Search results

The "devil's advocate" argument I presented for John 15, and the argument I may use against that argument.

There is the issue of those who do not have true faith, and they seem not to be regenerate, but there seems to be another category of people who have believed who can fall away, and, in the sense that when someone is "blotted out", they are accounted as having never been saved (their history...

As I had said: it is just as true to simply say "You can't lose salvation" as it is to include all the other details to say the same thing.

What sounded "ambiguous"?

I'm prejudiced. LOL I am not going to win the Darwin Awards. I am able to observe patterns and plan accordingly.

Well, I'm saying they're both "ambiguous". lol

It's more than that: when the action of pruning is taken, when these cuts are made, it actually stimulates new growth, which is why part of the reason why you want to prune in Spring, not in Winter or in late Fall, because you don't want the plant to be stimulated to grow by pruning it.

Did you know that pruning actually stimulates growth? I have an apricot tree, and have looked in to it, and spoken with master gardeners about it.

Again, I was playing devil's advocate--there are valid arguments against it, but there are valid arguments for it (eg, the one I presented).

With more details and provisos, but effectively and substantively, I should not be able to disagree with that.

I'm going to play devil's advocate again : since we're not provided with any other material/examples to go on (to apply it to), you could describe those branches that do continue to abide in the Vine as precisely these individuals who seem to be going along with the program, but, ultimately...

@marks In other words, it's as valid to simply say, "If you've believed, and are saved, you won't fall away," as it is to say the same thing, but using all those other details. Lol

Yeah, I only used the term "false" to accommodate those who do use that term, but I would not use it--certainly not in the past, before I even knew that the concept did seem to be taught in Scripture--and I already addressed why I don't think James 2 can be referring to the invalid faith taught...

I'm laughing at the situation, not at your explanation (as if it is "silly").

I think I hold to a paradox: I believe that if you are truly saved, you can't lose it, and you're supposed to believe in that, and rest, AND those who are truly saved and lose it are accounted as never having been saved, which, in a way, actually goes back to the original point (if you're truly...

See, that's why I was hesitant to share this tidbit--I know it's going to add ammunition against my views. LOL But why should I protect myself? And I think it really has edified me to get into the conversations and to consider the things that have been brought to consideration through the...

Before, I didn't think so--because I'd seen no evidence for it--but, now, I think it is possible that, in Scripture, "believe" can refer to an invalid belief or a valid belief. The issue of "become a child of God" is also complicated...

To me, this is a different issue--falling away--but I haven't considered it through the lens of John's Gospel. There is more, along these lines, I want to say about John's Gospel, but I'm not sure it is the right time. Maybe some other time I will mention it.

Well, most gays weren't gay, but were changed by life circumstances, but most gays don't change back, because homosexuality is a powerful delusion/illicit desire. I'm not going to discuss the topic with you, because it is my experience that you all pretend to be interested in facts, but only as...

I wouldn't necessarily go that far just yet.. because they received the Word into their hearts, which is, technically speaking, faith...