"Once saved, always saved"--Fact or Fiction?

Hey mman:

I disagree!

James 5:19-20. I have recently demonstrated that "death" is not the equivalent of "eternal damnation." Consider Moses who fell in the wilderness for his rebellion against God. Is he in hell? NO! He appeared with Jesus at the Transfiguration. Don't force your opinions on God's Word.

II Pet 2:20. Didn't Briguy, steaver, and I just demolish this foolishness?! Don't you read our superior proofs?

Acts 8 isn't about Demas. It is about Simon the sorcerer. Being tied to the bondage of sin is not the same as being under the Law of sin and death leading to hell. This bondage is a voluntary decision to walk by the flesh after salvation.

Although sin is wrong in any circumstance, it has nothing to do with altering Christ’s final payment for sin at the Cross. That payment is a done deal! But sin can bring some mighty unpleasant events here and rob one of future eternal rewards at Christ’s Judgment Seat.

Where in Peter’s scathing comment is there anything that speaks of losing one’s eternal security? Again, is being in the gall of bitterness an equivalent for eternal damnation? If so, then this is the only place in scripture where it is used this way. Being bound by iniquity is a rather common thing for all of God’s children. We don’t endorse bondage, but it is part of the frailties of the flesh. Thankfully, God has made a provision for bondage through the confession of sins. This is what the offended and perhaps angry Peter told infant believer Simon. The context dictates that Peter gave saved Simon some harsh but truthful advice for spiritual growth.

Wilkin says that “Peter commanded Simon to repent concerning (i.e., change his mind about) his wicked request so that he might obtain fellowship-forgiveness from God. Simon’s physical life was probably on the line. The reader would not be surprised should the text go on to say that shortly thereafter Simon died and was carried away to be buried, as was the case with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5.” [Wilkin: "Repentance and Savlation, Part 4," JOTGES 3:1 Spr 1990).

Every conditional statement involves sanctification. You simply must begin using context to study God's Word.

Lloyd

 

This appeal to "death" must not be redefined as "lose one's eternal life." Even Moses' died in the desert for his act that broke a type that God wanted to set up. We know Moses was saved for he appeared with Jesus at the Transfiguration. Death is something God does to the believer who needs to be taken home right then.

Briguy did a wonderful job expounding on II Pet 2. I would like to add a wee bit more.

First, Chapter 1 describes holy men of God who accepted God’s Word and were used by God to do marvelous things. Chapter 2 is a vivid contrast to chapter 1. The false teachers in chapter 2 did the opposite of the holy men of God in chapter 1. You miss the contrast and wrongly assume that both chapters talk about the same teachers. A partial knowledge of the context now allows the error that supposes that these were once Christians who are now doomed to hell.
The context of chapter 2 demands that the chapter is speaking of “false teachers” (2:1) The Lord will cast these false teachers into hell (2:4) but yet knows how to deliver the godly (2:7-9). Verse 10 begins a lengthy discussion of these false teachers. They are presumptuous (10), shall receive the reward of unrighteousness (13), have forsaken the right way and are gone astray (15). While they promise liberty, they are servants of corruption (19).

Second, Verse 22 sets the context. A dog is a dog. A pig is a pig. They do what they do because of their natures. Since a Christian has a changed nature, this passage is not talking about Christians. Your view twists the context using fear and partial exegesis to force your view upon the text.

Does the Bible ever refer to a Christian as a dog? These unsaved professing teachers can escape the damage of the world’s moral pollutions … to some extent. They are the equivalent of the moral people in Romans 2 that God condemns. Righteous living always yields benefits whether or not the person is truly saved. The clear teaching is of those who have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Jesus who nevertheless do not have a changed nature. Many untold thousands have lived in Christian homes, heard daily Bible readings, weekly sermons and even professed Christ without having a changed nature. They can look and sound rather Christian without being a Christian. They are still dogs.

