Temporal Salvation?

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"I'm always amazed at the cheekiness of those who directly oppose what Jesus said so clearly."

You do realize that calling me "cheeky" is, in itself, and act of "cheekiness"?

Now, this IS interesting. I never addressed YOU as being cheeky at all. I was referring to "those who directly oppose what Jesus said so clearly".

So it appears that you are agreeing that YOU YOURSELF fit that description.

So, what's your beef?

But I guess you can do that kind of stuff (and worse) and still have eternal life in heaven!

Those who have believed have eternal life. Jesus said so. It is VERY CHEEKY to disagree with the Lord Jesus.

If the shoe fits....

 

[TibiasDad]

Haven't you read Isa 1:18-20, where God makes clear the consequences of obedience and rebellion? You need to

If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the good things of the land;
but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword.” Isa 1:19-20

If you are willing to reason together and obey what God says, you will be blessed, if you don't reason together and obey, "if you resist and rebel you will be devoured by the sword." This is precisely why I said condemned is "concerned with utter destruction and/or death, both physical and eternal, and many time both! It is never used in reference to "loss of reward"."

Doug

 

[GDL]

So prove me wrong

You're unable to consider and accept when you're wrong, which is frequently, so no point.

FWIW, I blocked out interacting with you directly some time ago on the osas discussion & carried on the practice here. If I want to discuss a Free Grace interpretation, I have respectful friends & trained & knowledgeable exegetes I can call upon who are capable of dealing objectively with the Text & our lexical tools & who are open to considering the thoughts & insights of others.

The last word is yours FG2. I may post on a Scripture you err on once in awhile, but interacting with you is pointless, which is a sad thing, but I'll deal with my pain...

BTW, my apology for the post re: your lack of understanding of Greek. Nothing like that needed to be said by me.

Have fun....

 

[TibiasDad]

You want to argue with Strongs?

katakrinó: to give judgment against
Original Word: κατακρίνω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: katakrinó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ak-ree'-no)
Definition: to give judgment against
Usage: I condemn, judge worthy of punishment.
HELPS Word-studies
2632 katakrínō(from 2596 /katá, "down, according to" intensifying 2919 /krínō, "judge") – properly, judge down, i.e. issue a penalty (exactly condemn); to judge someone "decisively (decidedly) as guilty."

Any time a believer sins, he is judged as guilty. All of the red words can easily refer to a believer who has sinned.

Another red herring! I said nothing about the definition of katakrinó, much less disagreeing with Strong, or wanting to argue with him or any other lexical source. Moreover, yes "Any time a believer sins, he is judged as guilty. All of the red words can easily refer to a believer who has sinned", in fact this is implicit in my argument that a believer that sins, and doesn't repent, is, according to Paul, condemned.

Doug

 

[Gr8Grace]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that your grades in Greek class were less than stellar.

I agree. Or religion and it's agenda taught the classes. I suspect the latter, hard to find a teacher that actually has the divine gift of teaching.

Anybody that announces "I took seminary" or "I took Greek".........And basically tells us peons that we need their superior intellect and 'depth' of Greek and theology.......Is suspect right off the bat.

 

[TibiasDad]

Now, this IS interesting. I never addressed YOU as being cheeky at all. I was referring to "those who directly oppose what Jesus said so clearly".

Your were responding to me and my post, and you are a broken record with the incessant skipping of "why don't you believe what Jesus said?" and "why do you disagree with Jesus?" So you were definitely referring to me, and a denial will only degrade yourself. I am quickly finding myself in agreement with GDL and finding it pointless to carry on and on with you and your merry-go-round of redundant scriptures and one line arguments. Perhaps, if a worthwhile argument is made, it might be possible to dialogue but when "that's your opinion" or "you've provided no scripture" is the extent of your exegetical responses it is a fruitless endeavour.

Those who have believed have eternal life. Jesus said so. It is VERY CHEEKY to disagree with the Lord Jesus.

If the shoe fits....

See you have just proven my point above.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

None of these verses say that the gift of eternal life is given ONLY at the point of physical death to those who are presently believing

I never made that argument so another strawman down!

I'm becoming more and more convinced that your grades in Greek class were less than stellar.

3.5 GPA in Greek... Not top of the class, but above average. And yours was....?

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I agree. Or religion and it's agenda taught the classes. I suspect the latter, hard to find a teacher that actually has the divine gift of teaching.

Anybody that announces "I took seminary" or "I took Greek".........And basically tells us peons that we need their superior intellect and 'depth' of Greek and theology.......Is suspect right off the bat.

