• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Once saved always saved

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What is so difficult about answering some pointed questions? You guys take positions on scripture and when challenged with pointed questions about the position you go away or try to divert to something else.

In Galatians 5:1-4 we see clearly the concept of "Fallen from grace". This is NOT a case of the "lost" getting "lost-er", NOR is it a case of the saved getting "saved only less so".
Absolutely correct! We finally agree on this statement, that leaves us with what? It is a warning to the “saved” not to bring the yoke of the law into the grace of God as a requirement for salvation. If they do this, then Christ becomes as “no effect” just like in John 15. All their works and deeds will be useless and burned in the refining fire.

In Heb 6 we see clearly the need to "RENEW THEM AGAIN" to that grace and freedom from which they have fallen. THIS is also NOT a case of the "lost" getting "lost-er" nor a case of the "saved" getting "saved only Less so" NOR is it pure mythology that simply can not happen.
“a need to renew them again”? Hebrews 6 states that is “IMPOSSIBLE”. There is no “need”, it cannot happen!

In John 15 - getting cut off and burned in the fire - is NEVER the description of "salvation".
Why do you capitalize “ never ”? You are trying to emphasize that the word “never” means it cannot happen I presume, and I might add that is a correct understanding of the word. Now let’s see where scripture uses this word.

“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). Can you explain this passage away? How does "everlasting" change into "non-everlasting"? These words cannot carry any conditions after the fact. Otherwise they are false statements. Didn't Jesus understand the finality of using these words?


In Matt 18 the "Forgiveness REVOKED" scenario described by Christ is "REAL" in fact SO REAL that He says "SO SHALL My heavenly father DO TO EACH OF YOU if you do not ...".
Yes, you already posted this and I asked you some questions so we can understand then how this works for a born again believer. Here they are again.

Steaver's questions;

Are you then concluding that any Christian who has an outstanding debt of forgiveness owed will lose their salvation according to this passage?

Does this happen at a judgment time or is it instant, like while a Christian is holding a grudge they are unsaved and when they then repent and forgive the debt they are saved again? Just how would this work?

If yes, what if a Christian has held a grudge for say two weeks against another and then suddenly dies without forgiving, does this Christian go to hell then?

God Bless!
thumbs.gif
 

eschatologist

New Member
The "impossible" thing(Heb.6:3-6) is where you are hung up! That is why I discontinued posting on this topic. If you can not see the type of language here and how it is used you will NEVER see this passage any other way but your way. It is similar to the statement Jesus made about it being "impossible" for a rich man to be saved. So is it your thinking then that ALL rich people can not be saved? Whenever you figure this figurative type of language(there is a term for this type of language, I just can't remember bit!) then maybe you will see the similarities to the Hebrews 6 passage. Goo luck!
 

MIZ83

New Member
Originally posted by steaver:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Hi, Steaver,

Just home for lunch. A quick response on 2 Thes.

I know that the above passage is not talking about children of God. I am simply pointing out that the idea of a point of no return for an individual is Biblical. My argument that such can also apply to brethren who have fallen away is based upon the texts in Hebrews 3 & 6. I think you need to consider my use of that passage within the context of my argument, not as though it stands alone.

Blessings,
I understand. And I do not argue that there is "a point of no return for some individuals". What we are deliberating specifically is the individuals which have been born again. 2 Thessalonians speaks only of those who have heard and have rejected Jesus Christ. You should not use the passage otherwise. It is misrepresenting the passage.

God Bless!
thumbs.gif
</font>[/QUOTE]Ummmm, Steaver,

You said, "I do not argue that there is "a point of no return for some individuals"". In other words, you agreed with the only point I was making from that passage, then you turn around and accuse me of misrepresenting the passage!

Just like reading the Bible in context is necessary to understanding it, reading someone's argument also requires trying to understand it in context rather than taking a segment out of context and making accusations. I did not claim that the passage from 2 Thes. teaches my position regarding this issue. It does teach a truth that is relevant to my argument from Hebrews 3 & 6, however.

