Eternal Security

[Guest shiloh357]

How do you account for Hebrews 6:4-6?

NLT

⁴ For it is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightenedthose who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵ who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come⁶ and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people back to repentance; by rejecting the Son of God, they themselves are nailing him to the cross once again and holding him up to public shame.

NKJV

⁴ For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, ⁵ and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, ⁶ if they fall away,^[b] to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

This passasge pertains to immaturity and spiritual stagnation. If you notice that in the last few verses of chapter five, where this passage really begins, the complaint is not that they are apostates or living in sin or have rejected the Lord. The complaint is that they are babes needing milk when they should be more mature and able to handle the meat.

The NLT is incorrect in accusing them of rejecting the Son of God. The Greek does not support that. It is more of a paraphrase of the passage rather than a translation and does not fit the context.

Furthermore, the Greek word for "fall away" is not the word used for those who apostasize. Parapiptos is a word that means to "fall aside" and the idea is simply one who ceases to progress and remains on the sideline. It is not a case of someone rejecting the Lord or returning to sin, but they have become lazy and have failed to go on to more mature aspects of their walk with the Lord. So, this passage does not in anyway refute, or even touch on the issue of eternal security.

[PeterH]

Parker1, First let me say I do agree with you that we are eternally secure in Christ. And I pushed you to make sure the point that 1 John 2:19 makes was in your argument. I always like to include all the text around scripture to make sure that I am not taking it out of context.

1 John 2:18-27

NLT

¹⁸ Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come. ¹⁹ These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us. ²⁰ But you are not like that, for the Holy One has given you his Spirit,^[e] and all of you know the truth. ²¹ So I am writing to you not because you don't know the truth but because you know the difference between truth and lies. ²² And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ.^[f] Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.^[g]23 Anyone who denies the Son doesn't have the Father, either. But anyone who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

²⁴ So you must remain faithful to what you have been taught from the beginning. If you do, you will remain in fellowship with the Son and with the Father. ²⁵ And in this fellowship we enjoy the eternal life he promised us.

²⁶ I am writing these things to warn you about those who want to lead you astray. ²⁷ But you have received the Holy Spirit,^[h] and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit^[i] teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh357, I could argue that "false believers" are the same as people who say they're christian then deny Christ. I could also argue that the term Antichrist used in 1 John 2 is lumping all false believers, occults and the people that perverted the truth together. By that argument I believe what I said is true.

You could argue those things. And you would be mistaken if you did. If you study the history of the 1st century church, you will find that John addresses directly what history teaches us was going on. The gnostics and docetists that John identifies in his epistles were never true believers that were gone bad. These were cultic infiltrators. They come in acting like one of the crowd and they gently push their false doctrines.

False beilevers are people who were never saved. They may know the lingo, they may know the right things to say and do, but they were never true believers. According to John they were never among us to start with. John teaches us how to recognize those who are not true: It is their confession of who Christ is.

I'm glad that you brought up the beginning of the passage and I'm sorry I did not include this it was an over sight on my part. The author of Hebrews I believe is trying to make a point to young believers that were confused about "stumbling" in their walks. I

The auithor of Hebrews says NOTHING of stumbling. His complaint is that they are not growing, not that they have stumbled. He is not accusing them of falling or stumbling into sin.

I too was confused as a young believer about this subject. If I fall down in my walk with Christ do I have to repent and ask Jesus to save me again? Hebrews, I believe, is answering this question by saying no you can't be saved twice but you need to repent and stand back up and continue your walk. Basically, a some what nice way of saying "grow up".

The specific complaint is not that they have fallen down, but that they are lazy, immature and stagnate. Why not let the author speak for himself instead of trying to assign your values and motives to the text???

This passage to you may not refute or touch the issue of eternal security but I have seen it used many times to do just that.

It is used that way because people with an agenda like to use it to accuse others of losing salvation.

[PeterH]

You could argue those things. And you would be mistaken if you did. If you study the history of the 1st century church, you will find that John addresses directly what history teaches us was going on. The gnostics and docetists that John identifies in his epistles were never true believers that were gone bad. These were cultic infiltrators. They come in acting like one of the crowd and they gently push their false doctrines.

False beilevers are people who were never saved. They may know the lingo, they may know the right things to say and do, but they were never true believers. According to John they were never among us to start with. John teaches us how to recognize those who are not true: It is their confession of who Christ is.

I honestly don't what point your arguing here I don't see a difference in what I said to what you are saying.

The auithor of Hebrews says NOTHING of stumbling. His complaint is that they are not growing, not that they have stumbled. He is not accusing them of falling or stumbling into sin.

The specific complaint is not that they have fallen down, but that they are lazy, immature and stagnate. Why not let the author speak for himself instead of trying to assign your values and motives to the text???

Again to me lazy, immature and stagnate infer fallen down and not getting back up. It's like when child falls down and won't get backup on their own. You will pick them back up but after while of them doing this you will just say stop being lazy get up on your own. I'm not assigning my values here I'm simply applying this passage of scripture to my life as best as I can understand it.

This passage to you may not refute or touch the issue of eternal security but I have seen it used many times to do just that.

It is used that way because people with an agenda like to use it to accuse others of losing salvation.

It seems to me that you're attacking me based on semantics. I may be completely wrong and its just that you lack tact but have good intentions. I am not saying how I interpret scripture is the absolute correct way and I don't want to cause division over semantics. So please, can you explain your view on the original subject. I could be missing something and I don't want to miss an opportunity to have a deeper understanding.

