Do You Believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved"

[TomPJr]

No, the idea that we can lose our salvation is pagan in its origin. That's what I was saying. The reason is that it ultimately makes salvation a man centered experience instead of a God centered one.

It is not man centered. Tell me this. Is this scripture man centered of God centered -

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

If I do the will of God is it man centered or God centered? This scriptures says that those who "Do the will of my Father" will enter in. Only man is required on this earth to do the will of God. If I am required to do it them it is "I" that is doing it.

God is requiring man to do his will in order to enter into heaven, but your understanding is superseding this because it doesn't back up your belief.

Here is another one -

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Now, keeping God's commandments man centered or God centered? The will of God is that we keep his commandments, but according to you that is "Man Centered".

What does this scripture say to you -

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now, we know that only Christians have their names in the book of life. If I can't lose my salvation then why is this warning being made?

Is this warning of my name being taken out man centered or God centered?

Since you are unable and unwilling to do the above (exegetical justification), why should your interpretation be accepted?

Not everybody is educated in Greek like you are. So, just because somebody doesn't give the "exegetical justification" like you do does not mean that they are wrong.

I have explained over and over again what it is to "work out or salvation". It is NOT maintaininng our salvation. It is living according to the obedience set forth by the will of God. The works we do are the works of mortiying of our flesh in repenting of the sins that will take us to hell.

People are miss interpreting this verse -

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

This is saying that God works with us "to will" and "to do his good pleasure". This does not say that he does the work for us.

A definition of the word will is - to desire

This says that he works with us to desire to do his will and to do his good pleasure.

Even though we are saved by grace through faith we are still called to do the will of God. What I am trying to get though is that we can lose that salvation that was promised if we do not the will of God. No matter how many times I point that out it is ignored.

The will of God is not performing works like people think they are. They are not nice little things we do for people. Our works we were created for and ordained to walk in are the works of righteousness. Since we know that the works of the flesh is sin, then the works of righteousness is repentance from those sins and avoiding temptation to give into them. It is the renewing of my mind and mortifying the flesh. This is what working out our salvation is and God is there to help us with our desire to do it.

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Now, if we choose not to do these things we will lose the salvation promised to us because no sin will enter into heaven.

Unfortunately, you're simply repeating yourself. You don't even engage in conversation, you just list verses (plucking them out of their context) and highlight the points you think support your stance. Then all you do is say what you *think* the verse means to you. AK has tried to educate you on the proper way to study and interpret Scripture, you ignore it. You prefer to read the bible prima facie, instead of put the extra time and effort into learning what it might actually mean. Of course, I understand this would be threatening because it would destroy the presuppositions you hold already. But that's truly a shame because there is so much you're missing out on by not understanding the depth and extent of God's grace. It would be much more beneficial if you would respond directly to AK's interpretations of each verse (with a counter-interpretation, using proper exegesis), rather than just repeat previous posts with no foundation behind what you're saying. Long lists of Scriptures don't constitute evidence to support your view, and these types of responses also indicate you'd rather state what you believe rather than actually discuss the issue with someone else. A discussion involves responding to what someone else has said. However, the way you approach this is much more like a platform where you simply insist what you believe. Using your method of "interpretation" I could make a very strong case that it's okay to kill babies, and by the way, this is also how cults are born. It is a dangerous and tragic way to approach the Word of God.

For about the 10th time now, when are those who are against eternal security going to deal with Hosea? Or God's covenant with Abraham and Israel? You see...it's not as simple as plucking a verse here and there and trying to proof-text your way to a conclusion. You need to look at Scripture as a whole and within the Hebrew context it was written in. These are issues that have been repeatedly ignored....

Cardcaptor is using the Scriptures for his exegesis....can't you see that? All A.K. is doing is posting 1 or 2 passages with his interpretaion or someone elses interpretation after it. That is what you accuse Cardcaptor of doing, and A.K. is doing just that....Cardcaptor is letting the bible define itself, not his own preconcieved ideas.

I would rather read 20 verses in the bible that tackle a single issue than just one verse and someones interpretation.

[apothanein kerdos]

No, the idea that we can lose our salvation is pagan in its origin. That's what I was saying. The reason is that it ultimately makes salvation a man centered experience instead of a God centered one.

