SALVATION offered by Jesus: COMPLETED and IRREVOCABLE

[FreeGrace2]

Of course there is still the scenario of the shallow ground in the parable of the sower, who believed for a moment and then fell away. To you falling away does not mean losing salvation.

Because it isn't. the words "fall away" refer back to "believe for a while". Jesus said they ceased to believe when temptation came. Nothing more.

This is a lie from the pit of hell

I wouldn't apply that comment to anything from the Bible.

designed to make the warning not to fall away weaker or even nil.

Not at all. There are 2 sides to a coin. One side is eternal security, the other side is God's painful discipline for the disobedient.

They believed, which means they were "saved" from time's perspective, or they "looked saved" for all practical purposes were saved.

No, when Jesus says someone believed, He really meant it. And because they believed, at that moment, they received eternal life. And you know the FACT; recipients of eternal life shall never perish.

But from eternity's perspective their faith wasn't going to cut it.

Given Jesus' statement in John 10:28, this is false.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I will NOT do just that, because I am one of God's elect and have been sealed by the Holy Spirit

Everyone who believes is sealed. Eph 1:13. And elected. Eph 1:4

What happens when the Muslims come and take over in about 25 years?

I kinda doubt that it will take that long.

Christians will be told to deny Christ at the threat of the sword; and if anyone believes you they will deny Him to save their own lives. And He will also deny them before the angels of God and before the Father. But they will still be saved in your theology.

Both passages that mention being denied (Matt and 2 Tim) are about rewards. I know your theology has no room for such an idea, but it is biblical anyway.

So, no skin off their backs if you are right.

Wrong again. Lots of skin off their backs. They will lose significant reward.

2 Tim 2:12 is about being denied the privilege of reigning with Christ. Is that 'no skin off the back'?

Rom 8:17 is about sharing in Christ's glory "if indeed" we suffer for Him. You think missing out on "sharing in Christ's glory" is 'no skin off the back'.

I sure don't.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That is your opinion but to me if I am told that I must do something or I'll be thrown away I'll believe that means I'm losing what ever I'm thrown away from. In this case I am being thrown away from a vine that Jesus said is Him. I am being thrown away from Jesus. Jesus said He is the Vine and I am a branch that must abide in the vine to have life. Therefore Jesus is teaching about eternal life. This is an image of Him as a source of eternal life because a branch abides in the vine as a source of life. A branch that doesn't abide in the vine doesn't abide in it's source of life and whithers away. The disciple that doesn't abide in Christ doesn't abide in the source of eternal life and withers away. If a branch withers away it is cut off thrown away and 'gathered" with the other withered( dead) branches and burned where they burn dead branches. So, the most reasonable meaning is that to not abide in Christ is to not abide in the source of eternal life so the believer that abides in Christ can stop abiding in Christ and wither away, be thrown out and burned. If it were impossible to stop abiding in Jesus, the source of eternal life, and if that didn't end in being cut off from the source of eternal life this passage is unreasonable.

To persuade me you need to refute the reasons I think it means what I say over what you say it means. explain point by point how this explanation is not reasonable or give a meaning that is more reasonable, which will expose the error of what I believe it means.

I have given an explanation of John 15:1-6. Did you miss it?

Lets be intellectually honest with each other. So, the meaning I give the passage has not been exposed as errant

My explanation shows the error in yours.

because you post other scriptures expecting them to mean to me what you think they mean.

OK, please explain to me exactly what Jesus was teaching.

I'll give you 2 different ways to understand what He was saying.

1. Jesus gave us a statement about the CAUSE and EFFECT of having eternal life.

The CAUSE of having eternal life is Jesus Christ, since He said, "I given them eternal life".

iow, no one can have eternal life until Jesus gives it to them.

The EFFECT of having eternal life is never perishing, since Jesus said, "and they shall never perish". Notice that Jesus did NOT include any conditions for recipients of eternal life to meet in order to never perish. So not perishing is BASED on having eternal life.

2. Jesus gave us a statement about the CONDITION for never perishing. The condition is to be given eternal life.

Now, I've given you 2 different perspectives on John 10:28.

If you disagree, please explain where and why.

I seriously do not understand how anyone cannot see eternal security in this verse.

It is the most clear verse in the Bible on it.

 

[Eloy Craft]

1. Explain WHY Jesus is called the Savior. What did He DO to be Savior?

Jesus didn't come to be our Savior. Jesus came AS our Savior

2. Explain WHY both water baptism and communion include the cross that you mock.

We are Baptized into His life. His life is death unto life which is the cross. Communion is a gathering of and participation with the Body of Christ, which is given up as an acceptable sacrifice for our salvation.

