Is it possible to lose salvation?

[amigo de christo]

your right heads i win tales you lose its heads i win good night

The battle of our faith is not over till we draw our last breath or the LORD do come .
It aint heads i win tales you lose
ITS THOSE WHO FOLLOW CHRIST WIN , cause JESUS has already won .
I can see you greatly misunderstand things i say .
But as i wrote , more than once , lets not assume , lets actually
find out . Ask plenty of questions . The answers might suprise you . Dont let
the ol mantra of judge not correct not
make one like me seem as a monster , judger , hater , biggot , extremist , danger to society .
Because lets go ahead and face it
THIS is exactly what men like me who wont conform are gonna be seen as and it will only get worse in this world .
SO BE IT , I GOT THE LORD , men can do as they please to me
But they gonna be greatly angered if they expect me to conform .
May that encourage you my friend .

 

[Kokyu]

In a debate it's up to YOU to defend what you're saying.
It's not up to ME to do the work for you.

I'm not objecting to defending my view. I'm telling you that when you encounter a Scripture reference in my posts rather than the full verse or passage, that the reference is all I'm going to offer. If you want to know what the verse or passage actually says, you can do as I and others commonly do and look it up.

YOU must provide support for your statements...

I do. If you can't see this, I don't think you'll be capable of understanding much of anything I write.

THIS is the THEOLOGY FORUM and in theology one must be scriptural.
Maybe this particular forum does not require this...
but serious conversation does.

Yes, I understand this. And my posts clearly reflect this understanding.

I understand what you're saying very well.

No, as you demonstrate in nearly everything you write in response to my posts, you really don't. Mostly, you appear to be arguing against your imagined and assumed version of what I've been writing rather than my actual views.

And so far, this is a waste of time.
Why not respond to my statements instead of making comments ABOUT them?

Please take your own advice, here.

Agreed.
So why not state this instead of saying that we can choose to disobey God?

And here you demonstrate - again - that you haven't grasped the substance of what I've written. (In particular in the characterization you make in your question.)

Here we go again.

NOW you're stating that we do NOT have to obey God.

No, this is your Strawman version of what I've been writing.

I see no scripture supporting this odd idea that God does not require obedience from us.

And nowhere in my posts have I ever denied that God requires obedience from us. I've only refuted from Scripture the idea that our obedience contributes to, or maintains, our salvation. But, because you don't seem able to comprehend this, you "tilt at windmills" in your replies to me.

If a person is NOT obeying God....he is not a Christian.

Nope. I've already shown comprehensively from the NT that this is patently false. I'm not going to repeat all I've written on this point here, again. Suffice it to say that your repetition of this mistaken claim doesn't make it true and your attached prooftext - like all the others you've supplied - doesn't actually support your statement above.

Here's what John taught:

1 John 3:2-6
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever * keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

John also wrote:

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

What John DIDN'T write in the passage from 1 John 3 that you offered above - and wouldn't write, given the passage directly above - is anything like "...if we always keep His commandments and never sin, we can know that we know God." As has been pointed out very often about the passage from 1 John 3 that you've quoted, the phrase "does not keep His commandments" (vs. 4) is poorly rendered in older translations of the Bible. Better translations correctly render it as follows:

Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. (CSB)

Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. (Darby)

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. (ESV)

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.(NASB)

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; indeed, sin is lawlessness. (NET)

Anyway, the idea John is communicating about sin in the life of a born-again person is that it ought not to be a common practice of him, or her. Or, as the NASB puts it, "No one in Him sins continually..." (1 Jn. 3:6).

As I've been writing this all out, I realize that you've got the wrong Scripture reference attached to the passage you cited from 1 John 3. It's actually from 1 John 2 that you've drawn the passage, not 1 John 3, as you've got it labeled.

Here's the passage with its correct reference:

1 John 2:1-6
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever follows His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says that he remains in Him ought, himself also, to walk just as He walked.

I notice that your quotation of this passage leaves out the first verse. Interesting, that. I have my suspicions as to why. Suffice it to say, verse 1 dissolves the idea that Christians don't - or can't - sin. John, in verse 1, plainly indicates the opposite, that they can, and do, sin. In fact, in this regard he includes himself in their company, using the pronoun "we" and "our" in speaking of Christ's advocacy for Christians who sin.

 

[Kokyu]

The same point holds true here as in the passage from 1 John 3, which is that John nowhere makes a person's salvation contingent upon their perfect obedience to God's commands. And, of course, John wouldn't write any such thing in light of what he'd written in the very first chapter of his first letter, which I've already quoted above. Here's verse 8 again:

1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

John teaches that:

We have come to know Him IF we keep His commandments.
If we SAY we know Jesus but do NOT keep His commandments, we are a liar.
Whoever KEEPS HIS WORD has the love of God in him.
The one who says he abides in Christ ought to walk in the same way as Jesus walked.

See above.

I see.
So Jesus spend over 3 years teaching how to have FELLOWSHIP with God....
or did Jesus die on that cross to get us to heaven?

False dichotomy. It isn't either-or but both-and. See 1 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 John 1:3 and Revelation 3:20. Consider Christ's own relationship with the Twelve.