I have never asserted that you or anyone else was a peon. When someone tells you you don't know what you're talking about, and asks you if you've ever taken Greek, and then belittles you continually, even suggesting poor grades or teachers one has every right to defend their education and the quality of both their work and their teachers.

I've done a lot of work on dealing with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I have learned over the years in talking with them when you are dealing with someone who has learned by rote how to present their arguments there are telltale signs. They have a strong propensity to keep repeating the same scriptures over and over, and never deal with objections concretely, but seem to be following a script that they can't stray from. Now I am not saying that you or FG2 are cultists, but I do think that the way FG2 argues reminds me a lot of how a JW argues. I haven't interacted with you enough to establish a pattern of how you argue, but FG2 is a different story. His argument is very shallow and at many junctures is quite circular at its foundations. His redundant pleadings of "Why can't you just believe what Jesus said" is a red flag of a shallow argument .

Frankly, I don't believe that one's soteriology is a measure of the validity of their trueness in the faith, but based on some of his comments would not be surprised if the FG pov were different at this point as well. Thankfully, we all have the same judge to answer to, and I am quite content to let him adjudicate this question.


Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the good things of the land;
but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword.” Isa 1:19-20

If you are willing to reason together and obey what God says, you will be blessed, if you don't reason together and obey, "if you resist and rebel you will be devoured by the sword." This is precisely why I said condemned is "concerned with utter destruction and/or death, both physical and eternal, and many time both! It is never used in reference to "loss of reward"."

Doug

You keep missing the point. God rewards faithfulness and obedience, and punishes rebellion. Believers who are rebellious face death. Not spiritual death, as you claim, but physical death.

Why do you think that a believer, who possesses ETERNAL life, can perish? How can something eternal ever die?

Once born again, the person cannot die spiritually. Only those who never received eternal life will experience the "second death", which is ultimate spiritual death.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"So prove me wrong"

You're unable to consider and accept when you're wrong, which is frequently, so no point.

just a cop out response. What I said was a challenge to show HOW and WHY I am wrong. Instead of doing that, you just change the subject. You haven't shown anything I've posted is wrong. You have shown your disagreement about my posts.

But, they are different. Evidence of being wrong is quite different than simple disagreement.

So, your response demonstrates that you CANNOT prove me wrong from the Bible.

FWIW, I blocked out interacting with you directly some time ago on the osas discussion & carried on the practice here. If I want to discuss a Free Grace interpretation, I have respectful friends & trained & knowledgeable exegetes I can call upon who are capable of dealing objectively with the Text & our lexical tools & who are open to considering the thoughts & insights of others.

Good for you.

The last word is yours FG2. I may post on a Scripture you err on once in awhile, but interacting with you is pointless, which is a sad thing, but I'll deal with my pain...

Since interacting with me is so "painful" (spare me the emotions), then just don't do it.

One thing is true; you haven't YET proven from Scripture that my views are wrong.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Now, this IS interesting. I never addressed YOU as being cheeky at all. I was referring to "those who directly oppose what Jesus said so clearly"."

Your were responding to me and my post, and you are a broken record with the incessant skipping of "why don't you believe what Jesus said?" and "why do you disagree with Jesus?"

The question is quite legitimate, since I've shown you EXACTLY what Jesus said, which is the opposite of what you believe. The problem is yours.

So you were definitely referring to me, and a denial will only degrade yourself.

As I ended my post, "if the shoe fits...". Well, does it?

Your response basically AGREED with my assessment of disagreeing with Jesus. If you could have shown that what Jesus said isn't what I claim He said, you had the opportunity to show that.

I am quickly finding myself in agreement with GDL and finding it pointless to carry on and on with you and your merry-go-round of redundant scriptures and one line arguments. Perhaps, if a worthwhile argument is made, it might be possible to dialogue but when "that's your opinion" or "you've provided no scripture" is the extent of your exegetical responses it is a fruitless endeavour.

I've been pointing out for some time now how pointless it is trying to discuss with you.

So, if you are as "pained" as GDL claims to be, just do what he does and block me.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"None of these verses say that the gift of eternal life is given ONLY at the point of physical death to those who are presently believing"

I never made that argument so another strawman down!

Well then, how about clarifying something? WHEN exactly, does Jesus give the gift of eternal life to a saved person?

3.5 GPA in Greek... Not top of the class, but above average. And yours was....?
Doug

Then how come you STILL don't understand how a Greek present tense works?

 

[GDL]

I agree. Or religion and it's agenda taught the classes. I suspect the latter, hard to find a teacher that actually has the divine gift of teaching.

