Was King David Saved While He Committed His Sins of Adultery and Murder?

[Monk Brendan]

Did Peter ask Jesus into
his heart?

The Bible doesn't give any examples of ANYONE asking Jesus into his heart.

In fact, the very phrase is nowhere in the Bible.

nor is "personal Lord and Savior".

So why do Protestants go around saying this?

 

[NBB]

The Bible doesn't give any examples of ANYONE asking Jesus into his heart.

In fact, the very phrase is nowhere in the Bible.

nor is "personal Lord and Savior".

So why do Protestants go around saying this?

Its just a way of saying things, nobody say that those terms are needed for salvation or something like that. Letting him in your heart is like accepting Him/inviting/asking him to be your saviour. And actually the spirit of God comes into to your heart as well as your soul and spirit too.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Bible doesn't give any examples of ANYONE asking Jesus into his heart.

In fact, the very phrase is nowhere in the Bible.

nor is "personal Lord and Savior".

So why do Protestants go around saying this?

It's just an expression, the idea there is the sinners prayer. It didn't take a prayer to get Peter in the ministry, Jesus just said come on and Peter went. So many believers point to a time of decision, invariably a time of prayer. I think that's the idea here Monk Brendan, I know I can remember that moment for me but other experiences might be different.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Oldmantook]

There is no contradiction there, Paul wasn't saying they were lost. Paul was warning them not to be drawn in by the Judaizers.

Have you taken a look at that word or conjecturing?
implified transliteration:
metatithemi
Principal Parts:
-, μετέθηκα, -, -, μετετέθην
Numbers
Strong's number:
3346
GK Number:
3572
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
6
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
cv-6a
Gloss:
to change (from one place or position to another); to bring back; to take away

Of course Paul warned them not to be deceived by the Judaizers. However you ignore the fact that they were already drawn in because they are presently deserting/turning away from Christ (present tense). Metatithemi is a present tense verb meaning the Galatians are continuing to desert Christ. They ARE deserting. They ARE turning away. They ARE lost. This is the same word used in Jude 1:4
"For certain men have stolen in unawares — men who long ago were designated for this condemnation — ungodly men who (metatithentes | μετατιθέντες | pres act ptcp nom pl masc) turn (metatithentes | μετατιθέντες | pres act ptcp nom pl masc) the grace of our God into an excuse for blatant immorality, and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
The same word in Jude applies to those who are condemned, ungodly, misused grace as an excuse/license for immorality. Clearly, these are lost people who because of their sinful actions misused the grace of God. Unsaved people don't have God's grace to misuse in the first place.

 

[mark kennedy]

Have you taken a look at that word or conjecturing?
implified transliteration:
metatithemi
Principal Parts:
-, μετέθηκα, -, -, μετετέθην
Numbers
Strong's number:
3346
GK Number:
3572
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
6
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
cv-6a
Gloss:
to change (from one place or position to another); to bring back; to take away

Of course Paul warned them not to be deceived by the Judaizers. However you ignore the fact that they were already drawn in because they are presently deserting/turning away from Christ (present tense). Metatithemi is a present tense verb meaning the Galatians are continuing to desert Christ. They ARE deserting. They ARE turning away. They ARE lost. This is the same word used in Jude 1:4
"For certain men have stolen in unawares — men who long ago were designated for this condemnation — ungodly men who (metatithentes | μετατιθέντες | pres act ptcp nom pl masc) turn (metatithentes | μετατιθέντες | pres act ptcp nom pl masc) the grace of our God into an excuse for blatant immorality, and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
The same word in Jude applies to those who are condemned, ungodly, misused grace as an excuse/license for immorality. Clearly, these are lost people who because of their sinful actions misused the grace of God. Unsaved people don't have God's grace to misuse in the first place.

You have two passages and two different problems:

I marvel that ye are (G3346 μετατίθημι) so soon removed (G3346 μετατίθημι) from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (Galatians 1:6)

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning (G3346 μετατίθημι) the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:4)
​

The Galatians passage is warning against drifting into legalism and Jude is warning that certain men have crept in unawares who would turn grace in the licentiousness. The Gentiles in Galatia were being influenced by Judaizers and practicing some of the Jewish practices. Paul is saying your turning here from Christ to the beggarly elements of the Law. Jude has to deal with the other extreme, walking along the narrow path there are two ditches. One is legalism and the other licentiousness, does it really matter which ditch you fall into?

 

[ClementofA]

Also, Scripture says that He died for the sins of the whole world (John 1:29) (1 John 2:2). Unless you are a Universalist, that does not mean everyone is saved.

Taking away the world's sin (Jn.1:29) shall make the world sinless. So, yeah, all will be saved.


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[mark kennedy]

Taking away the world's sin (Jn.1:29) shall make the world sinless. So, yeah, all will be saved.


