This should end the discussion about easy grace and OSAS!

[brotherjerry]

Expos
Actually several do.
The only way to walk away from God is to be tempted to something other than God.
Psalms 121:3 He will not allow your foot to slip; He who keeps you will not slumber.
God will not allow us to slip, He will keep us. That verse right there says we cannot walk away. God will keep us.
2 Thessalonians 3:3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one.
This verse lets us know that Satan cannot lure us away from God.
1 Peter 1:5 who are protected by the power of God...
Again God is protecting us.

You will not find one verse that says we can walk away from God. If we can be lured from God by flesh (which is Satan), then God does not guard us. If we can fall from God's hands, the God does not keep us. And if any of that was true, the God does not protect us.

What you are preaching is salvation that relies solely on man being able to save himself. It is man who comes to God, it is man who keeps himself safe, it is because man did not leave God that God then rewards him with salvation. This is a "here's your cookie" gospel. One that has no basis in the Bible because you can find no examples of it in the Bible, no verse clearly says that in the Bible. You have to rely on what you think is not said in the Bible. "It does not say man can't walk away from God", There is a plethora of failed doctrines based on what the Bible does not say.

 

[FreeGrace2]

TBL said this:
"So what part of the Bible specifically talks about this regeneration process?"

Are you still denying faith is a gift from God?

This response is just another dodge of a good question. And it speaks volumes.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Let me ask this question.
Would you say Jesus always does the will of the father?
Assuming you'll say 'yes', Jesus always does the will of the father'. because it says so in (John 8:29) "And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."
Then you would also have to agree with (John 6:39) "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I LOSE NOTHING' but raise it up on the last day."

If Jesus lost anyone that the father has given him, then he would not be doing the will of the father. And if one elected to fall away, he would still be losing them. Eg) if I took my kids to the mall and they decided to just take off (2 and 4 yr olds do that) then I would have lost my kids at the mall. My wife would say "you lost our kids!!!!" I couldn't reply " no I didn't lose them, they took off on there own".

Free grace2, I'm interested to here your view on this. I think it's a good argument and I just started using it. So I'm curious to see how it's refuted.

 

[FreeGrace2]

One thing I learned a long time ago is not to base doctrine off of one verse in the bible. The Eph. verse is an example. You can read that verse several ways as demonstrated on this forum.

It seems nearly any verse can be "read several ways". The only issue is what it really means. Because it cannot mean more than one thing.

When the bible is looked at as a whole it is rather obvious regeneration is required prior to faith.

If it so obvious, there should be at least 1 verse or passage that clearly states the obvious. So, where is it?

Those verses were presented by several people and FG2's response was simply ad-hoc in nature.

My response was that none of the verses back up what was being claimed. And Eph 2:5 and 8 is obvious enough.

The closest one can come is that regeneration and faith happen at exactly the same point in time.

I do agree with this, and again, based solely on Scripture. 1 Jn 5:1 says: Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

The Greek word for "whoever believes" is a present participle, better translated "the believing ones". And because it is a present participle, it occurs at the same time as the action of the main verb, per Mounce in "Greek for the Rest of Us", which is "is born of God".

So, yes, regeneration occurs exactly when belief occurs. But regeneration is through faith, so faith comes first.

 

[brotherjerry]

Expos let me expand a bit on 'snatching'. While there is no argument that snatching refers to a third party removing you from God's hands, and does not cover you walking away. However, what this doctrine does not take into account is that when in the Father's hands you are focused on the Father. You would have to be tempted to look at a different master to then leap from the Father's protection into the temptation of the other master. And man is always a slave to something...flesh or the spirit.
Romans 8 says our mind is either flesh or spirit, and that which is flesh follows the flesh, and that which is spirit follows the spirit. Paul never describes something that was spirit now following the flesh, but often describes that which was flesh now following the spirit. So we see an image of just two states, never crossing.
I have cited several verses that also talk about God's protection from "the evil one" which can equate to the master of the flesh.
So if we can only choose between protection in God's hands or the flesh, the flesh would have to tempt us while we are in God's hands. And I have cited verses that tell us that we cannot be tempted more than we can handled, that God will keep us from slipping, that God protects us from the evil one.
So if we cannot be lured away, then we can never leave God, thus we can never walk away.

 

[-57]

All I have to say is this.....if you can lose your salvation....You already have lost it.

Saved by mercy and grace...retained by what we do gospel is flat.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Bible does not provide a specification about how the English language and its concepts function. The point is that, for whatever reason, the translators decided to use the word "snatch".

This is the actual Greek word found in Jn 10:28 for "snatch":

harpazo
1) to seize, carry off by force
2) to seize on, claim for one’s self eagerly
3) to snatch out or away

And as per my argument, to say "no one can snatch them out of God's hand" does not address the possibility that the individual himself or herself cannot "jump out" of God's hand on their own volition.

