Once Saved, Always Saved

[Silverhair]

That is not what I said. There is no way it can be the responsibility of God to whether the person accepts or rejects Him.

You're getting it all mixed up, Silverhair.

The Holy Spirit presents Christ in living color and the choice is left to the hearer.

I agree that God is not responsible for whether a person will or will not believe. The person has a God given free will with which to make that choice.

What I said was that the logical outcome of what you have said "The point is that the Holy Spirit must be involved to convict by whatever means available with the Word." is that would then make God responsible for whether they believe or not..

When you say the Holy Spirit "must" convict the person then you take free will out of the the situation. If the Holy Spirit does not convict to the point of faith, according to what you said, then there is no way for the person to come to that point of faith leading to salvation.

That would then make God the deciding factor would it not? Conviction onto faith, salvation. No conviction unto faith, no salvation.

Your last comment is true and I understand that that was what you intended to say but it is not what you actually said.

 

[Charlie24]

I agree that God is not responsible for whether a person will or will not believe. The person has a God given free will with which to make that choice.

What I said was that the logical outcome of what you have said "The point is that the Holy Spirit must be involved to convict by whatever means available with the Word." is that would then make God responsible for whether they believe or not..

When you say the Holy Spirit "must" convict the person then you take free will out of the the situation. If the Holy Spirit does not convict to the point of faith, according to what you said, then there is no way for the person to come to that point of faith leading to salvation.

That would then make God the deciding factor would it not? Conviction onto faith, salvation. No conviction unto faith, no salvation.

Your last comment is true and I understand that that was what you intended to say but it is not what you actually said.

You're over thinking this my friend. The hearer is responsible, obviously.

It sounds as though you don't believe man is totally depraved, and that the calling of the Holy Spirit is NOT a must to be saved.

If that's the case, then we are worlds apart in understanding God's salvation.

 

[Charlie24]

You're over thinking this my friend. The hearer is responsible, obviously.

It sounds as though you don't believe man is totally depraved, and that the calling of the Holy Spirit is NOT a must to be saved.

If that's the case, then we are worlds apart in understanding God's salvation.

Silverhair, take your time reading this and tell me what it means to you.

Rom. 10:13-17

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

 

[Silverhair]

You're over thinking this my friend. The hearer is responsible, obviously.

It sounds as though you don't believe man is totally depraved, and that the calling of the Holy Spirit is NOT a must to be saved.

If that's the case, then we are worlds apart in understanding God's salvation.

Yes the hearer is responsible and man is depraved but that does not mean total inability as it seem you think it does.

When you add in "the Holy Spirit is a must to be saved" then you remove the free will. The Holy Spirit indwells those that are saved. We are saved by the grace of God and then we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit what you mean by "the Holy Spirit is a must to be saved"? If it is then I agree with you but if you think the Holy Spirit causes one to believe or is necessary to enable someone to believe then I disagree. Man has the God given ability to hear and respond to the gospel or to the other means that God will use to draw people to Himself even using the Holy Spirit's conviction of sin. While God can and does influence man in various ways He does not determine what that person will believe.

Since God calls all people to come to Him through various means then it seems you have a limited understanding God's salvation.

 

[Charlie24]

Yes the hearer is responsible and man is depraved but that does not mean total inability as it seem you think it does.

When you add in "the Holy Spirit is a must to be saved" then you remove the free will. The Holy Spirit indwells those that are saved. We are saved by the grace of God and then we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit what you mean by "the Holy Spirit is a must to be saved"? If it is then I agree with you but if you think the Holy Spirit causes one to believe or is necessary to enable someone to believe then I disagree. Man has the God given ability to hear and respond to the gospel or to the other means that God will use to draw people to Himself even using the Holy Spirit's conviction of sin. While God can and does influence man in various ways He does not determine what that person will believe.

Since God calls all people to come to Him through various means then it seems you have a limited understanding God's salvation.

I don't know what else to say. Isaiah and Paul said "there is none that seek after God" but according to you that's not true. So they must be mistaken.

You say that "God calls all people to come to him through various means," The Scripture says, "no man comes to Me except the Father draws him." So the Scripture must be wrong again!

