you convinced me ๐คฉ๐คฉ
blogs.mtdv.me/articles/NRltnfcc88
If not I can send it again
did you open the link yet?
How about this, how do you think I would respond to Roger? @markerman
Thatโs not quite what I meant
ok how would you reply to rogers response
Iโd be down to answer questions, not sure about a debate rn
did someone say debate ๐๐๐
lol, Iโll not respond in case we keep going in circles ๐
, I think the Galatians verse stands for itself. I appreciate the response though
Lol, not trying to start up the debate again, I just thought of that reply last night ๐
We are perfected by the Holy Spirit through faith, which involves action, otherwise it is useless. (James 2:26). Also, "in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:4). Note the condition of living by the Spirit, which includes a lot. Someone (including a Christian) who returns to living according to the sinful nature cannot expect to have all the righteous requirements of the law met in them, since they are no longer living by faith/the Spirit.
Galatians 3:2-3 "Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" - perfected by the Holy Spirit after salvation, not our works
Interesting ๐ค There's definitely a high demand and competition for jobs these days, that's for sure ๐
Some jobs I see that get posted are already expired within less than a day of being up.
Some of my friends whoโve graduated seem to have similar experiences
Of course, I'm applying for lots of other job openings, but most of the time, it seems like my application just goes into a black hole ๐ค๐คฃ
Oh, not a whole lot going on ๐
That place that had reached out to me after I applied had me send in a short video, but that was like over 3 weeks ago and I hadn't heard anything from them. So then I followed up last week and ended up getting the same exact email as before, asking for the video, even though I had already sent it ๐ So...idk ๐คทโโ๏ธ๐
Btw, howโs your job stuff going?
Very interesting ๐ค The whole subject is definitely quite complicated ๐
Also, I found this article explaining different types of determinism. I thought it was very helpful. It explains different kinds of determinism held by Calvinists, Molinists, and some Arminians. It also shows how determinism is distinct from fatalism. https://www.proginosko.com/2014/07/calvinism-and-determinism/
Ok, I guess thatโs alright. The only thing I want to make clear is that the terms used in TULIP are widely disliked by Calvinists because they donโt accurately summarize the points. For instance, Irresistible Grace sounds like God drags humans kicking and screaming into salvation - which has nothing to do with the point. Calvinists often use the term Effective Calling instead because that more accurately summarizes the point, which is that Godโs calling always accomplishes His purpose. It doesnโt say anything happens against the human will. It just recognizes that the Holy Spirit has transformative power. Anyway, basically all the terms in TULIP are like that, just wanted to make sure you understood that ๐
Enh, I'm already pretty familiar with the five points of Calvinism...I think I'll pass ๐
@RottenE.G.S, you can add stuff if you want too, Iโm done asking questions rn
Wanna go over the 5 points of Calvinism?
I don't know if I would word it that exact way, but I think that if an individual has people praying for them to be saved, God can take away that barrier that's blinding them from seeing the truth. Obviously, there has to be some way for "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" to get through to ppl who are blinded by Satan, and I'm not the expert on exactly how that happens. Also, I would tend to think that if an individual is left completely to their own free will to accept Christ, without any influence from the enemy (which is basically impossible for there not to be, bc of sin), and only God's drawing them, that they would choose to accept His offer. But that's more of a theoretical viewpoint, bc there's always a battle for a person's soul going on.
So, would it be correct to say you believe that God chooses to take away the demons of those whom He elects, and the taking away of the demons always results in Godโs drawing to be effective within them so that they are saved?
If you are or have been trying to witness to someone, but they just aren't coming around and they keep giving excuses, it's a good idea to pray out loud and bind the demons that are operating in their life, and then try again after a little bit to ask them if they want to receive Jesus. I'll believe you'll find that they are ready all of a sudden. My dad and I have been reading an excellent book lately, about a Christian medical doctor and her friend, who was formerly a witch, and in the book she gives multiple accounts of times she used that method on ppl that weren't willing to be saved, and it worked.
And that brings up the question: if it weren't for demons keeping ppl bound, would every person who hears the gospel get saved? I think the answer would be yes. Bc God's drawing ppl to Himself is so strong that I think if left solely to an individual's own will, they wouldn't be able to resist. The reason that ppl do resist and reject God is because of Satan and his demons.
2 Cor 4:4: "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Tim 2:26: "and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."
Also, another thing I haven't mentioned yet is that most of time (if not possibly every time) when a person doesn't want to get saved, even though they understand their need for salvation, there are demons in them that are keeping their will bound in order to prevent them from coming to the Lord. Bc we have to also keep in mind that just as God is working to draw ppl to Himself, Satan is working to keep ppl blinded and bound.
(Like, in terms of how much of the free will vs God's sovereignty is involved)
๐ I mean, if you agree with those, then the rest really isn't that important for us to fully understand, bc God knows what He's doing ๐
No worries, I had a feeling you were just busy ๐
I pretty much agree with both statements
Sorry, I havenโt had time to respond yet
๐ Can I get an amen? ๐
Yes, I would have to agree with that. And yeah, it is something that can be tricky to understand. But I think the bottom line, that we can probably all agree with is #1: God doesn't force anyone against their will to get saved, and #2: We shouldn't stop evangelizing just bc some think that God has already sovereignly determined the fate of every individual, so whoever is meant to get saved will undoubtedly get saved no matter what, and those who aren't meant to be saved can never be saved no matter what. I think that ppl who believe that way can often have that sort of fatalistic attitude.
The point Iโm trying to make not that God wants people to perish, but that both Arminians and Calvinists have to grapple with the idea that God doesnโt want anyone to perish, yet He chose to create a world in which He foreknew not all would be saved
Would you agree that although God desires all to be saved, He still chose to create a world where He foreknew not all would be saved? Which implies that although He desired all to be saved, He had a reason in creating a world in which He knew most would not be saved?
If you say that the failure is on God, then what about all the ppl who end up in hell? Did God fail with those ppl? You could say no, he didn't fail, bc it wasn't His will for them to be saved--now wait a minute. I thought the Bible said that it's NOT God's will for ANY to perish, but for ALL to come to repentance. So then again, did God fail, since millions end up in hell? No...Again, the failure is on the part of the individual who ended up in hell. They are responsible for their own actions and decisions. And that is true of every person--we have to make the choice ourselves.
"For many are called, but few are chosen." Matt. 22:14. How do you interpret that verse then? I don't believe the failure is on God's part, but rather on the part of the individual who rejected Him.
Anyway, it sounds as though in Arminianism God tries and fails to save all of humanity. This is the first problem Calvinists have with Arminianism because to Calvinists, God can never fail - โMy counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purposeโ Isaiah 46:10. So, if God calls everyone and He failed, how is that biblical? Here are 3 solutions: 1. Universalism argues God calls everyone and canโt fail, therefore everyone will go to heaven eventually. 2. Calvinists argue God did not call everyone, and those whom He does call are persuaded to come to Him. 3. Arminians say God calls everyone and He canโt fail, but then they deny universalism. So, it seems in Arminianism God calls everyone and actually does fail to persuade people. Because if you say Godโs purposes (calling everyone) can be resisted, then that means Godโs purposes can be failed by humans.
Yeah, that was one of the ones I said yes to ๐
And youโd agree the majority of people will not choose God despite his drawing as seen in Matthew 7:13-14?
@RottenEGS, that's interesting, although I would still say that God doesn't "force" anyone against their will to be saved, and that it's still possible for someone to resist/reject God.
And would you say that if someone has a complete understanding of the truth, that understanding comes from God?
@Roger, you would also say that the majority of people will not accept Godโs drawing/persuading them? (Matthew 7:13-14)
I do have a few more questions, and then I you can jump in some more ๐
Interesting, I didnโt know that ๐ค
also something to consider: if you look at the word draw as in "no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him", the greek word draw actual means to compel by force-used of the authorities dragging paul into the marketplace, used of the rich dragging the poor into courts.
Hmmm, its been interesting seeing you guys discuss this. I'm actually pretty strongly convinced about the doctrines of grace/calvinism. would it be ok if I jumped in on the side of the Calvinist?
Yes, I would definitely say that. "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL MEN to myself.โ John 12:32
Would you also say that God tries to persuade and draw everyone to Him?
John 3:36: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever REJECTS the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.โ Notice that it's possible for someone to reject the Lord. This indicates free will.
Yes, I would agree with both of those. God influences and draws ppl to himself, but doesn't force them.
Would you also agree that persuasion is not the same as force?
I think we both agree that Godโs drawing is not the same as God forcing, but his drawing is necessary for someone to come to him, correct?
I thought I should drop this verse in. Then I'll ๐ค๐ "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him". (Jn 6:44a)
Yeah, sure, I understand. Probably it can vary. For some, they may hear the truth and they "know what it means", but they still reject it for one reason or another. Others may not really fully get it.
I think a lot of the parts of preveniant grace make sense, thereโs just some details Iโm trying to understand if thatโs ok
By โpeople who resist,โ I mean unbelievers
Do the people who resist understand the truth, do they see and hear the truth for what it is?
Like it was stated in the excerpt I gave, I believe that God's grace draws a person towards salvation and shows them the truth, but that grace is resistible, bc of the human free will, so the ultimate choice is left up to the individual.
I think the next question is why do they want to believe? Is it because God opened their eyes to the truth or because they decided with no influence from God?
Ok, but even in that case, they didnโt want to believe at the time they died
Yes, I would agree with that (although there could be someone in hell who at one time maybe felt like they might want to believe in Jesus, but then the enemy distracted them from that and they ended up dying before they got saved).
To be clear, donโt believe anyone is forced to believe against their will. You would agree that no one is in hell who wanted to believe in the Christian God, and no one is in heaven who didnโt accept Christianity, correct?
Rev 3:20: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." Notice how Jesus is a gentleman, who will stand at the door of a person's heart and knock, waiting to see if they will let Him in. He doesn't kick down the door and barge in, whether they want Him or not.
Salvation is a free gift available to anyone who will RECEIVE it. Notice the receiving part. It's not something that's forced. Suppose I have a gift for you, and instead of just offering it to you and allowing you to accept it or decline it, I come up and shove it into your arms and then hold a gun to your head until you finally agree to receive the gift and open it. That's not how God works. He gives the offer of salvation to us, but it's up to us whether we will accept it or not.
I believe salvation is available for all who will accept it. Some people may have more of an opportunity to accept Christ than others, but I would think that if God desires for all to be saved, and he died for the sins of the whole word (1 John 2:2), wouldn't He make it so that anyone who wants to accept Him can?
So it sounds like you believe everyone is called by God. Does that mean everyone has an equal chance to accept Christ?
So, here's an expert from a Wikipedia article on Arminianism, and it explains what they (and I) believe about the conversion process. "Grace is resistible: God takes initiative in the salvation process and his grace comes to all people. This grace (often called pre-regenerating or prevenient grace) acts on all people to convince them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picirilli states that 'indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to regeneration unless finally resisted.' The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied.
Man has a freed will to respond or resist: Free will is granted and limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist."
In other words, how COMPATIBLE are our viewpoints of compatibilism? ๐
Iโm curious where we differ within compatibilism
Hmm, well, I would also consider myself a compatibilist ๐
Yes, I think I agree with that viewpoint.
Would you consider yourself a compatibilist? https://www.gotquestions.org/compatibilism.html
Lol ๐ Yeah, I know, just like there are lots of variations of Calvinists ๐
And yes, I do believe in election and predestination to an extent, but that it is in tandem with man's free will.
Yes, definitely. Also, I thought of another one, Rom 11:32: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience, so that he may have mercy on them ALL."
I donโt put people in boxes very well ๐, thereโs a lot of different kinds of Arminians. Iโm curious, do you believe in some kind of elect? and do you believe in libertarian free will?
1 John 2:2 is definitely the most convincing verse so far
Here's an article on four-point Calvinism vs five-point Calvinism. https://www.gotquestions.org/Amyraldism.html. Note the other verse they gave for proving unlimited atonement--1 John 2:2 (Also, I definitely lean strongly towards Arminianism, btw, if you wanted to "put me in a box" ๐)
Yes, but they are closely connected. The fact that some Calvinists believe in predeterminism/predestination leads them to believe in a limited atonement.
also, just to be clear, limited atonement is also not predeterminism
If we did, it would probably be better to do it over there, but then again, idk if I'm up for another debate right now, lol ๐
๐
The Trinity debate seems to have rapped up
lol, would you want to debate here or on theology discussions?