Blessings,

Bob
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is similar to the statement Jesus made about it being "impossible" for a rich man to be saved. So is it your thinking then that ALL rich people can not be saved?
Nowhere does Jesus make such a statement. He said salvation is impossible with men! Jesus said it was “ hardly ”. Greek is “duskolos”. It means “impracticably” not “impossible”. It is hard for the rich to enter in because they cannot see the practicability in giving up all their wealth in exchange for knowing Jesus. They don’t see the profit in it. The meaning of the passage is not that one must give up wealth to be saved. Jesus was teaching that many of the rich love their money more than God and therefore reject God. Money is their master.

“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:23).

Jesus then goes on to answer this question, “ Who then can be saved ”? His reply; “ With men this is impossible ; but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

Matthew 19 doesn’t say that it is impossible for the rich to be saved. It says that it is hard for the rich and impossible for ALL men to somehow save themselves.

Hebrews 6:4 states “impossible” Greek is “adunatos” and it means exactly what it says. Can not do!

Sorry brother, but it is you who cannot see the language or context. You cannot redefine English in order to establish your doctrine. Read it for what it says. It is plain English, as they say!

God Bless!
thumbs.gif
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ummmm, Steaver,

You said, "I do not argue that there is "a point of no return for some individuals"". In other words, you agreed with the only point I was making from that passage, then you turn around and accuse me of misrepresenting the passage!
The point is this. We are deliberating those who are saved becoming lost. You are bringing in a passage which states nothing at all about the issue. We know that God can harden the heart of a person who has rejected Him over and over. This pertains to the lost. Never does it talk about this happening to the saved, and especially not in 2 Thessalonians, so you cannot use it as an example for "once saved, now lost". Hope that clears things up!

Just like reading the Bible in context is necessary to understanding it, reading someone's argument also requires trying to understand it in context rather than taking a segment out of context and making accusations. I did not claim that the passage from 2 Thes. teaches my position regarding this issue. It does teach a truth that is relevant to my argument from Hebrews 3 & 6, however.
No it does not. 2 thessalonians is talking about the lost, those who have rejected Christ from the get-go. You are suppose to give argument for the saved who have now become lost. That is what you claim Hebrews is speaking about.

Anyhows, let's move on! :D

God Bless!
thumbs.gif
 

eschatologist

New Member
Right!!! The Hebrew writer was also implying here that once a person was saved and then fell away(went back to his vomit! 2 Pet.2:20-22.See also the parable Jesus spoke in Mat.12:43-45; Lu.11:24-26.) that is was essentually improbable(or impossible due to the conditions as is laid out about a pig returning to its vomit) that he would ever want to entertain the idea of salvation again, although with God ALL things ARE possible! How many people have you met that were at one time good vibrant christians who then CHOSE to once again deny the Lord, having their hearts then become so full of hatred, especially toward anything involving Christ, that you wonder if they could EVER be brought back again? This is what Heb.6:3f is about, and what Peter entertains here is parralel with what the Hebrew writer posits! Yet somehow I know that you will again deny the FIRM wording of this passage and attempt to do your 'play on words' thing again. It is funny that many want to talk greek here and there(and I know the koine greek also) attempting desperately to try and fortify their decision, yet when another topic presents itself(say eschatology for instance) then this greek really isn't that important after all! Take God at His Word. For He means what He says and says what He means!!!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by eschatologist:
Right!!! The Hebrew writer was also implying here that once a person was saved and then fell away
Your premise is wrong.
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance;"

It is impossible for a Christian to fall away.
It is impossible for a Christian to be renewed again to repentance (of salvation).
It is impossible for a Christian to crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh.

The title of the Book of Hebrews is Hebrews.
The author was writing to Hebrews, both saved and unsaved. There were some unsaved Hebrews that were thinking of returning back to Judaism. That is who Paul is addressing here. If they were to make that decision and turn back they would be crucifying the Son of God afresh (with their Old Testament sacrifices) seeing that Christ had already fulfilled the law once and for all with His one final sacrifice that paid the penalty for all.
DHK
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Right!!! The Hebrew writer was also implying here that once a person was saved and then fell away(went back to his vomit! 2 Pet.2:20-22.See also the parable Jesus spoke in Mat.12:43-45; Lu.11:24-26.) that is was essentually improbable(or impossible due to the conditions as is laid out about a pig returning to its vomit) that he would ever want to entertain the idea of salvation again, although with God ALL things ARE possible!
"Improbable" "(or impossible....)" ??

