Those who fall away are still saved?

[EmSw]

What source are you speaking of?

What did the Bereans have to study? There was no 'New Testament' Bible.

 

[EmSw]

Ah, but what is the entry point? Is it grace or is it works? See Romans 11:5-6.

But the entry point alone does nothing.

 

[fhansen]

What source are you speaking of?

A source other than the bible, in this case Paul and Silas, both members of the group chosen by God to spread His message.

 

[justbyfaith]

Now I agree that those who are truly in the body of Christ can speak with authority, because I am not a cessationist; I believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today. And therefore such a gift as prophecy may come into operation and give us an extrabiblical word that is indeed valid: however, in believing in Sola Scriptura, which I define not as "we rely on the Bible alone", but rather as the fact that "we know that the Bible is the ultimate authority and the last word on everything": if someone were to give an extrabiblical word, even ex cathedra, if it were to contradict the clear teaching of the word of God we can determine that the person who spoke it was speaking in the power of the flesh. They may try to place authority over their words by calling their statement ex cathedra; but if their words contradict the word of God they are nothing.

 

[justbyfaith]

But the entry point alone does nothing.

How do you figure?

 

[Oldmantook]

I mentioned Judas because he was called "a devil" and "the son of perdition" by Jesus, which means he wasn't saved at all. Do you claim that he was? yes or no.

Judas was a devil and a son of perdition because he BETRAYED Jesus. An unsaved person or false convert can never betray Jesus because he/she was never loyal to Jesus to begin with. Only a genuine believer is capable of betraying his Lord. If you read Jn 17:6-12 you will find that there is no difference in the description of Judas and the rest of the disciples. Judas and the rest of the disciples were GIVEN to Jesus by the Father which is descriptive only of the elect (v.). Judas and the rest of the disciples received the words of Jesus and believed them (v.8). Judas and the rest of the disciples were kept IN YOUR NAME. Only genuine believers are kept in Jesus' name. Judas and the rest of the disciples belonged to the Father and were given to Jesus (v.9). Despite being of the elect, Judas was still lost through his greed and ultimate betrayal which contradicts your held belief that that elect can never depart from the faith.

I disagree with your conclusion. In this passage of scripture, Paul is giving some wisdom to Timothy about the practice of letting widows live in the community house, since it was difficult at that time for single women to find work for a living. He is trying to tell Timothy not to let women who claim to believe, but haven't proven their faith, to live in the community house, because it could enable their sins, which Paul spells out, in which he likely saw it happen in the past.

You are eisegeting the text and inserting your own opinion. Where does it state "claim to believe?" Where does it reference the "community house" or whatever your coined term means? Paul states no such thing as claim to believe as he is addressing them as if they are genuine believers. He is instructing believers in the church how to relate to one another and what their responsibilities entail. Why would Paul concern himself with the affairs of those who are unbelievers? Your claim makes no sense. In fact, it states the opposite - because they are believers they are obligated to honor widows (v.3) and their families are obligated to take care of her themselves and thus repay her - not a "community house" (v.4). The believing widow who is now left spouseless, prays continuously (v5). But the believing widow who instead lives for her own pleasure is dead while she lives (v.6). Moreover, if this passage were referring to unbelievers in the church, v.8 would not make sense as it states that anyone who does not provide for his own household has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Here again we find scriptural evidence that a genuine believer is capable of denying the faith. An unbeliever cannot be worse than an unbeliever. How is that possible?

Actually, translators agree with my assessment of this passage, as some translate that word "pledge." Like I have said before, all languages, including the Bible, adjust meanings of words based on how those words are used in the context. If you try to impose a fixed definition of a word onto the text, then that is eisegesis.

So your appeal is to authority which is potentially a logical fallacy as even translators are subject to error. Just where is "pistis" translated as "pledge?"
Definition: faith, belief, firm persuasion, 2 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:1; assurance, firm conviction, Rom. 14:23; ground of belief, guarantee, assurance, Acts 17:31; good faith, honesty, integrity, Mt. 23:23; Gal. 5:22; Tit. 2:10; faithfulness, truthfulness, Rom. 3:3; in NT faith in God and Christ, Mt. 8:10; Acts 3:16, et al. freq.; ἡ πιστις, the matter of Gospel faith, Acts 6:7; Jude 3.

In 1 Tim 5:12 the word is pistin which is a noun often defined as faith as seen above. The verb form is pisteuō which refers to the act of belief. In the passage there is no scriptural evidence whatsoever that pistin means a pledge to be celibate. Rather it means to be faithful and dedicated to Christ.

Judas was the prime example of an unbeliever who performed miracles (at least the historical narrative implies it, since the other disciples thought him one of them equally). Heb. 6:4-8 is a perfect description of that "son of perdition."

As I already demonstrated above, Judas was a believer as described in John 17 - not an unbeliever as you suppose. How is it possible for an unbeliever to perform miracles in Jesus' name? Where in the Bible are unbelievers given the spiritual authority to do the supernatural in Jesus' name. Those who attempted to do so are the sons of Sceva and I suppose you know what happened to them.

What is problematic is the false accusation against the saint who you claim "departs from the faith," and claiming that just because someone is in the church it means they are saved. I was using your terminology, I guess I shouldn't have. I'm trying to say that a true believer doesn't depart from the faith at all, even if it appears (to someone else) that they did for a short time. This language of Paul "departing from the faith" is his assessment of people who come into the church for awhile, and then leave permanently because of sin or deception. The phrase is from the viewpoint of man looking at other men. It is not an assessment of God's view of salvation, so this is not a passage teaching about the spiritual condition.

If the person is not a true believer, then we can assume he/she is an unbeliever. Paul spoke and wrote his epistles as he was guided by the Holy Spirit as all scripture is GOD BREATHED. Thus your notion that Paul's viewpoint is that of man, is unsupported by Scripture itself which is the view of God. Secondly, how can someone who doesn't possess saving faith depart from the faith? That would be absurd.

The warnings of scripture are for both believers and unbelievers. Warnings are very much like commands of the Lord, only the commandments are simply "do this" or "don't do that," where it is left up to you to figure out why. Warnings give wisdom on why certain things should be done or not done. Like I said before, true believers heed the warnings, and the wicked disregard them, because believers (who, BTW, God has made to believe) have wisdom from the Spirit to understand and obey. Unbelievers (those not born again) may appear to understand the warnings from their intellect, but they don't have the wisdom to follow them.

So are you claiming that true believers cannot choose for themselves whether or not to obey God? The Bible is replete with commands to obey and warnings against disobedience directed at the believer. James 5:19 refers to a brother who strays from the truth. The very next verse states that whoever turns this sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death. These verses make it very clear that a believer who sins and turns away from the truth will experience the death of his soul if he does not repent.

You claim "believers can choose to remain in the flesh," and yet Paul writes "you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you." And since Paul doesn't know who specifically in the church is saved or not (he is writing to people he hasn't met), he must write in such a way as to include both groups. I contend that if anyone thinks of himself as being in the flesh, even in a single moment, that person is either ignorant of Paul's teaching, or has forgotten its meaning.