Yeah, we could, although I'm not as well-versed in the arguments for that position ๐
Lol, that would be so cool to see you argue my position on OSAS ๐คฃ
or we could do it really crazy and have you argue as if your pro limited atonement and Iโm against ๐
I just know the arguments, I mean I could argue for your position on OSAS since I know your arguments
Lol, but you're not even sure if you believe it though
๐
For me, those interpretations for those verses seem kinda twisted. I think like with 2 Pet 3:9, for example, I'd interpret that to mean that if God desires for all to be saved, He will ensure that everyone single person will get a chance, at one point or another during their lifetime, to accept Him. But that, because of the free will He has given to man, ppl can either accept Him or reject Him. So like the article said, "the elect" has more to do with God's omniscience vs his omnipotence.
I donโt know if you actually want to debate this, Iโm familiar with the limited atonement arguments so I could, lol
My other problem is with the verses provided for โsalvation is offered to all.โ Because none of them actually say that. Luke 19:10 โfor the son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.โ โThat which is lostโ could mean the whole world or the elect only, itโs not actually clear. Romans 10:11-13 (summary), โall who call on God will be saved.โ All could mean the world or the elect. Hebrews 2:9 last part says, โso that he might taste death for everyone.โ That could be an offering of salvation to all, but itโs worded very strangely. 2 Peter 3:9 (summary) โGod wants all to be saved.โ That is what God wants, but it is conceivable that while God wants to save everyone, He chooses not too because He has a different purpose in mind. Revelation 22:17, โthe spirit and the bride say comeโฆ let the one who is thirsty come.โ Limited atonement people would say the one who is thirsty is the elect not everyone. John 3:16, โGod so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes shall not perish but have eternal life.โ Yes, God loves the world, but that doesnโt mean God chooses to save the whole world because He might have a different purpose for choosing some and not others. And whoever believes could mean everyone or just the elect.
๐ Yeah, it can get tricky thinking about it, but I think the point is that anyone and everyone has the opportunity to get saved, but we have a free will. So it's not like God forces certain ppl to get saved, while completely rejecting others bc they aren't one of the elect.
I guess my question is, so I can see how a non-elect person could choose to respond to the gospel, but then wouldnโt that have been foreknown by God making them part of the elect ๐
cool, Iโm reading it now
Oh wow, that's great! Congrats! ๐
Ah, I see. Well, I really liked how the topic of limited atonement was addressed in those articles I sent, and I think it gives a strong case against it.
I got the job I applied for thanks :)
I'm am undecided on limited atonement
Sorry your message loaded after I sent the last message
Ok, so in another words, you don't believe in limited atonement, right?
For the real life results of believing this view: I think it requires me to trust God with my future. So, I trust his promises that he will provide for me (Phil 4:19, Matt. 7:11, 2 Cor 9:8). And that although hardship is certainly ordained for me (John 16:33), I will still praise him no matter what he has planned. And He also promises to give strength (Psalm 119:28), peace (Phil 4:7), and endurance (Romans 15:5). How could God strengthen our will with those things without influencing it? Anyway, hopefully that makes my position clear.
Oh ok, I see. I do believe that ppl can still hear God's voice, but that it must agree with Scripture, as well as any prophecy that someone receives. I also believe in miracles and faith healing (1 Cor 12:9, 28; Mark 16:17-18; John 14:12; Jas 5:14-15; Mat 17:20).
Thx :) How'd things turn out with that job position you interviewed for?
On second thought, I think it's ridiculous to say we only feel like we choose or that choice doesn't exist as it would mean God created an universal experience that is a lie. But I also don't believe in a libertarian free will (which means for every choice made there was an equal chance that a different choice would have been made in the same circumstance) - for instance how could scripture have been written if, given the same circumstances, the writers had an equal chance of choosing to write something God didn't want written?
I prefer the view sometimes called "soft determinism" which means God can enable or perfect the will as well as influence the will through His direct control (Exodus 4:21), through intervention (Jonah), through scripture (Hebrews 4:12), through punishment and reward (Romans 2:6-11), and through signs. It also leaves room for the idea that some events, like a leaf falling, are pure chance. One relevant verse is Proverbs 19:21: โMany are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the Lord's purpose that prevails.โ There is a sort of duality between choice and control with God's will prevailing over man's in the end.
Predeterminism is where God determines everything from nations falling to a leaf falling. Thatโs in contrast to the doctrine of predestination which is that God had ordained who will be saved (not necessarily everything). I really donโt have an opinion about predeterminism. The main worry is that people will become fatalists and wonโt evangilize. Also, they may over emphasize Gods wrath on unbelievers. I donโt think predeterminism necessarily has to result in those things though. Taken correctly, a predeterminist would consider it an honor to be ordained to evangelize; to be the one God selected to bring the elect to salvation. But I donโt think thereโs a way to know whether 100% of everything is predetermined or not, and either way you have to choose or โfeel like your choosingโ to do what God wants ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ
Yes, Iโm a cessationist, though the term is kind of a misnomer. To me it means there isnโt anymore direct revelation from God because the Bible is sufficient. So, thereโs no hearing Godโs voice (saying something not in scripture) or modern day prophets. I do think miracles are possible, but not in the faith-healing/name-it-and-claim-it sort of way. In generally Iโm skeptical when I hear about a miracle, but I rarely question someoneโs experience.
I see, I hope you get an interview and that that goes well :)
Oh btw, lol, I'm just really curious to know if you believe in cessationism or not ๐
I'm assuming you do. Also, you're not hyper-Calvinist (i.e. believing in predeterminism), correct? ๐ค
You're welcome! ๐ Yes, and my understanding of what you believe, at least this "flavor" of OSAS ๐
, is clearer now, too. Yep, we should still definitely strive to be perfect (Mat 5:48), but there is grace for our failures and mistakes. Ok, sure! Thx, I haven't gotten an interview yet, but they have "screened" me so far, by having me send in a short vid, so that's a good step and farther than I've gotten with any employer so far ๐
Thanks for a great debate! Iโm glad we could do it. My understanding of what you believe is so much better, and I see now how it doesnโt lead to perfectionism which was my main concern. I hope you can use some of what I wrote about sin to wake up any Christianโs you know who believe OSAS and are complacent in their sins. Iโll also send you a PDF of a testimony whose author prefers OSAS that was extremely helpful motivating me to fight sin. I hope your job works out well :)
Ok, so, in light of the fact that neither of us are planning to change our stance on this matter, and due to the fact that I will most likely not have very much time to debate in the near future, since I may be starting a job soon, I think it'd be best for me to conclude my discussion on here. However, in closing, I think it was a good discussion, and I really appreciate your style of debating, Will, as it is much less hectic and frustrating than other debates I've had ๐
๐ Also, I'd like to leave you and Markerman with these two articles that give an excellent overview and explanation of my views on the subject, including how, even though I do not believe in OSAS, I still believe that Christians can have security in Christ and an assurance of their salvation. A lot of what's presented in these articles are points that I've already given, but these just do a good job putting everything together, similar to what you have in this group description, Will. So here are the two articles (Note: I am not Assemblies of God, but I do agree with many of their beliefs, including on the subject of OSAS) https://tinyurl.com/48kh8ypp; https://tinyurl.com/yjfdjpk4
2nd continued, Hebrews 3:12-15, it warns not to harden your hearts, it doesnโt say that their will be eternal consequences, but you can be assured of much hardship if you do harden your heart. Consider the Hebrews verse interpreted through the lens of Ezekial: โMoreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and CAUSE YOU to walk in My statutes, and YOU WILL be careful to observe My ordinances.โ Ezekielโฌ โญ36โฌ:โญ26โฌ-โญ27โฌ. Hebrews 3:12-15 describes what having a heart of flesh and being caused to walk in His statues looks like: encouraging one another and holding fast to the end. And if anyone does harden their hearts, then they will be brought to repentance through severe earthly punishment.
2nd continued, throughout your cousins period of rebellion there is ample evidence of destruction and even death. His marriage was ruined, all his relationships were ruined, and the drug use probably ruined his health and caused his early death. He was not allowed to live content in sin, and he repented as a result. In my uncleโs story, he suffered terrible depression and lung issues, but he never repented - similar to how Pharaoh did not repent despite the plagues of Egypt because God hardened his heart.
(2nd continued), When Peter denied Christ, he was greatly humiliated as a result, and he repented and became humble as a result. When Peter agreed with the Judaizers, he was publicly rebuked by Paul, and Peter repented as a result. When Ananias and Sapphira lied about their contributions to the church, they were physically killed for their sin. If their place in eternity changed that would be infinitely more significant to deter us from sin, but their eternity is not mentioned, only their physical death. And presumably their physical death cast great fear of God on the church. In conclusion, we read constantly of physical, earthly consequences when eternal consequences would be expected. But the physical consequences were enough to bring believers back to God.
2nd continued, Galatians 6:7-8 and Proverbs 15:10, does destruction and death mean eternal destruction of death? Based on the full context of scripture, I think not. Thatโs because when God punished his followers you NEVER hear God threaten eternal judgement on them (while he does threaten this for unbelievers). Instead believers are dealt horrific earthly judgement for continued and even individual sins. When Moses rebelled by not circumcising his son on time, this single error was enough for God to send an Angel to kill him if he didnโt repent. When Israel rebelled against Moses and God, they were sent plagues and pestilence and war until they repented - notice that Israel never stopped being Godโs people because Godโs covenant with Israel is eternal just as his covenant to those in Christ Jesus is eternal. When David murdered Uriah, Davidโs eternity was not mentioned, but his child was taken from him even after David repented and begged God to save the baby. When David took an illegal census of Israel, he was given a choice of punishment, none of which were eternal. David repented, and God sent a plague on Israel. Hezekiah acted with pride and showed the Babylonians the riches of Israel, and he was cursed to have the kingdom taken from his son, as a result Hezekiah repented. When Jonah rebelled, the whale was sent to intervene, and Jonah repented as a result.
2nd, Galatians 5:16, says to walk by the spirit - this describes the process of sanctification. We donโt fully deny the flesh yet because we still sin. God is molding you so you will walk by the spirit (if God is unsuccessful at molding you that means God failed, and I do not believe God has ever failed (Isaiah 14:24)): โGod disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness.โ Hebrews 12:10b, โIt is Godโs will that you should be sanctified.โ 1 Thessalonians 4:3. I donโt believe Godโs will or discipline can fail, so I believe the believer will be made to walk in the spirit.
3rd continued, you talk of the Christian who desides to live in sin because he knows he will go to heaven. With your permission I would like to email you a testimony that I think demonstrates that God does not allow Christians to live satisfying lives of sin and will bring them back. It is pretty long and covers some mature topics, so I donโt feel comfortable posting it where younger BM users could see it. I also offer the example of Jonah, who ran from God, but God intervened and brought him back. And the intervention itself was the slow melting of Jonahโs skin in the belly of a whale until he repented. So, I donโt think itโs true that a Christian be satisfied in their sin.
3rd, if someone does not demonstrate continued repentance, it means they may not have been saved. This is because continued sin can indicate that their heart was not changed. It doesnโt mean they definitely are not saved, because if they are saved then they will be brought to repentance. And if they never repent, thereโs a really good chance their heart was not changed - though itโs still hard to be 100% sure they were not saved: โIt is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his fatherโs wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midstโฆ. I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.โ โญโญ1 Corinthiansโฌ โญ5โฌ:โญ1โฌ-โญ2โฌ, 5. According to these verses it appears some who live in sin are killed in the body but their soul is saved. In any case, this sounds like a frightening way to die.
2nd, Iโll address the verses at the end.
1st continued, I understand that your cousin became resistant to the truth. But how could he know the truth and not be saved? โFor the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (those without salvation), but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.โ โญโญ1 Corinthiansโฌ โญ1โฌ:โญ18โฌ. I encourage you to read until verse 2:14 because of makes it clear those without salvation cannot know the truth. Also, even though he resisted the truth for a time doesnโt mean he lost salvation because God was bringing him to repentance. He let the flesh dominate for a while, but it seems clear to me that the spirit was still their and won in the end as it always will in a believer. Paul describes the dualing of the flesh and the spirit, and while it may seem for a while that the flesh is winning, the spirit will win because God cannot fail.