It is not man centered. Tell me this. Is this scripture man centered of God centered -

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

If I do the will of God is it man centered or God centered? This scriptures says that those who "Do the will of my Father" will enter in. Only man is required on this earth to do the will of God. If I am required to do it them it is "I" that is doing it.

God is requiring man to do his will in order to enter into heaven, but your understanding is superseding this because it doesn't back up your belief.

Here is another one -

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Now, keeping God's commandments man centered or God centered? The will of God is that we keep his commandments, but according to you that is "Man Centered".

What does this scripture say to you -

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now, we know that only Christians have their names in the book of life. If I can't lose my salvation then why is this warning being made?

Is this warning of my name being taken out man centered or God centered?

Since you are unable and unwilling to do the above (exegetical justification), why should your interpretation be accepted?

Not everybody is educated in Greek like you are. So, just because somebody doesn't give the "exegetical justification" like you do does not mean that they are wrong.

I have explained over and over again what it is to "work out or salvation". It is NOT maintaininng our salvation. It is living according to the obedience set forth by the will of God. The works we do are the works of mortiying of our flesh in repenting of the sins that will take us to hell.

People are miss interpreting this verse -

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

This is saying that God works with us "to will" and "to do his good pleasure". This does not say that he does the work for us.

A definition of the word will is - to desire

This says that he works with us to desire to do his will and to do his good pleasure.

Even though we are saved by grace through faith we are still called to do the will of God. What I am trying to get though is that we can lose that salvation that was promised if we do not the will of God. No matter how many times I point that out it is ignored.

The will of God is not performing works like people think they are. They are not nice little things we do for people. Our works we were created for and ordained to walk in are the works of righteousness. Since we know that the works of the flesh is sin, then the works of righteousness is repentance from those sins and avoiding temptation to give into them. It is the renewing of my mind and mortifying the flesh. This is what working out our salvation is and God is there to help us with our desire to do it.

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Now, if we choose not to do these things we will lose the salvation promised to us because no sin will enter into heaven.

Unfortunately, you're simply repeating yourself. You don't even engage in conversation, you just list verses (plucking them out of their context) and highlight the points you think support your stance. Then all you do is say what you *think* the verse means to you. AK has tried to educate you on the proper way to study and interpret Scripture, you ignore it. You prefer to read the bible prima facie, instead of put the extra time and effort into learning what it might actually mean. Of course, I understand this would be threatening because it would destroy the presuppositions you hold already. But that's truly a shame because there is so much you're missing out on by not understanding the depth and extent of God's grace. It would be much more beneficial if you would respond directly to AK's interpretations of each verse (with a counter-interpretation, using proper exegesis), rather than just repeat previous posts with no foundation behind what you're saying. Long lists of Scriptures don't constitute evidence to support your view, and these types of responses also indicate you'd rather state what you believe rather than actually discuss the issue with someone else. A discussion involves responding to what someone else has said. However, the way you approach this is much more like a platform where you simply insist what you believe. Using your method of "interpretation" I could make a very strong case that it's okay to kill babies, and by the way, this is also how cults are born. It is a dangerous and tragic way to approach the Word of God.

For about the 10th time now, when are those who are against eternal security going to deal with Hosea? Or God's covenant with Abraham and Israel? You see...it's not as simple as plucking a verse here and there and trying to proof-text your way to a conclusion. You need to look at Scripture as a whole and within the Hebrew context it was written in. These are issues that have been repeatedly ignored....

Cardcaptor is using the Scriptures for his exegesis....can't you see that? All A.K. is doing is posting 1 or 2 passages with his interpretaion or someone elses interpretation after it. That is what you accuse Cardcaptor of doing, and A.K. is doing just that....Cardcaptor is letting the bible define itself, not his own preconcieved ideas.

I would rather read 20 verses in the bible that tackle a single issue than just one verse and someones interpretation.

When you take 20 passages out of context though, 1 passage with in depth analysis is worth more than 20.

[TomPJr]

Peter did not disown Jesus. And he was devestated when he realized that he denied him. A non-christian would not have batted an eyelash and went on.

Shalom Eliyahuw,

Again, Peter did deny Jesus when he said he wouldn't. Yes, Peter disowned Jesus by denying Him. It is the same thing.

Peter refused Jesus, refused to be associated with him. However, Peter is not the focus, he was only an example. I don't wish to make the discussion about Peter. The point being, we cannot speak for anyone else and what they would or would not do.

We are not talking about non-Christians in the OSAS vs NOSAS, we are talking about Christians.

