Once Saved - Always Avoiding being Lost

[preacher4truth]

Take note that not one of these guys have tried to respond to either thread on John 6:36-40 or John 6:38-39

I disagree. Thomas Helwys has made a feeble attempt.

Nonetheless Jesus' words trump theirs -- He will lose none.

 

[The Biblicist]

I disagree. Thomas Helwys has made a feeble attempt.

Nonetheless Jesus' words trump theirs -- He will lose none.

I just checked both threads once again and no one has responded. Thomas Helwy made no posts on either thread. Check it yourself if you doubt.

1. John 6:36-40 thread
2. John 6:38-39 thread

 

[steaver]

How do we know that they are in the process of being removed from grace as a theological position unto works rather than being removed from the state of grace or the experience of grace (power) unto a lost condition? Those who deny eternal security argue that the Galatians are in danger of losing their state or experience of grace and thus in the process of becoming lost.
First, we know this because the words “ANOTHER gospel” are placed in direct contrast to the words “the grace of Christ” (v. 7). This infers that the phrase “the grace of Christ” is definitive of the true gospel because it is in contrast to the words “another gospel.” Why choose this particular phrase “the grace of Christ” to represent the true gospel? He is defining the true gospel by its primary theological truth – “grace.” It should be obvious that the words “another gospel” do not refer to a state or an experience but rather to the primary expression of theological error. That error is the addition of “justification by works” to the gospel of Christ. Therefore the phrase “the grace of Christ” is intended to express the primary theological truth of the gospel and thus later Paul repeatedly refers to it as “the truth” of the gospel.

To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (Gal 2:5)

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Gal 2:14)

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? (Gal 3:1)

Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? (Gal 5:7)


Second, we know this because in the Greek text, the word translated “grace” is found in what grammarians call the anarthous construct. This simply means that it is without the definite article (what we know in English as the word “the”). Dana and Mantey make this comment upon such a construction in the Greek Grammar:

“Sometimes with a noun which the context proves to be definite the article is not used. This places stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun rather than its mere identity.” - A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 149

Paul’s grammatical intent is to emphasize the THEOLOGICAL truth of grace as the chief characteristic of His gospel.

Throughout this epistle it is this “truth” of the gospel that is being contrasted to the chief characteristic of the false gospel – works.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal. 2:16)

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Gal 3:2)

He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Gal 3:5)

Third, we know this because when Paul identifies the very point of their departure he chooses these words - “ye have fallen FROM GRACE.” One cannot fall from “undeserved favor” as that is an oxymoron (grace can never be deserved and to fall would only qualify you for “grace”).

Fourth, we know this because when Paul considers the very error that some were persuading them to add to the gospel, he says, “I do not frustrate the grace of God” (Gal. 1:21). It was their theological error of justification by works that frustrated the truth of justification by grace.

Fifth, another reason that we know this was a theological issue rather than experiential is because Paul pinpoints the exact means responsible for their fall or departure from grace. It was in the area of verbal communication that promoted their fall from grace:

“....PREACH any other gospel...than that which we have PREACHED...If any man PREACH....than that ye have RECEIVED.....the gospel which was PREACHED of me...For I neither RECEIVED it....neither was I TAUGHT it....that I might PREACH...” - Gal. 1:8,9,11,12,16

“This PERSUASION cometh not of him that calleth you” (Gal. 5:8).

“Who hath bewitched you.....” - Gal. 3:1

Very well expounded :thumbsup:

What you presented here is solid, I don't see how it can be refuted, I don't expect it to be refuted. It makes me wonder, do Christians come here to learn the truth, to test the doctrines we embrace? Or are some here just to argue for the sake of arguing? I'm not saying the insecurity camp needs to just fold and convert to the security camp, but when a particular passage is proven to NOT support forfeiting salvation in any way shape or form, why not cross it off the ammunition list and move on to the next one? Will they even study the exposition you presented and consider it? Or will they just wait til the next thread and slap it on the board once again as proof one can forfeit their salvation? Come on Christians! Don't we want the Truth? :BangHead: STUDY to show thyself approved!!!!!!!!!! ...for Paul's sake :tongue3:

 

[The Biblicist]

Very well expounded :thumbsup:

What you presented here is solid, I don't see how it can be refuted, I don't expect it to be refuted. It makes me wonder, do Christians come here to learn the truth, to test the doctrines we embrace? Or are some here just to argue for the sake of arguing? I'm not saying the insecurity camp needs to just fold and convert to the security camp, but when a particular passage is proven to NOT support forfeiting salvation in any way shape or form, why not cross it off the ammunition list and move on to the next one? Will they even study the exposition you presented and consider it? Or will they just wait til the next thread and slap it on the board once again as proof one can forfeit their salvation? Come on Christians! Don't we want the Truth? :BangHead: STUDY to show thyself approved!!!!!!!!!! ...for Paul's sake :tongue3:

Here is the problem! Jesus identified the problem when he said, "he that hath ears to hear let him ear" - obviously one must have ears to hear or they can't hear no matter how clear you spell something out.