1st, You are right to say that both have hope. However, a person who is a believer and falls away has the Holy Spirit. But someone without salvation does not have the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 3:12-15: "See to it, brothers, that none of you has a SINFUL, UNBELIEVING heart that TURNS AWAY from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ IF we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. As has just been said: โToday, if you hear his voice, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS as you did in the REBELLION.โ
Pro 15:10: "Stern discipline awaits him who leaves the path; he who hates correction WILL DIE." This verse is very insightful, bc it shows that while God does initially discipline those who stray, if they hate correction and don't respond to his discipline and repent, they will eventually die. And I believe that doesn't just mean physical death.
If Christians could live in deliberate sin and still get to heaven, then God would be mocked. Gal 6:7-8: "Do not be deceived: GOD CANNOT BE MOCKED. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap DESTRUCTION; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." In order to inherit eternal life, we must sow to please the Spirit.
Gal 5:16, 21b: "So I say, LIVE BY THE SPIRIT, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." Then he goes on to list the acts of the sinful nature. And he says: "I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this" (including Christians who live like that) "will NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD." So we have an obligation to live by the Spirit. If we just go on living in sin and the flesh, we will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Like you, I agree that it seems your grandfather didn't have a genuine conversion, unfortunately. And like you, I agree that in my cousin's case, he did have a genuine conversion, but that he fell away into rebellion. However, what you're saying is that aside from a loss of rewards, a Christian who lives in sin and rebellion can still make it to heaven. That's contrary to several verses though, which I will show. First of all, saying that it won't affect whether we make it to heaven or not definitely can and does lead to issues, because then Christians can go into sin and be unrepentant because they know they'll still make it to heaven in the end, and for them, that's good enough.
Thirdly, you stated that a criteria for knowing that yourself and others are truly saved is continued repentance. So, essentially, you're saying that if a Christian DOESN'T have continued repentance, then they were not truly saved. And I say that if they don't continue to repent and turn away from sin, then it can lead to rebellion and apostasy. So, either way you look at it, it's not much different, except that we differ on if they were truly saved to begin with.
Secondly, I don't condemn anyone, but you do have to look at what the Bible says about those who walk in sin. (Note, not referring to those who stumble in sin, but those who are LIVING in sin and rebellion). And I will share some verses on that momentarily.
Ok, so basically, what you're saying in your second post is that it's better to say that a backslidden Christian might not have ever been truly saved, then to say that they fell away. But even then, you're still saying that an apparently true believer who's living in sin and rebellion MIGHT not be truly saved; so in that case, they would be just as lost as a believer who lost their salvation. But even for a believer who becomes lost, there is still hope for them to repent and come back to the Lord, just as you said there's hope for them to return. And I believe that since a Christian who falls away was once saved, they may still know that what they are doing is wrong, but as in the case of my cousin, they don't want to hear the truth.
I'll probably respond sometime this weekend.
I do not say there are no eternal consequences for Christianโs rebellion against God, for instance they wonโt receive treasures in heaven if you donโt go good works, there are also those who are called โleastโ in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:19). Notice how in Romans 10:5-13, your position is what Moses writes, not what Paul writes, โMoses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: โThe person who does these things will live by them.โ But the righteousness that is by faith says: โDo not say in your heart, โWho will ascend into heaven?โโโ (that is, to bring Christ down) โor โWho will descend into the deep?โโโ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? โThe word is near you; it is in your mouth and IN YOUR HEART,โ that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, โJesus is Lord,โ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is WITH YOUR HEART that you believe and ARE JUSTIFIED, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, โAnyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.โ For there is no difference between Jew and Gentileโthe same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, โEveryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.โ โญโญRomansโฌ โญ10โฌ:โญ5โฌ-โญ13โฌ. The righteousness of God is ATTRIBUTED to the believer, here are 25 more verses about this: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Imputed-Righteousness โ this acquiring of the righteousness of God is what is actually transformational and gives the ability to act in righteousness.
2 Tim. 2:19 - turning away is a process. For some that process is longer than others, and usually the longer, the more painful (thatโs why itโs best to repent sooner than later). Your cousin did return to God, but it was a long and painful process to get there - I even take it as evidence he was saved the whole time. Rom. 8:13 - can be taken several ways. It could mean repentance at the initial point of salvation. Or, it could mean unrepentance as in falling away. If it means falling away, I think your cousin fulfills this because he did die. He died at 50, about 30 years below the national average possibly as punishment for unrepentance.
So, if we examine my Uncle, I think itโs clear his conversion was not genuine, no matter how much I want to believe otherwise. He showed little to no change in heart afterward, and after leaving the church, he hated, avoided, and mocked God. He lived deep in sin clearly not wanting to change; no sign of the spirit convicting him. If we examine your cousinโs story, we see he showed significant change of heart after his conversion. Then after his fall, I see signs of Godโs sustaining grace - the spirit was convicting him, God provided jobs for him, and as your Uncle admits he knew the truth despite running from it. Turning away was a long process, but he eventually did it.
My uncleโs mother, my great-grandmother, left her husband, my great-grandfather. She took the younger two children and promised to return for my uncle and his brother. When she did not return, my great-grandfather took them and left them at their motherโs house because he didnโt want them. My great-grandmother worked in the evenings, so the kids where neglected at home. They also went to Catholic school where the nuns were mean to them. In the midst of this, my Uncle found himself in a Baptist church one day, and at one point walked down the aisle for the alter call. Whether he could actually articulate the gospel or whether his life changed, Iโm not sure, but if there was any change it was very brief. Though, he did invite my grandma to attend, and she came to Christ there and met my grandpa at that church. My Uncle, however, along with several of the high schoolers made a proposal to the church leaders to have the church do more for the poor. The leaders rejected the high schoolerโs plan, and my Uncle left the church after that. For the next 55 or so years until his death, he hated anything to do with religion, he went to jail for something financial I think, he lived an lgb lifestyle, promoted liberal and lgbt legislature as a democratic precinct chair, he smoked and died from heart problems related to smoking, at family gatherings (which he only attended later in life) he went to another room while everyone else prayed, he also got married but only so his lgb wife could share her health care benefits with him, he also avoided my grandmother if he thought she might try to evangelize to him. Despite all of our prayers, he never would hear truth. He died in misery, worried he had nothing of a legacy to pass on, having lived an utterly miserable life.
Second, compare your cousinโs story to my uncleโs and I think youโll see how you can tell the difference between a believer whose fallen away and a nonbeliever who had a conversion that was not genuine.
That being said, I think you can absolutely be sure someone is a believer, and thatโs when they fulfill the criteria you said. Now just for clarity, I think thereโs a distinction between the criteria that are necessary for salvation, things that happen at the moment of salvation, and the criteria for knowing a person is saved
โ Criteria for salvation: Believe the gospel and repent
โ Things that happen at the moment of salvation: thereโs at least a hundred in this list (compiled by my dad), so I emailed the doc to you and put it in the Copy/paste group for anyone else who wants to read it.
โ Criteria for knowing yourself and others are saved: continued repentance, good deeds, baptism in water, the joy and peace of God, publicly and privately affirming belief in Jesus, continued growing in the Lord
To begin, I think itโs a lot better to be unsure whether a fallen away believer is saved than to say they are definitely going to hell. One way thereโs at least hope they might return, the other way they are truly lost; to have salvation lost is to be an unbeliever without the spirit of God. Unbelievers cannot understand truth and do not want it (1 Cor 2:14, Matt 13:13), believers, even fallen away ones, will at least respond to and understand the truth. I also find it an egregious error to condemn individuals to hell, when in fact, God has not done so, and I think it would be a terrible thing to find you condemned where God did not condemn (Romans 8:1).
Starting with some parallels here, you say continued repentance is necessary to stay saved, I say itโs needed to demonstrate that your conversion was genuine. Both views can lead to perfectionism - yours: one sin means you are not saved anymore, mine: one sin means your initial conversion was not genuine. Both of us deny perfectionism, and we solve it this way. You: there is a grace period so one or several sins doesnโt cause immediate loss of salvation, me: one or several sins is not enough to demonstrate a consistent pattern indicative of an unchanged heart. You: you arenโt sure when the grace period ends though it sounds like you believe you can tell at some point, just as with mine: itโs not always obvious when a conversion wasnโt genuine, but I can usually tell. Where we differ is on which is biblically based, and which is more helpful in real life.
Lol, just got the motivation ๐ But still definitely feel free to post your arguments there as well ๐
Yes, please do, thanks! ๐๐ I had a response for him, but I just haven't found the time yet to type it all up ๐
I totally agree with you about the Trinity
Would you like me to respond to some of the Trinity arguments in Theological Discussions? My next post is pretty long
2 Tim 2:19: "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must TURN AWAY (repent) from wickedness." Rom 8:13: "For if you live according to the sinful nature YOU WILL DIE"; (and that holds true for believers, too) "but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,"
So now with the first option that you gave, you're basically saying that there are no eternal consequences for a Christian who rebels against the Lord and walks in sin? How do you then correlate 1 Cor 6:9-10 (as well as many other verses) with that view point? "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." So is a believer who backslides just going to say to God at the end of their life something like, "But God, I was a SAVED drunkard!" And then God will go ahead and let them into heaven, even though they never repented?
So, with your second option, I would definitely say that was not the case here. I believe that he had a genuine conversion indeed. If you just say that any believer who falls away from the Lord was never truly saved to begin with, then you're basically saying that you'll never actually know if you or anyone else had a true conversion, unless you get to the end of the person's life, and they haven't fallen away. That's pretty backwards, if you can get what I'm trying to point out. So, even if someone had a conversion that was in every way showing to be legitimate (as in my cousin's case, he repented, gave his life to Jesus, got baptized in water, baptized in the Holy Spirit, started growing in the Lord, was full of joy, etc.), you won't be able to say for sure whether that was legit, unless they don't fall away during their whole lifetime? That's why I believe that it's possible for someone who had a genuine conversion to fall away.
Cool, I also have a testimony to share when youโre ready
I'll try to respond soon, maybe by this evening
So, finally, there are two biblically based options for what happened, but I think Denis had a genuine conversion at the start. And although he resisted, God put him in the belly of the fish, as it were, until he came back. Also, note that while you may think this just excuses Denisโs behavior, does anyone really want to live like that? I guess people can choose to be miserable, but if they believe, then they understand that righteousness is the cure to their misery.
I also donโt think 20 years is actually that long. It is to us, but not to God. 2 Peter 3:8โ9 reads:
โBut do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.โ Also look at Matthew 18:21-22 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, โLord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?โ Jesus answered, โI tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.โ And I think you would agree we should forgive our Christian brotherโs even before they ask. And if weโre called to forgive that generously, God will too. He doesnโt call us to do things He would not do.
The first option is what I think is most likely, which is that he had a genuine conversion and thus, would have gone to heaven any time after his conversion in 1986. The evidence of his having a genuine conversion in 1986 is his own testimony that his initial conversion was genuine, the testimony of those around him, and his initial obedience. So, if his conversion was genuine, how do I explain his backsliding? First, I think of Psalm 23:2b, โHe leads me beside the still and quiet waters.โ Why still waters? Because sheep will not drink from fast running water; theyโre too scared. So imagine how a sheep would react to a tidal wave - the emotional equivalent of divorce. In his pre-conversion life, heโd trained himself to deal with pain by using pleasureful sinful acts as distractions. With as great a pain as this, his flesh was too weak to resist the immediate comfort of sin. That explains the initial backsliding, but the real problem is why it took so long for him to return. Doesnโt this length of time mean his heart was actually turned against God? Not necessarily, as Denis says, โI may not have liked it when he tried to tell me that I needed to return to the Lord, but I knew it was true.โ He new the truth, and only a believer could understand that truth. As 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, โBut a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he CANNOT understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.โ Since, Denis did understand, he was not a natural man. He had the spirit of God convicting him. But like Jonah, he resisted. So, Denis was essentially put into the belly of the fish until he complied with Godโs commands.
I think the second option is less likely because everyone around him believes he was genuinely converted. However, if he was only outwardly accepting, but inwardly not committed, then the second option is true. The evidence that he did not have a full conversion comes from the fact that he fell away. Falling away can be indicative of a heart problem. Thatโs why scripture says we know them by their fruit (Matt 7:16). It is possible, then, that the purpose of the divorce was to expose the lack of real conversion in his heart. In this option, your cousin would not have gone to heaven at any point prior to his actual conversion in 2011.