A person CANNOT have fellowship with God unless he OBEYS God.

Obviously.

As to the idea that one was "never saved"....Jesus taught that one could fall away from salvation:

Luke 8:13
13 "Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.


They hear.
They receive the word with joy.
They believe FOR A WHILE....
and then (due to temptation) they FALL AWAY.

This isn't describing a person who was saved; it just describes the emotional hearer of the Truth. The only one in the parable of the Sower and the Seed who was actually saved was the last "ground" (or person) who received the "seed."

Matthew 13:18-23
18 “Listen then to the parable of the sower.
19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one sown with seed beside the road.

This first hearer of the "word of the kingdom" does not understand that "seed-word" and it is snatched away from him before it can take root and bear fruit in his life. I see nothing in this description that suggests this hearer was born-again.

20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
21 yet he has no root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, immediately he falls away.

This second hearer responds emotionally to the "seed" of the "word of the kingdom" but that seed doesn't "take root" in him and produce fruit and he falls away from his joy in the "word of the kingdom" when antagonism to that "seed" confronts him. Again, I see no description of a saved person here. Lacking both root and fruit, this hearer doesn't properly represent a saved person.

22 And the one sown with seed among the thorns, this is the one who hears the word, and the anxiety of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

This third hearer has no "root" or "fruit," either, as a result of receiving the "seed" of the "word of the kingdom." The way Christ described what happened to the "seed" when it fell upon the "thorny" ground of this person's life seems to me to clearly indicate that the seed had no chance to take root in his life. The "thorny weeds" of anxiety and wealth choked out the "seed" so that it could neither take root, nor bear fruit. How does this, then, describe a saved person? I see no reason from this description to make any such assertion about him.

23 But the one sown with seed on the good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, some a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty times as much.”

This fourth hearer is the only one described as being "good soil," and who actually understands the "seed-word" he has received, and who produces much "fruit" (which means, of course, that the "seed" had "taken root" in his life). Given these things, only this hearer warrants being thought of as saved.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The same point holds true here as in the passage from 1 John 3, which is that John nowhere makes a person's salvation contingent upon their perfect obedience to God's commands. And, of course, John wouldn't write any such thing in light of what he'd written in the very first chapter of his first letter, which I've already quoted above. Here's verse 8 again:

1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.



See above.



False dichotomy. It isn't either-or but both-and. See 1 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 John 1:3 and Revelation 3:20. Consider Christ's own relationship with the Twelve.



Obviously.



This isn't describing a person who was saved; it just describes the emotional hearer of the Truth. The only one in the parable of the Sower and the Seed who was actually saved was the last "ground" (or person) who received the "seed."

Matthew 13:18-23
18 “Listen then to the parable of the sower.
19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one sown with seed beside the road.

This first hearer of the "word of the kingdom" does not understand that "seed-word" and it is snatched away from him before it can take root and bear fruit in his life. I see nothing in this description that suggests this hearer was born-again.

20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
21 yet he has no root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, immediately he falls away.

This second hearer responds emotionally to the "seed" of the "word of the kingdom" but that seed doesn't "take root" in him and produce fruit and he falls away from his joy in the "word of the kingdom" when antagonism to that "seed" confronts him. Again, I see no description of a saved person here. Lacking both root and fruit, this hearer doesn't properly represent a saved person.

22 And the one sown with seed among the thorns, this is the one who hears the word, and the anxiety of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

This third hearer has no "root" or "fruit," either, as a result of receiving the "seed" of the "word of the kingdom." The way Christ described what happened to the "seed" when it fell upon the "thorny" ground of this person's life seems to me to clearly indicate that the seed had no chance to take root in his life. The "thorny weeds" of anxiety and wealth choked out the "seed" so that it could neither take root, nor bear fruit. How does this, then, describe a saved person? I see no reason from this description to make any such assertion about him.

23 But the one sown with seed on the good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, some a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty times as much.”

This fourth hearer is the only one described as being "good soil," and who actually understands the "seed-word" he has received, and who produces much "fruit" (which means, of course, that the "seed" had "taken root" in his life). Given these things, only this hearer warrants being thought of as saved.

its all of God or its all of man.

there is no in-between.

I wish people would see this

 

[Kokyu]

And here is where you state something Christianity does not teach.
It IS NECESSARY to bear fruit in order to be a child of God.


Here is what Jesus stated.

John 15:1-2
1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.

No, your conclusion that you've drawn from Christ's words in John 15 is obviously false, as I've shown from Scripture a number of times already in this thread. Airo (Gk.) translated "takes away" in verse 2 is badly translated because it is neither in keeping with the actual viticultural practices of the time (described by Pliny the Younger), nor is the most common meaning of airo. Instead, "lift up" (or "bear up") - the primary meaning of airo - makes much more sense since it is what was typically done when a vine branch was not fruiting. It was lifted up onto a supporting structure, away from the damp, shadows and pests of ground-level into direct sunlight, all the life-draining "sucker branches" removed from its length, so that it might have every opportunity to fruit.

