Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Ezra]

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

i know we are eternally secure but not free agen to live a old nature . osas is a controversial subject.. many baptist are divided to the point .. you can attend but not allowed sing .. some hold to closed communion some hold you have be baptized into the church to join.. even if previous baptized.. some of the baptist are authortve on the doctrine.. i prefer just be called forgiven at the church i pastor i have a banner if your 99% saved your 100%lost ..

the doctrine is not hard to discuss provided its done in a christian way not in a finger pointing of your wrong. areas that can be agreed on focus on that areas that are not let it be. especially if it causes flesh come out..

 

[GodsGrace]

i know we are eternally secure but not free agen to live a old nature

If we're not free again to live in our old nature....
what does that tell you?
It tells you that obedience to God is necessary.

. osas is a controversial subject.. many baptist are divided to the point ..

It wasn't a controversial subject till after the reformation because this idea was never in the church from the very beginning.
A fact those that believe in the OSAS idea refuse to acknowledge. To those that adhere to modern-day ideas,,,,church history means absolutely nothing.

So we have to wonder...were those right after Jesus correct or are we correct in our new ideas?
Some churches are blessing same sex couples.
Some churches are marrying them.

What do we do?
Just keep changing doctrine to suit our needs?

you can attend but not allowed sing .. some hold to closed communion some hold you have be baptized into the church to join.. even if previous baptized..

If someone has to be baptized AGAIN to join a denomination...
it means that baptism has lost all its meaning.

I'd NEVER join a church that would require me to be baptized again.
We are not baptized into a church/denomination but into THE CHURCH....THE BODY OF CHRIST.

some of the baptist are authortve on the doctrine.. i prefer just be called forgiven at the church i pastor i have a banner if your 99% saved your 100%lost ..

the doctrine is not hard to discuss provided its done in a christian way not in a finger pointing of your wrong. areas that can be agreed on focus on that areas that are not let it be. especially if it causes flesh come out..

I try to be very Christian about discussing controversial topics.
I find, however, that some on the other side begin to make personal insults as soon as they get some push-back.

 

[Kokyu]

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.

It's not that I don't understand what you've written above, it's that I don't agree that its correct. Hopefully, you can recognize the difference.

And no, our obedience cannot contribute to our salvation because there is nothing left in Christ's Atonement for us on the cross that God's justice yet requires to be satisfied. "It is finished!" Jesus cried and there is nothing more to be done to atone for our sin (He. 7-10:22). Salvation is also given to us as a gift (Eph. 2:8; Ro. 6:23). As such, it cannot be earned, or deserved and is profoundly disrespected as a gift when we attempt to earn it, or improve it by some contribution of good deeds.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Titus 3:5-7
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He richly poured out upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

2 Timothy 1:9
9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was granted to us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

You've said I'm Strawmanning your view when I refute with 1 John 1:8 the idea of perfect sinlessness that you seem to be proposing. But your syllogism (of sorts) above leads directly to a sinless perfection doctrine.

"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."

How do you distinguish what you've written here from the idea of sinless perfection? It seems the standard of obedience you're putting forward in this statement from those who want to claim to be saved is an absolute one, a perfect one. But as I pointed out, the apostle John flatly denies such an idea, saying any who hold to it are self-deceived and devoid of God's Truth.

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

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.

But I have posted a great deal of Scripture in this thread. One has only to peruse my posts to see this is the case. Or look at the verses above that I've put in this post. It is rather...bizarre, then, to read the flat-out false claim you make here that I "NEVER POST SCRIPTURE."

Also, you're using the tu quoque fallacy again. A "you do it too" retort doesn't defend your view against criticism. It's just a rather weak deflection of criticism that does nothing to support your view or rebut mine.

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.

How do you know this about John? As you said, you're 2000 years removed from him. All we have is what he wrote and what he wrote is, fortunately, very clear, demolishing the saved-and-lost misconstruction you're wanting to put on his words. It's not surprising, though, that you're imagining - again - what someone else thinks. This seems to be a common feature of your reasoning, though it leads you to false conclusions quite a lot.

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.

No, it's not okay to sin regularly. This would be to have made a practice of sin, which John says indicates one is not actually saved.