Unless it is stated somewhere, there is no reason to make that argument. Furthermore, "no one" would obviously include oneself. There is no reason to ASSUME that oneself is excluded from Jesus' promise of eternal life.

This is about the meaning of concepts.

Dang tootin' it is.

 

[FreeGrace2]

This is obvious to all except those in bondage to "the doctrines of men".

These cheap shots are obvious to all.

They just are not OPEN to learning spiritual Truth.

Another cheap shot.

 

[expos4ever]

This is the actual Greek word found in Jn 10:28 for "snatch":

harpazo
1) to seize, carry off by force
2) to seize on, claim for one’s self eagerly
3) to snatch out or away

I believe my argument retains its force. One cannot "seize" or "snatch" oneself - only an external agent can do that.

 

[-57]

Let me ask this question.
Would you say Jesus always does the will of the father?
Assuming you'll say 'yes', Jesus always does the will of the father'. because it says so in (John 8:29) "And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."
Then you would also have to agree with (John 6:39) "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I LOSE NOTHING' but raise it up on the last day."

If Jesus lost anyone that the father has given him, then he would not be doing the will of the father. And if one elected to fall away, he would still be losing them. Eg) if I took my kids to the mall and they decided to just take off (2 and 4 yr olds do that) then I would have lost my kids at the mall. My wife would say "you lost our kids!!!!" I couldn't reply " no I didn't lose them, they took off on there own".

Sheep run away (take offon their own).....and the Shepherd does what? Just stand there?
Luke 15:4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it?

 

[FreeGrace2]

We can start with Eph 2:1.....And you were dead in the trespasses and sins.
Another word for regeneration is rebirth, related to the biblical phrase “born again.”

I think this is a true statement...."No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary."
I understand salvation is a monergistic work produced singly, by one person. That person is God.

If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, which is a a synergistic work that requires cooperation between man and God then we are in error. One cannot have faith unless first one is brought to spiritual life from spirtual death.
The theology of synergistic work tells us first we have "faith" then God grants us regeneration.

It is an error to claim that receiving a gift is a "synergistic work". Now, if one had to pry God's fingers open in order to get the gift, you might have a point. But receiving is PASSIVE. Man does nothing but believe. There is no action requiring God to act. However, God's plan of salvation is that He WILL save those who believe.

[QUOET]John 1:12 and onwards tells us......12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God[/QUOTE]
Yes, man RECEIVES the right to become the children of God.

Flesh is no help at all. The unregenerate can't have faith.

Correct, and then wrong.

Now do I have a verse that specifically says..."and regeneration proceeds faith"? No. But I also don't have a verse that says flat out God is a Trinity.....Yet, the bible expresses both positions.

This is such a tired excuse for not having a verse to support a claim. Not only does the Bible describe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God, but we find all 3 in the last verse of 2 Cor.

Again, Eph 2:5 and 8 tell us that being made alive, which is equated with "having been saved" is by grace THROUGH FAITH. So, faith must precede regeneration and salvation.

There are NO examples in Scripture of anyone being regenerated before they believed or were saved. How come "NONE" doesn't seem to make any difference to some?

I must ask you, do you have a verse that specifically says faith proceeds regeneration? That answer is also no.

Wrong. Eph 2:5 and 8 clearly say so.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Let me ask this question.
Would you say Jesus always does the will of the father?
Assuming you'll say 'yes', Jesus always does the will of the father'. because it says so in (John 8:29) "And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."
Then you would also have to agree with (John 6:39) "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I LOSE NOTHING' but raise it up on the last day."

If Jesus lost anyone that the father has given him, then he would not be doing the will of the father. And if one elected to fall away, he would still be losing them. Eg) if I took my kids to the mall and they decided to just take off (2 and 4 yr olds do that) then I would have lost my kids at the mall. My wife would say "you lost our kids!!!!" I couldn't reply " no I didn't lose them, they took off on there own".

Free grace2, I'm interested to here your view on this. I think it's a good argument and I just started using it. So I'm curious to see how it's refuted.

As a human argument, it can go both ways. If the kids are quite young, and parents are expected to keep their eye on them, then, yes, you did lose them, even though they took off on their own. As a parent, it's your responsibility to keep your eye on them so they don't take off on their own.

There is no way to apply this reasoning to John 10:28,29. Jesus was clear: those who have believed are kept by the Father and no one can snatch them from His hand. And "no one" necessarily includes ONEself. There is no exclusion in the passage, nor anywhere else in Scripture.

Furthermore, Paul described both justification (Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17) and eternal life (Rom 6:23) as gifts of God. And then he wrote in 11:29 that God's gifts are irrevocable.

What is your take on those verses, all of which are context.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I believe my argument retains its force. One cannot "seize" or "snatch" oneself - only an external agent can do that.