Third, the word "knowledge" (v20) is from the Greek epignosis which means knowledge or recognition. To get the full meaning one should know that the root gnpsis means knowledge in general and the preposition epi means around. Hence the word epignosis is only a surface knowledge. These people are around the truth, they know about Christ, but they don’t know him personally. They are still dogs. Greek is nice but context is better!

Fourth, notice what isn’t said. Peter never refers to hell, damnation, or the Lake of Fire. Notice also that Peter never says that the dogs are free from their sins. Because of their false conversion, when these false teachers are again entangled in unrighteousness, it is far harder to bring them to saving faith since false pride and foolish ego thinks that they already have been saved. One can only resist God’s grace by digging deeper into the pits of sinful pride. Those who willfully knowingly reject God’s light come into a far greater condemnation than those who have no understanding of the truth. The latter end of these false professors is far worse than the beginning.

Everything in CONTEXT argues against your view. Everything in CONTEXT argues for OSAS

Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]Context does rule. James said death is the result of sin. Then he talks about the brother that strays from the truth and the resulting death of his soul. He is talking to any among them. This is not hard, but you cannot accept the truth.

Peter says in II Pet 2, "20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements but you say they didn't realle escape the defilements, they weren't really washed, they didn't really know Jesus. Read the text again. This is very clear. It required no mental gymnastics. Do you see how many words you are using to try and explain away this clear teaching? If you remove bias and prior teaching, if you read it for what it says, what is the OBVIOUS conclusion?

Peter said as the first of the chapter "just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality"

The false teachers will lead some away from the truth. The false teachers will be coming from among them. They are not false teachers now, but they will be. What will be their end? God will destroy them. Yes, they were washed, escaped the defilements though Jesus, but their latter end is worse than the beginning.

It would have been better for them never to have even heard of the gospel than to know it, escape the defilements of the world, though their knowledge of Jesus, and turn back and become entangled again, this time worse than before, because the obvious conculsion is just because a person is saved, doesn't mean they can no longer choose to become entangled again in sin and overcome, resulting in their eternal destruction.

CONTEXT DOES RULE. Read this for what it says, not for what you want it to say or mean.

James, again, is so clear, that a brother straying from the truth can result in the death of his soul. You can add as many words and disclaimers as you want, but that is what the text says.

 

I disagree!

James 5:19-20. I have recently demonstrated that "death" is not the equivalent of "eternal damnation." Consider Moses who fell in the wilderness for his rebellion against God. Is he in hell? NO! He appeared with Jesus at the Transfiguration. Don't force your opinions on God's Word.

II Pet 2:20. Didn't Briguy, steaver, and I just demolish this foolishness?! Don't you read our superior proofs?

Acts 8 isn't about Demas. It is about Simon the sorcerer. Being tied to the bondage of sin is not the same as being under the Law of sin and death leading to hell. This bondage is a voluntary decision to walk by the flesh after salvation.

Although sin is wrong in any circumstance, it has nothing to do with altering Christ’s final payment for sin at the Cross. That payment is a done deal! But sin can bring some mighty unpleasant events here and rob one of future eternal rewards at Christ’s Judgment Seat.

Where in Peter’s scathing comment is there anything that speaks of losing one’s eternal security? Again, is being in the gall of bitterness an equivalent for eternal damnation? If so, then this is the only place in scripture where it is used this way. Being bound by iniquity is a rather common thing for all of God’s children. We don’t endorse bondage, but it is part of the frailties of the flesh. Thankfully, God has made a provision for bondage through the confession of sins. This is what the offended and perhaps angry Peter told infant believer Simon. The context dictates that Peter gave saved Simon some harsh but truthful advice for spiritual growth.

