Poll - Once Saved Always Saved

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Since the Holy Spirit is given and one of things He does is to convict the world of sin, it can't be concluded to mean simply the elect therefore, other reasoning, from other scripture passages, must be considered in the issue of election.

How does He convict the world of sin Ormly?? He certainly doesn't enter into them, therefore they are convicted by the elect.

 

[Ormly]

How does He convict the world of sin Ormly?? He certainly doesn't enter into them, therefore they are convicted by the elect.

.. .. . . . conjecture

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

.. .. . . . conjecture

Jhn 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
Jhn 16:8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
Jhn 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;

Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about, you assume too much and it makes you look bad.

Mat 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

The Holy Spirit convicts and regenerates and saves through the lives of the elect. Don't try to tell me that's not what this passage is about. The disciples were elect. They received the Holy Spirit and He worked through them.

Where is the conjecture?

 

[Ormly]

Jhn 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
Jhn 16:8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
Jhn 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;

Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about, you assume too much and it makes you look bad.

Mat 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

The Holy Spirit convicts and regenerates and saves through the lives of the elect. Don't try to tell me that's not what this passage is about. The disciples were elect. They received the Holy Spirit and He worked through them.

Where is the conjecture?

You assume much and support with little.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

You assume much and support with little.

At least I support with something!!! YOU ALWAYS SUPPORT WITH NOTHING BUT YOUR OPINION!

Prove me wrong...

 

[Ormly]

At least I support with something!!! YOU ALWAYS SUPPORT WITH NOTHING BUT YOUR OPINION!

Prove me wrong...

Don't have to. Your support is from prooftext. My opinion is based on context. With someone as yourself, there will always come a point in the disccussion when it will be realized that further discussion will be fruitless. I know the message of the Bible and you nor anyone else will beat me at it with your prooftext, demanding I explain to your satisfaction whatever it is you require.. It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Ben, instead of going around stating that "see" means "enter" like you constantly do, please answer my post to you-

http://christianforums.com/showpost....&postcount=954​

Ah --- perhaps I missed that one. Thanx!

Quote:
Ben, we've been over this. Only by your disregard for verse 3 do you make see=enter. If Jesus had meant enter the first time, He would have said it. Even so, I can argue from your side and still meet the condition.

Enter, gr. Eiserchomai

to go out or come in: to enter
of men or animals, as into a house or a city
of Satan taking possession of the body of a person
of things: as food, that enters into the eater's mouth
metaph.
of entrance into any condition, state of things, society, employment
to arise, come into existence, begin to be
of men, to come before the public
to come into life
of thoughts that come into the mind

See and enter are quite different. To make one mean the other is not an easy thing to do. If anything, ANYTHING, enter actually means see, not see means enter. The greek is on my side, Ben. ​

There are those who assert that "water" in Jn3:3-6, means "waterbaptism"; but clearly it's a repetetive narrative:
"Unless you are born of water and the spirit, you cannot enter Heaven.
That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Clearly "spirit" = "spirit", so "water" = "flesh". Both statements can be combined:
"Unless you are born of water/flesh and Spirit/spirit, you cannot enter Heaven."

Now add to this a third statement:
"Unless you are born-again (born from above), you cannot see Heaven".

According to Strong's Greek Lexicon "eidos" has as primary meaning, "see with the eyes, perceive with any sense, physically behold". "Understand" is a minor meaning. Combine the three statements:
"Unless you are born of water/flesh and Spirit/spirit/from-above you cannot enter/see Heaven."

Quote:
I believe I have properly exegeted the passage so that "see" is the best possible interpretation for "see". Believing "see" actually means "enter" is just a way around having to accept Calvinistic teaching that regeneration is prior to justification​

Yes, "see" means "see"; but you haven't provided any reason that Jesus meant "understand". The best meaning in context, is "physically-behold". Give me any reason why that "combined-three-statements" just posted above, is not valid and acceptible. By forcing "see" to mean "understand", it is just as much of a stretch as to force "water" to mean "waterbaptism".

