Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost? *for all Christians

True, but they did not of their own selves come to understand the truth. They reject the truth after they have it revealed to them.

This might seem silly, but it is my view that all who reject the Gospel do in fact believe, but it is still a matter of them rejecting Christ, rather than not acknowledging the truth. See 2 Peter 2:20-21.

 

Not sure what happened but I am not able to correct the above post, hope it is understandable as it is given. Sometimes the edit function is goofy.


God bless.

 

See @Hark,
It is not sufficient to make a claim. What distinguishes your statements is the scriptures which back them up. Now, claiming something over and over does not make it so. In other words, you can't appeal to your own claims as evidence.

Let me highlight your wild babble. The highlighted statement is pure hogwash. The judgement is about idolatry. He is emphasizing WHY it is paramount that Corinthians flee from idolatry. How does he do this? Using the Lord's Table. Communion is not a reminder of idolatry contrary to your assertion.

You skipped crucial verses in between. The point is , whoever eats of the altar is in a relationship with the deity(YHWH)

Nope, he is warning the Corinthian believers against any relationship with pagan deities

Nope, that is you @Hark thinking and imputing your imagination on Corinthians. The Gentiles in question are nonbelievers offering sacrifices to pagan deities not Godand Paul will not have none of the believers having any relationship with idols

Nope, the Gentiles(non believers)in question are not having Communion but are offering sacrifices to their deities not to God

Nope, he is not stressing taking communion the right way, but rather why it is wrong to partake communion and then commit idolatry by participating in pagan practices. The cup of Devils and table of Devils are pagan rituals

As always, I care none for what you can conjure out of your mind but the scriptural BASI for it. You just believe but with no scriptures to back you up. The reason Paul asks this is because in verse 7 he reminds them of how Israel engaged in idolatry and thousands perished one day because they provoked YHWH to jealousy. He is stressing the seriousness of the sin of idolatry in the eyes of God

There is no principle to see here bro; you are making it up. The evidence of your claim is not your claim. I'm interested in WHY you imagine there is a 'principle' . The Gentiles here are performing their pagan rituals and Paul is warning the believers against participating in them.

Where is the evidence? None!

Nope, you are once again repeating your claim as if that is proof of anything.
YHWH has repeated that He is a jealous God and He shares His glory with nobody. So when Israel worshipped other gods, His wrath was kindled. Read Deut 32 the Song of Moses
Deuteronomy 32:21 (KJV)
They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God;
they have provoked me to anger with their vanities:
Paul is warning Corinthians against idols as God is a jealous God, and we are not stronger than He so it is the idolator who stands to lose

i really don't care how far Catholicism is from the truth, the point is NONE of that is in view in the current passage.

Your modus operandi is repeating a claim ad nauseum as if that is proof of anything. What you are supposed to do is to demonstrate the claim is backed by scriptures. So far you haven't .

Paul is warning against idolatry and he uses two points of emphasis;
1. The believers are already in fellowship with the Lord and they should not at the same time be in fellowship with demons through idolatry
2. Idolatry is dangerous as evidenced by The many who dies after they provoked YHWH to jealousy

Nope, that's what you claim and the text does not support any of it. He is warning them against idolatry and not a perversion of the Lord's Table.

Whenever Paul corrects an error in the churches, he does so by indicating the right way of doing it right after pointing out what is wrong. In the subject verses, he does not indicate transubstantiation error. It takes an overworked fertile imagination with little regard for scriptures to read transubstantiation in the text.

I'm still reeling in shock from your total disregard of the inspired text yet you claim that your gift is edification by sharing the word. What spirits provoke you to ignore the plain meaning of the text in favor of wild theories?

 

I don't think even those who embrace Transubstantiation view it as an offering again, except for those who equally misunderstand the finality and completion of the Once Offered Sacrifice of Christ. I think most fall into accepting this position through ignorance which is not really a matter of idolatry, but just that, ignorance of the Atonement. Many among conservative groups make the same mistake in thinking that Communion contributes to their salvation as well. I once heard a man preach "If you are not partaking of Communion once a week your faith is in vain."

