Once saved always saved

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.

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.

“a need to renew them again”? Hebrews 6 states that is “IMPOSSIBLE”. There is no “need”, it cannot happen!

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?

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!

 

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!

 

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! </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

 

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!

 

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!

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!

God Bless!

 

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!!!

 

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

 

"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?

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.

"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!

 

Steaver writes:

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:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Why do you repeat this when I already proved to all that Jesus never said such a thing?

Here it is again.

I already did! Aren't you reading all the post?

Here it is again.

God Bless!

 

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;

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?

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).

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!

 

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.

 

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

 

Yes, let's do because you keep on contradicting your own words. This is why I cannot understand why you cannot understand!

" It is an actual case of apostacy " (your words)

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!

 

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!

 

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.

 

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