Rebirth

[WordSword]

Thankfully, misunderstanding being reborn cannot detract anything salvific from the believer in Christ, but it will most definitely delay spiritual growth in learning to “walk in the Spirit” and in being “conformed to the image of Christ.” I say “delay” and not hinder because everyone reborn is undergoing the same “work” of God within that instills the saint with the “desire” and “ability” for His “good pleasure” (Phil 2:13).

In this passage, there are no given restrictions to those reborn (i.e. includes all reborn) concerning God’s “work in you.” This means there will always be within the believer the desire and ability for His pleasure! Hence, if one professing faith manifests the opposite lifestyle of this “work,” there can only be one explanation—God was not within, because He works this in all who are reborn. To refute this conclusion would be to admit that one could overcome God in His work to impart these elements.

By the believer God can be “quenched” (1 Thes 5:19) and “grieved” (Eph 4:30), but never “resisted” (Act 7:51), otherwise this “work” of God would never be received by any man, due to the sinful nature, which has to be offset by the new nature, via the Spirit (Gal 5:17; Eph 3:16).

This answers to the reason why there cannot be found any teachings among Bible commentators that support opposition to the permanency of faith and salvation!
NC

 

[MyLordYeshuaTheMessiah]

This answers to the reason why there cannot be found any teachings among Bible commentators that support opposition to the permanency of faith and salvation!
NC

Jesus says in the parable of the sower, that some have faith for a little time, then fall away.

 

[WordSword]

Jesus says in the parable of the sower, that some have faith for a little time, then fall away.

Hi and thanks for the reply! This is the type of passage (among many) that I want others present for this discussion.

Luke 8:13: "Which for a while believe: their faith is a temporary one, like that of Simon Magus (Act 8:18-24); which shows it is not true faith, for that is an abiding grace which Christ, who is the author, is the finisher of it, and prays for it, that it fail not.

"The Persic version renders it, "in the time of hearing they have faith"; and such sort of hearers there are, who, whilst they are hearing, assent to what they hear, but when they are gone, either forget it, or, falling into bad company, are prevailed upon to doubt of it, and disbelieve it. The Arabic version renders it, "they believe for a small time"; their faith do not continue long, nor their profession of it, both are soon dropped." John Gill
Luke 8 Bible Commentary - John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible

 

[bcbsr]

Jesus says in the parable of the sower, that some have faith for a little time, then fall away.

You're talking about the seed the fell on the rocky ground.

Mt 13:5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.​

These are those of a shallow faith, not saving faith. Their "faith" was just on the surface, whereas the faith that saves is a deeply rooted conviction. And thus these were never saved to begin with.

 

[WordSword]

Here's a tough one:
John 15:2 is a tough one: “Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away.”

There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine; the one sort are such who have only an historical faith in him, believe but for a time, and are removed; they are such who only profess to believe in him, as Simon Magus did; are in him by profession only; they submit to outward ordinances, become church members, and so are reckoned to be in Christ, being in a church state, as the churches of Judea and Thessalonica, and others, are said, in general, to he in Christ; though it is not to be thought that every individual person in these churches were truly and savingly in him. These branches are unfruitful ones; what fruit they seemed to have, withers away, and proves not to be genuine fruit; what fruit they bring forth is to themselves, and not to the glory of God, being none of the fruits of his Spirit and grace.”

 

[FreeGrace2]

WordSword said: ↑
This answers to the reason why there cannot be found any teachings among Bible commentators that support opposition to the permanency of faith and salvation!
NC

Jesus says in the parable of the sower, that some have faith for a little time, then fall away.

Specifically, Jesus said some will "believe for a while, and in time of temptation or testing, will fall away."

So, the words "fall away" refer to "believe for a while", meaning that they fall away from their faith, or cease to believe.

The error is to assume that ceasing to believe equates to ceasing to be saved.

But since Jesus taught that recipients of eternal life, which occurs WHEN one believes, per John 5:24, 6:47, 1 John 5:11, 13, that they shall never perish in John 10:28, it is therefore impossible for anyone who has believed and therefore has received the gift of eternal life, to perish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You're talking about the seed the fell on the rocky ground.

