Explicit future denials of apostasy of true children of God

[Dr. Walter]

Jn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jn. 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.


1. All three of these texts explicitly deal with the question of possible future loss of salvation of genuine children of God and all three texts use the future tense to deny that explicit possibility.

a. For example in John 10:28 "they SHALL NEVER perish"

b. For example in John 6:39 "I SHALL lose nothing...but SHALL raise it"

c. For eample in John 5:24 "SHALL not come into condemnation"


2. In all three texts there are no conditions or exceptions presented:

a. For example in John 10:28 the indicative mode is used to declare what is factual rather than the subjunctive mood which is used for conditions or potential. My sheep do these things as factual.

b. For example in John 6:39 Jesus declares the future resurrection unto life of the individual "it" of the collective "of all" thus making the Father's will not merely desire but factual in regard to the future resurrection.

c. For example in John 5:24 Jesus completely rules out any future judgement and does this based upon a completed action in the past that already brought the believer out of eternal death to eternal life. Hearing and believing are not presented as conditions but as descriptives of those who shall not come into judgement. If they were meant to be conditions they would have been presented in the subjunctive mood as that is the mood for conditions and potential.


3. All three of these text place the entire responsibility for future salvation upon Christ's ability not upon the individual being saved.

a. For example in John 10:28-30 future salvation is characterized by the ability of the Son and the Father not to lose such rather than the ability of the believer.

b. For example in John 6:39 future salvation is characterized by the ability of Christ to raise each "of all" those given to the Son unto eternal life.

c. For example in John 5:24 the character of life given as "eternal" is emphasized by no future possibility of coming into judgement as that judgement has already been completely determined in the past at the point of faith in Christ (Perfect tense).


4. No conditions are placed upon the believer in any of these texts as they are the objects of salvation not the participants in salvation.

a. For example in John 10:28 the Lord uses the indicative mood that states a fact rather than using the subjunctive mood that would present conditions or potential.

b. For example in John 6:39 both the Father and the Son are the actors presented as responsible for the future salvation of the individual "it" in the resurrection.

c. For example in John 5:24 the responsibility rests upon the veracity of the Son's promise in regard to a past, present and future points of time.

 

[Jedi Knight]

John 14:19 Jesus said " because I live, ye shall live also". Why? Because HE LIVES!!! :jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jn. 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jn 10:28 ...

1. All three of these texts explicitly deal with the question of possible future loss of salvation of genuine children of God and all three texts use the future tense to deny that explicit possibility.

a. For example in John 10:28 "they SHALL NEVER perish"

b. For example in John 6:39 "I SHALL lose nothing...but SHALL raise it"

c. For example in John 5:24 "SHALL not come into condemnation"

HP: Why is it when one leans hard towards Calvinism they always seems to post John 10:28 as opposed to John 3: 16??? Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him SHOULD NOT perish, but have everlasting life. Notice carefully the words ‘should not.’ ‘Should not’ does not depict an absolute certainty of one first believing as inheriting eternal life, but rather that it is available IF they continue until the end.
Jn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jn. 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.


1. All three of these texts explicitly deal with the question of possible future loss of salvation of genuine children of God and all three texts use the future tense to deny that explicit possibility.

a. For example in John 10:28 "they SHALL NEVER perish"

b. For example in John 6:39 "I SHALL lose nothing...but SHALL raise it"

c. For example in John 5:24 "SHALL not come into condemnation"

HP: Why is it when one leans hard towards Calvinism they always post John 10:28 as opposed to John 3: 16??? Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him SHOULD NOT perish, but have everlasting life. Notice carefully the words ‘should not.’ ‘Should not’ does not depict an absolute certainty of one first believing as inheriting eternal life, but rather that it is available if they continue until the end.

The truth of the matter is that there are Scriptures that state conditions and there are Scriptures in which the stated conditions are not specifically mentioned. Because DW can cherry pick a favorite proof text that does not set forth the clear conditions of repentance and remaining faithful does not preclude their existence as he supposes.

In the second passage, DW conveniently omits and fails to even point to the context of the statement which is ‘the Father’s will.” As has been clearly pointed out, all that is the ‘Father’s will’ will not of certainty come to pass. The Father’s will is that NONE perish, but indeed some will. The Father’s will, the true context of this comment DW posts in b. is the ‘not so convenient context’ for the point DW tries to make this verse walk on all four legs to support when the truth is that he ignores the true context when convenient for supporting his failed dogmas such as OSAS.

