Do You Believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved"

[RCruise]

Which is the way it has always been understood.

Thaddeus:

If I may interject something, that is not the way it has always been understood by All Believers. There has been a dividing line all the way back as to Jesus' statement of Born Again of "water and spirit". Looking to the vernicular flow of His words and the conversation with Nicodemus we see that Jesus first pointed to "Born Again" and Nicodemus being "fleshly confused" saw no way to be "born" except by natural means out of the womb...out of "water". Please bear with me on this for I in no way exclude water baptism in doctrine but we need to see the importance through clear and simple understanding of His Word in just what is being said. Jesus then combined it saying:

John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Taken together, Jesus is explaining that natural birth, flssh by water, is natural but, that man must be born of Spirit, so both to exist and see the Kingdom of God. He is separating the view Nicodemus was narrowed into from the Spiritual to exemplify the Spiritual. And even then Nicodemus did not get it as we read on and Jesus told him how could he understand Heavenly things when he could not understand earthly. John the Baptist also spoke to the Importance of Jesus' Baptism upon man over his own water baptism and that being preferred and when John did meet Jesus and baptised Him, John said he needed Christ's type of Baptism from Jesus more than John's Baptism.

Peter was shocked as was the Church in Jerusalem when during his speech at Cornelious' house, The Holy Ghost fell and Baptised the Gentiles of that house and, though they did baptise them with water, ther first came before the lesser water Baptism.

But in John 3, Jesus is referring to earthly natural birth out of water.

[Mutzrein]

Thankyou Ron. I like your use of words.

[RCruise]

Thankyou Ron. I like your use of words.

There are many "beliefs" we learn from men (as Wayne (Phil 2:12) and I have been discussing) that can only be removed by the Holy Spirit leading each of us through the Word. I have had my own theologies changed several times. Even those by Mentors and Teachers the Lord put before me, some were wrong as I pressed through The Word. The best way I have discovered is to just present it lovingly (not always adept at that but learning lol) and let The Holy Spirit have His way. Debating and arguing is not profitable for any of us and when I used to do that, the Lord showed me that I was using the "pulpit" and His Word as a whip and whipping post and He does not like that. He does not need to spank me twice over an issue! I pray Thaddeus sees the Word and checks it as a Berean and God reveals His Truth. I like Thaddeus and have seen some wise things of the Lord in his posts.

Blessings in Jesus

Brother Ron Cruise

[Thaddaeus]

Mutzrein,

Always? - since when and by whom?

by the Apostles as they taught it to the early Church. It was recorded historically even before some of the NT books were written possibly. Paul describes it in Romans 6, known as the baptism chapter. In the very verse you are debating, it is water and the Spirit. Water comes first, then by the Spirit. Nicodemus was confused, but he is simply attempting to correlate Jewish history in that all Jews knew they had an inheritance in the Kingdom. It was their understanding that just because they were Jews by birth that they shared in the Kingdom. This is what Jesus in contradicting and instructing Nicodemus, that one is born from above, with water and the Spirit. I don't think you will find an single Church Father that did not ascribe to that teaching. Far as I know and have studied, it was never a controversial point. It is and always has been the singular beginning sacrament of the Church. It is the entrance into the Kingdom.

Peter uses this same sequence in I Peter is a clear example that water baptism apart from the Spirit's work is merely a washing of filth from the flesh, but by the power of the Holy Spirit working in the life of the believer and in the sacramental waters it is salvific and cleanses not merely the flesh but the concience, the inner man. St.Basil's "On the Holy Spirit" would be a good patristic place to begin to understand the Early Church view of the Spirit and His relationship to Christ, the Father and the believer. It is indeed by ONE Spirit, the Spirit of God that reveals ONE true faith that we are baptized into ONE Body, the ONE Church, under ONE head, in which we serve ONE Lord, and are made ONE in Christ.

Throughout their letters the apostles remind us that the new birth is necessary for salvation. We die to sin; then, buried with Christ and risen with Him, we are united to Christ and to His body, the Church. We are cleansed, justified and sanctified-all in baptism, "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Without our repentance and faith, however, immersion in water would be of no effect.

The Early Church saw the incarnation of Christ having ramifications way beyond His need for a human body to get crucified as our subsitute. The "cosmic" dimensions of salvation in Ephesians and Colossians, "summing up of all things" the "fullness of Him who fills all in all" etc. means that more happened in the incarnation than "merely" God atoning for human sins, although that is central to the "summing up of all things" since mankind is at the center of bringing the cosmos into union with God.