 

[BobRyan]

I am going to do that same thing again --- only this time comparing OSAS to Romans 11. Where we find that the saved "stand only by their faith" and must "FEAR for if HE did not spare them - neither will he spare you".

Later I will do it "again" - only then I will compare OSAS to Gal 5:4 where we find it that the saved had indeed "Fallen from Grace" and "been severed from Christ" -- no longer saved.

Just when the OSAS Calvinist POV would wrench this around to saying "oh no - this is just a bible warning to the LOST against the big danger of becoming lostER - it is not a warning to those who are under grace and in fellowship with Christ" - the Bible flatly contradicts OSAS.

So the question for those clinging to OSAS no matter what the Bible says to the contrary - why do it?

Your assertions about Romans 11 and Galatians 5:4 are contextually unsubstantiated.

Romans 11 has no bearing on INDIVIDUAL salvation but rather with ethnic sources in which God obtains His elect. Galatians 5:4 refers to falling away from doctrine of "grace" through deception teaching (Gal. 3:1).

I notice you post this in response to Matt 18 - where you completely avoid the teaching of Christ altogether. OSAS does NOT survive Matt 18.

It also does not survive Romans 11.

Romans 11

19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

(Paul is speaking to the individual - and no credible Christian source today claims that ALL gentiles are saved and that ALL Jews are lost... the point remains. Hint - many gentiles are atheists and pagans)


20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again

Paul admits that HE is one of the saved Jews - as are the Apostles.

OSAS does not survive Romans 11.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I notice you post this in response to Matt 18 - where you completely avoid the teaching of Christ altogether. OSAS does NOT survive Matt 18.

It also does not survive Romans 11.

Romans 11

19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

(Paul is speaking to the individual - and no credible Christian source today claims that ALL gentiles are saved and that ALL Jews are lost... the point remains. Hint - many gentiles are atheists and pagans)


20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again

Paul admits that HE is one of the saved Jews - as are the Apostles.

OSAS does not survive Romans 11.

in Christ,

Bob
[/SIZE]

Thanks, Bob.

And since OSAS was not invented until Calvin, it does not survive the test of scripture or the early church or 1500 years of church history.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

William Whitsitt's theory has been totally discredited by John T. Christian altogether ("Did they Dip" etc.).

Apparently you deny the testimony of both Hensard Knollys and William Kiffin concerning their own eye witness testimonies.

Your view of history is false and a product of pedobaptist historians who have a long track record of malicious historical perversions.

John Christian is in no position to discredit anyone, as his theories are wild fantasies based on nothing factual. He is a fringe nutcase, and Landmarkism is a fringe nutcase theology.

My history comes from scholarly, credible Baptist historians.

I am not opposed to the idea that churches with baptistic doctrine have existed from the beginning, but Landmarkism has absolutely zero historical factual basis. It is a ridiculously false system.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Do you even know the essence of Landmarkism? William Cathcart in his Baptist Encyclopedia under "Landmarkism" provides the readers with the essence of that view. Have you ever read it? I will defend that definition anytime anywhere against anyone as it is the historical position of Baptist from their earliest roots.

Yes, of course I know what Landmarkism is. And it is a discredited position with no historical factual basis. I shouldn't even be having a discussion with a Landmarkist as it is an extremist, lunatic fringe movement having no more factual basis than Roman Catholicism.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Yet Jesus says He will lose none, John 6:39 - yet you say a Christian can thwart this and forfeit salvation.

I wonder who is correct, Christ or you?

And yet you conveniently left out the part where Jesus says "that of all He (God) has given me I lose nothing..." And those God gives Jesus are the ones who stay loyal and keep believing to the end.

I wonder who is correct: God and Christ, or you, Calvin, and your deterministic, fatalistic cohorts.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Take note that not one of these guys have tried to respond to either thread on John 6:36-40 or John 6:38-39

Take note that I have responded several times. Are you into selective reading, or just selective lying?

