The Bible teaches that salvation comes with conditions.

[Al Touthentop]

Totally agree, this is what I have been saying... but with different words. I think also that abiding can have more than one meaning as it has 12 different Greek meanings.

But yes, being saved and abiding are two seperate issues.

Actually Jesus links them and says that abiding is a requirement. So they're not separate issues. And what did Jesus say about things that God has joined?

 

[Carl Emerson]

The word "apostate" comes to mind.

Would you mind elaborating on what it means?

Thank you.

The Greek Apostasia occurs in 2 Thes 2:3 and signifies a rebellion. Given that we are warned that fellowship would include wheat and tares, such a rebellion would be expected when persecution comes.

 

[brinny]

brinny said: ↑
The word "apostate" comes to mind.

Would you mind elaborating on what it means?

Thank you.

The Greek Apostasia occurs in 2 Thes 2:3 and signifies a rebellion. Given that we are warned that fellowship would include wheat and tares, such a rebellion would be expected when persecution comes.

Have they thrown God "under the bus", after knowing Him/"of Him" and align with His enemy (Satan) after fully knowing Who Jesus Christ is and the Father?

What happens to the apostate, according to what is written in God's Word?

 

[Carl Emerson]

That isn't what he said. That is pretext. What he said was they had to remain in him. And he was speaking to the apostles.

By the way, they all left him and he forgave them. That ought to be an encouragement rather than the fearmongering you claim.

You do realize that it is your view that is way more harsh right? What you say is that if a person sins, then they were never one of his sheep in the first place. What Jesus taught and what the apostles taught was that sin could be cleansed even after one became a disciple. And we read that this is true with Peter. Instead of Jesus rebuking Peter for his sin and telling him he never was one of his in the first place, he forgave him. It's your view that teaches one can continually sin without consequence and without the necessity to confess that sin. Because if one sins, then he was never saved in the first place. That is utter nonsense.


And this was before they abandoned him in the Garden. They obeyed him to that point, and that's why he said they were 'clean.'



But this doesn't negate the words he said later. The words which directed them to remain and said that UNLESS they remain in him, they would be cast into the fire. That's an ultimate, reversible, consequence as we read in 1 John and as we can discover by reading the rest of John's gospel account. Their leaving of him did not permanently dismiss them from his flock nor did it prove they were never his disciples in the first place.

Jesus set the conditions and you want to use his own words against him.


Let's not pretend that people who sin were never Christians to begin with. It is your view that erroneously preaches that God prevents people from sinning once they're saved. That is coercion and God has never coerced anyone to either obey or disobey.

Frankly you post has not represented my position.

You have attributed several points to me that I never made...

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked:
"It would be real helpful to actually quote or at least cite the verse(s) being referred to. I just read through ch 7 and found NO reference to "children" at all."

This demanding that the bible speak to you in words you understand instead of you trying to understand puts all of the responsibility on God and the writers of the bible.

Huh?? You mentioned "children", so I asked why the word wasn't in the chapter you cited.

They should have written it in ways you can easily understand or you will refuse to believe it.

I have no problem understanding the NT. I do have a problem when people make stuff up and then make reference to the Bible, as if they are citing truth.

Romans 7:8-9
"But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."

That word revived there is a terrible translation of the Greek word, which in this context is not 'revived' but 'came alive.' It's one of the most unfortunate errors in the NKJV. Yet, even so, it can be understood.

The NASB translates that passage more correctly.

I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

Now, we know that Paul was born "under the law" given that he was a Jew and his parents raised him as a Jew. So there's only one possibility here when he says 'I was alive once without the law' and that is when he was a child and didn't have the ability to understand it and be responsible for keeping it. He wasn't yet trained in it. He certainly didn't physically die when the law came, otherwise he couldn't have written the letter to the Romans. So he spiritually died when he committed his first sin.

There is actually a much better understanding of what Paul meant.

But first, this is from biblehub.com -
Strong's Concordance
anazaó: to live again
Original Word: ἀναζάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: anazaó
Phonetic Spelling: (an-ad-zah'-o)
Definition: to live again
Usage: I come to life again, revive, regain life.

