False Christs

[Rebel]

I agree with lakeside that salvation can be lost, or rather willingly renounced. But I am on the free will side of Baptist history.

 

[DHK]

I agree with lakeside that salvation can be lost, or rather willingly renounced. But I am on the free will side of Baptist history.

"I give unto you eternal life."
At what point does eternal change meanings and become "temporary"?

 

[tyndale1946]

I agree with lakeside that salvation can be lost, or rather willingly renounced. But I am on the free will side of Baptist history.

Well I disagree! According to scripture neither

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

According to Matthew he shall save he people from their sins. Will he lose any?... Not according to scripture!... None! If he does then the Father gave them to the Son to save makes the Father a lier. All the Father has given me shall come to me and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
If the Salvation of Gods children can be lost or renounced would not that make the sacrifice of Jesus Christ of non effect?... I believe it does!... Brother Glen

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I agree with lakeside that salvation can be lost, or rather willingly renounced. But I am on the free will side of Baptist history.

One thing I do know, we need to interpret the harder to understand passages in light of the clearer passages in scripture. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that one for whom Christ died and who believes upon him will never ultimately fall away and suffer eternal damnation! The atonement is the only thing eternal salvation hinges on in this life and no man can lose their salvation. Consider the following ton of passages of scripture that are abundantly clear on the issue and draw comfort from them,
"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14)
"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" (John 6:37a)
"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." (John 6:39)
"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:9)
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2(a))
"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25)
"28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:28)
"35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:35-39)

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

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

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter 1:3-5)
"28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Romans 8:28-30)


"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will" 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," (Ephesians 1:3-5)

Notice we are said to be adopted in that verse, the Father will not "unadopt us".

Romans 8:29 asserts all who are called and justified are also predestined to glorification. It follows that any falling short of glorification must never have been truly called and justified.

Man can be condemned to hell only after a valid charge has been made against him. This cannot be the case for God's children (Rom 8:33) since they are sanctified once for all (Heb 10:10) and are forever perfected (Heb 10:14).

Were eternal life secured by man's power, it would doubtlessly be lost. However, the scriptures teach eternal life is secured by the infinite power of God (Jn 10:27-29, 1Cor 1:8, Philip 1:6, 1Thes 5:23, 1Pet 1:5).

The doctrine of preservation is not intended to teach that saved persons can sin with impunity. The scriptures teach God will bring corrective chastisement against all of His disobedient children (Ps 93:12-13, 1Cor 11:32, Heb 12:6-8, Rev 3:19). Accordingly, scriptures teach the power of God's Spirit is ever at work within His children bringing forth the fruits of righteousness (Philip 2:13, 1Thes 4:9, 2Thes 3:3).

 

[Rebel]

To hold that one cannot of an act of will renounce his salvation is to deny many scripture passages as well as to deny that God has given man the freedom to choose whether to follow Him or not.

But I didn't say what I said to start an argument, just to set forth a position.

 

[lakeside]

Yes, I agree with you Rebel.

The Bible is full of passages that either directly or indirectly contradict this doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved.” For example:
{Rom 11:17-23, }“But if some of the branches were broken off [the Jews], and you, a wild olive shoot [the Gentiles], were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree [Jesus Christ], do not boast over the branches...For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you...Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”

Paul is talking about how salvation has come to the Gentiles, while many of the Jews have rejected it. And he makes it very clear that once you have been grafted into Christ, you must “continue in His kindness,” or you can also be cut off. So, even after you’ve been saved, you can still be cut off from Jesus Christ.

This is further seen in Galatians, chapter 5. Verse 1, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery [sin].” If once saved always saved is true, then one cannot “submit again” to a “yoke of slavery,” and Paul’s warning makes no sense.
But Paul goes on in verse 4 to say, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Paul is talking to Gentile Christians who had been wrongly taught by the Judaizers that they have to be circumcised and obey the Mosaic Law in order to be true Christians. Paul tells them that is false, and if they submit to circumcision and to the Old Law, they will be “severed from Christ.” If once saved always saved is true, though, they can’t be severed from Christ and, once again, Paul’s warning is meaningless.

