TRUE church (elect)
He also PROMISES to send the FALSE church (unsaved "tares")
to the SAME FIRE prepared for Satan [Mat 25:41]


You have a serious problem understanding the Gospel.
That is NOT the "fruit" of a mature Christian, it's the "fruit"
of a "babe in Christ" or an unsaved "tare"... I will not say which
applies in this case.


Jim