For All you Calvinists, and otherwise

[Jarthur001]

I see...now you are redefining the very word heresy

her·e·sy (hr-s)
n. pl. her·e·sies
1.
a. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
b. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.
2.
a. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.
b. Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.

Please note 1a...

An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
​

CALVINISM is a heresy to the RCC. Why? Because it changed the doctrines of the RCC.


This is what I said. :laugh:

 

[webdog]

The main point that Carthage made against Pelagianism was that it denied Original Sin.

Where does it say that from which you posted?

 

[webdog]

Please note 1a...

An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
​

CALVINISM is a heresy to the RCC. Why? Because it changed the doctrines of the RCC.


This is what I said. :laugh:

I edited my post while you typed this one. It cannot be said an Arminian is a heretic as both Cal and the Arm believe in salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone.

 

[Jarthur001]

I edited my post while you typed this one. It cannot be said an Arminian is a heretic as both Cal and the Arm believe in salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone.

NP...

I understand that the word has taken on a new meaning. This is why I said..Technically the Arminian view is heretic. It came out of and changed the views of Calvinism.

Today the word carries a "cult" like meaning. That were be to strong.

Yes, I agree both agree that salvation is through faith.

 

[Jarthur001]

Where does it say that from which you posted?

The 1st 3 canons address this. You can read more here...

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/6-augustine-pelagius-part-i/

 

[webdog]

The 1st 3 canons address this. You can read more here...

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/6-augustine-pelagius-part-i/

Can. 1 “If any man says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he sinned or not he would have died, not as the wages of sin, but through the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.”

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, (Spirit) or that they should indeed be baptized (Spirit) for the remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally, but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes
peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Can. 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized (Spirit) live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.” [The authenticity of this canon has been brought into question, though there is some reason to believe that it was part of the original canon listing. In some manuscripts Canon 3.2, listed below, is listed here.]

Is the "main point" found in 1, 2 or 3? Is everyone labeled a Pelagian that doesn't adhere to infant baptism considering that is it right on par with Augustinianism (actually more of a focal "main point")?

 

[Jarthur001]

Can. 1 “If any man says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he sinned or not he would have died, not as the wages of sin, but through the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.”

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, (Spirit) or that they should indeed be baptized (Spirit) for the remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally, but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes
peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Can. 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized (Spirit) live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.” [The authenticity of this canon has been brought into question, though there is some reason to believe that it was part of the original canon listing. In some manuscripts Canon 3.2, listed below, is listed here.]

Is the "main point" found in 1, 2 or 3? Is everyone labeled a Pelagian that doesn't adhere to infant baptism considering that is right on par with Augustinianism?

Not at all..

As Storm says on the link I gave you...

2. Original Sin and the Fall - Adam's fall was occasioned by the exercise of free will. There was nothing in Adam's nature, either for good or ill, that inclined him in the decision he made. Furthermore, Adam's sin in no way affected his posterity except insofar as it set a bad example for them. Referring to Paul's statement in Romans 5:12, Pelagius insisted that

"It is said we sinned in Adam, not because sin is innate, but because it comes from imitation [emphasis mine]" (cited by Augustine in De Natura et gratia, c.x.).

Consequently, all men come into being in the exact condition as was Adam before the fall. Pelagius believed each soul is created immediately by God and thus cannot come into the world contaminated or corrupted by the sin of Adam. The doctrine of transmitted sin (tradux peccati) or original sin (peccatum originis), says Pelagius, is blasphemous:

"They are insane who teach that the sin of Adam comes upon us by propagation" (Commen. on Romans 7:8).

"A sin propagated by generation is totally contrary to the catholic faith. Sin is not born with man, but is committed afterwards by man. It is not the fault of nature, but of free will" [emphasis mine] (De Pec. Orig. 6).

"It can in no way be conceded that God, who pardons a man's own sins, may impute to him the sins of another" (cited by Aug. from Pelagius' commentary on Romans).

Thus, according to Pelagius, an infant is not born in sin nor does it possess any innate moral characteristics. Such are obtained only by the exercise of the will and the habits that develop from it. In other words, we are “socialized” to sin or “conditioned” to sin because of continual exposure to a family and society that are themselves sinful for the same reasons. Again:

"We have implanted in us by God a possibility for acting in both directions. It resembles, as I may say, a root which is most abundant in its produce of fruit. It yields and produces diversely according to man's will; and is capable, at the cultivator's own choice, of either shedding a beautiful bloom of virtues, or of bristling with the thorny thicket of vices. . . . But that we really do a good thing, or speak a good word, or think a good thought, proceeds from our own selves. . . . Nothing good, and nothing evil, on account of which we are deemed either laudable or blameworthy, is born with us, but is done by us: for we are born not fully developed, but with a capacity for either conduct; we are formed naturally without either virtue or vice; and previous to the action of our own proper will, the only thing in man is what God has formed in him" (cited by Aug. in De Peccato Originis, c.xiii).