So I'm learning here that I can't trust the Scripture, it's all wrong. Everything I've been taught all these years on trusting God's Word has been a lie.

I'm going back to the book store tomorrow and turn in my Bible and get my money back. Gonna leave that lying Church too!

 

[Silverhair]

I don't know what else to say. Isaiah and Paul said "there is none that seek after God" but according to you that's not true. So they must be mistaken.

What I have noticed is that some people that claim to trust scripture only trust what they want to trust when it fits their theology. Paul in speaking to the Jews told them that no one seeks God all the time.
"who seeks after G1567 (G5723)" NKJV+ TVM The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. The action is Progressive (Continuous)
He was not saying that no one seeks God, as that would contradict both the OT & NT.

Isa 55:6 Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near.
Rab. David Kimchi gives the true sense of this passage: “Seek ye the Lord, because he may be found: call upon him, because he is near. Repent before ye die, for after death there is no conversion of the soul.” Clarke

Paul writing in Acts
Act 17:26 "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
Act 17:27 "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

You say that "God calls all people to come to him through various means," The Scripture says, "no man comes to Me except the Father draws him." So the Scripture must be wrong again!

Do you not know to call someone is to invite that person and when God draws someone it is not by physical force is it. It is an invitation to come to Him.

WordStudy Dictionary
In this section we will be looking at the word “draw” G1670 as it is used in this context. “The Complete Word Study Series” by Zodhiates.
Draw G1670
"To draw toward without necessarily the notion of force as in súrō (G4951). ... Helkúō is used by Jesus of the drawing of souls unto Him (Joh_6:44; Joh_12:32, to draw or induce to come)."

So I'm learning here that I can't trust the Scripture, it's all wrong. Everything I've been taught all these years on trusting God's Word has been a lie.

I'm going back to the book store tomorrow and turn in my Bible and get my money back. Gonna leave that lying Church too!

Actually you should trust scripture but not the odd understanding that teachers teachers have placed on it.

God desires that all come to Him and He uses various means to draw/call them to Himself.

The over the top comments just show that you really do not have a response to what I have posted. I have shown you what the bible is teaching now it is up to you whether you will trust scripture or trust some man has told you..

 

[Silverhair]

Silverhair, take your time reading this and tell me what it means to you.

Rom. 10:13-17

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Just what it says. We are to preach the gospel message. But why would you think that hinders God in reaching out to mankind in whatever means He chooses to do?

As the bible says Rom 10:13 ..."whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

God has told us He uses creation and the conviction of sin to reach people so does Rom 10:13-17 negate what God can do?

 

[Van]

No, these are not false claims but what is plainly stated in the verses I cited. SNIP

Those whom God draws are drawn by hearing and learning of Christ (vs. 45) and believing what they've learned (vs. 47). Paul says essentially the same in Romans 10:9-14 and 2 Timothy 1:12b. How is any of this a "false claim"? You've asserted that it is but without showing that it is. SNIP

So, you've offered your own "version" of John 16:8 and I've simply quoted it above, demonstrating that the verse says exactly what I said that it did. Where's the "false claim"? SNIP

Where did I write that one must "enter then believe"? Nowhere. SNIP

I'm not a Calvinist. I'm pretty sure I've already plainly said so in this thread. Consequently, I'm not going to defend Calvinist doctrine which I've not put forward. In any case, the passage in John 3 doesn't "fully support your sequence"; it can't, since Jesus isn't explaining your sequence to Nicodemus but the centrality of the Holy Spirit to spiritual regeneration.

1) Denial, I plainly stated what John 6:44, John 16:8 and 2 Timothy 2:25 say.