Mt 13:5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.​

These are those of a shallow faith, not saving faith. Their "faith" was just on the surface, whereas the faith that saves is a deeply rooted conviction. And thus these were never saved to begin with.

Please don't make up and insert words into the text. Nowhere did Jesus or any other writer of Scripture mention a "shallow faith" that does not save.

Luke 8:12 says, "lest they believe and be saved".

Then, in the very next verse, Jesus said "they believe for a while...". The very same word. Not "they believed in a shallow unsaving way for a while".

It is just an assumption to claim that "believing for a while" doesn't save, since there is no other Scripture that supports such a thing.

When a person believes,
1. they POSSESS eternal life. John 5;24, 6:47, 1 Jn 5;11, 3
2. they are born again of imperishable seed. 1 Pet 1:23
3. they are sealed with the Holy Spirit, for the day of redemption. Eph 1:13,14
4. they shall never perish. John 10:28

Salvation is permanent.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Here's a tough one:
John 15:2 is a tough one: “Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away.”

There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine; the one sort are such who have only an historical faith in him, believe but for a time, and are removed; they are such who only profess to believe in him, as Simon Magus did; are in him by profession only; they submit to outward ordinances, become church members, and so are reckoned to be in Christ, being in a church state, as the churches of Judea and Thessalonica, and others, are said, in general, to he in Christ; though it is not to be thought that every individual person in these churches were truly and savingly in him. These branches are unfruitful ones; what fruit they seemed to have, withers away, and proves not to be genuine fruit; what fruit they bring forth is to themselves, and not to the glory of God, being none of the fruits of his Spirit and grace.”

Not so tough, really.

From Acts 8 -
12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

What we see are the same words that describe the "men and women" and Simon.

There is no difference. Since the "men and women" were saved, there is no reason to assume Simon wasn't. And the Bible didn't say that Simon "professed to believe". No. It says that "Simon himself believed". That's clear and direct. He did believe.

However, his heart was not right, for the reasons Peter listed. And he needed to confess his sins for forgiveness. 1 Jn 1:9

 

[bcbsr]

Please don't make up and insert words into the text. Nowhere did Jesus or any other writer of Scripture mention a "shallow faith" that does not save.

Never heard of "Interpretation"? Strange, because that's what you're doing.

Allow me to provide an example:

Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

Paul speaking of the same people says, "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4

What Luke refers to as "believers" Paul calls "false brethren", because Luke was talking about their public identity whereas Paul was talking about what they really were.

INTERPRETATION: Everyone does it, including yourself.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Please don't make up and insert words into the text. Nowhere did Jesus or any other writer of Scripture mention a "shallow faith" that does not save.

Never heard of "Interpretation"? Strange, because that's what you're doing.

Hilarious. Since I'm not the one who substituted "shallow faith" for "believe" in Scripture. So who's doing the "interpretation?"

Allow me to provide an example:

Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

Paul speaking of the same people says, "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4

Allow me to show thee thy mistake here.

Acts 15:5 clearly says "believers". So that's who they are; believers. Saved. But full of false doctrine regarding circumcision, kinda like those who espouse water baptism today for salvation.

In Gal 2:4 we see a clear different kind of creature; "false brothers". They were sneaky types, who were spying out real believers.

What Luke refers to as "believers" Paul calls "false brethren", because Luke was talking about their public identity whereas Paul was talking about what they really were.

Wow. Talk about faulty interpretation. Let the Bible speak for itself.

Jesus didn't describe the second soil as false brothers. He actually said that they BELIEVED.

INTERPRETATION: Everyone does it, including yourself.

And you, more than some.

But I find interpretation isn't even necessary in many verses, since the words are direct, clear and in plain language.

 

[bcbsr]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Please don't make up and insert words into the text.
Allow me to show thee thy mistake here.

Acts 15:5 clearly says "believers". So that's who they are; believers. Saved. But full of false doctrine regarding circumcision, kinda like those who espouse water baptism today for salvation.