"Free will is as yet in its original uncorrupted state, and nature is to be regarded as innocent in every one, before his own will can show itself" (cited by Aug.).

William G. T. Shedd, in his History of Doctrine, II:94, summarizes Pelagius' theology:

"At birth, each man's physical nature is liable to disease and death, as was Adam's at creation; and, at birth, each man's voluntary faculty, like Adam's at creation, is undetermined either to sin or holiness. Being thus characterless [emphasis mine], with a will undecided either for good or evil, and not in the least affected by Adam's apostasy, each individual man, after birth, commences his own voluntariness, originates his own character, and decides his own destiny, by the choice of either right or wrong."

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/6-augustine-pelagius-part-i/

 

[quantumfaith]

Ironically, the newest Southern Baptists are back to embracing that theology, and are being taken to task for it by all the other Baptists who've drifted in their theology. Of course, the discussion has been ongoing for 400+ years and I doubt that we'll settle it here in this thread or on this board.

glfredrick:

Not certain I agree with the assessment of "being taken to task", perhaps in some circles. I recently left a SBC church indirectly because of this, could have stayed, if "I had been made to feel at home", but my "biggest gripe" is that is that the church, by and large, did not know that we were going to making this "quantum shift" in theology prior to the calling of the pastor. Should have been discussed prior to calling.

I do agree, we will not settle this issue until we meet one another in heaven.

 

[Jerome]

The Primitive Baptist and Churches of Christ sects initially called themselves "Reformed Baptist".

hummmmm. Not really. The name "Reformed Baptist" is fairly new.

The Stone-Campbell Movement: The Story of the American Restoration Movement by Leroy Garrett, pp. 144-145:

...churches were still Baptist in name, but they were now referred to as “Reformed” Baptists. This was the case in Kentucky as well as Ohio. There gradually came to be scores of churches that were dubbed either “Reformed” Baptists or “Campbellites." Those within the Movement, even the Campbells, referred to themselves simply as Reformers, to distinguish themselves from other Baptists. They were not yet known as Christians or Disciples. lt was these “Reformed” Baptist churches that soon became known as the Disciples of Christ.

Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South by John G. Crowley, pp. 59-60:

ln 1827, in the midst of this conflict. the Kehukee Association of North Carolina sent the Hephzibah Antimissionaries copies of their minutes containing the "Declaration of the Reformed Baptist Churches in the State of North Carolina," . . . The Declaration anticipates virtually all Primitive Baptist arguments against Missionary Baptist practice. . . The strongly predestinarian Kehukee Association led the southem Antimissionaries in declaring nonfellowship—virtual corporate excommunication, as opposed to mere noncooperation—with missions and those who supported them. . . . .
The "Reformed Baptists" itemized their objections to the several modern innovations. They condemned missionary societies as being "only the inventions of men" and "without any warrant from the New Testament, or any example in the purest ages of the church. " No person belonging to a missionary society could belong to a "Reformed Baptist" church. . .

Both sects claimed, pre-schism, to be just "Reformed" Baptists.

 

[webdog]

So not holding to infant baptism is "anathema" and pelagianism?

 

[Jarthur001]

So not holding to infant baptism is "anathema" and pelagianism?

No, this will be the 3rd time so please note.
As it clearly states in Can 2..

let him be anathema; >>>>>>>because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Pelagianism ...... denied Original Sin.


If you want me to post his words to prove it, I will.

Like...

"They are insane who teach that the sin of Adam comes upon us by propagation" (Commen. on Romans 7:8).

THAT IS the point they are addressing in can1-3.

Did you read the link? Would you like more links?

If You can't understand this, I cannot help you more.

 

[webdog]

No more links, thanks. I can google too.

So you are saying infant baptism is not addressed? Strange, considering Augustine also had this to say...