 

[The Biblicist]

John Christian is in no position to discredit anyone, as his theories are wild fantasies based on nothing factual. He is a fringe nutcase, and Landmarkism is a fringe nutcase theology.

My history comes from scholarly, credible Baptist historians.

I am not opposed to the idea that churches with baptistic doctrine have existed from the beginning, but Landmarkism has absolutely zero historical factual basis. It is a ridiculously false system.

What do you mean "his theories"? Have you read his history? John T. Christian did more historical research into original documents than any other historian previous to his day.

Later Baptist historians adopted the Whitsit theory which is historically rediculous and inaccurate.

In seminary I studied both TYPES of Baptist history. I studied your kind of Baptist historians whose pro-catholic and universal bias dominated their selective sources and research. Please do not respond that your kind of Baptist historians did not operate from certain presuppositions as that is simply a lie.

I have done countless hours of personal research into the Bodleian Library in regard to English Baptist history or more properly English "Anabaptist" history as they were called "Anabaptists" up to 1660 by their opponents.

Neither the separtist or reformation origin theories are valid but that is the wild imagination originating from pedobaptist sources embraced by Baptists who simply did not do their research properly because of certain presuppositional biases.

 

[The Biblicist]

I notice you post this in response to Matt 18 - where you completely avoid the teaching of Christ altogether. OSAS does NOT survive Matt 18.

It also does not survive Romans 11.

Romans 11

19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

(Paul is speaking to the individual - and no credible Christian source today claims that ALL gentiles are saved and that ALL Jews are lost... the point remains. Hint - many gentiles are atheists and pagans)


20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again

Paul admits that HE is one of the saved Jews - as are the Apostles.

OSAS does not survive Romans 11.

in Christ,

Bob
[/SIZE]

All false doctrine is built upon improper exegesis, ignoring context or parables. The same is true of Matthew 18:


Matt 18

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

The master did the same thing to this evil servant as the evil servant did to his debtors. The evil servant cannot cast anyone into hell and so the the casting into prison "till" all he owed is paid does not and cannot represent eternal hell but only temporal misery and exacting.

Second, this servant was delivered to tormentors "TILL" his debt was paid in fulll ias was the servant of the evil servant and that never happens in hell. Hell is "eternal" and expressed in UNENDING terminology ("day and night forever and forever" etc.) - [O that is right you belong to a cult that does not believe in the Biblical kind of hell where suffering is eternal, so your cultish kind of hell is a place where debts can be paid in full].

Third, It is the Heavenly Father that is said to be the One that delivers people to this kind of punishment and yet the Heavenly Father is not in charge of eternal punishment but has given all power to the Son in regard to eternal punishment and so it is not eternal punishment in view but temporal punishment just as it must be temporal punishment administered by the evil servant to those who owed him.

Fourth, this is not a parable given to teach about salvation and eternal events.

Fifth, this servant is called "evil" and characterized as "evil" from the time his debt was forgiven till he was cast in prison. Saved people are called "righteous" "saints" "saved" etc.

Finally, the point of this parable is not about being saved and lost again but about reaping exactly what we sow here and now. He sent his servant to prison and so the Master sends this evil servant to prison. We can't send people to hell for the debts they owe us but we can make their life here and now miserable and exacting and God can make us equally miserable and exacting here and now.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

What do you mean "his theories"? Have you read his history? John T. Christian did more historical research into original documents than any other historian previous to his day.

Later Baptist historians adopted the Whitsit theory which is historically rediculous and inaccurate.

In seminary I studied both TYPES of Baptist history. I studied your kind of Baptist historians whose pro-catholic and universal bias dominated their selective sources and research. Please do not respond that your kind of Baptist historians did not operate from certain presuppositions as that is simply a lie.

I have done countless hours of personal research into the Bodleian Library in regard to English Baptist history or more properly English "Anabaptist" history as they were called "Anabaptists" up to 1660 by their opponents.

Neither the separtist or reformation origin theories are valid but that is the wild imagination originating from pedobaptist sources embraced by Baptists who simply did not do their research properly because of certain presuppositional biases.

I'll put my education up against yours anytime. Christian is discredited, and so is Landmarkism. It is the minority position of a bunch of fanatics. It has zero factual basis, just like the Romanist doctrines of their being the one true church and Peter as the first pope.