In Gal 2:4 we see a clear different kind of creature; "false brothers". They were sneaky types, who were spying out real believers.

Now who is inserting words into the text?

I understand you're of a Free Grace theology, a theology which proposes that there is not necessarily any correlation between a person's behavior and their salvation status. And yet the Bible says, among many places, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." 1JOhn 3:9,10 Thus disproving Free Grace Theology.

Furthermore even with regards to the verse in question John also writes, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." 1John 2:19 And thus those who fall away, such as those on the rocky ground, were never saved to begin with.

But not everyone can hear what John says, as it is written, "We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us." 1John 4:6

But concerning the correlation between the Galatians and Acts 15 verses.

"Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:3,4

Thus the "false brothers" were those who insisted one be circumcised. Compare to Acts 15

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."

Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

Clearly Paul is referring to these same people.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Now who is inserting words into the text?

I just showed that you are.

I understand you're of a Free Grace theology, a theology which proposes that there is not necessarily any correlation between a person's behavior and their salvation status.

If all saved peope will have a changed for the better behavior, why is the Bible so full of all the commands to be "holy and blameless", and other commands regarding behavior? Don't you see the problem with that? If truly saved people DO behave differently, just on the basis of being saved, or born again, there shouldn't be any need for commands to "shape up". But there are many such commands.

And what do you do with Paul's commands to STOP grieving the Spirit and STOP quenching the Spirit? How are those not bad behavior by saved people?

And yet the Bible says, among many places, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." 1JOhn 3:9,10 Thus disproving Free Grace Theology.

Quite the contrary, actually. What you fail to discern is that v.9 is a statement about WHEN the believer cannot sin. It sure doesn't mean truly saved people will not sin again. Far from that. If you believe that you have ceased from all sin, you have been greatly deceived and deluded.

I'm going to color code it for ease of following my points of explanation:

v. 9 - No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

The red words refer to our new, born again nature, by which the Bible describes the believer as a "new creature/creation".

The blue words refer to the function of our new, born again nature; cannot sin.

But since Paul and the rest of the Bible emphasizes that we continue to struggle with sin, it's obvious (or should be) that we still sin from our original fallen human nature, the one we were born with.

So, iow, we now have 2 natures that we choose to "serve". When we choose to serve our original nature, we "grieve" (Eph 4:30) and/or "quench" the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19). But, when we serve our new, born again nature, we are filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walk by the Spirit (Gal 5:16), so we don't fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Paul explained our struggle with sin in Romans 6, and to whom we "present ourselves to obey". He was referring to our 2 natures.

So 1 Jn 3:9 does NOT say that the believer will not sin, but that the believer will not sin ONLY WHEN they function from their new nature.

Furthermore even with regards to the verse in question John also writes, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." 1John 2:19 And thus those who fall away, such as those on the rocky ground, were never saved to begin with.

Your conclusion is wrong. Haven't you read Acts 15? Luke described believers who were of the Pharisee party (v.5), who taught that one must be circumcised, and from the context of v.1, that meant be circumcized in order to be saved. Yet they were called "brothers", which was typical of how to describe fellow believers (saved people). However, in 2 passages, Paul used the term "false brethren" to indicate unsaved spies. 2 Cor 11:26 and Gal 2:4

But concerning the correlation between the Galatians and Acts 15 verses.

"Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:3,4

Yes, my point exactly.

Thus the "false brothers" were those who insisted one be circumcised. Compare to Acts 15

I just explained that the believers of the circumcision party were called "brothers", not, as you would prefer, "false brothers".

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."

Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

Clearly Paul is referring to these same people.

Since I just explained how your view is in error, no need for further comment here.

 

[BCsenior]

This answers to the reason why there cannot be found any teachings among Bible commentators that support opposition to the permanency of faith and salvation!