And, of course, its never okay to disobey God.

Yes, every believer must choose between God's will and way and their own on a daily basis. As was the case in Eden, God does not compel obedience. He commands us to obey, and gives us His Spirit who changes us so that we may obey (Ro. 8:13; Phil. 2:13; Eph. 3:16), but love demands that God not force us to obey Him. And so, as the Bible clearly and repeatedly illustrates, some Christians choose to follow God's will and way and other Christians choose to follow their own will and way (and thus to sin) (1 Co. 3:1-3, 5, 6, 11; Ga. 3:3; Rev. 2-3, etc.). In fact, this migration into sin is so common a reality for Christians that the apostle John wrote that to claim sinlessness is to be self-decieved and devoid of God's Truth (1 Jn. 1:8). Neither John nor I in acknowledging this reality are approving of sin, however.

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.

It sure seems to me to be what is under discussion. See above. You've offered no clear line of disobedience to God across which a person may move into lost salvation. This makes it appear that you think any sin produces this salvation-lost effect. Here's what you wrote:

"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."

Where is the "Christians will always sin" acknowledgement in your statement? As you've written it, without this acknowledgement, your view sounds like the sinless perfection view. You don't say how much obedience is sufficient to keep one saved, or how little leads to the dissolution of their salvation. You don't even hint that "Christians will always sin."

Of course, if you had made this acknowledgement, your whole statement would have developed an impossible knot. If Christians will always sin, how does it not follow that they are, as you say, living in sin, not abiding in Christ and therefore will not be saved? This is to imply, it seems evident to me, that there can be no such thing as a Christian since they "will always sin."

In any case, 1 John 2:1 very much "makes my case" in that it is an acknowledegment by John that sin was at least a potential in his life for which he had an Advocate, a Defender (Jesus), with Almighty God. As I pointed out, John uses self-inclusive pronouns ("we" and "our) in speaking of occasions of sins, not in the past, but in the present and future. In doing so, John refutes the idea that sin in the life of a believer dissolves their salvation. Instead, they have an Advocate in Christ who is their "propitiation," having already perfectly satisfied God's justice once for all (He. 7-10:22) on the cross for them (and for us today, too).

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.

??? I will continue to write posts to this thread as long as I wish to.

Anyway, if you'd read through my posts in this thread, you'd know that I've already thoroughly answered this question. In short: No it is not necessary to obey God in order to remain His perfectly redeemed, justified, sanctified and adopted child (1 Co. 1:30; Eph. 1:1-13). But obedience to God is entirely natural or normal to being His child - so much so, that if one has no "fruit" of the Spirit in evidence in their life (Ga. 5:22-23), they show either that there is something profoundly wrong in their walk with God, or that they've not yet been saved.

As I've said already in this thread, an apple tree doesn't cease to be an apple tree because it doesn't bear apples; a boat doesn't cease to be a boat if its in dry-dock getting its hull repaired and painted and not floating on water, as it was made to do; a trumpet doesn't cease to be a trumpet if it sits in its case for ten years, unplayed. So, too, the Christian who doesn't produce the "peaceable fruit of righteousness" (He. 12:11). The absence of such fruit doesn't necessarily indicate that they haven't been saved (though, it could), nor does the absence of this fruit mean they were a Christian and now are not. Good works are the fruit of being saved, the result or by-product of being saved, never the means of being saved (or staying saved). Again, see: Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7 and 2 Timothy 1:9.

 

[Kokyu]

I don't read Strong's.
I don't read commentators.
I read the word of God.

And your point is? It's not a one-or-the-other thing: one either reads Strong's and commentaries or the Bible. Instead, I read all three - as do many other Christians.

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.

I've already explained why John 15:2 is a mistranslation of the Greek word airo. Accept it or don't. But you'll need more than your flat contradiction above to dissolve what I pointed out both from the historical context of the verse, the root meaning of airo and the rest of Scripture that clearly denies a saved-and-lost doctrine. To rebut these things successfully, it's not enough to say that airo may also bear translation as "take away" (but not TO SEVER, as you claim). I can simply do as you've done and respond that the root meaning of airo is not "take away" but "lift/bear up." "Take away" is an extrapolation from airo; this phrase doesn't express the actual fundamental meaning of the word.

