Is it possible for ANY of Jesus' sheep to go to hell?

[Ovedya]

The Lord didn't make the points you did either Ovedya. What you did and what I did is called interpreting the Word. We just hold to a differen't view of what it means.

Actually, the entire passage of Luke 15 makes the same point that I did. After each parable the Lord makes the point that He is talking about unsaved sinners - vv. 7, 10, 32

Yet you would have me believe that this passage is talking about saved believers turning away from God and losing their salvation. Where in this chapter does the Lord even address that issue?

I am not twisting anything in that verse. Jesus said his sheep hear his voice and that they follow him. If they are not hearing his word and following him and you say they are sheep, you make Jesus out a liar.

No. There is a difference between a shepherd calling to his sheep, them hearing him and then responding to making the actions of hearing and responding into works that are necessary for salvation.

I am not claiming man's free will is greater than God's power to save completely. I am saying God set things up in a way of his own choice to allow man to walk away. He could have saved man completely, with no strings attached, but chose not to.

If man can "walk away" and thus lose his salvation, then his free will is greater than God's power to save completely.

[Ovedya]

In terms of the idea that man can turn away from God and reject his own salvation, first of all, it's purely a Catholic teaching. That is not an attempt to demonize anyone, but be aware that this specific false teaching has been used by the Roman church for centuries to imply (if not, outright state) that whoever leaves the fellowship of the Roman Church, or does not participate in its sacraments, is doomed to hell. Nothing is more repugnant to me.

Secondly, it requires an interjection of human opinion into the Scriptures in stating "man can walk away." The verses we've been discussing say nothing of "walking away." They say nothing of doing something opposite what the verses actually say. The verses say one thing: They shall by no means perish. If walking away is a means of perishing, then the Lord was wrong!

It is not purely a Catholic doctrine. A good number of protestant denominations reject the doctrine of unconditional eternal security. As a matter of fact, the idea one cannot lose their salvation under any circumstance is primarily a Baptist doctrine. It is a watered down form of Calvanism. Those who hold to this doctrine reject Calvin's absolute ascertion that man has no say in who is saved and who is lost, but hold to the idea that we have the power to accept or reject Christ initially, a work. They then claim that once we make that choice, we cannot turn away from the Lord even if we desire to. At least true followers of Calvin make some sense in that they would say that if we don't live right, it means we were never saved. They are consistent in the fact that no work done by us had any part in our salvation. Those who hold to your way of thinking are accepting man's ability to choose to be saved, but then say the Lord will make us remain a Christian against our will. We could potentially go out and commit adultery, murder, become a drunkard, anything, and remain saved, even though Paul says those that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of heaven. This makes no sense. I believe man has a free will to choose to accept or reject Christ as long as he lives. God knowing all things knows who will be saved and who will be lost, but the choice to accept or reject him is ours.

The problem is that, in order to reject unconditional election and perseverance, one must necessarilly extrapolate things from the Scriptures which are not really there. One must read something from the Scriptures and take as doctrine the opposite of what is clearly says. This is nothing short of adding to the Scriptures.

No only so, but the process of taking something as clear and concise as "they shall by no means perish" and adding a condition to it, and then stating that, "this is what this verse really means" is exalting the interpretation over those clear words from Scripture. It's arguing from a vaccum: Placing something that is not there in the first place and using it as a jumping off point to prove an ill-conceived doctrine of men.

Addressing the issue of whether a saved person can commit a host of sins with the belief that he will be saved anyway - without some form of dispensational punishment - is simply a waste of time and effort. This issue is continually raised as an attempt to exalt faulty human logic over the clear words of Scripture. I am supposed to think to myself, "Hmm, since you put it that way, I suppose that the Bible is right. I can't logically do those things and still expect to go to heaven, so therefore I must be able to lose my salvation after all. In actuality I am not trusting the words of the Bible, but the argument that is being put forth.

Speaking of clear words of God, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says the following:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

There are many people that became Christians, that commit these sins, especially fornication. The Bible says they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. I am sure that those like yourself will come up with something other than what is plainly said in scripture to explain away how a Christian that commits these wilful sins will still remain saved.

I don't have to "come up" with anything (And what's this about "those like yourself"?):

"And these things were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.""