And again, I just do not see Paul speaking to a literalism in the passage. The primary intent is not to ascribe salvific importance or realities to anything unwarranted. I would see an address of giving idols themselves a reality which is not there. For them to consider the offering of meat to idols an issue to take into consideration would imply they think there are actually gods to be reckoned with in regards to the offering. This is true in the sense that behind every idol stands a demon, but, the bottom line is a steak offered to an idol is just a steak.

And again, I will give this more time when I get the chance. Perhaps you should start a thread and highlight your view in the OP.


God bless.

 

No biggie.
Nobody suggested that ALL men are successful in rejecting the ministry of the Comforter, the fact that some do is all it takes to prove that the drawing is either partial or not irresistible contrary to your claim that it is.

You are missing the point bro. It is not about how long one resists the truth, but the fact that some perish revisiting the irresistible drawing to their death.

Now that you have injected another vocabulary , the 'elect', permit me to ask a few questions;
1. Who are the elect?
2. Do we have non-elect?

Does God speak to EVERY man?
If He does, whose fault is it that some despite being spoken to end up in hell?
If He doesn't, how does God will that those He does not speak to not to perish yet He offers them no chance out of their circumstances?

Ok!

I don't want to digress but like @Hark is wont to, yours is a false dilemma; either man has a role in salvation or they can't save themselves. An example will suffice. If a death row prisoner is pardoned by President Obama, it would not be in order for him to claim credit for his freedom seeing he walked out of his cell. He owes his freedom to the one who opened the cell door for him

Question over and over is, those who perish,did God intervene for those who end up in hell?
If He did, why do they perish?
If He didn't, can we blame the very God who wills not that they perish for not intervening and saving them?

So, those who perish, did God intervene or not?
If He did, why do they perish? Isn't the intervention sufficient or what?

Yes we do

In short, the difference between life and death is RESPONSE to God's revelation, and this response is man's responsibility, right?
Why would you not call this response, man's role in his salvation?
If man has no role to play in his salvation, he'd be saved regardless of how he responds to the truth, or God would orchestrate the right response in him. But if this is so, then for those who perish, God NEVER orchestrated the right response...How are they to blame!

Who are the elect?
Are there some who are not elect?
Whose fault is it they are not elect?

So it boils down to man's decision!

My brother, you lose me to semantics which is unlike you.
Rejecting something is a choice. One can only successfully reject something if they have the option of accepting or rejecting it. It is a decision making process sir. Rejecting something is choosing something sir

Again let's focus on those who perish. They simply never 'acknowledge and act upon'.

Does God irresistibly draw men if He draws some who reject Him?

Great analogy.
Does God irresistibly draw men to Him or do they have a choice in the matter?

 

Then help me understand your view. I'm avoiding senseless text proofing for now.

Does God irresistibly draw ALL men or just SOME men?
[auote]Secondly, I again emphasize that you impose positive action when that is not in view. What is in view is a negative action, or in other words...inaction. As far as receiving Christ that is the positive action taken by those who are saved.[/quote]
But this is pure semantics. Action/inaction are decisions by man. That's the bottom line. If either of them leads to salvation or damnation, then man can't be responsible for one and not the other

This is a bad example as you readily admit. It is your will, you let them starve if it is your responsibility to feed them in the first place, and you are aware of their plight, and you have the wherewithal to save them

Ok.
Let me rephrase the question;
Does God draw ALL men to him not willing that any may perish?

The question again,
Does God draw ALL men to him equally?

Question again
Does God draw ALL men alike or equally to Himself?
Or, is God's offer for salvation available to ALL men?

ALL of them had the chance, and it is their decision that cost them eternity either life or death, right?

It is men's decisions or choices that see their eternal separation or life. So men are RESPONSIBLE for this decision( you call it [in]action)

what you are saying is man's choices lead either to heaven or hell. It's his choice. So let me ask again, seeing man's decisions affect his eternity, does man has a role to play in his salvation?

 

Just investigating a function,

[COMMENT]to see if it is what I think it is...[/COMMENT]

 

[H]Experimenting again...[/H]

 

You did, when you asked the question., essentially. Of course I assume the question demanded a negative response, but, my response was to verify that no, not all men are successful. Those who are saved are not always immediate in receiving the Truth, so for that time in which they kick against the goads they are, until they yield, "successful," lol.