You should read further in the chapter to gain more context. Rom 8:13 plainly states that if you live in the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Paul is addressing the brethren (v.12). Brethren in the NT never refers to unbelievers. Thus spiritual death is the consequence of believers who choose to live according to the flesh. One should not be ignorant of Paul's warning.

All the apostles testify in numerous places that if a person does not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, they are not saved even if they think they are. When Jesus talked of those who called Him 'Lord' but do not enter the kingdom, they responded in surprise. They thought they were saved, but weren't.

They were saved. You ignore the fact they performed the miraculous IN YOUR NAME. Did God ever give the authority to unbelievers to use the name of Jesus to do supernatural acts? You also ignore the fact that Jesus himself stated the reason why he commanded them to depart - not because they were unbelievers as you incorrectly assert - but because these believers practiced lawlessness. You should not insert your own reason when Jesus himself provides his reason for us.

What is a 'believer'? One who is born again, or does it also include those who claim to believe and go to church, but don't bear the fruit of the Spirit? Certainly those who are deceived into thinking they are saved when in fact they aren't have a false sense of security. I am now wondering if you are in the "cheap grace" evangelical camp, where you claim that if someone prays the "sinner's prayer" that they are automatically saved. Is this your stand?

The gospel message encompasses both belief as in Jn 3:16 and obedience as in Heb 5:9. Both are required for salvation. If one or the other is absent, salvation is not assured of. A believer may believe but choose to be disobedient. That is why Paul exhorts believers to examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). Paul would never exhort unbelievers to examine themselves as they are not in the faith. Cheap grace is of the devil. You and I believe that genuine believers must persevere in the faith in order to be saved. However you believe that those who don't persevere were never believers. That would be true in some cases but it does not nullify the possibility that others were genuine believers who didn't persevere in belief and obedience.

I'm saying that a true believer doesn't "no longer believe" because he is a child of God, is in Christ, has the Holy Spirit, is sealed for redemption, kept by God's power, has the seed of God in him, is born of God, etc. Now, if someone who claims to believe, but has "no root in him," that is, has not been born again, if such a person "no longer believes," then no, they are not eternally secure because they never were, even if they felt secure before (false sense of security). We measure ourselves (mainly, but we may also discern others) by what the scripture says, to determine whether our faith is genuine or not.

Just ask yourself, is there anything that you can do which would disqualify yourself from salvation. It could be no longer believing or no longer obeying but based on your response above since you believe that a believer is securely sealed, there is nothing that would disqualify a believer from salvation since a genuine believer will always believe and disobey according to you. Jesus himself testifies against your held belief:
And if anyone should take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, of those having been written in this book. Rev 22:19
This is obviously a warning from Jesus which warns anyone; specifically believers that they can have their part in the tree of life and the holy city in the New Jerusalem taken away. How do you explain this away since you believe that a genuine believer is eternally secure? A genuine believer is a part of the tree of life and will live in the New Jerusalem but Jesus states that it can also be taken away. I prefer to believe the words of Jesus.

A lifestyle of disobedience points to lack of saving faith, therefore such a person is never saved to begin with, since being saved by NT definition is being saved from sin. An immature believer may 'disobey' God (largely committing sins by mistake) quite often in minor things, because of a need to be sanctified, grow in faith, development of a persevering character, etc. Therefore, I see your question as a strawman. The Bible teaches us that a child of God will be chastised by God to make us share in His holiness. If a person is without such chastisement, they are "a bastard," meaning such a person is not a child of God, even if they claim to be one. A true Christian will not go headlong into sin because he loves God more than sinful pleasures.

Rom 8:13 states that if a person lives according to the flesh, he will spiritually die. This cannot refer to an unbeliever because of the word "if." The unsaved have no choice but to live according to the flesh since they are not regenerated in the Spirit. Therefore it is not a matter of "if" since the unsaved already are living according to their flesh. If Paul were referencing the unsaved, he would have instead used the word "since." Therefore IF A BELIEVER lives according to the flesh HE WILL DIE. This cannot refer to physical death because every single person physically dies no matter what kind of life they live. Thus contrary to you claim, a true Christian can go headlong into sin, live a life according to the flesh, become spiritually dead and is not eternally secure.

 

[EmSw]

How do you figure?

What kind of shopping would you do if you just stop at the entry point (door)? What gets done?

What if Jesus stopped at the door and didn't enter? Can He sup with you at the door?

 

[justbyfaith]

Someone who is spiritually dead even while they live is not a believer.

 

[justbyfaith]

What kind of shopping would you do if you just stop at the entry point (door)? What gets done?

What if Jesus stopped at the door and didn't enter? Can He sup with you at the door?

The point of entering through a door is that you are going to be in the building for a while, and in the case of this eternal thing, for ever. Being in the building is the result of entering in through the door. If you act like you are in the building but are really outside, having never entered through the door, then you are not really in the building, though you may think you are. For who would act like they are in the building unless they think they are in it? Perhaps those who want others to think they are really in the building. But it wouldn't fly; it would be evident to all that they are not really in the building but are putting on some kind of show.

 

[tdidymas]

Part 1:

Judas was a devil and a son of perdition because he BETRAYED Jesus. An unsaved person or false convert can never betray Jesus because he/she was never loyal to Jesus to begin with. Only a genuine believer is capable of betraying his Lord. If you read Jn 17:6-12 you will find that there is no difference in the description of Judas and the rest of the disciples. Judas and the rest of the disciples were GIVEN to Jesus by the Father which is descriptive only of the elect (v.). Judas and the rest of the disciples received the words of Jesus and believed them (v.8). Judas and the rest of the disciples were kept IN YOUR NAME. Only genuine believers are kept in Jesus' name. Judas and the rest of the disciples belonged to the Father and were given to Jesus (v.9). Despite being of the elect, Judas was still lost through his greed and ultimate betrayal which contradicts your held belief that that elect can never depart from the faith.

Jesus called Judas a devil before he betrayed Him, in fact long before the context of betrayal. Judas also pilfered money from the community purse long before his betrayal, which proves he had no godly character. His conspiracy with the Jewish leaders prior to the betrayal shows that Judas did not have the Holy Spirit with him to influence him to right behavior as He was with the other disciples. His motive was greed, which is wickedness, and his betrayal of Jesus was simply an outcome of his devilish thinking and behavior. Someone under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit could not have Satan enter them, as was the case of Judas. The other disciples never even thought such a thing, even though they questioned their own loyalty. When Peter denied Christ and when the disciples ran away in the garden, their motive was survival. Not wickedness. Judas' betrayal was not an act of panic, but rather a well thought out evil plan. Prov. 6:18 says that the Lord hates "A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil." This certainly does not describe one who is saved.

Since Jesus was praying for the disciples who were with Him, he was only praying for the 11 who went to heaven. Judas had already left. When He said "except for the son of perdition," he was specifically excluding Judas from the entire prayer in addition to excluding him from being His sheep.