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.

Yes, Jesus does explain everything very well, as one would expect. And when I read what he said, especially in the light of the translation issue I've pointed out, as well as in the light of the teaching of the rest of the NT, I don't arrive at a saved-and-lost doctrine. Only if one is already looking to find a saved-and-lost doctrine in what they read will they do so with John 15:1-6. The rest of us understand Jesus's words very differently.

Well then K....
If it doesn't "comport" then we have ourselves a real problem here.

No, "we" don't; you do. It's your saved-and-lost construction of Jesus's words that doesn't comport with the rest of Scripture.

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.

But I have already "synchronized" - or, better, synthesized - them together. So, I don't have to do any throwing out of the NT.

How about posting some verses you think teach eternal security?

I have already many times in this thread.

Hebrews 13:5
Romans 8:31-39
John 10:27-29
Ephesians 1:1-13; 2:1-10
Titus 3:5-7
2 Timothy 1:9
1 Peter 1:1-5

And so on.

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.

Snidely remarking on what you think is a "fixation" of the OSAS crowd hardly constitutes a rebuttal of their "fixation." And, no, it's not "simple English"; it's figurative language, as the context of the parable plainly reveals.

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.

??? Maybe you don't understand that flat contradiction and bald assertion don't argue for your view or rebut mine. I wonder because all you've done above is contradict and assert; you've not actually argued for your view with evidence and reason, letting your prooftexts say what they actually say (in context) and acknowledging other passages that qualify, clarify, or disqualify your prooftexts.

Generally, if you have to go outside the immediate context of a verse or passage in order to make it say what you want it to say, you're very likely contorting Scripture. Obviously, Luke 8:13 doesn't have anything directly to do with Luke 15:11-32. Certainly, the parable of the Sower and the Seed doesn't explain the parable of the Prodigal Son. To reiterate my earlier explanation of the Prodigal Son parable:

- the son was never literally dead.
- the son was never not a son to his father.
- the son had no direct, positive interaction with his father while he was in a far country.
- the son was only said to be "alive" once he had returned home, which implies that he was "dead" in the sense that he was absent and all direct, personal interaction was halted between father and son.

Nothing in any of these statements about the parable add to the content of the parable or are at all controversial in what they state about the events of the parable. As it stands, though, this straightforward summary of the parable offers no ground whatever for a saved-and-lost doctrine and, in fact, refutes it.

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.

This is amusing. Where in the parable does the son get on his knees and ask for his father's forgiveness? Nowhere. Who, then, is "observing things in a strange manner"? That would be you - as you demonstrate in the quotation above.

Luke 15:20-24
20 “And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him.
21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet.
23 And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry;

See? The father is already joyfully hugging and kissing his son when the son admits to his sin. The son never gets to ask for forgiveness from his father, or do any sort of penance, before his father is calling for new clothes, a ring and food for a party for his son.

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

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

Which is insulting. Funny, how the very thing you've been doing to me you're objecting to here. Here are some other examples from your comments to me:

"Study up on some church history."

"You've been very poorly trained in debating theology."

"It's simple English K."

 

[Kokyu]

Citing scripture is woefully insufficient?!
And superficial ?

Strawman.

Voila'
Guess this is why YOU never post scripture!

False conclusion erected upon a Strawman.

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.

Uh huh.

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.

Just more Strawman stuff.

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

This is still the tu quoque fallacy you're employing here. "You do it, too!" is not an argument for your views or a defense against criticism of your views. It's just a logically-fallacious deflection of criticism of your view.

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

More false statements. Folks have only to read my posts in this thread to see just how false what you're saying here is.

AGAIN YOU do what you accuse me of doing.

DIfficult to defend an inaccurate position isn't it?

More tu quoque.

And I'm having no problem explaining and grounding my view in Scripture. You don't want to accept what I've shown and explained but that is a problem on your end, not mine. So, I can't speak to how difficult it is to defend an inaccurate position since I've not put one forward. How about you?

I've already made my statement on Peter.

Which, as a response to my remarks on him, was totally off-point.

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.

More Strawman.

And then write that I misunderstood you?

You do, frequently and badly, yes. See above.

 

[GodsGrace]

Strawman.