Anybody that announces "I took seminary" or "I took Greek".........And basically tells us peons that we need their superior intellect and 'depth' of Greek and theology.......Is suspect right off the bat.

FWIW:

How about this confession: I studied for years and thousands of hours under a very hard-core pastor who was knowledgeable in both Hebrew & Greek & taught in detail using the specifics of the languages. I ended up with an appreciation for the detail & depth of expression in the Greek & the fact that apparently God chose to write the NewCov documents in Greek for His reasons.

I was taught & have experienced over & over again the fact that it sometimes takes a paragraph in English to translate a Greek word. The same appreciation applies to the fact that the Greeks view time differently than we western thinkers do. We as English thinkers do not easily comprehend what is being expressed in the Greek Texts.

The plain simple fact about languages, is the fact that if 2 or more people are not using the same definition & understanding for the same word they are using, then they are not speaking the same language (even if both are speaking English) & are just talking past one another.

Another simple fact is that we have many English translations & we can chose the one we like which will most certainly be imbedded with the theological interpretations of the translators at points. So, the original language manuscripts we have become invaluable.

Another fact is that our lexical tools can be imbedded with theology, so it's best to refer to several at times.

Another fact is that there are still debates about some of the technical details of the grammar of the Greek.

Another fact is that some of us have obviously been called to delve into these things and the Word of God is still being revealed to all of us.

Although some may view others as peons, as you say, I can tell you that I don't. I can also tell you that I attended seminary at the suggestion of the pastor I mentioned because it was his view that the study of the original languages needed to continue into following generations. I can also tell you that I attended & received training because I was led to. I can also tell you that those who went through many hardships to start a small seminary I attended, did so because they were led to & knew that many seminaries were abandoning the languages studies.

When you read what has been & is being put forth by those who exegete from the languages, IMO there's nothing like it. Such studies are being published constantly in journal articles and articles in other mediums. Also, comprehensive studies within God's Word for how He uses any given word provide amazing insights, so the immediate rewards for sitting at His feet for seemingly countless hours doing such are incomparable IMO.

Lastly, I can almost guaranty you that whoever has taught you, or passed on to you any Truth is simply standing on the shoulders at whatever level of someone who has done the work in the languages to get it to all of us.

FYI, FG2 & Doug are only scratching the surface on the analysis that could be put forth on things like the tenses. I get the impression & know from Greek studies that Doug likely has more he could be detailing. I also get the impression that FG2 has learned to use some tools, but that FG2 has not been trained to any depth in languages, but has in FG theology. I wouldn't be surprised if FG2 & I had been taught that theology by some of the same.

The problem with these discussions is that one can always say they disagree, or say no one has proven anything, but when the discussion gets into the level of the languages, some of us can evaluate the truth of such claims. I can also guaranty you that an objective & logical thinker with a some grasp on grammar can do the same from the English in some cases.

Consider the principle stated in at least the beginning of Rom14. All of us are commanded to do so.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FWIW:

How about this confession: I studied for years and thousands of hours under a very hard-core pastor who was knowledgeable in both Hebrew & Greek & taught in detail using the specifics of the languages. I ended up with an appreciation for the detail & depth of expression in the Greek & the fact that apparently God chose to write the NewCov documents in Greek for His reasons.

Great. Now show the verse that says one must continually believe in order to continually be saved. Or words to that effect.

Tibiasdad can't do it. Can you?

 

[TibiasDad]

You keep missing the point. God rewards faithfulness and obedience, and punishes rebellion. Believers who are rebellious face death. Not spiritual death, as you claim, but physical death.

Why do you think that a believer, who possesses ETERNAL life, can perish? How can something eternal ever die?

Once born again, the person cannot die spiritually. Only those who never received eternal life will experience the "second death", which is ultimate spiritual death.

The context is one of forgiveness and cleansing of sin, of spiritual life and death, of being with God or against him. Another factor, is that God is speaking to the nation of Israel, not individuals, but if we apply these to ourselves, the fact that this is a matter of sinfulness and being rebellious means it is an eternal issue. The end of Isa 1 makes this clear:

27Zion will be delivered with justice,
her penitent ones with righteousness.

28But rebels and sinners will both be broken,
and those who forsake the Lord will perish.

29“You will be ashamed because of the sacred oaks
in which you have delighted;
you will be disgraced because of the gardens that you have chosen.

30You will be like an oak with fading leaves, like a garden without water.
31The mighty man will become tinder and his work a spark;
both will burn together, with no one to quench the fire.”