You are trying to change the word brother! "Improbable" means "Unlikely to be or occur". "Impossible" means "can not happen"! Why do you do this?? You cannot get around this fact. Don't you see the length you are going to protect your position? Let the Word form your position rather than forming the Word into a position. What do you have to lose by placing total trust in Jesus Christ to keep you saved? You didn't do anything to earn your salvation, why do you think you can keep yourself saved?

How many people have you met that were at one time good vibrant christians who then CHOSE to once again deny the Lord, having their hearts then become so full of hatred, especially toward anything involving Christ, that you wonder if they could EVER be brought back again?
I don't know any who, when I asked, denied the Lord. I do know some who have transgressed but never wondered if Christ couldn't turn them right again. I have thought that if they don't turn around, God might just take them outa here. But I know the scriptures and if they have been born again then they will never thirst but have everlasting life.

This is what Heb.6:3f is about, and what Peter entertains here is parralel with what the Hebrew writer posits! Yet somehow I know that you will again deny the FIRM wording of this passage and attempt to do your 'play on words' thing again.
"deny FIRM wording"? "play on words"? Me? Impossible does not mean Improbable. Who is playing with words here?

God Bless you Esch! I know you are sincere in your position. You are not alone by any stretch of the imagination. But you really need to study "born again". No one can grasp eternal security until they understand this concept. It is the foundation of our faith. Learn this and you will understand my position and look upon those tough scriptures in a new light!
thumbs.gif
 

MIZ83

New Member
Steaver writes:

Concerning John 15. One must be careful in the handling of this passage. While we can and should apply principles found in these passages to our Christian walk, we must first understand that Jesus is speaking to His disciples here. Second, this is spoken before any regeneration has been done by the Holy Spirit. What should be extracted from the passage is that we can bear no good fruit unless Jesus Christ is the center and reason for the works we perform. Works done without His approval will be burned in the refining fire at our judgment (1 Cor 3:15). There are 2 or 3 differing expositions on this passage. Since it is not crystal clear, and begs for interpretation, I don’t see why it is ever brought into a OSAS debate.
I would imagine that one holding OSAS would have to be very “careful”, as you say, “in the handling of this passage.” This passage was spoken to his disciples! It is a pre-regeneration passage. There are 2 or 3 differing expositions on this passage! Steaver, with these statements as a standard, you would disqualify all of Jesus teaching!

So rather than interpret the passage, you “extract” carefully from this passage that “works done without his approval will be burned in the refining fire at our judgment”, quoting 1 Cor. 3:15 in support. The problem, of course, is that Jesus didn’t say that works would be burned in this passage. He said, "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” The branches are disciples in union with Jesus, the vine. We, as disciples, are in life-giving union with the Son just as a branch is in union with the vine. Life is in the Son. But anyone who does not abide in Christ, the source of our life, dries up, is gathered up, is cast into the fire, and burned, according to Jesus. Bringing your currently held positions to the passage, I can see why this passage “is not crystal clear” to you.

You also wrote:

As for Hebrews, we have been over that and I gave my teachings on it. Which brings us back to my original inquiry of your contradictive positions. You continue to have them.
It is a bit frustrating, Steaver, that you asked me to explain how I reconcile the Hebrew writer’s statement that “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance” with my position; I did it; then you ignore my argument and ask the same question. Frankly, that isn’t very productive in our discussion.

In Him,

Bob
 

MIZ83

New Member
There are other actual instances of apostasy recorded in the New Testament. I’ll stay in 1 Timothy for now.

NAS 1 Timothy 1:18 This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight, 19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. 20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme.