It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation; whereas the apostle says: "Judgment from one offence to condemnation," and again a little after: "By the offence of one upon all persons to condemnation." When, indeed, Adam sinned by not obeying God, then his body--although it was a natural and mortal body--lost the grace whereby it used in every part of it to be obedient to the soul. Then there arose in men affections common to the brutes which are productive of shame, and which made man ashamed of his own nakedness. Then also, by a certain disease which was conceived in men from a suddenly injected and pestilential corruption, it was brought about that they lost that stability of life in which they were created, and, by reason of the mutations which they experienced in the stages of life, issued at last in death. However many were the years they lived in their subsequent life, yet they began to die on the day when they received the law of death, because they kept verging towards old age. For that possesses not even a moment's stability, but glides away without intermission, which by constant change perceptibly advances to an end which does not produce perfection, but utter exhaustion. Thus, then, was fulfilled what God had spoken: "In the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die." As a consequence, then, of this disobedience of the flesh and this law of sin and death, whoever is born of the flesh has need of spiritual regeneration--not only that he may reach the kingdom of God, but also that he may be freed from the damnation of sin. Hence men are on the one hand born in the flesh liable to sin and death from the first Adam, and on the other hand are born again in baptism associated with the righteousness and eternal life of the second Adam; even as it is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus: "Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." Now whether it be said of the woman or of Adam, both statements pertain to the first man; since (as we know) the woman is of the man, and the two are one flesh. Whence also it is written: "And they twain shall be one flesh; wherefore," the Lord says, "they are no more twain, but one flesh."

Why do you hold to only one of Augustine's views, but deny the logical conclusion he amits? If denying one to be "anathema", so does denying the other (which is addressed in #2 and #3 whether you want to admit it or not)

 

[Winman]

I deny original sin in that I do not believe God holds any person accountable for another person's sin.

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

It is true that physical death passed upon all men because of Adam, but sin is a moral/spiritual issue, not physical. I can inherit some physical illnesses or problems from my parents, but I do not inherit their sin.

Just as Adam and Eve were sinless, yet had the ability to sin, I believe we are born the same way. We are not born sinners, but we are born with the ability to sin. The moment we knowingly and willingly sin we become accountable and death passes upon us. This happens to all men.

Many of the early church fathers before Augustine believed just as I do.

 

[glfredrick]

...and of course you will be backing this charge with proof?

All I have to do is read posts and compare what people express as their beliefs with the various forms of Arminianism or Pelagianism.

There is no "proof" that a committed fundamentalist will accept anyway. They are right by definition. Note that I am not calling ANYONE in particular a committed fundamentalist. I'll leave that up to each individual to define for themselves.

Time to inject another tool into the board. This is primarily what I use to discern the theological position of posters who make comments in any one direction.

To some of you, this may be new information, to others, you studied it long ago, but sort of forgot that this exists. At least I've not seen it raised during one of these discussions since I joined the board.

 

[Winman]

All I have to do is read posts and compare what people express as their beliefs with the various forms of Arminianism or Pelagianism.

There is no "proof" that a committed fundamentalist will accept anyway. They are right by definition. Note that I am not calling ANYONE in particular a committed fundamentalist. I'll leave that up to each individual to define for themselves.

Time to inject another tool into the board. This is primarily what I use to discern the theological position of posters who make comments in any one direction.

To some of you, this may be new information, to others, you studied it long ago, but sort of forgot that this exists. At least I've not seen it raised during one of these discussions since I joined the board.

You should be a politician. Webdog asked that you provide proof. You said all sorts of things, but provided not one iota of evidence.

 

[glfredrick]

Anyway, here are the "Order of God's Decrees" as commonly held.

Supralapsarian (Hyper-Calvinism)

• To elect some to eternal life and the rest to eternal separation
• To permit the fall of man
• The atonement of Christ - where satisfaction is made for the elect thus securing their redemption
• The gift of the Holy Spirit to regenerate and sanctify the redeemed

Supralapsarianism puts God's decree to elect some to eternal life prior to His decree to permit the Fall. This view is usually associated with High Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism, a variation places the decree to elect prior even to the decree to create man.

The question raised between the Supra- and Infra-lapsarian views boils down to this: Does God discriminate between men in order to save some, or does He save some in order to discriminate between men?

While there have been logical arguments articulated for the Supra-views, opponents contend there is little scriptural support. Therefore, election should be viewed as logically subsequent to the Fall. See also John 15:19 and Romans 11:5–7. Scripture also declares that the elect are chosen unto sanctification and to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. They must therefore have been regarded as guilty and defiled by sin when they were chosen. See 1 Pet. 1:2, and Eph. 1:4–6.​

Infralapsarian (sublapsarian)

• To permit the fall of man
• To elect some to eternal life, leaving the rest to their just deserts
• The atonement of Christ - where satisfaction is made for the elect thus securing their redemption
• The gift of the Holy Spirit to regenerate and sanctify the redeemed

Infralapsarianism recognizes that election has to do specifically with salvation. It maintains that the principle of particularism, in the sense of distinguishing grace, belongs to the sphere of God's plan of redemption. Therefore, Infralapsarians place election at the head of those decrees that look to salvation and subsequent to the decrees of creation and the Fall. In the order of thought, election falls subsequent to the decrees of creation and the Fall because these refer to all men alike, since all men are certainly created and all men have certainly fallen. Likewise, election falls prior to the decrees of redemption and its application because it is just as certain that all men are not redeemed and all men are not saved.