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

The context is one of forgiveness and cleansing of sin, of spiritual life and death, of being with God or against him. Another factor, is that God is speaking to the nation of Israel, not individuals, but if we apply these to ourselves, the fact that this is a matter of sinfulness and being rebellious means it is an eternal issue. The end of Isa 1 makes this clear:

27Zion will be delivered with justice,
her penitent ones with righteousness.

28But rebels and sinners will both be broken,
and those who forsake the Lord will perish.

29“You will be ashamed because of the sacred oaks
in which you have delighted;
you will be disgraced because of the gardens that you have chosen.

30You will be like an oak with fading leaves, like a garden without water.
31The mighty man will become tinder and his work a spark;
both will burn together, with no one to quench the fire.”

Doug

The obvious point is that Jesus said, and very clearly, that recipients of eternal life shall never perish.

What part of "never" do you not understand?

None of the verses you quoted teach loss of salvation.

Do you have any? Of course not, because Jesus said recipients of eternal life shall never perish.

 

[TibiasDad]

Great. Now show the verse that says one must continually believe in order to continually be saved. Or words to that effect.

Tibiasdad can't do it. Can you?

2 Peter 3:3His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

10Therefore, my brothers and sisters, a make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

1) 3His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

One of the great and precious promises is necessarily that of salvation/receiving eternal life, for that is the entrance point of "participating in the divine nature" and of "having escaped the corruption of the world" . Thus, all of these promises, including salvation/eternal life are included in the words that follow. Furthermore, epignósis, literally, "contact knowledge" is evidence that there is a person experience of Christ with Peter and the churches he is addressing . These people are considered true believers!

2)For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith...(vs 5)

This is showing the necessity of additional elements that just the initial "belief" that initiates our participation in the divine nature. Faith is not a stand alone island in need of nothing to maintain it and it's effects.

3)8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

The "for if" establishes another hypothetical potential with its "if/then" scenario. If these (see vs 5-7) are ever increasing in us, then we won't be "ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge (epignósis) of the Lord"! That is, our spiritual experience, vitality, or faith (one of the precious promises) in Christ, will be argos, inactive, idle, lazy, thoughtless, unprofitable, injurious (Strongs), or as the NIV says, ineffective. The "ineffective and unproductive" deal with both the spiritual vitality (being alive spiritually) and the progressive advancement in spiritual growth (sanctification, godliness) of our experience with Christ.

4) 10Therefore, my brothers and sisters, a make every effort to confirm your calling and election.

A simple question: If we are eternally secure at the moment we believe (and I assume that Peter would have understood this to be true), then why does Peter express the need to confirm (bebaios: firm, steadfast, enduring, sure, certain. [Strong]), it is used by Paul in Rom 4:13 and the NIV translates it as "guaranteed", so Peter is saying that in order for our calling and election sure, certain, guaranteed, we have to do something!

Moreover, "your calling and election" is reference to being saved, a child of God, and cannot be construed to refer to anything close to "rewards". Peter is saying unambiguously that what is being made certain is our salvation.

5) For if you do these things, you will never stumble,

Another "if/then" contingency: If you "add" (verses 5-7) "to your faith" and thereby "make certain, guarantee" that "you will never stumble"! (ptaió: I stumble, fall, sin, err, transgress [Strongs]).

6) 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Note that this is about a "rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", not anything about things or rewards of the kingdom. But more importantly, and to the point, it is a part of the "then" portion of "For if you do these things, you will never stumble," and thus a contingency!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

The obvious point is that Jesus said, and very clearly, that recipients of eternal life shall never perish.

What part of "never" do you not understand?

None of the verses you quoted teach loss of salvation.

Do you have any? Of course not, because Jesus said recipients of eternal life shall never perish.

Well, just as I explained to Gr8Grace, this shows your typical practice of changing the topic by reverting back to your "proof text" instead of dealing with the text (Isa 1:18-20, 27-31), especially the latter part that I used to show contextual reasons for my argument. This demonstrates what I called "a rote method" of learning how to present a biblical argument in my post to Gr8Grace. It is akin to the way that Jehovah's Witnesses act when cornered by an argument, and exposes the weakness of their ability to argue effectively, and of their teachings to stand up against the whole of scripture.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said"
Now show the verse that says one must continually believe in order to continually be saved. Or words to that effect.

Tibiasdad can't do it. Can you?"

2 Peter 3:3His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. 5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins. 10Therefore, my brothers and sisters, a make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The "for if" establishes another hypothetical potential with its "if/then" scenario. If these (see vs 5-7) are ever increasing in us, then we won't be "ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge (epignósis) of the Lord"! That is, our spiritual experience, vitality, or faith (one of the precious promises) in Christ, will be argos, inactive, idle, lazy, thoughtless, unprofitable, injurious (Strongs), or as the NIV says, ineffective. The "ineffective and unproductive" deal with both the spiritual vitality (being alive spiritually)

Stop here. No, the verses don't say or mean that. They are clearly referring to spiritual GROWTH, not salvation.

