Paul: "Lest I be reprobated."

The Pericope De Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) is utterly authentic.

Click to expand...

The evidence that the passage is a very early addition is overwhelming. But thanks for the plain statement of your view.

Pistos is used as a verb and a noun in the New Testament, and has a range of meanings including the act of accepting evidence, believe, a reference to the evidence, faith, and adherance to the belief in that evidence, faithfulness. You can look it up.

The evidence that the passage is a very early addition is overwhelming.

Click to expand...

Not in my view, obviously.
Lets leave the external evidence aside for now. Most of the external evidence is not evidence germaine to the authenticity of the passage at all. It's just evidence concerning the subsequent history of the passage *after* its obvious existance. That evidence must be interpreted in the light of the history of the political, social and doctrinal views of the people manipulating the textual stream of transmission.

The internal evidence is overwhelming for its authenticity as part of John's gospel. Although as long ago as 1848 Samuel Davidson made as good a case as could be made against its authorship, based upon an analysis of vocabulary and phraseology, but it was extremely flimsy. (An Introduction to the New Testament Vol 1 1848 pg 359-360.)

But with the passage removed from the gospel, its entire structure from macro to micro -level falls apart.
No less compelling is the quality and genius of the passage itself.
Obviously you've been lied to about the nature and meaning of the evidence. You have my sympathy.

Nazaroo, the issue is the passage is under a cloud, you have so indicated, and therefore I ask again, can you support you view that our salvation depends on not sinning with another passage? If so, please reference it.

And just for the fun of discussing internal evidence, just how many times does John mention scribes other than is this questionable passage?

Van said:

Nazaroo, you have got to be kidding. Your view makes the verse to no effect, our all powerful God is keeping us for an inheritance as a new creature in Christ, and you think our faith is not protected. Without our faith being protected, we are not protected. I stand pat, my view is the only view that makes any sense.

Lets add it up shall we.

We are born again. You say scripture does not teach we are born again.
We are a new creation. You say if we choose to walk away become an old creation.
We are converted. You say this only applies to changing our mind, not God changing our nature.
God has mercy on some and passes over the rest. You say this is unjust, but I did not catch your alternative view.
God protects us by protecting out faith. You say God protects us without protecting our faith, which is Old Covenant thinking.
Judas was chosen to betray Jesus and was not allowed to come to Jesus. You deny this scriptural teaching. Instead you attempt to use Judas to show loss of salvation.

As I said, we are far apart, and it seems nothing I am say will alter you view.

Click to expand...

Well stated, Van. I applaud your clear reasoning and defense of scriptures here. Well done.

Van said:

The greek term translated partake simply means to share in something. It could refer to sharing in salvation or sharing in damnation or sharing in nachos. Thus the use of the term in one verse does not suggest in the slightest that the same thing is being shared in another verse. So your argument is without merit.

Click to expand...

Hi, Van --- thanx for your continued patience with me.

I'm just wondering why two occurrances of "metochos" (3:1, and 3:14) are clearly "saved", while the third you see as "unsaved". Especially considering the context of the third (more in a moment)...

But lets look at each verse and see if we can discern from context, just what it is that is being shared?

Hebrews 3:1, NASB "Therefore holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." So holy brethren refers to born again believers, folks who have been saved and will remain saved forever. What do they share? Among other things a heavenly calling. This is not the exhortation to believe in Christ, but the calling to conformed to the image of Christ after we have been placed in Christ. We know that we are of Christ's house if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end. In other words, our faithfulness is not in view, but our faith, our innermost belief, that Jesus is our Savior and will raise us up on that day...

Click to expand...

OK, the context of that "metochos", is clearly stated: "IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end".

What does that mean, "IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end"? Could it mean, "we are partners in Christ, IF we hold fast, but NOT-partners if we do NOT hold fast"? (I'm thinkin' it couldn't mean anything else.) Doesn't that sound like Rev3:5? "He who OVERCOMES, I will clothe in white garments, and will NOT blot his name from the book of life"? And conversely, he who does NOT overcome WILL BE "blotted"?

