Eternal Security the Acid test

[targus]

Just wondering...

When did "once saved always saved" become the ACID TEST?

Considering that it is God that will be judging who is and who is not saved how is it even a doctrinal concern?

To me whether someone is "truly saved" is not something that any of us are in a postion to even know.

 

[The Biblicist]

Just wondering...

When did "once saved always saved" become the ACID TEST?

Considering that it is God that will be judging who is and who is not saved how is it even a doctrinal concern?

To me whether someone is "truly saved" is not something that any of us are in a postion to even know.

Go back and read what I said in the context I said it! I didn't say it was God's acide test. I didn't say it was the acid test of final judgement by God or by anyone else.

I said it was the acid test that determines whether a person/church/denomination believes in justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works OR in justification by grace through faith in Christ plus works. And it is! Those who believe in the former believe in eternal security but those who believe in the latter believe in apostasy of born again children of God. Hence, a simple acid test to determine which gospel of justification they believe and preach is to ask one simple question - "do you believe in eternal security/preservation of the true born again children of God?"

 

[The Biblicist]

I have addressed your text you presented. You just do not like the answer. Jesus will not lose anyone, but that does not mean someone cannot willfully leave.

Where in the text does Jesus allow for some that come to him to then leave or be lost??????


Your response "but that does not man someone cannot willfully leave" is a direct contradiction to Christ's explicit words in this text.

This text in its context defies and condemns your philosophical response!

A. Jesus explicitly and clearly states that not a single solitary one given to him by the by the Father will fail to come to him.

Jn. 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;


B. Furthermore, not a single solitary one given to him will be lost by him.

Jn. 6:39 that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing,

Therefore, All that are given come and all that are given none are lost while you claim the opposite! You claim some that come will be lost (probably also believe some given may never come).


C. Furthermore, not a single solitary one that comes to him will fail to be raised up in the resurrection of eternal life.

Jn. 6:39.....I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Verse 40 proves that the phrase "should raise it up again at the last day" refers to the resurrection of eternal life not to the resurrection of condemnation.

Therefore, All that are given come and all that are given none are lost because each individaul given and coming will be raised up again in the resurrection of life, while you claim the opposite! You claim some that come will be lost and will not be raised up to eternal life (most likely you also claim that ALL given do not come.

Prove your point from the context if you can! So far you don't even deal with the language of the context but merely philosophize and READ INTO the text what YOU WANT it to say!


Every false doctrine is the consequence of either one or two things!

1. Jerking a text out of context

2. Reading into a text what it does not say or contradicting what it says

You are guilty of the latter.

 

[preacher4truth]

Here is a copy of a debate between a Baptist apologist, Steve Morrison, and a CoC apologist, Patrick Donahue on OSAS. I've just read the first section, which is the view of Donahue on losing salvation. There are a couple 'decent' arguments, but it can be easily seen that Donahue bases security of Salvation on doing, though if asked about that, he'd probably (I'm guessing) deny that it has anything to do with our doing. Maybe not.

I'll read the rest later.

This free module works in e-sword and is available here:

http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword...steve-debate-on-once-saved-always-saved-2005/

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is a copy of a debate between a Baptist apologist, Steve Morrison, and a CoC apologist on OSAS. I've just read the first section, which is the view of Donahue on losing salvation. There are a couple 'decent' arguments, but it can be easily seen that Donahue bases security of Salvation on doing, though if asked about that, he'd probably (I'm guessing) deny that it has anything to do with our doing. Maybe not.

I'll read the rest later.

This free module works in e-sword and is available here:

http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword...steve-debate-on-once-saved-always-saved-2005/

Thanks. However, the problem in debating anyone is the JUMPING JOE routine where they hop from proof text to proof text and NEVER examine the immediate context of their proof texts to validate they are properly using the proof text in its context.

I am not budging from John 6:39 and examination of it in its context. When someone can demonstrate exegetically by common rules of interpretation that I am not interpreting Christ's words according to its context, then I will yeild and then we will advance to another proof text argument pro or con!

Some will reply, well, if someone can prove you are misinterpreting that text in its context then it proves you are doing so with every other proof text also because the Bible does not contradict itself. True! BUT THE REVERSE IS EQUALLY TRUE and that is why I am sticking to this verse and its context and refusing to play the JUMPING JOE game of musical prooftext chairs.

 

[preacher4truth]

Thanks. However, the problem in debating anyone is the JUMPING JOE routine where they hop from proof text to proof text and NEVER examine the immediate context of their proof texts to validate they are properly using the proof text in its context.

I am not sure if this is the case in the information I've given. We will see how Morrison handles this CoC's interpretations and if he rebutts him via contextual analysis. I can say that the CoC apologist Donahue has taken some of his passages out of context, but of course I only took a quick minute to read it, so perhaps there is more.

 

[targus]

Thanks. However, the problem in debating anyone is the JUMPING JOE routine where they hop from proof text to proof text and NEVER examine the immediate context of their proof texts to validate they are properly using the proof text in its context.

I am not budging from John 6:39 and examination of it in its context. When someone can demonstrate exegetically by common rules of interpretation that I am not interpreting Christ's words according to its context, then I will yeild and then we will advance to another proof text argument pro or con!