First, Iโd like to point out that stories are not facts. Instead, stories are an interpretation of observable facts, events, and experiences to give them meaning. These are interpreted through the lens of a worldview, and if the worldview is not correct, than the events could be misinterpreted. I will propose two alternate interpretations of events that I believe are both biblically sound. Itโs hard to say for sure which is true because โman looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.โ The options are 1. your cousin had a genuine conversion when he first came to faith, which means he would have gone to heaven if he died after backsliding, or 2. his first genuine conversion was after coming out of his backslidden state nine years before his death.
Yes, praise the Lord that he made it ๐
Thatโs fine not to know an exact point. Iโm really just hoping youโll excuse a little ambiguity in my answer too. Also, I want to say how great it is that Denis was saved in the end, and thatโs what really matters :) - and it's very admirable of your dad to have kept witnessing to him even though he seemed hostile to the gospel
I don't think you can point to an exact moment in time and say that's when a person lost his salvation. But I believe that if a person ignores the conviction of the Holy Spirit when He prompts them to repent, and they just continue on in sin, that's when they cannot expect to be covered by Jesus' blood and just be able to think they can still get to heaven like that. Otherwise, Christians would be able to abuse God's grace and use it as license for sin, as many do.
Question: at what point did your cousin lose his salvation? Was it when he first rebelled or after the 4th, 5th, or 50th time? Youโve said yourself you believe in a โgrace periodโ given to allow time for a believer to repent without losing their salvation, so did that grace period end and if so, when did it end?
Now, even given those facts, can you still say that a person who dies in that condition would go to heaven? That would completely contradict Scripture, as it would mean that a believer can go off into rebellion against the Lord and still make it to heaven. That's the point I'm trying to make. Like I said way back at the beginning of this debate, I believe that rebellion, idolatry, and unbelief are what can remove a believer out from underneath the "atonement cover", if you will, and cause them to forfeit their salvation.
What makes this particular scenario different, as opposed to the fictional one you gave, is that your story portrays the subject, Joe, as being utterly broken and repentant over his sin. However, in the other case, the backslidden believer was in rebellion against the Lord, and not even repentant over his sin during that time. He didn't want to hear anything about the Lord, and he lived for himself and did whatever he wanted.
So, perhaps we can take a new approach here and look at all these verses from the aspect of a real life example, such as my cousin's, and compare the verses to the example to see how they fit in. I'm ok with using his testimony for analysis, although, if you'd like, we can simply extract the identical concept/scenario from his testimony and use it as our example.
About stories: I told a fictional story (based on testimonies I have heard) because I thought you just wanted a conceivable case making what you said possible, and also because personal stories have a lot more emotional weight. I imagine you will not be happy when I contradict your father and cousinโs interpretation of their own experiences, and I will not be happy when you contradict personal stories I tell. I agree stories are important, so we can continue it, though it could feel personally insulting to apply logic to emotional experiences. Would it be ok if we tell arguments based on real life, in the copy/paste group and not here? I think it could get confusing if people reading are trying to follow two threads of argument at the same time.
Romans 8, I think you are equivocating Godโs love for the believer and the unbeliever. In Rom. 8, itโs clearly talking about the love of God that is found โin Christ.โ In Christ, we are saved; thatโs the love of God in Christ that cannot be changed. Not in Christ, you are loved, but not loved as a father loves a child because unbelievers are not sons of God; they are not shielded from the wrath of God that could take them down to hell whenever He wants.
Again Barnes states: โ(1) It is in God alone. It is not in man in any sense. No reliance is to be placed upon man in keeping himself. He is too weak; too changeable; too ready to be led astray; too much disposed to yield to temptation.
(2) The reliance, therefore, is on God; and the evidence that the renewed man will be kept is this:
* God began the work of grace in the soul.
* He had a design in it. It was deliberate, and intentional. It was not by chance or haphazard. It was because he had some object that was worthy of his interposition.
* There is no reason why he should begin such a work and then abandon it. It cannot be because he has no power to complete it, or because there are more enemies to be overcome than he had supposed; or because there are difficulties which he did not foresee; or because it is not desirable that the work should be completed. Why then should he abandon it?
* God abandons nothing that he undertakes. There are no unfinished worlds or systems; no half-made and forsaken works of His hands. There is no evidence in His works of creation of change of plan, or of having forsaken what He began from disgust, or disappointment, or lack of power to complete them. Why should there be in the salvation of the soul?
* He has promised to keep the renewed soul to eternal life; see John 10:27-29; Hebrews 6:17-20; compareRomans 8:29-30; Romans 8:29-30.โ
I agree with everything in that Albert Barnes quote. In fact it sounds like what I have been saying which is that God enables us. It is also interesting that Barnes does not see this as in any way contradictory to the notion of eternal security. Here I quote Barnes commentary on Philipians 1:6: โPaul affirms here that that work was begun by God. It was not by their own agency or will; compare the notes on John 1:13. It was on the fact that it was begun by God, that he based his firm conviction that it would be permanent. Had it been the agency of man, he would have had no such conviction, for nothing that man does today can lay the foundation of a certain conviction that he will do the same thing tomorrow. If the perseverance of the Christian depended wholly on himself, therefore, there could be no sure evidence that he would ever reach heaven. โฆhere means that God would carry on the work which he had begun to completion. He would not leave it unfinished. It would not he commenced and then abandoned. This would or could be โperformedโ or โfinishedโ only:
(1) By keeping them from falling from grace,โ
First, I have never argued mans will is forced, or that man needs make no effort. Those are contrary to my position. If I say a Christian will do something, it's not out of being forced - it's from their eyes being opened. For example, if you see fools gold, it looks desireable, but when your eyes are opened to the realization that it has no value and that real gold is within your grasp - you will of course desire the real gold more than the fools gold. You were not forced to choose the real gold, but your eyes were opened to what is and isn't real gold. In real life, sins are harder to reject than simple fools gold, but the concept holds true. We can see what righteousness really is and how glorious it is, so we strive (albeit imperfectly) towards righteousness.
Ok, sure, np ๐ Yeah, I know, it can get quite lengthy ๐
๐ But I would like to hear you feedback on the testimony of my cousin before we move on, as I believe that a big factor that we have to consider in the whole topic of OSAS is looking at real life examples. (The article is posted in Copy/Paste, now, btw)
Thanks, Iโll probably be a while. Thatโs a lot to go through ๐
, we might have to interrupt and get back to only responding to individual verses soon ๐
Ok, I'll try to do that sometime this evening.
If you could put in copy/paste that would be nice, thanks
Note: the article was posted by my dad, Len. Also, if you're not able to get onto it (as it's a blog), then I can post it in your copy/paste group. ๐
I don't see how anyone, after reading that testimony, could say that it's not possible for a believer to fall away.
About the story, instead of using a fictitious example, here is an excellent example from the real life story of my cousin, who was actually truly born again and saved, but ended up backsliding and then later returning to the Lord after two decades. I'll put the link to the testimony here, so that you can read the whole thing. Note that even my cousin knew, and afterwards, too, that had he died in his backslidden condition, he would have gone to hell. https://tinyurl.com/5xk7j849
About Rom 8, let me explain it a little better. Just because a believer commits a sin, or even many sins, does not change the fact that God loves them. Because the truth is that God loves everyone, even sinners who have never been saved. He goes after both the unbelievers to save them and after the believers who have strayed, to bring them back to repentance. So, the only point when anyone is separated from God's love is in hell. Also, the love of God "in Christ" means that the love of God is demonstrated through Christ's work on the cross. It doesn't mean that anyone who is loved by God is "in Christ".
Continuation: (1) It is not God who acts for us. He leads us to โwill and to do.โ It is not said that he wills and does for us, and it cannot be. It is man that โwills and doesโ - though God so influences him that he does it.
(2) He does not compel or force us against our will. He leads us to will as well as to do. The will cannot be forced; and the meaning here must be that God exerts such an influence as to make us willing to obey Him; compare Psa_110:3.
(3)...The declaration here, therefore, cannot mean that God compels us, or that we are anything else but free agents still, though He โworks in us to will and to do.โ It must mean merely that he exerts such an influence as to secure this result.
"This is given as a reason for making an effort to be saved, or for working out our salvation. It is often thought to be the very reverse, and people often feel that if God works โin us to will and to do,โ there can be no need of our making an effort, and that there would be no use in it. If God does all the work, say they, why should we not patiently sit still, and wait until He puts forth His power and accomplishes in us what He wills?""....God โproduces a certain effect in us;โ he exerts such an influence over us as to lead to a certain result in our minds - to wit, โto will and to do."
Regarding Phil. 1:6 and 2:13, we have to keep in mind that in order to maintain our salvation, there is a part we have to do. God doesn't do everything for us, and neither do we do everything ourselves. But we do have a big part in what happens with our salvation, because we have a free will. If a believer strays from God, and goes against His will by going off into sin and being unrepentant, then God can't force them not to do that. So the key is that when we are yielded to God's will, and we let Him work in us and sanctify us, repenting when we fall short, and heeding the warnings of the Holy Spirit, God will work in us to carry on to completion the work He started. I'd like to quote from Albert Barnes' commentary on Phil 2:13, as it explains this concept very well. (and sorry for the length, btw ๐
)
Iโm curious how you respond to Philippians 1:6
To answer your question. Here is a story I wrote to address it. Joe lives on the street, and before becoming a Christian his friend supplied him with heroine. After becoming a Christian, Joeโs temptation seemed to go away for a while, he even went to rehab and was clean for several weeks. But by a chance meeting, he met his friend and the craving was to strong for him to resist the offer of drugs. He relapsed, resumed taking drugs, and lived on the street for several months before dying of an overdose. Sounds like his conversion wasnโt deeply rooted to keep him from relapsing, right? Wrong! After becoming a Christian, Joeโs eyes were opened to what the drugs were going to him. After the relapse, he tried over and over again to stop, he repented, apologized, promised not to do it again, wept with guilt over his sin, loathed his sin. But the craving remained, and his flesh, week from years of addiction prior conversion, was always overpowered. Could he be more broken over his own sins? No. So I believe Joeโs physical body died, but his soal was saved. For more scriptural context, read Romans 7:14 to 8:17.
For Romans 8:38-39, this is what you said about when the believer sins, correct me if Iโm wrong - when a believer sins, God still loves us (the sin didnโt separate us from the love of God; the love of God is โin Christ;โ therefore, we must still be โin Christโ and still saved). The shepherd goes after his sheep (notice they are still his sheep, they didnโt become goats because they sinned)
For the revelation verses and parables, I interpret it as warning people to believe sooner than later. I think those who are not awake are not believers, but a believer has received, heard, kept, repented, and are waiting and will continue to do all those things. โbeing confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.โ Philippiansโฌ โญ1โฌ:โญ6โฌ. โfor it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.โ Philippiansโฌ โญ2โฌ:โญ13โฌ
Iโll get to this soon. Iโm a bit drained from working on some other stuff in BM
So, let's say that a person gets truly saved and born again. There is no doubt that they got saved, as they repented of their sins, confessed that Jesus is Lord, believed in their heart, all those things that are necessary for salvation. But then later on down the road, they go astray and go back into their old lifestyle of sin for several months or years. If that person dies in that condition, will they still make it to heaven?
Now, before we go on, I'd like to ask you a question, Will.
Regarding 8:38-39, notice it doesn't say that sin cannot separate us from God's love. That is the one thing that can and does separate a person from God's love. Now, when we as believers sin, God doesn't stop loving us. He goes after those who stray, like the shepherd after his lost sheep. For those who have left this earth and gone to hell, though, they are separated from God's love, and sin is the cause.
Ok, so, I think I agree with you about stages of sanctification. However, where I would disagree is about a person's position not being able to change. In the verses in Revelation, if you look at what Jesus said would happen to them if they do not repent, it's clear that there would be dire consequences. "Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth." (Rev 2:16) "'So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you." Now, according to the parables that Jesus told about being ready, those who were not ready and waiting when he came were those that were left outside in the darkness. Also, those that Jesus fights against with the sword of his mouth aren't the ones that are going to be making it to heaven.
if it isnt too much could u respond to all those points Roger? id like to see your stance but its alright if its too much ๐
Sorry thatโs a lot, the main part is the last few sentences of the post below. I was trying to define some terms. โ My next verse is Romans 8:38-39, โFor I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor THE FUTURE, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.โ This verse says the future cannot separate you from God. The future. Period. That means anything in the future, like your future sins, will not change your POSITION in Godโs love. โญโญ
What I am arguing is that our position in God's kingdom cannot change after the moment of salvation. But whether you are progressing in sanctification to be like Christ can change. The verses you are sharing are about progressive sanctification. For instance, Ephesians 2:5 is talking about UNBELIEVERS being dead and then coming alive - itโs a POSITIONAL change of spiritual death to spiritual life. Revelation, however, is talking to BELIEVERS about their PROGRESSION in becoming like Christ. To say the word โdeathโ means the same things is equivocation, the difference in contexts makes it clear the meaning is different. Nowhere do those verses say your salvation is at stake, however, it is clear they were not putting enough effort into becoming like Christ.