Wilkin says that “Peter commanded Simon to repent concerning (i.e., change his mind about) his wicked request so that he might obtain fellowship-forgiveness from God. Simon’s physical life was probably on the line. The reader would not be surprised should the text go on to say that shortly thereafter Simon died and was carried away to be buried, as was the case with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5.” [Wilkin: "Repentance and Savlation, Part 4," JOTGES 3:1 Spr 1990).

Every conditional statement involves sanctification. You simply must begin using context to study God's Word.

Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't you go to the same book to see what James means death is. You have to go all the way back to Moses to try and defend this false doctrine. Use the context of the chapter.

 

Where are they located? All I read was what you wrote earlier???

By the way, your profile lists your location as Northern MN. Do you miss Huntsville?

 

mman, you keep using James 5 as a great proof. I have given one very sound argument using James as a whole. Lloyd has offered a different perspective on what death may be referring to. I even shared that in looking into this that the saving his soul may actually be the person who helped the other to convert, not the just converted. There are great Bible scholars that believe this. I think it was Gill, that I was reading when I saw this possibility. I tried to look at the verse the way you were reading it. At least admit that my rendering is accurate when using the KJV. Also, I think you need to admit that the audience of James was not just Christian, but was both Jewish Christians and Jewish non-believers. This adds valiidity to my rendering. Anyway, James 5 does nothing for your case, in the long run, and you should move on from that one.

2 peter 2, There is no majic shift on who the they were. The they were so lowly because of what they did and were doing. I understand your need to say that the false teachers trick believers and it is those tricked that are the subject of the last couple verses. It however does not say that. This time I can acuse you of trying to force the context the way you have said I do that. Lets face it. We both have a strong belief and when we read verses we have a different starting point, therefore it makes sense that we have a different finishing point. Anyway, plese answer my post and questions relating to the Hebrews verses I shared. Thanks. I am learning a lot and having fun with this. I hope it is a blessing to you as well.

Oh, I think you missed one of Steaver's main points. Jesus said that once you drink the water you won't thirst. It is a forever quenching of a spiritual hunger/thirst that people have. This passage is a classic eternal security passage. It is logic that if once I drink it I won't thirst again that if I would thirst need the water again that Jesus lied. Jeus said once I drink of Him there is no more thirsting!! That is the part that makes eternal, eternal, not the latter part of the verse, as you said.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Hi mman

I'm currently on vacation and changed the profile to match where I am. I'll be in Huntsville soon. Hope I remember to update the profile.

Lloyd

 

Hey mman

You offer up a good suggestion.

There is only other verse in James that uses the word "death" (James 1:15). It is part of a lie in which God is implicated in sin. Sin brings forth death. Thank God my sins have been forgiven in total!

Thank God that the warning is not tied to justification! Context rules!

Have you done a similar study on "(eteral) life?"
Would you like help?

Lloyd

 

Hey mman:

I truly believe you will run from an honest investigation into "eternal life." Therefore, let me do it for you!

Eternal life is found in 30 verses!

John 10:28 Jesus gives believers eternal life; they shall never perish!

Rom 5:21 As sin did reign to death, so grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life by Jesus Christ.

Rom 6:23 The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life throug Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 John 2;25 This is the promise, even eternal life.

1 John 5:13 you can know you have eternal life.

1 John 5:20 Jesus is the true God and eternal life.

A short sample demolishes conditional process salvation.
Lloyd

 

Certainly, Jesus is my hope, my anchor. Remember, he wrote this just after Heb 6:4-6.

The anchor can hold. What if I cut the rope? What good is an anchor?

Look at what Peter said in II Pet 1, "5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

If we do the things listed by Peter, we can make our calling and election sure, with an entrance into the everlasting kingdom.

What if I don't do those things. What if I have all faith, yet don't have love (I Cor 13:2).

I think Paul said it best in Gal 6:7-8 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Now notice verse 9, "And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up."

Well what if you do give up? You won't reap. When do you reap? The instant you sow? Of course not, you reap in due season.

So, if we don't give up, we keep trying.... we add to our faith what we need, we can make our calling and election sure with a hope that is anchored, steadfast and secure!