Again, this is a term that belongs to a System I am not a part of, and this is not a concept that I endorse, because it not only falls under the wings of a System I find disagreement with, but confuses the issues that need to be focused on.

Our discussion here would cease to be an ongoing issue if you would just acknowledge one point I have made repeatedly: you are putting the cart before the horse and arguing (1) about an issue that falls after the point in time when Free Will is relevant, and (2) against issues that are not relevant to my own Soteriology.

In other words, to simplify, the point you keep missing is that you are debating about whether man makes a choice in salvation and that is not the focal point. The focal point is whether he has that ability when the time comes for him to decide. And he does not come to that point until first he hears the Gospel, believes it, and the chooses.

But this post brings up an another assumption on your part that I think will help us to move on, hopefully, to get a better understanding of the focal issues. One being, I have never denied that men make a choice. But, what I am denying is the concept that it is within the natural framework of man that this decision is made. It is only within the framework of that point when men are brought under conviction, which necessitates God's intervention prior to choosing.

"Irresistible" has no relevance in the discussion.

The point being missed is not about whether men can resist or receive the truth, the point missed is that the Truth is not something men are aware of until God shows it to them as truth.

I have never said anything about a concept that implies an "irresistible drawing" of all men. This is a blending of Biblical statements that can in no passage in Scripture be seen to teach the concept you are arguing.


Continued...

 

The "Elect" are those who, in the eternal perspective and soteriologically cumulative events are those who receive the very promises of God.

We can say of those who were justified by faith in the Old Testament, yet were not forgiven their sins and reconciled to God through the Cross that they were of the Elect.

Technically one is not among the Elect until salvation, but, from an eternal perspective God has known His Elect before the foundations of the world were laid. This is an issue that involves the foreknowledge of God as well as His will, rather than separating the two to create an exclusivity that denies that God so loved the world that He sent His Son.

Yes of course, and they too are known from before the world was created, Judas and the Antichrist being good examples. Both are prophesied about and there is no hint at the possibility of redemption. God did not force either of those two to reject Himself yet they did, and will.

Yes. I spoke about that fact extensively.

While we might not view the internal witness or the testimony of Creation to be a literal speaking, it is still considered revelation to men for the purpose of obedience to His will, no matter what the will of those Eras might be.

That is made clear here in regards to Gentiles who did not have the specific will of God as found in the Word of God which had been given to Israel:


Romans 2:13-15

King James Version (KJV)

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)



In view are Gentiles who, despite not having (the Covenant of) Law, which would have also included Scripture, fulfilled the Law of God.

How did they do that? Paul tells us...it was written upon their hearts. That is the internal witness also mentioned here...


Romans 1:18-20

King James Version (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


Note a few things...

1. The wrath of God is poured out because of unrighteousness and rejection of the truth;

2. What is known of God is manifest in them (this includes both righteous and unrighteous);

3. God showed it to them...it was not something they were born with;


And that is the focal point of our discussion, Vooks, that while you are arguing a case for men choosing (which I am not, they do choose), where you are confusing the issue is to ascribe that ability to choose to men, and overlooking that it is God that brings them to the point where they are held culpable for corrupting the truth.

Continued...

 

It is the fault of the one who rejects it.

Not God's.

If I try to pull a drowning man out of the water and he resists me, and drowns, is it my fault?

Again, is it your will that children starve?

Here is another analogy that might be better: there is a cousin of mine that is having a problem, and she needs help.

How terrible of you to not care.



You see the truth is, you could not make a decision to help my cousin because...you were not aware of her need until just now when you read it in this post, right? At this point you can make a decision to help her or not. Was it in your ability to help her before you knew she needed the help?

So to with the natural man, he has no ability to comprehend that he heeds help because he is not aware of his condition. Most feel they are okay with the general concept of Judgment, thinking of course their good deeds endear them to God. After all, they are not serial murderers or wife beaters, and even give the homeless some change once in a while.

But you and I know that sin is an issue that separates man from God, and it is not a matter of getting to a point where we work our way into relationship, but can only be saved and reconciled through what Christ has done (as opposed to what we have done or will do).