Next.

[Ovedya]

In the parable of the lost sheep, if the one is still saved, why does the shepherd need to go after him?

I'm not following you here. This is about sinners - unbelievers - as verse 7 confirms.

Also, there is nothing after this parable that states it has any meaning other than what I said it means. It jumps right into the parable of the lost piece of silver.

Still not following you. Your claim is that this parable refers to saved persons who leave the flock, which nothing in the entire passage indicates. My claim is that it refers to unsaved persons, which the verses I gave earlier do indicate - clearly.

In the case of the sheep knowing the Shepherd's voice and following it, those are things Jesus said his sheep would do, period. If they are not doing those things, they are not sheep.

You are taking a natural function of hearing and following to conditions required for salvation.

When the Lord told James and John to "follow me" they immediately dropped their work in response to His voice. They weren't out there listening and waiting to respond. Their following Him was a natural response to His voice. Those who respond to the Lord's voice are His sheep those who do not are not. How hard is that to understand?

God chooses not to save man in a way where they cannot walk away.

There's a double-negative here. It doesn't make sense. Please clarify.

That doesn't make man's will greater than God's ability. He could make a Christian a robot, but chooses not to.

Who says Christians are robots? However, for you is it possible to ever not be the genetic son of your Father or mother? It's the same way with God. He invented genetics!

[Ovedya]

BUTERO's RESPONSE: That is right. It is a sinner, but verse 4 says "What man of you having an hundred sheep, IF HE LOSE ONE OF THEM..." This sinner wasn't always a sinner. In the story, he was original one of the sheep in the fold, but he was now lost.

Remember that this is a parable told by the Lord Jesus. A parable is an allegorical story that illustrates a truth. The fact that the Lord was talking about sheep does not mean that He was talking about saved persons, that He was talking about hte church. The Lord Jesu came to save those who were lost already - sinners before regeneration. Again, you are giving a context to the story that just is not there. How could Jesus have even been speaking about regenerated believers if not a single person had ever been regenerated? The Lord's death was necessary for regeneration to even have been possible!

BUTERO's RESPONSE: I just showed from verse 4 this sheep was part of the 100 that has now been lost. Yes, it is lost, but didn't used to be.

My prior response applies here.

OVEDYA SAID:

You are taking a natural function of hearing and following to conditions required for salvation.

When the Lord told James and John to "follow me" they immediately dropped their work in response to His voice. They weren't out there listening and waiting to respond. Their following Him was a natural response to His voice. Those who respond to the Lord's voice are His sheep those who do not are not. How hard is that to understand?

BUTERO's RESPONSE: Yes they did do that, but they also continued to follow Jesus. If they didn't continue to follow him as a natural response, but chose to reject him down the road, they would have lost their salvation. Judas Iscariot followed the Lord at first, but sold him out for 30 pieces of silver and was a castaway.

Well you're forgetting one thing: The Lord had not yet died. Were any of the disciples to have died during the Lord's earthly ministry, they would have been judged by their keeping of the Mosaic Law. So as did all those who died before the Lord's conquering of of sin and death. The disciples were not "saved" simply by being in close proximity to the Lord Jesus. They had to be given God's life through regeneration. Upon the Lord's resurrection, He breathed the Spirit of Life into them (John 20:22).

Butero's earlier quote:

God chooses not to save man in a way where they cannot walk away.

OVEDYA SAID:

There's a double-negative here. It doesn't make sense. Please clarify.

BUTERO's RESPONSE: God could have chosen to make it impossible to lose one's salvation had he chose to do so. He didn't.

God could have chosen to forgive all sin without the sacrifice of the Only Begotten, but He didn't. "Woulda' shoulda' coulda'" doesn't reflect reality. It doesn't reflect the truth of God's Word. When God's Word says, "They shall by no mean perish, I believe it.

OVEDYA SAID:

Who says Christians are robots? However, for you is it possible to ever not be the genetic son of your Father or mother? It's the same way with God. He invented genetics!