Your argument is refuted by John 10 :28,29, whether one is aware of that or not. "No one" includes ONEself. No way around it.

Further, there are no verses that tell us that we can lose our salvation.

Salvation is secure in spite of one's behavior or lifestyle. I know that really irks some, but it's all based on grace. So those who are bothered by eternal security demonstrate a failure to understand or accept God's grace.

The Bible clearly tells us that lifestyle isn't an issue:

1 Thess 5:4-10 distinguishes between those who sleep and those who are alert and uses lifestyle to identify each kind. Then Paul wrote this in v.10: who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him.

So, in spite of a believer's lifestyle, or "whether awake or asleep", we WILL live together WITH HIM.

It could not be more clear than that.

The context does not allow for literal sleeping or literal alertness. They are metaphors or figures of speech for lifestyle.

 

[expos4ever]

Unless it is stated somewhere, there is no reason to make that argument.

I believe you repeatedly make this kind of argument and it is, I suggest, not correct.

When a concept is used, it means what it means! You cannot extend the meaning of a concept and then respond to being called on your extending of that meaning by insisting that the objector "prove" that your extension is not valid by providing some sort of Biblical counterexample.

Let me illustrate by analogy.

Suppose you said "God gives us a gift that he will not revoke, therefore you can never "lose" that gift".

I would respond by (correctly) pointing that the concept of "revocation" only governs the agent doing the giving, it does not constrain the freedom of the recipient to toss the gift away.

You always respond with something like "Prove Biblically that someone tossed away an irrevocable gift".

This is clearly an invalid response. If you claimed that some bald character from the Bible had hair, you would be likewise violating the concept of "baldness". And obviously, I am never going to be able to find a statement in the Bible that this particular fellow "has no hair" other than the declaration that he is bald (the very concept you would be violating).

I have tried many times to explain this to you. Of course, I do not expect you to change your mind so I am posting this for the benefit of others who may be following along.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Furthermore, Paul described both justification (Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17) and eternal life (Rom 6:23) as gifts of God. And then he wrote in 11:29 that God's gifts are irrevocable.

What is your take on those verses, all of which are context.

If eternal life is a gift from God which is irrevocable then how can it be taken away? It's irrevocable.

Irrevocable adjective
1. not to be revoked or recalled; unable to be repealed or annulled; unalterable:
an irrevocable decree.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I believe you repeatedly make this kind of argument and it is, I suggest, not correct.

When a concept is used, it means what it means! You cannot extend the meaning of a concept and then respond to being called on your extending of that meaning by insisting that the objector "prove" that your extension is not valid by providing some sort of Biblical counterexample.

Let me illustrate by analogy.

Suppose you said "God gives us a gift that he will not revoke, therefore you can never "lose" that gift".

I would respond by (correctly) pointing that the concept of "revocation" only governs the agent doing the giving, it does not constrain the freedom of the recipient to toss the gift away.

If that were true, the Bible would address it in at least some of the warning passages. But there is NO warning or examples of giving your salvation away. So, that is only a figment of one's imagination.

You always respond with something like "Prove Biblically that someone tossed away an irrevocable gift".

Nope. I've NEVER done that. The only gift I've challenged to prove that it can be "tossed away" is the gift of eternal life.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If eternal life is a gift from God which is irrevocable then how can it be taken away? It's irrevocable.

Irrevocable adjective
1. not to be revoked or recalled; unable to be repealed or annulled; unalterable:
an irrevocable decree.

That is precisely my point.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

That is precisely my point.

Oh my bad. I thought you were refuting OSAS

 

[sdowney717]

Jesus states three important things about our salvation.
John 10:28
a. And I give them eternal life,
b. and they shall never perish;
c. neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

Let's see what some posters are saying

a. Jesus gives them temporary life, so Jesus lied?
b. They who believe might perish depending on their works or the lack thereof, so Jesus lies again?
c. They snatch themselves away from HIS hands, or the devil does it. Again Jesus misspoke or He means something else than what He says, and we have to be better and smarter learners to figure it out.

Of course believing all those things is contrary to what Christ absolutely says as the truth, so they must be insane, under the influence of evil to say the opposite of what Christ says, they are of antichrist who oppose Christ.

Some even say these words were attributed to Christ, so He never said them. I have talked with people who say that. They also don't like John 3:16 and condemnation to those who do not believe, saying God is love and won't condemn honest good people...

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Something else that is important. In many verses our sin is related to debt. We are in debt to God because of our sin. Christ's cry from the cross "it is finished" is the Greek word 'tetelestai'. This word has been found on ancient tax receipts meaning ' a debt had been paid in full'. So if our debt is paid in full, that means we no longer owe anything. So how can you lose your salvation if your debt is fully paid?