The rest of the context of Heb3:14, is:

1. Take care, BRETHREN....
1b. ...against UNBELIEVING HEART --- that FALLS away from God!
2. Encourage one another, lest YOU be hardened by deceitful sin!
3. Do not IMITATE the Israelites' disobedience and unbelief, and FALL (4:11)
3b. ...but be DILIGENT to enter His rest! ("rest" hasta mean "Heaven"!)

Van, it really sounds to me like it's saying, "don't let sin harden your heart so as to fall away from salvation (away from God!). Why doesn't it sound like that to you?

Some read this as a challenge, we must by our own effort, hold firm to our faith. Others like myself, read this as a statement of fact, those born again will hold firm to their faith because their faith is protected. Either reading is possible, given the text and context.

Click to expand...

Please see the numbered points just above; how does it read like "it's a SURE-THING"?

In summary, Hebrews 3:1 does not suggest to be a partaker means to be saved. It only says saved folks are partakers in our holy calling.

Click to expand...

That verse says "holy brethren"; can there possibly ever be an "UNSAVED-holy-brethren"?

Turning now to Hebrews 3:14, the NASB says, "For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end." So again, if our faith is unwavering...

Click to expand...

Please look at ch10, all of it; but focus on verse 23: "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope WITHOUT WAVERING". Seeing as 10:35 says "don't throw away Jesus (your confidence)", doesn't it seem like the whole theme of Hebrews is "warning against true apostasy"?

if we love Jesus more than life itself, then we know that we have become partakers of Christ, that we share in Christ's redemption as a born again believer. If our faith ever fails, we can be sure we were never saved.

Click to expand...

Why "we can be sure we were never saved"? On what do you base that?

Note please, it does not say we lost our share of Christ if our faith does not last till the end. No, it says we have become partakers if our faith lasts. So again, this verse does not in the slightest support the idea of loss of salvation after being born again, by lack of human effort.

Click to expand...

OK, help me to understand what you're saying; how can there be a "faithless-non-partaker", who is still saved?

In summary, the term partake only means to share in something and therefore because it is used to indicate sharing in Christ's redemption in one verse does not suggest in the slightest it always means to share in salvation. The term only means to share in something.

In Hebrews 6, the idea is that some share in being enlightened by the gospel. Thats it.

Click to expand...

Let's toss-about two different understandings (yours, and mine):

1. You should be TEACHERS, but you still need MILK rather than solid food.
(You oughtta be MATURE, but you're NOT)

2. THEREFORE let us press on to maturity, not staying forever speaking of repentance.

3. For in the CASE of those who have never-been-saved (they were only "superficial-partakers, enlightened-but-not-REAL-believers"), and they're FALLING-AWAY, it is impossible to restore them to repentance (though they never really WERE repentant in the FIRST place).

Is that accurate as to how you read it? Now look at how I understand it:

1. You should be TEACHERS, but you still need MILK rather than solid food.
(You oughtta be MATURE, but you're NOT)

2. THEREFORE let us press on to maturity, not staying forever speaking of repentance.
(because IMMATURITY dwells forever on REPENTING, the MATURE accept repentance and then dwell on GROWING in Christ)

3. For in the CASE of those who have been enlightened (received the Gospel), tasted of the Heavenly gift (same word and in the same way as "Jesus TASTED DEATH" Heb2:9), been made partners with the Holy Spirit (much more than superficial experience)...

4. ..and they're FALLING-AWAY from the living God (exactly as Heb3:12 says!), it is impossible/powerless to restore them to repentance WHILE they're falling (so don't waste too much time preaching repentance to those who simply don't WANT to repent, but GROW UP...

The question, Van, is "why is your understanding (rendered in GREEN) more credible than my understanding (rendered in purple)?

Why does "grow up and don't spend forever on repentance, because those who were NEVER saved WON'T repent" --- why does that sound more credible to you than: "grow up and don't spend forever on repentance, because those who have turned from God won't WANT to repent"?? How does "NEVER-SAVED", connect with "press on to maturity and don't always preach repentance"? It reads to me perfectly that "you should be teachers/solid-food rather than milk" is saying the same thing as "those who were saved but now are falling away".

In your example he suddenly switches SUBJECTS (from "you-saved", to "them-NEVER-saved"); in my example the two passages connect.

Why is your understanding credible?

That's what I can't figgure out....