False conclusion erected upon a Strawman.



Uh huh.



Just more Strawman stuff.



This is still the tu quoque fallacy you're employing here. "You do it, too!" is not an argument for your views or a defense against criticism of your views. It's just a logically-fallacious deflection of criticism of your view.



More false statements. Folks have only to read my posts in this thread to see just how false what you're saying here is.



More tu quoque.

And I'm having no problem explaining and grounding my view in Scripture. You don't want to accept what I've shown and explained but that is a problem on your end, not mine. So, I can't speak to how difficult it is to defend an inaccurate position since I've not put one forward. How about you?



Which, as a response to my remarks on him, was totally off-point.



More Strawman.



You do, frequently and badly, yes. See above.

I've read all 3 of your posts to me.
I am having no further conversation with you.
The reason is that there seems to be a communication problem and I'm not here to correct communication problems.
I'm here to state that OSAS is NOT biblical, is not taught in scripture and was never believed by the early church and only came about after the Reformation.

I do want to make just two statements.

1. THIS is what you stated in your post no. 643 above:

And no, our obedience cannot contribute to our salvation because there is nothing left in Christ's Atonement for us on the cross that God's justice yet requires to be satisfied. "It is finished!" Jesus cried and there is nothing more to be done to atone for our sin (He. 7-10:22). Salvation is also given to us as a gift (Eph. 2:8; Ro. 6:23). As such, it cannot be earned, or deserved and is profoundly disrespected as a gift when we attempt to earn it, or improve it by some contribution of good deeds.

The above paragraph is sufficient to understand your position and the position of all those that adhere to OSAS.
They do not give any importance to the fact that God requires obedience - and your statement proves it.

Also, you find it impossible to reply to my question which was very simple and which I'll repeat here.
IS IT NECESSARY FOR US TO OBEY GOD ONCE WE ARE SAVED?

No need to reply again - you've already answered in the above paragraph.

If you believe God does not require obedience (or good works), so be it.
You'll take it up with God.



2. Sure. You can reply to posts on this thread for as long as you want to.
I said that OUR discussion would end --- NOT your right to post on this thread.

See K,,,you have a communication problem and I don't have the time to deal with it.

I will, however, be making comments to your very unbiblical idea that obedience to God is not necessary, as I see fit.


Oh, and it's most interesting that I posted from STRONG'S (YOUR choice) and you still do not accept what it plainly states.
Typical stuff.

 

[Ezra]

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.

there is no force its a want to and a desire my pos is just like i stated.

I try to be very Christian about discussing controversial topics.
I find, however, that some on the other side begin to make personal insults as soon as they get some push-back.

i try my best to be respectful towards others belief .. but how ever i can get rather point blank i had rather not.. our discussions has been good... there are several things i will make a reply to. this is one subject i have examined back and forth over the years . and it is my conclusion we can be secure in Christ i have my own way of saying it.. called a know so salvation and yes i really believe if you/ me/whoever is this the real deal we will stay the course .

i do know of denominations that teach you have to plead every day to stay saved . thats stupid that is legalism at its best !! might i also say speaking in tongues is not necessary to be saved nor is water baptism the key to salvation.. its by Grace are ye saved not of works lest any many should boast .

So we have to wonder...were those right after Jesus correct or are we correct in our new ideas?
Some churches are blessing same sex couples.
Some churches are marrying them.

What do we do?
Just keep changing doctrine to suit our needs?

very simple on same sex marriage they are NOT of God . i enjoy listening to back to the Bible by jay vernon mcgee . before each teaching session they read letters wrote to him. the other day a man was writing about not being happy probably under condemnation . he then proceeded to say he was homosexual... plain and simple he is not saved. mcgee put it out using scripture what he must do.

If someone has to be baptized AGAIN to join a denomination...
it means that baptism has lost all its meaning.