Every physical thing, all creation, was and is and shall indeed be brought into union with God in Christ.

The "summing up of all things" is not only the human being, but ALL THINGS. Every physical object is a sacramental manifestation of the uncreated grace of God. God works through the material world to convey His power and glory.

[Thaddaeus]

RCruise,

I pray Thaddeus sees the Word and checks it as a Berean and God reveals His Truth. I like Thaddeus and have seen some wise things of the Lord in his posts.

First, I thank you sincerely for your kind words.

On this issue I would disagree with you. John 3:3ff has never had a natural birth meaning attached to it. Nicodemus is speaking of being physically born, assuming that by being Jewish he was already in the Kingdom. Jesus counters that and says that what is flesh is flesh, but what is born of the 'Spirit is Spirit. But that rebirth uses water with the Spirit. It is water and Spirit. There is no other text dealing with baptism that disagrees, they all confirm that it is truly by water and the Spirit. The Church has always separated the two into baptism and Chrismation. The annointing with Oil of the Holy Spirit as part of the baptism ceremony. They have always gone hand-in-hand.

If one checks it as a Berean, one will find that this is how the Church has understood and practiced it. It was practiced and believed as such before either John or Peter recorded it for us. That is why it is stated as such in the Bible.

[RCruise]

RCruise,

I pray Thaddeus sees the Word and checks it as a Berean and God reveals His Truth. I like Thaddeus and have seen some wise things of the Lord in his posts.

First, I thank you sincerely for your kind words.

On this issue I would disagree with you. John 3:3ff has never had a natural birth meaning attached to it. Nicodemus is speaking of being physically born, assuming that by being Jewish he was already in the Kingdom. Jesus counters that and says that what is flesh is flesh, but what is born of the 'Spirit is Spirit. But that rebirth uses water with the Spirit. It is water and Spirit. There is no other text dealing with baptism that disagrees, they all confirm that it is truly by water and the Spirit. The Church has always separated the two into baptism and Chrismation. The annointing with Oil of the Holy Spirit as part of the baptism ceremony. They have always gone hand-in-hand.

If one checks it as a Berean, one will find that this is how the Church has understood and practiced it. It was practiced and believed as such before either John or Peter recorded it for us. That is why it is stated as such in the Bible.

Hi Thaddaeus!

Well I pray you consider and pray about it and not keep locked in to doctrines taught. Do you mind if I ask which Church you belong to? Your theologies put forth to Mutran seem familiar along Episcopal / Anglican or Catholic?

[Davve]

I believe in the Eternal Security of the Believer!

I don't believe in OSAS.

Marriage is permanent and life long is it not?

If your answer is yes, you think like a believer.

If your answer is no....you think like OSAS.

Daave

[Mutzrein]

Has this gone off on a tangent? Is there another thread discussing this aspect of salvation (born of water and spirit) or should we create one?

[Thaddaeus]

Davve,

I believe in the Eternal Security of the Believer!

I don't believe in OSAS.

Marriage is permanent and life long is it not?

If your answer is yes, you think like a believer.

If your answer is no....you think like OSAS.

The marriage is a very good analogy and Paul uses it two ways, between the individual and Christ and Christ with His Church.

But in particular, your analogy is not quite correct. The believer believes it to be permanent and works to keep it permanent. But, being a sinful being, that union can be broken. There is nothing in this world that makes it concrete. There can even be unfaithfulness but repentance can heal.

To put it in the OSAS version, they also believe it is permanent. Permanent to such an extent that one cannot break that union. That even if one marriage ceases, partner becomes unfaithful, one is still considered married, valid as before. In some cases, one can remarry, and still be considered as having the first union. You cannot fall, falling, or ceasing a marriage is an impossibility.

[Thaddaeus]

Mutzrein,

Has this gone off on a tangent? Is there another thread discussing this aspect of salvation (born of water and spirit) or should we create one?

It has not completely gone of on a tangent. It is this very definition and understanding that becomes the very definition of what constitutes a believer. The inward heart of the believer is never questioned. It is not for anyone, but God. But that status, being a baptised entrant into the Kingdom, one being enlightened, one who now partakes of the food (Eucharist) defines a believer. We know that these believers do fall away. They do and have left the Kingdom. Entry does not guarantee the end, does not guarantee remaining or abiding therein.

Faith gets one in, lack of faith gets one out.