Along with this historical context, the idea of God unsaving someone (taking away a branch in Christ), just doesn't comport with the rest of Scripture (He. 5:13; Ro. 8:31-39; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23-24, etc.), or even with Christ's own words about the everlasting and eternal life of the saved person and about no one plucking his sheep out of his hand (Jn. 3:15-16; 4:14; 10:27-29, etc.). Thus, the saved-and-lost misconstruction of John 15:2 just doesn't wash.

I do wonder which part of the Prodigal Son you believe I should read....

In the story of the Prodigal Son JESUS states that salvation can be lost.
The prodigal son became lost.

Here is what Jesus taught:

Luke 15:24
24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate.


Jesus taught that the son had come to life AGAIN...
so
the son was saved
then became lost
then was saved AGAIN.

In what sense was the son "dead"? He was never literally dead. And in the parable, Jesus never refers to the Prodigal Son as anything other than a son to his father, so the son being "dead" wasn't a statement about the dissolution of his relationship to his father. The only sensible way to understand "my son was dead" in the context of the story is to regard the father's declaration about his son as a reference to the loss of their direct, personal communion with one another that he was now once again enjoying (my son is alive). In fact, the father says as much:

Luke 15:24
24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.

The son was "lost" to the father, or "dead" to him, in the sense that their fellowship, their personal communion with one another, had ceased when the son went off into a far country. Only when he had returned to his father did their direct, personal interaction resume. This resumption of their fellowship with one another is how the son was "alive" once again to his father. In light of all this, the parable of the Prodigal Son well illustrates that the waywardness of God's children in no way dissolves their relationship to their heavenly Father nor destroys His desire to commune with them. That you can't readily understand this is a... strange thing to observe.

Of course there's undoing...

I just showed above with my scripture that Jesus Himself stated we could become lost after being saved.
I posted Luke 8:13 and Luke 15:24

It would behoove us to listen to Jesus and not those that teach a modern day idea that is called OSAS.

Posting God's word is one thing, stretching it around to your view of His word is another. I get that you're so convinced that Scripture says what you think it says that you believe you've no good reason to argue for your proof-texting, but to those of us unpersuaded of your view, your confidence in your belief and your corresponding proof-texting just looks like contortion of Scripture and profound spiritual blindness. And so, if you're going to argue well for your view, simply saying, "I've shown I'm right because I cited Scripture," is woefully insufficient. You'll have to do more than offer prooftexts, your contortions of/additions to them and then a flat assertion that you've proven your view. As I've been demonstrating, you've not come anywhere close to showing you're right and I'm wrong by this sort of superficial argument.

You want a perfect verse stating EXACTLY what Jesus or Paul or any of the writers said?

OK.
How about providing a verse that states EXACTLY that a person that is saved can NEVER lose their salvation no matter if they obey God or not or no matter if they produce fruit or not.

This is called the tu quoque fallacy. It deflects from giving a proper defense of one's view by a sort of "you do it, too" objection. Whether or not a critic of your view is guilty of the same thing you are, saying they are doesn't dissolve the validity of their criticism. You've either contorted and/or added to every prooftext you've offered. Not once so far have you just left your saved-and-lost prooftexts to stand on their own because they actually say exactly what you're asserting they say. This doesn't cease to be the case simply because you demand the standard of proof above that you've demanded.

Well, you sure to MENTION Romans 7:14-22 a lot.
So I can only presume that you like it.

Yes, you can presume. But just like with Scripture, your presumption doesn't reflect the truth, only your imagination and prejudice.

Peter was VERY steadfast in his faith.
He died a martyrs death after preaching the gospel throughout the Roman Empire.

You're being willfully obtuse here. I meant was Peter steadfast in his faith when he denied Christ three times during Christ's Passion and you know it. I wrote as much very clearly. So, why are you ignoring this qualification of my question and replying as though I had suggested Peter was never steadfast in his faith? Your replies are taking on a very... slippery quality.

I posted scripture.
I posted what Jesus taught and what Paul taught and what Peter taught.

No, you posted Scripture and then added your own contortions/additions to it.

If you prefer not to follow what they taught that is your decision.

Oh, I follow God's word as closely as possible. I just don't follow your contortions of it.

The OSAS love this verse.
Too bad it's speaking about gnostics that had entered into the church and decided it was not for them.

Study up on some church history.

See? Just more deflective rhetoric rather than sound, scriptural argument.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No, your conclusion that you've drawn from Christ's words in John 15 is obviously false, as I've shown from Scripture a number of times already in this thread. Airo (Gk.) translated "takes away" in verse 2 is badly translated because it is neither in keeping with the actual viticultural practices of the time (described by Pliny the Younger), nor is the most common meaning of airo. Instead, "lift up" (or "bear up") - the primary meaning of airo - makes much more sense since it is what was typically done when a vine branch was not fruiting. It was lifted up onto a supporting structure, away from the damp, shadows and pests of ground-level into direct sunlight, all the life-draining "sucker branches" removed from its length, so that it might have every opportunity to fruit.