We also have the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke chapter 15. The Prodigal Son was in his father’s house, and the father here is representative of God the Father. Then, the Prodigal Son leaves his father’s house and goes and lives a sinful life. In the end, though, he repents and returns to his father. After the Prodigal Son returns, the father says this of him in verse 24: “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”

In Evangelical terminology, to be dead is to be unsaved, and to be alive is to be saved. Notice very carefully, though, that the father says the son is alive “again.” In other words, the son was alive, or saved, when he was in his father’s house at the beginning of the parable; was “dead,” or unsaved, when he left his father’s house and lived in sin; then was alive again, saved again, when he repented and returned to his father’s house. Alive, dead, alive again. Saved, unsaved, saved again.

Once saved always saved? I don’t think so.

 

[Rebel]

Yes, I agree with you Rebel.

The Bible is full of passages that either directly or indirectly contradict this doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved.” For example:
{Rom 11:17-23, }“But if some of the branches were broken off [the Jews], and you, a wild olive shoot [the Gentiles], were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree [Jesus Christ], do not boast over the branches...For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you...Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”

Paul is talking about how salvation has come to the Gentiles, while many of the Jews have rejected it. And he makes it very clear that once you have been grafted into Christ, you must “continue in His kindness,” or you can also be cut off. So, even after you’ve been saved, you can still be cut off from Jesus Christ.

This is further seen in Galatians, chapter 5. Verse 1, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery [sin].” If once saved always saved is true, then one cannot “submit again” to a “yoke of slavery,” and Paul’s warning makes no sense.
But Paul goes on in verse 4 to say, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Paul is talking to Gentile Christians who had been wrongly taught by the Judaizers that they have to be circumcised and obey the Mosaic Law in order to be true Christians. Paul tells them that is false, and if they submit to circumcision and to the Old Law, they will be “severed from Christ.” If once saved always saved is true, though, they can’t be severed from Christ and, once again, Paul’s warning is meaningless.

We also have the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke chapter 15. The Prodigal Son was in his father’s house, and the father here is representative of God the Father. Then, the Prodigal Son leaves his father’s house and goes and lives a sinful life. In the end, though, he repents and returns to his father. After the Prodigal Son returns, the father says this of him in verse 24: “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”

In Evangelical terminology, to be dead is to be unsaved, and to be alive is to be saved. Notice very carefully, though, that the father says the son is alive “again.” In other words, the son was alive, or saved, when he was in his father’s house at the beginning of the parable; was “dead,” or unsaved, when he left his father’s house and lived in sin; then was alive again, saved again, when he repented and returned to his father’s house. Alive, dead, alive again. Saved, unsaved, saved again.

Once saved always saved? I don’t think so.

I don't see that the doctrine was ever held until the Reformation. It wasn't even held by the Jansenists, those in your RCC who held beliefs similar to some Calvinist beliefs.

 

[lakeside]

Rebel, must rush off, so to condense everything I will write that we have the assurance, based upon God’s own word, that if we follow His will for our lives, we will be saved. But, we do not have “absolute” assurance that we will be saved because we could, of our own free will, turn away from Christ at any given point in our lives.

 

[Rebel]

Rebel, must rush off, so to condense everything I will write that we have the assurance, based upon God’s own word, that if we follow His will for our lives, we will be saved. But, we do not have “absolute” assurance that we will be saved because we could, of our own free will, turn away from Christ at any given point in our lives.

I agree. Some, however, would argue that God so changes our will that we would not freely choose to renounce Jesus once we accept Him. But I would point out that our wills, even though changed, are not perfected -- we still have some effects of the "old man" -- and that we still retain the God-given freedom to choose. I believe the Bible bears that out also.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I agree with you Rebel.

The Bible is full of passages that either directly or indirectly contradict this doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved.” For example:
{Rom 11:17-23, }“But if some of the branches were broken off [the Jews], and you, a wild olive shoot [the Gentiles], were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree [Jesus Christ], do not boast over the branches...For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you...Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”

Paul is talking about how salvation has come to the Gentiles, while many of the Jews have rejected it. And he makes it very clear that once you have been grafted into Christ, you must “continue in His kindness,” or you can also be cut off. So, even after you’ve been saved, you can still be cut off from Jesus Christ.

