Once saved always saved?

[BlueMinou]

1 hour ago, woundeddog said:

This is from the King James Authorized version, whether or not you want to bicker over an English version could make all the difference-- KJV may be harder for some people to understand, but its the most accurate,~~~

 

  The Holy Spirit is the (Good faith Token) of our sin free eternal life (inheritance) until Jesus gives us our glorified bodies in the new age (redeems us) .He purchased us with his blood and he owns us~~ hence the purchased possession, we are his possession > He does this to his praise and glory

If we had to maintain our own salvation it would bring us praise and Glory, but since Jesus maintains our salvation he gets the praise and glory.

The translations you are quoting miss the importance of this verse-- most of the newer translations have a tendency to diminish  the Person of Jesus and his Finished work through his blood, so which translation a person uses can affect their doctrine

Are you a King James-onlyist, then?

Israel was God's chosen possession(Deut 7:6). We know how that turned out to be. 

 

Wicked servant  had his debt forgiven, and he was not merciful to others afterwards. He was cast out. (Matthew 18:33). 

We remain in Jesus's love if we keep his commands. We do not remain in his love if we do not keep his commands.(John 15:10). Jesus says it's possible to not remain in him. He says "If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

Jesus says the wicked servant can be punished and be put with hypocrites. (Matthew 24:51).

 

Jesus said his servant can be judged as wicked and slothful, with his talent taken from him and given to someone else, with the worthless servant being cast out. (Matthew 25:26-30).

 

OSAS is a false notion invented by Calvin. It's unbiblical. It is a false doctrine. 

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, BlueMinou said:

Are you a King James-onlyist, then?

It is never a bad idea to stick to the tried and true Bible which has been around for over 400 years, and to memorize some key verses.  Try it sometime.

1 hour ago, BlueMinou said:

OSAS is a false notion invented by Calvin. It's unbiblical. It is a false doctrine. 

Even if Calvin had never existed, the Bible would continue to proclaim the eternal security of the believer.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13 KJV).

[woundeddog]

Just now, Ezra said:

1 hour ago, BlueMinou said:

Are you a King James-onlyist, then?

It is never a bad idea to stick to the tried and true Bible which has been around for over 400 years, and to memorize some key verses.  Try it sometime.

 

Just now, Ezra said:

1 hour ago, BlueMinou said:

OSAS is a false notion invented by Calvin. It's unbiblical. It is a false doctrine. 

Even if Calvin had never existed, the Bible would continue to proclaim the eternal security of the believer.

Ezra--- thank you, I couldn't have said it better~~~~~~

[BlueMinou]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

It is never a bad idea to stick to the tried and true Bible which has been around for over 400 years, and to memorize some key verses.  Try it sometime.

Even if Calvin had never existed, the Bible would continue to proclaim the eternal security of the believer.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13 KJV).

John 5:13 doesn't proclaim Eternal Security. But, let's go with your logic here. The kjv literally says "that ye may know". Therefore, according to you it means Eternal Security

Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version says literally thst God creates darkness and evil. " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

If we take the King James Version literally, are we to believe that God is a god of evil? Literally, the kjv text says God creates evil and darkness. 

Paul says in the kjv 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 " Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

 

My point is that 1 John 5:13 does not prove Eternal Security. It proves Eternal Security no better than an athiest using Isaiah 45:7 to prove that God is evil and is the creator of both moral evil and darkness. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2016 by BlueMinou

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, BlueMinou said:

Shiloh,

The parables of Jesus make it plain and clear that Calvin's doctrine of Eternal Security is an untrue interpretation. It's a false notion.

 

There is nothing in Jesus' parables that contradict eternal security. 

BTW, Eternal Security didn't come from Calvin.    "Perseverance of the Saints" came from Calvin.   So far, your attempt to disprove ES from the Scriptures have pretty much failed.  You cannot seem to make the distinction between a gift and a reward and so you are throwing up Scriptures about rewards for service and interpreting them as referencing salvation.   You are not applying the correct Scriptures to the correct issues.

[BlueMinou]

47 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

There is nothing in Jesus' parables that contradict eternal security. 

BTW, Eternal Security didn't come from Calvin.    "Perseverance of the Saints" came from Calvin.   So far, your attempt to disprove ES from the Scriptures have pretty much failed.  You cannot seem to make the distinction between a gift and a reward and so you are throwing up Scriptures about rewards for service and interpreting them as referencing salvation.   You are not applying the correct Scriptures to the correct issues.

Well, I sense that we aren't on the same page here on the topic of Eternal Security, so I'll quote carm to help me clear up any misunderstanding:

"The three different terms (eternal security, once saved always saved, and perseverance of the saints) are often used interchangeably. However, there are subtle differences between them even though they basically mean the same 
thing--that a person cannot lose his salvation."

https://carm.org/what-is-the-difference-between-eternal-security-once-saved-always-saved-and-perseverance-of-the-saints

 

I am using Eternal Security and OSAS interchangibly. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding. In that context, I have shown examples that demonstrate that Calvin was in error.