3. Explain what redemption means and it was accomplished.

In Adam we all sinned. Christ's obedience to the Father meant He would suffer at the hands of evil men. His obedience made His love for the Father visible on earth. The Father received the love from His Son and it is infinitely greater than the sin of man.

 

[Eloy Craft]

My explanation shows the error in yours.

You are being very dishonest. May the Lord correct you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
My explanation shows the error in yours.

You are very dishonest.

Prove it.

May the Lord correct you.

He has, many times.

Have you never been corrected by the Lord?

Heb 12:8 - If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.

 

[Gr8Grace]

You are being very dishonest. May the Lord correct you.

Prove it.

Even after many years of debating, it is still amazing to watch people attack the man rather than discuss/debate the message. The world>>>if you can't handle the truth/message....attack and discredit the man.

 

[justbyfaith]

@FreeGrace2 wrote:

Prove it.

It isn't dishonest to misrepresent your opponent by taking out a word from what he said to make him seem like he is being accusatory?

He said, You are being very dishonest.

Not, You are very dishonest.

He did NOT claim that @FreeGrace2 is a dishonest person. He claimed that his current behaviour is dishonest behaviour. Do you see the difference? In the case you (@FreeGrace2) have presented, he has accused you at the core of your being. In reality, he has only accused your current behaviour, giving you the benefit of the doubt that your current behaviour is not the result of who you are as a person.

 

[justbyfaith]

Those who fall away are still saved?

@FreeGrace2, impaho this thread has run its course. if you want to continue discussing this with me along with some new blood, join me in the thread given just above this sentence.

 

[Eloy Craft]

have given an explanation of John 15:1-6. Did you miss it?

Did you notice that to abide makes one fruitfull not being fruitfull is the visible sign of the interior disposition that Jesus is referring to as not abiding. Not fruitfull, withered away. God reveals the visible signs of etrenal realities. Claiming to possess an eternal reality such as Christs life, without a visible sign to confirm the belief is good reason to believe that it is imagined not real.

I answered your questions I imagine you will ignore them.

 

[Eloy Craft]

My explanation shows the error in yours.

I don't think you know how that works.

OK, please explain to me exactly what Jesus was teaching.

I'll give you 2 different ways to understand what He was saying.

1. Jesus gave us a statement about the CAUSE and EFFECT of having eternal life.

The CAUSE of having eternal life is Jesus Christ, since He said, "I given them eternal life".

iow, no one can have eternal life until Jesus gives it to them.

The EFFECT of having eternal life is never perishing, since Jesus said, "and they shall never perish". Notice that Jesus did NOT include any conditions for recipients of eternal life to meet in order to never perish. So not perishing is BASED on having eternal life.

2. Jesus gave us a statement about the CONDITION for never perishing. The condition is to be given eternal life.

Now, I've given you 2 different perspectives on John 10:28.

If you disagree, please explain where and why.

I seriously do not understand how anyone cannot see eternal security in this verse.

It is the most clear verse in the Bible on it.

are we still on the "abide in me" passage? He isn't talking about what He caused or it's effect. This is a relational teaching. Between those in Him and Him, those who don't stay in Him and what His Father does. The subject matter is our relationship with Him.

Again it is 'fruitless' to post scriptures, but to post them and then tell me to choose meaning a or b is the heart of the problem. You haven't refuted or even addressed the explanation I gave. Counter the meaning I posited for the passage with better reasons than mine so it can refute what I think it means.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Even after many years of debating, it is still amazing to watch people attack the man rather than discuss/debate the message. The world>>>if you can't handle the truth/message....attack and discredit the man.

I agree ad hominem statements usually indicate the debate is decided already. What I stated was an observation of his debate tactics that are an obstacle to the intellectual honesty. Honesty that I was not receiving but was giving. Hence I was being honest because I am not evasive and using tactics to control the topic or not allowing certain subtopics, not addressing the substance of objections. Those kinds of things prevent sincere exchanges of ideas and in my experience it's more often than not on purpose.

 

[FreeGrace2]

@FreeGrace2 wrote:

It isn't dishonest to misrepresent your opponent by taking out a word from what he said to make him seem like he is being accusatory?

He said, You are being very dishonest.

Not, You are very dishonest.