Timothy was to keep “faith and a good conscience”. Some, however, had rejected faith and a good conscience. Here Paul even specifically names two among others who had done so; as a result they had “suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.” Evidently they were blaspheming. Paul had delivered them to Satan.

Paul writes of others who had actually left the faith later in this same epistle.

NAS 1 Timothy 5:9 Let a widow be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work. 11 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, 12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge. 13 And at the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; 15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.

The early church practiced something that most churches today do not. (But that is another discussion.) They would enroll widows over 60 who met certain qualifications to receive support and evidently to serve the church. Now to my point. Notice why younger widows were to be refused. Evidently, should they get married they would be breaking a pledge of special service to Christ. This appears to be a serious thing, for Paul describes the result of them doing this as “thus incurring condemnation”. After giving other dangers of enrolling young widows into service Paul gives instruction, then a warning to “give the enemy no occasion for reproach; 15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.”

But there are more instances of leaving the faith here in 1 Timothy.

NAS 1 Timothy 6:9 But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang. 11 But flee from these things, you man of God; and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

Paul writes about the danger of loving money. He issues a warning to Timothy, and he bases the warning upon actual instances of some leaving the faith. “Some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang.” Timothy, in contrast, was to “flee from these things” and “take hold of the eternal life to which you were called”.

Finally, here at the end of his epistle, Paul gives one more encouragement to faithfulness to Timothy.

NAS 1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge "-- 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you.

Paul’s reference to “knowledge” would appear to be a reference to “Gnosticism”. The Greek word “gnosis” meant “knowledge”. Gnosticism was a religion that taught one could achieve salvation through arriving at greater and greater levels of knowledge thus freeing oneself from the material world. Christian Gnostics believed Christianity in its apostolic form was just one level to be advanced beyond. Some had professed belief in Gnosticism “and thus gone astray from the faith.” Thus Timothy was warned to guard what had been entrusted to him.

So in 1 Timothy Paul records four different accounts of apostasy that had happened. And Paul, still here in 1 Timothy, speaking through inspiration, says that in later times there would be more.

NAS 1 Timothy 4:1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith….

It amazes me that some will teach that it is impossible to fall away from the faith when the Spirit explicitly states that it will happen!

NAS 1 Timothy 4:1 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, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

No wonder, then, that Paul urges Timothy pay attention to himself and to his teaching. This was a matter of salvation. Concluding the chapter, Paul writes:

11 Prescribe and teach these things. 12 Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. 13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching. 14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. 15 Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress may be evident to all. 16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.

Given the actual cases of apostasy recorded in the Scriptures, it is difficult for me to understand how anyone can maintain that it is impossible to fall from grace.

In Christ Jesus,

Bob
 

MIZ83

New Member
Steaver,

Regarding Galatians 5:4, you don’t like my translation, from the NASB. Here is how Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich define “katargeo”. They include Galatians 5:4 under their third definition which is: be released from an association with someone or something, have nothing more to do with. I don’t think that definition helps your cause. Thayer includes the usage in Galatians 5:4 under this definition: to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from; to terminate all intercourse with. The USB lexicon has “be cut off from(Gal 5:4)”

But even if I were to adopt your translation as the absolute best one, I am amazed that you think it helps your cause. “Christ is become of no effect unto you….”

Next you quote from Edward R. Roustio. Somehow, Paul’s “Ye are fallen from grace” becomes his “The Galatians...were actually falling short of the standard of grace”. The inspired “fallen from” becomes “falling short of”. The Greek word is “ekpipto”. Thayer’s lexicon says it means: to fall from a thing, to lose it: BAG simply says: lose.

Roustio is wrong.

Blessings,

Bob
 

eschatologist

New Member
DHK

No sir, YOUR premise is wrong!!! It does NOT say "It is impossible for a Christian to fall away." You are reading your own thoughts into this passage!