Along with this historical context, the idea of God unsaving someone (taking away a branch in Christ), just doesn't comport with the rest of Scripture (He. 5:13; Ro. 8:31-39; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23-24, etc.), or even with Christ's own words about the everlasting and eternal life of the saved person and about no one plucking his sheep out of his hand (Jn. 3:15-16; 4:14; 10:27-29, etc.). Thus, the saved-and-lost misconstruction of John 15:2 just doesn't wash.



In what sense was the son "dead"? He was never literally dead. And in the parable, Jesus never refers to the Prodigal Son as anything other than a son to his father, so the son being "dead" wasn't a statement about the dissolution of his relationship to his father. The only sensible way to understand "my son was dead" in the context of the story is to regard the father's declaration about his son as a reference to the loss of their direct, personal communion with one another that he was now once again enjoying (my son is alive). In fact, the father says as much:

Luke 15:24
24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.

The son was "lost" to the father, or "dead" to him, in the sense that their fellowship, their personal communion with one another, had ceased when the son went off into a far country. Only when he had returned to his father did their direct, personal interaction resume. This resumption of their fellowship with one another is how the son was "alive" once again to his father. In light of all this, the parable of the Prodigal Son well illustrates that the waywardness of God's children in no way dissolves their relationship to their heavenly Father nor destroys His desire to commune with them. That you can't readily understand this is a... strange thing to observe.



Posting God's word is one thing, stretching it around to your view of His word is another. I get that you're so convinced that Scripture says what you think it says that you believe you've no good reason to argue for your proof-texting, but to those of us unpersuaded of your view, your confidence in your belief and your corresponding proof-texting just looks like contortion of Scripture and profound spiritual blindness. And so, if you're going to argue well for your view, simply saying, "I've shown I'm right because I cited Scripture," is woefully insufficient. You'll have to do more than offer prooftexts, your contortions of/additions to them and then a flat assertion that you've proven your view. As I've been demonstrating, you've not come anywhere close to showing you're right and I'm wrong by this sort of superficial argument.



This is called the tu quoque fallacy. It deflects from giving a proper defense of one's view by a sort of "you do it, too" objection. Whether or not a critic of your view is guilty of the same thing you are, saying they are doesn't dissolve the validity of their criticism. You've either contorted and/or added to every prooftext you've offered. Not once so far have you just left your saved-and-lost prooftexts to stand on their own because they actually say exactly what you're asserting they say. This doesn't cease to be the case simply because you demand the standard of proof above that you've demanded.



Yes, you can presume. But just like with Scripture, your presumption doesn't reflect the truth, only your imagination and prejudice.



You're being willfully obtuse here. I meant was Peter steadfast in his faith when he denied Christ three times during Christ's Passion and you know it. I wrote as much very clearly. So, why are you ignoring this qualification of my question and replying as though I had suggested Peter was never steadfast in his faith? Your replies are taking on a very... slippery quality.



No, you posted Scripture and then added your own contortions/additions to it.




Oh, I follow God's word as closely as possible. I just don't follow your contortions of it.



See? Just more deflective rhetoric rather than sound, scriptural argument.

Good luck my friend. we will pray for you. Many of us have come before and showed the same things.. Maybe this time it will sink in..

 

[Marvelloustime]

It would not in any way even slightly surpise me
if even some here think i am a devil .
But it wont change how or what i do . what i do i do for the people
and if they see me as the enemy , well that is on them . NO RETREAT and NO SURRENDER .
Someone gotta do something . and so the sheep will . we will expose all that is contrary to GOD and to HIS CHRIST
in any way shape form or fashion . ALL false doctrine will be exposed
and the leaders who teach it shall be named . And it that makes me seem as a hater
THEN all i can say is , TRY reading the bible again for oneself . YOU SEE for thine own self
WHO is the enemy . IS IT HE WHO exposes , or is it he who simply covers and excuses the evil . DO PICK the latter please .

@amigo de christo

 

[Marvelloustime]

Oh believe me my near and my dear friend , i have exposed that smiley snake in the grass
and many of his co workers . But here let me do it once again . Joe osteen Is completely false .
HE too has gone the way of the many . Did you really think i would not expose a wolf like that .
So i may as well expose a few others
so as you wont get the feeling i am favoring a singel wolf of this pile of many wolves .
But do allow me to sum up the groups because if i were to name them all indivdually , ME nor you or anyone
would have the time to read it , let alone my hands and fingers would be so crippled if i even
perhaps typed but a hundredth of a percent of what is now false among christendom . AND I SAID FALSE
not to include some who might be a wee bit off on some things and just need correcting .
May i suggest an exodus perhaps or perhaps a better word that darn sure would have led to an exodus .
AN ENTRODUS . RIGHT INTO the bible and in time
we had seen the largest exodus of many RIGHT OUT of them sold out churches . Perhaps i will bring
the list later . But just know its gonna shock even you to the core . ITS bad my friend . REAL bad .
The false lovey do has TAKEN THEM RIGHT INTO the very snare that leadeth to the LIE .
And friend , no matter how often i warn , THEY IS DOUBLING DOWN on this lie and more and more do buy into it daily .

