Once Saved Always Saved?

[Dr. Timo]

Amy.G,

Firstly, Christ said of John 10:27-29, He promises us, that, no one can pluck us out of His hand, because He gives us eternal life, and we will never go perish to hell. Those who HEAR and FOLLOW Christ at the same time. If anyone who will stop follow Christ afterward, He would loose person out of his hand, same with Luke 15:11-32. When a young son want to leave his father same as an individual believer who want to leave Christ, that means do not want to follow Christ anymore. Christ cannot force us to stay with him all the time, same common sense, he cannot hold us in his hand so tightly all the time. He gives us the choices to make decision. If we stop follow Him, He would not hold us in his hand, unless till we turn back and stay following him, long as we are secure in Christ to have eternal life.

We know that 'eternal' means forever and ever without end.

But, we not yet get eternal life, we are still in battleground(spiritual warfare), once we overcome them at death, then will be victory and possess eternal life.

in 1 Timothy 6:12 telling us that we MUST HOLD our eternal life, if we endure to the end. Or, if we fail to hold eternal life, then we cannot have eternal life. See?

Both Jesus and Paul telling us that salvation is conditional.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

This is some of the worst twisting of scriptures I have ever heard in my life. You get eternal life the moment you trust Jesus Christ as your Saviour. You have no responsibility to endure to the end. Apart from Christ holding you there is no endurance. Jesus nor the Apostle Paul taught that salvation was or is conditional.
They can't explain it Amy because they believe it wrong!!!:thumbsup: :jesus:

 

[DHK]

Both Jesus and Paul telling us that salvation is conditional.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

You will find in my signature line (at the bottom of every one of my posts) this verse:

I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. http://www.baptistboard.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1383048

There are no conditions here. It is Christ that saves; Christ that keeps; Christ that gives eternal life; and Christ that has promised to keep it right to the end. Are you certain you want to deny the words of Christ?
His words are truth. I would rather trust Him then your opinion.

 

[steaver]

Zenas;

Just as they are unanimous on the matter of conditional security, I think you will find that everything published before 1550 agrees that John 3:5 is speaking of water baptism. The concept that being born again refers to anything but water baptism did not catch on until well after the Reformation. But that can be the topic of another thread.

This is not true. According to Tertullian, Christians were not unanimous on the matter and this is why he writes commentary trying to defend his pov. Tertullian is debating with other Christians who believe that salvation is by faith alone, he reveals this information in his writings about baptism....

Tertuliian;

CHAP. XIII.--ANOTHER OBJECTION: ABRAHAM PLEASED GOD WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED. ANSWER THERETO. OLD THINGS MUST GIVE PLACE TO NEW, AND BAPTISM IS NOW A LAW.
Here, then, those miscreants provoke 676 questions. And so they say, "Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith." But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added w the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The comparison with this law of that definition, "Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens," has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.

The very man you quote to support your pov of "unanimous on conditional security" has actually defeated your argument.

:jesus:

 

[Zenas]

This is not true. According to Tertullian, Christians were not unanimous on the matter and this is why he writes commentary trying to defend his pov. Tertullian is debating with other Christians who believe that salvation is by faith alone, he reveals this information in his writings about baptism....



The very man you quote to support your pov of "unanimous on conditional security" has actually defeated your argument.

:jesus:

No, go back and read what I said. "I think you will find that everything published before 1550 agrees that John 3:5 is speaking of water baptism." Obviously there was a controversy but you won't find any writings from that period denouncing baptismal regeneration.

 

[DHK]

No, go back and read what I said. "I think you will find that everything published before 1550 agrees that John 3:5 is speaking of water baptism." Obviously there was a controversy but you won't find any writings from that period denouncing baptismal regeneration.

Yes, you will. Tertullian himself did not believe in baptismal regeneration. He denounced it once he became a Montanist. He was converted and then saw that it was a heretical doctrine. The Montanist movement was one based on purity--purity of doctrine and purity of morals: morality from those living in corruption that had crept into many of the churches of that day. It was that which Montanus disdained. Tertullian also found it to be ungodly.

 

[Zenas]

Yes, you will. Tertullian himself did not believe in baptismal regeneration. He denounced it once he became a Montanist. He was converted and then saw that it was a heretical doctrine. The Montanist movement was one based on purity--purity of doctrine and purity of morals: morality from those living in corruption that had crept into many of the churches of that day. It was that which Montanus disdained. Tertullian also found it to be ungodly.

On the contrary, Tertullian did believe in baptismal regeneration. It is true that he became a Montanist and from that point of view, Tertullian did discourage paedobaptism. His reason for doing so was similar to the legend surrounding the baptism of Constantine, who waited until he was dying to be baptized so he could die free of sin. Tertullian believed that if sin were committed after baptism the person was lost with no possibility of being saved. Therefore, he thought it better for children to wait to be baptized. Baptism for Tertullian the Montanist was like a trump card--once you have played it you cannot use it again.

 

[Amy.G]

HP?

I noticed you didn't answer my question, so I'll post it again.