Who are those who were once enlightened? Yes I do believe they were Hebrews(Jews), but it doesn't matter whether they were Jews or Gentile, because they were saved(enlightened). Then they fell back into their prior state. But it is senseless for me to continue debating you as I have already known before due to your similar belief to the title of this thread: Once perceived always right!


steaver

It is incredible that I do a play on words as YOU continue to do then you about have a total fit! Yet in reality it is your method to side-stepping the issue. You failed to answer my original question. When When Jesus said it is "impossible" for a rich man to be saved it was you who used the improbable similarity. Now how about address the 2 Peter passage please.
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
When Jesus said it is "impossible" for a rich man to be saved it was you who used the improbable similarity.
Why do you repeat this when I already proved to all that Jesus never said such a thing?

Here it is again.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Esch ; It is similar to the statement Jesus made about it being "impossible" for a rich man to be saved. So is it your thinking then that ALL rich people can not be saved?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steaver ;
Nowhere does Jesus make such a statement. He said salvation is impossible with men! Jesus said it was “ hardly ”. Greek is “duskolos”. It means “impracticably” not “impossible”. It is hard for the rich to enter in because they cannot see the practicability in giving up all their wealth in exchange for knowing Jesus. They don’t see the profit in it. The meaning of the passage is not that one must give up wealth to be saved. Jesus was teaching that many of the rich love their money more than God and therefore reject God. Money is their master.

“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:23).

Jesus then goes on to answer this question, “ Who then can be saved ”? His reply; “ With men this is impossible ; but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

Matthew 19 doesn’t say that it is impossible for the rich to be saved. It says that it is hard for the rich and impossible for ALL men to somehow save themselves.
Now how about address the 2 Peter passage please.
I already did! Aren't you reading all the post?

Here it is again.

The following is what I believe to be the correct teaching of the passages you brought up from 2 Peter. It is from Benjamin C. Chapman , Ph.D. Former Professor of Religion, Liberty University B.R.E., Grand Rapids Baptist College; B.D., M.R.E., Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary; Th.M., Calvin Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Bob Jones University. Additional graduate study at the University of Michigan and the University of Manitoba (Canada) .

Begin Quote.

(2 Peter 2:1-3) ……..

“ There where false prophets among the people ”. The people here means the people of Israel; God’s chosen people, and Peter believes, like Paul, that “…. these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition ” (1 Cor. 10:11) . See also 1 Peter 2:9 where people is applied to the church. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 warned the people that if a false prophet came and tried to draw them away from the worship of God, they should not listen. It was a test to see if they loved God with all their hearts. Peter is telling his readers the same thing; he draws upon all the apocalyptic passages he knows to show that the false teachers are despicable to God and doomed to destruction as His enemies. Peter warns that “ there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in ” (that is smuggle into the church false doctrine without the people knowing it) “ damnable heresies ” (literally heresies of destruction, which means that faith will be destroyed if people believe these things) . The reason the false teachers sneak in heresy is because they deny “ the Lord that bought them ”. This does not mean that Christ is their Lord (master, despot) or ever was, but He could have been since He had paid the price for their release from sin. They denied Him (renounced) and would not have anything to do with Him when they could have been saved, and so will “ bring upon themselves swift destruction ”.

(2 Peter 2:18-19) ….

“ For when they speak ”. Probably this is a participle of means; it is by their well modulated, authoritative, bloated vanities that they are able to lure “ those that were clean escaped ” (rather ; those who are just now barely escaping) . New converts are easy prey for these slick-talking pseudo-Christians who are really false teachers. Although they promise freedom (vs. 19) , they are themselves slaves of corruption and sin. Here the principle of Romans 6:16 is stated: if anyone is in fact conquered by some-thing, he is actually a slave to it.