[Guest shiloh357]

I honestly don't what point your arguing here I don't see a difference in what I said to what you are saying.

You equated false believers with those who are Christians and later deny Christ. I am saying that John is claiming that they were never genuine Christians in the first place.

Again to me lazy, immature and stagnate infer fallen down and not getting back up. It's like when child falls down and won't get backup on their own. You will pick them back up but after while of them doing this you will just say stop being lazy get up on your own.

Yes, but my point is that it is not the same as falling away from the Lord.

It seems to me that you're attacking me based on semantics.

I said nothing about you. I said there are people who use this passage from Hebrews to claim salvation can be lost, but it is usually agenda based.

I may be completely wrong and its just that you lack tact but have good intentions.

No, with regard to how you take my statements, it is poor reading comprehension on your part. I said nothing about you.

So please, can you explain your view on the original subject. I could be missing something and I don't want to miss an opportunity to have a deeper understanding.

Eternal Security is not an excuse or a free pass to live in sin. Rather it is an expression of the faithfulness of God to His children. The doctrine of Eternal Security is not that you can sin all you want and get away with it. Eternal Security teaches that God is faithful and is not fickle or preferential in His love. We can trust Him to keep His promises with regard to His love and with regard to His salvation. He is not going to give us salvation today and then decide tomorrow to take it away. He is steadfast and sure and unchanging and we who are His children can know that He will be faithful. Even when we mess up in a genuine attempt to serve Him, His grace is there to pick us up and enable us to continue to follow and serve Him. In Eternal Security, grace is the expectation of holy living.

[PeterH]

Eternal Security is not an excuse or a free pass to live in sin. Rather it is an expression of the faithfulness of God to His children. The doctrine of Eternal Security is not that you can sin all you want and get away with it. Eternal Security teaches that God is faithful and is not fickle or preferential in His love. We can trust Him to keep His promises with regard to His love and with regard to His salvation. He is not going to give us salvation today and then decide tomorrow to take it away. He is steadfast and sure and unchanging and we who are His children can know that He will be faithful. Even when we mess up in a genuine attempt to serve Him, His grace is there to pick us up and enable us to continue to follow and serve Him. In Eternal Security, grace is the expectation of holy living.

Ok now we're getting down to it. I agree with you that Eternal Security is not an excuse to live in sin. That's why Paul urges the Philippians in Phil 2:12 to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. And yes we can absolutely trust that God is faithful to his promises.

Where I don't fully agree with you is God's graces is not the expectation of holy living. God's grace is a gift that we can not pay for with holy living. We can not earn grace. All our righteous deeds are like filthy rags to God's holiness. God's mercy and grace are free gifts that he offers to everyone and those that accept these gifts and in doing so accept him as God receive them.

Yes, but my point is that it is not the same as falling away from the Lord.

In your view then would someone that "fell away" from the Lord be able to ask for salvation again and receive it?

[OneLight]

Then how do you answer your own question pertaining to the scripture in Hebrews you provided?

I believe that the people described in passage in Hebrews I provided were never really saved. I believe that the author of Hebrews was trying say that it is impossible to be saved twice. I am not saying though that a Christian can't stumble in their walk then repent and continue in fellowship. I am saying that I believe that people that once said they were Christians then deny Christ even to their death bed were never saved to start with.

I would disagree strongly. It seems that those who believe that nobody who turns from Christ ever was His says the same thing. I guess it is a lot easier to believe this then to believe that we can turn from Christ and walk away. Though I would never understand why one would turn from God, I do believe it can happen.

[Guest]

Parker1, First let me say I do agree with you that we are eternally secure in Christ. And I pushed you to make sure the point that 1 John 2:19 makes was in your argument. I always like to include all the text around scripture to make sure that I am not taking it out of context.

1 John 2:18-27

NLT

¹⁸ Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come. ¹⁹ These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us. ²⁰ But you are not like that, for the Holy One has given you his Spirit,^[e] and all of you know the truth. ²¹ So I am writing to you not because you don

[enoob57]

There have been many times this discussion yet God laid this truth upon my heart so I would definitely encourage you to pick it to pieces if it can be-

• When we believe Him to be Christ the living God ->death, burial, resurrection we become a part of the Bride of Christ (Church)
  Eph 5:22-33
• God granted divorce through Moses-> only the immorality & only because of the hardness of their hearts (lacking forgiveness)
  Matt 19:8-10
• But from the beginning God has hatred for divorce
  Mal 2:16
• Acts of sin is as acts of adultery to our Lord
  Jer 3,Hos 3
• The Bride (Church) is presented to The Himself without spot or wrinkle

Eph 5:26-28

26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church,

not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

NKJV

Where in The Heart of God can divorce be found in His presented bride?

Can it be in His hardness of Heart?

Perhaps in His unforgivingness?

Or He will not keep all His promises in His Word? Love Steven

[Botz]

His sheep know His voice...not one will be lost, the Good Shepherd is neither lazy or careless...no sheep can wander so far from his sight that He doesn't know of it, and no wild beast that seeks to devour the young, the weak and the vulnerable can ever drag them off and pluck them from His hand. The Shepherd lays down His life for His sheep, they are untouchable because they are marked forever with the brand of eternity.