Now, to what Paul meant. The law specified sins that he was not aware of. He realized he was sinful only after understanding the law. Not that the act of sin resulted in spiritual death.

Humanity is born separated (dead) from God. In fact, Paul made clear that it was Adam's sin that condemns humanity. Romans 5-
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

So, explain v.14 about how "death reigned from Adam to Moses, EVEN OVER those who did NOT SIN by breaking a command".

Man is born spiritually dead. That is precisely WHY a person MUST BE born again. They are dead.

They are NOT born spiritually alive, then die, and then are born again. But since you seem to think so, please provide a verse that says as much.

I said:
"This is contradictory. The fact of being 'converted' means entrance into heaven. If 'conversion' "makes us like little children", then we obviously will enter the kingdom."

You're telling me Jesus contradicted himself?

No, I never even suggested such nonsense.

Matthew 18:2-3
"Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

This isn't at all what you claimed Jesus said. What He said here is that "unless you are converted...you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus' very clear point was that it requires conversion to enter the kingdom.

Clearly here Jesus says that conversion is what makes one like children.

I recommend you read it again. He did NOT say what you claim. There is nothing in the wording to conclude that conversion "makes one like children". You are simply misreading the text.

The word "and" between 'converted' and 'become' refutes your claim. Jesus said 2 things:
1. unless you are converted AND
2. unless you become like children

He never said being converted converts you into little children.

Please explain what Jesus meant by "become like little children". I've heard some real doozies, even from John MacArthur. What's your take?

Now what quality about a child do you think he's talking about there? No facial hair? No menstrual cycle? Small feet?

He's talking about innocence. Sinlessness. And one's conversion results in remission of sins.

Just as I thought. Same as MacArthur. The issue of "little children" is trusting. Little children will believe nearly anything. They are very trusting.

Jesus used that analogy to teach that conversion requires trusting in Jesus for salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually Jesus links them and says that abiding is a requirement.

OK. Now, explain from Scripture exactly what abiding is a requirement OF. Thanks.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Frankly you post has not represented my position.

You have attributed several points to me that I never made...

I apologize if I've misrepresented anything.

By stating that those who sin were never of God in the first place, you're saying that any sin is evidence that one never has been a Christian.

That's a much harsher judgement than what God has laid out for us. One can sin after becoming a Christian. It's forbidden but it isn't the end of one's salvation of one repents of that sin and asks for forgiveness. However, it is made clear that the person who continues to sin, even if he was obedient to the gospel, can be cast in the fire. He can turn away from the truth and fail to abide in Christ because he has free will.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I asked:
"It would be real helpful to actually quote or at least cite the verse(s) being referred to. I just read through ch 7 and found NO reference to "children" at all."

Huh?? You mentioned "children", so I asked why the word wasn't in the chapter you cited.

Because it does not have to be present for one to understand that's what Paul was talking about. You are demanding that the Bible be written to your own personal specification lest you reject it.

But first, this is from biblehub.com -
Strong's Concordance
anazaó: to live again
Original Word: ἀναζάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: anazaó
Phonetic Spelling: (an-ad-zah'-o)
Definition: to live again
Usage: I come to life again, revive, regain life.

There are no univocals. Words derive their meaning from use and no definition is universal. In the context of Romans 7, that word is wrongly translated 'revived' in the NKJV. Or, let's just say it is far less clear as translated than in the NASB and other translations. In general, the NKJV is a very good translation.

Now, to what Paul meant. The law specified sins that he was not aware of. He realized he was sinful only after understanding the law. Not that the act of sin resulted in spiritual death.

And at what period in his life could he have not known that covetousness was a commandment? When he was too young to understand it. Now he also point blank states that sin causes death. The question is what sort of death could it cause if he was alive and writing a letter to the Romans? Obviously it could only be spiritual death.

Humanity is born separated (dead) from God.

Only if you dismiss what Paul has written about how one is separated from God.

In fact, Paul made clear that it was Adam's sin that condemns humanity.

If he really said that, then he calls God a liar. Read Ezekiel 18. God has never at anytime charged the sons with the sins of the fathers. What Paul said was that men condemn themselves when they sin.