​

God draws, attracts the lost with the lovingkindness shown by Christ high and lifted up.​

The Paraclete, or Helper, when He came, inspired Christ's disciples, with verbal and written testimony, to convict the world, fallen humanity, regarding sin, righteousness and judgment. 2 Timothy 2:25 teaches God must allow (grant) repentance rather than hardening the heart or the opposite of the claim.​

​

2) Your statement concerning John 6:44 is in agreement with my statement. The false claim is that the lost need supernatural enablement to understand and believe.​

​

3) John 16:8 NASB​

“And He, when He comes, will convict the world regarding sin, and righteousness, and judgment:​

​

My statement: The Paraclete, or Helper, when He came, inspired Christ's disciples, with verbal and written testimony, to convict the world, fallen humanity, regarding sin, righteousness and judgment.​

​

4) The usage of "see" in John 3:3 is to "experience" something, such as I have an appointment to "see" my doctor. The usage has nothing to do with being aware of the kingdom of God, the false claim of Calvinism. John 3:3-8 fully supports the sequence I provided. Note I did not say the false claim was stated by the poster, or that the poster was a Calvinist.​

​

5) As always, when a poster says they are not a Calvinist, I ask which of the 5 points of the TULIP do they believe are false. Will we get an answer?​

​

6) John 3 fully supports the sequence given. A lost person must be born anew before they are indwelt.​

​

Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God,​

who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.​

​

Thus we were "established" in Christ before we were sealed in Christ with the Paraclete. And what "establishes" us in Christ? The washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ, arising in Christ as a new creature?​

 

[Van]

So a person can have faith in Christ but it’s not a guarantee that they are going to be saved? I’ve never heard a Baptist present the Gospel that way before.

Sir, what I say is irrelevant. What matters is what does scripture teach! Read Matthew 13 and ask yourself, did soils #2 and 3 express faith? Were they saved? Read Matthew 7 and ask did those told to depart from Me express faith? Ask yourself, did the "many disciples" who followed Jesus, John 6:60, and had expressed faith really believe, John 6:64. Only those whose faith God credits are righteousness are credited with "believing in Him." The church has many "tares."

 

[Van]

So in 3:1, he is not saying that they are unbelievers or that they are literally "Babes in Christ" but that they are acting like such in one particular matter. SNIP

Therefore, 1 Cor. 3:1 is addressed to Christians, and has nothing whatever to do with the fact that 'The natural man does not receive the things of the Sprit of God' (1 Cor. 2:14).

Once again the poster says 1 Corinthians 3:1 did not say the Corinthians were "untaught." Or that Paul spoke to men of flesh using spiritual milk.

The natural man does not receive spiritual solid food, which are "things of the Spirit of God" but to claim the statement refers to all the things of the Spirit of God is simply adding to scripture and ignoring the contextual meaning, given in 1 Corinthians 3:1:3.

 

[TheOneWhoLives]

Sir, what I say is irrelevant.

I’m starting to believe that is the case.

 

[Tenchi]

1) Denial, I plainly stated what John 6:44, John 16:8 and 2 Timothy 2:25 say.

So did I. What, then, is the basis for your saying my remarks were a "false claim"?

2) Your statement concerning John 6:44 is in agreement with my statement. The false claim is that the lost need supernatural enablement to understand and believe.

??? Do you think a lost person entirely apart from God's drawing, convicting and enabling their repentance can come to a saving faith in Christ? If you do, on what grounds? I read Ephesians 2:1-3, Titus 3:3, Colossians 1:21, etc. and cannot see how a lost person can come to trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord without God's aid.

4) The usage of "see" in John 3:3 is to "experience" something, such as I have an appointment to "see" my doctor. The usage has nothing to do with being aware of the kingdom of God, the false claim of Calvinism. John 3:3-8 fully supports the sequence I provided. Note I did not say the false claim was stated by the poster, or that the poster was a Calvinist.

John 3:3-7
3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

If I allow Jesus to explain himself, what he meant by "cannot see the kingdom of God" he clarifies in verse 5: cannot enter into the kingdom of God." How do you get "doesn't have an appointment with" from "cannot enter into" or "cannot see"?

Note I did not say the false claim was stated by the poster, or that the poster was a Calvinist.

It seemed to me to be clearly implied.

5) As always, when a poster says they are not a Calvinist, I ask which of the 5 points of the TULIP do they believe are false. Will we get an answer?

Do you want one? Putting things as you have here, your request sounds kind of manipulative.