2nd, is progressive sanctification where you grow steadily to be more like Christ. 2 Corinthians 3:18 - "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit." โ Philippians 3:12 - "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own." (the third one is being perfected fully after we die, which I think we agree on).
To interpret those verses as meaning you can lose your salvation is logically inconsistent with the definition of eternal life. To have eternal life means you CANNOT die. Now, if you have a logical inconsistency, it must mean your interpretation of the verses is wrong. What I propose is a logically consistent approach to those verses. This is that there are 3 stages of sanctification. โ 1st, is the moment of salvation where your POSITION from death to life changes - "Ephesians 2:5 - even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christโby grace you have been saved." โ Colossians 1:13 - "He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son," โ 2 Corinthians 5:17 - โtherfore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed awayโ behold new things have come.โ
Secondly, to answer the other verses: yes, we have eternal life, but we must hold onto it; so there's a part we have to do. 1 Tim 6:12: "Fight the good fight of the faith. TAKE HOLD of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses." Jesus told five of the seven churches that they needed to repent. He even told the church in Sardis: "I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but YOU ARE DEAD. Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and REPENT." (Rev 3:1b-3) Also, he told the church in Ephesus (and this is a clear example of apostasy), "Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first." (Rev 2:4-5b) See, they were at a great height in their faith previously, but then they fell away and were told to repent.
So, about 1 John 1:9, I'd say that yes, it says confession, but repentance and confession go together. So we confess our sins and repent of them. But, even if that's not clear enough, there's 2 Tim 2:19, which says: "Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: the Lord knows those who are his, and everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must TURN AWAY (i.e. repent) from wickedness." So that's clearly saying that those who profess Christ (and that includes us) must repent from sin. And we have to continually turn ourselves away from it.
Here is my first set of verses: โeven when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),โ Ephesians 2:5
โFor God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.โ John 3:16
These two verses make clear that you were spiritually dead, but Christ has made us alive. Being alive means we have eternal life. Eternal life means that you cannot die; eternal life isnโt eternal life if you can die, that would be a self-contradiction. To die means to be spiritually dead, not physically dead - so if you have eternal life, you cannot become spiritually dead again. i.e. you canโt lose your salvation because you have eternal life.
I think you have to skip through a lot of scripture to believe that's how those verses should be interpreted. Hopefully, some of the ones I share will make that clear. I will just say, being forgetful doesn't seem tantamount to losing salvation, just because it says past sins doesn't necessarily mean it excludes present and future - there are others verses that make this clear. - For 1 John 1:9 - I believe that it is about maintaining a healthy relationship with God, not salvation. Also, I want to point out the word for confess means to acknowledge sin - this is not repentance because repentance means to turn from sin - so 1 John 1:9 is not even talking about repentance, just confession.
Ok, sure ๐ Btw, one of the verses I was going to share in regards to whether we are forgiven of all past, present, and future sins at the time of salvation is 2 Peter 1:9: "But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his PAST sins." Notice it doesn't say "past, present, and future sins". Also, 1 John 1:9 clearly says that only IF we confess our sins, can we receive God's forgiveness. The forgiveness doesn't come automatically. Yes, Jesus blood was shed for all our sins, but we have to repent of our sins (and you can't repent for future sins) in order to receive that forgiveness.
I think itโs time we switched places ๐
. I have some verses Iโd like you to respond that I hope show there absolutely is a biblical basis for Godโs sustaining grace of those who believe
Saying we need to repent to remain saved is putting the cart before the horse. I believe we are only able to have saving faith through God's enabling, and so we are only able to keep repenting through God's sustaining. His grace is active in enabling and sustaining. The sustaining in fact brings us to repentance, and yes I believe God sustains us beginning at the moment of salvation.
So, do you believe that when a person repents at the point of salvation, that their past, present, and future sins are all forgiven? If so, there is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that says that, and in fact, I have proof from the Bible that shows that doctrine is false.
Ok, so since you just said (and I agree) that saving faith includes repentance, then wouldn't it make perfect sense that in order to REMAIN saved, we must repent of our sins? After all, repentance isn't just a one time thing. If we veer off course later on in our walk, we must repent (turn around), in order to get back on the path. (Again, I've already stated what I believe regarding at what point a person would lose their salvation, so we don't have to go over that again).
Saving faith is more than knowing, or believing. It includes repentance as well - this state is then sustained and preserved by God. Philippians 1:6 โAnd I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.โ
I think they didnโt have saving faith, because if they did they would not have left and returned to their prior evil. โThey went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.โ โญโญ1 Johnโฌ โญ2โฌ:โญ19โฌ. And to be one who goes out is a worse rejection of truth, than to have never known the truth at all
Hmmm, here's one ๐ "If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning." (2 Pt 2:20)
Any more verses for me to analyze?
@RottenE.G.S. thanks for telling me about the exegesis for that verse! I never knew that before and it makes a lot of sense.
I also don't think that this text directly answers the question of whether it is cut off in a corporate sense or cut off in an individual sense. however, based on the context of corporate people groups, I would tend to believe the second one
So I guess where I would disagree with you is that gentiles who are non believers are not part of a corporate covenant of God. God had a corporate covenant with Israel where more Israelites were saved (in a personal covenant with God) than any other people group. Salvation was mainly for Israel. Israel was God's chosen people, his special possession. However, not all Israelites in the covenant were saved. In the same way, God granted Gentiles corporately his favor in salvation, ie. that more gentiles believed than the Jews. however, not all the gentiles in the "corporate covenant" are saved. What I believe Paul is saying is that if the Gentiles corporately are unfaithful like the Jews were, God can cut them off as he cut off the Jews. I think it is important to note that the Jews being cut off does not mean that those who were saved among the Jews lost their salvation, but instead that the nation in general was cut off from God's special favor in salvation due to their unbelief. the way paul uses "broken off" in relation to the Jews is the same way he uses "broken off" in relation to the Gentiles
Regarding what you said about Romans 11:22, you said "they" (meaning the Gentiles) "can also be cut off, or removed from the covenant." Yes, exactly, but the fact that they can be removed means that they were a part of the covenant beforehand, which can only be the case for a Gentile if they once got saved. As I said, Gentiles who are non believers never became apart of the covenant.
I don't think that this text answers that question
regarding 2 timothy 2:11-13. I don't think we have much disagreement here. What Paul is saying is very straightforward: If we deny Christ, he will deny us. I don't see how this verse can be take any differently. I think we disagree on the issue of who the people who deny Christ are. I think you would say that they were at one point believers, and I would say that they are basically wolves in sheep's clothing, people who look like they are christians but who have actually never been saved
I think this article will be helpful in clearing things up: https://www.monergism.com/blog/do-cut-olive-branches-romans-11-definitively-prove-salvation-can-be-lost
@roger. In this context Paul is talking about the salvation of nations in general, not individual people. He's basically warning the gentiles not to become proud toward the Jews, because like the Jews, they also can become cut off, or removed from the covenant of God like the Jews were.
also, believing that Jesus is Lord is more than being 100 percent convinced that he is Lord. satan knows that Jesus is Lord 100 percent, however he is not saved. I think that the idea in this verse is more submitting to Christ Lordship over your life.
@bobby. I think this comes from a misunderstanding of the verse. I think we have to realize what this is saying in its context. one of the first rules of biblical hermeneutics (interpretation of the text) is that we have to understand what the verse would have meant to its original audience. in the historical context of that verse, one was required to burn incense to Caesar, and admit that Caesar was lord. if you publicly confessed anyone was lord except for Caesar, you would lose everything. Romansis basically saying: if you truly believe that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead (right doctrine in the essential or primary issues) and are willing to die and lose everything for it (confess with your mouth), then you can be sure that you are truly saved.
@roger. Matthew Henry definitely believed all the doctrines of grace, including the preservation of the saints. so he's not saying that they can lose their salvation in that commentary
Iโll definitely respond to this after final :)
In other words, God didn't graft in Gentiles who weren't saved to begin with, and then cut them off bc they didn't get saved. Paul said, speaking to Roman believers, "kindness to YOU, provided that YOU continue in his kindness. Otherwise YOU also will be cut off."
2. Regarding Romans 11:22, it actually isn't out of context at all. Yes, Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles, but the only way that the Gentiles are grafted in in the first place is through becoming a believer. So, he's saying that the Gentiles who have gotten saved and have been grafted in could be cut off if they do not continue in God's kindness and instead have unbelief. So, the Israelites were cut off bc of unbelief. The remaining elect are those of the Jews that got saved. We are the Gentile believers that have been grafted in.
Ok, here's my response. 1. Regarding 2 Tim 2:11-13, I'd like to quote from Matthew Henry's commentary on the passage which very clearly shows how verses 12 and 13 go together, as you said they seem to contradict one another. Here it is: "He is faithful to his threatenings, faithful to his promises; neither one nor the other shall fall to the ground, no, not the least, jot nor tittle of them. If we be faithful to Christ, he will certainly be faithful to us. If we be false to him, he will be faithful to his threatenings: he cannot deny himself, cannot recede from any word that he hath spoken, for he is yea, and amen, the faithful witness....If we deny him, out of fear, or shame, or for the sake of some temporal advantage, he will deny and disown us, and will not deny himself, but will continue faithful to his word when he threatens as well as when he promises." I think that sums it up very well.
I believe that a saving faith always leads to repentance and doing good works. โWhat use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?โ โญโญJamesโฌ โญ2โฌ:โญ14. We see in James that a โfaithโ that does not lead to works is not saving faith. It means if your faith doesnโt lead you good works, then that is a mark that you have not been saved. If a person has saving faith, they are sustained and kept by God forever: โThe Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.โ โญโญ2 Timothyโฌ โญ4โฌ:โญ18โฌ
โThe one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.โ โญโญMatthewโฌ โญ13โฌ:โญ20โฌ-โญ21โฌ
They are like the seeds that grew quickly, but in reality had no roots: โOthers fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.โ โญโญMatthewโฌ โญ13โฌ:โญ5โฌ-โญ6โฌ. In other words, a person with no root withers and falls away, while a true Christian has deep roots and will not wither away.
Hi Bobby, in the case of those who believe for a while and then leave forever. I believe that they never had a saving faith because if they had, they never wouldโve left. โThey went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.โ 1 John 2:19
I mean everyone sins until they die of course, I mean that the hypothetical me who rejects God a year later completely rejects God and makes no attempt to follow him
hmm, once saved always saved? how does that work, let's say I'm 100 percent convinced Jesus is Lord and I confessed with my mouth- basically prayed the prayer and meant it, but then a year later decide that I'd rather sin, then continue sinning the rest of my life, am I saved?
Sorry, I've been really busy, so the response might be awhile ๐
2. Romans 11:22 - this is probably the most out of context verse youโve given me yet. If you read the whole chapter, Paul is very clearly talking about Jews and Gentle, not individual peopleโs faith. So itโs saying the Jews, aside from a remnant called โthe elect,โ have been cut off, and the gentle have been grafted in. But the Jews could be grafted back in if they become Christians, and the gentiles could be cut off if they are not believers. (Example: generation of Gentile/Jewish believers = grafted in, but generation of unbelieving Gentile/Jewish people = cutoff except for a remnant called โthe electโ). It doesnโt have anything to do with the security of individual Christianโs eternity
1. Iโm not sure how you think a passage that claims those who donโt endure will be denied, and God is faithful when weโre faithless in the same breathe is straightforward. In fact, the more Iโve researched it the less intuitive the passage is. Non-OSAS tend to groups sentence 1 and 2 into one and focus on sentence 3 while ignoring sentence 4. Easy-believists tend to focus on sentence 1 and 4 while ignoring sentence 3. The deny=reward people focus on sentence 2 and 3, and say passage 1 and 4 are the same. Anyway, I donโt like any of the interpretations because they just reach their own preferred conclusion based on how they group the sentences. So, because of the lack of grammatical and contextual clarity, I donโt think any theological claims should be based on 2 Tim 2:11-13 alone
I almost have a response ready ๐
Next verse: "Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:22) So, he's clearly saying that if we do not continue in God's kindness (which in the context, would be due to unbelief), we will be cut off.