(2 Peter 2:20-22) …

Verse 20 begins with an “ if ” which must not be overlooked. Peter does not say that these false teachers have escaped from the pollutions of the world. The main verb is “ overcome ” (Gr. Hetaomai) which is the Greek present tense, implying that they are now being overcome or conquered by the terrible sins depicted in this chapter; the construction in the original has the effect of a present contrary-to-fact protasis. The writer, Peter, views the statement as a premise which is contrary to fact. He says, “If it were true that these false prophets were just now being conquered by sin and had already escaped the pollutions of the world (it is not true, but if it were) , then they would actually be in worse condition now than when they started”. These false teachers, of course, had never really escaped “ the pollutions of the world ” like true believers (cf. 1:4) ; if they had, and were now as “ entangled ” (Gr. empleko, meaning “hopelessly trapped” like fish in a net) as they are in sin, they would be better off if they had never heard of Christianity. According to their pretense, they claim to have been saved; according to fact, they have returned to the most despicable sins. This would be, obviously, like a dog eating its own vomit, or a pig which has just been washed going back to wallow in the mire.

The whole chapter warns believers to secure the faith which had been preached to them by the apostles against the barbarous attack by obvious frauds who have shown them-selves to be worthy of the certain judgment of God which will come upon them.

End Quote.
God Bless!
thumbs.gif
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is a bit frustrating, Steaver, that you asked me to explain how I reconcile the Hebrew writer’s statement that “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance” with my position; I did it; then you ignore my argument and ask the same question. Frankly, that isn’t very productive in our discussion.
Well maybe I am just missing it. I'll show it one more time and keep it as short as possible and maybe you can clear it up for me.

These are the things you say;

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS Galatians 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can one possess eternal life if severed from Christ? Can one possess eternal life without grace?
You asked the question "can one possess eternal life if severed from Christ"?

I am presuming from your question that this means they are no longer saved. They do not "possess eternal life" as you say. Paul states "have been severed". That is that it has happened, not could happen, correct?

NAS Galatians 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.


First, let me point out that this is no mere hypothetical. There is no if hinted at. This was the actual situation of some of the Galatians.

Secondly, Paul is speaking to Christians, for you can’t fall from somewhere you’ve never been; you can’t be severed from something of which you were never a part. He is addressing those who had been in grace and who had been members of Christ.
Are you following so far? You claim that being severed from Christ is "not possessing eternal life". You claim that these were actual Christians who had been members and are now severed and are now without eternal life (that would be lost, once saved now lost).

Obviously, Paul thought that they had not remained in Christ, however. They had been severed from Him. Paul’s desire is that they might be restored to Him. Their state when he wrote, however, was that they were fallen and severed.
Now here is were you lose me. You teach these are actual cases of apostasy in the form of being once saved but now lost. (had been members, severed, do not possess eternal life) "They had been severed" and you defined that.

You also teach that Hebrews 6 is actual instances of the same.

Hebrews states that it is "impossible" to restore these folks. (by the way, that is the "inspired" scripture as you say, we cannot change it to "improbable" ).

Now here is what is hanging me up with you. Hebrews states that these folks cannot be restored. These are the same folks you described in Galatians. You claim actual folks who have been cut off.

But you believe that they can be restored and state that Paul (one who received direct revelation from God) thinks they can be restored as well, even though another inspired writer states that they cannot.

Is it just me or what? Your teaching looks outa whack. If I am your student, how do I reconcile your contradictive statements? Is it "impossible" to be restored or not?

You see what I am saying? Please explain. Here is the most direct point I am making; Hebrews states restoration is "impossible". You state that it "Is" possible from your Galatians comments.

God Bless!
thumbs.gif
 

MIZ83

New Member
Steaver,

Since you respond by restating your question yet again as though I had never responded...Here is the post where I have already answered your question. Hebrew 6 contains an instance actual apostacy by those who had reached the point of no return, I believe. It is not true of all who have fallen away, however, that they cannot be restored.

Originally posted by MIZ83:
Steaver,

I’m glad that you acknowledge that eternal life is life in union with Christ. We do not possess it in and of ourselves. Our life is in Him. But then you simply claim that our union with Christ means we can’t fall away, failing even to acknowledge the passage I cited from Galatians showing that one can be severed from Christ or the passage from John 15 showing that the branch can be severed from the vine. You can’t be severed or cut off from something of which you were never a part.

The passage in Galatians is especially damaging to your position, because it removes one of your defenses for OSAS. This passage is not simply a warning against something hypothetically possible. It is an actual case of apostasy.