Some will reply, well, if someone can prove you are misinterpreting that text in its context then it proves you are doing so with every other proof text also because the Bible does not contradict itself. True! BUT THE REVERSE IS EQUALLY TRUE and that is why I am sticking to this verse and its context and refusing to play the JUMPING JOE game of musical prooftext chairs.

By your rules one of the contexts that you are ignoring is the knowledge of Scripture that John possessed when writing John 6:39.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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

HP: Because something is the 'will of God' does not necessitate its coming to pass. For instance, it is Gods will, according to Scripture, that NONE should perish, and that ALL would have eternal life..... but all will not come to repentance even when it is God's will.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.



Jesus said in yet another place that He indeed HAD lost one in particular, Judas.

Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

So Biblicist tries once again to rip a proof text out of the context of God's will, and tries in vain to make it walk on all four legs in support of a context he manufactures by his own imagination. The notion of OSAS is not supported by this Scripture or any other.

 

[Jedi Knight]

HP: Because something is the 'will of God' does not necessitate its coming to pass.

So you say if its the "will of God" that Jesus returns..... it might not happen? Just because?

 

[Moriah]

Where in the text does Jesus allow for some that come to him to then leave or be lost??????


Your response "but that does not man someone cannot willfully leave" is a direct contradiction to Christ's explicit words in this text.

This text in its context defies and condemns your philosophical response!

A. Jesus explicitly and clearly states that not a single solitary one given to him by the by the Father will fail to come to him.

Jn. 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;


B. Furthermore, not a single solitary one given to him will be lost by him.

Jn. 6:39 that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing,

Therefore, All that are given come and all that are given none are lost while you claim the opposite! You claim some that come will be lost (probably also believe some given may never come).


C. Furthermore, not a single solitary one that comes to him will fail to be raised up in the resurrection of eternal life.

Jn. 6:39.....I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Verse 40 proves that the phrase "should raise it up again at the last day" refers to the resurrection of eternal life not to the resurrection of condemnation.

Therefore, All that are given come and all that are given none are lost because each individaul given and coming will be raised up again in the resurrection of life, while you claim the opposite! You claim some that come will be lost and will not be raised up to eternal life (most likely you also claim that ALL given do not come.

Prove your point from the context if you can! So far you don't even deal with the language of the context but merely philosophize and READ INTO the text what YOU WANT it to say!


Every false doctrine is the consequence of either one or two things!

1. Jerking a text out of context

2. Reading into a text what it does not say or contradicting what it says

You are guilty of the latter.

You are quoting scripture when Jesus came to earth for his ministry. Jesus was receiving all to him who ALREADY belonged to God. Those are the only people Jesus was to save first, the lost sheep of Israel. The Jews who BELONGED to God BEFORE Jesus came; they are the people that Jesus would not lose. That scripture is only for that time and for those people.

NNE belongs to God anymore first. THEY FIRST GO through Jesus. They are NOT COMING AS ONE ALREADY BELONGING TO GOD as the time before when Jesus first came, because ALL NOW MUST GO THROUGH JESUS to get to God.

So, stop using those scriptures to prove OSAS. In addition, stop using those scriptures to support the false doctrines of John Calvin.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are quoting scripture when Jesus came to earth for his ministry. Jesus was receiving all to him who ALREADY belonged to God. Those are the only people Jesus was to save first, the lost sheep of Israel. The Jews who BELONGED to God BEFORE Jesus came; they are the people that Jesus would not lose. That scripture is only for that time and for those people.

NNE belongs to God anymore first. THEY FIRST GO through Jesus. They are NOT COMING AS ONE ALREADY BELONGING TO GOD as the time before when Jesus first came, because ALL NOW MUST GO THROUGH JESUS to get to God.

So, stop using those scriptures to prove OSAS. In addition, stop using those scriptures to support the false doctrines of John Calvin.

Prove it by the context?

John 6:37 uses the future tense "shall come to me"

John 6:39,40,44 refer to the future resurrection

John 6:44 says "NO MAN" not "no JEWISH man"

Prove it from the context!!!

 

[Moriah]

Prove it by the context?

John 6:37 uses the future tense "shall come to me"

John 6:39,40,44 refer to the future resurrection

John 6:44 says "NO MAN" not "no JEWISH man"

Prove it from the context!!!

