Poll - Once Saved Always Saved

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Yes, as I already have, I can give you proof that the word "idein" can mean mental or spiritual perception.​

What verse?

Quote:
However, I cannot provide a greek commentary which supports "perceive" in John 3:3. While on the surface this may make my view look bad, it actually doesn't matter. I have already mentioned this; as long as the word can possibly mean "perceive", then the context can be the decider.​

I look forward to your thoughts on Lk9:27; unless you can deny they're saying the same thing ("see/look-at"), I don't see any credibility with "perceive".

Quote:
I have already shown how context necessitates it. I think the reason why most commentators gloss over "see" is because they don't realize the importance in what Jesus is saying, and at first glance, it seems to make sense to translate it "see". This is why in most of the greek commentaries I have read, including the one you quoted, they seem to just gloss over the verse, as though "see" is a given. It shows their lack of understanding for context and their concern for etymology only.​

I don't see "necessitates"; I see "true rebuke, TOWARDS understanding". A rebuke doesn't make sense under a "gifted-understanding" view.

Quote:
As I said before, if I can prove that "the kingdom of God" is not a physical place, then I have proven the point. It doesn't matter what any greek scholar says about the word, the context necessitates it.​

I bet you haven't connected Rev11:15 before....

Quote:
Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

within you, gr. entos humon

entos-
1) within, inside
a) within you i.e. in the midst of you
b) within you i.e. your soul

humon-
1) of yours

Here we have an emphatic statement of Christ, stating "behold, the kingdom of God is within you". If you wish to use parables and lessons of Jesus to support your view of "the kingdom of God" instead of an emphatic statement He made about it, then that is your business, but I clearly have the stronger argument and stronger support with this verse.​

I unwittingly just answered this, above. Or maybe it was PROPHETICAL, rather than "unwitting".

Quote:
Yes, but either one works for my cause; if you say they avoid the light because the love evil then I will agree. If you say enter the light because they love the truth then I will agree. But I must say that no one avoids the light who is truly saved, and no one comes to the light who is evil, due to the condition of their heart and mind. It is not something that can changed by themselves-​

Technically, we CANNOT change by themselves.[/b] But we ourselves, can CHANGE. Look at how verses like 1Tim4:16, and 1Pet1:9 assert "save yourselves".

Quote:
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins...

that is, dead before they came to know the Lord. How did they come to know the Lord?

Eph 2:4-5 But God... even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ...

If that doesn't sound like an act of God, then I don't know what else to tell you Ben. Those who avoid the light are "by nature children of wrath", and those who enter the light are those who were made alive together with Christ when they were dead in their transgressions. One MUST be regenerated before he can enter into the light, that is, "the kingdom of God".​

Made alive, through faith. You need to find "made alive BEFORE faith".

 

[percoid]

My understanding of once saved always saved is that once your name is written in the book of life it can never be removed for any reason. God answers this question in Rev. 3:5. God tells the church that they must OVERCOME or He will remove their names from the book of life. The question is; what do we overcome? The bible teaches that we must overcome self, sin and the world. God put us on a planet that He knew would be full of sin and suffering, so God wants something. God wants a people that will never rebel against Him as 1/3 of the angels did. We r here to be tested and tried, molded and made ready for heaven. Overcome self, sin and the world so we will never rebel and sin against God. There is no tempter in heaven but u will still WANT. The bible teaches that we r tempted when we r drawn away because of our own lust. It is something that we want (self or as the bible calls it the flesh). Question, If we do not overcome self, sin and the world what is God to do with us? He cannot trust us not to want sin. Will He allow us into His kingdom anyway. I do not think so. It is why we r here. One thing I have found that many do is to make the bible say what they want to believe. We must make our belief line up with the bible. I have told many that believe once saved always saved this verse but they still believe what they want.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Percoid:
My understanding of once saved always saved is that once your name is written in the book of life it can never be removed for any reason. God answers this question in Rev. 3:5. God tells the church that they must OVERCOME or He will remove their names from the book of life.​

Hi, "Percoid". There are other "remove-from-Book" verses --- perhaps the most telling, is Exodus 32:32...

Quote:
The question is; what do we overcome? The bible teaches that we must overcome self, sin and the world. God put us on a planet that He knew would be full of sin and suffering, so God wants something. God wants a people that will never rebel against Him as 1/3 of the angels did. We r here to be tested and tried, molded and made ready for heaven. Overcome self, sin and the world so we will never rebel and sin against God.​

And how do we "overcome"? "In this world you will have tribulation; but take courage, for I have overcome the world." Jn16:33

"You are from God, little chidren --- and have OVERCOME them; because greater is He who is in you, than he who is in the world." 1Jn4:4

This is the secret --- we do not overcome by our might, to impress God; broken helpless and worthless, we turn to Him, and HE-IN-US has already overcome the world.

Quote:
There is no tempter in heaven but u will still WANT. The bible teaches that we r tempted when we r drawn away because of our own lust.​

Good citation; James1:14-16. By using "psuche" and "thanatos", he really conveys "eternal peril", for "beloved brethren".

Quote:
It is something that we want (self or as the bible calls it the flesh). Question, If we do not overcome self, sin and the world what is God to do with us? He cannot trust us not to want sin. Will He allow us into His kingdom anyway. I do not think so. It is why we r here. One thing I have found that many do is to make the bible say what they want to believe. We must make our belief line up with the bible. I have told many that believe once saved always saved this verse but they still believe what they want.​

"OSAS" isn't nearly as important, as "the essence of salvation". We can disagree on OSAS --- but if we agree on the foundation, we expect to be together with Jesus, when He returns.

And if we all are with Him, then we all "win".

The essence, the very bedrock-foundation, is Christ in you. An indwelt fellowship of love, union between Creator and creature.

We overcome, because He is in us, and He already overcame --- long ago.