This is further seen in Galatians, chapter 5. Verse 1, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery [sin].” If once saved always saved is true, then one cannot “submit again” to a “yoke of slavery,” and Paul’s warning makes no sense.
But Paul goes on in verse 4 to say, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Paul is talking to Gentile Christians who had been wrongly taught by the Judaizers that they have to be circumcised and obey the Mosaic Law in order to be true Christians. Paul tells them that is false, and if they submit to circumcision and to the Old Law, they will be “severed from Christ.” If once saved always saved is true, though, they can’t be severed from Christ and, once again, Paul’s warning is meaningless.

We also have the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke chapter 15. The Prodigal Son was in his father’s house, and the father here is representative of God the Father. Then, the Prodigal Son leaves his father’s house and goes and lives a sinful life. In the end, though, he repents and returns to his father. After the Prodigal Son returns, the father says this of him in verse 24: “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”

In Evangelical terminology, to be dead is to be unsaved, and to be alive is to be saved. Notice very carefully, though, that the father says the son is alive “again.” In other words, the son was alive, or saved, when he was in his father’s house at the beginning of the parable; was “dead,” or unsaved, when he left his father’s house and lived in sin; then was alive again, saved again, when he repented and returned to his father’s house. Alive, dead, alive again. Saved, unsaved, saved again.

Once saved always saved? I don’t think so.

God stated to us that we have already passed from spiritual death unto eternal life in Jesus, taken from Kingdom of satan unto the One of Jesus, and that ALL the Father gives to Jesus to get saved will get saved, and Jesus will raise up ALL those whom he has saved...

Do you disagree with jesus on this issue then?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. Some, however, would argue that God so changes our will that we would not freely choose to renounce Jesus once we accept Him. But I would point out that our wills, even though changed, are not perfected -- we still have some effects of the "old man" -- and that we still retain the God-given freedom to choose. I believe the Bible bears that out also.

We have become bo again of imperishable seed though, and the holy spirit Himself is sealed with us, and He is the One to make sure that NONE shall be lost!

We have Him, the new nature, and God can NEVER disavow any who has really been saved, for he accepts us just as if we were Jesus Himself, so he would have to reject Jesus to reject any of his saved!

 

[Rebel]

We have become bo again of imperishable seed though, and the holy spirit Himself is sealed with us, and He is the One to make sure that NONE shall be lost!

We have Him, the new nature, and God can NEVER disavow any who has really been saved, for he accepts us just as if we were Jesus Himself, so he would have to reject Jesus to reject any of his saved!

That is not logical, and I don't see that it is scriptural.

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, I agree with you Rebel.

The Bible is full of passages that either directly or indirectly contradict this doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved.”

This is perhaps my favorite topic of study and issue of debate, so hope you don't mind me butting in, lol.

We can look at the passages used to teach loss of salvation, which, when we present such doctrine leads to only one conclusion: men are saved by Christ but...must retain their salvation through works.

That is the only possible conclusion to draw from the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachings).

For example:
{Rom 11:17-23, }“But if some of the branches were broken off [the Jews], and you, a wild olive shoot [the Gentiles], were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree [Jesus Christ], do not boast over the branches...For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you...Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”

The mistake made with Romans 9-11 is to overlook the National Context Paul presents. When that is done, it is fairly easy to convince people that Paul is speaking of individuals losing their salvation, being "cut out" even as those if Israel were.

However, we carefully keep that context and maintain the Biblical reason for not being saved...unbelief.


Romans 11:20-23

King James Version (KJV)

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.


The L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers) create a bit of a paradox in that in using this teaching to reinforce their views of loss of salvation...they have unbelievers saved. That's right, they have creates within the context the possibility Scripture refutes of an unbeliever being a part of the Body of Christ.

While I will try not to get too longwinded in this first post (and make no such promise in later ones, lol), I would draw attention to the imagery Paul presents which presents a tree, which is a familiar method of instruction.

So what is the tree?

I would suggest that the tree is the provision of God. In view is Israel on a National basis, who we will all agree, according to the testimony of John (1:11), did not receive Christ. Gentile Inclusion, being a mystery according to Paul (though written into the very prophecy of God's Redemptive Plan as early as the Garden and reiterated in the Abrahamic Covenant).