I have proven it, because it is the word of God. Was not Jesus on earth physically, as he said those words? Yes, Jesus was on earth physically when he was on earth. John 6:39 is quoting Jesus speaking while on earth in a physical body. Did Jesus not offer salvation FIRST to the lost sheep of Israel? Yes, Jesus first came to offer salvation to the lost sheep of Israel. The people were already God’s, now they would become Jesus’ people. Those who did not believe in God, they were hardened. God did not allow them to come to Jesus. Only a remnant, the lost sheep of Israel would come to Jesus (Matthew 10:6; 15:24). John 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. See also, John 3:37, 39; 6:65; 10:28; 15:21-24; 16:3; 17:2, 9, 24; Romans 11:4, 5, 7; Hebrews 12:23; 11:39-40. John 8:19 Then they asked him, "Where is your father?” "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."
How many times do I have to prove it to you? Stop rejecting the truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have proven it, because it is the word of God. Was not Jesus on earth physically, as he said those words? Yes, Jesus was on earth physically when he was on earth. John 6:39 is quoting Jesus speaking while on earth in a physical body. Did Jesus not offer salvation FIRST to the lost sheep of Israel? Yes, Jesus first came to offer salvation to the lost sheep of Israel. The people were already God’s, now they would become Jesus’ people. Those who did not believe in God, they were hardened. God did not allow them to come to Jesus. Only a remnant, the lost sheep of Israel would come to Jesus (Matthew 10:6; 15:24). John 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. See also, John 3:37, 39; 6:65; 10:28; 15:21-24; 16:3; 17:2, 9, 24; Romans 11:4, 5, 7; Hebrews 12:23; 11:39-40. John 8:19 Then they asked him, "Where is your father?” "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."
How many times do I have to prove it to you? Stop rejecting the truth.

So you believe Christ came only into the world to save Jews huh?

So you believe Christ took on a human body only to save Jews huh?

So you believe "NO MAN" (Jn. 6:44) but Gentiles can come to Christ huh?

So you believe Christ has one way of salvation (gospel) for Jews and another for Gentiles huh? - Jn. 14:6/Acts 4:12

The only thing you are proving is your complete and absolute ignorance of this text and context! Try again!

You are doing the usual thing - completely ignoring the context - perverting it to fit your own theories. Mixing it with other biblical contexts that have no bearing on this context. Ignoring the grammar and subject of the context - Try again!

 

[Moriah]

So you believe Christ came only into the world to save Jews huh?

What is so hard to understand what I said? Jesus came FIRST for the Jews, the Jews who already belonged to God.

So you believe Christ took on a human body only to save Jews huh?

Jesus came FIRST for the Jews, and not ALL the Jews, only the Jews who loved God.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Matthew 15: 21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

So you believe "NO MAN" (Jn. 6:44) but Gentiles can come to Christ huh?

Jesus was not saving Gentiles when Jesus was on earth. Gentiles were able to come to God after Jesus was lifted up.

John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Gentiles could NOT be reconciled to God until after the vision Peter had. What do you think Peter's vision was about?!

So you believe Christ has one way of salvation (gospel) for Jews and another for Gentiles huh? - Jn. 14:6/Acts 4:12

How do you get such nonsense?

The only thing you are proving is your complete and absolute ignorance of this text and context! Try again!

You are guilty of all the false judging you have done to me.

You are doing the usual thing - completely ignoring the context - perverting it to fit your own theories. Mixing it with other biblical contexts that have no bearing on this context. Ignoring the grammar and subject of the context - Try again!

Your learning of Greek and English sentence structure has proved to be a snare for you, a snare the devil has caught you with to do his work. You reject the truth. Your false teachings cause division and confusion.

 

[Alive in Christ]

That is baloney, a mischaracterization, and a total untruth. It is Calvin who recreated god in his image; Calvin's god is a fatalistic demiurge, not the God of love and freedom Whom Jesus was the perfect image of.

BTW, I don't consider myself an Arminian, but it is much less objectionable than Calvinistic fatalistic determinism.

And I will add a hearty AMEN to to that. :wavey:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I don't play the banjo, but I do agree in the assessment Michael Wrenn has just given. :thumbsup:

 

[Alive in Christ]

My view regarding eternal security, based on the testimony found in Gods scripturers is....

Once any lost person embraces Christ..through faith alone...they are permanently and eternally secured in Gods love and protection at that moment.

Nothing...nothing...nothing... that can possibly be emagined, or done, in any way shape or form, can cause that child of the living God to ever be lost.

Can wrong behavior or attitudes effect loss of rewards...yes. Can wrong behavior effect our lives negatively here on earth...yes.

But absolutely (((NOTHING))) can affect their status as a child of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I would certainly not agree with your stated beliefs on OSAS, Alive in Christ. The penalty for sin is NEVER represented in Scripture as loss of rewards for anyone period. That is simply Calvinistic conjecture NOT Scriptural doctrine.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Heavanly Pilgrim...

I would certainly not agree with your stated beliefs on OSAS, Alive in Christ. The penalty for sin is NEVER represented in Scripture as loss of rewards for anyone period. That is simply Calvinistic conjecture NOT Scriptural doctrine.

Well, your comment is very interesting, considering I that I am very "anti" Calvinism. I consider calvinism to be exceedingly filled with substantial error and and horrific false teaching.

Every bit as hellish as the idea that a redeemed, sealed permanently in Gods care, totally forgiven for all eternity, child of God can be damned.

And the scriptures clearly teach the gaining of, or, loss of, rewards.

 

[DHK]

I would certainly not agree with your stated beliefs on OSAS, Alive in Christ. The penalty for sin is NEVER represented in Scripture as loss of rewards for anyone period. That is simply Calvinistic conjecture NOT Scriptural doctrine.

The strangest doctrine I have ever heard is that every thing that is anti-HP is attributable to Calvin. It is his fault for any thing that HP is against.