Continued...

 

lol

Does a drowning man have a role in the drowning? Of course. But does he save himself if someone pulls him out? Does the man who died of a heart attack have a role if he is resuscitated in the ER room?

The "false dilemma" is not mine, for I have not denied men have a role. They do. But, that role is not ascribed with salvific connotation.

There is a "choice" between rejecting or receiving Christ, but, that choice is made after they are made aware of the truth.

And that is precisely the same in salvation. The "door" being opened is the understanding.

The prisoner has a role but no-one could say he saved himself.

But the problem with this analogy is that the prisoner, unlike the natural man, is aware of his condition. The natural man must first be brought under conviction in order for him to get to the point where he receives or rejects.

And I don't understand why you ask this over and over, lol. Again, God reveals the truth to every man and woman. I have said that repeatedly. That is the point in quoting Paul in Romans 1 and 2.

There are three primary means of revelation, the internal witness, the testimony of Creation, and direct revelation (i.e., God speaking to men directly, or through other men, or through Scripture). All men will in some form receive revelation by which they can come into obedience to God.

And if you think about that, and understand it, it asnwers the question posed in probably every sunday school class ever held: what about the man in the deepest darkest reaches of Africa, who never heard the Gospel? They will not be held without excuse, as Paul states in Romans 2, because they too have been given enough revelation from God to "choose" to obey.

And again, remember that this is from God, not something within their own ability.

That revelation is for the purpose that men escape eternal separation. God has and always will judge men according to their response to the revelation provided them, and for those who we could easily argue truly have not received that revelation (i.e., aborted children, young children who die, the mentally challenged), the same grace that kept Old Testament Saints from eternal separation will also be applied to them.

No, we have to much Scripture that makes it clear no man will be without fault.

Consider this again:



Romans 1:18-20

King James Version (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


Now if they are without excuse, Vooks, that means they are...guilty.

And we need but see what Paul states to see what they are guilty of.

Yes.

We know this because they would not be guilty of rejecting the Truth if they had not first received it.

Peter speaks about this here:


2 Peter 2:20-21

King James Version (KJV)

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.


While this is specific to this Age, because it refers to the Knowledge of Christ, it still represents the basic principle seen throughout Scripture in regards to man's response to the revelation of God.

Here we see that those who are spoken in a context incontrovertibly as being those who will be eternally separated...received the Truth but turned from it.

This is no less than that which Christ teaches in regards to the Ministry of the Comforter. And that enlightenment is just like the enlightenment Stephen accused Israel of resisting, that which the Holy Ghost imparted to them.


Continued...

 

Because they rejected the truth.

You are equating intervention with salvation. That is not the case.

Think about it: you are defending free will yet denying free will at the same time. The intervention consists of revelation of God's will, which in this Age is for men to turn to Christ in faith. They are shown they are sinners, destined for Hell, and that Christ can save them.

They resist the Holy Ghost.

So do you recognize that these people were people who rejected the truth? And that the Truth was shown to them for the purpose that they might be saved?

Precisely.

Yes of course.

I never said man didn't have a role in salvation in that regard. He does. But, man does not contribute to his salvation, and this begins first with the fact that he is completely unaware that he needs a Savior until he is shown this by God.

Now you are doing exactly what I presume are your usual antagonists position: you are making it a matter of God forcing the response on the individual.

He does not. He reveals the Truth and allows man to respond accordingly. God does not force the response either way. THough I will say, it would make as much sense to reject God as it would to reject a hand trying to save you from drowning.

But that again shows the desperate nature of man.

Those who will be saved. But, you ignore the point here: ultimately the Elect receive Christ, but that does not mean that none of them ever go through a period in which they reject the Truth. I did. Did you? Or did you immediately repsonf the first time you ever heard the Gospel?

Yes.

Their own according to Scripture.

No, before man decides there must first be enlightenment that allows for understanding of our condition.

Then comes the decision.

An analogy is hardly semantics, Vooks.

Here is your lack of understanding of how a heating system works. I am the one with the knowledge of the system trying to tell you what must be done in order to save your life. If you reject that help I am not to blame, right?

