Once Saved Always Saved

[Corlove13]

"Tong2020, post: 1011611, member: 8685"]Pardon, but I just can’t quite understand. There is this “keeping the law through their flesh”,


The flesh is man's natural abilities ..

The law was used to show why they needed Jesus.

Yet it was a law after man current nature which was [fallen]

And that is how many sought to keep it by their natural abilities....

It was a law that kept the outside [covered] but could not cleanse the conscience

Let me try to think of an analogy:
I comand a daughter to pick up the
Piano without scraping or touching the ground with the foreknowledge she will need help and I will eventually supply her that help. But she doesn't know that.....
So she goes to pick it up and finds out she can't do it. My goal in giving her that command was so she would find out she needed help. My command is still the same...
But now I offer her Help...I give her 2 brothers..and she fullfills my command.

So before she was the direct source of lifting
But now she is no longer, because she has Help.......and with that help she fullfill my command.

Now this is not the best example...because it leave much falling short....but hope that helps. In some areas with...going back to what I've already written.

So to pick up the piano on her own...is not the source[way]....why because the new Source is Her brothers .....but the course is still picking up the piano.

The course generally is the way you want something done....rather the path or goal



“law as source of salvation” and “law no longer source of the flesh” which I really do not know what you meant by those. Anyway, no need to explain further. I’ll leave it at that.

Instead let us talk about what scriptures calls the righteousness of faith and the law of righteousness.

Would you tell me what is the law of righteousness that scriptures refer to and the righteousness of faith, in your reading of scriptures?
Give me a scripture and I'll do my best with the knowledge I have.
Tong

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
The parable is not about getting oneself saved .

But it is about receiving the word of God and being saved.

Nope. As you said it correctly, it is about fruitfulness or bearing fruit.

If you happen to read the parable again, it is really talking about the seed (the word of God) and how it grows and bears fruit, and not really about the soil (the person) and how it produces fruit. In the parable, it is not the soil that bears fruit but the seed sowed, that is, the word of God.

Tong
R3138

 

[GracePeace]

Here,
lets let the readers see you explain this, as you seem to love to try to explain your theology.
Fair enough?

Just explain this..

Explain how the Blood of Jesus that saved you, keeps you saved as your Eternal Security.

I reject eternal security.

 

[GracePeace]

Maybe it is but my point is once you are born you can't be unborn. And whatever you do, even denying Jesus we remain his children...

No, this is called "carnal reasoning"--where you consult your own logic rather than God's Word. If you'd consult God's Word you'd see we have precedent where God's children have become "no longer His Children" Deuteronomy 32:5.

 

[GracePeace]

Yet children can be disinherited and fail to inherit anything from their family.

Now read all the scriptures that speak of the inheritance of the saints, including inheriting everlasting life, inheriting the kingdom of Christ - then the warning by Paul to the brethren that no one committing the sins that he lists, shall inherit the kingdom.

And when the prodigal son realized the error of his ways, and repented and returned to his father, the father said of the errant son: this is my son WHO WAS DEAD, but is now alive AGAIN.

Obviously the son didn’t die physically and resurrect - how then was he dead?

He was DEAD IN HIS SINS:

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

He was a son, but he was A DEAD SON, dead in his sins, and on his way to hell, until he returned in repentance.

Being a sin doesn’t guarantee an inheritance.

You know, it's refreshing to read someone (a number of you guys) who is just making sense. I really love it. It's so difficult talking with people who have to twist everything around. Thank you. Thank God for His grace.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Nope. As you said it correctly, it is about fruitfulness or bearing fruit.

It's very hard to talk to people who are in the paradigm of Osas thought because they instantly hear things differently than what is being said. When I said 'being saved' you hear 'getting saved' when what I meant was 'being a saved person'. The parable is about bringing the word of God to fruition and being a saved person.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

It's so difficult talking with people who have to twist everything around.