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2016 by BlueMinou

[Guest shiloh357]

8 minutes ago, BlueMinou said:

Well, I sense that we aren't on the same page here on the topic of Eternal Security, so I'll quote carm to help me clear up any misunderstanding:

"The three different terms (eternal security, once saved always saved, and perseverance of the saints) are often used interchangeably. However, there are subtle differences between them even though they basically mean the same 
thing--that a person cannot lose his salvation."

https://carm.org/what-is-the-difference-between-eternal-security-once-saved-always-saved-and-perseverance-of-the-saints

 

I am using Eternal Security and OSAS interchangible. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

My point is that non-Calvinists like myself believe in ES but not for the reasons that Calvinists do.

Eternal Security, as properly understood, is predicated on the faithfulness of God.   It also assumes that someone is a genuine follower of Jesus.    Genuine followers of Jesus do not live in sin, and do not forsake the Lord.   Genuine followers of Jesus do not look for ways to sin.    They may stumble on occasion, but they are not in any way shape  or form living in sin and are grieved in their heart when they do sin.

Eternal Security is true because God is faithful.  We are eternally secure because we know that God isn't going to change His mind and decide not to save anyone.  We know he is not going to revoke salvation.   Our security is found in Him, not in our own efforts to be "good" people.  

Eternal life that can be lost is by definition, not eternal.   The concept losing salvation is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of what salvation really is.   Roman Catholicism as a very medieval and thus inferior understanding of salvation which is why the Gospel is not a part of Roman Catholicism.  

[BlueMinou]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

My point is that non-Calvinists like myself believe in ES but not for the reasons that Calvinists do.

Eternal Security, as properly understood, is predicated on the faithfulness of God.   It also assumes that someone is a genuine follower of Jesus.    Genuine followers of Jesus do not live in sin, and do not forsake the Lord.   Genuine followers of Jesus do not look for ways to sin.    They may stumble on occasion, but they are not in any way shape  or form living in sin and are grieved in their heart when they do sin.

Eternal Security is true because God is faithful.  We are eternally secure because we know that God isn't going to change His mind and decide not to save anyone.  We know he is not going to revoke salvation.   Our security is found in Him, not in our own efforts to be "good" people.  

Eternal life that can be lost is by definition, not eternal.   The concept losing salvation is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of what salvation really is.   Roman Catholicism as a very medieval and thus inferior understanding of salvation which is why the Gospel is not a part of Roman Catholicism.  

The good news of Once Saved, Always Saved and Saved By Faith Alone is not part of orthodox, catholic nicene-christianity--it's a hetrodoxy that originates with the Protestant Reformation.

I'd love to pull out all the stops and post the Catholic point-of-views but the thread would either be deleted or my post context deleted or the citations to the appologetic source material removed. So, I'm going to bow out of a discussion here on whether the Catholic teaching on salvation is right or wrong, but I do would like to continue discussing OSAS and expressing my personal opinion that it is a false notion---and seeing how people respond. I'm merely discussing the doctrine of OSAS here because I am a protestant investigating catholicism and I do find that I am being persuaded more-and-more about the truth of the catholic (including the Orthodox Church) take on scripture. Now, I do post arguments in here to see how other protestants do respond.

For me, this is a matter of conscious. I hope you can understand. I'm not here to win an argument or be right or wrong. I am disappointed that I can't cite catholic appologetic material from online tracts and websites to see counter arguments to them without it being deleted, censored, erased and being brushed off as someone who has a false notion. 

 

Sure, feel free to dismiss my views, arguments and so on, but as it stands, I'm walking down the same path as men like Scott Hahn and Steve K. Ray. 

 

I still remain an evangelical protestant at the moment though.

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, BlueMinou said:

The good news of Once Saved, Always Saved and Saved By Faith Alone is not part of orthodox, catholic nicene-christianity--it's a hetrodoxy that originates with the Protestant Reformation.

 

The Protestants broke the stranglehold the RCC had over the minds and hearts of men and could no longer corrupt anyone.   When the Bible was finally printed the language of the common man, the RCC was exposed for all of its heresies.   It was exposed for the corrupt organization that it was and still is today. 

Quote

I'm merely discussing the doctrine of OSAS here because I am a protestant investigating catholicism and I do find that I am being persuaded more-and-more about the truth of the catholic (including the Orthodox Church) take on scripture

The Roman Catholic take on Scripture is that the Scriptures mean what the RCC says it means.   Their hermeneutics are really geared to brainwash  people into not thinking for themselves and  just being willing to allow the RCC to spoon-feed them what they expect their followers to believe.  

Quote

Sure, feel free to dismiss my views, arguments and so on, but as it stands, I'm walking down the same path as men like Scott Hahn and Steve K. Ray. 

Very deceived men.

[enoob57]

8 hours ago, BlueMinou said:

I'm reading up on John 10. I do ask you a few things:

Which other way do you think Jesus is referring to other than the door?
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
KJV
There is no other way... the power of lie placed as truth deceives many as some other way - there is only Christ alone!

Who is Jesus referring to as a thief and a robber in your opinion?
anyone who pronounces another way other than Through Jesus 'The Door Way' into eternity with God...