So, explain v.14 about how "death reigned from Adam to Moses, EVEN OVER those who did NOT SIN by breaking a command".

It doesn't say that. So there's nothing to explain. He said sin spanned the entire time period and that every MAN sinned. He didn't say that it applied to children. Sin is an action, not a virus.

Man is born spiritually dead. That is precisely WHY a person MUST BE born again. They are dead.

There isn't a single verse in the bible that says we're born spiritually dead.

They are NOT born spiritually alive, then die, and then are born again. But since you seem to think so, please provide a verse that says as much.

I already have but you refuse to accept it because Paul didn't use the word child there.

Please explain what Jesus meant by "become like little children". I've heard some real doozies, even from John MacArthur. What's your take?

Just as I thought. Same as MacArthur. The issue of "little children" is trusting. Little children will believe nearly anything. They are very trusting.

Jesus used that analogy to teach that conversion requires trusting in Jesus for salvation.

That is true, but they are also innocent, sinless. You won't find a single verse in the bible attributing sin to children. Let me know when you do find one.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Have they thrown God "under the bus", after knowing Him/"of Him" and align with His enemy (Satan) after fully knowing Who Jesus Christ is and the Father?

You seem to be implying that the 'Tares' were saved, is this correct?

 

[Carl Emerson]

By stating that those who sin were never of God in the first place, you're saying that any sin is evidence that one never has been a Christian.

You are still doing it - i have never said any such thing.

Have a look at post #258 if you want to understand my position.

 

[brinny]

brinny said: ↑
Have they thrown God "under the bus", after knowing Him/"of Him" and align with His enemy (Satan) after fully knowing Who Jesus Christ is and the Father?

You seem to be implying that the 'Tares' were saved, is this correct?

Ummmm....where in my post did i even hint at such a thing?

 

[redleghunter]

No. This is merely a misunderstanding by many within the church on Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, and Romans 4:2-6. In these portions of Scripture, we know from the whole of His Word that:

#1. Paul was referring to Initial Salvation or the Justification Process (Which is a process of salvation that does not include works) for one is first saved by God's grace and mercy and by His work of redemption through faith without works.

Thanks for the clarification. Your argument is those justified before a Holy God did not need to do any works (responding to the Gospel is not a work); but keeping our Justification is a matter of doing works.

Did I encapsulate your general theme?

 

[redleghunter]

But...Jesus directly told His 11 disciples that although they were clean (saved), they still had to abide in Him in order to bear fruit. So Jesus was clear that saved people may not be abiding in Him.

John 15:1-17 is the context of the specific discussion. I would also add the historical context. Judas just left the group and the 11 knew it and at least two knew the circumstances.

What we have here is actually Jesus reassuring His remaining 11 that they can have great joy in their fruit production and that they will keep it.

For what I quoted from you, notice in the text that there are abiders who produce fruit and their are branches which produce no fruit at all. What I don’t see in the context is a fruit producer becoming a non fruit producer. Somehow over the centuries people read that in to the text. The passage is actually more sobering. If one is not producing fruit at all they are broken away and burned. Only the abiding branches receive fruit because Jesus is the source of the fruit.

John 15: NASB

1“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.3“You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4“Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. 5“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. 7“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8“My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. 9“Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11“These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.


12“This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. 13“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.14“You are My friends if you do what I command you. 15“No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16“You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. 17“This I command you, that you love one another.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Ummmm....where in my post did i even hint at such a thing?

Sorry I misunderstood you...

 

[brinny]

Sorry I misunderstood you...

LOL! It's ok....i'm just about ready to watch some comedy right now.....i'm weary of all this seeeeeriousness

 

[redleghunter]

But Paul says a person can deny God by a lack of works (Titus 1:16), and James says we are justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). So one has to look at the whole counsel of God's Word.

Context of Titus chapter 1:

Paul speaks of appointing worthy men for service; then transitions to false teachers. Verse 16 is within the context of false teachers or rebellious men and Judiazers. Key word below before your one verse is these people are defiled and unbelievers.

Titus 1: NASB

10For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. 12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, 14not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.

 

[redleghunter]

and James says we are justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). So one has to look at the whole counsel of God's Word.