You said a "true" Christian would not disown Jesus and I fail to see where that is in Scripture and also I posit that one cannot make such a sweeping and unsupported statement about other's hearts when we are not in a position to do so. Only G-d knows if someone is a true Christian or not and there are warnings about Christians "falling away" in the Scriptures, so we must admit that it is possible for Christians to fall away.

[TomPJr]

I am sorry but No denying and disowning are two different things.

Shalom Eliyahuw,

Deny and disown are the same thing. We can also say "disavow" "repudiate" and several other words.

Same thing. Peter denied (refused to acknowledge, disowned, repudiated) Jesus.

The fact that he was grieved does not speak to his salvation, but rather to his reconciliation and being forgiven.

For the sake of clarity, the dictionary says:

7 results for: deny

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

de

[Openly Curious]

For about the 10th time now, when are those who are against eternal security going to deal with Hosea? Or God's covenant with Abraham and Israel? You see...it's not as simple as plucking a verse here and there and trying to proof-text your way to a conclusion. You need to look at Scripture as a whole and within the Hebrew context it was written in. These are issues that have been repeatedly ignored....

What exactly is it about Hosea that is being ignored? What is it about the covenant with Abraham and Israel that is being ignored? I really would like to know as I want to sincerly learn concerning this topic at hand and am seeking answers.

oc

Cardcaptor is using the Scriptures for his exegesis....can't you see that? All A.K. is doing is posting 1 or 2 passages with his interpretaion or someone elses interpretation after it. That is what you accuse Cardcaptor of doing, and A.K. is doing just that....Cardcaptor is letting the bible define itself, not his own preconcieved ideas.

I think Cardcaptor is doing an excellent job at letting the bible define itself instead of preconceived ideas as this poster has said.

oc

[TomPJr]

No, the idea that we can lose our salvation is pagan in its origin. That's what I was saying. The reason is that it ultimately makes salvation a man centered experience instead of a God centered one.

It is not man centered. Tell me this. Is this scripture man centered of God centered -

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

If I do the will of God is it man centered or God centered? This scriptures says that those who "Do the will of my Father" will enter in. Only man is required on this earth to do the will of God. If I am required to do it them it is "I" that is doing it.

God is requiring man to do his will in order to enter into heaven, but your understanding is superseding this because it doesn't back up your belief.

Here is another one -

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Now, keeping God's commandments man centered or God centered? The will of God is that we keep his commandments, but according to you that is "Man Centered".

What does this scripture say to you -

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now, we know that only Christians have their names in the book of life. If I can't lose my salvation then why is this warning being made?

Is this warning of my name being taken out man centered or God centered?

Since you are unable and unwilling to do the above (exegetical justification), why should your interpretation be accepted?

Not everybody is educated in Greek like you are. So, just because somebody doesn't give the "exegetical justification" like you do does not mean that they are wrong.

I have explained over and over again what it is to "work out or salvation". It is NOT maintaininng our salvation. It is living according to the obedience set forth by the will of God. The works we do are the works of mortiying of our flesh in repenting of the sins that will take us to hell.

People are miss interpreting this verse -

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

This is saying that God works with us "to will" and "to do his good pleasure". This does not say that he does the work for us.

A definition of the word will is - to desire

This says that he works with us to desire to do his will and to do his good pleasure.

Even though we are saved by grace through faith we are still called to do the will of God. What I am trying to get though is that we can lose that salvation that was promised if we do not the will of God. No matter how many times I point that out it is ignored.

The will of God is not performing works like people think they are. They are not nice little things we do for people. Our works we were created for and ordained to walk in are the works of righteousness. Since we know that the works of the flesh is sin, then the works of righteousness is repentance from those sins and avoiding temptation to give into them. It is the renewing of my mind and mortifying the flesh. This is what working out our salvation is and God is there to help us with our desire to do it.

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Now, if we choose not to do these things we will lose the salvation promised to us because no sin will enter into heaven.