 

[frumanchu]

The word "regeneration", is rare in Scripture; it really only appears as such, in Titus 3:5-6. And that passage establishes that regeneration is by the POURED Spirit --- and "poured" is 100% by belief.

There remains an issue with this rationale that needs to be addressed. An entire thread was even started on it at one point but there was never an explanation given from your view.

You say that not only does regeneration follow faith, but that it also must follow the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is to say that regeneration is an action the Holy Spirit performs after indwelling a believer.

This presents a critical paradox though for your view.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit was promised as a future event by Christ when speaking to His disciples:

"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. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." - John 16:7,13 (NASB)
​

Furthermore, the Apostle Peter pointed to the events at Pentecost as the fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel that God would “pour out [his] spirit upon all flesh.”

But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words.
​

"For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
​

'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says,
​

'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND;
​

AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY,
​

AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS,
​

AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
​

EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN,
​

I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
​

And they shall prophesy.
​

'AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE
​

AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW,
​

BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.
​

'THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS
​

AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD,
​

BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
​

'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.' - Acts 2:14-21 (NASB)
​

Jesus, when speaking to Nicodemus, said plainly that unless one is regenerated (literally “born again&#8221 he cannot see or even enter into the Kingdom of God.

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." - John 3:3,5 (NASB)
​

You assert that being born again is only possible with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Since, with few cited exceptions of the Spirit “filling” or “coming upon” someone in the Old Testament, the saints prior to Pentecost did not have the indwelling Spirit, it follows inescapably that you must believe that no believer prior to Pentecost could have been born again. It then follows that no believer prior to Pentecost could have seen or entered into the Kingdom of God.

Such a conclusion appears to be at odds with the fact that Jesus clearly expected Nicodemus to understand the basic principle of the necessity of regeneration even though (according to "Responsible Grace") it was not yet possible at that point in redemptive history. This presents a clear paradox with respect to the salvation of men prior to the events of Pentecost.

I submit that such a paradox cannot be accommodated as it necessarily implies that the OT saints were not born again (regenerated) and therefore could not see or enter into the Kingdom.

I am seeking an explanation as to how "Responsible Grace" theology addresses and accomodates this paradox. Can you please explain it? If not for my benefit than for those with whom you are interacting.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

There are those who insist that "born of water", is "waterbaptism". This is divergent to the train of Jesus' thought. The idea of "perceive/born-again", rather than just repeating "enter/born-again", appears to me just as divergent.

You’re paralleling two things that shouldn’t be paralleled. The idea of being “born of water” is specifically explained by Christ in verse 6.

Jhn 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jhn 3:6
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Verse 6 is obviously explaining verse 5. On the contrary, verse 5 is not explaining verse 3. Verse 5 in answering Nicodemus’ question in verse 4-

Jhn 3:4
Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

The statements in verse 3 and 5 are separate. Verse 3 is in response to verse 2-

Jhn 3:2
this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God {as} a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

So what is Jesus saying in verse 3? I think it is rather obvious that in response to Nicodemus, He is telling Him that one must be born again before he can begin exhibit the teaching or signs such that Jesus had done. Nicodemus is a teacher; he is imploring of Jesus to teach him. In response Jesus tells him that if he isn’t born again he can’t even perceive what is being said. And Nicodemus’ proved it by his lack of understanding!

Jhn 3:9
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?

In the 38 occurrances of "Idein", you and I agree that 37 mean "see/meet". If you had never heard of "Predestination" or "Responsible Grace", would it occur to you that "see" didn't mean "physically see"?

Quote:​

I don’t know what you’re getting at here, maybe you think I am bringing my presuppositional thinking to the table?

The problem with your argument is that it is pointless. It doesn’t matter whether I would have seen it or not; what matters is whether it is actually there or not. That is why we are discussing.

No --- "born again" is the New Covenant; when Jesus spoke with Nicodemus, the Old Covenant ("Law") was still in effect

Where is it said that regeneration is only a part of the new covenant???

Look at the dymanic --- it is exactly the same as in Jn5:39-47; Moses spoke of Jesus --- but if they didn't believe Moses, HOW would they believe Jesus?

I don’t get your point? The dynamic is the same, yes. But the idea is much different-

Jhn 3:12
"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Do you deny that by "Sovereign Predestination", belief is predestined, and consequential to regeneration? This is the problem with "see = perceive".

You're thinking that to UNDERSTAND Heaven, they must be ENLIGHTENED. And then you don't see the conflict when Jesus says "How can you be a teacher, and not understand these things?

AND, you don't see the conflict of Jesus rebuking Nicodemus for NOT understanding, if that understanding is ONLY by God's CHOICE!

For clarity --- why would Jesus say "You must be born again", if "born again" is fully God's SOVEREIGN CHOICE and Nicodemus had NOTHING to DO with it? Why did Jesus make the statement?

This point is entirely a waste, and I will not answer it. We are discussing what John 3:3 says, not your logic. It doesn’t matter whether you can understand the dynamic or not; what matters is what the text teaches. That is why I keep telling you to stop getting off the subject. You cannot possibly rule out an interpretation simply on the basis of it not making sense to you. If the context necessitates it then you must accept it.

Follow my logic:
1. Jesus knew that Nicodemus had not yet been "Born again", and He said "you must be", knowing that it's up to GOD who and when to BE "born again". What was the point of the statement? If understanding is sovereignly-decreed, then the rebuke was wasted.

2. If Nick was NOT to be "born again", why would Jesus waste the words on someone who COULD NEVER understand?

It was not a waste. Not in the least bit. You may think they were, but you don’t know anything about what happened to Nicodemus that day. Also, all that Jesus said to him is written here for us to learn from. That is a waste???​

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

The problem is that you do not take Jesus' rebukes, as literal. Look at Bethsaida, Capernaum, and Chorazin (Matt11:21-24). Jesus rebuked them for NOT believing --- saying, "If TYRE and SIDON had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED! If even SODOM had seen these miracles, Sodom would have remained 'til today. It will go better for THEM in the Judgment, than for YOU!"