@amigo de christo

 

[GodsGrace]

it depends on how it is taught this is what peter wrote a inheritance
1 peter 4
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.



i am pretty sure you will agree he has given us eternal life.. instead of osas which once again if taught right is pretty much spot on.. i do not teach/preach osas i preach/teach a know so salvation . that we may know paul said very plan in romans 6


2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?


Even jesus told us

John 10:28-29​

​

King James Version​

​

​

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

this is our security i have listed . once again its not a license to sin.. Grace is there for us when we sin .. but to havve use of this grace we must follow 1 john 1:9


if we are living in sin 24/ 7 no remorse of sin then this scripture comes up

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


which means most likely no salvation.... my last thing to bring up... do we go to sleep and wake up and worry if were still saved or not? if not that eternal security ..agree disagree either way its all good

Hi Ezra,
No, we don't go to sleep worrying that we lost our salvation.
Is Jesus our Savior or not?

The problem, as I see it, is that some on these forums post that one can NEVER lose their salvation NO MATTER WHAT.
This is not what the NT teaches...Jesus gives warnings, Paul gives warnings...if it were not possible, no warning would be necessary.

Then they say that the person who becomes lost was never really saved to begin with.
How do you debate that?
So Jesus did say that a person could be saved and become lost and that's what I post.

I believe we should read the NT carefully and not bring any of our ideas to it and just learn what it teaches.
People that worry about their salvation MIGHT be living a sinful life, or might be contemplating some sinning --
who knows, I'm not a judge and I leave that to God.

However, I DO worry about new Christians that are reading along that may come to believe this OSAS....go on sinning....and then miss heaven because if we do not follow Jesus we cannot consider ourselves to be Christian.....which means a Jesus Follower.

What you're stating is a little different than what these folk post and I agree with much of what you say, so there's nothing here to debate.

I believe in eternal security....
As long as one abides in Christ...he is saved.
(but to abide means to obey...God always wants obedience).

 

[GodsGrace]

there is two sides to every coin and two different interpolations. is there a right one and a wrong one ? i dont plan on finding it if i can become lost again.. much like the prodigal son a True Christian will return. whom the Lord loves he chastises ( corrects ) hebrews says if we say we are not chastised then we become bastard kids ..no father. i think paul wrote iot best to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in us.

Agreed.
One could fall away from the faith - for whatever reason - but God will always invite him back...
just like the Prodigal Son. My favorite parable.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm not objecting to defending my view. I'm telling you that when you encounter a Scripture reference in my posts rather than the full verse or passage, that the reference is all I'm going to offer. If you want to know what the verse or passage actually says, you can do as I and others commonly do and look it up.



I do. If you can't see this, I don't think you'll be capable of understanding much of anything I write.



Yes, I understand this. And my posts clearly reflect this understanding.



No, as you demonstrate in nearly everything you write in response to my posts, you really don't. Mostly, you appear to be arguing against your imagined and assumed version of what I've been writing rather than my actual views.



Please take your own advice, here.



And here you demonstrate - again - that you haven't grasped the substance of what I've written. (In particular in the characterization you make in your question.)



No, this is your Strawman version of what I've been writing.



And nowhere in my posts have I ever denied that God requires obedience from us. I've only refuted from Scripture the idea that our obedience contributes to, or maintains, our salvation.

Yes sir.
Our obedience DOES contribute to our salvation.
THIS is what YOU do NOT understand.

God demands obedience.
If we do not obey God we are living in sin.
If we live in sin we are not abiding in Christ.
If we are not abiding in Christ, we will NOT be saved.

But, because you don't seem able to comprehend this, you "tilt at windmills" in your replies to me.



Nope. I've already shown comprehensively from the NT that this is patently false. I'm not going to repeat all I've written on this point here, again. Suffice it to say that your repetition of this mistaken claim doesn't make it true and your attached prooftext - like all the others you've supplied - doesn't actually support your statement above.

Ditto back to you sir.
Because YOU state something does not make it true.
Let alone the fact that you NEVER POST SCRIPTURE.

You've been very poorly trained in debating theology.

John also wrote:

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

What John DIDN'T write in the passage from 1 John 3 that you offered above - and wouldn't write, given the passage directly above - is anything like "...if we always keep His commandments and never sin, we can know that we know God." As has been pointed out very often about the passage from 1 John 3 that you've quoted, the phrase "does not keep His commandments" (vs. 4) is poorly rendered in older translations of the Bible. Better translations correctly render it as follows:

Sir....
John, the Apostle loved by Christ,,,wrote how HE wanted to write and how those of 2,000 years go would understand him.

As I've already stated,,,,John NEVER thought some odd idea would come about teaching that one cannot lose salvation.
The warnings in the NT are clear....
Those who endure to the end will be saved.

Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. (CSB)

Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. (Darby)

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. (ESV)

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.(NASB)

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; indeed, sin is lawlessness. (NET)

Anyway, the idea John is communicating about sin in the life of a born-again person is that it ought not to be a common practice of him, or her. Or, as the NASB puts it, "No one in Him sins continually..." (1 Jn. 3:6).

So is it OK to sin once in a while on a regular basis?
So is it OK to NOT OBEY God?