Unfortunately, you're simply repeating yourself. You don't even engage in conversation, you just list verses (plucking them out of their context) and highlight the points you think support your stance. Then all you do is say what you *think* the verse means to you. AK has tried to educate you on the proper way to study and interpret Scripture, you ignore it. You prefer to read the bible prima facie, instead of put the extra time and effort into learning what it might actually mean. Of course, I understand this would be threatening because it would destroy the presuppositions you hold already. But that's truly a shame because there is so much you're missing out on by not understanding the depth and extent of God's grace. It would be much more beneficial if you would respond directly to AK's interpretations of each verse (with a counter-interpretation, using proper exegesis), rather than just repeat previous posts with no foundation behind what you're saying. Long lists of Scriptures don't constitute evidence to support your view, and these types of responses also indicate you'd rather state what you believe rather than actually discuss the issue with someone else. A discussion involves responding to what someone else has said. However, the way you approach this is much more like a platform where you simply insist what you believe. Using your method of "interpretation" I could make a very strong case that it's okay to kill babies, and by the way, this is also how cults are born. It is a dangerous and tragic way to approach the Word of God.

For about the 10th time now, when are those who are against eternal security going to deal with Hosea? Or God's covenant with Abraham and Israel? You see...it's not as simple as plucking a verse here and there and trying to proof-text your way to a conclusion. You need to look at Scripture as a whole and within the Hebrew context it was written in. These are issues that have been repeatedly ignored....

Cardcaptor is using the Scriptures for his exegesis....can't you see that? All A.K. is doing is posting 1 or 2 passages with his interpretaion or someone elses interpretation after it. That is what you accuse Cardcaptor of doing, and A.K. is doing just that....Cardcaptor is letting the bible define itself, not his own preconcieved ideas.

I would rather read 20 verses in the bible that tackle a single issue than just one verse and someones interpretation.

When you take 20 passages out of context though, 1 passage with in depth analysis is worth more than 20.

I agree, if the in depth study is correctly anylizing the scriptures, without prejudice. You keep speaking of in depth study, but haven't shown any... other than showing a scripture or two followed by your interpretation. you also keep talkig about taking things out of context, but haven't shown a biblical basis of how.

You say that the bible says that God forced abraham to follow him.... well the bible also says that Jonah was in the belly of the big fish forever...

We know that the "forever" was only three literal days, by comparing other scriptures, the same way, we know God didn't literally force Abraham, by comparing other scriptures. Besides that....Abraham never tried to escape the covenant. He sinned, but had a repentent heart, never willing to take himself from Gods Grace.

[TomPJr]

Question for the thread: The elements of the Passover are as follows:

1) An unblemished sheep. A sheep without spot or blemish that has been examined for three days.

2) The slaughtering of that sheep - one per household - and the painting of that sheep's blood on the doorposts and lintel of the house.

3) The eating of that sheep in haste, with sandals on feet and staff in hand, with unleavened bread.

4) At an appointed time the angel of death would come and "pass over" every house that had the sheep's blood on the dooreposts and lintel.

The result of the passover was the releasing of God's people from the bondage of Egypt and their leaving Egypt in victory.

If the Passover in type represents Christ in the shedding of His blood, why then is there no mention of lost salvation? Christ fulfilled each and every item of the Passover. He was examined for three days and found without flaw. He was slaughtered, and His blood shed upon the cross (Representing a doorpost and lintel: A doorpost is vertical and the lintel is horizontal). After the shedding of His blood, all those that believe into Christ partake of Him as their life and their life supply, represented by the eating of the Lamb (cf. John 6:54). Finally, we should expect that Christ, as the reality of the Passover should save us from the angel of death - which in reality is the finality of death.

The Passover was sufficient for the children of Israel to leave Egypt and achieve the victory of their release from bondage. So also, the blood of Christ is sufficient for complete eternal salvation.

How then can anyone add to the Passover?

You forgot to mention that the Israelites had to flee from that place. Yes, the blood made the death pass over, but if they hadn't fleed from that place of bondage, then they would have been re-enslaved or slaughtered.

The point is that they had to flee....If they would have tarried too long the blood would have been in vein, for the Egyptians would have caught them. That is why God told them to be girded with staff in hand and to flee after the angel of death came.

[apothanein kerdos]

I agree, if the in depth study is correctly anylizing the scriptures, without prejudice. You keep speaking of in depth study, but haven't shown any... other than showing a scripture or two followed by your interpretation. you also keep talkig about taking things out of context, but haven't shown a biblical basis of how.

So Greek, history, context, paradigm analysis, etc aren't "in depth" for you...even though they've been in depth for billions of people for the past 2,000 years? All of a sudden, Tom comes along and speaks with authority on what a passage means, and Greek, History, exegesis, just go out the window?