That's why it's so hard for me to believe Osas teaching. It has to jump through so many hoops to make the scriptures mean what they say they mean. That's why I say it has a cult like mentality about it.

 

[GracePeace]

Every time an Osaser sees the word 'saved' they've already defined the word as 'irreversibly saved', so every verse they see that talks about a Christian being saved they use as proof that you can't lose your salvation. That's called 'circular reasoning'.

Yeah, they reject Apostolic teaching : our salvation corresponds to the salvation of the Jews from Egypt (they too were "saved by the blood of the lamb"), not to "inheriting the promise". They ignore the warning "nevertheless with most of them God was displeased and they fell under God's wrath and did not inherit the promise". They detest God's Holy Word.

 

[GracePeace]

Unfruitful 'believers' are condemned to hell because, ultimately, unfruitfulness is the sign of unbelief.

...land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. Hebrews 6:8​

That's why the Bible exhorts us to make our calling and election sure by doing something that believers do. If you can't do what believers do then you'll be able to see that you need to get saved. And if you are saved, the exhortation to 'do' will spur you on toward the 'love and good deeds' that believers do and which gives them assurance they belong to the truth and ready to meet Christ when he returns.

So, in regard to true believers.....

...we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised. Hebrews 6:9-12
​

As you can see, this is not a passage about the continual doing of works to earn salvation, as most in the church instantly interpret 'works' to mean. It's about the continuation of faith to inherit salvation (vs.12). The faith that justifies and saves a person is the faith that works (Galatians 5:6b).

Don't tell me you believe James 2 is talking about "true" and "false" faith too. LOL

Someone can have "true" faith and still go to hell--eg, the false prophets Matthew 7, the unforgiving servant Matthew 18, the lazy servant Matthew 25:24.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I reject eternal security.

I suspect you don't reject 'eternal security' for what that actually means, but for what Osas says it means. I believe that everyone who is believing in Christ is secure in that which is secure-Christ himself. And as long as we continue in our believing we remain secure in that which is eternally and unmovably secure and everlasting-Christ and his kingdom.

This is another example of how Osas immediately assigns a predetermined definition to a word when it encounters that word. In this case, 'eternal security' is automatically defined to mean 'a security that you can't lose' instead of 'a security that will never fail in it's ability to keep you secure' (which is the reason why the scriptures tell us to keep believing in it).

 

[GracePeace]

I suspect you don't reject 'eternal security' for what that actually means, but for what Osas says it means. I believe that everyone who is believing in Christ is secure in that which is secure-Christ himself. And as long as we continue in our believing we remain secure in that which is eternally and unmovably secure and everlasting-Christ and his kingdom.

This is another example of how Osas immediately assigns a predetermined definition to a word when it encounters that word. In this case, 'eternal security' is automatically defined to mean 'a security that you can't lose' instead of 'a security that will never fail in it's ability to keep you secure' (which is the reason why the scriptures tell us to keep believing in it).

1. Well said.

2. The phrase "eternal security" isn't in Scripture so any Tom Dick or Harry is free to assign any meaning thereto. I like to stick to the Word.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Don't tell me you believe James 2 is talking about "true" and "false" faith too. LOL

Someone can have "true" faith and still go to hell--eg, the false prophets Matthew 7, the unforgiving servant Matthew 18, the lazy servant Matthew 25:24.

It may start out as true faith, but doesn't end up that way. It degrades into a false faith that can not save......that's a dead faith. The person who has and retains 'true' faith is signified by the obedience of that faith. Just as the person who has never had faith, or who's true faith has degraded into a dead faith that can not save them, is signified by their lack of obedience.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

1. Well said.

2. The phrase "eternal security" isn't in Scripture so any Tom Dick or Harry is free to assign any meaning thereto. I like to stick to the Word.

I think it's described there, just not using the words 'eternal security'. And certainly not described according to Osas teaching.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

In the parable, it is not the soil that bears fruit but the seed sowed, that is, the word of God.