I agree regarding the difference between 1 John 1 and 2 and 1 John 3.9...
but YOU have stated that we could choose to sin and still be saved.

John DID NOT state this.

As I've been writing this all out, I realize that you've got the wrong Scripture reference attached to the passage you cited from 1 John 3. It's actually from 1 John 2 that you've drawn the passage, not 1 John 3, as you've got it labeled.

Here's the passage with its correct reference:

1 John 2:1-6
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever follows His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says that he remains in Him ought, himself also, to walk just as He walked.

I notice that your quotation of this passage leaves out the first verse. Interesting, that. I have my suspicions as to why. Suffice it to say, verse 1 dissolves the idea that Christians don't - or can't - sin. John, in verse 1, plainly indicates the opposite, that they can, and do, sin. In fact, in this regard he includes himself in their company, using the pronoun "we" and "our" in speaking of Christ's advocacy for Christians who sin.

Why do you think I left out verse 1 K?
John is saying that he's writing so that WE MAY NOT SIN.

It makes MY point, not yours.
Christians will alway sin.

This is not what is under discussion here.
What is under discussion is obedience to God.

Let's end the discussion right here.
Just answer this one simple question (which those on the OSAS side NEVER do)....

IS IT NECESSARY TO OBEY GOD AFTER BECOMING SAVED?

Your reply will end it right here.

 

[GodsGrace]

its all of God or its all of man.

there is no in-between.

I wish people would see this

It's man working with God.

Jesus hung on a cross for you,,,that wasn't enough?
You have no part?

What does John 6:37 say?

37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly * not cast out.

The Father gives us to Jesus...
but we must come to Jesus....(unless we've become Calvinists).

Jesus said to pick up our cross and follow Him.
This requires OUR action...

Matthew 16:24
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.


EG...this is ACTION we must take:
Pick up our cross
Deny ourselves
Follow Jesus

It must be OUR decision to do this.
The Holy Spirit is our helper...He helps us to do this action...
He does not force us to do it.

It must be our choice and our free action.

Remember that Jesus said that a wise man ACTS on HIS WORKS.

Matthew 7:24
24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

 

[GodsGrace]

Good luck my friend. we will pray for you. Many of us have come before and showed the same things.. Maybe this time it will sink in..

Incorrect and harmful theology will NEVER sink in.

Warnings are in the NT for a reason.
The reason is that our very soul is at stake.

Galatians 1:8-9
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

 

[GodsGrace]

The same point holds true here as in the passage from 1 John 3, which is that John nowhere makes a person's salvation contingent upon their perfect obedience to God's commands. And, of course, John wouldn't write any such thing in light of what he'd written in the very first chapter of his first letter, which I've already quoted above. Here's verse 8 again:

1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Strawman...as usual.

Did I speak about perfectly obeying God?

See above.



False dichotomy. It isn't either-or but both-and. See 1 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 John 1:3 and Revelation 3:20. Consider Christ's own relationship with the Twelve.

Well, you're not posting scripture so no reply from me is possible.

Obviously.



This isn't describing a person who was saved; it just describes the emotional hearer of the Truth. The only one in the parable of the Sower and the Seed who was actually saved was the last "ground" (or person) who received the "seed."

Matthew 13:18-23
18 “Listen then to the parable of the sower.
19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one sown with seed beside the road.

This first hearer of the "word of the kingdom" does not understand that "seed-word" and it is snatched away from him before it can take root and bear fruit in his life. I see nothing in this description that suggests this hearer was born-again.

20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
21 yet he has no root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, immediately he falls away.

This second hearer responds emotionally to the "seed" of the "word of the kingdom" but that seed doesn't "take root" in him and produce fruit and he falls away from his joy in the "word of the kingdom" when antagonism to that "seed" confronts him. Again, I see no description of a saved person here. Lacking both root and fruit, this hearer doesn't properly represent a saved person.

So you can explain Jesus' parable better than HE can?
Notice that Jesus states that the word RECEIVED WITH JOY is TEMPORARY.

TEMPORARY.
THEN he FALLS AWAY...exactly like all the verses I've posted teaching that a person can FALL AWAY FROM THE FAITH.

You are eisegeting scripture.
You are changing the meaning of what the writers intended.

22 And the one sown with seed among the thorns, this is the one who hears the word, and the anxiety of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

This third hearer has no "root" or "fruit," either, as a result of receiving the "seed" of the "word of the kingdom." The way Christ described what happened to the "seed" when it fell upon the "thorny" ground of this person's life seems to me to clearly indicate that the seed had no chance to take root in his life. The "thorny weeds" of anxiety and wealth choked out the "seed" so that it could neither take root, nor bear fruit. How does this, then, describe a saved person? I see no reason from this description to make any such assertion about him.

23 But the one sown with seed on the good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, some a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty times as much.”

This fourth hearer is the only one described as being "good soil," and who actually understands the "seed-word" he has received, and who produces much "fruit" (which means, of course, that the "seed" had "taken root" in his life). Given these things, only this hearer warrants being thought of as saved.

Of course the hearers in verse 22 and 23 are not in discussion here.