Here is zero "sovereign-understanding", and 100% rebuke for NOT believing. That is, refusing to believe. And that's another (excellent) reason why the whole concept of "gifted-understanding" does not work.

Well that’s great. We are not discussing the doctrine of regeneration nor any other doctrine or verse. It is hard for me to ignore what you say, but we are sticking to the topic, not going off onto a rant about who’s right and who’s wrong and giving every single reason we have stacked up in our machine guns to each other. Back to John 3:3, and try sticking to it in your next post…

No --- Jesus rebuked him for not knowing; and that cannot fit a paradigm of "Knowing is sovereignly GIFTED".

Yes it can. But I don’t want to discuss whether the paradigm makes sense to you. I want to discuss what Jesus teaches in John 3:3.

Calvinists overlook certain contradictions. By thinking "a man's will CONSEQUENTS from his nature; either SINFUL will if unregenerate, or BELIEVING will if sovereignly-regenerated" --- Calvinists miss the fact that a will that ALWAYS follows God's sovereign regeneration (or NOT), is limited to God's decree, and is not free.

But that aside --- it is a against His words to think that "men come to the light BECAUSE of sovereign regeneration, and avoid the light BECAUSE of sovereign unelection", when the text plainly states "their desire decides their coming-to-light or not". "Consequential-coming" is not what He said. Look at how Acts10:34-35 fits into this idea:
"God is not partial, but he WHO fears God AND does right, is WELCOME." Clearly reverence of God and right-seeking, is acceptible to God; the opposite is "partiality that God is NOT".

Once again, a waste of words, because I am not about to discuss this with you. I told you at the very beginning of this discussion that I did not want to discuss the decree no divine election, but simply look at John 3:3. You were doing fine until this post.

What is the "opposite", Jesusfreak? It would be, by definition, God welcoming those who do NOT revere Him and do NOT seek righteousness. It is not credible to think "Oh He regenerates them and then they revere/seek and THEN He welcomes them"; "welcomes", means "receives", "accepts" --- and sovereign regeneration would make Him welcome/choose BEFORE they revered/sought.

enough…

I'm simply saying there is no reason to think "see", is "perceive". Jesus would not have wasted those words on someone who needed to BE regenerated (but had not yet --- and you cannot deny the "not yet"), especially when regeneration would enlighten him to that truth, ANYWAY. What would be the point of saying what an unregenerate could never understand, and what a regenerate could not MIS-understand?

The point of a rebuke, is to turn someone. You're asserting "the turning is a sovereign, monergistic action, by God." I think you can begin to see why I find that non-Scriptural...[/QUOTE]

No Ben, you don’t give it a second of thought to try to understand the paradox. Our humanistic view of becoming saved does not see what God is doing in background. It is quite possible that Jesus’ rebuke to Nicodemus swayed his thinking, and at the same time, the father regenerated him so that he would understand it, both happening at the same making Nicodemus not even realize what just happened. Is God not great enough, being outside of time and having planned all things that they work out in such a way? You deny it simply because you can’t understand it, instead of admiring it because of that fact.

That is all I am going to say. You need not respond to it. Get back to John 3:3.

Each passage that's thought to assert "too depraved to believe", has been refuted in that thinking. Jer17:9 has, 1Cor2:14 has, 2Cor4:3-4 has, Mark4:11-12 has. So has Ezk36:26-27. Nowhere is "regeneration", apart from the received Spirit.

Nowhere accept John 3:3? Lol. Come on, Ben. When you say “has been refuted”, you mean you have come up with a way that interprets it to fit your view. Obviously we don’t concede the point.

It is "belief" that receives the Spirit. And (then) His regeneration. You're right, we have nothing to do with "regeneration" --- just as we have nothing to do with "begottenness" (see Jn1:13); but we have everything to do with receiving the Spirit (and therefore His regeneration), just as we have everything to do with RECEIVING begottenness when we believe/receive Jesus. See Jn1:12.

But just as your logic is used, how is “belief” able to be born in a man who has a depraved mind? Don’t say he doesn’t; Ephesians 2:1-5 proves it.

1. What is the kingdom of heaven?[/color][/indent]I think that really, in every case Kingdom-of-God means "physical place" (Heaven, and/or where Jesus reigns). In Mk1:15 Jesus is speaking of Himself, but as the means to Heaven. In Mk9:47 it's an actual place --- contrasted with the OTHER place, the Lake of Fire. Mark14:25, Lk13:28&29.

In Lk17:21 ("the kingdom of God is within you") --- this conveys that CHRIST is in you, therefore through Him you have the kingdom. ("He who HAS the Son, HAS the eternal life!" 1Jn5:12 "The Kingdom", conveys "salvation" --- yet it is a physical place, the place WHERE he reigns.

We have an admittance folks!!!

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

"The Kingdom", conveys "salvation".

You can twist the words around as you like Ben, Jesus made a clear statement in Luke 17 about the kingdom being within you. And you admit that it is within you, “yet it is a physical place”. So Jesus said a physical place dwells inside of us? I don’t understand Ben? How can this be?

"The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and forever." Rev11:15

Talk about ripping a verse out of context… this is referring to the millennial kingdom of Christ, the mountain in Daniel 2. The world is transformed into His theocracy lasting 1,000 years. This isn’t “the kingdom of God”, nor is it “the kingdom of heaven”.

2. Why does see mean perceive vs. enter[/indent]I've answered, but you don't like the answer; in all the other occurrances of "idein" (37 of 'em), they mean "see/greet/participate". ROBERTSON agrees --- and he taught doctoral level Greek. Your saying "one deviation is fully possible" would be more credible, if there weren't so many "see-participate" verses (and if there was even ONE "see-perceive").