I'm sorry to have to tell you that this
is all pie-in-the-sky hopeful nonsense!
God gave us free will for a reason.
There certainly are Bible commentaries
that explain why salvation can be lost.
Your delusions are the direct result of
false teachings from America's pulpits.
News Flash: It's not good business to
preach unpopular news (i.e. Biblical Truth)

 

[Gr8Grace]

I'm sorry to have to tell you that this
is all pie-in-the-sky hopeful nonsense!
God gave us free will for a reason.
There certainly are Bible commentaries
that explain why salvation can be lost.
Your delusions are the direct result of
false teachings from America's pulpits.
News Flash: It's not good business to
preach unpopular news (i.e. Biblical Truth)

You do realize that he is teaching the same thing as you?......It's just a little more subtle.......You really were not saved because you didn't WORK. It is the EXACT same thing that you espouse. Just different wording.

And I would have to disagree. It is very profitable for calvinism and armins these days.

 

[bcbsr]

If all saved peope will have a changed for the better behavior, why is the Bible so full of all the commands to be "holy and blameless", and other commands regarding behavior?

Because, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27 Its because of their nature as his sheep that they follow and listen for commands. That's why there are commands to his sheep. They naturally do what he commands, and find it not burdensome, because of their nature. "his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world." 1John 5:3

Free Grace Theology denies these facts.

Quite the contrary, actually. What you fail to discern is that v.9 is a statement about WHEN the believer cannot sin. It sure doesn't mean truly saved people will not sin again. Far from that. If you believe that you have ceased from all sin, you have been greatly deceived and deluded.

I'm going to color code it for ease of following my points of explanation:

v. 9 - No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

The red words refer to our new, born again nature, by which the Bible describes the believer as a "new creature/creation".

The blue words refer to the function of our new, born again nature; cannot sin.

Wrong. Who is "they" referring to? Clearly it's referring to those who have been born of God. It's the person. I understand what Free Grace Theology proposes about 1John 3:9. But they're clearly wrong. They're not using basic reading comprehension skills in interpreting the verse.

And no, it's not talking about sinless perfection. It's not using the aorist tense as if talking about every particular event of sin. It uses the present tense which in Greek speaks of one's lifestyle, one's characteristic behavior, that which is typical. And both of these points are even more clear when you read it in the context of verse 10, where there's a clear distinction between children of God and children of the devil based upon their behavior, which is contrary to the propositions of Free Grace Theology.

Which are you? A child of God or a child of the devil? Are you born of God? Does your Free Grace Theology give you a problem with those kind of questions? Because what your theology would lead you to say is that some days you're a child of God and other days you're a child of the devil. Some days you're born of God and others days you're not. It's simply not consistent with the rhetoric the rest of 1John and indeed the rest of the Bible uses.

But since Paul and the rest of the Bible emphasizes that we continue to struggle with sin, it's obvious (or should be) that we still sin from our original fallen human nature, the one we were born with.

That doesn't conflict with 1John as 1John 3:9 doesn't deny that those born of God may sin from time to time in the aorist sense. But not in the present lifestyle sense.

So 1 Jn 3:9 does NOT say that the believer will not sin, but that the believer will not sin ONLY WHEN they function from their new nature.

There you go again adding words that not only are not in the text, but inconsistent with what the text actually says.

Since I just explained how your view is in error, no need for further comment here.

So you shouldn't have to comment further. Right? If your argument was so convincing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked:
"If all saved peope will have a changed for the better behavior, why is the Bible so full of all the commands to be "holy and blameless", and other commands regarding behavior?"

Because, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27 Its because of their nature as his sheep that they follow and listen for commands. That's why there are commands to his sheep. They naturally do what he commands, and find it not burdensome, because of their nature.

How does this answer the question of WHY all the commands regarding better behavior? You just ignored the question and read from your talking points.

Please face the FACT that there are many commands to believers for being "holy and blameless". Your view would make ALL of these commands needless.

There isn't ANY verse in the Bible that teaches that saved people will act better.

There are MANY verses in the Bible commanding believers to act better.

"his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world." 1John 5:3

These commands are not burdensome, but only when the believer is filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walking with the Spirit (Gal 5:16).