If you want a better idea of what I believe along soteriological lines, it would Kenneth Keathley's ROSES explained in his primer on Molinism, "Salvation and Sovreignty: A Molinist Approach." Give it a read. I'm not a pure Molinist, though, being very much in agreement with Provisionism, also. (www.soteriology101.com)

6) John 3 fully supports the sequence given. A lost person must be born anew before they are indwelt.

No, being born again is accomplished by being indwelt. These two things are essentially simultaneous, though, in order of logical priority, being indwelt precedes being born anew, it seems to me.

Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God,who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.
Thus we were "established" in Christ before we were sealed in Christ with the Paraclete. And what "establishes" us in Christ? The washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ, arising in Christ as a new creature?

2 Corinthians 1:21-22
21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God,
22 who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

Where in this passage does Paul plainly articulate the sequence you described? Nowhere in it does he even imply that he is establishing an order of events. He simply enumerates what God has done for His children: establishes and anoints them in Christ (who is The Anointed One) and seals them with the "pledge" of the indwelling Holy Spirit. He didn't write, "Who establishes us and then anoints us and then seals us..."

I could say my wife went to the grocery store and brought home to me a box of cereal, milk and eggs. In doing so, I don't mean to indicate an order in which she found and purchased the groceries, or in which I received them. I'm just listing what she got. That's it. Likewise, Paul's description of the spiritual "groceries" given to all born-again people by God doesn't require that we think he's describing them in some specific, necessary order.

 

[JesusFan]

Sir, you are claiming God's word does not mean what it says. You are claiming only those who were saved were actually seeking God, that those seeking God by, say, works, were not actually seeking God. Fiddlesticks. The issue is some claim the lost never seek God, when God's word says many seek God. There is a huge difference between seek but do not find, and do not find so they never really sought. It is a rewrite Sir.

Lost sinners do not seek God by themselves, as they are at enmity with God, and delight in staying in sins and darkness rather then the Light of God. They are spiritually dead in their sin natures, and their only response to the Lord Jesus to save them is no way, not unless and until the working of the Holy Spirit to enable them to receive and trust in Jesus to save them from their sins

 

[JesusFan]

We do not need a "higher authority" we have God's word. I suppose you are aware of the many verses that teach the lost were seeking God.
Recall the rich young ruler, who was seeking eternal life, but was unwilling to fully commit to Christ by selling his possessions. He was unwilling to make Christ the overriding priority of his life, but he sought God's blessing, thus had some spiritual ability.

I could go on and list several verses where people sought God but were not saved, such as Romans 9:30-33. You probably were just rewrite all of them to support the false claim that none of the lost ever seek God.

You keep calling Peter, Paul, and Isaiah liars when you assert that lost sinners seek after God

 

[JesusFan]

I’m starting to believe that is the case.

Well, since he seems o hold to a god who is into Open Theism?

 

[JesusFan]

So did I. What, then, is the basis for your saying my remarks were a "false claim"?



??? Do you think a lost person entirely apart from God's drawing, convicting and enabling their repentance can come to a saving faith in Christ? If you do, on what grounds? I read Ephesians 2:1-3, Titus 3:3, Colossians 1:21, etc. and cannot see how a lost person can come to trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord without God's aid.



John 3:3-7
3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

If I allow Jesus to explain himself, what he meant by "cannot see the kingdom of God" he clarifies in verse 5: cannot enter into the kingdom of God." How do you get "doesn't have an appointment with" from "cannot enter into" or "cannot see"?



It seemed to me to be clearly implied.



Do you want one? Putting things as you have here, your request sounds kind of manipulative.

If you want a better idea of what I believe along soteriological lines, it would Kenneth Keathley's ROSES explained in his primer on Molinism, "Salvation and Sovreignty: A Molinist Approach." Give it a read. I'm not a pure Molinist, though, being very much in agreement with Provisionism, also. (www.soteriology101.com)



No, being born again is accomplished by being indwelt. These two things are essentially simultaneous, though, in order of logical priority, being indwelt precedes being born anew, it seems to me.