Regarding the passage of ‘c.’ in DW’s post, DW again conveniently overlooks every clear passage stating the conditions of salvation and indicates tunnel vision in lock step with the unfounded presupposition of OSAS. This passage, as well as others like it, are by no means islands to themselves. Wisdom by no means pits this passage against others, nor sets at naught the clear conditions of salvation in many other passages. DW in no way is trying in the least to balance Scriptures clearly stating conditions with others that do not. He is not even attempting to harmonize Scripture with Scripture but is simply turning a deaf ear and a blind eye towards any and all that in any way might set forth a clarion sound or a light upon the truth of the stated conditions of salvation in Scripture. He is allowing an unfounded presupposition of OSAS to blind his eyes and heart to the stated conditions found in Scripture concerning salvation and maintaining a right relationship with God.

Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Give us a lesson in GK grammer in this verse DW. :wavey:

The truth of the matter is that there are Scriptures that state conditions and there are Scriptures in which the stated conditions are not specifically mentioned. Because DW can cherry pick favorite proof texts that do not set forth the clear conditions of repentance and remaining faithful, it does not preclude their existence as he supposes.

In the second passage, DW conveniently omits and fails to even point to the context of the statement which is ‘the Father’s will.” As has been clearly pointed out, all that is the ‘Father’s will’ will not of certainty come to pass. The Father’s will is that NONE perish, but indeed some will. The Father’s will, the true context of this comment DW posts in 'b.' is the ‘not so convenient context’ for the point DW tries to make this verse walk on all four legs to support when the truth is that he ignores the true context when convenient for supporting his failed dogmas such as OSAS.

Regarding the passage of ‘c.’ in DW’s post, DW again conveniently overlooks every clear passage stating the conditions of salvation and indicates tunnel vision in lock step with the unfounded presupposition of OSAS. This passage, as well as others like it, is by no means an island to it's self. Wisdom by no means pits this passage against others, nor sets at naught the clear conditions of salvation in many other passages. DW in no way is trying in the least to balance Scriptures clearly stating conditions with others that do not. He is not even attempting to harmonize Scripture with Scripture but is simply turning a deaf ear and a blind eye towards any and all that in any way might set forth a clarion sound or a light upon the truth of the stated conditions of salvation in Scripture. He is allowing an unfounded presupposition of OSAS to blind his eyes and heart to the stated conditions found in Scripture concerning salvation and maintaining a right relationship with God. Simply put, he occupies his time merely reasoning in a circlur fashion starting with the unfounded presupposition of OSAS and ending up attempting to prove the same.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Jn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jn. 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
HP: Why is it when one leans hard towards Calvinism they always seems to post John 10:28 as opposed to John 3: 16??? Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him SHOULD NOT perish, but have everlasting life. Notice carefully the words ‘should not.’ ‘Should not’ does not depict an absolute certainty of one first believing as inheriting eternal life, but rather that it is available IF they continue until the end.
Jn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jn. 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.


1. All three of these texts explicitly deal with the question of possible future loss of salvation of genuine children of God and all three texts use the future tense to deny that explicit possibility.

a. For example in John 10:28 "they SHALL NEVER perish"

b. For example in John 6:39 "I SHALL lose nothing...but SHALL raise it"

c. For example in John 5:24 "SHALL not come into condemnation"

HP: Why is it when one leans hard towards Calvinism they always post John 10:28 as opposed to John 3: 16??? Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him SHOULD NOT perish, but have everlasting life. Notice carefully the words ‘should not.’ ‘Should not’ does not depict an absolute certainty of one first believing as inheriting eternal life, but rather that it is available if they continue until the end.

The truth of the matter is that there are Scriptures that state conditions and there are Scriptures in which the stated conditions are not specifically mentioned. Because DW can cherry pick a favorite proof text that does not set forth the clear conditions of repentance and remaining faithful does not preclude their existence as he supposes.

In the second passage, DW conveniently omits and fails to even point to the context of the statement which is ‘the Father’s will.” As has been clearly pointed out, all that is the ‘Father’s will’ will not of certainty come to pass. The Father’s will is that NONE perish, but indeed some will. The Father’s will, the true context of this comment DW posts in b. is the ‘not so convenient context’ for the point DW tries to make this verse walk on all four legs to support when the truth is that he ignores the true context when convenient for supporting his failed dogmas such as OSAS.