Van said:

Nazaroo, the issue is the passage is under a cloud, you have so indicated, and therefore I ask again, can you support you view that our salvation depends on not sinning with another passage? If so, please reference it.

And just for the fun of discussing internal evidence, just how many times does John mention scribes other than is this questionable passage?

Click to expand...

I have no hesitation in using the Pericope de Adultera (John 8:1-11) for instructional and doctrinal purposes. It has been a part of the holy scripture used by the vast majority of Christians for 2000 years.

And before you get all excited about the 'evidence' against this passage,
perhaps you should review some other evidence you haven't considered yet over here:

Internal Evidence for the Authenticity of John 8:1-11

I repeat the question, can you support you view from any other passage. I have now asked for an answer twice.

I very briefly looked at your link, it showed you post to me was a copy and paste, that you have published a book, and stated the best argument against the passage is flimsy.

No response to the chart detailing the structure of John?

I give up. You have no interest in engaging in discussion, just it presenting your view.

"Anakainizo palin", to renew again. Rather than asserting "never-saved", this can only reference someone who WAS repentant, hence the concept of "AGAIN".

And "repentant-before" is antithetical to "never-were-saved"...

Ben johnson said:

"Anakainizo palin", to renew again. Rather than asserting "never-saved", this can only reference someone who WAS repentant, hence the concept of "AGAIN".

And "repentant-before" is antithetical to "never-were-saved"...

Click to expand...

Yes, this seems to be the straightforward temporal concept required. I don't know why the doctrine of 'unloseable' salvation and 'never saved' is so important to these people. Why can't a person simply stumble, and then choose to repent, or perhaps not, and why can't God's mercy not be arbitrary, but be based upon the response He asks of us?

I don't know why the doctrine of 'unloseable' salvation and 'never saved' is so important to these people.

Click to expand...

There are three views of "OSAS" --- the second is "Predestined-Election", the third is "Eternal Security". Many people here are predestinationists; Van holds to the third, "unlimited atonement, but once 'IN' either one's heart is too changed TO disbelieve --- or --- God dynamically interferes to PREVENT apostasy.

All positions of "OSAS" assert: "if they aren't saved NOW, then they never REALLY were saved in the FIRST place".

Why can't a person simply stumble, and then choose to repent, or perhaps not, and why can't God's mercy not be arbitrary, but be based upon the response He asks of us.

Click to expand...

"Stumble" in 2Pet1, is "ptaio" --- it does mean "become wretched". Most OSAS advocates say "stumble but not lose salvation". The FIRST view of OSAS is "Antinomianism", the thought that one can SIN (be drunk, steal, fornicate, curse, etcetera) but REMAIN SAVED; salvation is viewed as "relationship but not necessarily FELLOWSHIP with God".

Ironically, the other two views of OSAS (Calvinism/predestination and Eternal-Security) often are heard to say: "Stumble/become-faithless/unsteadfast/sinning but STILL SAVED". Which is nothing more than Antinomianism.

Scripture says "we are EITHER in Christ, OR in sin". (Rm6) There is no "in between". And it says "salvation is FELLOWSHIP with God; he who is not in fellowship, isn't saved". 1Jn1:3, 6-7

Van does not believe that God's mercy is "arbitrary", nor that "God is a respecter of persons"; like Calvinists do. Van sees beginning belief as a CHOICE. Which reflects what we understand of Scripture; that "love cannot demand (zeteo) its own way" (1Cor13:5), so God cannot predestine-elect. Love cannot compel; it can only ask to be returned.

All 3 views of OSAS begin with the conclusion, and try to "figure out how the verses can be interpreted to FIT that conclusion". This is why I was trying to discuss Heb6:4-6; Van says "metochos-partakers/partners of the Holy Spirit", and "tasted of the heavenly gift and of the powers of the age to come", and "have been enlightened" is NOT-REALLY-EVER-SAVED; he says "they were just 'squatters', participants in church services but never actually knew salvation".

And I was trying to undersand how "the CASE of those who ARE FALLING AWAY --- who WILL not repent", does not connect to the adjacent previous point, "GROW UP, mature and don't spend all your time speaking of repentance".

Under OSAS, there is a logical disconnect between "you should be mature, but you're still talking of repentance" --- and, "THEY who never WERE saved..."