I'd NEVER join a church that would require me to be baptized again.
We are not baptized into a church/denomination but into THE CHURCH....THE BODY OF CHRIST.

agreed all the way a lady i know whose church practices that . i asked where that was in the Bible.. she said i dont know but i am sure my pastor knows.. i never said a word, i dont want anyone clinging to ezra gospel just cause i said it.. i want them to get it for them selves

the 2 doctrines can can not will never be solved.... my suggestion if person believes they can lose it then i suggest they live in a manner the Bible tells us .. 1 john 1:9 .. the confession is for our part.. He already knows...


if one believes osas then they still need to live it the way the Bible teaches romans 6 what shall we sin because we are under grace ? paul wrote certainly NOT HE THEN GOES ON TO EXPLAIN WHY WE ARE NOT TO...

If we're not free again to live in our old nature....
what does that tell you?
It tells you that obedience to God is necessary.

once again the Bible tells me how to live the Life peter wrote he hath given us
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 2 Peter 1:3


that tells me we have no excuse if i hire you to do a job i either will have what you need to do it.. or you will have what it takes to do it tools and knowledge .


over they years man doesnt like the way things are going in a church.. creates a division .. then starts his own Church.. soon they are singing i done it my way

 

[Ezra]

Strawman.

are you a calvinist ? i use to get this remark in carm when discussing calvinism

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

are you a calvinist ? i use to get this remark in carm when discussing calvinism

Matt Slick and his whole CARM shtick teach elements of calvinism as do most preachers, churches, and para church organizations today.

Calvinism is clearly doctrines of demons to those that have the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ who are led by the Holy Spirit but sadly to those that have blinded by devils it's their beloved false doctrine they would kill for just like their boy John Calvin did

 

[Kokyu]

are you a calvinist ? i use to get this remark in carm when discussing calvinism

No, not for many years. I'm a mix of Molinism and Provisionism, soteriologically speaking.

 

[Ezra]

No, not for many years. I'm a mix of Molinism and Provisionism, soteriologically speaking.

doctrines of men

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

doctrines of men

Yep, they departed from following what the Lord teaches to following the dark mind of mankind with an assist from satan

 

[Kokyu]

I do want to make just two statements.

1. THIS is what you stated in your post no. 643 above:

And no, our obedience cannot contribute to our salvation because there is nothing left in Christ's Atonement for us on the cross that God's justice yet requires to be satisfied. "It is finished!" Jesus cried and there is nothing more to be done to atone for our sin (He. 7-10:22). Salvation is also given to us as a gift (Eph. 2:8; Ro. 6:23). As such, it cannot be earned, or deserved and is profoundly disrespected as a gift when we attempt to earn it, or improve it by some contribution of good deeds.

The above paragraph is sufficient to understand your position and the position of all those that adhere to OSAS.
They do not give any importance to the fact that God requires obedience - and your statement proves it.

No, once again, you're offering a Strawman of what I've written - even when my words are right in front of you. Nowhere in what I wrote in the quotation above do I say that Christians ought to give no importance to the fact God commands obedience of His children. In fact, a few times now in our exchange I've indicated that it is important to obey God, that Christian's should do so, Nonetheless, here you give your non sequitur conclusion about my statement, blatantly ignoring what I've actually written. You seem so prejudiced against the OSAS view that you're reflexively mischaracterizing arguments for the view. Amazing (and not in a good way).

I should also remark that what you've done here with my words, you do constantly with God's word, too. And you arrive at the same erroneous conclusions, as a result.

Also, you find it impossible to reply to my question which was very simple and which I'll repeat here.
IS IT NECESSARY FOR US TO OBEY GOD ONCE WE ARE SAVED?

But I did answer - and very directly and plainly. Here is my answer...again:

"Anyway, if you'd read through my posts in this thread, you'd know that I've already thoroughly answered this question. In short: No it is not necessary to obey God in order to remain His perfectly redeemed, justified, sanctified and adopted child (1 Co. 1:30; Eph. 1:1-13). But obedience to God is entirely natural or normal to being His child - so much so, that if one has no "fruit" of the Spirit in evidence in their life (Ga. 5:22-23), they show either that there is something profoundly wrong in their walk with God, or that they've not yet been saved.

