One saved always saved (Eternal Security)

[messager777]

So, we are saved by works? Why the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, then? If you are good enough to save yourselves, there is no need to do anything but obey Jesus’ commands.

What sins lead to loss of salvation? Is it just big sins, or do little ones count as well? How about sins of thought and sins of omission? You live a perfect life but sin in the moment right before you die, are you going to Hell?

Sounds like the opposite of saved by grace through faith to me.

.
1COR.6: =
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

REV.22: =
Jesus Testifies to the Churches
12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't think that eternal security is a contradiction or double message since a truly born again believer will not practice habitual, on-going sin as in your example above. Certainly someone who claims to be saved, yet beats their children, sleeps with prostitutes, hates the brethren, etc. is not really saved. Jesus said we will know them by their fruits...Matthew 7:16-17. A believer who sins at times, yet submits to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and confesses to the Lord demonstrates that he or she is walking with and maturing in the Lord.

But what type of sins can a believer do at certain times? So they can sleep with prostitutes every once in a while? Beat their children only every once in a blue moon? Hate the brethren only once per year as long as they confess? You no doubt believe that a believer will be a slave to their sin. What kind of sins are acceptable in this being a slave to their sin? What is the infrequency of their sin whereby they would not be considered a child of God? Oh, and are they saved even while they are in a state of unrepentance and rebellion against God? For you admit that a believer will sin sometimes (and will always be this way). Are we to assume that when a believer does slip into watching porn, that they are saved while watching porn because God knows they will repent? Can a believer indulge in porn their whole life only if they do it on occasion and it is okay because they are confessing it to God? Let me give you a real world example of how this would not work with God. In Scripture, the church is compared to a bride. So the Lord is like our husband. Now, if a husband today were to cheat on his wife only on occasion his whole life, is it okay as long as he just tells her that he is sorry? I don't believe that such a thing would be acceptable to a wife. She would think that he was not truly devoted to him and she would eventually leave. Kings have servants who are supposed to do what they command. If the servants were to serve themselves only on occasion, I would see that as being a problem with the King. It would be disloyatly. Especially if they said to their King if they were planning on doing evil against Him only on occasion. Do you see the problem with your belief here?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What sends a person to Hell?
Why rejecting Christ.

What causes loss of salvation?
Once again, by continually rejecting Christ and hardening your heart towards Him.
(Referring to a believer here)

It is more than that. It is not only rejecting Christ, but it is rejecting His words, too.

Jesus says in John 12:48 that if we receive not His words, those very words will judge them on the last day. Which words of Jesus will judge them? Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 6:15, etc.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I'm WAY behind on this thread so I'll just reply to the replies on the last few pages:

"Born again" refers to water baptism. Read the Scripture that uses the term.

I know that's what Catholics believe But, I disagree. Even if it was, how can your water baptism be undone? Once you are baptized you are always baptized aren't you?

So if salvation is not conditional based upon what man does, then man can be saved by having a belief on Jesus and yet also beat children, sleep with prostitutes, push people down stairs, hate the brethren, spit in the face of God and His Word, smoke pot, get plastered drunk (and then drive), and steal things. Right?

Yet, such thinking above is contrary to the sheep who FOLLOW Jesus (i.e. obey Him - which is the condition of whether or not they are saved).

In other words, you do realize that you believe in a contradiction, right?

Then again, this is nothing new with Eternal Security (ES).
It preaches a double message (that is contradictory).

On the one hand, ES says that a believer will live holy, and yet on the other hand, it says that the believer can sin and still be saved (Which is contrary to holy living).

Of course not. Those kinds of people were never saved in the first place. Salvation is based upon us following Jesus and we follow Jesus by believing in the gospel.

This is only the sheep that are FOLLOWING Jesus. If one is not following Jesus, then this condition does not apply.

You either believe God forces a person to live holy because of the words by Jesus "My sheep follow me", or you believe that a saint can sin and still be saved on some level because you also said that man is not saved based upon any condition. Yet, you seem to imply elsewhere that believers must live holy to some extent so as to show that they are saved. What you believe is a contradiction, unless of course you care to explain what you believe.

Salvation has NOTHING to do with living Holy. It has to do with believing the gospel. Answer me this, if salvation had something to do with living holy than why do we still sin after we are saved? Why doesn't Jesus just get rid of all of our sins when we are born again? Are you saying those people are never saved in the first place? Or something else? You also never answered my question of "How can a person who is born again become unborn again?"