 

I've already done this on another post. I don't know if it was on this thread, but it probably was.

I laid out that eternal life is a promise. I'm sure you have read Gal 6:7-9, "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up."

Eternal life is for only those who don't give up. It is reaped in due season, not when it is sown. Notice, we "will...reap eternal life".

Have you already reaped?

 

WOW!! Talking about taking a passage out of its context. Paul was writing to Christians who were already in possession of eternal life. The context is bearing one another's burdens, not salvation.

Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

It has to do with helping out a brother in need. It has nothing to do with salvation. Reaping has to do with rewards in heaven, not salvation. He is talking to believers who already have eternal life, (which by definition can never become temporal), lest Christ himself be found a liar, and are laying up treasure in Heaven.

Galatians 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

In due season (whether on this earth or in Heaven) we shall reap the rewards of our well doing. It has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.
DHK

 

"Well what if you do give up? You won't reap. When do you reap? The instant you sow? Of course not, you reap in due season."

Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor.

 

First, nobody has shown anything concerning James 5:19-20. Death is spiritual death. The same death he refered to earlier in James 1. He is talking to brethern. You cannot find one instance in the entire book of James where he is addressing non-christians. He is writing to spiritual Israel.

He calls them brothers and then tells them about the testing of their faith (1:3). Do you think he is talking to christian and non christians?

Verses 5-6 talk about "if any of you lack wisdom" let him ask of God. Is he talking to christians and non-christians? He further qualifies it and tells them they must ask in faith. Is he talking to christians and non-christians?

I could continue on through the whole book of James, but I think you get the point.

In chapter 5 is he still writing to the same people as in chapter 1? Of course he is. It is no problem to see that he is writing to christians in chapter 1. It doesn't fit for non-christians. Regardless, he says "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

I think he is writing to Christians, but even if there were non-christians, the "any among you" would apply to the Christians also, would it not?

Death with a multitude of uncovered sins. That is what is at the end for a brother who wanders from the truth.

Death of what? His soul! His body is not saved from death, but his soul.

Is there any doubt as to what "death" means in James 1:15, "Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death"?

Here he is also talking to Christians, who, if they remain steadfast will recieve a "crown of life" as opposed to death. (James 1:12-15).

As far as II Pet 2 is concerned, I am not forcing it.

The text says they "escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

The text says they are "again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first"

The text says "For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them". (This is impossible with OSAS)

Again, if you would read this and "get" your doctrine rather than read this to "prove" your doctrine, it is amazing how clear it is.

No, until someone can logically show me where I'm wrong in James or Peter, I will not change or drop it. Then there a whole lot of other verses that also have to be explained away.

 

WOW!! Talking about taking a passage out of its context. Paul was writing to Christians who were already in possession of eternal life. The context is bearing one another's burdens, not salvation.

Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

It has to do with helping out a brother in need. It has nothing to do with salvation. Reaping has to do with rewards in heaven, not salvation. He is talking to believers who already have eternal life, (which by definition can never become temporal), lest Christ himself be found a liar, and are laying up treasure in Heaven.

Galatians 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

In due season (whether on this earth or in Heaven) we shall reap the rewards of our well doing. It has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Paul is talking to christians about, "Brothers if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

That is the context. Read it all!

He is talking about a brother caught up in transgression that needs to be restored. If OSAS were true, why bother?

I'll tell you why bother, because OSAS is a false teaching that decieves many. Otherwise, it really wouldn't matter, would it?

Why would we want to restore someone who is sowing to the flesh (caught up in a transgression)? Because, if you keep doing that you will reap corruption, but if you sow to the spirit, you will reap life everlasting, if you don't give up.

I have the context, but you don't like the conclusion.

 

Be careful and enjoy yourself.

 

Hi mman,

You skipped right over the very first fact that Jesus gave...

