Once Saved , Always Saved ?

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, ghtan said:

What you have drawn is not a principle but an over-generalisation. It is like claiming Jesus’ statement that it would be better if Judas had not been born (Mk 14:21) means that all who fall away should also not have been born. That statement was intended only for Judas. Similarly, 1 John 2:19 is intended only for antichrists. Do you have any other verse to support your claim that those who fall away were never believers in the first place?

No, it illustrates the principle that there are those who claim to be Christians and are not.  There are those who masquerade as true believers but are not.  I John 2 is just one example.   Judas is another example.   Judas masqueraded as disciple of Jesus, but was in fact anti-Christ.   If anything, John's reference to anti-Christ  would apply to someone like Judas.

I have given real world examples of false believers.  Not all false believers are "anti-Christ"  but the principle is the same. 

I John 2:19 is not just for anti-Christs.    It's like many things in the Bible, there are sins not mentioned in the Bible.  The Bible does not exhaustively list every possible sin a person can commit.   But what it does is give us a behavioral paradigm by which we can discern what is sinful in things that the Bible doesn't directly mention.   The same applies here.   John mentions anti-Christs, but there are other kinds of false believers who are exposed as false believers because they never were.  It's a similar paradigmical principle in play.   Those who fall away were never part of us to start.  Otherwise they would not have fallen away.

I am sorry, but you have provided not ONE convincing proof that Judas was ever believer.  His biblical profile says he was not a believer, but a son of perdition and Jesus said that about him EARLY in his ministry.    YOU have nothing but your own assumption that Judas performed miracles and you have not provided anything else.

I don't need another verse.   The nature of salvation makes falling away impossible for those who are truly saved.

[ghtan]

13 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No, it illustrates the principle that there are those who claim to be Christians and are not.  There are those who masquerade as true believers but are not.  I John 2 is just one example.   Judas is another example.   Judas masqueraded as disciple of Jesus, but was in fact anti-Christ.   If anything, John's reference to anti-Christ  would apply to someone like Judas.

I have given real world examples of false believers.  Not all false believers are "anti-Christ"  but the principle is the same. 

I John 2:19 is not just for anti-Christs.    It's like many things in the Bible, there are sins not mentioned in the Bible.  The Bible does not exhaustively list every possible sin a person can commit.   But what it does is give us a behavioral paradigm by which we can discern what is sinful in things that the Bible doesn't directly mention.   The same applies here.   John mentions anti-Christs, but there are other kinds of false believers who are exposed as false believers because they never were.  It's a similar paradigmical principle in play.   Those who fall away were never part of us to start.  Otherwise they would not have fallen away.

I am sorry, but you have provided not ONE convincing proof that Judas was ever believer.  His biblical profile says he was not a believer, but a son of perdition and Jesus said that about him EARLY in his ministry.    YOU have nothing but your own assumption that Judas performed miracles and you have not provided anything else.

I don't need another verse.   The nature of salvation makes falling away impossible for those who are truly saved.

You don’t have another verse to support your case? That means your whole argument is based on the MIS-application of ONE verse! That’s very shaky ground.

Judas is a good example and that is why I brought him up. I pointed out that all signs are that there was no discernible difference between him and the other apostles. I won’t re-paste that post here; you can refer to it for yourself.

But add to that what Peter said about Judas. He said Judas was “ONE OF OUR NUMBER” (Acts 1:17). Peter obviously did not apply 1 John 2:19 to Judas. On top of that he said Judas was “allotted his share in this ministry”. It implies Judas did what the other apostles did, i.e. heal the sick and cast out demons. Unless you have done miracles, Judas had more claim to be a believer than you do.

 

 

[ghtan]

On 12/16/2015 at 10:11 AM, simplejeff said:

Yes. 

They are.   ((but not for that reason)).

There were "many AMONG us" , already when the NT was written, and there's many many more today.

 

By Yahweh's Word, and by Yahweh's Spirit.

...

Hi Jeff, sorry for this late reply. I'm interested in what you mean by the above. Please elaborate.

[Guest shiloh357]

9 hours ago, Butero said:

Here is the problem.  People like you will point to others who have been deceived, but it can never be you.  You know you are saved because of a supposed experience you had, so you know you are saved and not just deceived, but that man or woman on the pew beside you that prayed the same prayer may be deceived.  That is what I see as the most glaring problem with your version of OSAS.  You will preach a good John 3:16 message and get the sinner to the alter.  You will get them to say a "sinner's prayer."  You will tell them that they are now saved and can never lose their salvation, and that is all well and good unless they later fall away or become an atheist because of something bad that happens in their life they cannot understand.  Then, they had a false conversion, but that could never be the case with you.  I don't see anymore assurance of salvation in that version of OSAS than I do in the person that believes they can sin and lose salvation.  Not really saved but only thought so verses loses salvation, the result is the same. 