Just as John 15:1-6 deals with bearing fruit, so does this passage. They are about the same thing; spiritual growth that leads to fruit production. Which is being an "effective" Christian. One who bears fruit.

and the progressive advancement in spiritual growth (sanctification, godliness) of our experience with Christ.

This is the meaning of the passage; spiritual growth.

There is nothing in this passage about the possibility of losing salvation.

4) 10Therefore, my brothers and sisters, a make every effort to confirm your calling and election.

A simple question: If we are eternally secure at the moment we believe (and I assume that Peter would have understood this to be true), then why does Peter express the need to confirm (bebaios: firm, steadfast, enduring, sure, certain. [Strong]), it is used by Paul in Rom 4:13 and the NIV translates it as "guaranteed", so Peter is saying that in order for our calling and election sure, certain, guaranteed, we have to do something!

Are you actually suggesting or outright saying that v.10 tells believers to secure their own salvation? Are you kidding? The believer confirms their election by staying faithful and true. The action of "confirming" doesn't accomplish salvation, if that's what you think. James' point was that one's faith cannot be seen UNLESS it produces works. That should be obvious. Peter was making the same point.

Moreover, "your calling and election" is reference to being saved, a child of God, and cannot be construed to refer to anything close to "rewards".

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Election is NEVER about salvation. It is ONLY about being chosen for service. To prove this, I challenge you to quote even 1 verse that says a person is chosen to believe, which is the way man is saved. You won't find any. I'm just trying to save you some time.

There are a number of examples in the Bible who were elected. Let's review them.

Jesus Christ. Isa 42:1
The nation of Israel. Amos 3:2
Angels. 1 Tim 5:21
NT believers. Eph 4:1
Paul. Acts 9:15
All 12 disciples. John 6:70. And Judas wasn't ever saved.

Peter is saying unambiguously that what is being made certain is our salvation.

You really don't understand who is in charge of our salvation. Jesus Christ. He is the Author and Finisher of our salvation.

But you have revealed your ideas of who is really in charge of your salvation; yourself. I thank you for that.

The Bible says salvation is from God. It is His plan. And all we can do is receive it, since it is a gift.

5) For if you do these things, you will never stumble,

Another "if/then" contingency: If you "add" (verses 5-7) "to your faith" and thereby "make certain, guarantee" that "you will never stumble"! (ptaió: I stumble, fall, sin, err, transgress [Strongs]).

This has nothing to do with losing salvation.

6) 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Note that this is about a "rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", not anything about things or rewards of the kingdom.

Ha. It's EXACTLY about reward. How come you can't seem to discern the huge difference between a "welcome" from a "rich welcome"? It's quite obvious to me.

But it seems you are in denial. Even when you come across verses that teach about rewards, you just deny it.

But more importantly, and to the point, it is a part of the "then" portion of "For if you do these things, you will never stumble," and thus a contingency!
Doug

I've never denied the contingencies in the Bible. There are many of them. So what? None of them make the keeping of your gift of salvation on ANY KIND OF contingency.

So my point stands. You cannot provide any verse that says clearly in plain words that one must continually believe in order to be continually be saved.

When I said "or words to that effect", I didn't mean twist verses that teach something else and parade it out as a verse that teaches what you teach.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Well, just as I explained to Gr8Grace, this shows your typical practice of changing the topic by reverting back to your "proof text" instead of dealing with the text (Isa 1:18-20, 27-31), especially the latter part that I used to show contextual reasons for my argument.

You think that there are "contextual reasons" for your argument, but I address all your points. I didn't change the subject by citing Isa 1:18-20. I cited it to show that God blesses/rewards faithfulness and punishes rebellion. That's a biblical fact. But I find that Arminians deny that fact. Instead of being rewarded in eternity, Arminians default to "loss of salvation". Showing that Arminians are in denial.

This demonstrates what I called "a rote method" of learning how to present a biblical argument in my post to Gr8Grace. It is akin to the way that Jehovah's Witnesses act when cornered by an argument, and exposes the weakness of their ability to argue effectively, and of their teachings to stand up against the whole of scripture.
Doug

You've shown nothing that weakens my argument. And you still can't get around John 10:28, the single BEST verse that states eternal security in the Bible.

Jesus said recipients of eternal life shall never perish.

How can you deny this very straightforward statement?