You are eisegeting the text and inserting your own opinion. Where does it state "claim to believe?" Where does it reference the "community house" or whatever your coined term means? Paul states no such thing as claim to believe as he is addressing them as if they are genuine believers. He is instructing believers in the church how to relate to one another and what their responsibilities entail. Why would Paul concern himself with the affairs of those who are unbelievers? Your claim makes no sense. In fact, it states the opposite - because they are believers they are obligated to honor widows (v.3) and their families are obligated to take care of her themselves and thus repay her - not a "community house" (v.4). The believing widow who is now left spouseless, prays continuously (v5). But the believing widow who instead lives for her own pleasure is dead while she lives (v.6). Moreover, if this passage were referring to unbelievers in the church, v.8 would not make sense as it states that anyone who does not provide for his own household has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Here again we find scriptural evidence that a genuine believer is capable of denying the faith. An unbeliever cannot be worse than an unbeliever. How is that possible?

Exegesis includes historical evidence, which shows that widows and orphans were supported by the early Church. This passage of scripture (and another in Acts 6) supports that evidence, since it is actually talking about it. It was a widow whose family could not (or would not) care for them who were to be "enrolled" or "put on the list" for support from the church.

We cannot assume that just because someone claims to believe and knows Christian jargon that they are saved, filled with the Spirit, born again, etc. This passage lists qualifications for widows who are to be supported, as their life has proved that their faith is authentic. The qualifications do no guarantee that all widows who claimed faith and wanted to be supported by the church actually had those qualifications. This passage is saying that if any widow doesn't have those qualifications, they should not be considered for support, since that support might continue for the remainder of their life.

We also must consider that anyone in the church who claims to believe in Christ is to be assumed a "believer" even if their faith is not authentic in reality. The Bible speaks of two dimensions of "faith," one of which is authentic, one which isn't. All through the NT and especially the epistles is written in such manner as to assume that not everyone involved in church is saved. It follows Jesus' statement that not everyone who calls Him 'Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, which means those people were never saved (never entered). Therefore to presume on the text of 1 Tim. 5 that all widows considered for the support list were actually saved would be pure speculation and not conducive to the context of the passage or the NT.

So your appeal is to authority which is potentially a logical fallacy as even translators are subject to error. Just where is "pistis" translated as "pledge?"
Definition: faith, belief, firm persuasion, 2 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:1; assurance, firm conviction, Rom. 14:23; ground of belief, guarantee, assurance, Acts 17:31; good faith, honesty, integrity, Mt. 23:23; Gal. 5:22; Tit. 2:10; faithfulness, truthfulness, Rom. 3:3; in NT faith in God and Christ, Mt. 8:10; Acts 3:16, et al. freq.; ἡ πιστις, the matter of Gospel faith, Acts 6:7; Jude 3.

In 1 Tim 5:12 the word is pistin which is a noun often defined as faith as seen above. The verb form is pisteuō which refers to the act of belief. In the passage there is no scriptural evidence whatsoever that pistin means a pledge to be celibate. Rather it means to be faithful and dedicated to Christ.

Just a cursory look at 14 translations show that 8 out of the 14 translate that word "pledge" in this verse. The translators aren't looking at the single word only, but the context in which the word is used. To get a fixed definition from a lexicon and then impose that definition onto the text without considering how the definition might be adjusted by its usage is a common mistake. These translators are trying to help the reader to get the actual usage of the phrase "first faith." It is being used as the same meaning as "vow." We commonly use the base word "faith" for other meanings than faith in God, such as "faithful," equivalent to "loyal," as well as "good faith," equivalent to "honest."

As I already demonstrated above, Judas was a believer as described in John 17 - not an unbeliever as you suppose. How is it possible for an unbeliever to perform miracles in Jesus' name? Where in the Bible are unbelievers given the spiritual authority to do the supernatural in Jesus' name. Those who attempted to do so are the sons of Sceva and I suppose you know what happened to them.

Yet, Jesus said "I never knew you" to those who cast out demons and performed miracles in His name. Those people were never saved. The sons of the Jewish religious leaders cast out demons. They were not likely saved because their fathers weren't. 2 Thes. 2 speaks of "the lawless one" who will come "with all power and signs and lying wonders" - in other words, miracles. The term "lying wonders" means the miraculous designed to lead people away from the truth. Judas was a believer only in the sense of profession. But since from the beginning he was a liar, a thief, and an evil conspirator, he was never saved.

If the person is not a true believer, then we can assume he/she is an unbeliever. Paul spoke and wrote his epistles as he was guided by the Holy Spirit as all scripture is GOD BREATHED. Thus your notion that Paul's viewpoint is that of man, is unsupported by Scripture itself which is the view of God. Secondly, how can someone who doesn't possess saving faith depart from the faith? That would be absurd.

You have misunderstood the communication. Many times Paul wrote from the human viewpoint as an accommodation, as he attests in Rom. 6:19.

So are you claiming that true believers cannot choose for themselves whether or not to obey God? The Bible is replete with commands to obey and warnings against disobedience directed at the believer. James 5:19 refers to a brother who strays from the truth. The very next verse states that whoever turns this sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death. These verses make it very clear that a believer who sins and turns away from the truth will experience the death of his soul if he does not repent.

Another misunderstanding on your part. People do not choose by themselves whether to obey God or not. We either have strong influences from Satan to disobey, in which unbelievers are said to be slaves of the devil or slaves of sin, such as John 8:32, or we have strong influences from the Holy Spirit to obey, in which believers are said to be slaves of righteousness, such as Rom. 6:18. If you are not reconciled to God, then your will is not aligned with His, and the result is that you will be a chronic sinner, in which case you're not saved. If you are reconciled with God, then your will is aligned with His, and the result is that you will practice righteousness, as 1 John 3:9 attests. These verses are given to us to judge ourselves, as whether or not our own faith is genuine.

James 5:19 is another accommodation. Immature believers can be sinners, yet be true believers. We cannot assume one way or the other. Therefore, James writes to accommodate our short-sighted human viewpoint. The hypothetical "if you live unrighteously, you will die" (as Paul does in Rom. 8:13) is to accommodate our lack of ability to judge whether a person is God's elect or not. Thus, we are to "leave the 99 (sheep) to find the lost one." That verse in no way teaches that salvation could be lost.

Cont'd in the next post.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Part 2:

You should read further in the chapter to gain more context. Rom 8:13 plainly states that if you live in the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Paul is addressing the brethren (v.12). Brethren in the NT never refers to unbelievers. Thus spiritual death is the consequence of believers who choose to live according to the flesh. One should not be ignorant of Paul's warning.

The warning is to accommodate churchgoers who are in that transition period of spiritual immaturity, where they don't yet know whether they are saved or not. The warning is given so that people who have authentic faith who have a fear of God can be motivated by that fear (if their respect of God's ways wane), in addition to warning those whose faith is not authentic to give them something to recognize that they need more than what they have. In that way, if people do not heed the warning (which unsaved fools won't), their judgment is greater than if they were ignorant of it. IOW, true believers will heed the warning as if it is a commandment of God, whereas the unsaved will not heed the warning because they simply don't believe it, or they don't want to believe it because they love sinful pleasure instead of God.