Your grammar is kind of confusing here… I said that just because idein refers to participate or enter or physically behold 37 times in Scripture does not prove that’s what it means this time based on that alone. The context must support it as well. And my case is that it doesn’t.

Now let's speak of Luke9:27: "There are some standing here who will not taste death until they SEE the kingdom of God."

What does "see" mean in that verse? Perceive, or physically-look-at?

You tell me. How does one physically look at the kingdom when it is within them? Further, how does one physically look at the kingdom before they are dead?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
You’re paralleling two things that shouldn’t be paralleled. The idea of being “born of water” is specifically explained by Christ in verse 6.

Jhn 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jhn 3:6
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Verse 6 is obviously explaining verse 5.​

Why "obviously"? I mean, I agree with you, but if it is "obvious" that verse 6 explains 5, why isn't it equally obvious that 5 explains 3?

"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit..."
"That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of Spirit is spirit."

"Unless you are born-again, you cannot see the kingdom of God..
Unless you are born of the Spirit, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

QUote:
On the contrary, verse 5 is not explaining verse 3. Verse 5 in answering Nicodemus’ question in verse 4-

Jhn 3:4
Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

The statements in verse 3 and 5 are separate. Verse 3 is in response to verse 2-

Jhn 3:2
this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God {as} a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

So what is Jesus saying in verse 3? I think it is rather obvious that in response to Nicodemus, He is telling Him that one must be born again before he can begin exhibit the teaching or signs such that Jesus had done. Nicodemus is a teacher; he is imploring of Jesus to teach him. In response Jesus tells him that if he isn’t born again he can’t even perceive what is being said. And Nicodemus’ proved it by his lack of understanding!​

And Jesus rebuked him for BEING a teacher and NOT already understanding. Which Jesus would NOT have done, if "understanding" was GOD'S choice FOR men.

QUote:
I don’t know what you’re getting at here, maybe you think I am bringing my presuppositional thinking to the table?​

With respect, yes. 37 occurrances of "see-look-at", and you insist the 38th is "perceive". I'm asking if that insistence is because of something in the text, or because of desire-to-have "perceive".

Each of us has presuppositions; "biases". Each of us must be careful that our theology is based on what was written, rather than a wrong interpretation.

QUote:
The problem with your argument is that it is pointless. It doesn’t matter whether I would have seen it or not; what matters is whether it is actually there or not. That is why we are discussing.​

That's right. And that's why I cited Lk9:27 --- the same context with the same word, and the same meaning. In Lk9, He's not asserting "perceive"; but "will not die before the kingdom is here".

Quote:
Where is it said that regeneration is only a part of the new covenant???​

The Spirit was not poured out upon flesh, until after Jesus ascended. Jesus sent the Spirit. Different covenants, different principles. Jesus and the Spirit did not indwell the person under the Old, as they do under the New.

Quote:
I don’t get your point? The dynamic is the same, yes. But the idea is much different-

Jhn 3:12
"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?​

If they choose not to believe earthly things, how will they believe heavenly things? If they choose not to believe Moses' writings (which spoke of Jesus), how will they believe Jesus' words? Both passages found on choosing not to believe basic things --- therefore how will they believe deeper things?

"HOW WILL YOU BELIEVE", cannot exist under a paradigm of "your belief is predestined".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Well that’s great. We are not discussing the doctrine of regeneration nor any other doctrine or verse. It is hard for me to ignore what you say, but we are sticking to the topic, not going off onto a rant about who’s right and who’s wrong and giving every single reason we have stacked up in our machine guns to each other. Back to John 3:3, and try sticking to it in your next post…​

The other passage is relevant. If "born-again" causes "understanding", then why would Jesus rebuke entire cities for REFUSING to believe? These are facts:

1. Bethsaida, Capernaum, and Chorazin were rebuked for SEEING Jesus' miracles, but REFUSING to believe.
2. They were told "if Tyre, Sidon, and even SODOM had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED".
3. They will be judged MORE HARSHLY than those OTHER cities --- can only mean "because greater willful unbelief".
4. In Jn10:38 Jesus said essentially "You can BELIEVE in Me just by seeing what I've DONE (miracles!)
5. Under "Predestination", sovereign election CAUSES understanding AND belief, but we've established that men were rebuked for REFUSING to believe even after having SEEN Jesus' miracles

That's why Jesus could not have meant "Unless you have been sovereignly-regenerated, you cannot understand-and-believe-savingly".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Ben:
No --- Jesus rebuked him for not knowing; and that cannot fit a paradigm of "Knowing is sovereignly GIFTED".

Quoted by JF:
Yes it can. But I don’t want to discuss whether the paradigm makes sense to you. I want to discuss what Jesus teaches in John 3:3.​

Back to the connection with Matt11:21-24, and Jn10:38 --- there is no way Jesus would have rebuked Nicodemus for "being a teacher and you do not KNOW this", if "knowing" was only consequential to God's sovereign regeneration. It's not a question of "making-sense", but "it could not happen". (The rebuke, I mean; He could not rebuke for NOT knowing, if "knowing" was God's decision...)

Quote:
Once again, a waste of words, because I am not about to discuss this with you. I told you at the very beginning of this discussion that I did not want to discuss the decree no divine election, but simply look at John 3:3. You were doing fine until this post.​

Neither of us can make a theology based on one verse, if our understanding conflicts other passages. You think "unless sovereign-regeneration, you cannot understand". Which by definition means God comes to men BEFORE they understand, thus BEFORE they believe and seek Him --- so it's relevant to cite Acts10:34-35 which says "God coming to men who do NOT (yet) seek/revere, is partiality that He is NOT".

