Temporal Salvation?

[TibiasDad]

I've already corrected v.10. Go to the Greek and note that there is no mention of God in it. It says "not of God". So, all sin is "not of God".

So, when YOU sin, your actions are "not of God". See?

This is proof positive of your eisegetic, myopic, and inaccurate expression of a simple, second week of beginning Greek class, understanding of the Genitive case!

The genitive is the case of possession, so when we see οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, it means that we are not a part of God, or God has no sense of possession concerning a particular person or thing. If we are τοῦ Θεοῦ, then we belong to God and he is our Father and we are his children. John's very simple and direct picture is an either/or situation: we are either children of the devil or children of God and the defining characteristic that defines whose child you are is how sinning demonstrates your lifestyle choices.

Secondly, you see in the object of God's possession as the sinning itself in John's statements, it is not, it is the person who sins who is not τοῦ Θεοῦ. John is not trying to say "So, all sin is "not of God"", as true and axiomatic as it is, he is talking about people and who they are as characterized by their lifestyle choices.

Thus, you haven't corrected anything, rather you have disregarded the grammar of the sentence and created a meaning that cannot be supported by the language.

Doug

 

[GDL]

"Every branch in me that beareth not fruit,...." 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;

Believe what?

 

[GDL]

Thus, you haven't corrected anything, rather you have disregarded the grammar of the sentence and created a meaning that cannot be supported by the language.

What's new...

 

[GDL]

I'll try this from 1Jo 2:19. "They went out from us, but they were not of us": These are those who professed Christianity to others, but eventually showed they did not have faith, or the would have continued.

Is this a salvation issue, or a fellowship issue, or are the 2 issues the same in 1John? In other words, if there is no fellowship, is there salvation & eternal life?

 

[TibiasDad]

Examples of "death" that are NOT eternal:
1 Cor 5:5
1 Cor 10:1-11
1 Cor 11:30
Acts 5:1-10
1 Tim 1:19,20

1 Cor 5:4So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

There is no mention of death in this passage. ὄλεθρος (destruction, ruin) of the σαρκός is referring to the sinful nature not the human physical body (soma) this is an abandoning or excommunication of this individual in the hope that the sin nature will cause ruin in his life and he will see the error of his ways and repent and return to the Lord and be saved in the end.

1 Cor 10:1For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

6Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” 8We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.

11These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. 12So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

The Israelites died in the dessert because of their sin, and the Lord was not pleased with them, so it is not logical to think that when their souls returned to God that he said to them "Well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord"!

Besides, technically speaking, nothing is said one way or the other about the eternal fate of these, so I suppose either one of use could be right on this which means it is of no value to the question at hand, especially for you since you cite it as conclusive evidence.

This said, from a logical point of interpretation, there is never said anything positive regarding these people, even though they were "all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." For despite these facts, "God was not pleased with most of them"!

Furthermore, Paul says nothing to reassure the Corinthians that their souls are safe if they act as the Israelites did, and there is nothing in the texts that implies that this is merely disciplinary and not judicial in nature. Paul, to my recollection, never warns of loss of reward, but only of absolute spiritual destruction, and he most certainly does not in this passage.

Finally, I've included the last portion of the context that you, apparently, did not want to apply to the question at hand. Paul re-emphasises that the example of the Israelites is a warning to us of the dangers of such behaviors, and that the Lord has provided a way of escaped and to ignore such grace will result in the most terrible of results. There is no difference between a nonbelievers not taking the Lord's provision of grace and a "believer" who neglects or ignores the grace of God to overcome and not commit such sins.

Philosophically, your position makes obedience irrelevant and the warning passages innocuous. It's as if rewards are more important than anything else. What does one have to lose if they don't stop sinning? Nothing of any value. Who cares that I lose "rewards", I am still in heaven while doing the same things as nonbelievers and being just as unrepentant as they are.

More later...

Doug

 

[WordSword]

Believe what?

It's a salvation issue, John is referring to the Antichrists in the preceding verse. This interpretation presents an inference (according to most commentators) that "believe but for a time" means "appears to believe for a time," which is confirmed by their departure from a false profession of the truth, or they would have remained with them.