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

Universalism has made it's way into the discussion, I'm out. Controversy is one thing but this....hardly worth to time to shoot down the handful of points it's based on.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It's just an expression, the idea there is the sinners prayer. It didn't take a prayer to get Peter in the ministry, Jesus just said come on and Peter went. So many believers point to a time of decision, invariably a time of prayer. I think that's the idea here Monk Brendan, I know I can remember that moment for me but other experiences might be different.

What stands out the most to me in my experience, are the changes in desires, and sustained for many years, and all of these were not of my own doing, but the Spirit of God working in and through me. I think pointing out an exact moment, in my case anyway is difficult, but I remember the year and that God caused me to be born again some time between late summer/early fall. What I remember from the first Church service following is breaking down with many tears and an inability to say much...a response to the greatness of salvation and newness of life in Christ. I knew God had saved me before I went to that service but hearing brought about a deeper response, if that makes sense.

 

[ClementofA]

Do you believe God exists in all points in time?
If so, then He technically could not have rested (stopped from His work) on the 7th day because He would still be working in some other point in time.

Scripture says,
"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;" (Hebrews 10:12).

If God exists in all points in time, then He could not have offered one sacrifice for sins forever but He would still be reliving that sacrifice in some past time line over and over and over and over again.

Is God a slave to time?

If time has always existed (e.g. in other universes) & there's no such thing as "no time", then God is "a slave to time".

 

[Oldmantook]

You have two passages and two different problems:

I marvel that ye are (G3346 μετατίθημι) so soon removed (G3346 μετατίθημι) from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (Galatians 1:6)

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning (G3346 μετατίθημι) the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:4)
​

The Galatians passage is warning against drifting into legalism and Jude is warning that certain men have crept in unawares who would turn grace in the licentiousness. The Gentiles in Galatia were being influenced by Judaizers and practicing some of the Jewish practices. Paul is saying your turning here from Christ to the beggarly elements of the Law. Jude has to deal with the other extreme, walking along the narrow path there are two ditches. One is legalism and the other licentiousness, does it really matter which ditch you fall into?

Of course it does not matter which ditch you fall into. If I understand your position accurately, you believe it is impossible for a genuine, regenerate believer to fall into either ditch. But that is precisely why both the Galatian and Jude passages prove you incorrect - that it is possible for the elect (either through legalism or licentiousness) to betray Christ and in doing so forfeit their salvation.
If that was not the case as you believe, why does Paul warn the Galatians? Warnings are meaningless unless accompanied by consequences. The verse states that he is "astonished" or "marvels" at the fact that the called/elect Galatians are in fact deserting Christ. If that were impossible according to your Calvinist belief system, then why is Paul a witness to it? Paul's reaction would certainly not be expected if he were witnessing the unsaved or false Christians turning away or deserting Christ as that kind of behavior would be expected of those who are unsaved. Paul is astonished precisely because the ELECT are deserting Christ. I prefer to believe Paul.

 

[mark kennedy]

What stands out the most to me in my experience, are the changes in desires, and sustained for many years, and all of these were not of my own doing, but the Spirit of God working in and through me. I think pointing out an exact moment, in my case anyway is difficult, but I remember the year and that God caused me to be born again some time between late summer/early fall. What I remember from the first Church service following is breaking down with many tears and an inability to say much...a response to the greatness of salvation and newness of life in Christ. I knew God had saved me before I went to that service but hearing brought about a deeper response, if that makes sense.

A common and vital confession of Christ reaching out to us sinners, such as we are. I'm glad you faced that moment, grace can be a terrible moment and wonderful at the same time. That's what I was pointing out, receiving Christ into your heart if often a time of prayer and many times part of worship. What could be more fitting, I believe that's how the gospel works. I'm glad that there are people who submitted to Christ early and often, that have few sins to show for their struggle. I just know the bulk of us are faced with the righteousness of God and our unworthiness and fold before the grace that was shed abroad in our hearts.

Thanks for sharing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Of course it does not matter which ditch you fall into. If I understand your position accurately, you believe it is impossible for a genuine, regenerate believer to fall into either ditch. But that is precisely why both the Galatian and Jude passages prove you incorrect - that it is possible for the elect (either through legalism or licentiousness) to betray Christ and in doing so forfeit their salvation.
If that was not the case as you believe, why does Paul warn the Galatians? Warnings are meaningless unless accompanied by consequences. The verse states that he is "astonished" or "marvels" at the fact that the called/elect Galatians are in fact deserting Christ. If that were impossible according to your Calvinist belief system, then why is Paul a witness to it? Paul's reaction would certainly not be expected if he were witnessing the unsaved or false Christians turning away or deserting Christ as that kind of behavior would be expected of those who are unsaved. Paul is astonished precisely because the ELECT are deserting Christ. I prefer to believe Paul.