Precisely, and prior to the revelation from God concerning the Truth...the natural man will not decide, will not choose.

Understand? So we see that the "option" does not arise from man's will, but God's.

On the contrary, they actively reject. You are imposing an implication that they are ignorant of the Truth, when that is not the case. God gives revelation to every man and woman, and not one person will have an excuse for rejecting that revelation.


Continued...

 

You really need to drop the word "irresistible" from this discussion. It has no relevance to my views in debating free will.

Which is a tad off topic, by the way, lol.

Just because some teach irresistible grace does not mean we have to cloud the issues in view by incorporating their concept into it.

Thought it was semantics, lol.

Men have no choice inbeing drawn of the Father. That is the whole point here...



John 6:44

King James Version (KJV)

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


In the argument for free will there is a contradiction of Christ to be found. One which implies that men are not drawn, but themselves decide to seek out God.

Scripture makes it clear in both Old and New Testament...


Romans 3:10-18

King James Version (KJV)

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17 And the way of peace have they not known:

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.


We do not nullify the fact that men are called to make a decision, and that is to believe on the name of Jesus Christ. However, neither do we nullify man's condition and the clear statement of Scripture that the natural man does not have an ability to believe on Christ apart from the revelation of God. The reason for that is that we are told he is not capable of receiving or knowing the spiritual things of God. That is revealed to him by the Spirit of God...always.


God bless.

 

Here is a lesson the Lord has taught me in Forum Discussion, Hark: we have to keep in mind that just because someone claims to be of a particular group does not mean that (1) they actually understand the actual doctrine of the group, (2) they properly represent the doctrine of the group, (3) or that they embrace all teachings of the group.

What group do you belong to, if any (though I remember you saying you are not part of a fellowship right now, so this may not be a good example), and do you embrace everything they teach. Better yet, what group were you a part of, and is it safe to say you objected to at least part of their teaching?

The same is true for Catholics, who have individual understanding of Catholic Doctrines. Secondly, even among those who call themselves Catholic, there is a variety to be found. Just as there are Charismatics who call themselves "Baptist," even so there are Catholic groups that are charismatic.

I have spoken with a fair amount of Catholics, and they are as diverse as the Baptists here are, lol. Ranging from conservative to fanatical, and even to Charismatic. One person endorsed Mary as the co-Redemptrix, whereas most Catholics I have spoken to maintain a simple honoring of Mary in the significant role she plays in redemptive history.

So in regards to transubstantiation, not all Catholics embrace a view that it literally becomes the blood and body of Christ, nor that it sustains eternal life. But Catholic Doctrine is geared towards creating a works-based mentality into it's adherents, so we are not surprised when this doctrine becomes one that compliments works-based salvation.

With this quote it seems as though Christ's Sacrifice is still in view. I don't think they are saying that Communion itself surpasses all sacrifices of the Old Covenant, making it an actual sacrifice itself.

I don't usually spend a great deal of time trying to debunk what is false about specific denominations, but choose rather to focus on what is true. As one man who dealt with counterfeit money replied when asked if he studied counterfeit money, "No, I study real currency, so when I see the counterfeit I am able to recognize it."

So too, if we focus on understanding what is in the Word, when we run into the counterfeit we are able to recognize it.

Again, the faith of those of any given group is always so diverse it becomes pointless trying to battle the errors of that group. Better to focus on what is valid itself, and taken directly from Scripture.

But Paul does not speak of this in the quote you gave. The meat is not said to be animate, but given significance because it is offered to idols. His point remains "if anything was to be considered holy because of Who it is offered to, this would have been true of the sacrifices offered to God by the Levitical Priesthood. But they ate of those sacrifices, which means the meat was still...just meat."

Secondly, I could understand someone confusing Christ's presence with Communion, for truly Christ is present. For this to be idolatry then I would think that worship would be transferred to the elements, but it is not. In general worship is still ascribed to Christ, and the error lies primarily in the notion that the elements either contribute or sustain eternal life. Rather than idolatry, I see this as simply ignorance or confusion, which I would again remind you is where we all start. I was never in fear of losing salvation when I was a babe in Christ due to ignorance, nor even due to weakness in obedience. So I can have compassion on those who are under poor teaching, but believe that God rewards those who are diligent in their efforts to know truth. And the fact remains, most in the average congregation, no matter which group we might examine, are ignorant of Scripture and most do not have a faith that is their own, derived from Study, but have basically borrowed the faith of those who instruct them.