"But they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" - It was suffered or permitted in the providence of God that this should occur, “in order” that it might be seen and known that they were not true Christians, or in order that their real character might be developed." (Albert Barnes
1798-1870).

"For if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us;" in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the fellowship of the church, as true believers do: if their hearts had been right with God, they would have remained steadfast to him, his Gospel, truths, and ordinances, and faithful with his saints; for such who are truly regenerate are born of an incorruptible seed" (John Gill 1697-1771).

 

[GDL]

So, "believe for a time" means "[appear] to believe for a time."

This is obviously interpretive. I hope we can agree that "appear" is not in the actual Text.

So:

1) This interpretation is saying that temporary belief is not true belief.

2) Thus does it side with the interpretation that true belief cannot become unbelief?

3) Then, assuming true belief cannot become unbelief, true belief must be lasting?

Is this how you see it? Or would you change something?

 

[GDL]

It's a salvation issue, John is referring to the Antichrists in the preceding verse. This interpretation presents an inference (according to most commentators) that "believe but for a time" means "appears to believe for a time," which is confirmed by their departure from a false profession of the truth, or they would have remained with them.

Sorry, WordSword, my post #587 is also to you.

So, this part of 1John2 is a salvation issue, as I understand you. In other words, those who went out "appeared to believe for a time," but never truly believed, so were never truly saved.

Just to be clear, since 1John begins with a discussion of fellowship with God, Christ, and one another, is this fellowship necessary for salvation?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked:
"Will will ANY Arminian quote a verse that actually teaches this idea?"

I'll try this from 1Jo 2:19. "They went out from us, but they were not of us": These are those who professed Christianity to others, but eventually showed they did not have faith, or the would have continued.

Your opinion is NOT found in the verse. Acts 15 is an example of actual believers who believed false doctrine.
1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
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 keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?
11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

This can be compared to what Arminians teach today, with a slight difference. Instead of how to be saved (circumcision) as these Pharisee believers were teaching, Arminians teach that salvation can be lost.

You merely misunderstood me, my comment was different from what you've indicated, which was "if anyone think or believes they are being genuine," not "if anyone genuinely believes."

I did not misunderstand your statement. From #574, you said this:
"If one appears to profess the narrow way and eventually ceases to profess it, this manifests he never chose to profess genuinely."

1 Jn 2:19 does NOT support your statement. And Acts 15 proves that believers CAN have false doctrine.

Of course I'm in total agreement here, and my point is that one who is truly saved will show it by a godly lifestyle that will be permanent.

And Jesus refuted your opinion in Luke 8:13. Those who believe have:
1. they are justified Rom 5:1
2. they won't be condemned John 3:18, 2 Thess 2:12
3. they are sealed with the Spirit, which GUARANTEES their inheritance for the day of redemption Eph 1:14
4. they become a new creature 2 Cor 5:17
5. they are a child of God John 1:12, Gal 3:26

Now, if you can quote verses that clearly UNDOES all of these 5 things, you would have a point.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"I've already corrected v.10. Go to the Greek and note that there is no mention of God in it. It says "not of God". So, all sin is "not of God".

So, when YOU sin, your actions are "not of God". See?"

This is proof positive of your eisegetic, myopic, and inaccurate expression of a simple, second week of beginning Greek class, understanding of the Genitive case!

You can't even explain how to differentiate a customary present from a gnomic present. But beyond that, the original doesn't have the word "God" in it.

And I proved that when YOU sin, you are not acting as one of God's.

The genitive is the case of possession, so when we see οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, it means that we are not a part of God, or God has no sense of possession concerning a particular person or thing.

No, it means we are not acting in accordance with God.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Examples of "death" that are NOT eternal:
1 Cor 5:5
1 Cor 10:1-11
1 Cor 11:30
Acts 5:1-10
1 Tim 1:19,20"

1 Cor 5:4So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

There is no mention of death in this passage.

I'll be glad to help you out here. The words "for the destruction of the flesh" is a clue. And contrasted with "may be saved on the day of the Lord". Connect the dots.

1 Cor 10:1For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

6Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” 8We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.

11These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. 12So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

Both v.6 and v.11 prove that the dead Jews were believers. Here's why: only believers can be examples for believers. Otherwise, you're trying to compare apples to oranges.