The one who BELIEVED FOR A WHILE and THEN FELL AWAY is what we're discussing....
IOW...the forfeiting of one's salvation.

 

[GodsGrace]

No, your conclusion that you've drawn from Christ's words in John 15 is obviously false, as I've shown from Scripture a number of times already in this thread. Airo (Gk.) translated "takes away" in verse 2 is badly translated because it is neither in keeping with the actual viticultural practices of the time (described by Pliny the Younger), nor is the most common meaning of airo. Instead, "lift up" (or "bear up") - the primary meaning of airo - makes much more sense since it is what was typically done when a vine branch was not fruiting. It was lifted up onto a supporting structure, away from the damp, shadows and pests of ground-level into direct sunlight, all the life-draining "sucker branches" removed from its length, so that it might have every opportunity to fruit.

I don't read Strong's.
I don't read commentators.
I read the word of God.
Strong's has other explanations for TAKEN AWAY which you have not posted.

Here is Strong's 142 airo'

Original Word: αἴρω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: airó
Pronunciation: ah'-ee-ro
Phonetic Spelling: (ah'-ee-ro)
KJV: away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up)
NASB: take, taken away, picked, pick, takes away, away, take away
Word Origin: [a primary root]

As you can see, it states that airo' means to PUT AWAY, REMOVE, TAKENA WAY, TAKES AWAY, TAKE AWAY

Do these not suit you?
Why did you exclude them?

To TAKE AWAY in John 15.2 means TO SEVER.
TO REMOVE. TO TAKE AWAY.



Let's go to God's word again, which is what we should be doing:
I will not be making any comments.....Jesus explains everything really well, and even verse 6 compliments verse 2.

Sounds like God wants a lot of fruit bearing or there are consequences.

John 15:1-6
1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.

2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.

3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot * bear fruit of itself unless * it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless * you abide in Me.

5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing *.

6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Along with this historical context, the idea of God unsaving someone (taking away a branch in Christ), just doesn't comport with the rest of Scripture (He. 5:13; Ro. 8:31-39; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23-24, etc.), or even with Christ's own words about the everlasting and eternal life of the saved person and about no one plucking his sheep out of his hand (Jn. 3:15-16; 4:14; 10:27-29, etc.). Thus, the saved-and-lost misconstruction of John 15:2 just doesn't wash.

Well then K....
If it doesn't "comport" then we have ourselves a real problem here.
Unless we can synchronize all those verses you THINK you posted up there....
we can just throw the NT out and forget about learning from it.

How about posting some verses you think teach eternal security?

In what sense was the son "dead"? He was never literally dead.

Oh my.
Gee. I thought he died and came back to life and walked home.
Silly me.

And in the parable, Jesus never refers to the Prodigal Son as anything other than a son to his father, so the son being "dead" wasn't a statement about the dissolution of his relationship to his father.

Yes. The OSAS crowd does have a fixation on relationship.
JESUS said the son was ALIVE AGAIN.

It means the son was
ALIVE
DEAD
ALIVE AGAIN

It's simple English K.

The only sensible way to understand "my son was dead" in the context of the story is to regard the father's declaration about his son as a reference to the loss of their direct, personal communion with one another that he was now once again enjoying (my son is alive). In fact, the father says as much:

Luke 15:24
24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.

No.
The only way to understand the son being dead is how Jesus meant it.
Jesus meant it in the same way as Luke 8:13 some persons believe FOR A WHILE.

Some are FOOLISH MEN and do Not ACT on the words of Jesus.
Matthew 7:26
26 "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.


The foolish man built his house ON SAND.
The storm KNOCKED IT DOWN.....

Like severed the house,,,,
took the house away....
like the branches that are taken away....


page 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

@Kokyu


page 2 of 2

K....the Father gave the Prodigal Son his inheritance. The father gave him what he owed him and said good bye to him.
The PS LEFT...abandoned his father.
He got on his knees and asked for forgiveness when he came back.

Perhaps YOU are the one who is observing things in a strange manner.

And could you please stop with the personal insults?
That would be nice.

Seems like the OSAS crowd does tend to do this....

Posting God's word is one thing, stretching it around to your view of His word is another. I get that you're so convinced that Scripture says what you think it says that you believe you've no good reason to argue for your proof-texting, but to those of us unpersuaded of your view, your confidence in your belief and your corresponding proof-texting just looks like contortion of Scripture and profound spiritual blindness. And so, if you're going to argue well for your view, simply saying, "I've shown I'm right because I cited Scripture," is woefully insufficient. You'll have to do more than offer prooftexts, your contortions of/additions to them and then a flat assertion that you've proven your view. As I've been demonstrating, you've not come anywhere close to showing you're right and I'm wrong by this sort of superficial argument.

Citing scripture is woefully insufficient?!
And superficial ?

Voila'
Guess this is why YOU never post scripture!

And I'm not here to show that you're wrong.
I'm here to protect the word of God from those that distort it to suit their needs.

WHY would you be so against obeying God?
I think a Christian should be teaching that we are to obey God...
not fight with someone who makes that statement.