In answer to your question the grace period, it's bc some ppl do not repent, and then they end up falling away. So, even if God knows that a person will eventually repent, that still doesn't change their actual status before they repent, just as an unsaved person isn't considered saved before they get saved, just bc God knows that they will eventually get saved.
First, tbh, that article seems a little too unnecessarily complicated to try and explain a verse that is rather straightforward if you just read it as a lay person ๐
But anyhow, I still have more verses to share, so just keep that in mind ๐๐
And of course I look at the bible to see if what they are saying makes sense in context
@RottenE.G.S Alpha, I usually use gotquestions as a starting point. I also use Desiring God and the book linked at this site called Eternal Security (though I don't agree with everything the book says) https://seekknockfind.org/defending-the-biblical-doctrine-of-eternal-security-osas/
I didn't realize you believed in grace periods, that changes things a bit. In fact, in might make our beliefs functionally the same. Although, I don't really see why it's necessary. For instance, if God knows a person will repent, why change their status from saved to on grace period or something like that
Here is an article about 2 Timothy 2:11-13 from the perspective of denial meaning a loss of reward: https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/secure-yet-scrutinized-2-timothy-211-13/
I almost have an answer ready, problem send it tomorrow
btw, will, do you usually go to gotquestions.org for answers to your theological questions?
@will and roger: you both have really good points
Wow, it must have taken a lot of work to make this group. Nice job Will, esp with all the interesting links
Lol, yeah it private at one point, but that was just temporary so that we could exchange some secret info ๐๐
I donโt plan on that happening again
on the Theo discussions I said I would respond and itโs been almost a year โน๏ธ
hopefully that doesnt mean what it meant in the debate group ๐ค
I have a paper to write this week for a class, so I probably won't be able to respond for a bit
3. There are actually verses in the Bible that show that someone's name can be blotted out of the book of life. Rev 3:5: "He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels." He's saying that only those who overcome will have their names be kept in the book of life. If someone does not overcome, their name will be blotted out. Exodus 32:32-33 "But now, please forgive their sinโbut if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.โ 33 The Lord replied to Moses, โWhoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book."
2. I believe that when we sin, we are under a grace period, where Jesus is interceding for us (1 John 2:1) and God gives us time to repent (Rev 2:21). But if we just continue on without repenting and let sin build up in our lives, that's where we can end up drifting away from the Lord and ultimately forfeiting our salvation.
1. I don't see how "If we deny" could not imply possibility, as the other parts of that saying are not only justย possibilities, but scenarios that actually happen:ย "If we died with him", "if we endure", "if we are faithless". All of those are actual possible scenarios for a believer, not just unbelievers. Also, so you're saying that when it says "he will also disown us", it just means "we'll lose our reward"? That doesn't seem to make sense...
Sorry, too late, Henry ๐๐
4: Also, Jesus said he prayed that Peterโs faith would not fail. So, I take it literally that Peterโs faith did not fail. Finally, why would God put Peterโs name in the book of life, then scratch it out, then put it back in? Especially if He knew Peter would repent?
3: About repentance: I believe in two kinds of repentance. The first is a state of repentance. In the sacrificial system, each act of repentance was accompanied by sacrifice(s) to atone for sins. Now, we only have one sacrifice for all sins for all time, which implies the need for only one repentance (Hebrews 12:5-13). It comes from deciding to switch your allegiance and identity with the world, to allegiance and identity in Christ. The second kind of repentance is the living out of the first repentance. If you sin, you repent, not because you lost salvation, but because you are still in a state of repentance. You may still struggle with sin, but your identity is in Christ and not with evil (Romans 7:18-8:1). This is the repentance from Luke 22:32: Peter is returning, not to the faith, but to fellowship with Jesus
2: Thank you for pointing that out about what word was used. So, I think that even if they use the same word, the context of the other two passages is different from Matt 26, which means the word doesnโt necessarily have the same implications that it has in the context of the other two passages.
1: โIf we denyโ doesnโt necessarily imply possibility, and โwe/usโ could include those who only appear to believe. 2 Tim 2 is also about doing good deeds for eternal reward, so the context could mean itโs talking about a loss of a heavenly reward. Note: there are three interpretations of these passages that I know of: deny = of unbelievers, deny = loss of a reward, and deny = loss of salvation. I think the idea of losing salvation is contradictory to many other scriptures and is not logical, so I think the other two interpretations are more likely. And I can present the arguments for both too.
Can you repeat the secret markerman?
Hereโs my response to the your last posts
Alright, I'm gonna delete the secret now ๐๐
I wonโt tell anyone since Roger already knows
Hey, Markerman, do you want the group private for this? ๐
hey Will can i tell u a secret? can i trust u wont share with other
You saw what I said in the c***** ***** group, right? Just checking, cuz if you have, I'm going to go ahead and delete the group.
Ok, the group's public again
Yeah definitely, so much easier to think
Lol, yeah ๐ I definitely much prefer this kind of calm, logical, one-on-one debating with Will, vs the chaotic "going around in circles" method with multiple ppl all debating real time ๐
all the action moved from the theological debate group to here
Thirdly, even though Peter did fall away, his faith ULTIMATELY did not fail, bc he repented, and Jesus reinstated him, in John 21. As you pointed out, Jesus said in Luke 22:32, "once you have returned again". That means "to revert (literally, figuratively or morally): - come (go) again, convert, (re-) turn (about, again)". Essentially that's the definition of repentance. So Peter was restored to the faith bc he repented.
Second, even though Mat 10:33 and Mat 26 don't use the same Greek word, they mean the same thing essentially. Plus, later on in Mat 26:70, when it tells of Peter's denial, the Greek word it uses is the same one in Mat 10:33, meaning Peter denied Jesus in the exact way that Jesus spoke of in Mat 10:33.
Ok, so first, I don't believe that it's only unbelievers that Jesus was saying could deny him. Bc 2 Tim 2:12 also says: "If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;ย " Paul here is using the words "we" and "us", referring to those who are believers. And the Greek word for deny in that verse is the same one used in Mat 10:33.
Part 3: Finally, Luke 22:31 means Peterโs faith did not fail him despite his denial. This verse says, โBut I have prayed for you,ย Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.โ Note: the greek word for โturned backโ is โepistrephรณโ which means literally โto return.โ Also note the wording of the passage: Jesus says, โthat your faith may not fail. And when you have returned,โ which means faith not failing and returning both can happen at the same time. It implies Peterโs faith had not failed him because he returned. This also means, Peter did not need to be reconverted because his faith had not failed him in the first place.
Point 2: Matthew 10:33 and Matthew 26 also use two different greek words for โdenyโ, suggesting that the passages are not meant to be connected. The greek word arnฤsฤtai for 10:33 means to deny with the connotation of contradicting, the greek word aparnฤsฤ means to deny with the connotation of denying association with something or of ignoring something. The words suggest 10:33 means a person is in complete contradiction of the gospel and Jesus, while the Matthew 26 means Peter was not fully contradicting despite his outward denial.
Point 1: Matthew 10 is a the passage where Jesus is sending out the disciples to preach to unbelievers in Israel. In verses 28-32, Jesus says they should not fear those who can only destroy the body because God knows even when a sparrow is killed let alone his disciples. Therefore, they should not fear because they acknowledge Jesus before others. Those who do deny Jesus (I.e. those who destroy the body/unbelievers) will be denied by Jesus. So because of the context of the passage, I believe that those who deny Jesus in the verse is referring to unbelievers.
Ok, so, the two passages you are referring to are Matthew 10:33, โBut whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also
deny before my Father which is in heaven.โ and Matthew 26:69-75 which is the story of Peter denying Jesus. Right?
Plus, even Peter fell away by denying Christ, and he had previously been a true disciple. If Peter had not repented after denying Christ, he wouldn't have been saved, bc Jesus said that whoever disowns him before men, he will disown before the Father. So Peter is an actual biblical example of a true believer that committed apostasy.
But remember that when Jesus was saying this, Judas was not even around. Plus, in John 6:35-40, he says "whoever comes to me I will never drive away." So, yes, Jesus is not going to drive someone away from him, but if they themselves wander away from him, then they are no longer "in the fold" so to speak. So that's why Jesus is telling us to REMAIN in Him.
Jesus gives direct confirmation that faith is secure assured in John 3:16โ17; 6:35โ40; 10:27โ29. John 6:35-40 is especially relevant because it says those who come to Christ will never be cast out, unlike the unfruitful branches in verse 15:6. So, I believe the passage is saying those who do not remain are like branches that were never properly connected to get the nutrients and ability to make fruit, and if they had been properly connected to the vine they wouldโve born fruit - this is very similar to Matthew 13:20-21 where the plants that grew but never had any roots are the ones that died. Lastly, two possible reason Jesus told this to his desiples is: Judas Iscariot was one that was never really connected (stole money and betrayed Jesus), and also to show what being connected to the vine looks like
Well what about John 15:4-6? Jesus is telling his own disciples (who were obviously true followers of Christ) to remain in Him. And He said in verse 6: "If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." So, why would Jesus be telling true believers (His disciples) to remain in Him, if it was impossible for them NOT to remain in Him? ๐ค "Remain in me, and I will remain in you." (v4) So, if we DON'T remain in Him, and choose to walk away, Jesus will not remain in us, which means that He was actually in us to begin with.
Also, look at Matthew 13:20-21, which explains that those who fall away never had roots, and 1 John 1:18-19 which explains that those who leave the faith during the end times were never of us. So, if you are not a believer with roots (ie not a true believer), you will fall away, but if you are a true believer, you have all of those verses supporting the idea that God will sustain you
I agree that only those who stand firm will be saved. And if you are a believer, God will sustain you so that you will stand firm. This is a list of some of the verses that point to God's sustaining power which is in us through the indwelling of His Spirit: Isaiah 46:4, Isaiah 43:2, Psalm 54:4,ย Psalm 55:22, Psalm 73:26, Philippians 4:19, 2 Thessalonians 3:3, Isaiah 26:3, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 41:13, Hebrews 1:3, Isaiah 40:29, Isaiah 41:10, Nahum 1:7, Lamentations 3:22-23, Romans 6:14, Nehemiah 9:6, Romans 8:28, Acts 17:25, John 16:33, 2 Timothy 1:7, Proverbs 30:5, Psalm 48:14, Acts 2:21, Philippians 1:6, 2 Peter 1:21, 1 Peter 5:10, 2 Corinthians 13:4, Jude 1:24-25, 2 Timothy 1:12, Psalm 18:35, Psalm 18:39, Psalm 89:21, Colossians 1:17, 2 Corinthians 12:9
"At that time many will TURN AWAY FROM THE FAITH and will betray and hate each other...Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he WHO STANDS FIRM TO THE END will be saved." (Matt 24:10,12-13, emphasis added) He's saying that many will turn away from the faith (Greek word used here means: To โscandalizeโ; from G4625; to entrap, that is, trip up (figuratively stumble [transitively] or entice to sin, APOSTASY or displeasure): - (make to) offend.) It says that ONLY those who stand firm to the end will be saved, not just anyone who once became a Christian, since there will be those that fall away/apostatize.
Cool. And as I said, I think the verse is very applicable to our lives, but I would take too long to explain it for what we're doing ๐
Ok, next verse (I had another couple verses from the Old Testament, but I'm going to leave those out, since you'll basically say the same thing ๐ I still believe they apply though, and you can take a look at them when I add the collection later)
Ok, well at least it wasn't too long of a response ๐
๐ I had a feeling you'd say that, but I have plenty of New Testament verses coming, so hold on to your seat ๐๐ And I still believe that it applies to believers under the new covenant, as we are the Lord's saints. In the verse, that meant "the Jews", but that's what it meant to its original hearers, and it can still be applied to our lives today, as many things in the Old Testament can.
That doesn't mean Psalm 85:8 is inapplicable to Christians, but I'm already going way past 1 sentence, so... yeah
In Psalm 85 verses 1-3, God is said to have restored Israel in the past, but in verses 4-9 the psalmist is asking God to restore Israel again and shows how Israel can be restored. This means that the Jews can and did fall away from atonement and needed to be restored again. Jews can fall away because they are under the sacrificial system, which means they have to repent (with sacrifices) in order to stay covered by atonement. Christians are under a new covenant in which there is one sacrifice and one repentance continual for all time, the difference is laid out clearly in Hebrews 10:1-18.