The Israelites died in the dessert because of their sin

They SURE did!! By God's hand of discipline. Again, 1 Cor 11:30 says so clearly.

and the Lord was not pleased with them, so it is not logical to think that when their souls returned to God that he said to them "Well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord"!

I never even suggested that God will greet His rebellious children with those words. Those words are reserved for His faithful and obedient children.

However, your anti-grace view of sin is just astounding.

Besides, technically speaking, nothing is said one way or the other about the eternal fate of these, so I suppose either one of use could be right on this which means it is of no value to the question at hand, especially for you since you cite it as conclusive evidence.

No, the verses I cited are about physical death. You just don't want to see it.

This said, from a logical point of interpretation, there is never said anything positive regarding these people, even though they were "all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." For despite these facts, "God was not pleased with most of them"!

Let me ask you; are you pleased with your children when they rebel? Of course not.

Why can't you let God be a Parent? He IS called Father, after all.

Furthermore, Paul says nothing to reassure the Corinthians that their souls are safe if they act as the Israelites did

Actually, quite the contrary. Paul NEVER said anything about such behavior would lead to hell or loss of salvation. So you have it exactly backwards.

and there is nothing in the texts that implies that this is merely disciplinary and not judicial in nature.

It's there, but your eyes are closed tightly.

Paul, to my recollection, never warns of loss of reward, but only of absolute spiritual destruction, and he most certainly does not in this passage.

Please show me any verse where Paul warned believers of "absolute spirutal destruction", because I don't believe you at all.

And, he DID warn of loss of reward.
Col 3-
23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters,
24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.

He didn't warn of loss of reward, but he sure taught how to receive a reward.

1 Cor 3-
14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.
15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Please notice either receiving a reward, or suffer loss. BUT, yet will be saved.

Couldn't be more clear. Rewards for behavior. And loss of reward for lack of proper behavior. And EVEN THOUGH loss of reward, the believer will be saved.

This is what I believe and teach, an you guys attack. So, be warned, you are attacking the Word of God.

Finally, I've included the last portion of the context that you, apparently, did not want to apply to the question at hand. Paul re-emphasises that the example of the Israelites is a warning to us of the dangers of such behaviors, and that the Lord has provided a way of escaped and to ignore such grace will result in the most terrible of results. There is no difference between a nonbelievers not taking the Lord's provision of grace and a "believer" who neglects or ignores the grace of God to overcome and not commit such sins.

By the quote marks around "believer" in your last sentence, I take that as not a real one. I'm talking about real ones. Real ones that once saved, are always saved.

Philosophically, your position makes obedience irrelevant and the warning passages innocuous.

This is just a very stunning statement, after what all I've posted and explained to you.

In fact, obedience is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for reward, such as "reigning with Him" in 2 Tim 2:12, or "sharing in His glory" in Rom 8:17b. And 1 Cor 3;14,15 proves it.

And the warning passages? What is there about a painful physical death, or weakness or sickness or "being taught not to blaspheme by Satan" that is "innocuous"??

Are you kidding? But this is typical of what Arminians do. When faced with biblical doctrines that refute their notions, they just wave it off as "innocuous". No big thing.

It's as if rewards are more important than anything else.

Let me ask you: what do you think you'll feel walking around in heaven and seeing all the awards and rewards and privileges that you aren't getting.

What does one have to lose if they don't stop sinning?

Their health, life, privileges in eternity.

Nothing of any value.

I see that your value system is quite lacking in reality.

Who cares that I lose "rewards", I am still in heaven while doing the same things as nonbelievers and being just as unrepentant as they are.

This is exactly the opinion of the graceless Arminians. They can't see beyond their noses. Apparently hearing the words "well done, thou good and faithful servant" doesn't mean anything to you then.

Or the privilege of entering into the New Jerusalem by one of the gates guarded by an angel and enjoying the tree of life. Rev 22.

More later...

No need to bother. Your value system is in dire need of repair.