BUTERO's RESPONSE: I don't believe they are. That is the point. As long as we have a free will to do good or evil, we can commit sins the Bible says will keep us from inheriting the Kingdom of God. We can also reject the Lord. I would also point out that it is possible under the law for a child to divorce himself from his parents or vice versa. Let me also point out that we were sons of the devil before getting saved. Jesus said the sinful Pharisees were children of their Father the devil. When someone gets saved, they become sons of God. If God can take a person that was a son of the devil, and make them his son, he can reject someone who was son, and cast him away, back to his original father, the devil.

The Lord said that He would never leave us or forsake us. That's good enough for me. Once a child of God, always a child of God.

Man's free will is not greater than the power of the cross.

[Ovedya]

Butero,

How many sacrifices for sin are there?

[Ovedya]

Since you are making the point that when Jesus spoke in these parables, it was before the cross, therefore they were under the law so they would be judged by the law, let me remind you that will also equally apply to your use of his statements and his parables.

No, actually it wouldn't, since Jesus was talking about the gospel which He was sent to execute. This also applies for every statement that Jesus made regarding His commission, right up to His death. Had the lord not taught in parables, or otherwise, regarding the message of the cross, then His death would have been in vain, for nobody would have understood the meaning of the cross.

When the Lord said that he would never leave nor forsake his disciples, he was speaking to those who were living before the cross. That means that if what you are saying to me is true, this promise is not to the church, but to those under the law of Moses.

Actually, this phrase was repeated before the cross (When the Lord was speaking about His death) and after the cross (John 14:8; Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5; Josh 1:5; Deut. 13:6). Hence it applies to to the church.

In addition, the scripture you sited doesn't say "once a child of God, always of child of God."

That was my statement. But the Scriptures do say the following:

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26)

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery bringing you into fear again, but you have received a spirit of sonship in which we cry, Abba, Father!" (Rom. 8:14-15)

"And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father!" So then you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, an heir also through God.(Gal. 4:6-7)

"And if children, heirs also; on the one hand, heirs of God; on the other, joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him that we may also be glorified with Him." (Rom. 8:17)

Jesus won't leave or forsake anyone, but that doesn't stop someone from leaving or forsaking him.

So then Jesus would leave a believer that leaves Him. Thus making Jesus a liar...

As to your question about how many sacrifices there are, I have already heard this one, and it doesn't hold any weight either. Jesus' one sacrifice is sufficient to keep anyone that remains faithful to him.

Then you admit that the sacrifice of Christ is insufficient to keep anyone that does not remain faithful to Him. Thus the sacrifice of Christ must be insufficient to save completely.

...On the other hand, it does not cover all wilful acts of dissobedience after becoming a Christian. Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."

Then, by your admission, the sacrifice of Christ is weak and insufficient to save man completely. By logical extension, then, Hebrews must be wrong when it calls Christ's sacrifice "once for all" (paraphrase). Therefore, each time man sins, He must re-sacrifice Christ in order to again receive regeneration. Essentially, this is really not much different than the Lawful practice of sacrificing animals for each sin. The only difference between the two is that, rather than sacrificing an animal each time you sin, you have to re-sacrifice Christ.

Of course that practice is absolutely forbidden in Hebrews 6.

[Guest lnj]

Is it possible that any of the sheep of Messiah shall go to hell?

No.

UNLESS:.......

Hebrews 6 v 5,6:

For it IS IMPOSSIBLE for those who were once enlightened and have tasted the Heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the Good Word of God and the powers of the age to come, v6: if they FALL AWAY to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son Of God and put HIM to open shame.

V8 - But if it bears thorns and briers, IT IS REJECTED and near to being CURSED whose end IS TO BE BURNED.

New King James Version Notes explains :

The language of v4 and v5 clearly describes those who have EXPERIENCED THE SAVING GRACE OF GOD and the language of v6 denotes a complete disowning of Christ, a deliberate and decisive abondonment of the Christian faith.

The people described ARE NOT BACKSLIDERS BUT APOSTATES.They have not merely fallen into sin but have DENOUNCED CHRIST. They have become as those who crucified Christ.

[Floatingaxe]

Is it possible that any of the sheep of Messiah shall go to hell?

No.

UNLESS:.......

Hebrews 6 v 5,6:

For it IS IMPOSSIBLE for those who were once enlightened and have tasted the Heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the Good Word of God and the powers of the age to come, v6: if they FALL AWAY to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son Of God and put HIM to open shame.