The simple truth here is that in view are unbelievers, not believers. Again we have the intention of the L.O.S.T. to present these people as believers in danger of losing salvation.

Another example where the context is obscured in the familiar passage of John 15, in which a Vine is presented, called the True Vine. Christ is the True Vine, but the question that has to be asked is "what vine does the Lord contrast Himself?"

The answer? Israel.

Israel was the Vine, and just like in Romans 11 it is the source of provision God has established. The disciples of Christ, like most Jews, counted on their heritage as the means of relationship with God. Christ makes it clear...don't do that. "I am the True Vine," He states, and that brings us to the next focus we should turn our attention to, and I will simply ask the question to any who cares to answer:

Did the disciples obey and abide in Christ?

Think carefully before you answer, and a reading of John 14-16 wouldn't hurt either.

Paul is talking about how salvation has come to the Gentiles, while many of the Jews have rejected it. And he makes it very clear that once you have been grafted into Christ, you must “continue in His kindness,” or you can also be cut off. So, even after you’ve been saved, you can still be cut off from Jesus Christ.

The point is simple: Gentiles were engrafted through belief, Israel cut out because of unbelief, and if Gentiles fall into unbelief, like Israel, they too will be cut out.

There is no individual basis here, it is a National Context.

Again, the tree is the provision, not salvation, just like Israel was the provision, not salvation itself, as their history attests and we understand salvation is never through heritage (God has no grand-children).

The same point is made by the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 4-5.

This is further seen in Galatians, chapter 5. Verse 1, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery [sin].” If once saved always saved is true, then one cannot “submit again” to a “yoke of slavery,” and Paul’s warning makes no sense.

One cannot submit to the yoke of slavery?

How about Peter, who played the hypocrite in regards to the Gentiles when that certain came? For which Paul withstood him to the face. Can we see a legalistic motive in his actions?

Paul asks a simple question of the Galatians:


Galatians 3

King James Version (KJV)

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?


It is ironic that the L.O.S.T. create yet again a paradox by trying to advocate a legalistic mentality with an Epistle which has in large part a direct admonition against the thought that salvation can be retained through works.

They were not saved through works, nor, as we see here, is there salvation maintained through works.

But Paul goes on in verse 4 to say, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Paul is talking to Gentile Christians who had been wrongly taught by the Judaizers that they have to be circumcised and obey the Mosaic Law in order to be true Christians. Paul tells them that is false, and if they submit to circumcision and to the Old Law, they will be “severed from Christ.” If once saved always saved is true, though, they can’t be severed from Christ and, once again, Paul’s warning is meaningless.

Again the assumption is that Paul is saying this applies to believers, when in view are those who are rejecting justification through Christ in favor of justification by works.


Galatians 5

King James Version (KJV)

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.


What is overlooked here is that in view are those...justified by the Law. Not Christians, but those who are in error according to Paul's admonition.

That is why Christ is become of no effect, because they are not seeking Christ, but justification through works.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

We also have the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke chapter 15. The Prodigal Son was in his father’s house, and the father here is representative of God the Father. Then, the Prodigal Son leaves his father’s house and goes and lives a sinful life. In the end, though, he repents and returns to his father. After the Prodigal Son returns, the father says this of him in verse 24: “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”

I would again ask you to consider John 15, and answer the question, "Did the disciples abide according to the command of Christ?"

The reason is that here you have the Prodigal Son as a saved, born again believer who had life, then died, then had life again.

Is that the case?

I would suggest to you that this teaching falls into an Old Testament Economy that has no intention of relaying Gospel truth...seeing that the Gospel of Christ was at this point yet unrevealed to men.

Not to spoil the question but the truth is that not one of the disciples abided in Christ. How do I know that?


John 16:29-32

King James Version (KJV)

29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


Not sure I would call that...abiding.

But it is not truly the fault of the disciples, for all things had to work out according to the will of God. Peter took up a sword that the Gospel not be fulfilled...


John 18:10-12

King James Version (KJV)

10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,


...but Peter stood no chance of effectively keeping Christ from that which He came for.