Paul taught that there would be some people who would not receive the love of the truth. Apparently, in the process they would become so enamored with wickedness that God would punish their stubborn refusal by sending a deluding influence upon them.

NAS 2 Thessalonians 2:9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false,

Apparently, there is a point where one becomes so wicked and stubborn in refusing God that God gives that one over to it with no hope for return. I believe this is the situation described in Hebrews, as well, for some who had defected.

NAS Hebrews 3:12 Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end;

The Hebrew writer warns his brethren, partakers of Christ, to take care. He encourages continual repeated encouragement. Why? Sin is deceitful. Sin can harden one’s heart. He warns them against falling away from God having an evil, unbelieving heart. It is necessary to hold fast the beginning of our assurance.

Is it possible for someone who has been a “partaker of Christ” to develop such an evil, unbelieving heart that they are beyond return? I believe that was the case for some to whom the Hebrew writer refers in Hebrews 6. Hebrews 3 is a warning, but Hebrews 6 refers to those who had actually apostatized.

NAS Hebrews 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.

Some translations begin verse 6 with “If they fall away…” or something similar, but there is no conditional particle in the Greek text to justify that translation. This was a case of some who had fallen away. This is another case of actual apostasy as recorded in the Scriptures.

There is a transition some have failed to notice in dealing with this passage. It is the transition of the writer from using “them” to using “you”. While the writer was “persuaded of better things of you”(his recipients), verse 9, he was not convinced of better things concerning them.

Evidently, the case of these apostates was extreme. They were said to be crucifying again the Son of God and putting Him to open shame. They had often experienced God raining down blessings upon them, yet they were producing thorns and thistles. In their case, it was impossible to renew them again to repentance. Evidently, they had crossed the line of no return in their hardheartedness.

But that is not true of all who have fallen. Not all have reached the point of no return.
Evidently, Paul felt that way about the Galatians. The Galatians had those who were preaching to them a different Gospel, and to Paul’s alarm, some were accepting it. Immediately after his opening salutation to the “churches of Galatia”, Paul gets the pressing issue on the table.

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

To Paul, their turning to the Law simply was foolish. They had not received the Spirit through works of law. Paul asks them…
Galatians 3:2

Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?


Their acceptance of the teaching of those promoting adherence to the Law in addition to Christ was a serious matter. In fact, their situation was desperate as a result. Those who had begun to put their trust in their ability to measure up to God’s law for righteousness were cut off from Christ. They were fallen from grace.

NAS Galatians 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

In spite of their separation from Christ, apparently Paul did not consider it impossible to renew these brethren to repentance. He referred to them as his children, undoubtedly his children in the faith, and he was again suffering the travail of birth.

NAS Galatians 4:19 My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you--

So Paul obviously still held out hope for them.

Paul also held out hope for his fellow Israelites in Romans. He compared spiritual Israel to an olive tree. Most of them had been broken off. They had fallen because of their unbelief. Yet Paul said that God could graft them in again.

NAS Romans 11:20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again.

Blessings to you,

Bob
If you want to discuss the argument I made, fine. But if you simply are going to keep asking the same question, I simply am going to keep reposting the same answer.

Blessings,

Bob
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by eschatologist:
DHK

No sir, YOUR premise is wrong!!! It does NOT say "It is impossible for a Christian to fall away." You are reading your own thoughts into this passage!

Who are those who were once enlightened? Yes I do believe they were Hebrews(Jews), but it doesn't matter whether they were Jews or Gentile, because they were saved(enlightened). Then they fell back into their prior state. But it is senseless for me to continue debating you as I have already known before due to your similar belief to the title of this thread: Once perceived always right!
I don't believe that your conclusion is warranted, for I don't recall entering into much debate with you, especially on this topic. Your initial response to my post was quite rude in fact. The fact that I have been studying my Bible for 35 years, and have been teaching it to others on a Bible College level for the last 25 should indicate to you that my beliefs are well founded and not easily changed. I know what I believe and why I believe it. So if I tend to state things in a dogmatic way don't get your feathers ruffled, and your feelings hurt. And above all quit being rude, and instead answer in a way that is becoming a Christian. "Putting a cork in it" just doesn't pass the test. You can do better than that.