It's kind of like people's kids. Usually they embrace the beliefs of their parents. We find someone who is racist, and his parent/s was were racist usually.

If the adherent believes this, then they are in serious error. But I don't really see that in the quote. Perhaps you could quote more of it's context.

Agreed.

And this is where Catholics fail, they do not understand positional sanctification as opposed to progressive sanctification. For many of them, salvation is something that comes after a successful course. Very sad, but, for those who are actually saved among them, they will still be saved regardless. And like those who teach loss of salvation, most will never think they are one of the ones who will fail, lol.

The "provocation" in view can be, I think, tied directly to his previous reference to the provocation itself, which was the idolatry of Israel in the Wilderness. Paul asks a simple question...is that what we want to do? Ti maintains a consistency to what he is trying to teach them/us.

Very kind of you, Hark. Give me a little time with that chapter to review and place it in a context of the issue you have raised. My primary point was that this passage is not, in it's historical context, speaking about Transubstantiation. While we can use passages and teachings to address more modern (even if it dates back to 3rd and 4th century origination) errors, I think we need to be very careful about that sort of thing. The idea of partaking of literal flesh and blood was something that was used to discredit Christianity, rather than something that originated from Christianity. As far as Catholic belief, I would only address that which comes directly from their own sources which hold legitimacy for the Catholic Church, Again, how their doctrine is interpreted varies from Catholic to Catholic, so if you would like to start a thread that examines theirs doctrine that would probably be interesting.


God bless.

 

Most take this view, however, we see that they had turned from the Holy Commandment given them, and shown not to have had a change in nature (i.e., dogs still dogs, pigs still pigs, both derisive names indicative of unbelievers).

Secondly, we see that the context is one of false teachers, which are correlated to false prophets. We would have to equally ascribe relationship to God to the false prophets they are compared to if we are to ascribe relationship to these false teachers.

What is in view are those who have received the truth, yet turn away from it. The fact that they infiltrate the body of Christ does not mean they are born again believers.

Consider:


2 Peter 2

King James Version (KJV)

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.


Just not reasonable to ascribe salvation to these fellows.

In the parallel passage found in Jude, it becomes, as it does here, clear that in view is eternal separation which never changed in their lives, meaning, we do not have those who were saved and then lost that salvation and are then damned, but those who were damned all along.

It's a great study, though, and helps us to address the false doctrine of annihilation.

For example, Peter goes on to say...



2 Peter 2

King James Version (KJV)

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;


17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.



Jude 6

King James Version (KJV)

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.



For both the false teachers/believers and demons, the same fate awaits. Their reservation is quite unlike that of believers:


1 Peter 1:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


It is by ignoring the context in which my original quote stands in, that of an address of false teachers who will be among believers, could we possibly construe a context of a believer or believers falling away from the faith and losing salvation. Secondly, we would also have to ignore one of the very first things Peter teaches concerning believers, which verifies we are born again by the resurrection of Christ, that our reservation is secure, our inheritance is secure, and that we are kept by the power of God (as opposed to ourselves keeping ourselves through our works.

But take a look at it and tell me what you think, whether you would ascribe a saving experience to those Peter and Jude speak of. It would seem that their fate is foretold, and this tells us whether they are born again or not.

I would just throw this in, since we have strayed from the topic quite a bit: Peter, in the First Chapter, refers to the New Birth twice. The first time in v.3 above, and then here:


1 Peter 1:22-23

King James Version (KJV)

22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.



Now contrast obedience to the Gospel seen here, and the turning away of the Holy Commandment of the false teachers. It is unlikely that if Peter intended to imply that the false teachers had been born again, then turned away, that he would have failed to mention that somewhere. But he makes it clear, drawing a parallel to the false prophets of the Old Testament (who no-one confuses as belonging to God), that we the Body are to understand that false teachers will arise.


God bless.