Unless this occurs, every believer WILL grieve the Spirit (Eph 4:30) or quench the Spirit )1 Thess 5:19).

Does that sound like sheep who hear and follow the Lord? Not hardly.

Free Grace Theology denies these facts.

This is delusional. It is you who deny the FACT that believers can act like unbelievers.

Or do you also deny this verse?

Eph 4:17 - So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking.

Do you understand what "no longer" means? It means to STOP IT!!!!!

So, obviously, you and Paul are in serious disagreement.

Wrong. Who is "they" referring to? Clearly it's referring to those who have been born of God. It's the person. I understand what Free Grace Theology proposes about 1John 3:9. But they're clearly wrong.

You've used "wrong" twice now, but not ANY explanation or evidence of this.

I'm NOT interested in your opinion, but what Scripture SAYS.

And my explanation of that verse is the ONLY sane one. Otherwise, you have to believe that once born again, the "person" never sins again. Which is also delusional.

They're not using basic reading comprehension skills in interpreting the verse.

I suggest the opposite is true.

And no, it's not talking about sinless perfection.

Of course not. So the ONLY SANE understanding is the verse is about our new nature that cannot sin.

It's not using the aorist tense as if talking about every particular event of sin. It uses the present tense which in Greek speaks of one's lifestyle, one's characteristic behavior, that which is typical.

Are you saying that you don't sin in the present tense? Then, just what tense are you sinning in?

And both of these points are even more clear when you read it in the context of verse 10, where there's a clear distinction between children of God and children of the devil based upon their behavior, which is contrary to the propositions of Free Grace Theology.

Your explanation of v.9 fails miserably. Because it's either speaking of the born again nature, and NOT the "person" as a whole, or born again people DON'T SIN.

\Which are you? A child of God or a child of the devil? Are you born of God? Does your Free Grace Theology give you a problem with those kind of questions?

My theology gives me NO problems with any questions. You know why? Because TRUTH always has an answer.

John's point is that when believers sin, they are ACTING like children of the devil. Real simple and clear. And he wants believers to ACT like believers, children of God.

Because what your theology would lead you to say is that some days you're a child of God and other days you're a child of the devil.

Since Paul commanded believers to STOP grieving (Eph 4:30) and STOP quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Spirit, what kind of children are you ACTING like? Hm? That's the point.

Some days you're born of God and others days you're not.

Boy, have you missed the whole point. The Bible NEVER speaks of anyone being "born of the devil". It's all about who you are acting like. And when YOU sin, regardless of which tense you decide, are you ACTING like a child of God or ACTING like a child of the devil?

It's simply not consistent with the rhetoric the rest of 1John and indeed the rest of the Bible uses.

Only Free Grace theology is consistent with all of the Bible.

So you shouldn't have to comment further. Right? If your argument was so convincing.

I've asked you some questions. Do you have enough truth to answer them honestly?

 

[bcbsr]

I asked:
"If all saved peope will have a changed for the better behavior, why is the Bible so full of all the commands to be "holy and blameless", and other commands regarding behavior?"
How does this answer the question of WHY all the commands regarding better behavior?

I fail to understand how you could not comprehend my answer. Apparently you couldn't hear what I was saying. Might be that principle in play John talked about, "He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us."

There isn't ANY verse in the Bible that teaches that saved people will act better.

That's the proposition of Free Grace Theology, but it's not true. Take for example 1John 3:9,10.

There are MANY verses in the Bible commanding believers to act better.

Because while no one born of God will continue to sin, they are not sinlessly perfect and as such will sin from time to time.

"his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world." 1John 5:3
These commands are not burdensome, but only when the believer is filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walking with the Spirit (Gal 5:16).

So you’re adding words to the verse again? The verse doesn’t mention any such conditions.

This is delusional. It is you who deny the FACT that believers can act like unbelievers.
Or do you also deny this verse?
Eph 4:17 - So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking.

Again, I dealt with such verses. You just didn’t listen. You apparently couldn’t hear because you couldn’t handle the implications in light of your allegiance to Free Grace Theology.