Regarding the passage of ‘c.’ in DW’s post, DW again conveniently overlooks every clear passage stating the conditions of salvation and indicates tunnel vision in lock step with the unfounded presupposition of OSAS. This passage, as well as others like it, are by no means islands to themselves. Wisdom by no means pits this passage against others, nor sets at naught the clear conditions of salvation in many other passages. DW in no way is trying in the least to balance Scriptures clearly stating conditions with others that do not. He is not even attempting to harmonize Scripture with Scripture but is simply turning a deaf ear and a blind eye towards any and all that in any way might set forth a clarion sound or a light upon the truth of the stated conditions of salvation in Scripture. He is allowing an unfounded presupposition of OSAS to blind his eyes and heart to the stated conditions found in Scripture concerning salvation and maintaining a right relationship with God.

Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Give us a lesson in GK grammer in this verse DW. :wavey:

The truth of the matter is that there are Scriptures that state conditions and there are Scriptures in which the stated conditions are not specifically mentioned. Because DW can cherry pick favorite proof texts that do not set forth the clear conditions of repentance and remaining faithful, it does not preclude their existence as he supposes.

In the second passage, DW conveniently omits and fails to even point to the context of the statement which is ‘the Father’s will.” As has been clearly pointed out, all that is the ‘Father’s will’ will not of certainty come to pass. The Father’s will is that NONE perish, but indeed some will. The Father’s will, the true context of this comment DW posts in 'b.' is the ‘not so convenient context’ for the point DW tries to make this verse walk on all four legs to support when the truth is that he ignores the true context when convenient for supporting his failed dogmas such as OSAS.

Regarding the passage of ‘c.’ in DW’s post, DW again conveniently overlooks every clear passage stating the conditions of salvation and indicates tunnel vision in lock step with the unfounded presupposition of OSAS. This passage, as well as others like it, is by no means an island to it's self. Wisdom by no means pits this passage against others, nor sets at naught the clear conditions of salvation in many other passages. DW in no way is trying in the least to balance Scriptures clearly stating conditions with others that do not. He is not even attempting to harmonize Scripture with Scripture but is simply turning a deaf ear and a blind eye towards any and all that in any way might set forth a clarion sound or a light upon the truth of the stated conditions of salvation in Scripture. He is allowing an unfounded presupposition of OSAS to blind his eyes and heart to the stated conditions found in Scripture concerning salvation and maintaining a right relationship with God. Simply put, he occupies his time merely reasoning in a circlur fashion starting with the unfounded presupposition of OSAS and ending up attempting to prove the same.

Your Armenian teaching is showing.:laugh:

 

[RAdam]

In 1611 english, should is the past tense of shall. Oxford English Dictionary

By the way, that is the same word that Christ used in John 17:3, "that he should give eternal life to as many as thou has given him." Want to claim that isn't certain?

 

[Revmitchell]

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


Pretty much ends any need for discussion right there.

 

[DHK]

Jn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jn. 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Are you asking for a lesson in English grammar. It sounds like it.

The father left a will, that his children should lose none of the inheritance.
(If he didn't' the government would take their share).

 

[annsni]

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


Pretty much ends any need for discussion right there.

Oh AMEN!!! :godisgood: :jesus:

Praise God!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Half of your response depends entirely upon the meaning of "should" and obviously you have never looked it up or you would not have wasted your time trying to define "should" in the very exact opposite to what it means. It is the past tense of "shall" and forbids even the potential.

All of your response is the cultic method of pitting scripture against scripture. First you pit John 3:16 and the mistaken interpretation of "should" against these texts and then you pit John 8:31 You should read from verse 29-44 as the context shows these were false professors who never really had been born again but were still of their father - Satan. True children of God "continue" as I John 2:19 explicitly states that they "NO DOUBT continue." That is why they continue believing, continue hearing because their nature has been changed by new birth, they have the indwelling Spirit of God and God is working in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure and Paul says that we can have confidence that the work God has begun in us He will CONTINUE TO PERFORM UNTIL THAT DAY. Thus Christ is not only the author but the finisher of our faith.

Jn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jn. 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
HP: Why is it when one leans hard towards Calvinism they always seems to post John 10:28 as opposed to John 3: 16??? Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him SHOULD NOT perish, but have everlasting life. Notice carefully the words ‘should not.’ ‘Should not’ does not depict an absolute certainty of one first believing as inheriting eternal life, but rather that it is available IF they continue until the end.
Jn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jn. 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.


1. All three of these texts explicitly deal with the question of possible future loss of salvation of genuine children of God and all three texts use the future tense to deny that explicit possibility.

a. For example in John 10:28 "they SHALL NEVER perish"

b. For example in John 6:39 "I SHALL lose nothing...but SHALL raise it"

c. For example in John 5:24 "SHALL not come into condemnation"

HP: Why is it when one leans hard towards Calvinism they always post John 10:28 as opposed to John 3: 16??? Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him SHOULD NOT perish, but have everlasting life. Notice carefully the words ‘should not.’ ‘Should not’ does not depict an absolute certainty of one first believing as inheriting eternal life, but rather that it is available if they continue until the end.