Jesus said..."If thou knewest the gift of God , and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water ." (John 4:10)

Are you denying that "the gift of God" Jesus spoke of is the "living water" that He said He would give? He said it all in one breath you know.

Second point...

You let out the beginning of the verse and how much clearer could Jesus be...

"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst ; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life ". (John 4:14)

WATER (living water) = A WELL OF WATER = EVERLASTING LIFE

If it were a rattle snake it would have bitten you on the nose!

Do you believe Jesus' well might run dry? He is in you via the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the living water, a WELL of living water! Unless He runs dry you will NEVER, as the Scripture declares, thirst again!

And this tid bit of information means what concerning " the gift of God " mentioned in John 4:10? Jesus clearly said it is " living water ". The scriptures clearly say " living water " is the " Holy Spirit ". Jesus clearly said this " water " would result in " never " thirsting again (spiritually that would be). Jesus said this water " shall be A WELL of everlasting life .

So even if you want to believe that it comes after belief, repentance and baptism, it still remains exactly as it is stated by Jesus Christ. That is Eternal life!

God Bless!

 

Why bother to help those that are victims of Katrina?? It has nothing to do with OSAS. Bear one another burdens. And so fulfill the law of Christ!
What is the law of Christ?
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Love your neighbor as yourself is not salvation. It is not OSAS. You are not rightly dividing the word of truth.

Your implication is that Christ is a Deceiver. Is this correct? This is what Christ said:

John 10:27-28 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Christ gives to His sheep, those that believe on Him, eternal life (OSAS), and they shall never perish (OSAS). Either He meant what he said, or he is (as you implicate) a great liar.

Why?? You mean you would never consider helping a brother or sister in need? Try reading Mat.18 sometime. I truly feel sorry for you. You are a person with seemingly no compassion for others.
Your question:
"Why would we want to restore someone..?"
Sad.
DHK

 

Greetings

In Heb 13:5 Jesus says, "I will never [never] leave you."

In the original Greek, there is a double negative. The double negation reads like this: oude ou me.

The oude is the first negation.
The ou me is the second negation.

While the double negative is considered bad English grammar, it is used in the Greek for an emphatic categorical denial.

Even more interesting is that the second negation is by itself a double negative. It is a very rare combination of ou (negation of the indicative) with me (negation of all other moods).

So while some consider it a double negative, it is actually a triple negation. Jesus is trying to make a rather emphatic OSAS point!

Why would anyone embrace a theology that denies Jesus' triple emphatic promise?
Lloyd

 

Greetings

In Heb 13:5 Jesus says, "I will never [never] leave you."

In the original Greek, there is a double negative. The double negation reads like this: oude ou me.

The oude is the first negation.
The ou me is the second negation.

While the double negative is considered bad English grammar, it is used in the Greek for an emphatic categorical denial.

Even more interesting is that the second negation is by itself a double negative. It is a very rare combination of ou (negation of the indicative) with me (negation of all other moods).

So while some consider it a double negative, it is actually a triple negation. Jesus is trying to make a rather emphatic OSAS point!

(1) Why would anyone knowlingly embrace a theology that denies Jesus' triple emphatic promise?
(2) Why would anyone knowlingly continue to embrace such folly once they are shown such strong proof?

Lloyd

 

Greetings

In Heb 13:5 Jesus says, "I will never [never] leave you."

In the original Greek, there is a double negative. The double negation reads like this: oude ou me.

The oude is the first negation.
The ou me is the second negation.

While the double negative is considered bad English grammar, it is used in the Greek for an emphatic categorical denial.

Even more interesting is that the second negation is by itself a double negative. It is a very rare combination of ou (negation of the indicative) with me (negation of all other moods).

So while some consider it a double negative, it is actually a triple negation. Jesus is trying to make a rather emphatic OSAS point!

Why would anyone embrace a theology that denies Jesus' triple emphatic promise?
Lloyd