This is called the tu quoque fallacy. It deflects from giving a proper defense of one's view by a sort of "you do it, too" objection. Whether or not a critic of your view is guilty of the same thing you are, saying they are doesn't dissolve the validity of their criticism. You've either contorted and/or added to every prooftext you've offered. Not once so far have you just left your saved-and-lost prooftexts to stand on their own because they actually say exactly what you're asserting they say. This doesn't cease to be the case simply because you demand the standard of proof above that you've demanded.

Let me repeat again then....
YOU have done everything you accuse ME of doing.

And you do this INSTEAD OF posting scripture to support your view.

And YOU that writes PARAGRAPHS attempting to distort scripture are not telling ME that I do this....

AGAIN YOU do what you accuse me of doing.

DIfficult to defend an inaccurate position isn't it?
So we must resort to these type of postings.

Yes, you can presume. But just like with Scripture, your presumption doesn't reflect the truth, only your imagination and prejudice.



You're being willfully obtuse here. I meant was Peter steadfast in his faith when he denied Christ three times during Christ's Passion and you know it. I wrote as much very clearly. So, why are you ignoring this qualification of my question and replying as though I had suggested Peter was never steadfast in his faith? Your replies are taking on a very... slippery quality.

I've already made my statement on Peter.
If you don't want to respect Peter because of the above reason,,,that is your choice.
YOU are AGAIN stating that Peter was NOT steadfast in his faith.

And then write that I misunderstood you?

No, you posted Scripture and then added your own contortions/additions to it.




Oh, I follow God's word as closely as possible. I just don't follow your contortions of it.



See? Just more deflective rhetoric rather than sound, scriptural argument.

OK
Here's what we'll do.
Answer this question:

IS IT NECESSARY TO OBEY GOD AFTER WE ARE SAVED?


§Easy enough.

 

[Ezra]

.the forfeiting of one's salvation.

honestly i have been studying on this can or can not for years.. i am affiliated with general baptist its teir doctrine one can fall away and be lost again.. i have a aunt gone on to the Lord now.. sent me southern baptist doctrine CANT osas i examined scriptures they use.. i examined scriptures gen baptist use,, this is IMO it would have be something awful terrible to get to the point of no return.. i would think a fully conscience decision to denounce Christ . more less become a atheist .


on the other hand Grace is alway waiting for us much like the prodigal father... i write checks very often on 1 john 1:9 along with our advocate .. Christ will not reject us . even jesus said no man can pluck us out of the fathers hand ..
calvinst teach p.o.s perseverance of saints... those truly saved will stay the course...
honestly i tend lean that way its only thing with calvinism i can agree with . i plan to stay in the race finish

 

[Ezra]

OSAS

is not to far off but some take it to the point no matter what we do were ok.. thats not Bible romans 6 . our salvation is kept by the power of God.. i think and i know its best to live it the best you can if you fall get back up the good Lord is there waiting to pick you up..


why would anyone want to return back to the very vomit .that made us sick ? we are hard headed and take a good trip or 2 to God wood shed.. its rejecting the wood shed that can make us a bastard child

 

[GodsGrace]

honestly i have been studying on this can or can not for years.. i am affiliated with general baptist its teir doctrine one can fall away and be lost again.. i have a aunt gone on to the Lord now.. sent me southern baptist doctrine CANT osas i examined scriptures they use.. i examined scriptures gen baptist use,, this is IMO it would have be something awful terrible to get to the point of no return.. i would think a fully conscience decision to denounce Christ . more less become a atheist .

I like to just read the bible.
When we read commentaries we tend to pick up on what that one person believes.
I find that the word is very simple, if we just read it in a simple way.
After that, a person could study theology for years and not know everything,,,
but knowing what God wants from us is simple to understand.

I do agree with you that the way a person forfeits their salvation is to FALL AWAY from the faith.
IOW, they leave the faith and go back to living in the world.
It's a conscious decision and does make them an atheist again.
It's called apostacy.

on the other hand Grace is alway waiting for us much like the prodigal father... i write checks very often on 1 john 1:9 along with our advocate .. Christ will not reject us . even jesus said no man can pluck us out of the fathers hand ..
calvinst teach p.o.s perseverance of saints... those truly saved will stay the course...
honestly i tend lean that way its only thing with calvinism i can agree with . i plan to stay in the race finish

Perseverance of the saints teachs that God will actually force everyone to be saved...
there's no free will in Calvinism...not before salvation and not afte salvation.
So I don't agree with any of the TULIP theology.
Man accepts God because he wants to
and he can leave God because he wants to.

I'm with you....I plan to stay the race until the finish line!

 

[GodsGrace]

is not to far off but some take it to the point no matter what we do were ok.. thats not Bible romans 6 . our salvation is kept by the power of God.. i think and i know its best to live it the best you can if you fall get back up the good Lord is there waiting to pick you up..


why would anyone want to return back to the very vomit .that made us sick ? we are hard headed and take a good trip or 2 to God wood shed.. its rejecting the wood shed that can make us a bastard child

THIS is the problem Ezra....
some teach that we can do anything, even disobey God, and still be saved.

Again, we agree.