The truth of the matter is that there are Scriptures that state conditions and there are Scriptures in which the stated conditions are not specifically mentioned. Because DW can cherry pick a favorite proof text that does not set forth the clear conditions of repentance and remaining faithful does not preclude their existence as he supposes.

In the second passage, DW conveniently omits and fails to even point to the context of the statement which is ‘the Father’s will.” As has been clearly pointed out, all that is the ‘Father’s will’ will not of certainty come to pass. The Father’s will is that NONE perish, but indeed some will. The Father’s will, the true context of this comment DW posts in b. is the ‘not so convenient context’ for the point DW tries to make this verse walk on all four legs to support when the truth is that he ignores the true context when convenient for supporting his failed dogmas such as OSAS.

Regarding the passage of ‘c.’ in DW’s post, DW again conveniently overlooks every clear passage stating the conditions of salvation and indicates tunnel vision in lock step with the unfounded presupposition of OSAS. This passage, as well as others like it, are by no means islands to themselves. Wisdom by no means pits this passage against others, nor sets at naught the clear conditions of salvation in many other passages. DW in no way is trying in the least to balance Scriptures clearly stating conditions with others that do not. He is not even attempting to harmonize Scripture with Scripture but is simply turning a deaf ear and a blind eye towards any and all that in any way might set forth a clarion sound or a light upon the truth of the stated conditions of salvation in Scripture. He is allowing an unfounded presupposition of OSAS to blind his eyes and heart to the stated conditions found in Scripture concerning salvation and maintaining a right relationship with God.

Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Give us a lesson in GK grammer in this verse DW. :wavey:

The truth of the matter is that there are Scriptures that state conditions and there are Scriptures in which the stated conditions are not specifically mentioned. Because DW can cherry pick favorite proof texts that do not set forth the clear conditions of repentance and remaining faithful, it does not preclude their existence as he supposes.

In the second passage, DW conveniently omits and fails to even point to the context of the statement which is ‘the Father’s will.” As has been clearly pointed out, all that is the ‘Father’s will’ will not of certainty come to pass. The Father’s will is that NONE perish, but indeed some will. The Father’s will, the true context of this comment DW posts in 'b.' is the ‘not so convenient context’ for the point DW tries to make this verse walk on all four legs to support when the truth is that he ignores the true context when convenient for supporting his failed dogmas such as OSAS.

Regarding the passage of ‘c.’ in DW’s post, DW again conveniently overlooks every clear passage stating the conditions of salvation and indicates tunnel vision in lock step with the unfounded presupposition of OSAS. This passage, as well as others like it, is by no means an island to it's self. Wisdom by no means pits this passage against others, nor sets at naught the clear conditions of salvation in many other passages. DW in no way is trying in the least to balance Scriptures clearly stating conditions with others that do not. He is not even attempting to harmonize Scripture with Scripture but is simply turning a deaf ear and a blind eye towards any and all that in any way might set forth a clarion sound or a light upon the truth of the stated conditions of salvation in Scripture. He is allowing an unfounded presupposition of OSAS to blind his eyes and heart to the stated conditions found in Scripture concerning salvation and maintaining a right relationship with God. Simply put, he occupies his time merely reasoning in a circlur fashion starting with the unfounded presupposition of OSAS and ending up attempting to prove the same.

 

[Zenas]

Or how about this?

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons. 1 Timothy 4:1.

An aberration perhaps?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Or how about this? An aberration perhaps?

Are you making the assumption they had been saved? Notice what is contrasted with "the faith" in this text? - "doctrines." There is a body of doctrine or "the apostles doctrine" that was received from Christ (Jude 3) that we are to contend for. This is "the truth" which the church is the pillar and ground of (I Tim. 3:15) and embodied in the central tenet of the gospel (1 Tim. 3:16). These people departed from that body of apostolic doctrine (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thes. 3:6; etc.).

Their opposition to "the faith" is either due to being misled and deceived which may be a manifestation of their true nature - religious unregenerates as in Matthew 7:21-23. True children of God cannot turn "antichrist" (I Jn. 2:18-19).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Half of your response depends entirely upon the meaning of "should" and obviously you have never looked it up or you would not have wasted your time trying to define "should" in the very exact opposite to what it means. It is the past tense of "shall" and forbids even the potential.