As I've said already in this thread, an apple tree doesn't cease to be an apple tree because it doesn't bear apples; a boat doesn't cease to be a boat if its in dry-dock getting its hull repaired and painted and not floating on water, as it was made to do; a trumpet doesn't cease to be a trumpet if it sits in its case for ten years, unplayed. So, too, the Christian who doesn't produce the "peaceable fruit of righteousness" (He. 12:11). The absence of such fruit doesn't necessarily indicate that they haven't been saved (though, it could), nor does the absence of this fruit mean they were a Christian and now are not. Good works are the fruit of being saved, the result or by-product of being saved, never the means of being saved (or staying saved). Again, see: Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7 and 2 Timothy 1:9."

No need to reply again - you've already answered in the above paragraph.

I'll decide if I will reply to another post, or not, thanks.

2. Sure. You can reply to posts on this thread for as long as you want to.
I said that OUR discussion would end --- NOT your right to post on this thread.

See K,,,you have a communication problem and I don't have the time to deal with it.

I will, however, be making comments to your very unbiblical idea that obedience to God is not necessary, as I see fit.

If you believe you're correct, then it stands to reason that you'll champion your view. This is what this forum is for, so, please, hammer away at OSAS if you think you must. On my end, I'll hammer away at the saved-and-lost/works-salvation doctrine, showing it for the false thing that it is. Hooray for freedom of speech and belief!

 

[Kokyu]

doctrines of men

???

 

[GodsGrace]

there is no force its a want to and a desire my pos is just like i stated.

Perseverance of the Saints is a Reformed/Calvinist teaching.
It states that if God has chosen someone to be saved, that person WILL be saved because God will keep him that way.
God keeping someone, to the calvinist, means that the person has no choice.

So, it is not because the person WANTS to remain saved (although they might want to), but because God will KEEP them saved.

i try my best to be respectful towards others belief .. but how ever i can get rather point blank i had rather not.. our discussions has been good... there are several things i will make a reply to. this is one subject i have examined back and forth over the years . and it is my conclusion we can be secure in Christ

I agree.
We can be secure IN CHRSIT.
Can we be secure OUTSIDE of Christ?
No.
Can we be secure if we do not act as Jesus taught that we should act?
No.

We can be secure IN CHRIST....
when we follow Christ and obey Him in our daily lives.

i have my own way of saying it.. called a know so salvation and yes i really believe if you/ me/whoever is this the real deal we will stay the course .

i do know of denominations that teach you have to plead every day to stay saved . thats stupid that is legalism at its best !! might i also say speaking in tongues is not necessary to be saved nor is water baptism the key to salvation.. its by Grace are ye saved not of works lest any many should boast .

I don't know a denomination that teaches that we have to plead for our salvation every day.

OTOH, I DO know denominations that teach that we could sin all we want to and still be saved.
These denominations cheapen the work of Jesus and the sacrifice He made for us.

Charles Stanley used to teach this. I don't know if his son does.
It's a demonic teaching that will lead some straight to hell because they did not follow the teachings of God but those of satan,
who is a liar.

Adam obeyed satan, and look where it's gotten us.

very simple on same sex marriage they are NOT of God . i enjoy listening to back to the Bible by jay vernon mcgee . before each teaching session they read letters wrote to him. the other day a man was writing about not being happy probably under condemnation . he then proceeded to say he was homosexual... plain and simple he is not saved. mcgee put it out using scripture what he must do.

OK but I think a person could be homosexual and saved.
It's a matter of whether or not they practice it.

agreed all the way a lady i know whose church practices that . i asked where that was in the Bible.. she said i dont know but i am sure my pastor knows.. i never said a word, i dont want anyone clinging to ezra gospel just cause i said it.. i want them to get it for them selves

I'm sure @amigo de christo will agree with me when I state that, yes, we should all know what the bible teaches for ourselves or we will be led astray by some "preachers/teachers".

the 2 doctrines can can not will never be solved.... my suggestion if person believes they can lose it then i suggest they live in a manner the Bible tells us .. 1 john 1:9 .. the confession is for our part.. He already knows...

There is a way to know Ezra.
Find out what those that the Apostles taught believed.
The Apostles DID teach others what Jesus taught.

if one believes osas then they still need to live it the way the Bible teaches romans 6 what shall we sin because we are under grace ? paul wrote certainly NOT HE THEN GOES ON TO EXPLAIN WHY WE ARE NOT TO...