 

[TibiasDad]

Examples of "death" that are NOT eternal:
1 Cor 5:5
1 Cor 10:1-11
1 Cor 11:30
Acts 5:1-10
1 Tim 1:19,20

1 Cor 11:30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

To unpack this we need to understand what actions were causing these symptoms .The abuses of the Lord's supper were that a) they were treating it as a party instead of a sacred remembrance of the Lord's death, and b) the rich who did not have to work, were spending all day eating and drinking to excess and not leaving anything for the poor who spent the day working. They saw themselves as the privileged and deserving and took no thought of the needs of others. This over indulgence, combined with the laziness and leasurely approach to life would naturally lead to health issues and even death. I am not contending that this isn't a type of disciplinary action, and I don't think that these people are necessarily condemned in eternity, but I don't think this sets any kind of a precedent for this being normal practice, nor do I think it substantial enough to make it a foundational stone for your theological arguments.

Acts 5:1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

There is much about this account that lends itself to the danger of reading into the text, and all of us need beware of this. For me, the biggest question in this account is are Ananias and Sapphira truly saved. We have nothing in the account that tells us of their conversion or baptism, we only have the leading example of Barnabas as a leading example of those who were selling their possessions for the sake of the poor. Now we must at least assume that Ananias and Sapphira were associated with the larger population of those that were being added to the church, or they would not have been aware of such selling, but Peter's condemnation, both in it's quickness and severity, shows no compassion for a pair of believers that have simply made a bad judgement call, or an error of immaturity. (Remembering that the church is only weeks old at the most by this time, so maturity is not something in great supply) Peter, by
means of the Spirit, discerned the reality of the situation and the duplicity of the husband and wife conspiracy to make themselves seem more generous than they really were. Sapphira's sin only compounded her guilt when she deliberately lied about the price they received for the land, and thus she too died on the spot like her husband. Peter saw that this was all for show, and not a sincere offering, something that one truly filled with the Spirit, and not just caught-up in the emotions of the new born church, would have done. This is why I don't believe they were true believers, and why this is not a good support for your position.

1 Tim 1:18Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, 19holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

This doesn't help you either without eisegetic presupposition. Being "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme" does not mean that they are being disciplined, though there is certainly hope that they would see the error of their ways and return, but rather that there is nothing left to do but let them go on their own way contrary to the truth, the truth which they "have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith." Rejection and shipwrecked are not terms of a saved person, and can mean nothing short of the total abandonment and repudiation of belief! There is nothing of value in their stand before God! So like Acts 5, there is nothing that indicates anything definitive about them still being saved or assured of salvation without reading it into the text. The text itself is void of any such conclusion!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

And, he DID warn of loss of reward.
Col 3-
23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters,
24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.

He didn't warn of loss of reward, but he sure taught how to receive a reward.

1 Cor 3-
14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.
15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Please notice either receiving a reward, or suffer loss. BUT, yet will be saved.

Couldn't be more clear. Rewards for behavior. And loss of reward for lack of proper behavior. And EVEN THOUGH loss of reward, the believer will be saved.

This is what I believe and teach, an you guys attack. So, be warned, you are attacking the Word of God.

This is not about lack of proper behavior in terms of sinful lifestyle choices, but upon the quality of our fruitfulness. This is not about whether or not we have sinned and repented, but what our lives have produced for the kingdom. Some produce 30, 60, 100 fold, and will be rewarded accordingly, but those who do not produce any fruit are rejected outright, cut off from the source of eternal life, and thrown into the fire and thus completely discarded, cast out of the kingdom where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth! A sinning lifestyle not only produces no fruit, it removes you from the vine that gives life, all life!

Doug

 

[JLB777]

Seems clear to me.

It's as I said, at the end of all analysis, obeying Christ & our Father is at the core of everything, even our Biblical Belief, both at and after first coming to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

The OSAS narrative that Freegrace is promoting is a doctrine of demons, and has its roots in the doctrine that the Serpent taught Eve in the garden.


Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.
Genesis 3:4


Here is what the Devil told Eve —

Go ahead and disobey God, you won’t die, but continue to have eternal life.


In the New Testament this is called The Lie.



And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12




JLB

 

[JLB777]

"indeed", huh? Where in the world did you make that up from?


Since you believe that 'remain in Christ' refers to our sealing with the Holy Spirit, then you cannot believe Eph 1:13,14, because the sealing with the Spirit GUARANTEES the believer's inheritance for the day of redemption.

And you cannot explain how any of God's GUARANTEES can be broken. God keeps His promises.


Don't bother. Abiding refers to fellowship.


