Once Saved Always Saved: True, False, or Misrepresented?

[Giver]

He calls them "brothers"
They do know God, they're just immature.

No if one sins he or she only know of God.

(1 John 3:4-6) “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.”

Notice this is not my opinion, but John’s and notice his opinion is in the Written Word of God.

 

[motherprayer]

God spanks us until we grow up and become mature Christians. God’s discipline is one way God uses to teach us to come to know him.

A mature Christian no longer needs to be disciplined.

I've always felt God's correction as more of a loving rebuke than a spanking lol but I guess everybody responds to different things. But I do love the imagery that this conjures ;P

 

[Fireinfolding]

I've always felt God's correction as more of a loving rebuke than a spanking lol but I guess everybody responds to different things. But I do love the imagery that this conjures ;P

He does says, those he loves he rebukes and chatises, but it also says that chastisement is greivous (not joyful) and to "despise not" the same. The comfort is in God treating you as sons in it (not the chastisement itself) which is perceived as greivous (at the time). Even still blessed is the man who He chastises thats for sure

 

[Giver]

Are infants in Christ saved?

You ask if infants in Christ are saved. To answer you I need to explain my understanding of what being saved means.

It is easier to explain what being saved does not mean. It does not mean one who is saved will enter the kingdom of God. If a person who is “saved” and deliberately sins, then they will never enter God’s kingdom.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-19) “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanders and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.”

I personally believe people who have been baptized in Jesus’ name and never grow to maturity, will not enter Hell.

I believe these people will be in a place that will have degrees of punishment. The punishment will correlate with the severity of their sins.

I also believe that because these people will be judged under the Law, I can’t say what their judgment will be.

I believe that not entering Hell means one will have eternal life, but may not be living that life in the kingdom of God.

The scriptural proof of what I shared is not so straightforward.

You asked so I answered. I truly don’t care if people believe my answer to you, because it is not important.

It is important to become a Spiritual Christian, and one can’t do that unless given the grace to not sin.

 

[squint]

I'm surprised anyone including myself even entertains people who claim they are sinless. Entertainment factor only.

If we set our facts next to Apostles, they are our marks.

In the banking world they changed the rules from 'mark to market' to 'mark to model.'

The street savvy people call 'mark to model' 'mark to fantasy.'

People who compare their marks to the 'reality' or 'mark'et the Apostles gave will find no 'mark to fantasy' by claiming sinlessness even being there to see.

Yet more than a few manage to convince themselves of mark to fantasy.

s

 

[Giver]

I'm surprised anyone including myself even entertains people who claim they are sinless. Entertainment factor only.

If we set our facts next to Apostles, they are our marks.

In the banking world they changed the rules from 'mark to market' to 'mark to model.'

The street savvy people call 'mark to model' 'mark to fantasy.'

People who compare their marks to the 'reality' or 'mark'et the Apostles gave will find no 'mark to fantasy' by claiming sinlessness even being there to see.

Yet more than a few manage to convince themselves of mark to fantasy.

s

When people have no proof to confirm what he or she wants to believe they often revert to denigrate, defame, malign, and vilify the person who exposes the truth to him or her.

 

[squint]

When people have no proof to confirm what he or she wants to believe they often revert to denigrate, defame, malign, and vilify the person who exposes the truth to him or her.

We've already done the drill Giver.

We can both look at Paul's statements of fact, compare them to your claims, and, uh, see that somebody might just be pulling their leg.

It's only a question of factual comparison or not.

Some are not interested in doing factual comparison and will instead take their 'mark to fantasy.'

s

 

[Giver]

We've already done the drill Giver.

We can both look at Paul's statements of fact, compare them to your claims, and, uh, see that somebody might just be pulling their leg.

It's only a question of factual comparison or not.

Some are not interested in doing factual comparison and will instead take their 'mark to fantasy.'

s

Yes Peter talked about those who compared their understanding of what Paul wrote to the truth.

(2 Peter 3:15-16) “Think of our Lord’s patience as your opportunity to be saved: our brother Paul, who is so dear to us, told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that is his special gift. He always writes like this when he deals with this sort of subject, and this makes some points in his letter hard to understand; these are the points that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of scripture a fatal thing for them to do.”

 

[sunlover1]

No if one sins he or she only know of God.

(1 John 3:4-6) “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.”

Notice this is not my opinion, but John’s and notice his opinion is in the Written Word of God.

What's your theory of why he calls them brother?
Just curious.
BTW, I do 'see' what you posted is indeed God's Word.
It's your understanding of that word that isn't making sense
in light of the context of ALL of Scripture

I am not seeing what you're seeing at all.
Not when it says elsewhere that there is NO one who is righteous,
no not one..

 

[squint]

Yes Peter talked about those who compared their understanding of what Paul wrote to the truth.

We know for a fact what Paul wrote.

We know what your claims are.

Needless to say they are not just different, they are entirely at odds.

s

 

[Giver]

What's your theory of why he calls them brother?
Just curious.
BTW, I do 'see' what you posted is indeed God's Word.
It's your understanding of that word that isn't making sense
in light of the context of ALL of Scripture

I am not seeing what you're seeing at all.
Not when it says elsewhere that there is NO one who is righteous,
no not one..

Why don’t you quote the whole verse were Jesus called them brothers?

Also the verse that no one will be righteous, when and to whom was that said?

Quote the verses all the way and in context why don’t you?

 

[sunlover1]

Why don’t you quote the whole verse were Jesus called them brothers?

Also the verse that no one will be righteous, when and to whom was that said?