So let's go back to the Prodigal Son. Did he in fact have the life acquired by eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ?

Not at all. He stood with all Old Testament Saints in that he too, like the disciples, were in need of Christ dying and rising again. They too were in need of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, Who did not come until Pentecost.

Yet the L.O.S.T. would have you believe that the Prodigal Son teaches...loss of salvation.

In Evangelical terminology, to be dead is to be unsaved, and to be alive is to be saved.

That is not Evangelical terminology, that is Biblical Terminology:


John 3:14-15

King James Version (KJV)

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.




John 6:52-54

King James Version (KJV)

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Notice very carefully, though, that the father says the son is alive “again.” In other words, the son was alive, or saved, when he was in his father’s house at the beginning of the parable; was “dead,” or unsaved, when he left his father’s house and lived in sin; then was alive again, saved again, when he repented and returned to his father’s house. Alive, dead, alive again. Saved, unsaved, saved again.

If we equate life and death to salvation and loss of salvation, then it might be easy to err in this parable.

However, if we do that...then the son was saved before going into a far country.

And that is simply not implied in the parable.

In view is an Old Testament Economy, just as typical in Christ's teachings.

Once saved always saved? I don’t think so.

Many do not, however, when we examine the L.O.S.T. we can easily see the errors which are employed to instill the very works-based mind-set Paul admonishes in Galatians.

Israel was the tree, the provision of relationship with God, and because they rejected Christ, as a Nation, they were cut out of that tree of provision, and Gentiles grafted in. Unbelief is the reason, as it is in many contexts, and it is difficult to reasonably consider unbelievers as being cut out for unbelief while at the same time ascribing belief.

Christ was very clear as to the conditions available to men, tares or wheat. There are believers, and unbelievers. Good trees and bad. If we simply believe Christ's teachings we would not see the tendency to ascribe salvation to unbelievers as we so often see:


Matthew 7:17-19

King James Version (KJV)

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


Let's just once again visit one of the favorite passages of the L.O.S.T:


John 15

King James Version (KJV)

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.


If we simply take Christ at His word we can conclude that those who abide will not fail to bear fruit. A good tree cannot bear evil fruit nor an evil tree good fruit.

Christ was clear enough that we can work through Scripture and see these principles maintained, in which we conclude that one is either saved or lost, believer or unbeliever. And when we look at the L.O.S.T. we see often that salvation is interjected in a context where no such salvation exists, good trees said to bear evil fruit, and worse, evil trees said to bear good.

But the teaching will not hold up to scrutiny. What the L.O.S.T. lack is properly identifying salvation itself, how it comes about, and how it is maintained. For the L.O.S.T. there is always going to be one recourse for maintaining salvation, and that is through the very works that Scripture clarifies have never saved and will never save. Regardless of whether they are prior to salvation or follow, salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone.

Sorry for rushing this but have to get going.

God bless.

 

[lakeside]

The only distinction between a true Christian and a superficial Christian is that the superficial Christian will not persevere to the end – but this is something a Christian cannot know during his life, and this necessarily imposes uncertainty upon him until the end. We know that salvation is ours to lose, although nobody can take it from us, but we can severe our relationship from Christ, we can do it to ourselves. For “once saved, always saved” Protestants, they don’t even know whether it is theirs to begin with.

 

[DHK]

The only distinction between a true Christian and a superficial Christian is that the superficial Christian will not persevere to the end – but this is something a Christian cannot know during his life, and this necessarily imposes uncertainty upon him until the end. We know that salvation is ours to lose, although nobody can take it from us, but we can severe our relationship from Christ, we can do it to ourselves. For “once saved, always saved” Protestants, they don’t even know whether it is theirs to begin with.

This is nonsense. Classify yourself then as a superficial Christian. It is simply saying: "I am not saved; I don't know what "Biblical Christianity" is all about it.

Tell me: According to Romans 8:16,
Does the spirit that dwells within you bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?
Can you answer that question?

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

I am sure that I am child of God because of the Spirit's witness.
Biblical Christianity is not a religion. It is not following a set of doctrines set forth in a Catechism drawn up by a Magesterium and led by a leader called a Pope. It is not doing.