V8 - But if it bears thorns and briers, IT IS REJECTED and near to being CURSED whose end IS TO BE BURNED.

New King James Version Notes explains :

The language of v4 and v5 clearly describes those who have EXPERIENCED THE SAVING GRACE OF GOD and the language of v6 denotes a complete disowning of Christ, a deliberate and decisive abondonment of the Christian faith.

The people described ARE NOT BACKSLIDERS BUT APOSTATES.They have not merely fallen into sin but have DENOUNCED CHRIST. They have become as those who crucified Christ.

Yes.

[Ovedya]

Ovedya said:

No, actually it wouldn't, since Jesus was talking about the gospel which He was sent to execute. This also applies for every statement that Jesus made regarding His commission, right up to His death. Had the lord not taught in parables, or otherwise, regarding the message of the cross, then His death would have been in vain, for nobody would have understood the meaning of the cross.

BUTERO's RESPONSE: The parables mentioned were likewise speaking of salvation, though they were given before the cross. You can't have it both ways Ovedya. If it is possible the scriptures you cite are dealing with the church, then it is also possible the parables are speaking in reference to the church.

It's really very simple: In the Lord's teachings concerning Himself as salvation, He talks about Himself as salvation. In the Lord's teachigns concerning His followers, He talks about His followers. In the Lord's teaching concerning the church and the kingdom people, He talks about them. Not once - not. once. in Luke 15 does the Lord Jesus talk about the loss of salvation. Not once did He apply the parables to saved persons.

Again, if I cannot be more clear, you are extrapolating from Luke 15 a teaching and a doctrine which simply does not exist in that passage.

Butero's Earlier Quote:

In addition, the scripture you sited doesn't say "once a child of God, always of child of God."

Ovedya said:

That was my statement. But the Scriptures do say the following:

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26)

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery bringing you into fear again, but you have received a spirit of sonship in which we cry, Abba, Father!" (Rom. 8:14-15)

"And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father!" So then you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, an heir also through God.(Gal. 4:6-7)

"And if children, heirs also; on the one hand, heirs of God; on the other, joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him that we may also be glorified with Him." (Rom. 8:17)

BUTERO's RESPONSE: Indeed, we cannot be saved without faith in Christ. We are the Sons of God, IF we are led of the Spirit. Those who are Christians have been set free from bondage to sin, to live a lifestyle acceptable to God. Those who continue to serve the Lord will be glorified with the Lord. Not one of those scriptures proves your statement, of once a child of God, always a child of God.

In fact, all of them do. But especially Romans 8:17.

This verse, as well as Gal. 4:7 and Titus 3:7 prove conclusively that, by means of the Holy Spirit's indwelling we are not just sons of God, but joint heirs with Christ, and inheriters of eternal life.

Butero's Earlier Quote:

Jesus won't leave or forsake anyone, but that doesn't stop someone from leaving or forsaking him.

OVEDYA SAID:

So then Jesus would leave a believer that leaves Him. Thus making Jesus a liar...

BUTERO'S REPLY: Ovedya, do you have a reading comprehention problem? How does what I said make Jesus out a liar? How can he leave someone no longer there? That would be like having a man saying he will never leave nor forsake his wife, and meaning it. Then his wife abandons him, and he never sees here again. He didn't break his Word, but she is still gone. He may remain faithful and giving her the opportunity to return, but if she does not, and further files for and receives a divorce, she no longer belongs to him, no fault of his own.

Your answer further lacks reality and ignores completely the organic union we have with the Triune God:

"Having been regenerated not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, through the living and abiding word of God." (1 Pet. 1:23)

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name, Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever, Even the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you. Yet a little while and the world beholds Me no longer, but you behold Me; because I live, you also shall live. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. (John 14:16-20, emphasis added)

You are treating salvation as if it's some sort of contract between the believer and God; a contract that is established and broken by the believer. What salvation truly is, however, is an organic union between the believer and the Triune God. It is a life that is taken in and lived out of the believer, a life that cannot be lost, terminated or broken. You keep claiming that a believer can "walk away" from God. But God lives within a believer. He cannot "walk away" when he's carrying God in his spirit!