You have it all  wrong.  I don't know I am saved because of an experience.  I am saved because the Bible says I am.   My heart has said yes to Jesus, and the Bible says that with the heart, man believeth unto righteousness.   The minute your heart says "yes" to Jesus, you're saved.   It is not about saying a prayer or signing a card, or going down front to an altar.  None of that stuff saves anyone.

I know that I am saved because the Bible says when I am saved, I am a transformed person and I have a heart that seeks to serve the Lord.  I am not out looking for a way to sin.  I am not depending on church attendance, good deeds, or anything else.   

A person who claims to be saved, but falls into a life of sin, proves they were never saved.  There are a lot of people who depend on the fact that they were born into a Christian family or were baptized as infants, or any number of things, for their salvation.    They are the ones who are deceived.  They never really trusted Jesus.  They didn't even say a sinner's prayer because they were never taught they were a sinner.  There are denominations that don't have altar calls, who never preach the Gospel, or they have a watered down version of something they call,  "the Gospel,"  but they never bring people to a place of decision about Jesus.

Had you actually read my previous comments, I am not talking necessarily about people in evangelical churches who got saved the same way I did.  I am talking about people who have always been sinners because they were never taught the Gospel or who were intentionally deceiving people that they were saved because they had an ulterior motive, as in the example I gave regarding the dating scenario.

If you want to criticize my "version" of eternal security then it would be helpful if you actually addreses what I wrote instead of dreaming up what you think I am saying and trying to refute the imaginary argument you assigned to me.

[Guest shiloh357]

7 hours ago, ghtan said:

 

You don’t have another verse to support your case? That means your whole argument is based on the MIS-application of ONE verse! That’s very shaky ground.

 

1. You have not proven it is a misapplication.

2.  Your argument is based on NO Scripture, but simply an assumption

3. My argument is not based on ONE verse of Scripture.   My argument rests on the entire biblical profile of Judas.  Judas was a thief, a betrayer and early on in Jesus' ministry.  Early in Jesus' ministry, Jesus called Judas a "devil"  (John 6: 40).   The Bible says in John 13: 2, 27 that Judas was tempted to betray Jesus.   But the Bible also says that each man is tempted when by his own evil desire he is dragged away and enticed (James. 1: 14-15).  So, Judas had a heart that was ready and prepared to receive and accept what he was tempted to do.   We also know from John 12: 4-6 that Judas was thief.   Judas walked with Jesus but was committed to his own evil desires, and a selfish agenda.   Judas was not a person who walked with God or loved God with all his heart.   He was an evil man from the very beginning of his time as Jesus' disciple.   His entire profile does not demonstrate a man who was a believer in Jesus.   Judas betrayed Jesus of his own free will.  He didn't have to, but he did so willingly, but that isn't because he lost salvation.   It is merely an outgrowth of the same heart he had from the start.

Quote

Judas is a good example and that is why I brought him up. I pointed out that all signs are that there was no discernible difference between him and the other apostles. I won’t re-paste that post here; you can refer to it for yourself.

Sorry, but there is a lot of difference between Judas the other disciples.   Don't bother reposting it, as it is a waste of your time.  I will not be referring to it, anyway as it is wrong.

Quote

But add to that what Peter said about Judas. He said Judas was “ONE OF OUR NUMBER” (Acts 1:17). Peter obviously did not apply 1 John 2:19 to Judas. On top of that he said Judas was “allotted his share in this ministry”. It implies Judas did what the other apostles did, i.e. heal the sick and cast out demons. Unless you have done miracles, Judas had more claim to be a believer than you do.

But Peter was proclaiming that Judas was believer.   The text does not say that.    You are penciling that assumption into the text.  Miracles are not the sign of a believer.   Whether Judas performed a miracle or not, that is not the basis for determining whether or not someone is a believer.   And we have no verses that show Judas performing miracles.    All you have are unfounded, weak assumptions.

[gdemoss]

I cannot see OSAS as truth because of Heb 6.  I have heard various arguments that seek to make Heb 6 fit inside the OSAS doctrine that fall short of the mark and do not truly seem to represent the text.

I am with Shiloh that when a person is saved there is a definitive change in the person.  They are permanently altered and a new creation in Christ Jesus.  There is always a marked difference in the individual who has come to a knowledge of the truth and embraced Christ as the only hope of salvation from eternal death and damnation.  There is that which is in me that desires nothing but to serve Christ. 

That said, as I have progressed in my walk with Christ and have partaken of more and more of the things listed in Hebrews 6, I am acutely aware of the warning associated with falling away after having become a partaker of such things. 

No, to me the text clearly states that there are grave consequences that come from turning away from Christ after crossing a certain point in your walk with Him.

My question for you Shiloh is what doctrines are at stake if someone can actually fall away unto eternal damnation after being saved? 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, gdemoss said:

I cannot see OSAS as truth because of Heb 6.  I have heard various arguments that seek to make Heb 6 fit inside the OSAS doctrine that fall short of the mark and do not truly seem to represent the text.