Great.
But read what a OSAS believer wrote in post 653.
He wrote that it's not necessary to obey God.
Here is what he wrote to me:


"Anyway, if you'd read through my posts in this thread, you'd know that I've already thoroughly answered this question. In short: No it is not necessary to obey God in order to remain His perfectly redeemed, justified, sanctified and adopted child

The OSAS crowd does not properly represent what God wants from us...
they do not properly represent biblical teaching.

God has always demanded obedience, in the OT and in the NT.

once again the Bible tells me how to live the Life peter wrote he hath given us
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 2 Peter 1:3

Agreed.

that tells me we have no excuse if i hire you to do a job i either will have what you need to do it.. or you will have what it takes to do it tools and knowledge .


over they years man doesnt like the way things are going in a church.. creates a division .. then starts his own Church.. soon they are singing i done it my way

Agreed. 100%.

 

[GodsGrace]

No, once again, you're offering a Strawman of what I've written - even when my words are right in front of you. Nowhere in what I wrote in the quotation above do I say that Christians ought to give no importance to the fact God commands obedience of His children. In fact, a few times now in our exchange I've indicated that it is important to obey God, that Christian's should do so, Nonetheless, here you give your non sequitur conclusion about my statement, blatantly ignoring what I've actually written. You seem so prejudiced against the OSAS view that you're reflexively mischaracterizing arguments for the view. Amazing (and not in a good way).

I should also remark that what you've done here with my words, you do constantly with God's word, too. And you arrive at the same erroneous conclusions, as a result.



But I did answer - and very directly and plainly. Here is my answer...again:

"Anyway, if you'd read through my posts in this thread, you'd know that I've already thoroughly answered this question. In short: No it is not necessary to obey God in order to remain His perfectly redeemed, justified, sanctified and adopted child (1 Co. 1:30; Eph. 1:1-13). But obedience to God is entirely natural or normal to being His child - so much so, that if one has no "fruit" of the Spirit in evidence in their life (Ga. 5:22-23), they show either that there is something profoundly wrong in their walk with God, or that they've not yet been saved.

As I've said already in this thread, an apple tree doesn't cease to be an apple tree because it doesn't bear apples; a boat doesn't cease to be a boat if its in dry-dock getting its hull repaired and painted and not floating on water, as it was made to do; a trumpet doesn't cease to be a trumpet if it sits in its case for ten years, unplayed. So, too, the Christian who doesn't produce the "peaceable fruit of righteousness" (He. 12:11). The absence of such fruit doesn't necessarily indicate that they haven't been saved (though, it could), nor does the absence of this fruit mean they were a Christian and now are not. Good works are the fruit of being saved, the result or by-product of being saved, never the means of being saved (or staying saved). Again, see: Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7 and 2 Timothy 1:9."




I'll decide if I will reply to another post, or not, thanks.



If you believe you're correct, then it stands to reason that you'll champion your view. This is what this forum is for, so, please, hammer away at OSAS if you think you must. On my end, I'll hammer away at the saved-and-lost/works-salvation doctrine, showing it for the false thing that it is. Hooray for freedom of speech and belief!

That's being a good Christian...

Double down on teaching that it's not necessary to obey God.

Here's what you stated in no. 653

"Anyway, if you'd read through my posts in this thread, you'd know that I've already thoroughly answered this question. In short: No it is not necessary to obey God in order to remain His perfectly redeemed, justified, sanctified and adopted child...


The above says it all.

No further comment necessary.

 

[Ezra]

OK but I think a person could be homosexual and saved.
It's a matter of whether or not they practice it.

that was not intent say they couldnt .. my intent is be practicing homosexuality and staying that way saying there saved

The OSAS crowd does not properly represent what God wants from us...
they do not properly represent biblical teaching.

God has always demanded obedience, in the OT and in the NT.

you cant lump all into that category men like Adrian rogers even they did hold osas not once has he ever said its ok to stay in sin

There is a way to know Ezra.
Find out what those that the Apostles taught believed.
The Apostles DID teach others what Jesus taught.

i have my Bible i read and jesus at no time ever taught you could or could not same with the apostle paul teaching . the term osas and the term osnas is man made. . its been good discussion as per amigo no thanks

 

[Ezra]

I don't know a denomination that teaches that we have to plead for our salvation every day.

let me rephrase that i know of one who probably does

Charles Stanley used to teach this. I don't know if his son does.

i have listened to charles stanley not many times but some i listen to a variety of preachers. as per his son andy he is bit to much he pretty close to supporting the same sex agenda .. preaching is like eating chicken eat the meat throw the bones away

 

[amigo de christo]

That's being a good Christian...