Sorry, this is more than one sentence, I had to look at the broader context of the passage to get a full understanding of the verse's meaning, especially that "his people" and "his saints" in this context is referring specifically to faithful Jews.
Uhh...the sentence would be nice ๐
๐คฃ
Would you like a sentence response, or seven posts?๐จ๐ปโ๐ป
I will probably have the same answer for some of them that are more similar
"I will listen to what God the LORD will say; he promises peace to his people, his saints- but let them not return to folly." (Psalm 85:8) Here he's warning the Lord's saints not to return to folly (sin), which means that it is possible for that to happen with a true believer.
It's about 50 verses, btw ๐
Alright, so these are verses that show it is definitely possible for
a saved person (not just someone who was supposedly saved) to backslide and fall away from the Lord. I'll do them one at a time and add a brief comment after each one.
Ok, well, I had a few more questions, but we can go on to the verses now
I'm not trying to contradict what he's saying, I'm just trying to summarize it
So, basically number 3 is a yes?
So, 1. Yes, he's saying that rebellion and idolatry are sins. 2. Yes, I think he's grouping faults, failures, and sins in the same category, so just basically using different synonyms to describe the same thing. 3. So, basically, if you look at Col 1:22-23, it says: "But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusationโ" Then God lists the conditions for this to be so IN HIS SIGHT. ""IF you continue in the FAITH (in his covering) grounded and settled (confident), and be not moved away from the HOPE OF THE GOSPEL (this Good News) ..." So, we are no longer going to be considered blameless and holy in God's sight when we rebel or commit idolatry, bc when we do those things, we remove ourselves out from underneath the atonement covering. Obviously, that doesn't mean that we cannot ever go back, bc we can by repenting, and God will forgive any sin if we repent (unless it's the unforgivable sin, ofc)
Though Iโm not sure I was very clear what I meant. What I wanted to know was: 1. Does he consider rebellion and idolatry sins? 2. Are faults and failures synonyms for sin, or are they different things? 3. If idolatry and rebellion are sins, then that means some sins are covered by atonement and some are not. Right? (Man being the active agent in this) [Iโm trying to ask simpler yes/no type questions, so we can get on to the verses soon]
So, shall we go through those verses I mentioned? ๐
It has to do with the free will of man. One can choose to walk away from the Lord (which is called apostasy), and at that point they are no longer saved.
I think what he's saying is that when someone commits rebellion or idolatry, they are removing themselves out from under the atonement cover. He said "It is not that God removes the covering, it is not that God goes down and looks under it, but man removes himself. Look at the life of Israel and you will find that whenever God smote them and punished them, it was because of rebellion and idolatry."
Also, I recreated the OSAS Affirmed Verses Collection
At one point, he says there is an edge beyond which the covering does not reach. He says the edge is crossed when someone rebels or commits idolatry, but the diagram says God sees Holiness instead of sin. Is he saying that some sins are not rebellion and idolatry and those are covered, but the sins of rebellion and idolatry are not covered?
It was an interesting article. I like the diagram too. I definitely agree that grace is not a license to sin, and that God is a God of love and of wrath. I did have a point I wanted clarified
Alright, I posted the article in there for you ๐
The link goes to a blog and I have all .blogspot domains blocked on my phone
@Markerman, you're welcome ๐; yeah, I understand what you are talking about, and there's definitely nothing wrong with needing to be reminded of the grace of God, as it is crucial. ๐
Hmm...I can guess I could do that, but it's gonna be a little messy, probably ๐ค๐
If you're on the app, you can just manually the type the link into your browser, since it's really short, or you can go onto the website and copy and paste the link ๐
Lol, thanks, I'll add the collection once I'm done going thru them with you ๐
should be called Copy/paste
You are invited to the "Copy/paste" Bible memorization group: https://biblememory.com/group/app/4f3e5c9993/
I canโt access the link, would it be possible for you to copy/paste the text into a different group, so I can read it?
I gave you admin roll so you should be able to add it
fyi the connection I deleted was the one for this group ๐คช
thanks ๐ i get hung up on the warning part bc of how i grew up so i find myself needing to read more scripture on Godโs love and grace since i can forget that part too easily but clearly remember the other part, and enemy likes to use the warning verses against me when i lose sight of the grace part ๐
๐
Just as an added thought, I know what you mean that there are definitely those times when what we need to hear more about is the aspect of God's grace and forgiveness, vs warnings against sin. But some ppl (I'm not saying you ๐
) can get too hung up on the grace part, and they forget the other aspect. So it's important to keep a good balance btwn the two.
Yeah, I know it can be frightening to hear the warnings, but they're there for our protection, to help us have a healthy fear of the Lord. But like you said, we can't let fear take over and rule. Just remember that the Lord is loving, gracious and forgiving, and there's that balance between the grace of God and the sternness of God. "Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (Romans 11:22-23) God gives us warnings because He loves us, not because He is eager to condemn us when we screw up. That's what His grace is there for. He's not expecting us to try to do it all on our own. Hope that helps ๐ค
thanks that was helpful especially the painting and the scripture references ๐ but ill be honest the warnings part wasnt building up to me tho since im fully aware of them but being told in the way it was told only makes me fear in the wrong way since i am far from being perfected in love to have that kind of that fear cast out ๐
i will end up doing stuff out of fear of punishment instead of love for God which is why for me at least i need to hear grace more to not sin ๐
๐
Yeah, I'm just surprised I didn't discover it sooner ๐
First, though, it would be great if you and Markerman could take a look at this article my dad wrote about the Keeping Power of God. It will help clearly explain what my beliefs are on the matter. Let me know what you guys think ๐ https://tinyurl.com/3xdpfjzh
i had a feeling ud come across it sooner or later ๐๐
So, I don't really want to get into a huge, full-blown debate (cuz it's VERY time-consuming ๐), but maybe I can just post a verse one at a time, and see what your comments are on them, Will ๐
Will, you should add my collection "Apostasy Warnings" to the group, lol ๐
Hey, just discovered this while looking thru the group list ๐
like the ppl who believe someone can lose their salvation by intentionally sinning and not repenting but then ig u can srgue that they didnt have the saving faith
doesnt grace cover if we didnt do it intentionally
Also, your right. We shouldn't test grace, but statistically you will sin at some point, right? And you are statistically more likely to do certain sins than others. So, for example, how do you know whether something like forgetting to turn the lights off multiple times doesn't make you unsaved?
No. I mean they were all the common verses about security of faith, so I could find them again. It would just take a long time
do u have the verses recorded elsewhere ๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ
but if you sre saved you wouldnt want to keep testing grace right
good question. probably something i dont want to test to find out whether there is a cobweb or just Godโs grace
I just accidentally deleted the OSAS Affirmed Verses collection ๐ญ
So, to continue with and metaphor though. it begs the questions, how many sins does it take to cut the cobweb so you arenโt saved anymore? and do certain kinds of sins cut more than others?
Thatโs fine. I didnโt have a strong opinion about for a long time
hard for me to stick with one
just to note i dont have a strong belief in either one and like to hear both sides
yeah i think so at least im asking from the side of being able to lose salvation
I like your use of the analogy with the cobweb. Am I correct that you mean the cobweb is God holding us up through his grace, then if we sin that cuts the cobweb, and after enough cuts the cobweb breaks and we are no longer saved?
You being up a good point about the cobweb
Iโll probably ask the question at some point
u should ask that wuestion in theological discussion ๐๐
what if johnny had a cobweb so many threads would have to be cut before he would face wrath of being unsaved
(I donโt mean that as a rhetorical question, Iโm genuinely curious to know how non-OSAS know that they arenโt condemned 99% of the time)
What other solutions are there so that you are not under the wrath of God for 99% of every day?
Part 2: The point I want to make about OSAS is this. Recall how Johnny was only saved for several minutes of the day because any one of his sins immediately made him unsaved again. To be unsaved means you are that wicked spider that God could justly send to hell for all eternity whenever he wants. An unbeliever is under the wrath of God, and his justice could come at any time.
Part 1: The main point of the sermon is that the unbeliever is condemned by God. They are condemned for the wickedness of their sins. The only reason God hasnโt sent the unbeliever to hell is because of his mercy to let them live another day. Despite this mercy, the unbeliever is never safe because at any moment God could decide to let his divine justice rain down on them, and it would be Godโs pleasure to expunge their wickedness from the earth. That is why the Bible calls unbelievers vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and says he is willing to show his wrath (Romans 9:22). The author of the sermon uses the analogy that an unbeliever is like a spider dangling by a thread over the pit of hell and that God may cut that thread at any moment He pleases. The conclusion urges unbelievers to repent and believe because to not believe means risking hellfire coming for them at any moment for all eternity future.
Anyway, if you get a chance to read it, itโs really good
no, itโs super old, so you can probably find a pdf somewhere
Well, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is only about 15 pages
but i like reading when i do read
or books at all except for textbooks but i just skim those ๐
no i havent reach much christian books ๐
๐
Have you ever read, Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God?
Iโll look into it, that might still take awhile cause they used a ton of scripture that Iโd need to put into context
now for the debate response ?? ๐๐
i see why it took so long now ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ฆ thanks ๐ฅฒ
I also added a case study of the Lordship Salvation branch of OSAS' effects on society as seen through the Puritans
Ok, finally posted it ๐
Here is the story of 16 year old Johnny. Johnny is a Christian and tries to obey God with his whole heart. But every time Johnny sins, he loses his salvation. Letโs take a look at Johnnyโs day, and see how often he goes from being Gods friend to Gods enemy in just a day. His alarm clock went off, but he got up at 7:01. His mom wanted him to be up at 7, so, technically, Johnny sinned. He is now a creature of darkness and wrath instead of being a creature of light. On his way out of his room to use the bathroom he forgot to clean the doorknob. Johnnyโs mom is a germaphobe and wants him to clean every doorknob before touching it. He usually does clean them because he wants to obey his parents despite them not always being reasonable, but he forgot this time. While brushing his teeth, he only brushed for 30 seconds instead of 1 minute as his father instructed many years ago. He also left the toilet seat up and used the wrong towel to dry his hands as he had been told not to do. He also used the wrong clothe to clean the doorknob on the way out of the bathroom. On his way down stairs, he walked too quickly and made noise.
His parents often complained of him making noise on the stairs. During his morning prayer, Johnny asked forgiveness for all his sins. He has now moved from old creature to new creature again because his sins of the morning were forgiven. After his prayer, he got up and forgot to turn off the lamp which father wanted kept off when not being used. He now moved from being a new creation back to being dead and unsaved. He then proceeded to not put the cereal box back in the pantry after using it which heโd often been scolded for. He also chewed with his mouth open twice, which often annoyed his mother - it was a repeated sin. It is now 8:00 am in Johnnyโs world. He left for school at 8:01, one minute after he was supposed to. In the car, Johnny prayed again for all his sins to be forgiven. He moved being an object of wrath to being in dwelled by the Holy Spirit. As soon as he was done praying, he noticed a billboard with an inappropriate picture on it. He thought about it a little too long before pushing it out of his mind. Which means the Holy Spirit left him, and he is now an object of wrath again. He apologized for it, so the spirit came back. After apologizing, he thought of how worried he was for his grades breaking the command to not worry. The spirit left him again because he sinned by worrying. He arrived at school at 8:15. He got to class, and he had a hard time paying attention (disrespectful to teacher), and he tapped his feet unconsciously which he had been told annoyed the person next to him. He also forgot to take notes as he has been told to do. The class was over at 9:30. He repeated the same three sins in the next two classes, not paying attention, tapping his feet annoyingly, and not taking notes.
At lunch, he sat next to his friend. He couldโve sat next to the kid sitting alone, but Johnny chose not to (sin of omission). He had sat next to lonely kids before, but today he chose not to even though there was someone sitting alone today. During his conversation with his friend, he judged his friend for using bad language while he himself often used words like gosh and darn as replacements for bad words. He also listened to his friend gossip without putting a stop to the gossip. Johnny also told a joke about the school bully that denigrated the bully instead of showing love to his enemy. He also felt a moment of hatred for a sinner/world leader, though it was so momentary he didnโt realize it. He also said the current US President doesโt know what heโs doing which is disrespect to authority. He also didnโt eat everything on his plate, which his parents said he should do. It is now 12:30 pm in Johnnyโs world. In the next class, Johnny repeated the three sins from before (not paying close attention, tapping foot, not taking notes). This time, however, he noticed a girl in front of him was pretty. A wrong thought appeared in his mind, and he let it stay there too long before pushing it away. He apologized to God for it. Unfortunately, he only apologized for that one sin and not all the otherโs, so he is still dead in his trespasses and sins (unsaved). He also started worrying about the homework heโd just been given, and felt resentful and bitter that he had to do it. At 3:30, school is out!