So, obviously, you and Paul are in serious disagreement.
I'm NOT interested in your opinion, but what Scripture SAYS.
And my explanation of that verse is the ONLY sane one. Otherwise, you have to believe that once born again, the "person" never sins again. Which is also delusional.
So the ONLY SANE understanding is the verse is about our new nature that cannot sin.

So now you’re saying I’m either insane or delusional. My objective is not convincing you but rather to show how irrational your position is. And that’s pretty much been proven at this point. You’ve devolved your argument into personal attacks calling me insane or delusional and make the false claim that I’m in in disagreement with Paul. I've shown you what the scriptures says, but you don't listen. You can't hear what it's saying.

Are you saying that you don't sin in the present tense? Then, just what tense are you sinning in?

Aorist

Once again:

1John 3:9,10 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains I him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

“No one”,”him”,”he” is referring to a person, not a thing.

Anyone using basic reading comprehension skills can see that.

Unlike the English Present tense, the Koine Greek Present tense can refer to lifestyle, characteristic behavior, that which is typical, in contrast to the Aorist which speaks of events. Therefore not sinning is not speaking about a series of events, but rather behavior which is typical of the individual.

Verse 10 further validates this point (interpretation based upon CONTEXT) insomuch as verse 10 speaks of identifying children of God based upon their behavior.

“children of God” refers to people who have been born of God. People, individuals, not things.

Anyone who has read the Bible should recognize that “children of God”, “sons of God”, “born of God” are all phrases referring to the person and not a thing.

1John 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God.

John 1:12,13 to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.​

In contrast Free Grace Theology takes the irrational position that such phrases are not referring to the person but rather a “nature”, not a person. A nature which they claim vacillates between being a child of God and a child of the devil.

Consequently, as shown in this thread, among other things Free Gracers cannot claim to be children of God.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked:
"If all saved peope will have a changed for the better behavior, why is the Bible so full of all the commands to be "holy and blameless", and other commands regarding behavior?"
How does this answer the question of WHY all the commands regarding better behavior?

I fail to understand how you could not comprehend my answer.

Why did you not answer my question? and you continue to dodge the very clear issue of all the commands for holy living, which is directly to saved people.

Apparently you couldn't hear what I was saying.

I heard you perfectly clear, and explained WHY your view cannot be correct.

That's the proposition of Free Grace Theology, but it's not true. Take for example 1John 3:9,10.

Well, I just explained the meaning of v.9 before. If you disagree, you're going to have to do much better than just say so. You're going to have to prove your disapproval, and refutre my explanation. Not just express disagreement.

Because while no one born of God will continue to sin, they are not sinlessly perfect and as such will sin from time to time.

\
btw, I forgot to mention in my previous post that your mention of the "present tense" actually sinks YOUR own boat.

Glad you pointed out that sinning is in the present tense. That itself PROVES your view is wrong. v.9 says "not continue to sin". That would have to mean no longer sins, in the present tense. But the present tense supports my explanation, that when the believer is functioning PRESENTLY in the born again new nature, they cannot sin PRESENTLY.

I said:
""his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world." 1John 5:3
These commands are not burdensome, but only when the believer is filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walking with the Spirit (Gal 5:16)."

So you’re adding words to the verse again? The verse doesn’t mention any such conditions.

So, it seems you'd just rather ignore those commands of Paul, that are applicable to believers AT ALL TIMES. And I didn't add words to 1 Jn 5:3. I pointed out related verses that deal with HOW not to sin.

Do you think a believer can sin when filled with the Spirit? yes or no. Put your cards on the table for all to see.

I asked:
"Or do you also deny this verse?
Eph 4:17 - So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking."

Again, I dealt with such verses. You just didn’t listen. You apparently couldn’t hear because you couldn’t handle the implications in light of your allegiance to Free Grace Theology.

Where did you "deal" with Eph 4:17? Cite the post #, if that is really true.

So now you’re saying I’m either insane or delusional.