Also take note in the first verse "...that He may be with you forever..." That, in conjunction with the verses I gave earlier prove that salvation is eternal in nature and in status. By claiming that salvation can be lost, you are making God a liar. For His Word states clearly and without qualification that, A) The believers shall "by no means perish," and, B) [The Comforter, the Spirit of Reality] "...may be with you forever." If the believers perish at any time - even by God's own hand than He has lied in His own Word.

OVEDYA SAID:

Then you admit that the sacrifice of Christ is insufficient to keep anyone that does not remain faithful to Him. Thus the sacrifice of Christ must be insufficient to save completely.

BUTERO's REPLY: Pure propaganda. God did not ever intend Jesus' sacrifice cover forever the sins of those who esteem his sacrifice a light thing by returning to a life of sin after salvation. He could have, but considering the sacrifice made by Christ in dying on a cross for our sins, how must he feel when we live like a child of the devil after claiming Christ as our Lord and Savior! Hebrews 10:28-29

28 He that despised Moses law, died without mercy, under two or three witnesses.

29 Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who that trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, and unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace?

Notice that the verse talks about punishment, not the lake of fire, and not of eternal destruction. Notice that, not at any times does the author state or imply that salvation is taken away or lost because of the disobedient practices of a believer.

(We've gone over Hebrews 10 in more detail, I believe, in another thread. I'd be happy to find that thread and pull it up if you like.)

OVEDYA SAID:

Then, by your admission, the sacrifice of Christ is weak and insufficient to save man completely. By logical extension, then, Hebrews must be wrong when it calls Christ's sacrifice "once for all" (paraphrase). Therefore, each time man sins, He must re-sacrifice Christ in order to again receive regeneration. Essentially, this is really not much different than the Lawful practice of sacrificing animals for each sin. The only difference between the two is that, rather than sacrificing an animal each time you sin, you have to re-sacrifice Christ.

Of course that practice is absolutely forbidden in Hebrews 6.

BUTERO's REPSONSE: Christ's sacrifice is sufficient once and for all, but God never intended to keep those who make light of his sacrifce forever prisoners to a salvation they no longer regard. 1 John 1:9 says, "If we confes our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Under the law of Moses, each time someone wanted forgivness, a new animal had to be sacrificed because the original beast was not sufficient. Not so with Christ's sacrifice. If someone wants forgiveness he doesn not have to return to the cross. All one has to do is look once again to the finished work of Christ, ask forgiveness, and be restored.

No, but each time a believer repents in order to "renew his salvation" he certainly does re-sacrifice Christ. he treats the sacrifice of Christ just like a brand new sacrifice for sins.

Hebrews 6:

1. Therefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us be brought on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, [see. Acts 20:21]

2 Of the teaching of baptisms and of the laying on of hands, of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal djudgment.

3 And this we will do if God permits.

4 For it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of 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 And yet have fallen away, to renew themselves again unto repentance, crucifying again for themselves the Son of God and putting Him to open shame.

Take note of two things here: First, that "the word of the beginning of Christ" is related to salvation and to the "milk" of God's Word (Or in other words to the preliminary teachings of the doctrines of Christ and the church - Heb. 5:12). These things the writer of Hebrews says to move on from, and to be brought to maturity (*) Second, look just at the portions that I've bolded in these verses and read: "For it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit...to renew themselves again unto repentance.." In fact, this act of repentance, the writer affirms, is "crucifying again...the Son of God and putting Him to open shame."

I would think that it's more than clear from this passage that the practice of "re-salvation," as we may call it, is a shameful and forbidden act!

(*) In fact, I would say that, to stay in the condition of continual repentance unto salvation is to refuse to be brought on to maturity. It is to stay in a perpetual state of re-birth, from which there can be no escape or spiritual growth.

[Guest lnj]

When Jesus says that the road is NARROW...I'm sure we don't really comprehend just how Narrow that road is...and on the day He says "I never KNEW you", of course there will be pastors, priests,(anyone) many, many people who have devoted their entire lives to Him only to be directed to stand with the goats...NOT the Sheep. I have been studying John 15 for quite some time and it reveals a dimension of living for Followers of the Master that is HARD but not beyond attainable.