It doesn't work, logically; inserting a "NEVER-SAVED" idea doesn't make any sense. But CONTINUING the discussion about repentance, makes perfect sense.

"You should be MATURE (solid), but you still need MILK (are babes); therefore let us PRESS ON to MATURITY, not (speaking always of repentance). For in the CASE of those who WERE SAVED but now are fall-ING away, they will not WANT to repent".

He's speaking of the futility of always-dwelling-in-repentance, baby-food, hoping that those who FELL, will RETURN; he's saying "focus on maturity; those who willingly FELL, will be wasted effort".

Heb6:4-6 connects with the previous discussion, through the end of ch5. "YOU-baby-repentance", absolutely connects with "if-YOU-falling-away won't WANT to repent".

Ben johnson said:

Ironically, the other two views of OSAS (Calvinism/predestination and Eternal-Security) often are heard to say: "Stumble/become-faithless/unsteadfast/sinning but STILL SAVED". Which is nothing more than Antinomianism.

Click to expand...

Show me where Calvinists teach that one can be faithless and yet still saved.

The other three you'd better clarify or you reveal yourself as a legalist. You sin on a daily basis and yet believe you are saved. By what you've stated above, you're an Antinomian.

Van does not believe that God's mercy is "arbitrary", nor that "God is a respecter of persons"; like Calvinists do.

Click to expand...

That is completely false. Show me where Calvinists teach that God is a respector of persons. I don't want to see your misguided, fallacious pseudo-logical conclusions about what Calvinists teach. I want you to show me in their own words where Calvinists teach that God is a respector of persons or retract your statement.

Hi Ben, alway nice to engage someone who listens and poses alternatives to what I actually said. Thank you.

You start off repeating the same idea, sharing in something in one verse implies sharing in the same thing in another view. As I said, this has no merit. Say we share nachos on Monday, and Nachos on Thursday, and we share a chinese meal on Satuday. To draw from Monday and Thursday, we shared Nachos on Saturday does not make sense.

Turning now to Hebrews 3:14, here is how it reads, "For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."
Note again, it does not say we continue to partake in Christ if we hold fast to the end." Some, like you read this as a challenge, we must hold on tight or we will fall out of Christ's ark. I do not. To paraphrase, we have been placed in Christ, and therefore share in Christ, if we hold fast the faith we had when we were saved. This is because God protects our faith, and so from the beginning when it was protected till we die, we know we are saved if our faith never wavers.

What was the issue of those who came out of Egypt, they doubted God and were afraid to enter because their might be giants. They did not hold fast to the faith they had in God when they left Egypt. Note this is an Old Covenant example and so it does not quite fit with born again believers, but it fits perfectly with folks who have been enlightened by the word of God but have not believed in their heart.

Note Hebrews 4:1, let us fear, revere, hold in highest esteem, trust, God while the promise remains of entering His rest, being placed in Christ. This is not looking forward to salvation in the afterlife. This is looking forward to the reward of being placed in Christ. Look at verse 2!! Or verse 3!!

So Hebrews 3:14 does not say, Take care Brethren, and there is no mention of falling away. The verse deals with entering into the ark of Christ for the first and only time.

Turning now to the green (purported to be my view) and the red (purported to be your view.) Points one and two are identical, although you reserved for yourself a better presentation of point 2.

Now lets look at the green point 3, "3. For in the CASE of those who have never-been-saved (they were only "superficial-partakers, enlightened-but-not-REAL-believers"), and they're FALLING-AWAY, it is impossible to restore them to repentance (though they never really WERE repentant in the FIRST place)."
Hebrews 3:14 addresses those that have been saved, they hold on to their faith till the end, and those who received the gospel but did not believe from the heart, and therefore their rootless faith wavers. See Matthew 13:20-21. As long as they reject the gospel, since there is no other gospel by which men might be saved, it is impossible to restore them again to repentance. These are folks who knew they were sinners and needed salvation, like those in Egypt who knew they were slaves and needed salvation, and relied upon God when the going was easy, but fall away from their faith in God when following God causes hardship and suffering.

Turning now to your red point 3 and 4, "3. For in the CASE of those who have been enlightened (received the Gospel), tasted of the Heavenly gift (same word and in the same way as "Jesus TASTED DEATH" Heb2:9), been made partners with the Holy Spirit (much more than superficial experience)...