Same thing context means all. Before James 2:24 James discusses what it is to have dead faith. He equated this dead faith to what the demons had. Because we know from Ephesians 2:10 that those who are saved by Grace are the workmanship of God with works prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. James is actually putting a litmus test before us. If we are cold to the brethren, how could this faith we claim be of God. And then he gave some of the best examples of those who were faithful in word and deed. Verse 18 really propels the dialogue. And verse 26 is the most telling and conclusive to the discussion. Just as our bodies are dead without a soul, our faith is dead without the works God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. What James is saying here can be equated to separating heat and light from fire.



James 2: NASB

8If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. 9But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.11For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

14What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

18But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus is saying that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments, and Paul is saying that if we do not love Jesus, we are accursed. Being accursed does not sound like that person is saved to me.

Frankly I agree. But for some reason you seem to equate the accursed to born again adopted children with the seal of the Holy Spirit.

That’s the bold assumption you have.

 

[redleghunter]

Actually the thief on the cross defended Jesus (Which was an act of bravery). He stood up for Jesus. He was not ashamed of Jesus. Jesus says, "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." (Luke 9:26).

Kind of like this statement of Peter and the following comments of Jesus:

Matthew 16: NASB

13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Because it does not have to be present for one to understand that's what Paul was talking about. You are demanding that the Bible be written to your own personal specification lest you reject it.

You are rather confused. I've demanded nothing. And I explained what Paul meant.

There are no univocals. Words derive their meaning from use and no definition is universal.

I see. So you can just pick and choose what you want any word to mean, huh.

In the context of Romans 7, that word is wrongly translated 'revived' in the NKJV. Or, let's just say it is far less clear as translated than in the NASB and other translations. In general, the NKJV is a very good translation.

I gave you what a Greek lexicon says about the word. That's way more accurate than any translation.

And at what period in his life could he have not known that covetousness was a commandment? When he was too young to understand it. Now he also point blank states that sin causes death. The question is what sort of death could it cause if he was alive and writing a letter to the Romans? Obviously it could only be spiritual death.

As I previously explained, the Law defines what sin is. Specifically, like coveting. Or adultery. Stealing. Things like that. Paul's point was that by defining sin specifically, he became conscious of sin specifically. It had nothing to do with children.

btw, when Paul wanted to assign certain attitudes or actions to children, he SAID so.

1 Cor 13:11 - When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

Only if you dismiss what Paul has written about how one is separated from God.

What do you think I have dismissed from what Paul wrote?

I said this:
"In fact, Paul made clear that it was Adam's sin that condemns humanity"

If he really said that, then he calls God a liar. Read Ezekiel 18. God has never at anytime charged the sons with the sins of the fathers.

I never said God charges sons with the sins of the father. This is what Paul said:
Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Then he wrote this:
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

So, you need to explain 2 things.

Explain v.12 about "because ALL sinned". You claim infants are sinless. Please reconcile.

Explain how "death reigned" between Adam and Moses, "even over those who DID NOT SIN".

What Paul said was that men condemn themselves when they sin.

Nope.

It doesn't say that. So there's nothing to explain. He said sin spanned the entire time period and that every MAN sinned. He didn't say that it applied to children. Sin is an action, not a virus.

Nice try, but no dice. The Greek for "every MAN" is simply ALL, just like in v.12.

If infants were exempt from spiritual death, there would be no need for Christ to have died for them. And the Bible tells us that He died for ALL. The Greek word is 'pas'. You are free to research the word for yourself.

This is something you cannot explain.

There isn't a single verse in the bible that says we're born spiritually dead.

The very same can be said about your theory that "not ALL are sinful". The Bible refutes your theory.

That is true, but they are also innocent, sinless. You won't find a single verse in the bible attributing sin to children. Let me know when you do find one.

Here is the fact: The Bible says ALL have sinned. It doesn't say ONLY MEN have sinned, as you tried to claim above. And that would have left out women.

Your problem is that Christ died for ALL. That means everyone. Why, if infants who die wouldn't have needed Christ's payment?

Your problem is that the Bible says that ALL have sinned. Not "all ADULTS have sinned", as you opine.

You cannot reconcile your view with Scripture.