Why won't you address the OP? You are basically asking me and others "have we stopped beating our spouses yet?"

The below is pretty simple:

Are there more than one type of sheep?
Can someone snatch away a sheep given to the Son by the Father?

Answer these questions. Yes or no.

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.”

Well put.

I don't think that eternal security is a contradiction or double message since a truly born again believer will not practice habitual, on-going sin as in your example above. Certainly someone who claims to be saved, yet beats their children, sleeps with prostitutes, hates the brethren, etc. is not really saved. Jesus said we will know them by their fruits...Matthew 7:16-17. A believer who sins at times, yet submits to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and confesses to the Lord demonstrates that he or she is walking with and maturing in the Lord.

I agree 100%.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Of course not. Those kinds of people were never saved in the first place. Salvation is based upon us following Jesus and we follow Jesus by believing in the gospel.

So salvation is conditional and is based on living holy then.

Salvation has NOTHING to do with living Holy.

Oh, wait. You just contradicted yourself. A moment ago you were defending the idea that a believer must live holy in order to determine that they are truly saved. Now you are not saying that.

This is why ES (Eternal Security) is non-sensical. It preaches a double message that conflicts with itself. It is not consistent.

It has to do with believing the gospel.

Then you can live in sin and do whatever you like and be saved if salvation was solely in believing the gospel. But you don't believe that. You also believe one must live holy, but you define holiness in a different way than God does. You believe you can admit to doing evil in the future and that is okay with God.

Answer me this, if salvation had something to do with living holy than why do we still sin after we are saved? Why doesn't Jesus just get rid of all of our sins when we are born again? Are you saying those people are never saved in the first place? Or something else? You also never answered my question of "How can a person who is born again become unborn again?"

And the cat is out of the bag. Here is the admittance to evil and sin. Here is the license for immorality or sin. You can sin and still be saved. You can do evil and God gives you the thumbs up by saving you. But God cannot agree with a plan of salvation that agrees with a believer thinking they can sin and still be saved. That would mean God would have to agree with sin in order for that to work.

Yes, salvation has to do with living holy after we are saved. Have you never read of the story of Jonah where God turns away from His wrath and judgment on destroying the Ninevites when they turned from their evil and wicked ways? (See Jonah 3:6-10). Jesus says the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this evil generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah (Matthew 12:41). Meaning, the Ninevites did something that believers today are not doing. They are not forsaking their sin or evil ways. Granted, forsaking sin is the fruits of repentance. But true repentance is always followed by forsaking sin and living holy.

You ask the question: Why doesn't God get rid of all our sins soon as we are saved? Who says that He doesn't do this for believers? Enoch was translated and did not see death because he had the testimony that He pleased God. Are we to assume that His pleasing God was just a mental acknowledgment that He was the Savior perfectly while he also sinned? Surely not. He pleased God by he did. Noah, would have perished in the flood if he did not obey God by faith. Think man.

How can a person who is born again become unborn again?"

There is no such thing. A person dies after they are born. Yet, a person can be brought back to life again through a miracle or a doctor trying to bring him back. This is the analogy of a person being brought back to God and having life again. Scripture warns about those who are twice dead who are plucked up by the roots. They are twice dead because they were dead when they were an unbeliever and they are dead again when they went back to their old life of sin.

 

[Neostarwcc]

So salvation is conditional and is based on living holy then.



Oh, wait. You just contradicted yourself. A moment ago you were defending the idea that a believer must live holy in order to determine that they are truly saved. Now you are not saying that.

This is why ES (Eternal Security) is non-sensical. It preaches a double message that conflicts with itself. It is not consistent.



Then you can live in sin and do whatever you like and be saved if salvation was solely in believing the gospel. But you don't believe that. You also believe one must live holy, but you define holiness in a different way than God does. You believe you can admit to doing evil in the future and that is okay with God.



And the cat is out of the bag. Here is the admittance to evil and sin. Here is the license for immorality or sin. You can sin and still be saved. You can do evil and God gives you the thumbs up by saving you. But God cannot agree with a plan of salvation that agrees with a believer thinking they can sin and still be saved. That would mean God would have to agree with sin in order for that to work.

Yes, salvation has to do with living holy after we are saved. Have you never read of the story of Jonah where God turns away from His wrath and judgment on destroying the Ninevites when they turned from their evil and wicked ways? (See Jonah 3:6-10). Jesus says the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this evil generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah (Matthew 12:41). Meaning, the Ninevites did something that believers today are not doing. They are not forsaking their sin or evil ways. Granted, forsaking sin is the fruits of repentance. But true repentance is always followed by forsaking sin and living holy.