The Infralapsarian view is that of historic Calvinism (the heart of Reformed Theology). According to Warfield, this is the only view that is self consistent and consistent with the facts of Scripture.

John Calvin said in the final edition of the his Institutes, "No one who wishes to be thought religious dares simply deny predestination, by which God adopts some to hope of life, and sentences others to eternal death. But our opponents, especially those who make foreknowledge its cause, envelop it in numerous petty objections. We indeed, place both doctrines in God, but we say that subjecting one to the other is absurd." Institutes III.21.5 (Translation Battles & McNeill)​

Amyraldian

• To permit the fall of man
• The atonement of Christ - where all men are made savable, with salvation conditioned on individual faith.
• To elect some to receive moral ability and the necessary grace to believe
• The gift of the Holy Spirit to sanctify believers

Amyraldism developed historically following the Synod of Dort as a compromise between Calvinism and the early Arminianism by giving up what was perceived as some of the harshness of Calvinism. The Amyraldian view is associated with Calvinism because it retains a particularistic element by acknowledging God's distinguishing grace in the election of individuals.

The logic the of Amyraldians, however, places divine election after the decree to provide an atonement. This makes the atonement universal in nature and the application of the atonement particular in nature through divine election. This view is sometimes referred to as Four-Point Calvinism since it gives up the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement in favor of a universal atonement. Although Amyraldianism may be a recognizable form of Calvinism because it retains the principle of particularism in election, it is not necessarily a good form of Calvinism as it turns away from a substitutionary atonement, which is as precious to the Calvinist as his particularism,"

This view maintains that Christ died for all men alike, making all men savable, with actual salvation conditioned on individual faith. Then God, seeing that no one would respond because of their depravity, chose (or elected) some to receive the grace to believe. Some see this as inconsistent, for how is it possible to contend that God gave His Son to die for all men alike and equally, and at the same time to declare that when He gave His Son to die, He already fully intended that His death should not avail for all men equally, but only for some which He would select.

The primary characteristic of the Amyraldian scheme is the placement of election after the atonement. However, opponents contend that Scripture indicates Christ came in order to execute the purpose of election. He came to die for and give eternal life to as many as the Father had given Him. See John 10:15 and 17:2, 9. If this point is true, then the decree to elect some of mankind should necessarily precede the decree to provide an atonement. The Amyraldian scheme assumes the reverse to be true.​

Arminian

• To permit the fall of man
• The atonement of Christ - where satisfaction is made for all men and all are given sufficient grace to believe, if they will
• To predestine to eternal life those whom He foresaw would believe of their own free will
• Sanctification of all who cooperate with the sufficient grace

Biblical Christianity was revived in the 16th century Protestant Reformation. However, it didn't take long after the Reformation for some of the same theological issues that Augustine faced to resurface, e.g. the sovereign grace of God versus the free will of man. This is not surprising since variations of free will Semi-Pelagianism had become the accepted position of both the Eastern and Roman churches.

At the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619, the Reformed churches of the day officially condemned what was perceived as the revived Semi-Pelagianism of the Dutch Remonstrants in favor of a strict Calvinistic position as expressed in the Belgic and Helvetic Confessions. Although officially rejected, this view continued to exist and grow in the Protestant churches under the name of Arminianism from Jacob Arminius, 1560–1609.

Arminianism sees itself as a fundamental improvement over the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views in that it is supernaturalistic, attributing the primary work of salvation to God at all points. However, it maintains that by virtue of God's universal prevenient grace all men have a free will and the ability to savingly respond to God. It also maintains that predestination is based on God's divine foreknowledge, where foreknowledge is erroneously equated with foresight.

Arminianism is "universalistic" since in its view God does no more for any man than He does for all. This reduces to the point where the deciding factor in salvation is in man himself, which thus approaches Semi-Pelagianism where man saves himself with God's help. Reformed theologians therefore see a rather gray line that distinguishes Arminianism from Semi-Pelagianism.​

Semi-Pelagian

• To permit the fall of man - physical and moral deterioration
• The atonement of Christ - to make possible the gift of sufficient grace and give this grace to all
• Salvation of all who freely cooperate with this grace
• Sanctification by cooperation with God's grace

Semi-Pelagianism is only a mild improvement over blatant Pelagianism. According to this view, man is not by nature totally depraved, but does suffer a physical and moral deterioration resulting from the Fall. In this view, man has retained his natural free will and the ability to improve on the grace God has provided to all.