2 Corinthians 1:21-22
21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God,
22 who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

Where in this passage does Paul plainly articulate the sequence you described? Nowhere in it does he even imply that he is establishing an order of events. He simply enumerates what God has done for His children: establishes and anoints them in Christ (who is The Anointed One) and seals them with the "pledge" of the indwelling Holy Spirit. He didn't write, "Who establishes us and then anoints us and then seals us..."

I could say my wife went to the grocery store and brought home to me a box of cereal, milk and eggs. In doing so, I don't mean to indicate an order in which she found and purchased the groceries, or in which I received them. I'm just listing what she got. That's it. Likewise, Paul's description of the spiritual "groceries" given to all born-again people by God doesn't require that we think he's describing them in some specific, necessary order.

Just seems odd that someone is is spiritual deaf dumb and blind to the things of God can somehow will themselves to now being able to accept the bible and trust in Jesus, so in what way were they superior to their next door member who could not do the same?

 

[Tenchi]

Just seems odd that someone is is spiritual deaf dumb and blind to the things of God can somehow will themselves to now being able to accept the bible and trust in Jesus, so in what way were they superior to their next door member who could not do the same?

Well, I know plenty of unsaved guys who have stable marriages, successful careers and generally pleasant, affluent lives. I also know unsaved guys of the same age, in the same city, who live miserable lives on the street, homeless. Obviously, the affluent guys are superior to the indigent ones - and so quite apart from the aid of the Holy Spirit. They've made sensible, forward-looking choices, again and again, that have led them to a much better life than their homeless counterparts are living. Why could they not do so concerning the truths of the Gospel, too? They've been able, as unsaved, well-off men, to do so relatively consistently in mundane, temporal matters, so why can't they make the same sort of good choice to accept salvation in Jesus, too?

Well, Scripture indicates that they can. As Job, Noah, Moses, Daniel, Enoch, David, Cornelius, etc. all demonstrate, it's possible, without being born-again, to move toward God, to fear Him and to live a morally-righteous life. And so, when sensible, prudent men encounter the Gospel - the "power of God unto salvation" - it's no surprise that they would embrace it, especially as God acts to draw, convict and enable repentance in them so that they can do so.

 

[Van]

I’m starting to believe that is the case.

Here is what this poster considers irrelevant.

What matters is what does scripture teach! Read Matthew 13 and ask yourself, did soils #2 and 3 express faith? Were they saved? Read Matthew 7 and ask did those told to depart from Me express faith? Ask yourself, did the "many disciples" who followed Jesus, John 6:60, and had expressed faith really believe, John 6:64. Only those whose faith God credits are righteousness are credited with "believing in Him." The church has many "tares."

Posters to deflect truth with against the person posts do not help in our search for truth.

The false claim was faith was never considered worthless. Almost as if "dead faith" was not discussed in scripture.

 

[Van]

??? Do you think a lost person entirely apart from God's drawing, convicting and enabling their repentance can come to a saving faith in Christ?

NOPE So obfuscation on display

"How do you get "doesn't have an appointment with" from "cannot enter into" or "cannot see"?"

False claim, entering the kindom or entering a doctor's exam room, both allow the person to see and enter.

Making a false inference is a false claim.

This "I am not a Calvinist" declined to state which of the 5 points of the TULIP he disavows.

Being born anew spiritually allows those saved to be indwelt, not the other way around. You have to be "in Christ" to be "made alive" together with Christ. To be made alive requires "regeneration." The washing of regeneration makes the person blameless and holy in Christ. Once established in Christ, the person is then sealed in Christ with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I have supported the sequence and shown the simultaneous view is bogus, first put into Christ, then sealed in Christ. I agree that scripture seems to indicate when a spiritually dead sinner is given to Christ, when he or she enters Christ, it may be that simultaneously, the person is made alive, as he or she is now "together with Christ" and this action includes the washing of regeneration or being made alive. However all this simply results in the person being established in Christ before they are indwelt.

2 Corinthians 1:21 says we are "established" after we are "in Christ" and then verse 22 says God also gives us the Holy Spirit to seal us int Christ and to be a pledge of our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming.

 

[Van]

You keep calling Peter, Paul, and Isaiah liars when you assert that lost sinners seek after God

Jesus was not lying when He said, many will seek the narrow door.