HP:

There are many things that ‘should not’ happen but do. There are many things one ‘should not’ do but they do. There are many places one ‘should not’ go but they do. You are beside yourself (and any semblance pf logic and reason) DW in support of your presupposition of OSAS to come to such a ridiculous position as you state here as to the meaning of ‘should not.’

 

[Zenas]

Are you making the assumption they had been saved?

Absolutely. You can't fall away from the faith unless you are already in the faith.

Are you making the assumption they had been saved? Notice what is contrasted with "the faith" in this text? - "doctrines." There is a body of doctrine or "the apostles doctrine" that was received from Christ (Jude 3) that we are to contend for. This is "the truth" which the church is the pillar and ground of (I Tim. 3:15) and embodied in the central tenet of the gospel (1 Tim. 3:16). These people departed from that body of apostolic doctrine (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thes. 3:6; etc.).

My point exactly.

Their opposition to "the faith" is either due to being misled and deceived which may be a manifestation of their true nature - religious unregenerates as in Matthew 7:21-23. True children of God cannot turn "antichrist" (I Jn. 2:18-19).

Falling away is always due to their being misled or deceived. If it's a manifestation of their true nature, then you have the kind of situation John described in 1 John 2:19. Otherwise you have a falling away as described in 2 Peter 2.

 

[RAdam]

You misunderstand the meaning of should. In 1611 it didn't mean what it means today. It is the past tense of shall. Shall is a word used in the bible that doesn't give the slightest inclination of failure. Should is used the same way, particularly when connected with God.

 

[Dr. Walter]

DW: Half of your response depends entirely upon the meaning of "should" and obviously you have never looked it up or you would not have wasted your time trying to define "should" in the very exact opposite to what it means. It is the past tense of "shall" and forbids even the potential.

HP:

There are many things that ‘should not’ happen but do. There are many things one ‘should not’ do but they do. There are many places one ‘should not’ go but they do. You are beside yourself (and any semblance pf logic and reason) DW in support of your presupposition of OSAS to come to such a ridiculous position as you state here as to the meaning of ‘should not.’

What you say is false! The words "should not" are found in only two types of context in the New Testament. They are found in commands and with no alternatives or exceptions entertained by the one giving that command regardless of the response by the hearer to that command. They are found in promises with no alternatives or acceptions entertained by the one giving that promise regardless of the response by the hearer.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Absolutely. You can't fall away from the faith unless you are already in the faith. My point exactly. Falling away is always due to their being misled or deceived. If it's a manifestation of their true nature, then you have the kind of situation John described in 1 John 2:19. Otherwise you have a falling away as described in 2 Peter 2.

2 Peter 2 is no different than 1 John 2:19. There is no essential change in nature - the pig is still a pig and the dog is still a dog by nature and the circumstances simply reveal what they truly are by nature.

 

[Zenas]

2 Peter 2 is no different than 1 John 2:19. There is no essential change in nature - the pig is still a pig and the dog is still a dog by nature and the circumstances simply reveal what they truly are by nature.

1 Peter 2 is not referring to the same kind of thing as 1 John 2:19, and anyone who thinks they are should consider Jeremiah 5:21, but for the sake of this discussioin we will assume they are. Now, how can you fall away from the faith unless you are already in the faith?

 

[Dr. Walter]

1 Peter 2 is not referring to the same kind of thing as 1 John 2:19, and anyone who thinks they are should consider Jeremiah 5:21, but for the sake of this discussioin we will assume they are. Now, how can you fall away from the faith unless you are already in the faith?

In your first post you say "2 Pet. 2" and in this last post you say "1 Pet. 2" - which is it?

2 Pet. 2:10-22 is talking about Christians by profession only who were never regenerated, never saved. The same is true of those in 1 Jn. 2:18-19 - never regenerated, never saved, just professors that went out from us.

10 ¶ But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

 

[Zenas]

In your first post you say "2 Pet. 2" and in this last post you say "1 Pet. 2" - which is it?

2 Peter 2. Sorry about the typo.

2 Pet. 2:10-22 is talking about Christians by profession only who were never regenerated, never saved. The same is true of those in 1 Jn. 2:18-19 - never regenerated, never saved, just professors that went out from us.

No it's not.

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Look what this says, DW. These people escaped the pollutions of the world and then became entangled again. They had known the way of righteousness and then turned away. . The dog and the sow returned to their vomit and wallow. You can't return to something unless you have been away from it.

 

[Jedi Knight]

The dog and the sow returned to their vomit and wallow. You can't return to something unless you have been away from it.

Did you see sheep here anywhere? Were talking dogs and hogs....not sheep. They return because thats what they are. 1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. Sheep if you wana sharp contrast is what Jesus said in John 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.