Paul here is simply explaining in different words what Jesus said: "Narrow is the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many there be that find it." It has nothing to do with any false idea of being saved and then lost to hell.

They were saved. You ignore the fact they performed the miraculous IN YOUR NAME. Did God ever give the authority to unbelievers to use the name of Jesus to do supernatural acts? You also ignore the fact that Jesus himself stated the reason why he commanded them to depart - not because they were unbelievers as you incorrectly assert - but because these believers practiced lawlessness. You should not insert your own reason when Jesus himself provides his reason for us.

Again, the NT speaks of 2 dimensions of belief. No doubt Nicodemus was considered a believer because he knew the scripture and Jesus called him "a teacher of Israel." But he said "you must be born again." This is a clear assumption that Nicodemus was not a born-again believer at that time. Therefore his faith had an appearance, but he yet had no root in him. His faith was not established by the Spirit, so there was more he needed which Jesus was telling him about. We can surmise that later Nicodemus had that faith, since he is mentioned as still being a follower of Jesus.

The people who Jesus rejected had an appearance of faith, but He said "I never knew you," meaning they were not saved, since they were not His sheep. Other false believers in the NT are said to have performed miracles, as I cite above.

The gospel message encompasses both belief as in Jn 3:16 and obedience as in Heb 5:9. Both are required for salvation. If one or the other is absent, salvation is not assured of. A believer may believe but choose to be disobedient. That is why Paul exhorts believers to examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). Paul would never exhort unbelievers to examine themselves as they are not in the faith. Cheap grace is of the devil. You and I believe that genuine believers must persevere in the faith in order to be saved. However you believe that those who don't persevere were never believers. That would be true in some cases but it does not nullify the possibility that others were genuine believers who didn't persevere in belief and obedience.

2 Cor. 13:5 is an encouragement and exhortation for the elect, and a condemnation for the unbeliever. That there were both believers and unbelievers in the early church is evident in the NT writings, as it is also this way today.

Just ask yourself, is there anything that you can do which would disqualify yourself from salvation. It could be no longer believing or no longer obeying but based on your response above since you believe that a believer is securely sealed, there is nothing that would disqualify a believer from salvation since a genuine believer will always believe and disobey according to you. Jesus himself testifies against your held belief:
And if anyone should take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, of those having been written in this book. Rev 22:19
This is obviously a warning from Jesus which warns anyone; specifically believers that they can have their part in the tree of life and the holy city in the New Jerusalem taken away. How do you explain this away since you believe that a genuine believer is eternally secure? A genuine believer is a part of the tree of life and will live in the New Jerusalem but Jesus states that it can also be taken away. I prefer to believe the words of Jesus.

Rev. 22:19 is not talking about people who are already in the holy city after their resurrection. It is written to people still in this life, who might not even know if they are saved or not. If a person claims to believe (and goes to church) and has a false sense of security about their salvation because they have not bothered to do all in faith that Jesus commanded, that if they distort what is in the prophecy, then the possibility of being in the holy city and partaking of the tree of life will be taken away from them by means of eternal condemnation. Therefore your idea that such people were saved and then lost is speculation.

Rom 8:13 states that if a person lives according to the flesh, he will spiritually die. This cannot refer to an unbeliever because of the word "if." The unsaved have no choice but to live according to the flesh since they are not regenerated in the Spirit. Therefore it is not a matter of "if" since the unsaved already are living according to their flesh. If Paul were referencing the unsaved, he would have instead used the word "since." Therefore IF A BELIEVER lives according to the flesh HE WILL DIE. This cannot refer to physical death because every single person physically dies no matter what kind of life they live. Thus contrary to you claim, a true Christian can go headlong into sin, live a life according to the flesh, become spiritually dead and is not eternally secure.

The word "if" doesn't prove anything at all. According to your logic, Jesus saying to a crowd "enter the narrow way, for broad is the way that leads to destruction" means that those people were saved, because "if" they go down the broad way that leads to destruction, their salvation will be lost - absurd!

Rom. 8:13 is a practical and human POV way of giving the same warning as Jesus gave many times to a crowd of people, of whom some were God's elect and some weren't. Just because Jesus says to the crowd "your father in heaven," it doesn't guarantee that everyone who heard that statement was a born-again Christian.

Some in the church are true believers and some are false believers. We call them all "believers" to their face, because they all claim to believe. But only the true believers are secure. The false believers are in a precarious condition.
TD

 

[fhansen]

Someone who is spiritually dead even while they live is not a believer.

Right, meaning they either left the faith or never had it to begin with.

 

[justbyfaith]

Right, meaning they either left the faith or never had it to begin with.

For the truly saved, those who are designated as good soil by Jesus in the parable, it is impossible that they should leave the faith. If they ever did, that would be it for them, no coming back to God (Hebrews 6:1-8). But for those designated shallow ground, who believe for a while and then fall away, it is inevitable. They never had any kind of saving or living faith; though they did have faith--something which can fall under the category of mental assent to doctrine and does not necessarily mean a saving, living faith of the heart that produces righteousness according to Romans 10:10.

 

[brinny]

Tis tough being a Saint in Christ.....Just ask Paul:

2 Corin 11:
23 Are they servants of Christ? I am speaking like I am out of my mind, but I am so much more
in harder labor, in more imprisonments, in worse beatings,
in frequent danger of death.
24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
25 Three times I was beaten with rods,
once I was stoned,
three times I was shipwrecked.
I spent a night and a day in the open sea.
26 In my frequent journeys,
I have been in danger from rivers
and from bandits,
in danger from my countrymen
and from the Gentiles
in danger in the city and in the country,
in danger on the sea and among false brothers,
27 in labor and toil and often without sleep,
in hunger and thirst
and often without food, in cold and exposure.

Revelation chapter 2 verse by verse study

Tis tough being a Saint in Christ.....Just ask Paul:

Yes it is.

Poor Paul. Some are accusing him of being Gnostic.

 

[Oldmantook]

Jesus called Judas a devil before he betrayed Him, in fact long before the context of betrayal. Judas also pilfered money from the community purse long before his betrayal, which proves he had no godly character. His conspiracy with the Jewish leaders prior to the betrayal shows that Judas did not have the Holy Spirit with him to influence him to right behavior as He was with the other disciples. His motive was greed, which is wickedness, and his betrayal of Jesus was simply an outcome of his devilish thinking and behavior. Someone under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit could not have Satan enter them, as was the case of Judas. The other disciples never even thought such a thing, even though they questioned their own loyalty. When Peter denied Christ and when the disciples ran away in the garden, their motive was survival. Not wickedness. Judas' betrayal was not an act of panic, but rather a well thought out evil plan. Prov. 6:18 says that the Lord hates "A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil." This certainly does not describe one who is saved.

Since Jesus was praying for the disciples who were with Him, he was only praying for the 11 who went to heaven. Judas had already left. When He said "except for the son of perdition," he was specifically excluding Judas from the entire prayer in addition to excluding him from being His sheep.