Biblical Christianity is relationship.

The Longer I Serve Him, The sweeter He grows
The more that I love Him , More joy He bestows
Each day is like heaven My heart overflows
The Longer I Serve Him, The sweeter He grows

That is far different than a religion.
Your religion is not a relationship and therefore you fear in losing it. You know nothing of the relationship expressed in the above lyrics that all true believers know. We cannot lose our salvation because of the relationship we have with Christ.

How can child ever cease being a child of his parents. The parent can deny the child but the relationship will always be there. The DNA never changes.
However, the promise of God is that He will never deny Himself.
Once born into the family one cannot be "unborn." it is a ridiculous concept.

I’m a child of the King,
A child of the King:
With Jesus my Savior,
I’m a child of the King.

How could it ever be any other way?

You are a child of the RCC; I am a child of the KING
Which do you think is better?

I once was an outcast stranger on earth,
A sinner by choice, an alien by birth,
But I’ve been adopted, my name’s written down,
An heir to a mansion, a robe and a crown.

I’m a child of the King,
A child of the King:
With Jesus my Savior,
I’m a child of the King.

Praise God.

 

[lakeside]

DHK, before I answer any of your questions I will remind you that being we have different interpretations of the Holy Bible we will never agree with one another. How do you expect Catholics and Protestants to agree when you Protestants have thousands of different conflicting interpretations against each other. Please don't tell me that you all believe in the basics. because we Catholics along with all other Apostolic Churches agree on not only the basic tenets of the Christian Faith but also on the important Doctrines.
Your impossible Protestant method of having the Bible explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation, is just plain indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter.
2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I, except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth, can the 'Bible-only' theory be defended.

Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Ghost, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of Gods law and Gods word.
Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.

Matthew 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the.... ".
Please explain how Jesus intended [as you believe ] Holy Scripture to have more than that One True Interpretation as given to those who compiled the completed Holy Bible ?
I will now carry-on answering your query from me on Romans 8:16.

 

[Yeshua1]

DHK, before I answer any of your questions I will remind you that being we have different interpretations of the Holy Bible we will never agree with one another. How do you expect Catholics and Protestants to agree when you Protestants have thousands of different conflicting interpretations against each other. Please don't tell me that you all believe in the basics. because we Catholics along with all other Apostolic Churches agree on not only the basic tenets of the Christian Faith but also on the important Doctrines.
Your impossible Protestant method of having the Bible explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation, is just plain indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter.
2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I, except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth, can the 'Bible-only' theory be defended.

Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Ghost, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of Gods law and Gods word.
Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.

Matthew 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the.... ".
Please explain how Jesus intended [as you believe ] Holy Scripture to have more than that One True Interpretation as given to those who compiled the completed Holy Bible ?
I will now carry-on answering your query from me on Romans 8:16.

The Bible is inspired and is the very thoughts of God put down on written page to us, and they were the only source of doctrines and practices in the early church, way before the RCC even came into exiting!

And the holy spirit Himself reveals the scriptures to us, and he does not need fallible men in the RCC for that, and the church is built upon Jesus christ as the Rock, not peter, and the true church of Christ existed at time of Acts, again, way before the church of rome did!

 

[lakeside]

DHK. yes, in Rom.8: 16 it speaks of us as adopted children, your point well taken . Then further on in {v-19 }" for the whole creation is waiting with eagerness for the children of God to be revealed." "Once Saved Always Saved" is not secure according to that. One can still lose their salvation by rejecting Jesus, even as adopted children.

 

[lakeside]

Yeshua1, is that the best you can do? You wrote: "The Bible is inspired and is the very thoughts of God put down on written page to us, and they were the only source of doctrines and practices in the early church, way before the RCC even came into exiting!

And the holy spirit Himself reveals the scriptures to us, and he does not need fallible men in the RCC for that, and the church is built upon Jesus christ as the Rock, not peter, and the true church of Christ existed at time of Acts, again, way before the church of rome did!


Yeshua1, why don't you back that up with Book, Chapter, Verse. I don't care if you must go outside the Bible with the documentation on your bunch of malarkey. Show me proof. If you can't back it up then I will gladly fill it in for you.