Study the Book of Hebrews. The author goes into great detail of a comparison between the old covenant, the old way of doing things under the law, and the new covenant--the way things are because of the sacrifice of Christ. Why the comparison? The comparison was there, and so convincingly so, because the author was showing to a group of individuals within the general Hebrew Christian population that he was addressing, that it would be a dangerous thing to return to Judaism. This group had not yet been saved. The context clearly bears this out. My reasons for this belief are given. There are many other commentaries that will agree with this same position. It is not uniquely mine.
I ask you again:
Since when did the word eternal change to temporary.
"I give (present tense) unto you eternal life" and you shall never perish."
Check also John 5:24. The believer has eternal life. How can eternal life become temporary life, except God be a liar? That is the question you must deal with.
DHK
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If you want to discuss the argument I made, fine.
Yes, let's do because you keep on contradicting your own words. This is why I cannot understand why you cannot understand! :cool:

The passage in Galatians is especially damaging to your position, because it removes one of your defenses for OSAS. This passage is not simply a warning against something hypothetically possible. It is an actual case of apostasy.
" It is an actual case of apostacy " (your words)

Hebrews 6 refers to those who had actually apostatized.
You say both have " actually aposatatized ". (your words)

If this is true, Hebrews 6 states that it is "impossible" to restore those who have " actually apostatized " (your words).

Yet for the Galatians who have " actually apostatized " you say it is possible for restoration.

Do you have two definitions for " actual apostatacy "?

God Bless!
thumbs.gif
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The branches are disciples in union with Jesus, the vine. We, as disciples, are in life-giving union with the Son just as a branch is in union with the vine. Life is in the Son. But anyone who does not abide in Christ, the source of our life, dries up, is gathered up, is cast into the fire, and burned, according to Jesus.
Back to John 15. Is this the only thing you conclude from the entire passage? If we don't "abide" we "burn" (hell I presume)? Were is the fruit bearing Jesus spoke of? Doesn't that add anything to the context of the passage for you? What is "fruit bearing" to you? Is it works, deeds or something else?

God Bless!
thumbs.gif
 

eschatologist

New Member
DHK

I do not mean to sound angry. What I am being is firm. It is commendable to you on your tenure in Bible study. It has been only about 20 years for me. Yet, as you well know, longevity in Bible study doesn't always mean good sound understanding and hermeneutics. The Pope has probably studied the Bible for 60 years or so, yet I am inclinded to disbelieve many of his theological points.

I haven't debated with you on this issue but one either regarding the Church of Christ or some eschatological point. And maybe it wasn't you, but I find these so called 'Greek' experts who inject their belief over a word with multiple definitions and find the definition that fits their purpose. And regarding this verse, most all of the Bible versions(and yes there are some words that are missed a little on definition!) translate Jesus' words about being "impossible" for a rich man to enter the kingdom as 'impossible' and NOT impractical!

If you have examined many of my posts regarding eschatological issues you would see my determination(mostly futile) to examine words used such as 'soon'and 'near' with an understanding about how those originally hearing these words would have perceived them. Mostly what I get is some elasticised or benign attempt to define a word beyond its meaning.

You may feel that what your understanding regarding this 'once saved always saved' issue is the proper one. I may decide mine is. I derive mine from examining ALL the biblical examples. You may feel you have done this as well. Yet many times I incur some type 'disciplined tongue' because my view may differ. That's alright if we may disagree, just don't make me feel like my biblical hermeneutics are flawed because they do differ. And once again I am not necessarily singling you out.

I do not hinge my 'once saved always saved' on a few twistable verses. I think when ALL is weighed out it favors the other view. But again that is MY opinion.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
You posted three verses. I answered them for you. I also gave you something else to think about (the very word eternal). Instead of showing what appears to be anger, why don't you answer the response I gave to the Scripture that you challenged me with?
DHK
 
Top