You ask the question: Why doesn't God get rid of all our sins soon as we are saved? Who says that He doesn't do this for believers? Enoch was translated and did not see death because he had the testimony that He pleased God. Are we to assume that His pleasing God was just a mental acknowledgment that He was the Savior perfectly while he also sinned? Surely not. He pleased God by he did. Noah, would have perished in the flood if he did not obey God by faith. Think man.



There is no such thing. A person dies after they are born again. Yet, a person can be brought back to life again through a miracle or a doctor trying to bring him back. This is the analogy of a person being brought back to God and having life again. Scripture warns about those who are twice dead who are plucked up by the roots. They are twice dead because they were dead when they were an unbeliever and they are dead again when they went back to their old life of sin.

No I didn't. Not at all. None of that is true. I said that living Holy has nothing to do with being saved.

 

[Danthemailman]

Hebrews 10 also clearly refutes OSAS. Here is the text:

26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving theknowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice forsins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence oftwo or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I willrepay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is afearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
​

In the text above, the author is speaking about believers facing the "fury of fire." This is because 1) he refers to "we" at the beginning of the text. That includes at least himself, and we know that the author is a believer; 2) the text states that those facing the "fury of fire" are people who were sanctified by the blood of the new covenant; 3) the text indicates that the people facing the "fury of fire" are people who outraged the Holy Sprit, which suggests that they have the indwelling of the Holy Sprit; 4) in the text the author compares those who will face the "fury of fire" with Jews who set aside the Law of Moses. The author indicates that those who were sanctified by the blood of the new covenant (i.e. Jews and gentiles who have faith in Christ) but "go on sinning deliberately" will suffer a worse fate than Jews who had set aside the Law of Moses.

In Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately, which results in suffering a worse fate. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin - (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God - (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 may seem to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is a term often applied to Christians; is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation. *In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse. (And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved).

A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 7:14. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the Sabbath was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), the Lord was saved (Leviticus 10:3), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36) and many other things that just do not line up with scripture.

*In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the contrast that makes it clear to me that he was referring to unbelievers, not saved people: But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.

*Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

So after considering the context, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified in this Christian community of Hebrews believers, but who has committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with these believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" they had received (there was no heart submission to the truth), and by refusing to accept/denying the truth or validity of the work and the person of Christ himself, which gives evidence that this person's identification with the Christian community of Hebrew Christians was superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

 

[Neostarwcc]

In Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately, which results in a worse fate. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin - (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God - (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 may seem to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is a term often applied to Christians; is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation. *In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse. (And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved).

A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 7:14. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the Sabbath was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), the Lord was saved (Leviticus 10:3), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36) and many other things that just do not line up with scripture.

*In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the contrast that makes it clear to me that he was referring to unbelievers, not saved people: But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.

*Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

So after considering the context, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified in this Christian community of Hebrews believers, but who has committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with these believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" they had received (there was no heart submission to the truth), and by refusing to accept/denying the truth or validity of the work and the person of Christ himself, which gives evidence that this person's identification with the Christian community of Hebrew Christians was superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

Well said. I agree 100%.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No I didn't. Not at all. None of that is true. I said that living Holy has nothing to do with being saved.

Okay then. So a believer can beat children, sleep with prostitutes, smoke pot, get plastered drunk and then drive, listen to satanic music, and still be saved because they have a belief on Jesus. I gotcha now.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well said. I agree 100%.

So it is okay to abuse children, sleep with prostitutes, get drunk and then drive, smoke pot, listen to Satanic music every once in a while?

The problem is that you believe that the believer will sin again. You admit a new believer is saved in his sins. How is this different than living in lots of bad sin? Did not Adam and Eve fall by just one sin?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

There's a working formula that is being bypassed to say there is no Security:

The trinity definately is basic in the matter of securuty of salvation once obtained.