Quote:
Well, the GWTJ doesn't include any of the elect, only those who are reprobate. ​

What is "GWTJ"?

Quote:
This an entirely different topic, but I will give a brief answer.

God's decrees aren't always active; God can bring about His purposes by second causes, in other words, allowing things to happen. God allows the reprobate to go down the path they had already chosen, that is, sin. God doesn't make them do it, He only allows them to. Thus His decree is in accordance (not according to) what they will instinctively do by their fallen nature.​

To say "God-doesn't-make-them-do-it", does not remove the fact that He is CAUSAL. Men who cannot avoid reprobation without God's sovereign forceful intervention (and God decides NOT to intervene), are not responsible for what they could not avoid but what God chose for them TO do.

There is no difference between DIRECT cause (sovereign monergistic regeneration) and INDIRECT cause (God ignoring men to unavoidable perishing).

Quote:
Thus, God is entirely righteous for punishing sinners.​

Not if they CANNOT avoid sin WITHOUT His interference (which He decided to deny them).

Quote:
God is not required to save all men, God may do whatever He pleases according to the kind intention of His will, and the ultimate glorification of Himself.​

Two things here:
1. God's kind intention of will, is clearly stated "that all who see Jesus AND BELIEVE be saved". But as Jesus told Thomas (Jn20:29) "You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen and yet believed." If believing was God's decision, there could be NO difference between "seen-belief" and "unseen-belief"; but Jesus clearly says "seeing CAUSED belief, and UNSEEN belief is greater". Neither position (see-caused, unseen-greater) can exist in "predestined-belief".

2. "I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies (says the Lord God); so REPENT and LIVE." Ezk18:32 There is NO glory for God in anyone who perishes.

Quote:
If God decides that He will be the most glorified through the election of some to salvation and the passing over of other to Hell, then so be it, and He is righteous and perfect for doing so.​

No; if men CANNOT avoid Hell without His decision, then HE is responsible for their perishing --- and He is unjust, and unrighteous.

Look at Rom3:26: "God is just and justifier of he who believes." "Just" is "dikaios" --- righteous, innocent, faultless. And as a second meaning: in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them. Rendering to each his DUE. If God DECIDES that men WILL go to Hell (and they have no possible avoidance), then He is NOT "faultless", and He does NOT render to each his DUE.

"God gives to each according to his deeds. To those who BY doing good seek glory/honor/immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation." Rm2:6-8

Nowhere is God causal to either immortality, or condemnation; those conditions are always the consequence of men's choices, not God's.

Neither you nor I can deny that God's position is RECEIVING man's consideration, rather than initiating it. See Heb11:6.

Quote:
I take no offense, Ben. Unlike many others on these forums, I understand that you do have a set of beliefs like anyone else, and you support them with Scripture. Any idea that is founded within Scripture is worth the time to evaluate, yours and mine alike. So feel free to criticize me as much as you wish, it will only reshape my systematic theology so that it becomes even more in accordance with the truth of God, which is His Word.​

This is one of the coolest statements that has been posted. I perceive respect for what I've been saying; I pray that I have shown equal respect for you, and everyone else.

THIS is the spirit we desire here; kindness, love, and desiring ONLY to grow closer to God and understand His truths.

I'm very pleased with you, and even if we do not agree on all things, honored to consider you my saved brother.

Ben -

I see this discussion on John 3 as not going anywhere if we keep repeating the same things as we have been saying. So far, all we have determined is that it could actually be interpretted either way, and neither of us can be dogmatic on our interpretation. So I am going to take some time before I repost (say, a day, or maybe longer), and get as much information as I can and then try to provide some more information for you as to why I believe I am correct.

As far as the decree is concerned, I am not interested in discussing it right now. Let's just stick to one topic and stay focused on John 3. Once this is settled or we exhaust the topic, then we can discuss the decree.