Quote the verses all the way and in context why don’t you?

Here's one in context, "If a brother sins against you, ..." We're all
familiar with the context and the verse...
My question is why is that person who sins against you... called "a brother"?

 

[Giver]

Here's one in context, "If a brother sins against you, ..." We're all
familiar with the context and the verse...
My question is why is that person who sins against you... called "a brother"?

Jesus was not calling those people his brother was he?

An infant in Christ is a brother to one who is mature. An infant is just a baby, but he or she can still be a brother or sister just has not grown up yet.

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3) “Brothers, I myself was unable to speak to you as people of the Spirit; I treated you as sensual men, still infants in Christ. What I fed you with was milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it; and indeed, you are still not ready for it since you are still unspiritual. Isn’t that obvious from all the jealousy and wrangling that there is among you, from the way that you go on behaving like ordinary people?”

Notice Paul called them brothers, but Jesus had not called them brothers. Jesus called those who did not live the Word evil. Living the Word includes not sinning.

(Matthew 7:21-23) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”

 

[sunlover1]

An infant in Christ is a brother to one who is mature. An infant is just a baby, but he or she can still be a brother or sister just has not grown up yet.

So, in your opinion, a brother who sins against you is an " INFANT brother",
is that what you're saying?

Notice Paul called them brothers, but Jesus had not called them brothers. Jesus called those who did not live the Word evil. Living the Word includes not sinning.

So you're saying that Paul was wrong to call them brethren?
I am not following your thinking here.

 

[Giver]

So, in your opinion, a brother who sins against you is an " INFANT brother",
is that what you're saying?


So you're saying that Paul was wrong to call them brethren?
I am not following your thinking here.

Are you reverting to a straw man argument?

Don’t tell me what I said, when it was not said by me.

Paul called people who still sinned infants in Christ. He said they were not yet spiritual.

Now I quote Paul. I agree with what Paul said.

I know from God that what Paul said is right.

John says a person who sins are less then an infant in Christ, he says they are of the devil.

(1 John 3:8) “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”


My brother is still my brother if he sins, but that does not mean he is not of the devil, even it I forgive him, because I can’t stop him from sinning.

 

[sunlover1]

Are you reverting to a straw man argument?

Don’t tell me what I said, when it was not said by me.

Paul called people who still sinned infants in Christ. He said they were not yet spiritual.

Now I quote Paul. I agree with what Paul said.

I know from God that what Paul said is right.

John says a person who sins are less then an infant in Christ, he says they are of the devil.

(1 John 3:8) “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”


My brother is still my brother if he sins, but that does not mean he is not of the devil, even it I forgive him, because I can’t stop him from sinning.

Mmm.
I see.
Thanks Giver.

No, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
I was sincerely trying to understand you.
Just as everyone here is trying to do.

 

[Giver]

Mmm.
I see.
Thanks Giver.

No, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
I was sincerely trying to understand you.
Just as everyone here is trying to do.

No I don’t believe people are trying to understand what I am saying.

It is easy to see what Paul said in the following verse. It is also what I am saying.

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3) “Brothers, I myself was unable to speak to you as people of the Spirit; I treated you as sensual men, still infants in Christ. What I fed you with was milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it; and indeed, you are still not ready for it since you are still unspiritual. Isn’t that obvious from all the jealousy and wrangling that there is among you, from the way that you go on behaving like ordinary people?”

The same goes for the following verse. It is easy to see what John said, but no one want to understand what he said.

(1 John 3:8) “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”

(1 John 3:4-6) “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.”

Then Matthew tells us what Jesus said about those who don’t live the Word. I also agree with what Jesus said. So it is not me people don’t want to understand it is the Word of God they don’t want to understand.

(Matthew 7:21-23) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”

 

[Going Merry]

Wow, convincing scripture,... does it's context establish a condition of obedience, or is obedience a (to God's glory) a fruit of belief as it matures & thru learning by trial & error to trust God & walk by faith instead of self (free) will? Did that sound like a loaded question? lol


Falling from the grace of living victoriously over sin in one's life & the grace of living in healing, nurturing relationship with a congregation of fellow believers is a bit different topic than God repenting of His gift of saving grace. Once we are saved, our works are judged & our rewards IN heaven are affected comensurately. This is how I understand the issue to date anyway. Can ya school me some more on what you think I'm missin'?

They fell from grace because they were believing in a different gospel... the sacrifice of the lord wasnt being applied to them when they were trying to be justified by circumcision/law instead of Christ. But if they repented they of course would be saved - not that I believe they had sin needing to be atoned for for believing in a false gospel (since repent is simply to turn back from ones wrong doings). Would they be saved if they continued in another gospel?

 

[Going Merry]

Doesn't He chastise His sons? For what?
Oh wait, which did I forget the scripture about being disinherited?
Is that what happened to the Prodigal son?

Hehe I think its good to be chastised, means God is correcting something he dislikes of you

 

[Rick Otto]

They fell from grace because they were believing in a different gospel... the sacrifice of the lord wasnt being applied to them when they were trying to be justified by circumcision/law instead of Christ. But if they repented they of course would be saved - not that I believe they had sin needing to be atoned for for believing in a false gospel (since repent is simply to turn back from ones wrong doings). Would they be saved if they continued in another gospel?

I'm strongly inclined to believe so, but not without much embarrasment when their works are "burned" and they themselves are saved, 'yet as though by fire':
1Cor315 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Whaddaya think o' dem apples, sis? Have I got a case? Or am I a case?