While the prayer obviously was on behalf of the eleven remaining apostles, reference is made nonetheless to the original twelve. Therefore is not correct to contend that the language of the Lord has no relevance to Judas. Note these crucial points, beginning with verse six: (a) Christ “manifested” (aorist tense, relating to a past situation, i.e., his ministry period) himself unto the men God gave him “out of the world” (v. 6). They belonged to God and were given to the Son. That included Judas. (b) Jesus conveyed the words of God unto these men and they “received them” (v. 8a). (c) They “believed” the Son was sent from the Father (v. 8b).

Of the twelve, the Lord subsequently said: “While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost, except the son of destruction” (v. 12, ESV). Focus on the term “except” in the last phrase. It translates the Greek ei me. Baptist scholar A. T. Robertson stated that “this phrase marks an exception,” and he cites this passage (1919, 1188). In his commentary, Word Pictures in the New Testament, he says Judas was a “sad and terrible exception” (1932, 278). This constitutes positive proof that “the men” of verses six through eight embraced the full complement of the twelve. Jesus “lost” Judas. The traitor’s lostness resulted from his wrong choices, and he “fell away” (Acts 1:17, 25).

Judas was condemned because he betrayed Jesus - not because he was never a believer. It is impossible for a person to betray Christ if he was never loyal to Christ initially. Judas was a devil because despite being a believer, he practiced the sin of greed.
Little children, let no one lead you astray; the one practicing righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. The one practicing sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. 1 John 3:7-8
John refers to believers as children and contrasts their practice of righteousness which is good thing and warns them against practicing sin which of course is a bad thing. He states that children of God who practice sin are of the devil. Therefore Judas was a devil because he practiced the sin of greed.

Exegesis includes historical evidence, which shows that widows and orphans were supported by the early Church. This passage of scripture (and another in Acts 6) supports that evidence, since it is actually talking about it. It was a widow whose family could not (or would not) care for them who were to be "enrolled" or "put on the list" for support from the church.

The verse in question is v.15 where it states the some [widows] have turned aside to follow Satan. You would have to explain how can a widow who is a unbeliever turn aside to follow Satan when as a unbeliever, such a widow is already following Satan since she is an unbeliever? In v.14 the younger widows are given instructions by Paul on how to lead godly lives so as not to give the adversary occasion for reproach. If these younger widows were not really believers, how is it possible for them to give occasion to the enemy for reproach? How can unbelievers bring reproach on the name of Christ? Only widowed believers have the possibility of bringing reproach upon themselves and their faith.

Just a cursory look at 14 translations show that 8 out of the 14 translate that word "pledge" in this verse. The translators aren't looking at the single word only, but the context in which the word is used. To get a fixed definition from a lexicon and then impose that definition onto the text without considering how the definition might be adjusted by its usage is a common mistake. These translators are trying to help the reader to get the actual usage of the phrase "first faith." It is being used as the same meaning as "vow." We commonly use the base word "faith" for other meanings than faith in God, such as "faithful," equivalent to "loyal," as well as "good faith," equivalent to "honest."

If you look at the biblehub website, it lists 28 English translations of 1 Tim 5:12. Of those citations, 10 contain the word "pledge" while 14 contain the word "faith." Since you are using word frequency as the basis of your claim then it is undermined by the greater number of occurrences of "faith."

et, Jesus said "I never knew you" to those who cast out demons and performed miracles in His name. Those people were never saved. The sons of the Jewish religious leaders cast out demons. They were not likely saved because their fathers weren't. 2 Thes. 2 speaks of "the lawless one" who will come "with all power and signs and lying wonders" - in other words, miracles. The term "lying wonders" means the miraculous designed to lead people away from the truth. Judas was a believer only in the sense of profession. But since from the beginning he was a liar, a thief, and an evil conspirator, he was never saved.

Where in the Bible does it state that the sons of Jewish religious leaders cast out demons? Are you referring to the sons of Sceva? Act 19:16 states that the demon lept upon them and stripped them naked and wounded. Does this sound to you that they successfully cast out this demon? The sons of Sceva were clearly not believers and when they used the name of Jesus, their attempt at deliverance was a spectacular failure causing - them - not the demon to flee.
However, the group to whom Jesus stated said "I never knew you" were indeed believers. They claimed to do supernatural acts in Jesus' name and Jesus does not contradict their testimony. Instead Jesus tells them to depart because they PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS. Believers who practice lawlessness, by their repeated behavior demonstrate that they have not truly repented and are of the devil (1 Jn 3:8).

The Bible never states that Judas was a liar, thief, etc. from the beginning. The closest inference to such a thing is Jn 6:64. About a year before his death, the Lord explicitly indicated that he knew from the beginning “who it was that should betray him” (John 6:64). It must be emphasized that Jesus did not say that Judas was “a devil from the beginning,” as some allege; rather, the Savior “knew from the beginning” who the traitor would be. Speaking specifically to the Twelve, he said: “Did I not choose [aorist, past act] you the twelve, and one of you is [present, current status] a devil?” The latter reference, of course, was to Judas (vv. 70-71).

Another misunderstanding on your part. People do not choose by themselves whether to obey God or not. We either have strong influences from Satan to disobey, in which unbelievers are said to be slaves of the devil or slaves of sin, such as John 8:32, or we have strong influences from the Holy Spirit to obey, in which believers are said to be slaves of righteousness, such as Rom. 6:18. If you are not reconciled to God, then your will is not aligned with His, and the result is that you will be a chronic sinner, in which case you're not saved. If you are reconciled with God, then your will is aligned with His, and the result is that you will practice righteousness, as 1 John 3:9 attests. These verses are given to us to judge ourselves, as whether or not our own faith is genuine.

Only believers have the choice to yield to the flesh or the Spirit. Unbelievers have no such choice as they remain unregenerated and have no choice but to sin. If you are stating that those who choose a lifestyle of sin/practice sin were never believers, that would be contradicted by Rom 8:13 which is addressed to the brethren.

ames 5:19 is another accommodation. Immature believers can be sinners, yet be true believers. We cannot assume one way or the other. Therefore, James writes to accommodate our short-sighted human viewpoint. The hypothetical "if you live unrighteously, you will die" (as Paul does in Rom. 8:13) is to accommodate our lack of ability to judge whether a person is God's elect or not. Thus, we are to "leave the 99 (sheep) to find the lost one." That verse in no way teaches that salvation could be lost.

What does you will die mean? A hypothetical warning is not a warning but rather a senseless statement. If you take the mark of the beast, will you die - or is Jesus' warning of hell fire - just a hypothetical? Sin produces separation from God which of course results in spiritual death. BTW Jesus goes out to find the lost sheep after repentance occurs. No repentance = no forgiveness = no salvation.