Are we in agreement?

By the way, I don't care what everyone else says about you, you have shown me respect, and therefore, I will continually discuss opinions with you and keep an open mind about what you say. It seems to me that some people get upset at you simply because you have an argument that they can't refute, and so they make it personal. The only reason why one would do this is to be selfish and take pride in their own belief, not to truly pursue the truth of the Scriptures.

So don't expect me to make anything personal, I just want a friendly, intellectual and scholarly discussion.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Ben -

I see this discussion on John 3 as not going anywhere if we keep repeating the same things as we have been saying. So far, all we have determined is that it could actually be interpretted either way, and neither of us can be dogmatic on our interpretation.​

Hi, "JF". I do tend towards "dogmatic". Lending credibility towards "non-sovereign-gifted-understanding", I'll propose verses 9-10:

Jn3:9 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?"
Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? ​

If sovereign divine instilled perception is required before one can understand, then how is it that Jesus is incredulous that "Nick" does NOT understand?

The only way that, "How can you, a teacher, NOT understand?" --- makes sense, is if that understanding was EXPECTED. Making it "non-gifted by God".

Quote:
So I am going to take some time before I repost (say, a day, or maybe longer), and get as much information as I can and then try to provide some more information for you as to why I believe I am correct. ​

Oh dear; hope I didn't jump the gun. Then again, I would relish hearing your comments on verses 9-10. The fact that Jesus expected Nick TO understand, seems to conflict with "sovereign-gifted-understanding" (to the few-elect) to me...

Quote:
As far as the decree is concerned, I am not interested in discussing it right now. Let's just stick to one topic and stay focused on John 3. Once this is settled or we exhaust the topic, then we can discuss the decree.​

Which "decree"?

Quote:
Are we in agreement?​

Agreement on discussing "see/perceive/behold"? That's great.

Quote:
By the way, I don't care what everyone else says about you...​

I would be curious what others have been saying about me.
I always strive very hard to discuss with love, respect, and honor.

Quote:
you have shown me respect, and therefore, I will continually discuss opinions with you and keep an open mind about what you say.​

It's much more than SHOWING you respect. I DO respect you. I'm well aware that Calvinists read and study Scripture, and find support for their positions. The fun for me, is in seeing through YOUR eyes, and I pray it is equally enjoyable for others to see through MY eyes. What if one of us connects Scripture in a way that makes sense, that the other has not considered before? That's the goal. Sharpening each other, maturing each other in Christ, and above all displaying the reality of Christ in our hearts to the world, through the love and fellowship we have between us.

Quote:
It seems to me that some people get upset at you simply because you have an argument that they can't refute, and so they make it personal. The only reason why one would do this is to be selfish and take pride in their own belief, not to truly pursue the truth of the Scriptures.​

I'm always painfully conscious of "invested emotion". A person here with much time invested in one position, might be well, embarassed at discovering verses that conflict that position. I've certainly been accused (often) of "stubbornly refusing correction because of emotional commitment to a refuted position". One or two have flat said, "Ben, you never admit you're wrong". That's when I invite a discussion of those "refutations". If I can be SHOWN wrong on certain Scriptures, with clear theological foundation, that would be grand.

I came up with "The Five Ways" to show how just making a statment (which I call "throwing-a-Five-Way") and calling something "refuted", doesn't fly. Three examples (for illustration, not for argument):

In James5:19-20, "Throwing-a-Five-Way" is to state "those who fell away were never REALLY saved, but were LURKING amongst the saved; thus James said 'those who are led back to where they never really WERE, will be saved, for the FIRST time'." This is not refutation; it does not explain what James said. "BACK" conveys "were-there-before".

In 1Cor2:14, the "THINGS" are the same "things" as in verse 12; because those "THINGS" are revealed by the received Spirit, Paul cannot be including "saving-belief-in-Jesus". One must believe in Jesus and then receive the Spirit, so that THEN the "spiritual things" in 12 and 14 are revealed. This is refutation.