God the Father's work

Purpose of God,( basic to our Security ) Ephesians 1:4, Hebrews 2:10,
The Power of God (to keep and save) John 10:29, Romans 8:31-34,38,
Promise of God (basic to our security) John 3:16
Love of God (basic also to our security) Romans 5:7-9

JESUS CHRIST'S WORK

Provision of Son (basic to our security) Romans 8:1
(Author of eternal salvation) Hebrews 5:8-9
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (provision for our security) Ephesians 2:6
Jesus our advocate (basis for our security) Hebrews 9:24
His work as a Shepard (guarantee of our security) John 10:27-28, Hebrews 7:25, John 17:11-16

HOLY SPIRIT'S WORK

HIS INDWELLING (BASIC TO OUR SECURITY) Ephesians 2:22
Baptism of the Holy Spirit (secure and safe) 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 5:27
Sealing work of the Spirit (making us secure) Ephesians 1:13-14

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There's a working formula that is being bypassed to say there is no Security:

The trinity definately is basic in the matter of securuty of salvation once obtained.

God the Father's work

Purpose of God,( basic to our Security ) Ephesians 1:4, Hebrews 2:10,
The Power of God (to keep and save) John 10:29, Romans 8:31-34,38,
Promise of God (basic to our security) John 3:16
Love of God (basic also to our security) Romans 5:7-9

JESUS CHRIST'S WORK

Provision of Son (basic to our security) Romans 8:1
(Author of eternal salvation) Hebrews 5:8-9
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (provision for our security) Ephesians 2:6
Jesus our advocate (basis for our security) Hebrews 9:24
His work as a Shepard (guarantee of our security) John 10:27-28, Hebrews 7:25, John 17:11-16

HOLY SPIRIT'S WORK

HIS INDWELLING (BASIC TO OUR SECURITY) Ephesians 2:22
Baptism of the Holy Spirit (secure and safe) 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 5:27
Sealing work of the Spirit (making us secure) Ephesians 1:13-14


John 10:22-39 ~ The Shepherd Knows His Sheep

I am not doubting that God can help to keep us in His good and upright ways. But this is Synergistic whereby we have to cooperate with God. Most today are not following God’s instructions so that God can move in their life to make them holy in conduct.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I am not doubting that God can help to keep us in His good and upright ways. But this is Synergistic whereby we have to cooperate with God. Most today are not following God’s instructions so that God can move in their life to make them holy in conduct.

You know that doesn't bother me in the least anymore because that is their choice. We should try to pluck them out of the fire says Jude but it's just their dead works that are being burnt. Loss of rewards. Poor blind and naked. Those who are not clothed in His rightiousness on that day will join the fate of those outside of the wedding chambers bemoaning their decisions. Such is life and death in the big picture.

 

[PeaceB]

In Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately, which results in suffering a worse fate. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin - (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God - (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 may seem to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is a term often applied to Christians; is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation. *In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse. (And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved).

A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 7:14. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the Sabbath was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), the Lord was saved (Leviticus 10:3), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36) and many other things that just do not line up with scripture.

*In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the contrast that makes it clear to me that he was referring to unbelievers, not saved people: But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.

*Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

So after considering the context, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified in this Christian community of Hebrews believers, but who has committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with these believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" they had received (there was no heart submission to the truth), and by refusing to accept/denying the truth or validity of the work and the person of Christ himself, which gives evidence that this person's identification with the Christian community of Hebrew Christians was superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

1) Here is a list of 25 different bible translations of that verse:

Hebrews 10:29

Not one single translation translates the word as "set apart".

2) The word "sanctification" is used in several different senses in Scripture, as explained by the well-known Protestant website below, that holds OSAS:

What is sanctification? What is the definition of Christian sanctification?

The article states "To “sanctify” something is to set it apart for special use; to “sanctify” a person is to make him holy."

The article also states "Theologians sometimes refer to this state of holiness before God as “positional” sanctification; it is the same as justification."

3) None of the other verses you cite state that unbelievers are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, so none of the other verses that you cited apply here.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that a person who has been sanctified (or set apart) by the blood of our our Lord Jesus Christ has not been justified? Was the blood of our Lord Jesus not sufficient to set free from sins the persons who were sanctified by that same blood?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense, sorry.

 

[Danthemailman]

1) Here is a list of 25 different bible translations of that verse:

Hebrews 10:29

Not one single translation translates the word as "set apart".

2) The word "sanctification" is used in several different senses in Scripture, as explained by the well-known Protestant website below, that holds OSAS:

What is sanctification? What is the definition of Christian sanctification?

The article states "To “sanctify” something is to set it apart for special use; to “sanctify” a person is to make him holy."

The article also states "Theologians sometimes refer to this state of holiness before God as “positional” sanctification; it is the same as justification."