Quote:
No Ben, you don’t give it a second of thought to try to understand the paradox. Our humanistic view of becoming saved does not see what God is doing in background. It is quite possible that Jesus’ rebuke to Nicodemus swayed his thinking, and at the same time, the father regenerated him so that he would understand it, both happening at the same making Nicodemus not even realize what just happened. Is God not great enough, being outside of time and having planned all things that they work out in such a way? You deny it simply because you can’t understand it, instead of admiring it because of that fact.​

In Jn10:38, did Jesus say "You can believe in Me just by looking at what I've done", or not?

Quoted by Ben:
Each passage that's thought to assert "too depraved to believe", has been refuted in that thinking. Jer17:9 has, 1Cor2:14 has, 2Cor4:3-4 has, Mark4:11-12 has. So has Ezk36:26-27. Nowhere is "regeneration", apart from the received Spirit.

Quoted by JF:
Nowhere accept John 3:3? Lol. Come on, Ben. When you say “has been refuted”, you mean you have come up with a way that interprets it to fit your view. Obviously we don’t concede the point.​

Does Luke 9:27 use the same word in the same sense, and convey "see-behold", or not?

QUote:
But just as your logic is used, how is “belief” able to be born in a man who has a depraved mind? Don’t say he doesn’t; Ephesians 2:1-5 proves it.​

Eph2:1-5, must include verse 8; we were made-alive, WHEN we were dead in sins, through faith. Calvinism asserts "faith is PART of God's election and regeneration" -- thus is simultaneous with 'made-alive'." But Paul said "made-alive, by grace THROUGH faith".

The same concept is also asserted in 1Cor1:18-21; God is pleased, THROUGH the foolishness of the message preached, to save those WHO believe."

You're gonna hafta consider the idea that depraved men CAN believe savingly in Christ, because no verse asserts otherwise. 1Cor2:14 doesn't, 2Cor4:3-4 doesn't, Ezk36:26-27 doesn't, Jer17:9 & Mk4:11-12 do not. Where is the idea that "unregenerated men cannot believe"? And against "Pelagianism" which asserts "men can be righteous by themselves", I undersand that it is the CALL to salvation which OVERCOMES our depravity sufficiently FOR belief.

Are all men truly called to salvation? Yes. And that's the undeniable meaning of Jesus' parable, Matt22:2-14, is that many (all) are called but few (those who CHOSE) are chosen.

Quote:

We have an admittance folks!!! ​

Admittance of what? The "kingdom of God", is a place; and Jesus asserted "because _I_ am here, the KINGDOM is here."

He who receives Jesus, receives the kingdom --- Jesus is in side of us, therefore the kingdom is inside. When the physical kingdom comes, we will be found already belonging. No contradiction.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
You can twist the words around as you like Ben, Jesus made a clear statement in Luke 17 about the kingdom being within you. And you admit that it is within you, “yet it is a physical place”. So Jesus said a physical place dwells inside of us? I don’t understand Ben? How can this be?​

Belonging to the Kingdom, is by Jesus. Jesus is in us. Thus "the kingdom is in us".

Those who belong to "the kingdom of God", are saved; salvation is by Jesus --- thus, Jesus-inside, means "saved", means "belongs-to-the-Kingdom", means "Kingdom-inside-through-Jesus".

Quoted by Ben:
"The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and forever." Rev11:15
Quoted by JF:
Talk about ripping a verse out of context… this is referring to the millennial kingdom of Christ, the mountain in Daniel 2. The world is transformed into His theocracy lasting 1,000 years. This isn’t “the kingdom of God”, nor is it “the kingdom of heaven”.​

How does "Kingdom of God", not mean "Kingdom of the Lord"?

QUote:
Your grammar is kind of confusing here… I said that just because idein refers to participate or enter or physically behold 37 times in Scripture does not prove that’s what it means this time based on that alone. The context must support it as well. And my case is that it doesn’t.​

I disagree that "context does not support". But just focus on Lk9:27 --- same word, same context --- does it mean "perceive", or "behold"?

QUote:
You tell me. How does one physically look at the kingdom when it is within them? Further, how does one physically look at the kingdom before they are dead?
​

Do you deny that Matt21:31 and Mk9:47 say "GET there"?

Mk9:47 positions "enter into kingdom" against "cast-into-Hell". That's a physical place.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Ben-

I would like to appeal to Frumanchu's post #1184.

How can Jesus rebuke Nicodemus, that he must be born again in order to "enter" the kingdom, if no one is born again until after pentecost (in your view)? Your view taken to fruition must affirm this, because you say that one cannot be born again without the indwelling of the Spirit-

No --- "born again" is the New Covenant; when Jesus spoke with Nicodemus, the Old Covenant ("Law") was still in effect.

No one had the indwelling of the Spirit before the church was formed. This means that logically, no one entered the kingdom (or was saved) before then! Yet we have those who were clearly saved before then (Enoch, Moses, Elijah, Abraham, David, etc.) according to scripture.

How can you reconcile this?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Ben-

I would like to appeal to Frumanchu's post #1184.​

Rats --- I was hoping you would respond to Lk9:27; it is the answer to your question on Jn3:3 --- Lk9:27 uses "see" as "look-at", it's the same word and same context as Jn3:3. Perhaps next time...

Quote:
How can Jesus rebuke Nicodemus, that he must be born again in order to "enter" the kingdom, if no one is born again until after pentecost (in your view)? Your view taken to fruition must affirm this, because you say that one cannot be born again without the indwelling of the Spirit-​

First, we would have to come to agreement on the structure of Titus 3:5-6 --- is there any way, in your view, that "WE were saved, by the washing and renewal of regeneration, by the Holy Spirit who WAS POURED on us through Jesus our Savior[/b]" --- is there any way that "poured", is not an aspect of the "REGENERATING Spirit""? Could you make it work to say, "God saved us, by the washing and renewal of regeneration, by the Holy Spirit who was THEN poured through Jesus our Savior"?