In 2Cor4:3-4 it's thought that "the god of this world has blinded (veiled) them so they cannot believe in Jesus". But verse 3:16 says "WHEN a man TURNS to the Lord, the veil over his eyes is removed." Flat placing "turn-to-Lord", before "remove-veil". This is also refutation.
​

A "refutation" is either established and not contradictable, or it's not a "refutation".

Quote:
So don't expect me to make anything personal, I just want a friendly, intellectual and scholarly discussion.​

An excellent and honorable attitude. However, if you DO "make it personal" towards me, I will expect the kindness and consideration you have shown.

...and if I do "make it personal towards you", then expect the same kindness and consideration I have shown.

Another name for "respect", is "love". It is our essence.

 

[MamaZ]

I know the message of the Bible and you nor anyone else will beat me at it with your prooftext, demanding

you preach a different gospel. for you believe that it is your faith that saves you and your faith that justifies you but yet cannot answer What Part God did for your faith or justification..

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Ben -

I see this discussion on John 3 as not going anywhere if we keep repeating the same things as we have been saying. So far, all we have determined is that it could actually be interpretted either way, and neither of us can be dogmatic on our interpretation.​

Hi, "JF". I do tend towards "dogmatic". Lending credibility towards "non-sovereign-gifted-understanding", I'll propose verses 9-10:

Jn3:9 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?"
Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? ​

If sovereign divine instilled perception is required before one can understand, then how is it that Jesus is incredulous that "Nick" does NOT understand?

I would think Jesus did not say, "To be saved you have to know that you must be born again to see the Kingdom".

Jesus pointed out, though, that not understanding this is a serious problem if you're a teacher of Israel. Not everyone who's saved will become a teacher of Israel. Not everything is soteriology. The presumption is that teachers of Israel should know more -- at least should know this basic information. So the inconsistency, that Nico. didn't know this and thus couldn't possibly teach it to Israel, and that was a serious problem in Jesus' view -- that fits fine.

The only way that, "How can you, a teacher, NOT understand?" --- makes sense, is if that understanding was EXPECTED. Making it "non-gifted by God".

This bit of information doesn't save you, no. Yes, it was expected by Jesus, especially expected of a teacher of Israel, who should know more about how this works if he's going to be proclaiming the Kingdom of God.

 

[Ben johnson]

QUoted by MamaZ:
you preach a different gospel. for you believe that it is your faith that saves you and your faith that justifies you but yet cannot answer What Part God did for your faith or justification..​

Hi, "MamaZ".

May I?
Peter says "receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls."
Jesus said, "By your endurance gain your souls."
Paul said "Persevere in your teachings; as you DO you will save yourselves..."

1Pet1:9, Lk21:19, 1Tim4:16

Will you consider that "justification CAME to all men", in exactly the same measure ("so then / even so") as condemnation came to all men? (Rom5:18)

Will you also consider that "justifcation must be received"?
"...much more those who receive the abundance of grace and (who receive) the gift of righteousness shall reign in life thorugh the One, Jesus (shall be justified)." Rom5:17

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
I would think Jesus did not say, "To be saved you have to know that you must be born again to see the Kingdom".​

I agree; He did not say that.

"See", is "enter". In the Greek, and in context.

Quote:
Jesus pointed out, though, that not understanding this is a serious problem if you're a teacher of Israel.​

Yes, He did --- and that makes no sense under a "predestined-understanding" view.

Quote:
Not everyone who's saved will become a teacher of Israel.​

Come now; Nick WAS a teacher, and he WAS supposed to understand. "Catch-22", Mike...

Quote:
Not everything is soteriology.​

Yet, that which IS "soteriology", is soteriology.

Quote:
The presumption is that teachers of Israel should know more -- at least should know this basic information.​

That's correct. So did Jesus secretly believe that "perception/understanding is something GOD sovereignly-instills"?