 

[Oldmantook]

The warning is to accommodate churchgoers who are in that transition period of spiritual immaturity, where they don't yet know whether they are saved or not. The warning is given so that people who have authentic faith who have a fear of God can be motivated by that fear (if their respect of God's ways wane), in addition to warning those whose faith is not authentic to give them something to recognize that they need more than what they have. In that way, if people do not heed the warning (which unsaved fools won't), their judgment is greater than if they were ignorant of it. IOW, true believers will heed the warning as if it is a commandment of God, whereas the unsaved will not heed the warning because they simply don't believe it, or they don't want to believe it because they love sinful pleasure instead of God.

Paul here is simply explaining in different words what Jesus said: "Narrow is the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many there be that find it." It has nothing to do with any false idea of being saved and then lost to hell.

In all of his epistles, Paul never includes unbelievers in reference to the "brethren" as you are eisegeting the text. The term brethren is exclusively applied to saved persons. Your notion that Rom 8:13 has application to the unbeliever is contradicted by the text itself. This verse is a Greek conditional sentence as indicated by the word "if." The first clause states If you live according to the flesh, you will die. This can in no way apply to an unbeliever because an unbeliever can only live according to the flesh - as there is no IF. If Paul were referencing an unbeliever in this clause, he would have used the word "since" which reflects the fact that unbelievers are living according to the flesh. Only genuine believers have the choice presented in v. 13 to live according to the flesh or according to the Spirit with the result being spiritual death or spiritual life.

Again, the NT speaks of 2 dimensions of belief. No doubt Nicodemus was considered a believer because he knew the scripture and Jesus called him "a teacher of Israel." But he said "you must be born again." This is a clear assumption that Nicodemus was not a born-again believer at that time. Therefore his faith had an appearance, but he yet had no root in him. His faith was not established by the Spirit, so there was more he needed which Jesus was telling him about. We can surmise that later Nicodemus had that faith, since he is mentioned as still being a follower of Jesus.

The people who Jesus rejected had an appearance of faith, but He said "I never knew you," meaning they were not saved, since they were not His sheep. Other false believers in the NT are said to have performed miracles, as I cite above.

Yous reply fails to wrestle with the specific passage in question. False believers are never described in the NT as successfully using Jesus' name to perform the miraculous. Those that attempted to do so such as the sons of Sceva were spectacularly unsuccessful. Jesus never contradicted the claims of those in Matt 7 that they did the miraculous in Jesus' name. Do you disagree with Jesus' own statement that he told them to depart not because they were unbelievers, but because they practiced lawlessness? "I never knew them" does not mean they "had an appearance of faith" as you contend. Instead it refers to sheep who disobey/practice lawlessness for Jesus himself stated that he only knows those sheep who listen and follow him according to Jn 10:27. Those believers who practice sin - Jesus never knew. Scripture interprets scripture.

2 Cor. 13:5 is an encouragement and exhortation for the elect, and a condemnation for the unbeliever. That there were both believers and unbelievers in the early church is evident in the NT writings, as it is also this way today.

Can you cite any example of a person in the NT church whom the Bible describes as being in the church but was not a believer? The only reference I know of is 1 Jn 2:19. However, just because some were not of us, it does not logically conclude that all who fail to persevere were not of us. Just because some chickens lay brown eggs, not all chickens lay brown eggs as that would be a fallacy of overgeneralization. How can 2 Cor 13:5 be a test/examination of the faith for an unbeliever when such a person does not have an ounce of saving faith to begin with? Unbelievers are never instructed to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith as they already stand condemned.

Rev. 22:19 is not talking about people who are already in the holy city after their resurrection. It is written to people still in this life, who might not even know if they are saved or not. If a person claims to believe (and goes to church) and has a false sense of security about their salvation because they have not bothered to do all in faith that Jesus commanded, that if they distort what is in the prophecy, then the possibility of being in the holy city and partaking of the tree of life will be taken away from them by means of eternal condemnation. Therefore your idea that such people were saved and then lost is speculation.

Indeed Rev 22:19 does refer to people still in this life and I made no claim otherwise. No speculation on my part as the verse clearly states ANYONE which refers to the saved and unsaved. The verse goes on to state that God will take away his part out of the book of life. It is not possible to take someone's part out of the book of life if it were not a part of the book in the first place. The verse does not state "partake in the tree of life" as you are replacing the text with your own words. While it is true that an unbeliever does not partake in the tree of life, only someone who is saved and then lost can have his/her part taken out of the book of life.

The word "if" doesn't prove anything at all. According to your logic, Jesus saying to a crowd "enter the narrow way, for broad is the way that leads to destruction" means that those people were saved, because "if" they go down the broad way that leads to destruction, their salvation will be lost - absurd!

The verse you cite (Matt 7:13-14) doesn't contain the word IF. Thus you are comparing apples and oranges whereas Rom 8:13 does contain the word if (two times). I suggest you wrestle with the applicable text itself and address my claims as written.

Rom. 8:13 is a practical and human POV way of giving the same warning as Jesus gave many times to a crowd of people, of whom some were God's elect and some weren't. Just because Jesus says to the crowd "your father in heaven," it doesn't guarantee that everyone who heard that statement was a born-again Christian.

Some in the church are true believers and some are false believers. We call them all "believers" to their face, because they all claim to believe. But only the true believers are secure. The false believers are in a precarious condition.

Paul specifically used the term "brethren" in v.12. If Paul also meant to include unbelievers in the church then how would his warning have any possible application to them? How is it possible for him to refer to unbelievers saying "IF you live according to the flesh? There is no doubt that they as unbelievers are already living according to the flesh as they cannot live any other way. Likewise, IF they live according to the Spirit is obviously not applicable to them either. Only believers exclusively have the capacity to choose IF they will live according to the flesh or choose IF they will live according to the Spirit. Thus I find your POV of view stance does not fit with the text itself and is thus is an exceedingly weak interpretation in my opinion.

 

[tdidymas]

While the prayer obviously was on behalf of the eleven remaining apostles, reference is made nonetheless to the original twelve. Therefore is not correct to contend that the language of the Lord has no relevance to Judas. Note these crucial points, beginning with verse six: (a) Christ “manifested” (aorist tense, relating to a past situation, i.e., his ministry period) himself unto the men God gave him “out of the world” (v. 6). They belonged to God and were given to the Son. That included Judas. (b) Jesus conveyed the words of God unto these men and they “received them” (v. 8a). (c) They “believed” the Son was sent from the Father (v. 8b).

Yet Jesus said "one of you is a devil" long before this, which is a contradiction of what you are claiming about Judas. In order to make sure that we aren't interpreting the scripture as if it contradicts, we must take into account that Judas was a devil from the very beginning, even at the time Jesus picked him. Judas was chosen as a follower of Jesus, as one to be in his group, not as one to be saved, since he was the "son of perdition" for the purpose of fulfilling scripture prophecy. Therefore, the way to interpret this John 17 passage is to exclude Judas from the blessings of the prayer, and take the statement at its word: "I lost none of them except the son of perdition." He lost him from being a disciple, not from being saved, since he was never saved to begin with, seeing he was "a devil."