He goes to baseball practice now and judges his teammates for talking dirty. Although he tries not to, Johnny feels superior to his teammates because he didnโt talk dirty. At one point, he laughed at one of the course jokes from a teammates in spite of himself. He apologized for it to God, but he only apologized for that one sin, so he wasnโt restored to faith as he hadnโt asked for forgiveness from his other sins. His coach gave him an instruction, and Johnny didnโt listen the first time. Coach grudgingly repeated himself before commanding him again to listen the first time. He made a good catch in practice, and took the glory for himself instead of giving the glory to God. He thought something disrespectful about his coach for a second after being yelled at for missing an easy throw. At 4:30, Johnny drove home. He kept his eyes off the billboards, but he went over the speed limit numerous times. He also honked impatiently at a driver who was driving below the speed limit. He also checked a text on his phone which is illegal. He also passed by a beggar on the street without giving anything, though he did pray for the beggar and wished he had something to give. He also didnโt come to a complete stop at a stop sign which is illegal. He also forgot to turn on his turn signal while in a turn lane. At 4:45, he got home and locked the car, but accidentally left a light on in it which his dad said not to ever do. He then proceeded to leave the door unlocked after entering the house and forgot to take off his shoes. At 5:00, Johnny was on his phone instead of doing homework. His mom called him to dinner, and he didnโt come right away as heโd been told to do. At dinner, Johnny lied by saying he was doing fine when he was actually still worried about homework. He also lied by saying his friend was doing ok when his friend was actually struggling with severe depression and anxiety.
He held his fork the wrong way against parental instruction, sipped his drink loudly, and slurped his soup louder than his dad liked. He also chewed with his mouth open for a second which heโd been told not to ever do. After dinner, he forgot to put his plate in the dishwasher and put it in the sink instead, and he didnโt throw his napkin away as his parents wanted him to. He then proceeded to not do his best on his homework despite his parents urging him to do so. He also got distracted watching YouTube which his parents didnโt want him to watch. He caught himself and got back on track and finished his homework. He did forget to put his pencil away and left his computer on the table which was supposed to be cleared when not used. His mom asked him to get the mail, he went outside in his socks and no shoes on even though his mother told him never to go outside with socks on and no shoes. He got the mail out, one of the items had a picture of an attractive woman on it. An inappropriate image popped into his head, and he thought about it for a bit before pushing it out of his head. He apologized for it profusely to God, but he still hadnโt asked for forgiveness for his other sins throughout the day. He hit his toe on the step at the door and said gosh and darn which are replacements for bad words and imply the original terms. For the rest of the evening, he played Minecraft. While playing he chatted with his friends.
He said gosh and darn in the chat and was impatient with a user who didnโt know any of the controls. He also attacked a village unprovoked for fun. At 9:00, his mom told him to go to bed. He waited 5 minutes before getting off Minecraft instead of instantly obeying his mother. He brushed his teeth for too short a time again. He also left the bathroom light when he went to his room. Here, he did his evening prayers and asked for forgiveness for all his sins. He finally moved from being unsaved to saved again because his sins were forgiven after he asked forgiveness of them. Right after he was done praying, he changed into his pajamas and left his clothes on the floor which his parents clearly told him not to ever do. He then moved from being saved to unsaved again. In bed, he remembered he forgot to turn off the bathroom light but decided he was too tired to get up and turn it off. He went to sleep at 9:53 as an unsaved man. All together, Johnny spent less than 1 minute of his day as an born again saved believer. His sins here may be petty sins, but they are sins nonetheless, and we know you canโt be saved with unrepented of sin.
so just like the debate response ๐ฅฒ
Itโs school and stuff getting in the way
just like the debate response right
ok, itโll take a bit, but Iโll get on here soon
I just thought of an argument that shows how horrible life would be if a single sin means you are no longer saved, wanna hear it?
But yeah that pretty much summarizes it
There are multiple ways to think about free will that work
how does free will play into this? do u say that someone who chooses not to be saved was never saved in first place?
Ok, here is my thinking on this. Remember God knows everything about everyone all the time. So what could He be referring to when He says, โI never knew you.โ? He has to be referring the fact that He never knew them as a believer. Could it mean He knew them as a believer once, but then stopped believing in their heart, so itโs as if He never knew them? Letโs use your analogy to prove this couldnโt be the case. If your friends betrays you, then they are showing that they never really were your friend. Everything you thought you knew so well about them was a facade. When your friendship was under pressure, they showed they didnโt care for your friendship enough to stick with you. Their lack of faithfulness showed what was really in their heart. So, you in fact did not know them, even though you thought you did. Notice that a human may think and feel like they are friends with someone who is not actually a friend. God cannot do this (1 John 4:7-8, John 17:25, Psalm 5:4-6). God knows our heart from the beginning, and God is only ever in relationship with those whose heart is truly with Him. So, if someone says they believe when they do not believe in their heart and they die, God has never been in a relationship with them, so He says, โI never knew you.โ
Good point, I'll think about it for a while
technically he did know him as they were very close friends but its like he never knew him since he would betray his friend like that
what about someone saying to a once good friend i never knew you because of how bad he betrayed him
Probably that Hebrews 6:4-6 sounds like it refers to an actual case when a true believer can fall away. But put in the context of God having never known the lawless (including those who fall away)(Matthewโฌ โญ7:21-23โฌ), I think the Hebrews verse is talking about a hypothetical case that can't actually happen. In other words, the Hebrews verse is saying imagine this circumstance: if a true believer falls away, then they cannot be restored. Other verses show this doesn't actually happen, but if it did happen then this would be the result. But Roger would point to other verses that say believers can fall away, to which I would respond with verses that show people believing but not with their heart and then falling away, and that if the mind still affirms God's law even when the body doesn't, then you are still saved
i wonder how roger would respond
good points thanks for sharing
Part 6: In summary, part 1 says sinning does not mean you fell away by denying God because the Spirit in your inner-self still affirms Godโs law. Part 2 says that a true believer cannot be restored if they leave the faith (Hebrews 6:4-6). Part 3 says the one who left the faith never believed in the first place (otherwise, they could not be restored) and shows how people can give the appearance of believing without believing from the heart. Part 4 says God changes the heart of a believer. Part 5 says God changes the believerโs heart permanently.
Part 5: So we see that God changes our heart. But is this change of our heart permanent? Yes, โfor the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.โ (Romansโฌ โญ11:29โฌ). And just as this verse said that the gifts of God are irrevocable (irrevocable means irreversible), so it is that when you were given eternal life when you were saved, you logically cannot die. Also, recall the Ezekiel 11:19, your heart of stone was replaced with a heart of flesh; such a drastic change could not be more complete; imagine what it would take to undo that. (Add permanent seal verse)
Part 4: Their only hope then is that they were not true believers before, and when they become a true believer, God changes their heart forever. โAnd I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,โ (Ezekielโฌ โญ11:19โฌ). โBecause you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, โAbba! Father!โ (Galatiansโฌ โญ4:6โฌ). โI will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the Lord; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.โ (โญโญJeremiahโฌ โญ24:7โฌ). โFor God, who said, โLight shall shine out of darkness,โ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.โ โญโญ(2 Corinthiansโฌ โญ4:6โฌ). โFor this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people.โ (โญโญHebrewsโฌ โญ8:10โฌ).
Part 3 (continued 2): The man appears to believe, but the belief never takes root in his heart. Because he did not believe in his heart, he fell away. If he had believed in his heart, he would not have fallen away (see next part). Also, see that God has never known those who fall away (i.e. those who did not believe from the heart). โNot everyone who says to Me, โLord, Lord,โ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, โLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?โ And then I will declare to them, โI NEVER knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.โโ (โญโญMatthewโฌ โญ7:21-23โฌ). It isnโt that they knew God (which would mean they were saved) and then fell away, but they never knew God. So, those who fell away were not believers because they never believed in their heart even when they affirmed the gospel with their lips.
Part 3 (continued): According to scripture, I think it is not possible that a person who denies God in their heart was ever a true believer. They were those that affirmed a set of facts about God (aka easy-believism) but did not believe from their heart. โโThis people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me.โ (Matthewโฌ โญ15:8โฌ). โThe one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls awayโ(Matthewโฌ โญ13:20-21โฌ).
Part 3: So what hope is there for the believer who denies God and then returns to the faith? Many believers struggle with doubt and with whether they believe, and you have probably heard of those who decided they wanted nothing to do with God but later came back. If Hebrews 6:4-6 is interpreted as saying that such a person was a true believer and left the faith, then they canโt be resaved after leaving. So, we must ask ourselves whether the person who left was actually a true believer, because if they were a true believer they would not be able to be restored (Hebrews 6:4-6).
Part 2: It is asserted in part 1 that sinning does not mean you fell away (i.e. denied God in you heart) because the Spirit in your inner self still affirms God. But the question remains, can a believer actually make the decision to leave the faith? Letโs assume believers can lose their salvation by denying God in their heart. Hebrews 6:4-6 says such a person can never be restored to the faith: โFor in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is IMPOSSIBLE to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.โ (Hebrews 6:4-6). So, if it is possible for believers to deny God in their hearts after being saved, then it is impossible to be renewed afterwords because Christ would have to be crucified again. Thatโs pretty high stakes.
Part 1: Do you willfully deny God in your heart and fall away every time you sin? No, in fact Paul says he does not deny God when he sins. โFor I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in myย flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the goodย isย not. Forย the good that I want, I do not do, butย I practice the very evil that I do not want (notice how he says he practices what he does not want and this is after he has been saved). But if I am doing the very thing I do not want,ย I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God IN THE INNER MAN, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of deathโ (Romansโฌ โญ7:18-25โฌ, 8:1-2โฌ). We see Paulโs mind is in agreement with Godโs law even while his flesh wages was against it (notice how they exist simultaneously in the believer). The mind wins over the flesh because โโฆyou are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.โ โญโญ(Romansโฌ โญ8:9-10โฌ). Alive because of what righteousness? The concurrence of with the law of God in the inner man (see all caps), in other words, belief from the heart. So, even if you do not do the good you want to do but do what you hate (Romans 7:15-16), if you have the spirit of God, you are in alliance with God (Romans 8:1-11). And we know we have the spirit of God when put our faith in Jesus (Galatians 3:26 - you are sons of God through faith in Jesus, Galatians 4:6 - the sons of God are given the Holy Spirit).
I think that the answer is that a believer will not deny God because their will has been permanently transformed by God. If you want my very detailed answer explaining this let me know ๐
If I said yes, then that would mean I don't believe in OSAS. If I said no, than that would imply that I believe it's ok for believers to deny God. Neither of those are correct
Thatโs kind of a trick question
i think u said before in the theological group that ppl can lose their salvation if they reject inwardly in heart do u still believe that
Christian with disease - disease at fault Christian with no disease - could repent before they die โChristianโ with no disease and unrepentant - wasnโt a Christian in the first place because a born again new creation of God wouldnโt do that. Their actions demonstrated that they did not really believe
I donโt think thatโs their fault because itโs the diseaseโs fault.
that they wouldnt have done that thing if they were more clear headed
what if someone really believed in God wholeheartedly but was very sick with brain disease that is depression. then one day something just happened that they lost self control and did something that costed his her life that would maybe be ruled as suicide
yes but the other sides response also kinda made sense too but i forgot what it was ๐
I might respond soon, since I've been thinking about it a lot
What I mean is, anyone who is saved has eternal life (John 3:14-17, John 3:36, John 10:28). To have eternal life means you cannot die by definition (John 11:25โ26, also, the definition of eternal life). Death in the Bible means to not be saved (Ephesians 2:1). Therefore, if you are saved, you have eternal life and, thus, cannot die. In other words, if you are saved, you have eternal life and, thus, cannot lose your salvation because that would mean you died after you had been given eternal life. Does that make sense?
i looked at on the theological groups are u going to finish ur osas response there ?
Conditional eternal life is a self-contradiction
Although I believe the above argument sums up the matter completely:
ive read both arguments ๐ตโ๐ซ ill just stay in between ๐
๐