It's all about in what kinds of soil that fruitfulness will or will not happen in. The flaw is not in the word of God, as you surely must agree. The flaw is the kind of soil it is sown on.

Like any piece of land, it must have an inherent potential to respond to the husbandman's skill in making the seed grow in that soil. There's just some soil in which the seed sown into it won't grow and come to fruition no matter how skilled the farmer is in doing that. The potential for growth just isn't there!

Calvinists say the farmer himself has determined ahead of time what soil will be given the potential to grow the seed, and which soil will not be given that potential. I disagree with that. I think the inherent potential of a human heart to be able to grow the seed of God's word is an element of the person themselves. It'll either respond to the word of God, and all His efforts to plant it and water it and nurture it, or it won't.

 

[GracePeace]

It may start out as true faith, but doesn't end up that way. It degrades into a false faith that can not save......that's a dead faith. The person who has and retains 'true' faith is signified by the obedience of that faith. Just as the person who has never had faith, or who's true faith has degraded into a dead faith, is signified by their lack of obedience.

Wouldn't you say James knows he's speaking to Christians, he's just calling them to repentance? He criticizes not the validity of their faith but the incompleteness of their faith, telling them they must correct their works, and compares the sinning believer to a body without a spirit : the body is not a "fake" body, it's an "incomplete" body (which makes it dead--and there're plenty of these kinds of bodies, legitimate bodies which are incomplete not fake bodies) so he's saying "repent and do good, don't think just belief is enough and then you can live how you want". He later again lambasts them as "adulterers and adulteresses" (affirming they are married to God but faulting them as unfaithful to God) and accuses them of "enmity with God". Certainly James 2 is a call to repentance!

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Wouldn't you say James knows he's speaking to Christians, he's just calling them to repentance? He criticizes not the validity of their faith but the incompleteness of their faith, telling them they must correct their works, and compares the sinning believer to a body without a spirit : the body is not a "fake" body, it's an "incomplete" body (which makes it dead) so he's saying "repent and do good, don't think just belief is enough and then you can live how you want". He later again lambasts them as "adulterers and adulteresses" (affirming they are married to God but faulting them as unfaithful to God) and accuses them of "enmity with God". Certainly James 2 is a call to repentance!

I agree, but it is equally applicable to any among them who have never really been saved. The call to repentance is the same—have a faith that works.

 

[GracePeace]

I agree, but it is equally applicable to any among them who have never really been saved. The call to repentance is the same—have a faith that works.

Well, he calls them "adulterers and adulteresses" so he affirms they're married to God (believers). It is unhelpful to give leeway to OSASers by interpreting James 2 as anything but a call to repentance IMO.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Well, he calls them "adulterers and adulteresses" so he affirms they're married to God (believers). It is unhelpful to give leeway to OSASers by interpreting James 2 as anything but a call to repentance IMO.

We could get into a discussion about the difference between only being born of water, and being born of, both, water and Spirit. I think lot's of Christians have the water part, and God honors it to an extent (think Nicodemus), but they lack the Spiritual 'born again' part of salvation. They have a relationship with God, but not a spiritual relationship with God.

 

[GracePeace]

We could get into a discussion about the difference between only being born of water, and being born of, both, water and Spirit. I think lot's of Christians have the water part, and God is honoring it to an extent, but they lack the Spiritual 'born again' part of salvation.

Again, though, they're married to God (believers).

 

[GracePeace]

We could get into a discussion about the difference between only being born of water, and being born of, both, water and Spirit. I think lot's of Christians have the water part, and God honors it to an extent (think Nicodemus), but they lack the Spiritual 'born again' part of salvation. They have a relationship with God, but not a spiritual relationship with God.

I wonder about dividing water and Spirit that way--"whoever believes, from his inner being will flow rivers of living water (this he spake of the Spirit)" John 7:38-39 right? So isn't the Spirit the water? I wonder. Seems so.