Of the twelve, the Lord subsequently said: “While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost, except the son of destruction” (v. 12, ESV). Focus on the term “except” in the last phrase. It translates the Greek ei me. Baptist scholar A. T. Robertson stated that “this phrase marks an exception,” and he cites this passage (1919, 1188). In his commentary, Word Pictures in the New Testament, he says Judas was a “sad and terrible exception” (1932, 278). This constitutes positive proof that “the men” of verses six through eight embraced the full complement of the twelve. Jesus “lost” Judas. The traitor’s lostness resulted from his wrong choices, and he “fell away” (Acts 1:17, 25).

These are the reasons why Judas is the exception from salvation among the disciples, in the context of this prayer, contrasting him from the other disciples, verse by verse:
:6 - "they have kept Your word" - Judas did not.
:7 - "they have come to know" - not Judas.
:8 - "they received" the word - not Judas.
:9 - "they are Yours" - not Judas.
:11- "they may be one" - except Judas.
:13- "they may have My joy" - except Judas.
:14- "they are not of this world" - except Judas.
:15- "keep them from the evil one" - except Judas.
:16- "they are not of the world" - except Judas.
:18- "they themselves may be sanctified" - except Judas.
:19- "they themselves also may be sanctified in the truth" - except Judas.
:21- "they may be one" - except Judas.
:23- "they may be perfected in unity" - except Judas.
:26- "that the love with which You loved Me may be in them" - except Judas.

The prayer overwhelmingly rejects Judas as being part of it. Finally "they know that You sent Me," but if Judas had known that, he would not have betrayed Jesus. Judas' whole business with Jesus was a big lie, since he had no loyalty to anyone but himself. God used that to fulfill the scripture, that though Jesus made him a friend, he "lifted up his heel against" Him.

Judas was condemned because he betrayed Jesus - not because he was never a believer. It is impossible for a person to betray Christ if he was never loyal to Christ initially. Judas was a devil because despite being a believer, he practiced the sin of greed.

Betrayal means acting out the disloyalty that was already there hidden in the wicked heart. God condemns people for their actions as well as their beliefs. Judas acted out his betrayal because he did not believe. If he believed, he would not have done it.

Little children, let no one lead you astray; the one practicing righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. The one practicing sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. 1 John 3:7-8
John refers to believers as children and contrasts their practice of righteousness which is good thing and warns them against practicing sin which of course is a bad thing. He states that children of God who practice sin are of the devil. Therefore Judas was a devil because he practiced the sin of greed.

You err greatly here. The immediate context clearly states :9 "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Your idea that children of God practice sin is contrary to the very passage of scripture you quote. Those who are of the devil are not children of God, according to New Testament teaching, and especially the context of 1 John. Verse 10 says "Anyone who does not do what is right is not God's child."

The verse in question is v.15 where it states the some [widows] have turned aside to follow Satan. You would have to explain how can a widow who is a unbeliever turn aside to follow Satan when as a unbeliever, such a widow is already following Satan since she is an unbeliever? In v.14 the younger widows are given instructions by Paul on how to lead godly lives so as not to give the adversary occasion for reproach. If these younger widows were not really believers, how is it possible for them to give occasion to the enemy for reproach? How can unbelievers bring reproach on the name of Christ? Only widowed believers have the possibility of bringing reproach upon themselves and their faith.

This verse is a practical counsel of Paul to Timothy. Since no one can know (most of the time) who is actually saved and who isn't, this is a practical way of saying these people aren't saved. It follows Jesus' statement "those who endure to the end, the same shall be saved." Endurance of faith is the proof that the faith is genuine. Paul here is apparently advising Timothy that young widows are likely to abandon their vow to be celibate because their biological clock is still ticking. This passage is an advisory passage, not a docrinal passage. In order to be consistent with the doctrinal statements of Paul and Peter on the issue of eternal security, we must reconcile this verse so that it doesn't conflict with their doctrinal statements. My point is that we get doctrine from clear doctrinal statements that the apostles make in the epistles, and not from obscure advisory passages like this one.

Just because someone makes vows and lives like a saved person doesn't guarantee that they are actually saved. Such women as Paul is talking about raised red flags about not being genuinely saved, since they did not keep their station of prayer and good works, but rather became "busybodies" and gossips, and finally left their vow to live the Christian life to "follow after Satan." This phrase, BTW is a hyperbole. Those women didn't actually become Satanists. They merely became accusers of the brethren by their bad example (the Grk word "satan" means adversary). Therefore, this passage of scripture doesn't support your "loss of salvation" idea.

If you look at the biblehub website, it lists 28 English translations of 1 Tim 5:12. Of those citations, 10 contain the word "pledge" while 14 contain the word "faith." Since you are using word frequency as the basis of your claim then it is undermined by the greater number of occurrences of "faith."

This is a straw man argument. It's not a "majority rules." The fact that a significant number of translators translate that word "pledge" is clear evidence that translators understand the usage of the word in context, and that usage is "pledge" or "vow."

Where in the Bible does it state that the sons of Jewish religious leaders cast out demons? Are you referring to the sons of Sceva? Act 19:16 states that the demon lept upon them and stripped them naked and wounded. Does this sound to you that they successfully cast out this demon? The sons of Sceva were clearly not believers and when they used the name of Jesus, their attempt at deliverance was a spectacular failure causing - them - not the demon to flee.

I was referring to Luk 11:19 "And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges." Jesus here was acknowledging that Jews who were not His disciples were casting out demons.

However, the group to whom Jesus stated said "I never knew you" were indeed believers. They claimed to do supernatural acts in Jesus' name and Jesus does not contradict their testimony. Instead Jesus tells them to depart because they PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS. Believers who practice lawlessness, by their repeated behavior demonstrate that they have not truly repented and are of the devil (1 Jn 3:8).

You continue to err here, for the same reason I quoted 1 Jn. 3:9 above. No child of God practices lawlessness.

The Bible never states that Judas was a liar, thief, etc. from the beginning. The closest inference to such a thing is Jn 6:64. About a year before his death, the Lord explicitly indicated that he knew from the beginning “who it was that should betray him” (John 6:64). It must be emphasized that Jesus did not say that Judas was “a devil from the beginning,” as some allege; rather, the Savior “knew from the beginning” who the traitor would be. Speaking specifically to the Twelve, he said: “Did I not choose [aorist, past act] you the twelve, and one of you is [present, current status] a devil?” The latter reference, of course, was to Judas (vv. 70-71).

You are proving my point by: "Did I not choose [aorist, past act] you the twelve, and one of you is [present, current status] a devil?" He was a devil at that time, before the betrayal.

Actually, the scripture says that Judas objected to wasting expensive perfume "because he often pilfered from the money purse." He was a thief. He "pilfered" because he did not legitimately tell other disciples what he was taking the money for, and he was using it for his own pleasure. Therefore he was a liar in that sense of embezzlement. He also was a liar because he wasn't honest enough to openly say what he was doing to Jesus. He was a wicked man, since he conspired with those who hated Jesus. He was a friend of the world and an enemy of God.

Only believers have the choice to yield to the flesh or the Spirit. Unbelievers have no such choice as they remain unregenerated and have no choice but to sin. If you are stating that those who choose a lifestyle of sin/practice sin were never believers, that would be contradicted by Rom 8:13 which is addressed to the brethren.