Yes, instructed to be in fellowship with Christ.

No human being has the power or authority to remove themselves from Christ. That is a very absurd idea. And totally unbiblical.


Right.

Why are you pushing back so hard against obeying the Lord?


Here is the scripture that instructs us we can indeed be removed from Christ.


“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. John 15:1-2



Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;


If a person who is in Christ, is later removed from Christ, do you believe they continue to have eternal life remaining in them?



JLB

 

[GDL]

Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;


If a person who is in Christ, is later removed from Christ, do you believe they continue to have eternal life remaining in them?

Seems simple.

 

[WordSword]

So, "believe for a time" means "[appear] to believe for a time."

This is obviously interpretive. I hope we can agree that "appear" is not in the actual Text.

I often like the way you present your inquiries and appreciate your interesting comments! Though "appears to believe" is not in the text, the thought is intended. “Believe for a while” is an exaggeration (hyperbole) of having a nonexistent faith because the fruit of "faith" from the Spirit (Gal 5:22) is never temporary. This parallels the same thought as a “faith” that “is dead,” i.e. nonexistent – “as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also (Jas 2:26). Only the faith that is from the Spirit is permanent. We can lose faith in worldly things and people but never in God, because He never gives cause to, nor ever disappoints!

What the Lord Jesus means by “believeth in Me” (Jhn 11:25, 26; 12:46) intends genuine faith, not just a said faith in profession only (Jam 2:18; Mat 15:8), but is manifested by an unceasing walk in the fruit of the Spirit in and through those reborn. Therefore to believe in God is different from believing in the things of this life only, as one cannot truly profess faith in Him and latter say he disbelieves, which shows to be a worldly and natural faith of man, and not the faith only from the Spirit.

So:

1) This interpretation is saying that temporary belief is not true belief.

2) Thus does it side with the interpretation that true belief cannot become unbelief?

3) Then, assuming true belief cannot become unbelief, true belief must be lasting?

Is this how you see it? Or would you change something?

This is exactly how I see it, and I think is well put.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Examples of "death" that are NOT eternal:
1 Cor 5:5
1 Cor 10:1-11
1 Cor 11:30
Acts 5:1-10
1 Tim 1:19,20"

1 Cor 11:30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

To unpack this we need to understand what actions were causing these symptoms .

To save some time and space, the "actions" were sin, obviously. What you call "over-indulgence, & laziness".

I am not contending that this isn't a type of disciplinary action

That's good. Because it quite obviously IS.

and I don't think that these people are necessarily condemned in eternity

Why would anyone who possesses eternal life ever be "necessarily condemned in eternity"? You've still not provided ANY verse that clearly says that those given the gift of eternal life CAN perish.

In fact, Jesus promised quite the opposite: those given eternal life shall NEVER perish.

but I don't think this sets any kind of a precedent for this being normal practice

I don't know what you mean by "normal practice". Does this refer to the congregants, or to God's response to such congregants?

nor do I think it substantial enough to make it a foundational stone for your theological arguments.

I never base my theology on just 1 verse. However, no amount of Scripture cancels or contradicts any 1 verse either.

Acts 5:1

I'm not including the whole text, again to save time and space.

11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

But the final verse is of great importance.

There is much about this account that lends itself to the danger of reading into the text, and all of us need beware of this. For me, the biggest question in this account is are Ananias and Sapphira truly saved.

Well, that just goes without saying, as far as Arminians think, and, btw, DO "read into the text". There is NO reason to question whether A & S were "truly saved". It's ONLY the Arminian BIAS that would question that.

We have nothing in the account that tells us of their conversion or baptism, we only have the leading example of Barnabas as a leading example of those who were selling their possessions for the sake of the poor.

Given that A & S were part of the congregation, it is easily assumed that they were saved. Unlike today, where churches are filled with unsaved religious people who think they are saved, based on their works. In the 1st Century Greek world, unbelievers would not attend any of the Christian "house churches". They ridiculed the gospel.

1 Cor 1:23 - but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.

Now we must at least assume that Ananias and Sapphira were associated with the larger population of those that were being added to the church, or they would not have been aware of such selling, but Peter's condemnation, both in it's quickness and severity, shows no compassion for a pair of believers that have simply made a bad judgement call, or an error of immaturity.