Quote:
So the inconsistency, that Nico. didn't know this and thus couldn't possibly teach it to Israel, and that was a serious problem in Jesus' view -- that fits fine.​

mmmmmm-noooo, it doesn't.

If Nick had been PREDESTINED, then his SEEING/PERCEIVING would have already happened. And/or Jesus wouldn't have been SURPRISED.

Quote:
This bit of information doesn't save you, no.​

Hmmm; don't understand that, Mike. Of COURSE I'm only saved by Jesus' gracious sacrifice.

Quote:
Yes, it was expected by Jesus, especially expected of a teacher of Israel, who should know more about how this works if he's going to be proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
​

How could he NOT know, if "seeing/understanding", is something GOD decides?

That don't make no sense, no way no how...

 

[MamaZ]

QUoted by MamaZ:
you preach a different gospel. for you believe that it is your faith that saves you and your faith that justifies you but yet cannot answer What Part God did for your faith or justification..
​

Hi, "MamaZ".

May I?
Peter says "receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls."
Jesus said, "By your endurance gain your souls."
Paul said "Persevere in your teachings; as you DO you will save yourselves..."

1Pet1:9, Lk21:19, 1Tim4:16

Will you consider that "justification CAME to all men", in exactly the same measure ("so then / even so") as condemnation came to all men? (Rom5:18)

Will you also consider that "justifcation must be received"?
"...much more those who receive the abundance of grace and (who receive) the gift of righteousness shall reign in life thorugh the One, Jesus (shall be justified)." Rom5:17

Good luck with saving yourself.. Hope that works for you.
Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Rom 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

 

[Ormly]

Will you also consider that "justifcation must be received"?
"...much more those who receive the abundance of grace and (who receive) the gift of righteousness shall reign in life thorugh the One, Jesus (shall be justified)." Rom5:17

Caution Ben:

Before the cross, mercy is asked for from God through the faith of the righteous, Justisfication was given as His reply. On this side of the cross, it is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that is given by God in reply that both justifies and saves, peace with God having been made by the Blood..

 

[MamaZ]

God Poured out mercy to those whom called upon Him by looking forward to the cross. He now gives mercy to those whom call upon Him by looking back at the cross. This is why we see Christ being spoken of to the sperpent. That is why we are to preach Christ and Him crucified..

 

[beloved57]

God Poured out mercy to those whom called upon Him

actually momma, God has to pour out mercy upon you before you call, its his mercy that produces the calling..

His mercy regenerates the elect giving them new life first, to be able to call. A spiritually dead person cannot call upon the Lord..

titus 3:

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

 

[Ormly]

Before the cross, mercy is asked for from God through the faith of the righteous, Justisfication was given as His reply. On this side of the cross, it is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that is given by God in reply that both justifies and saves, peace with God having been made by the Blood..

 

[MamaZ]

Gods Mercy is poured out on all flesh. For He lets it rain upon the just and the unjust. But for one to actually have salvation one must be drawn to Jesus. For salvation comes only in Christ. The drawing part is not of our own will but of Gods.

 

[MamaZ]

Before the cross, mercy is asked for from God through the faith of the righteous, Justisfication was given as His reply. On this side of the cross, it is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that is given by God in reply that both justifies and saves, peace with God having been made by the Blood..

The faith of the righteous? What was their faith in?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by MamaZ:
Good luck with saving yourself.. Hope that works for you.
​

Hi, "MamaZ". You haven't answered the verses. Paul absolutely says "save yourselves". Jesus says "save yourselves". Peter says salvation is the outcome of your faith".

Tell me how I'm understanding those verses wrong. Explain what the writer really meant, and cite your own references to support "saving-faith is God's choice FOR us".

Theological debate is constrained to Scripture; being a fallible Human, I can be wrong --- and if so, Scripture will show me my error. But "debate" cannot occur without Scriptural citation.