No. I said your view is that. I don't know you at all, and can't make that judgment. But your view sure is.

My objective is not convincing you but rather to show how irrational your position is.

Well, when will you be meeting your objective? All you've done so far is express your disagreement and distaste for Free Grace theology. You've failed to provide any evidence at all.

And that’s pretty much been proven at this point. You’ve devolved your argument into personal attacks calling me insane or delusional and make the false claim that I’m in in disagreement with Paul.

Please read my posts more carefully. I've been careful to describe YOUR VIEWS as insane or delusional. Not you. Quit taking this so personal. It's your views I'm debating.

I've shown you what the scriptures says, but you don't listen. You can't hear what it's saying.

Anyone can read my responses and see clearly that I not only heard what YOU think the verses say, but I've explained HOW and WHY your views are wrong.

Aorist
Once again:

1John 3:9,10 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains I him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

“No one”,”him”,”he” is referring to a person, not a thing.

Why include "aorist" here? Didn't you previously claim the verse used the present tense?

Unlike the English Present tense, the Koine Greek Present tense can refer to lifestyle, characteristic behavior, that which is typical, in contrast to the Aorist which speaks of events. Therefore not sinning is not speaking about a series of events, but rather behavior which is typical of the individual.

I don't believe a word you say about this tense. So at least cite a source.

Here are my sources for the present tense in the Greek:
Greek Verb Tenses (Intermediate Discussion)

"For action happening at the present time, only the 'present tense' is available. Whether the writer is wishing in any particular instance to emphasis the progressive aspect of the verb or just indicate a simple occurrence at the present time, there is only one choice of tense to use. Therefore, one must consider the context and the basic meaning of the verb to determine whether the emphasis is on the continuous aspect of the action or merely on the present time element. It may be that no real emphasis on progressive action is intended but, for a statement requiring the element of present time, there is no choice but to use the 'present tense'. (Of course outside the indicative mood the emphasis almost certainly will be on the progressive element of the verb, since the aorist tense could readily be employed)."

See? Nothing here about lifestyle at all.

Verse 10 further validates this point (interpretation based upon CONTEXT) insomuch as verse 10 speaks of identifying children of God based upon their behavior.

I've already given my refutation and explanation. If you disagree, then address my points and prove why I'm wrong. All you're doing here is re-hashing your previous point. I don't need to argue with a broken record.

In contrast Free Grace Theology takes the irrational position that such phrases are not referring to the person but rather a “nature”, not a person. A nature which they claim vacillates between being a child of God and a child of the devil.

Please quit lying about what I have already told you. In v.9 being "born of God" DOES refer to our new nature. I guess you just have NEVER been trained or taught anything about believers being new creatures because of having a new born again nature.

When you believed in Christ, did your body change? No. What did change? Did you lose your sinful nature? No. So what changed? Do you even know?

Consequently, as shown in this thread, among other things Free Gracers cannot claim to be children of God.

Nonsense. Everyone who has placed their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior ARE children of God.

Your claim definitely demonstrates that you'll stoop as low as possible to denigrate a theology that you just don't like.

But you've proven nothing else. And you don't even grasp that believers have a new nature.

 

[WordSword]

There certainly are Bible commentaries that explain why salvation can be lost.

Not to refute you here, but just wanted to mention I've yet to come across a Bible commentator that doesn't support OSAS. If there is one I missed him, and would one or even two be a significant credibility, considering the number of commentators there are? Maybe an example would help. Thanks for your reply.

Blessings!

 

[BCsenior]

Not to refute you here, but just wanted to mention I've yet to come across a Bible commentator that doesn't support OSAS. If there is one I missed him, and would one or even two be a significant credibility, considering the number of commentators there are? Maybe an example would help. Thanks for your reply.

Would a Spirit-filled pentecostal-charismatic
medical missionary (doctor) to Nepal be allowed?
Probably not ... too much spiritual understanding,
not to mention experience! Oh well, I tried.
Anyway, he is Dr. Thomas Hale, The Applied New Testament Commentary, 1996, Victor Publishing