He did NOT claim that @FreeGrace2 is a dishonest person. He claimed that his current behaviour is dishonest behaviour. Do you see the difference? In the case you (@FreeGrace2) have presented, he has accused you at the core of your being. In reality, he has only accused your current behaviour, giving you the benefit of the doubt that your current behaviour is not the result of who you are as a person.

I asked him to prove his claim. We'll see how he responds. Or ignores my challenge.

Anyone can claim anything. Means nothing. Evidence is what matters.

Like the clear evidence of eternal security in John 10:28.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
have given an explanation of John 15:1-6. Did you miss it?

Did you notice that to abide makes one fruitfull not being fruitfull is the visible sign of the interior disposition that Jesus is referring to as not abiding. Not fruitfull, withered away.

What Jesus didn't say was that bearing fruit either gets one saved or keeps one saved, which is the opinion of OSNAS.

I answered your questions I imagine you will ignore them.

I asked you a question. And you have ignored it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't think you know how that works.

are we still on the "abide in me" passage? He isn't talking about what He caused or it's effect. This is a relational teaching. Between those in Him and Him, those who don't stay in Him and what His Father does. The subject matter is our relationship with Him.

Again it is 'fruitless' to post scriptures, but to post them and then tell me to choose meaning a or b is the heart of the problem. You haven't refuted or even addressed the explanation I gave. Counter the meaning I posited for the passage with better reasons than mine so it can refute what I think it means.

So, in summary, you have no explanation of either of the 2 ways John 10:28 can be described.

Either as a CAUSE and EFFECT of having eternal life, or the CONDITION for never perishing.

Either way, Jesus very clearly stated the principle of eternal security.

And you have no answer. Obviously.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I agree ad hominem statements usually indicate the debate is decided already. What I stated was an observation of his debate tactics that are an obstacle to the intellectual honesty.

No, all you did was offer your opinion, which was an ad hominem.

And I asked you to prove your claim. Well?

Honesty that I was not receiving but was giving. Hence I was being honest because I am not evasive and using tactics to control the topic or not allowing certain subtopics, not addressing the substance of objections.

How can you claim this is honest? How have I "controlled the topic" or "not allowd certian subtopics" or "not addressing..."?

Why do you think that I have so much power as to accomplish ANY of these things?

Do you think I have power over others? That would be nuts.

Those kinds of things prevent sincere exchanges of ideas and in my experience it's more often than not on purpose.

And I haven't prevented any of those kinds of things.

Or, if I have done these things, PROVE IT.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Those who fall away are still saved?

@FreeGrace2, impaho this thread has run its course. if you want to continue discussing this with me along with some new blood, join me in the thread given just above this sentence.

Thanks, but having scanned the thread, I don't see much "new blood". Mostly, just the same ones saying the same thing.

Here's the actual deal. If falling away means loss of salvation, then Jesus was simply WRONG in John 10:28.

There is no other way to slice it. He taught us the CAUSE and EFFECT of having eternal life, and the single CONDITION for never perishing.

So, either way, He taught eternal security.

Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to lose salvation. Period.

 

[EmSw]

Thanks, but having scanned the thread, I don't see much "new blood". Mostly, just the same ones saying the same thing.

Here's the actual deal. If falling away means loss of salvation, then Jesus was simply WRONG in John 10:28.

There is no other way to slice it. He taught us the CAUSE and EFFECT of having eternal life, and the single CONDITION for never perishing.

So, either way, He taught eternal security.

Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to lose salvation. Period.

What causes eternal life?

 

[justbyfaith]

Thanks, but having scanned the thread, I don't see much "new blood". Mostly, just the same ones saying the same thing.

Here's the actual deal. If falling away means loss of salvation, then Jesus was simply WRONG in John 10:28.

There is no other way to slice it. He taught us the CAUSE and EFFECT of having eternal life, and the single CONDITION for never perishing.

So, either way, He taught eternal security.

Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to lose salvation. Period.

Then you won't mind going to a thread where the "same old people" can offer their input on the subject. I am here again only because this has been a watched thread; but I am not going to argue here any more on the subject matter. If you want to discuss the subject matter with me further, then meet me over at the other thread, As it is, much good material is basically buried because there are over 156 pages of going back and forth, with many scriptures brought forth on one side, and with only one scripture brought forth on the other. And the one scripture on the one side has been dealt with perfectly by the other side; while the one who brought it forth refuses to see the reality of what that scripture actually says.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What causes eternal life?

There is no "thing" as in a "what" that causes eternal life.

Your question is internally flawed.

Improve the question and I will provide an answer.