4. ..and they're FALLING-AWAY from the living God (exactly as Heb3:12 says!), it is impossible/powerless to restore them to repentance WHILE they're falling (so don't waste too much time preaching repentance to those who simply don't WANT to repent, but GROW UP..."

What did the share in? The gospel of Christ. They fully shared in it, they understood it. And they accepted it superficially, they did not believe it from the heart. Yes, exactly as Hebrews 3:12 says they are falling away due to their unbelieving heart!!! Ben it all fits together like a picture of Almighty love. Restoration is impossible not because they are falling, but because of their unbelieving heart. They have the gospel, and their is no other. As long as they have an unbelieving heart, they will not turn back to God's salvation. They turned to God when it was a me, me, me thing, I will get eternal life and that is good, but they turned away, when they did not trust enough in God to endure suffering and hardship.

Gospel presentations that offer the good life are not the true gospel, and those who accept the gospel because they are reaching out mostly for the good life, sometimes do not have the deep faith required for salvation. If you believe in your heart, and confess before men your belief, illustrating that you care more for God than the esteem of men, you shall be saved.

Van does not believe that God's mercy is "arbitrary", nor that "God is a respecter of persons"; like Calvinists do. Van sees beginning belief as a CHOICE.

Click to expand...

And here is my dilemma:

If you say that the 'decision' to accept Jesus' offer of salvation, once offered, is a matter of choice, (choice of the savee), it doesn't matter whether this act is instant, or extends throughout the Christian walk. There is no difference in 'kind' between our views of the actual receiving of salvation.

Your problem is that you want it to be a 'done deal', an instantaneous and complete change to a 'new creature' which now guarantees salvation from this instant onward in time.

But the whole edifice is too naive. Even the Calvinist view is more advanced in the sense that no 'time instant' and temporal distinction between before and after can be maintained. The extreme Calvinist follows predestination to its logical (although false) conclusion that he was ALWAYS saved.

This is in harmony with the early interpretations of Special Relativity by mathematicians who made the 'category' mistake of confusing the 'map' of four dimensional spacetime with the absurd conclusion that time itself was an illusion, and that there is really no 'past/present/future'. In this viewpoint (a philosophical comedy of errors) everything is fixed by a causal determinism that pleases the physicist, but completely contradicts all human experience.

The point is, once you allow that human choice enables salvation, you have no reason to assert that it can't also participate in the 'abiding', the maintainence and possession of salvation. Especially since Jesus tells us explicitly that in Him we are FREE INDEED.

Secondly, if freedom to choose 'instant' salvation 'saves' the justness and impartiality of God, why can't it function equally well as an ongoing process of growth?

We are given that even though a new creature, we must discipline the 'old natural man nature', and struggle against our own flesh. How can we call ourselves a completely 'new creature' in this transition state?

The only reason to insist upon 'instant' salvation through an 'instant' choice, would be so that you can assure yourself that your own salvation is 'secure'. In some sense, you are like a mortgage owner who is claiming he owns his house outright, when in fact for a long time to come, and if anything goes wrong, it will be owned by the bank. Only the down payment is 'his', conditional upon KEEPING the contract,which involves a commitment to commandments and instructions, abiding and remaining loyal to the contractor.

If you say that the 'decision' to accept Jesus' offer of salvation, once offered, is a matter of choice, (choice of the savee), it doesn't matter whether this act is instant, or extends throughout the Christian walk. There is no difference in 'kind' between our views of the actual receiving of salvation.

Your problem is that you want it to be a 'done deal', an instantaneous and complete change to a 'new creature' which now guarantees salvation from this instant onward in time.

Click to expand...

Nazaroo, your understanding of the views of others seems distorted. Just because someone wants to be saved, that does not save the person. Romans 9:16. For you to assert that it does is unscriptural. You can want to be saved for an instant or for your whole life, even to tears, but that will not put you in Christ. Only God having mercy on you will put you in Christ. And God chooses to have mercy on those who love Him because He first loved them. James 2:5.

Once placed in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30, we are spiritually baptized into Christ's death, where the circumcision of Christ spiritually alters us. We arise in Christ a new creation. There is no going back to the old creation. There is no verse that says we go back to the old creation. But there are plenty of verses that say once we are in Christ, we are there to stay, God almighty keeps us and protects us. 1 Peter 1:3-5.