Wow. Your general approach to such sin is to condemn the sinner to hell. Talk about "no compassion". Your views take the cake.

But here, you are actually SOFT-PEDALLING their sin. Giving them a pass by merely calling their actions "simply a bad judgment call". Truly amazing!

(Remembering that the church is only weeks old at the most by this time, so maturity is not something in great supply)

Excuse me, but you have no way of knowing how old that "church" was. And again, you are just excusing their sin.

Peter, by means of the Spirit, discerned the reality of the situation and the duplicity of the husband and wife conspiracy to make themselves seem more generous than they really were. Sapphira's sin only compounded her guilt when she deliberately lied about the price they received for the land, and thus she too died on the spot like her husband. Peter saw that this was all for show, and not a sincere offering, something that one truly filled with the Spirit, and not just caught-up in the emotions of the new born church, would have done. This is why I don't believe they were true believers, and why this is not a good support for your position.

Well, again, just your own opinion. Why would God strike down unbelievers for their sin? And because of v.11, it is clear WHY God did do that. To get the church's attention. God deals with His children FAR differently than He does with unbelievers.

1 Tim 1:18Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, 19holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

This doesn't help you either without eisegetic presupposition.

Said the pre-supposer of how long the Acts 5 church had been in existence! lol

Being "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme" does not mean that they are being disciplined[/QUOTE]
That is an absurd statement!! It can mean nothing ELSE. If you can't understand that this is absolutely about how God disciplines His children, then you need to resign your pastoral position immediately.

though there is certainly hope that they would see the error of their ways and return

Which is exactly the point of God's discipline.

but rather that there is nothing left to do but let them go on their own way contrary to the truth, the truth which they "have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith."

I continue to be amazed at how poorly you read the text. But I understand WHY your views are so contrary to Scripture. You just aren't reading the text correctly.

Instead of "letting them go on their own way", Paul specifically said "whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme".

What is the purpose of teaching? To change one's way, directly, thoughts, etc. So your conclusion is far from truth.

Rejection and shipwrecked are not terms of a saved person, and can mean nothing short of the total abandonment and repudiation of belief!

Says you. This is how Paul described those 2 guys: "suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith". If neither of them were believers, then why would Paul even mention 'the faith'? There would be no reason.

Again, this is an example of believers being disciplined by God. In this example and the example of the incestuous man, Paul "turned them all" over to Satan for discipline.

Paul never went around trying to get God to discipline unbelievers. What a silly idea.

There is nothing of value in their stand before God!

Your opinion noted.

So like Acts 5, there is nothing that indicates anything definitive about them still being saved or assured of salvation without reading it into the text. The text itself is void of any such conclusion!

Those with closed eyes surely won't see the obvious. But it's there nonetheless.

At least you are now trying to engage my verses. So thanks for the opportunity to provide some guidance and correction to your eisegesis.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"And, he DID warn of loss of reward.
Col 3-
23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters,
24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.

He didn't warn of loss of reward, but he sure taught how to receive a reward."

This is not about lack of proper behavior in terms of sinful lifestyle choices, but upon the quality of our fruitfulness.

And it IS about receiving a reward. btw, it seems you are giving another pass at works of "wood, hay and stubble", that will be burned up. Why is that?

This is not about whether or not we have sinned and repented, but what our lives have produced for the kingdom.

So then, it appears that you do not consider a poorly lived life that produced no fruit for the kingdom isn't sin????

Some produce 30, 60, 100 fold, and will be rewarded accordingly, but those who do not produce any fruit are rejected outright, cut off from the source of eternal life

Whoa, hold on there. v.15 specifically SAYS their failed production will be burned but they will be SAVED. So again, your eisegetical bias is getting in the way of your understanding of what was written.

and thrown into the fire and thus completely discarded, cast out of the kingdom where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth!

This is an example of conflating unrelated verses. Paul said nothing about being "cast out of the kingdom" here. In fact, he acknowledged that such believers who will have their production BURNED, will NONETHELESS be saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The OSAS narrative that Freegrace is promoting is a doctrine of demons, and has its roots in the doctrine that the Serpent taught Eve in the garden.

Why don't you tell that to Jesus, who said in the clearest of words that recipients of eternal life shall never perish.