It's established that "poured" is "gifted" is "fell-upon" is "RECEIVED". "Sealed" does align with "received", in Eph1:13 (and "AFTER believing"). Nothing in Scripture speaks of regeneration BEFORE the Spirit is received.

In the Old Testament, there was a "born-from-above" position, that existed through faith; the difference is that it had not the indwelling Spirit, nor the indwelling Lord. They approached God, through a priest. This is why the veil TORE, because through Christ we now have direct access to God. Jesus is now the "mediator", the "perfect Priest".

The same faith that saved Abraham, saved Nicodemus; and saves us. Though Nick did not have the "indwelling Spirit", he had the PROMISE of the indwelling Spirit. It is as those in Nazi prison camps, who had not access to "waterbaptism"; they were baptized in their hearts. Before the Spirit was "poured out upon all flesh", men were saved in their hearts, by faith.

There also is a misunderstanding of "regeneration" and "renewal". The Greek (paliggenesia and anakainōsis) --- convey "renewal, rebirth, consecration-to-God". Parallel to "regeneration", is 2Cor5:17: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed (is passing) away, behold all has become new (new things have come)."

Yet --- we are not sinless. How is that possible? Is God INEPT in His regeneration? Or, if regeneration is by FAITH, then it must be WALKED-IN.

And so many verses warn to "abide in faith, abide in Christ".

Thus --- if "regeneration is GOD-DECIDED", how could we not be sinless? We could not. But "regeneration subordinate to faith" (and faith can become unbelief --- see Rom11:21-23), makes perfect sense.

I can give you so many verses that warn against "deceivers" --- and in each, the danger is BELIEVERS moving away from Christ (to unbelief). Col2:6-8, 1Jn2:26-28, 2Jn1:7-9, 2Pet3:17 to name a few...

Quote:
How can you reconcile this?​

That "reconcilliation" must accommodate the whole, including as I just mentioned --- all the "warnings against deception to unbelief". Sin itself can deceive us to separation from God; James1:14-16, and Heb3:6-14 are absolutely written to believers.[/b] How can we ignore them?

I look forward to your reply.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

In the Old Testament, there was a "born-from-above" position, that existed through faith

So what do you believe is the difference, Ben? Regeneration, being "born from above" is a one-time act, since it is paralleled by Jesus to physical birth. It is spiritual rebirth - something that happens in a moment, not an ongoing process (such as sanctification), just as physical birth is not an ongoing process. How could there be a difference in what "born from above" means under the old covenant and new covenant, if all that it means is spiritual rebirth?

You kind of dodged the question - before you said that being "born again" only happens under the new covenant. Now you say there was a "born from above position". What are you trying to say?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

VIEWS ON 'ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED'


Gospel:


Romans 8:29-39, For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

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. "

Mark 13:22, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible.

John 4:14, "but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

John 20:28, I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

1 Thess. 5:24, "The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.

Hebrews 10:14, "because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Rev. 3:5, "I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels."



Law:

John 15:4-7, "Remain in me, and I will remain in you... If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."

Rev. 2:10, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Matthew 10:22, "He who stands firm to the end will be saved."

1 Timothy 4:1, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons."

Luke 8:13, "They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away."

John 8:31, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really My disciples."

Luke 21:19, "By standing firm you will gain life."

Hebrews 8:9, "They did not remain faithful to My covenant, and I turned away from them"

Gal. 5:4, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

Col. 1:23, "If you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel."

Hebrews 10:26, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

2 Peter 1:8-10, "But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure."

2 Peter 3:17, "Be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."

Rev. 3:5, He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white.

Luke 12:8, "He who disowns Me before men will be disowned before the angels of God."


As so often in theology, we find there are "two sides of the coin." To ME, the approach is NOT to take all the Scriptures, subject them to our limited, fallable, sinful, human LOGIC and force them to "fit" and "make sense" to US. To ME, the approach is to accept both "sets" of scriptures at their face value and allow them to stand in all their truth and power just as God inspired them.

The approach, then, is in how to APPLY them rather than in how to force them to fit together according to our fallible, limited logic. Not in accepting one "set" and explaining away the other in the light of it.




MY $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Ben johnson]

An excellent post, Josiah --- much theology tendered by merely quoting verses. There are so many other verses too, that solidify theological points, and conflict other points (as we have each been laboring to put forth in these debates).

Some of your verses could use "expansion"; Rev3:5 for instance can be connected to Exodus 32:32-33; 2Pet1:8-10 can be expanded to include verses 5-7, showing that an example of "fallen-from-salvation" is held out for us NOT to imitate --- and that the very gates of Heaven depend on our HAVING those godly fruits. Fully "conditional".

Quote:
As so often in theology, we find there are "two sides of the coin." To ME, the approach is NOT to take all the Scriptures, subject them to our limited, fallable, sinful, human LOGIC and force them to "fit" and "make sense" to US. To ME, the approach is to accept both "sets" of scriptures at their face value and allow them to stand in all their truth and power just as God inspired them. ​

Sound advice. To be fair, I don't think anyone here consciously s "forcing-to-fit" Scripture. The view of "Calvinism", for instance, founds on four passages: Rom9:11-23, Rom8:28-29, Eph1:4-5, Eph1:11-12. These become the "guide" by which the rest is "understood"; and sometimes that does require selection of certain Greek meanings (on another thread we're having a discussion on "idein", whether it means "perceive" [predestined-regeneration] or "look-at" --- even though all other 37 occurrances of the word DOES mean "look-at"). So the question is "do these four passages found the rest, or does the rest constrain the four to certain meaning?