 

Heb. 6:1-6 is actually part of a discussion that started in Heb. 5: 11.   Heb. 5:11-6:6 is an entire line of thought and   is a discussion about spiritual maturity, not apostasy.  The word for "fall away" in Heb. 6 is not the Greek word used for falling away in the sense of apostasy.   It is the peripiptos and it refers to people who give out in race because they lack the physical stamina to keep going.  The criticism that the writer of Hebrews is making is that his readership has grown stagnate in their walk with God and their lack of growth has resulted in them not growing or getting stronger.

In chapter six he continues the argument by saying that we can't keep going back to the beginning; it's impossible to start over..  Those who want to keep going back to the beginning are "recrucifying" Jesus, which is an impossibility.  He is making an impossible, absurd argument to demonstrate their absurdity.   The complaint is NOT they have sinned and fallen into apostasy.   The complaint is that they have remained babes, that they have stagnated in there immaturity and are sitting on the sidelines in their faith.

This passage is often used against eternal security, but if the passage is taken to refer to the loss of salvation, it would mean that you could never get resaved, if you fell out of salvation.   The argument in 6:1-6 is simply stating that we can't go back to the beginning and get resaved because it would mean that Jesus would have to get recrucified over and over and over, every time we go back.

[gdemoss]

5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Heb. 6:1-6 is actually part of a discussion that started in Heb. 5: 11.   Heb. 5:11-6:6 is an entire line of thought and   is a discussion about spiritual maturity, not apostasy.  The word for "fall away" in Heb. 6 is not the Greek word used for falling away in the sense of apostasy.   It is the peripiptos and it refers to people who give out in race because they lack the physical stamina to keep going.  The criticism that the writer of Hebrews is making is that his readership has grown stagnate in their walk with God and their lack of growth has resulted in them not growing or getting stronger.

In chapter six he continues the argument by saying that we can't keep going back to the beginning; it's impossible to start over..  Those who want to keep going back to the beginning are "recrucifying" Jesus, which is an impossibility.  He is making an impossible, absurd argument to demonstrate their absurdity.   The complaint is NOT they have sinned and fallen into apostasy.   The complaint is that they have remained babes, that they have stagnated in there immaturity and are sitting on the sidelines in their faith.

This passage is often used against eternal security, but if the passage is taken to refer to the loss of salvation, it would mean that you could never get resaved, if you fell out of salvation.   The argument in 6:1-6 is simply stating that we can't go back to the beginning and get resaved because it would mean that Jesus would have to get recrucified over and over and over, every time we go back.

Thank you Shiloh for your explanation of the text as you understand it.

As I read it I do not hear that.  What I hear is a set of qualifiers for what level a person must achieve in their growth before the danger of permanent loss of salvation becomes possible.  And that Paul doesn't believe they have acheived that and so he isn't wasting time trying to bring them farther along past the basics unto full age.

The position I currently hold supposes that there is a level of understanding that one can acheive while growing as a Christian that would put them in a position akin to the devil and his angels should they fall away.  This veiw does not allow for unconditional eternal security but it doesn't make salvation some flimsy reed that I could somehow easily throw away either.  The odds of anyone being drawn away by the Devil to a state of condemnation after having partaken of all the qualifiers in Hebrews six is slim to none.

I understand that you place a lot of emphasis on word studies and usage and that you will not be swayed in the least by my arguments but I enjoy trying to understand your reasoning to see why you are locked into your position.  Usually I find that if you were to accept something that is being presented as true that it would violate some essential doctrine to your understanding of God and therefore cannot be accepted.  

Thank you again for taking the time to share with me the veiws you hold.  

[Guest shiloh357]

58 minutes ago, gdemoss said:

Thank you Shiloh for your explanation of the text as you understand it.

As I read it I do not hear that.  What I hear is a set of qualifiers for what level a person must achieve in their growth before the danger of permanent loss of salvation becomes possible.  And that Paul doesn't believe they have acheived that and so he isn't wasting time trying to bring them farther along past the basics unto full age.

The position I currently hold supposes that there is a level of understanding that one can acheive while growing as a Christian that would put them in a position akin to the devil and his angels should they fall away.  This veiw does not allow for unconditional eternal security but it doesn't make salvation some flimsy reed that I could somehow easily throw away either.  The odds of anyone being drawn away by the Devil to a state of condemnation after having partaken of all the qualifiers in Hebrews six is slim to none.

I understand that you place a lot of emphasis on word studies and usage and that you will not be swayed in the least by my arguments but I enjoy trying to understand your reasoning to see why you are locked into your position.  Usually I find that if you were to accept something that is being presented as true that it would violate some essential doctrine to your understanding of God and therefore cannot be accepted.  

Thank you again for taking the time to share with me the veiws you hold.  

Sorry, but the context and line of thought simply doesn't support your position.    If Salvation can be lost, there is no salvation at all.   Salvation that you can lose is no salvation at all.

If you want to believe that salvation can be lost and that it is up to you to be good enough to be saved, that's up to you.  I have decided to believe the Bible instead which states that salvation cannot be lost. 

[Kan]

OSAS suggests - OLAL - once lost always lost. Not real sensible inventions.