And I'll tell you that I hate all forms of fanaticism, whether Roman Catholic, paedobaptist Protestant, or Baptist.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'll put my education up against yours anytime. Christian is discredited, and so is Landmarkism. It is the minority position of a bunch of fanatics. It has zero factual basis, just like the Romanist doctrines of their being the one true church and Peter as the first pope.

You don't know my educational credentials and the Bible says it is a fool who attempts to answer a question before it is ever asked.

Second, look at your language of personal ridicule and attack and yet you have been complaining about being attacked by the very same way - that is pure hypocritical. Ridicule without substance is the calling card of Satan and his servants and you offer no substance to back your claims only ridicule, the very thing you have cried foul in regard to others.

Third, you apparently have a deficient education or a degree from a deficient educational facility as you are echoing the language of those who have studied under tutors with the very biases I referred to.

 

[evangelist-7]

Wesleyan Arminians believe a still believing Christian can lose their salvation
by the long time resistance to the Holy Spirit conviction for known sins.

Whoever they are exactly ... they are correct on their opinion here.
Because this is exactly what the NT teaches through
its' many WARNINGS and THREATS to the churches.
.

 

[evangelist-7]

... having no more factual basis than Roman Catholicism.

I would say that NO denomination has all the truth!

The RCC is super strong on the Trinity, and it is against abortion and OSAS.
Vich is much more that most Protestant denoms ...
so, I'm not quite against the RCC/EOC as I once was.

Just as NO prophet today has all the truth.
Jesus told one of them that each has a slice of the pie,
and they need to get together and put the pie together!
Notice that this unity is greatly emphasized in 1 Cor 12.

Yes, if all of the parts of true Christianity got together, a stronger Truth would result.
However, "the god of this world" wouldn't allow that to happen.
He's been successful for 2000 years now ... and counting.
His next Master Stroke ... the antichrist.
.

 

[The Biblicist]

I would say that NO denomination has all the truth!

The RCC is super strong on the Trinity, and it is against abortion and OSAS.
Vich is much more that most Protestant denoms ...
so, I'm not quite against the RCC/EOC as I once was.

Just as NO prophet today has all the truth.
Jesus told one of them that each has a slice of the pie,
and they need to get together and put the pie together!
Notice that this unity is greatly emphasized in 1 Cor 12.

Yes, if all of the parts of true Christianity got together, a stronger Truth would result.
However, "the god of this world" wouldn't allow that to happen.
He's been successful for 2000 years now ... and counting.
His next Master Stroke ... the antichrist.
.

You are all in the same basket teaching "another gospel" - Gal. 1:8-9 so other differences are minor in comparison to that flawed position. The gospel is about what Christ did for sinners not about what sinners do for Christ. Pretty simple, but too difficult for such denominations to grasp. It is a difference of cause and consequences. The position of these false denominations is that they theologically take what belongs to consequences and make it causual. That is the bottom line difference between the gospel of Christ and "another gospel."

 

[evangelist-7]

And yet you conveniently left out the part where Jesus says
"that of all He (God) has given me I lose nothing..."
And those God gives Jesus are the ones who stay loyal and keep believing to the end.

Yes, but who are these?
IMO, these are the elect of Romans 8:28-30.

When Jesus says "of all He (God) has given me I lose nothing..."
He does NOT say that these "all" are ALL of the born-again ones!

2 groups of BACs: elect BACs, and the others who don't make it.
.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, but who are these?
IMO, these are the elect of Romans 8:28-30.

When Jesus says "of all He (God) has given me I lose nothing...",
He does NOT say that these are ALL of the born-again ones!
.

Read the context. He is contrasting unbelievers in John 6:36 with true believers in John 6:37-40. Are you saying that true beleivers are not born again Christians???? furthermore , All that are given by the Father to Christ come to Christ, and "of them" all "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING."

 

[Thomas Helwys]

You don't know my educational credentials and the Bible says it is a fool who attempts to answer a question before it is ever asked.

Second, look at your language of personal ridicule and attack and yet you have been complaining about being attacked by the very same way - that is pure hypocritical. Ridicule without substance is the calling card of Satan and his servants and you offer no substance to back your claims only ridicule, the very thing you have cried foul in regard to others.

Third, you apparently have a deficient education or a degree from a deficient educational facility as you are echoing the language of those who have studied under tutors with the very biases I referred to.

So, now you call me a fool. You know what the Bible says about that.

Whatever I have said, I said in response to you. You started it, you initiated it. I did not. But I'll only take so much.

And since you don't know MY educational credentials, your first paragraph applies to you, doesn't it?

[personal attack edited]