To participate in debates, it is germaine to ask "does this do any good, is it serving God?" Not many here change positions. Yet --- in between the debates, there are times when we can speak of the ESSENCE of salvation. I often receive notes thanking me of "saying soemthing that moved someone closer to God". In that, serving God, I am a success; for I have fulfilled His request for me to be an "Ambassador" for Him.

Quote:
The approach, then, is in how to APPLY them rather than in how to force them to fit together according to our fallible, limited logic. Not in accepting one "set" and explaining away the other in the light of it.
​

In the debates, each of us is victim of our own perceptions; thus what WE consider as "sound", others consider as "fitting to fallible logic".

This is another purpose of "debate". Which positions align with Scripture (all of it), and which can be shown to conflict? Which is "sound" and which is "bending to fit"?

Sometimes it's easy; so many times 1Cor2:14 is offered as proof that "unregenerate men can NOT believe in Christ". But the context says that the RECEIVED Spirit imparts that spiritual knowledge, therefore that specific knowledge ("the THINGS of the Spirit") cannot include the belief in Jesus which RECEIVES the Spirit (who THEN reveals those deeper spiritual things).

This thread is "OSAS"; there are three separate and distinct views of that.
1. Antinomianism
2. Calvinism
3. Eternal Security

Antinomianism is always "salvation-busting". In no sense can one who is actively fornicating/drunk/carousing/stealing/murdering ever be considered "Heaven-bound".

But there is a time when the other two positions, are not important in our brotherhood.

Many Calvinists are saved.
Many "ES" proponents are saved.

Conversely, many "Responsible Grace" persons are NOT saved (though many are). It is my dismal realization that the majority of people in church, REGARDLESS of demonination have no idea what salvation really IS.

The most important things we must take from these discussions, are:
1. We are to honor and glorify GOD, no one else.
2. If we agree on the ESSENCE, "Christ-in-you", "by grace through faith", then we agree sufficiently to fellowship as saved brothers.
3. If we always focus on the reality that what the world knows of Jesus they know from US, then that is our measure of success in life.
4. No one comes to Christian discussions intending to go to HELL, or to cause someone ELSE to perish. All of us in our hearts, want to serve God and live eternally.
5. There is ONE Savior --- it's none of you, and it's not me. Our ONLY commandments are to love God, love each OTHER, and to share Jesus.

I think that sometimes we forget that we serve a living and active Lord; He doesn't need us, but what an honor if we submit to Him enough to be useful. May our words be His, and may our hearts be His also. And may our love for others be the same as His, even as He was forgiving those who were killing Him.

May our words always mature and edify, and glorify God, never wound or injure another's spiritual walk. Whatever our disagreements, may Jesus inhabit this place, and us.

Always, and forever.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

An excellent post, Josiah --- much theology tendered by merely quoting verses. There are so many other verses too, that solidify theological points, and conflict other points (as we have each been laboring to put forth in these debates).

Some of your verses could use "expansion"; Rev3:5 for instance can be connected to Exodus 32:32-33; 2Pet1:8-10 can be expanded to include verses 5-7, showing that an example of "fallen-from-salvation" is held out for us NOT to imitate --- and that the very gates of Heaven depend on our HAVING those godly fruits. Fully "conditional".

I agree.

But my point is there's a Law/Gospel distinction here.

As so often in theology, we find there are "two sides of the coin." To ME, the approach is NOT to take all the Scriptures, subject them to our limited, fallable, sinful, human LOGIC and force them to "fit" and "make sense" to US. To ME, the approach is to accept both "sets" of scriptures at their face value and allow them to stand in all their truth and power just as God inspired them.

Sound advice. To be fair, I don't think anyone here consciously s "forcing-to-fit" Scripture. The view of "Calvinism", for instance, founds on four passages: Rom9:11-23, Rom8:28-29, Eph1:4-5, Eph1:11-12. These become the "guide" by which the rest is "understood"; and sometimes that does require selection of certain Greek meanings (on another thread we're having a discussion on "idein", whether it means "perceive" [predestined-regeneration] or "look-at" --- even though all other 37 occurrances of the word DOES mean "look-at"). So the question is "do these four passages found the rest, or does the rest constrain the four to certain meaning?

Again, I agree. I did not mean to imply any lack of integrity or sincerity. And I'd add that what I was rejecting is very common - a danger for ALL of us. But I agree with you: I think strict Calvinists START with a couple of verses - and then interpret all the others in light of those, even when such seems supremely strained at best. IMHO, the 'other side' does the very same thing - just with the other "set" of Scriptures.

The approach, then, is in how to APPLY them rather than in how to force them to fit together according to our fallible, limited logic. Not in accepting one "set" and explaining away the other in the light of it.

In the debates, each of us is victim of our own perceptions; thus what WE consider as "sound", others consider as "fitting to fallible logic".

This is another purpose of "debate". Which positions align with Scripture (all of it), and which can be shown to conflict? Which is "sound" and which is "bending to fit"?

Sometimes it's easy; so many times 1Cor2:14 is offered as proof that "unregenerate men can NOT believe in Christ". But the context says that the RECEIVED Spirit imparts that spiritual knowledge, therefore that specific knowledge ("the THINGS of the Spirit") cannot include the belief in Jesus which RECEIVES the Spirit (who THEN reveals those deeper spiritual things).

This thread is "OSAS"; there are three separate and distinct views of that.
1. Antinomianism
2. Calvinism
3. Eternal Security

Antinomianism is always "salvation-busting". In no sense can one who is actively fornicating/drunk/carousing/stealing/murdering ever be considered "Heaven-bound".

But there is a time when the other two positions, are not important in our brotherhood.

Many Calvinists are saved.
Many "ES" proponents are saved.

Conversely, many "Responsible Grace" persons are NOT saved (though many are). It is my dismal realization that the majority of people in church, REGARDLESS of demonination have no idea what salvation really IS.