You do know Paul hasn't given up on them right? So they followed some Jewish rituals, observing feasts and such. He says he is worried that his work among them was in vain, not that it had been. He never said that they were lost, just warns them that they could be if they abandon the grace of God in Christ for a works righteousness.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Of course it does not matter which ditch you fall into. If I understand your position accurately, you believe it is impossible for a genuine, regenerate believer to fall into either ditch. But that is precisely why both the Galatian and Jude passages prove you incorrect - that it is possible for the elect (either through legalism or licentiousness) to betray Christ and in doing so forfeit their salvation.
If that was not the case as you believe, why does Paul warn the Galatians? Warnings are meaningless unless accompanied by consequences. The verse states that he is "astonished" or "marvels" at the fact that the called/elect Galatians are in fact deserting Christ. If that were impossible according to your Calvinist belief system, then why is Paul a witness to it? Paul's reaction would certainly not be expected if he were witnessing the unsaved or false Christians turning away or deserting Christ as that kind of behavior would be expected of those who are unsaved. Paul is astonished precisely because the ELECT are deserting Christ. I prefer to believe Paul.

Paul is warning them that if they flee to Judaism they are abandoning the gospel. They were babes in Christ, the didn't know any better.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Are you still saved when you sin... which you do constantly?

 

[☦Marius☦]

19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship,
so that men are without excuse.

Job 12:7
But ask the animals, and they will instruct you;
ask the birds of the air, and they will tell you.

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of His hands.

Jeremiah 51:15
He made the earth by His power; He established the world by His wisdom
and stretched out the heavens by His understanding.

James 2:19
"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

All those verses make the claim that God is evident in Nature, as well as his wisdom. That doesn't mean people automatically have the Gospel, or that before the crucifixion people had it.

 

[☦Marius☦]

So you think after the death of Christ he went into Hades and rescued the OT saints?

Well it is in scripture...

1 Peter 3:18-20
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey…

Ephesians 4:8-10
Therefore it says,
“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”
(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above

 

[mark kennedy]

Well it is in scripture...

1 Peter 3:18-20
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey…

Ephesians 4:8-10
Therefore it says,
“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”
(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above

I thought that was what you meant, I guess I was just trying to clarify. I think things changed for OT saints, I don't know what but that seems to describe it.

 

[Oldmantook]

You do know Paul hasn't given up on them right? So they followed some Jewish rituals, observing feasts and such. He says he is worried that his work among them was in vain, not that it had been. He never said that they were lost, just warns them that they could be if they abandon the grace of God in Christ for a works righteousness.

Grace and peace,
Mark

You have simply repeated your previous reply with which I have provided a few counter arguments. The onus is on you to reply to my counter arguments which you have not done so. I was taught by my Reformed seminary professors long ago so I used to believe as you do but have since found that what I was taught is unscriptural. You and I know that "elect" only refers to the regenerated individual chosen by the Father. Paul refers to those Galatians as "called." The Greek for called is "kaleo." The Greek word for "deserting" in Gal 1:6 is metatithesthe which is a present tense verb indicating that these called Galatians are presently in the act of deserting Christ - despite being called. Unlike English, the Greek verb tenses primarily focus on type of action instead of the aspect of time. Thus they have already deserted Christ and are continuing to do so which is indicative of ongoing action. It is not a matter of IF they have abandoned Christ as you claim - the fact is - they have ALREADY abandoned Christ.
What does desert/abandon Christ mean to you? Can one desert/abandon Christ and still be saved? Can one renounce Christ turn to another gospel and still be saved? Yes or no? Didn't Jesus say that whoever denies Him, He will deny before the Father in heaven? The fact that they have denied Christ and turned to another gospel makes these elected individuals unsaved correct? Yes or no?

 

[mark kennedy]

You have simply repeated your previous reply with which I have provided a few counter arguments. The onus is on you to reply to my counter arguments which you have not done so. I was taught by my Reformed seminary professors long ago so I used to believe as you do but have since found that what I was taught is unscriptural. You and I know that "elect" only refers to the regenerated individual chosen by the Father. Paul refers to those Galatians as "called." The Greek for called is "kaleo." The Greek word for "deserting" in Gal 1:6 is metatithesthe which is a present tense verb indicating that these called Galatians are presently in the act of deserting Christ - despite being called. Unlike English, the Greek verb tenses primarily focus on type of action instead of the aspect of time. Thus they have already deserted Christ and are continuing to do so which is indicative of ongoing action. It is not a matter of IF they have abandoned Christ as you claim - the fact is they have ALREADY abandoned Christ.
What does desert/abandon Christ mean to you? Can one desert/abandon Christ and still be saved? Can one renounce Christ turn to another gospel and still be saved? Yes or no? Didn't Jesus say that whoever denies Him, He will deny before the Father in heaven? The fact that they have denied Christ and turned to another gospel makes these elected individuals unsaved correct? Yes or no?

It's not your exegetical notes I take issue with, but the fact that while they were elect there is no indication that they were lost because they were led astray. They were babes in Christ, some people had gotten to them, Paul set them straight.

 

[Oldmantook]

Paul is warning them that if they flee to Judaism they are abandoning the gospel. They were babes in Christ, the didn't know any better.

So abandoning the gospel and turning to another makes it okay? If a new convert comes to faith and then 1 week later abandons the gospel and embraces Buddhism is that still okay as they are still saved?