Like Pelagianism before it, Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529 in favor of a moderate Augustinian view. Even though the sovereignty of God's grace in salvation was upheld by Augustinianism to this point, compromises made at the Synod of Orange left an incipient semi-Pelagianism which was eventually revived and accepted by the church at large during the middle ages.​

Pelagian

• Gift of free will whereby each may do all that is required of him
• Gift of the law and gospel to illuminate the way and persuade men to walk in it.
• Gift of Christ to (expiate past sin and) set a good example
• Acceptance of all who walk in the right way

This view is basically a naturalistic view of salvation as opposed to a supernaturalistic view. The primary issue between the naturalist and the supernaturalist may be summed up in one question: Does man save himself or does God save him? In its purity, Pelagianism affirms that all the power exerted in saving man is native to man himself. It is basically a salvation by works mentality that continues to show up in various forms today.

Pelagianism denies that human nature has been corrupted by sin, and hence maintains that every infant comes into the world in the same condition as Adam before the Fall. Man thus has a free will and the ability to justify himself before God. St. Augustine was successful in having Pelagianism condemned by the church at the council of Ephesus in the year 431.​

 

[glfredrick]

You should be a politician. Webdog asked that you provide proof. You said all sorts of things, but provided not one iota of evidence.

See the next post... then start figuring out where people fall on the scale. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[glfredrick]

The "ordo salutas" or Order of Salvation.

Of these component parts that equal what we typlcally call "salvation" which are done by God alone and which do we humans participate with God in the action.

Understanding this SHOULD eliminate theological battles over issues such as "we are saved by coming to God by our will" or "we are saved by God's actions whether we like it or not." But, of course, I doubt that we'll reconcile anyone, for everyone has too much invested in their theology to back down, even if wrong (and I'm talking both sides!).

The "order" we can debate, but that these tennets exist we cannot. They are biblical.

Foreknowledge: God's knowing (in this sense) prior to salvation those who would be saved.
Predestination: God's choosing before time all who would be saved.
Election: God's choosing of all who would be saved.
Regeneration: God's renewing of one's life (not physically - but as opposed to the spiritual death caused by sin).
Evangelism: The communication of the Gospel by which one can be saved.
Faith: Belief and trust in the message of the Gospel.
Conversion: One's turning to God based on the Gospel.
Adpoption: God's making us one of His royal family
Perseverance: One's continued true belief - remaining in the state of salvation.
Repentance: One's turning from sin to God.
Justification: God's freeing of one from the penalty of sin - the pronouncement of "not guilty" on a sinner.
Sanctification: God's separation of one from the lure of sin.
Glorification: God's final removal of all sin from the life and presence of one (in the eternal state).

 

[Robert Snow]

I think it's really pretty simple.

A lost person, dead in their sins, is exposed to the Gospel of Christ. The Spirit of God takes the written Word of God and applies the Gospel message about the Word made flesh to the lost sinner. This person who has been illuminated by the Spirit then either accepts God's offer of salvation or rejects it.

I realize this simple Gospel has no need for all man-made definitions and theological words we have developed over the past 2000 years to explain it, but remember the Gospel is simple enough so that Jesus Himself says to suffer the little children to come to him.

If we are not careful we educate ourselves right out of believing the simple message of God's wonderful grace.

 

[psalms109:31]

We all believe

Predestination: God's choosing before time all who would be saved.

This where it all fall apart. It is easy to see that He predestined those who trust in His Son to salvation.

When He tells you are predestined, He is talking to believers.

We all know from the beginning it was the Jews, but those who been cut out was cut out for unbelief not for not being chosen. Then He tells us the one's who He will keep the meek and humble, who trust in the name of the Lord. Then He tells us that He will also include those who have heard the Gospel of their salvation having believed with those who was chosen before the foundation of the world. Those who are there from the beginning that was cut out, can be grafted back by simply not continuing in their unbelief.

Deuteronomy 7:6
For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Zephaniah 3:12
But I will leave within you the meek and humble. The remnant of Israel will trust in the name of the LORD.

Romans 11
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!


Hebrews 3
Warning Against Unbelief
7 So, as the Holy Spirit says:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors tested and tried me,
though for forty years they saw what I did.
10 That is why I was angry with that generation;
I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.’
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ”[Psalm 95:7-11]

12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end. 15 As has just been said:

“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion.”[Psalm 95:7,8]

16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies perished in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

Jude 1:
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[Some early manuscripts Jesus
] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,