The most important things we must take from these discussions, are:
1. We are to honor and glorify GOD, no one else.
2. If we agree on the ESSENCE, "Christ-in-you", "by grace through faith", then we agree sufficiently to fellowship as saved brothers.
3. If we always focus on the reality that what the world knows of Jesus they know from US, then that is our measure of success in life.
4. No one comes to Christian discussions intending to go to HELL, or to cause someone ELSE to perish. All of us in our hearts, want to serve God and live eternally.
5. There is ONE Savior --- it's none of you, and it's not me. Our ONLY commandments are to love God, love each OTHER, and to share Jesus.

I think that sometimes we forget that we serve a living and active Lord; He doesn't need us, but what an honor if we submit to Him enough to be useful. May our words be His, and may our hearts be His also. And may our love for others be the same as His, even as He was forgiving those who were killing Him.

May our words always mature and edify, and glorify God, never wound or injure another's spiritual walk. Whatever our disagreements, may Jesus inhabit this place, and us.

Always, and forever.

Sound points...

I'm not sure I fall into ANY of those 3 views. I just accept both "sets" equally.

IMHO, we ALL tend to give too much "credit" to our brains and too much importance to helping God make sense. We are called to be stewards of the mysteries of God, not to "connect the dots" and make God logical to us. I think that we tend too often to look to Scripture as if it were a logical exposition of systematic theology, when I think that typically it is a sermon addressed to specific people, attitudes, situations. I think that more often than not, it's addressing hearts and lives rather than intellectual, cognative aspirations to construct systemmatics. I think, too, that for many of US, Christianity is happening too much in our brains and not enough in our hearts and lives. As I get old (I'm 20, lol), I'm more and more comfortable with mystery, tension, balance - with saying "I don't know exactly how that is or works - and that's okay." My father (a minister with a doctorate degree) often stresses that all good theology begins with humility and the willingness to shut up. I think he has a point.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Oye11]

There is a ton of wisdom in that post Josh. Thanks and great seeing you in soteriology.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by CaliforniaJosiah:
IMHO, we ALL tend to give too much "credit" to our brains and too much importance to helping God make sense. We are called to be stewards of the mysteries of God, not to "connect the dots" and make God logical to us. I think that we tend too often to look to Scripture as if it were a logical exposition of systematic theology, when I think that typically it is a sermon addressed to specific people, attitudes, situations. I think that more often than not, it's addressing hearts and lives rather than intellectual, cognative aspirations to construct systemmatics. I think, too, that for many of US, Christianity is happening too much in our brains and not enough in our hearts and lives. As I get old (I'm 20, lol), I'm more and more comfortable with mystery, tension, balance - with saying "I don't know exactly how that is or works - and that's okay." My father (a minister with a doctorate degree) often stresses that all good theology begins with humility and the willingness to shut up. I think he has a point.
​

Hi, "Josiah". You have much wisdom for your years.

There are those who say "Scripture can be interpreted to say anything you want." Is that true? I think it isn't.

The debate on "OSAS" has continued for centuries --- though not with the current participants.

Each view of "OSAS", has certain verses on which they found. In a "debate setting", we cite verses and their meanings, struggling to support or conflict certain understandings. So many verses thought to assert "OSAS", can be shown not to, simply by the context. Take John 10:26-28 for instance; it exists in context with the idea of "You can believe in Jesus just by looking at what He has done." And that connects perfectly with John20:29 (Jesus talking to Thomas), Matt11:21-24 (Jesus rebuking people for having seen and REFUSING to believe), and many other verses.

Scripture may not be "systematic theology" (though perhaps Romans is), but we can expect the basic concepts OF Christ's Gospel to be reflected IN all of it. Take the four founding passages of Calvinism --- Eph1:4-5 & 11-12, Rom9:11-21, Rom8:28-29. There are many secondary verses that are easy to refute from "predestination" (1Cor2:14, Jn10:26-28, 2Cor4:3-4, Ezk36:26-27, 1Jn2:19, 1Jn5:1, etcetera). And there are other verses that establish certain concepts that CONFLICT a predestinary understanding of those four founding passages. Thus the understanding of those four, must harmonize with the rest; and they cannot under "predestionation".

All Scripture is inspired by God (literally, "God-breathed"), and suitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness, that the man of God my be equipped for every good work. 2Tim3:16-17.

I do believe God inspired it to make sense.

 

[chestertonrules]

VIEWS ON 'ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED'


Gospel:


Romans 8:29-39, For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

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. "

Mark 13:22, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible.

John 4:14, "but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

John 20:28, I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

1 Thess. 5:24, "The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.

Hebrews 10:14, "because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Rev. 3:5, "I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels."



Law:

John 15:4-7, "Remain in me, and I will remain in you... If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."

Rev. 2:10, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Matthew 10:22, "He who stands firm to the end will be saved."

1 Timothy 4:1, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons."

Luke 8:13, "They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away."

John 8:31, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really My disciples."

Luke 21:19, "By standing firm you will gain life."

Hebrews 8:9, "They did not remain faithful to My covenant, and I turned away from them"

Gal. 5:4, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

Col. 1:23, "If you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel."

Hebrews 10:26, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

2 Peter 1:8-10, "But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure."

2 Peter 3:17, "Be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."

Rev. 3:5, He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white.

Luke 12:8, "He who disowns Me before men will be disowned before the angels of God."


As so often in theology, we find there are "two sides of the coin." To ME, the approach is NOT to take all the Scriptures, subject them to our limited, fallable, sinful, human LOGIC and force them to "fit" and "make sense" to US. To ME, the approach is to accept both "sets" of scriptures at their face value and allow them to stand in all their truth and power just as God inspired them.

The approach, then, is in how to APPLY them rather than in how to force them to fit together according to our fallible, limited logic. Not in accepting one "set" and explaining away the other in the light of it.




MY $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

Very good post, although I think all the verses listed are part of the gospel.