Paul already stated in ch. 6 that he was "speaking in human terms." It was an accommodation. It was a practical way of saying "those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God." It is a warning to any person in the church for them to determine if they have been born again or not. Obviously if someone was not born again, they would not take heed to the statement, since they would not understand it. That statement is another way of saying "God is not mocked; whatever a man sows he shall also reap..." Not everyone who goes to church is born again, and it was so back then.

What does you will die mean? A hypothetical warning is not a warning but rather a senseless statement. If you take the mark of the beast, will you die - or is Jesus' warning of hell fire - just a hypothetical? Sin produces separation from God which of course results in spiritual death. BTW Jesus goes out to find the lost sheep after repentance occurs. No repentance = no forgiveness = no salvation.

Another straw man argument. If someone heeds the warning, then the consequence of not heeding it remains a hypothesis to that person, since they don't experience that consequence. The statement is another way of saying "anyone who hears My words and does not observe to do them is like a man who builds his house on the sand..."

So then, the point is that the statement is a practical evangelistic statement. It's like saying "don't play around with your eternal future."
TD

 

[tdidymas]

In all of his epistles, Paul never includes unbelievers in reference to the "brethren" as you are eisegeting the text. The term brethren is exclusively applied to saved persons. Your notion that Rom 8:13 has application to the unbeliever is contradicted by the text itself. This verse is a Greek conditional sentence as indicated by the word "if." The first clause states If you live according to the flesh, you will die. This can in no way apply to an unbeliever because an unbeliever can only live according to the flesh - as there is no IF. If Paul were referencing an unbeliever in this clause, he would have used the word "since" which reflects the fact that unbelievers are living according to the flesh. Only genuine believers have the choice presented in v. 13 to live according to the flesh or according to the Spirit with the result being spiritual death or spiritual life.

Concerning your premise above:

The term brethren is exclusively applied to saved persons.

Let's carefully examine it to see if it is true or false. 1 John 2:9 states "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now."

John is talking about someone who claims to believe in Christ. He calls him a brother by virtue of saying "hates his brother." "His brother." This includes the man who hates. But that man "is in darkness until now" - IOW, still in darkness, past and present.

This is a clear acknowledgement that not every "brother" in the church is saved. Some are still in darkness, still in death, not having eternal life in them. They prove it by hating "their brother." These are phrases that John uses in 1 John.

Yous reply fails to wrestle with the specific passage in question. False believers are never described in the NT as successfully using Jesus' name to perform the miraculous. Those that attempted to do so such as the sons of Sceva were spectacularly unsuccessful. Jesus never contradicted the claims of those in Matt 7 that they did the miraculous in Jesus' name. Do you disagree with Jesus' own statement that he told them to depart not because they were unbelievers, but because they practiced lawlessness? "I never knew them" does not mean they "had an appearance of faith" as you contend. Instead it refers to sheep who disobey/practice lawlessness for Jesus himself stated that he only knows those sheep who listen and follow him according to Jn 10:27. Those believers who practice sin - Jesus never knew. Scripture interprets scripture.

Again here you err as I proved by 1 John 3:9. It is not gifts and talents that prove a person is a true believer, but actions of love, according to 1 Cor. and 1 John. 2 Thess. 2:9 says, "whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders," speaking of the lawless one. The scripture acknowledges that even Satan performs miracles, and Paul states that he "appears as an angel of light" and "how much more his messengers."

It is by the logic you are going by here (like the dogma of the RCC) that many people are deceived by lying signs and wonders like appearances of apparitions of "saints." Jesus told us to be on our guard, as false prophets and teachers will come "in His name" to deceive (if possible) even the elect. IOW, they take His name in vain.

Can you cite any example of a person in the NT church whom the Bible describes as being in the church but was not a believer? The only reference I know of is 1 Jn 2:19. However, just because some were not of us, it does not logically conclude that all who fail to persevere were not of us. Just because some chickens lay brown eggs, not all chickens lay brown eggs as that would be a fallacy of overgeneralization. How can 2 Cor 13:5 be a test/examination of the faith for an unbeliever when such a person does not have an ounce of saving faith to begin with? Unbelievers are never instructed to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith as they already stand condemned.

Straw man argument and a confusion of the issue. The whole idea of testing the faith is because Biblical and saving faith is something that has to be experienced by a spiritual person. In the transition period between people claiming to believe and actually knowing that their faith is genuine, we all experience the unknown of not being sure that our faith is genuine. Biblical saving faith is something of the spirit, and is not easily discerned by a new believer, and cannot be discerned by an unbeliever. So just as John in the epistle of 1 John is spelling out how to discern the true and false believer, so also is Paul doing this in 2 Cor. 13.

Indeed Rev 22:19 does refer to people still in this life and I made no claim otherwise. No speculation on my part as the verse clearly states ANYONE which refers to the saved and unsaved. The verse goes on to state that God will take away his part out of the book of life. It is not possible to take someone's part out of the book of life if it were not a part of the book in the first place. The verse does not state "partake in the tree of life" as you are replacing the text with your own words. While it is true that an unbeliever does not partake in the tree of life, only someone who is saved and then lost can have his/her part taken out of the book of life.

If someone is promised part of a treasure, and doesn't yet possess it, then their "part" (or "share" as some translations have it) can be taken away if they don't meet the conditions for obtaining it for use. Obviously we do not yet possess our part in the tree of life if this statement is literal. If we believe that our part will be in our possession after the resurrection, then that is yet a future event.

Therefore, this verse doesn't support your idea that being promised a part in the tree of life refers to someone already saved. Since it is future, it is potential, not actual.

The verse you cite (Matt 7:13-14) doesn't contain the word IF. Thus you are comparing apples and oranges whereas Rom 8:13 does contain the word if (two times). I suggest you wrestle with the applicable text itself and address my claims as written.

The "if" is implied in Matt. 7:13-14. Are you among the few or the many? It depends of the "if" you are obeying Christ or not.

Paul specifically used the term "brethren" in v.12. If Paul also meant to include unbelievers in the church then how would his warning have any possible application to them? How is it possible for him to refer to unbelievers saying "IF you live according to the flesh? There is no doubt that they as unbelievers are already living according to the flesh as they cannot live any other way. Likewise, IF they live according to the Spirit is obviously not applicable to them either. Only believers exclusively have the capacity to choose IF they will live according to the flesh or choose IF they will live according to the Spirit. Thus I find your POV of view stance does not fit with the text itself and is thus is an exceedingly weak interpretation in my opinion.

Like I said before, this verse is a test for people to determine if their faith is genuine or not. When people read it, even if they are unbelievers, it is designed to tell them that their faith is not genuine "if you live according to the flesh." At the very least, it might spark some curiosity in them to find out what he means by that, since such a person has not yet experienced spiritual rebirth.

Also, the term "brethren" is used for all who claim to believe in Christ, whether they were actually born again or not, as I proved previously.
TD