This is not my problem, this is the plain straightforward crystal clear teaching of scripture. And it is radically different from your view of the "actual receiving of salvation."

Your view seems to be God made salvation available for everybody by the finished work of the cross, and anyone who believes in Christ "automatically" is saved, and if later, they choose not to believe, they are unsaved. This of course runs afoul of Paul saying we are placed in Christ by God, and not by our willing effort.

Your view seems to be God made salvation available for everybody by the finished work of the cross, and anyone who believes in Christ "automatically" is saved, and if later, they choose not to believe, they are unsaved. This of course runs afoul of Paul saying we are placed in Christ by God, and not by our willing effort.

Click to expand...

Yes and no.

It is not anyone who 'believes' is saved, again a modern protestant distortion of the reflexive verb "pepistoumai" which actually means "entrust yourself". I will explain the difference in the two definitions shortly.

It is anyone who "entrusts themselves", that is commits themselves to Jesus' commandments and teachings. In order to get to Jesus' salvation downpayment, and begin the 'commencement' of the deal, one has to repent as both John and Jesus and Paul taught.

Similarly, 'repent' doesn't mean feel sorry for yourself, or feel sorry you got caught. It means recognize and acknowledge your crime and stop doing it.

God remains just and non-favouritist, and impartial by responding appropriately to our decisions, not rewarding our feelings or desires such as 'wishing' or 'willing' or 'wanting' to be saved. You are quite right there. Wanting is nothing like doing.

Paul is quite right in saying it is not by our works (works of the Law, which under the Old Covenant don't offer salvation) that we are saved, but by the Grace of God, in the form of the New Covenant He has offered over and above the Law.

In sum:

(1) I did NOT assert that men are saved by their own will or desire (Romans 9:16), or that God begins a work of salvation based upon feelings or wants. So I think we are in agreement there.

(2) I agree with you and James 2:5 that God loves us first, (through the offer of an Amnesty) and we respond (like the woman crying at Jesus' feet). So I think we can drop this false characterization of my doctrine as well.

(3) I agree God and Christ begin a work of salvation by making us a 'new creature' with abilities we did not have before, like the free will and power of choice to resist sin and obey the Law. I agree that the goal and the work tends to result in salvation, and that eventual salvation is assured on the condition we stay in the program.

(4) I disagree with you that salvation is 'unloseable'. There is no scriptural support for this. The whole point of Christ setting us truly free means that we are able to voluntarily opt to remain in the program of salvation. It cannot be forced, and leave the statement of Jesus that we are 'truly free' holding any lexical content.

(5) 1 Peter 1:3-5 doesn't support 'unloseable salvation'. Again you misquote and misrepresent 1 Peter 1:3-5 as supporting your view that God allegedly absolutely prevents the loss of salvation, when in fact the scripture says that our salvation is assured by God through our loyalty, which is in harmony rather with Jesus' statement in John that we must REMAIN in Him. 1 Peter does not support your personal assertion of 'unloseable salvation', and you should either quote it properly or quite indirectly referring to it as though it supports your personal view.


To clarify, my view is:

(1) God indeed made salvation available for everybody by the finished work of the cross,

(2) and anyone who entrusts themselves to Christ by accepting the amnesty and committing themselves to obeying His commandments and teachings enters into the beginning of the contract of salvation

(3) in which God and Christ do indeed reform that person and conform them to the image of God which is Christ over a period of teaching, growth, service and testing,

(4) in which God and Christ truly grant that person free will and power to obey the law and Christ's commandments freely and voluntarily,

(5) and if later, they choose to opt out of the program of reformation prematurely, before the work of salvation and recreation is complete, they opt out of the program's results as well, namely salvation.


The Main Errors of Modern Protestantism are:

(1) The confusion of 'belief' with 'commitment'. (pepistoumai)

(2) The confusion of 'faith' with faithfulness = loyalty. (pistos)

(3) The confusion of 'grace' with a lack of our required response and participation. (charis)

(4) The confusion of 'downpayment' with eventual salvation as a completed process.

(5) The confusion of 'new creature' with a completed, pure and holy creature in the ressurrection.