3) None of the other verses you cite state that unbelievers are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, so none of the other verses that you cited apply here.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that a person who has been sanctified (or set apart) by the blood of our our Lord Jesus Christ has not been justified? Was the blood of our Lord Jesus not sufficient to set free from sins the persons who were sanctified by that same blood?

I thoroughly made my points in post #267, but you seem determined to give the word "sanctified" or set apart a broad brushed meaning of "saved."

Your argument makes absolutely no sense, sorry.

It makes perfect sense to me and others. Those who draw back to perdition and DO NOT believe to the saving of the soul (verse 39) are not saved, sorry.

 

[PeaceB]

Guess we are now in Hebrews. The OP showed a few verses all of which were from Jesus Christ. Hebrews cannot contradict what Christ taught. Which means your commentary on Hebrews 10 must be examined in context of the theme of Hebrews. Chapters 7-9 set the stage for chapter 10.

Summary? There were members of that community who were adding to the sacrifice of Christ or believing Jesus was not enough. A very familiar topic.

But alas, we both digress. Jesus said the Father gives Him sheep and not one would be snatched away.

Therefore, in the context of the thread, Hebrews 10 cannot be speaking of the sheep the Father gave Him. God's words do not return to Him empty.

Why many dance around on this subject of losing salvation or justification is because some think everyone occupying a pew is "saved." This may be true for religion but obviously not God. He said not one sheep would be plucked.

Well if you take it as dogma that Scripture A teaches OSAS, then it would not matter if Scripture B literally said "The doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved is false". You would come up with some ridiculous interpretation of Scripture B so that it means the exact opposite of what it stated. This is essentially the type of faulty reasoning that you employ above.

Another example of this type of faulty reasoning is when Martin Luther and others assumed that Ephesians 2:8-9 and other verses teach "justification by faith alone" (even none of those verses uses the term "faith alone"). Then when they are faced with a verse that literally states "A man is not justified by faith alone" they have to come up with all kinds of ridiculous interpretations of the verse to make it mean the exact opposite of what it clearly states, instead of just conceding that their interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9 and other verses was wrong in the first place. Martin Luther even went so far as to attempt to remove the book of James from the Bible, instead of admitting that his interpretation was wrong.

 

[PeaceB]

I thoroughly made my point in posts #267, but you seem determined to give the word "sanctified" a broad brushed meaning of saved.

I did not. I asserted that the verses indicated that they were justified not because the word "sanctified" was used, but because they were sanctified by the blood of Jesus.

And I gave several other reasons in my initial post, none of which have been addressed.

 

[spiritman]

Eternal security is the doctrine that when a person is saved nothing can affect their salvation. They can never lose it for any reason. I believe Eternal Security is true because of the following verses:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


John 6:37-6:40

"All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."

John 10:27-29


"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand."


Tell me, how can you read those verses and NOT believe in Eternal Security? Jesus is extremely clear. Out of all that the Father gives to Jesus he will lose NONE of them! In other words, Everyone's salvation is Eternally secure! It's right there in black and white! So, what do you think? Is Eternal Security real? Why or why not?

I believe in eternal security but not to the extreme level of once saved always saved no matter how I live my life.

This verse also proves that our eternal security is contingent.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

In the Greek this word "cast" shows the mood as conditional.

John 6:39 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.

The phrase "I should lose" also shows the mood in the Greek to be conditional.

Another verse you quoted:

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

The Greek word in this verse for "perish" also denotes a contingency. If you look at the previous verse (27) you will see the contingency.


27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You know that doesn't bother me in the least anymore because that is their choice. We should try to pluck them out of the fire says Jude but it's just their dead works that are being burnt. Loss of rewards. Poor blind and naked. Those who are not clothed in His rightiousness on that day will join the fate of those outside of the wedding chambers bemoaning their decisions. Such is life and death in the big picture.

No. That is false. Jesus does not do the walk for us. Matthew 25:31-46 clearly says if one does not love the poor, they did not love unto Jesus (in the same way) and therefore they will be cast into everlasting destruction. Titus 1:16 says you can deny God by a lack of works.

 

[jerry kelso]

No I didn't. Not at all. None of that is true. I said that living Holy has nothing to do with being saved.

mm Battle star,

1. Without Holiness no man shall see the Lord Hebrews 12:14.
Sorry for the expression, but you just stuck your foot in your mouth. Would you like to rebut that and prove that scripture wrong? Good luck! Jerry Kelso