Double down on teaching that it's not necessary to obey God.

Here's what you stated in no. 653

"Anyway, if you'd read through my posts in this thread, you'd know that I've already thoroughly answered this question. In short: No it is not necessary to obey God in order to remain His perfectly redeemed, justified, sanctified and adopted child...


The above says it all.

No further comment necessary.

I noticed you highlighted his post in dark black .
Now , lets see
what would paul have said . OH wait i got it cause paul already wrote it .
DONT YE KNOW TO WHOM YE YIELD YOURSELVES SERVANTS TO OBEY
is whose servants YE ARE . So his in short , NO its not necessary
AINT LOOKING GOOD at all . NOT at all .
WHO WE LOVE IS WHO WE OBEY and who we obey IS WHOSE WE ARE .
GOD wont be mocked . HE who sows to the flesh shall of the flesh reap CORRUPTION
HE who sows to the SPIRIT , LIFE EVERLASTING .
These people not only preach rebellion , THEY ENCOURAGE REBELLION .
Guess they dont realize
And are too high minded to even try and remember
That we are made partakers OF CHRIST , IF WE HOLD our confidence FIRM TO THE END .
JESUS aint the minstir of sin and i fear that many HAVE NOT the SPIRIT
they very much still ALIVE TO SIN and REBELLION is preached .
DIDNT GOD DESIRE to be worshipped IN SPIRIT and IN TRUTH
But today some folks act like
HE DONT care what we do , HE came to simply save us and it dont matter IF WE OBEY HIM or NOT .
But that was NOT the plan of GOD at all .
HE HAS ALWAYS DESIRED , and HIS DESIRE has NOT CHANGED .
WHAT DOES GOD DESIRE above even sacrifice . OBEDIANCE . OBEDIANCE .

 

[GodsGrace]

I noticed you highlighted his post in dark black .
Now , lets see
what would paul have said . OH wait i got it cause paul already wrote it .
DONT YE KNOW TO WHOM YE YIELD YOURSELVES SERVANTS TO OBEY
is whose servants YE ARE . So his in short , NO its not necessary
AINT LOOKING GOOD at all . NOT at all .
WHO WE LOVE IS WHO WE OBEY and who we obey IS WHOSE WE ARE .
GOD wont be mocked . HE who sows to the flesh shall of the flesh reap CORRUPTION
HE who sows to the SPIRIT , LIFE EVERLASTING .
These people not only preach rebellion , THEY ENCOURAGE REBELLION .
Guess they dont realize
And are too high minded to even try and remember
That we are made partakers OF CHRIST , IF WE HOLD our confidence FIRM TO THE END .
JESUS aint the minstir of sin and i fear that many HAVE NOT the SPIRIT
they very much still ALIVE TO SIN and REBELLION is preached .
DIDNT GOD DESIRE to be worshipped IN SPIRIT and IN TRUTH
But today some folks act like
HE DONT care what we do , HE came to simply save us and it dont matter IF WE OBEY HIM or NOT .
But that was NOT the plan of GOD at all .
HE HAS ALWAYS DESIRED , and HIS DESIRE has NOT CHANGED .
WHAT DOES GOD DESIRE above even sacrifice . OBEDIANCE . OBEDIANCE .

Agreed 100%
I wonder WHY it's so difficult for some to state that, yes, we must obey God.
There must be a reason, but I don't know it.

You're quoting Romans 6:16
Yes sir.
I plan on presenting myself to our Lord...
I plan on obeying Him...
I scream this from the roof tops...
and when I don't, I ask forgiveness and carry on...

But NEVER are we to make such statements as that it's not necessary to obey God...
statements that could lead some to become lost.

Paul had a lot to say about these persons that preach a different gospel.
Jesus had a lot to say too.

Too bad some listen to modern day preachers instead of reading what Jesus taught in the pages of the NT.