(6) The confusion of God's 'freedom' with His obligation to remain true to His nature of impariality and holiness, and justice.

(7) The confusion of God's conditional protection based upon our loyalty with an imaginary and implausible unconditional protection regardless of our actions.

(5) 1 Peter 1:3-5 doesn't support 'unloseable salvation'. Again you misquote and misrepresent 1 Peter 1:3-5 as supporting your view that God allegedly absolutely prevents the loss of salvation, when in fact the scripture says that our salvation is assured by God through our loyalty, which is in harmony rather with Jesus' statement in John that we must REMAIN in Him. 1 Peter does not support your personal assertion of 'unloseable salvation', and you should either quote it properly or quite indirectly referring to it as though it supports your personal view.

Click to expand...

We have been all through this, and saying I am misrepresenting scripture is counterproductive. The verse does not say God protectes us through our own loyality. If our faith is not protected, we are not protected. So your view turns the verse on its head.

Lets go over the passage. God caused us to be born again according to His great mercy. So our willing to be saved, or our keeping the commandments of Christ, has nothing to do with being born again. Nothing. I repeat, 1 Peter 1:3-5 says works has nothing to do with being born again, only God's mercy causes us to be born again. After we are born again, we have a living hope, eternal life, because we trust that the resurrection of Christ from the dead, demonstrates God's promise to us. Now this inheritance we will receive because we have been born again (spiritually rather than physically) into the family of God is reserved in Heaven for us. And we are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. If this protection could fail because we fail to continue to believe in Jesus, God's protection would be meaningless. The clause, "through faith" describes how God protects us, not a filter for that protection. Note the verse reads we are protected by God's power, not by our power or by God's and our power. Nope, it reads we are kept by God's power and how does God do this? By protecting our faith.

Turning again to the mistaken view that when Jesus says we must abide in Him, Jesus is referring to our effort, lets go over it again. What the verse says is we must abide in Him and Him in us. Now the only way for us to abide in Him is to be born again and to be placed in Christ by God, 1 Corinthians 1:30. And then once we have been made firm in Christ, having been spiritually altered by the circumision of Christ, we arise in Christ a new creation. After this, we are indwelt. In summary, Jesus is saying in John 15, you must be born again to bear fruit. Same thing Jesus says in Matthew 13.

In verse 2 (John 15:2) Jesus says every branch in Me, refering to those who have been enlightened by the gospel of Christ, that does not bear fruit has not been born again. These are the tares among us. In verse three, Jesus says his disciples have been prepared for service, they have received the word fully. Now in verse 4, Jesus says Abide in Me and I in you. Note that a branch that abides in Jesus can do nothing. Only a branch that abides in Jesus, and Jesus in him bears much fruit, for apart from Christ, we can do nothing. Only after we are born again and united with Christ can we bear fruit. Works only proves we are born again, verse 8.

Romans 9:16 clearly indicates salvation does not depend on a person committing themselves to keeping the commands of Christ, or believing that Jesus is the Christ, but upon God who has mercy upon whom He has mercy. Salvation is not of works, lest any man should boast. Scripture is clear, we are told to believe and trust and fully commit to Jesus, this is the work God requires of us. But God who knows our heart, evaluates our faith, and if it is heartfelt rather than rootless, God has mercy on us and places us in Christ. So salvation is by grace through faith and not of works.

Repent means to change ones mind, this that I thought was ok is now not ok. Rather than live my life for myself, now I seek to live my life for God.

In sum, we are not in agreement because we agree that believing does not automatically save a person, because you believe that doing your best to keep Christ's commandments automatically saves a person. Same problem, either view is inconsistent with Romans 9:16. We are saved when God places us in Christ based on accepting our faith. For by grace have you been saved through faith. Our faith in Jesus Christ is our introduction to the grace in which we stand. God reckons our faith as righteousness and then spiritually baptizes us into Christ. Works demonstrates our salvation and provides assurance that we are actually saved.

Romans 9:16 clearly indicates salvation does not depend on a person committing themselves to keeping the commands of Christ, or believing that Jesus is the Christ, but upon God who has mercy upon whom He has mercy.

Click to expand...

Once again you seem determined to confuse the fact of dependancy, and the order of the dependancy, with the conditions accompanying the grace of salvation.