You say that the bible says that God forced abraham to follow him.... well the bible also says that Jonah was in the belly of the big fish forever...

We know that the "forever" was only three literal days, by comparing other scriptures, the same way, we know God didn't literally force Abraham, by comparing other scriptures. Besides that....Abraham never tried to escape the covenant. He sinned, but had a repentent heart, never willing to take himself from Gods Grace.

Jonah was swallowed by the fish because he denied God and his calling. God forced him to go back. Abraham had Ishmael, and God forced him to give him up to remain in His Will. Hosea (as a representation of God) forced Hosea to come back to him (as a representation of Israel).

You cannot look at the covenants of the Bible, between God and man, and find one instance where God allowed the other person to walk away without Him promising to force them back, or bringing them back immediately. It NEVER occurs.

[Kabowd]

For about the 10th time now, when are those who are against eternal security going to deal with Hosea? Or God's covenant with Abraham and Israel? You see...it's not as simple as plucking a verse here and there and trying to proof-text your way to a conclusion. You need to look at Scripture as a whole and within the Hebrew context it was written in. These are issues that have been repeatedly ignored....

What exactly is it about Hosea that is being ignored? What is it about the covenant with Abraham and Israel that is being ignored? I really would like to know as I want to sincerly learn concerning this topic at hand and am seeking answers.

oc

Have you read the story of Hosea and Gomer? Honestly, it's pretty self-explanatory. Hosea represents God, Gomer represents Israel...their marriage represents God's covenant with His people. Everyone keeps saying the covenant is conditional, that we can just "walk away". After reading the story of Hosea/Gomer (and God and Israel), it is impossible to still hold this view without entirely misrepresenting the concept of "grace" and a "covenant". Regarding the covenant with Abraham, the point that is repeatedly overlooked is that Abraham was ASLEEP while the covenant was SEALED. In other words, Abraham was not responsible for any of it...God did it ALONE, by HIMSELF. Nothing hinged on Abraham. This is why we keep saying you have to take the whole of Scripture...not just pluck verses here and there that might appear to say that salvation can be lost. To take these verses prima facie (at face value) without comparing them to the entirety of Scripture does a tragic injustice to God's redeeming grace and love.

Cardcaptor is not educated in Greek or Hebrew (that I'm aware of), nor does he understand the historical context that the Scriptures were written in. Listing verses and writing your own little paraphrase is not equal to "interpretation". This is called opinion. It's also how cults get started and is no way to approach the Holy Word of God.

[TomPJr]

I agree, if the in depth study is correctly anylizing the scriptures, without prejudice. You keep speaking of in depth study, but haven't shown any... other than showing a scripture or two followed by your interpretation. you also keep talkig about taking things out of context, but haven't shown a biblical basis of how.

So Greek, history, context, paradigm analysis, etc aren't "in depth" for you...even though they've been in depth for billions of people for the past 2,000 years? All of a sudden, Tom comes along and speaks with authority on what a passage means, and Greek, History, exegesis, just go out the window?

You say that the bible says that God forced abraham to follow him.... well the bible also says that Jonah was in the belly of the big fish forever...

We know that the "forever" was only three literal days, by comparing other scriptures, the same way, we know God didn't literally force Abraham, by comparing other scriptures. Besides that....Abraham never tried to escape the covenant. He sinned, but had a repentent heart, never willing to take himself from Gods Grace.

Jonah was swallowed by the fish because he denied God and his calling. God forced him to go back. Abraham had Ishmael, and God forced him to give him up to remain in His Will. Hosea (as a representation of God) forced Hosea to come back to him (as a representation of Israel).

You cannot look at the covenants of the Bible, between God and man, and find one instance where God allowed the other person to walk away without Him promising to force them back, or bringing them back immediately. It NEVER occurs.

I like your sarcasm. It's cute.

1) History and context is great, but you havn't shown any. I on the other hand, as well as Cardcaptor and others, used exegesis and context by using other parts of the bible.

2) you are correct that jonah denied Gods calling, but God didn't force him. He certainly coerced him, or persuaded him, but the choice was Jonah's. God works with big consequences for big responsabilities.

3) If I'm not mistaken....I think God allowed Satan to walk away. And, oh....a third of the Agnels too...and I think that there might be a few hundred warnings to us about falling away.

Why warn about it if there is no danger?

and,

If you think that those warnings weren't for believers, I'd like you to show me one.