Those of you who do not believe in eternal security, please explain this verse to me.

Joh*10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

They "shall NEVER perish". Do you believe Jesus?

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Amy. G,

I already answer your question of John 10:28.

Dr. Timo criticizes me, saying that he thinks that he has seen worst twist intepreting on John 10:27-29 in his life. Oh really?

Please explain me, of John 10:27, what "HEAR" & "FOLLOW" mean to you? Are these conditional? What if they don't follow Christ, would they remain in Christ's hand as secure?

In Christ,
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

p.s. by the way, I believe H.P. probably is busy, I am sure that H.P. will reply to you soon.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Deafposttrib: p.s. by the way, I believe H.P. probably is busy, I am sure that H.P. will reply to you soon.

HP: Astute observation!:thumbs: Someone has to work, and this week it is me. What is strange is that I have posted many posts, not just a few that refute this notion of the word ‘eternal’ establishing any such notion as OSAS but obviously it falls on deaf ears. I am working on yet another post that will bring the different points I have used before to show the fallacy of such thinking but I have not had time to write it the way I would like to yet. Possibly this week end I will at least have Sunday to work on it.

 

[steaver]

Please explain me, of John 10:27, what "HEAR" & "FOLLOW" mean to you? Are these conditional? What if they don't follow Christ, would they remain in Christ's hand as secure?

HEAR means "understand".

HEARING and FOLLOWing is an attribute of the sheep. Not a "do this or else". It is what sheep do.

You say "what if we stop following?" WE don't ever stop following. Christ is IN you. You cannot escape Him nor would you want to. We follow in Spirit (born of God). You look at the outside, maybe down your nose at those who don't look so Christlike, and judge. But God judges the heart and as long as He sees Jesus residing there we are safe and secure. Sin no longer has any say in our salvation, Jesus paid it all in full.

Rom 8:2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

There are so many passages that are OSAS solid that it really takes an extraordinary effort to find any other conclusion. CONTEXT and HARMONY!

:jesus:

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Astute observation!:thumbs: Someone has to work, and this week it is me. What is strange is that I have posted many posts, not just a few that refute this notion of the word ‘eternal’ establishing any such notion as OSAS but obviously it falls on deaf ears. I am working on yet another post that will bring the different points I have used before to show the fallacy of such thinking but I have not had time to write it the way I would like to yet. Possibly this week end I will at least have Sunday to work on it.

We all know that you do not define "eternal" as actually eternal. Of course your faulty definition doesn't change the fact that eternal is actually eternal.

But what is your definition of "never"? "They shall never perish". I suppose you define never as something other than never?

Here is Strong's definition of never as it occurs in the verse in question.

G3364
οὐ μή
ou mē
oo may
That is, G3756 and G3361; a double negative strengthening the denial; not at all: - any more, at all, by any (no) means, neither, never, no (at all), in no case (wise), nor ever, not (at all, in any wise). Compare G3378.


John 10:28 paraphrased,

and they shall never, not at all, by no means, in no case perish.

Yet you say they can perish.

You cannot argue with Jesus words. They are not ambiguous. They could not be more plain.

 

[DHK]

We all know that you do not define "eternal" as actually eternal. Of course your faulty definition doesn't change the fact that eternal is actually eternal.

For clarity's sake, Amy's post refers to HP's definition of "eternal." That is news to me. But a denial of plain definition of words in order to deny plain and simple doctrines of the Word of God seem to be in order for you.
The changing of the meaning of Biblical terminology to make it mean something other than its intended meaning is called neo-orthodoxy. It is a common heresy mostly adhered to by various cults. It would be sad to see you caught up in it as well.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: Astute observation! Someone has to work, and this week it is me. What is strange is that I have posted many posts, not just a few that refute this notion of the word ‘eternal’ establishing any such notion as OSAS but obviously it falls on deaf ears. I am working on yet another post that will bring the different points I have used before to show the fallacy of such thinking but I have not had time to write it the way I would like to yet. Possibly this week end I will at least have Sunday to work on it.

I don't like the term Once Saved Always Saved. I prefer the terms Eternal Security of the Believer or Perseverance of the Saints. However, in regard to your statement above, Eternity is not sufficiently long enough for you to disprove the truth that once a person is saved he is kept by the power of God for all Eternity. To clarify any faulty idea you may have of Eternal or Eternity I mean that those who are truly saved are kept by the Power of God as long as He exists.

 

[Dr. Timo]

Amy. G,

I already answer your question of John 10:28.

Dr. Timo criticizes me, saying that he thinks that he has seen worst twist intepreting on John 10:27-29 in his life. Oh really?

Please explain me, of John 10:27, what "HEAR" & "FOLLOW" mean to you? Are these conditional? What if they don't follow Christ, would they remain in Christ's hand as secure?

In Christ,
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

p.s. by the way, I believe H.P. probably is busy, I am sure that H.P. will reply to you soon.

Jesus said they hear and follow His voice. That is a response of faith to the Holy Spirit. If we hear and respond we will follow. That doesn't make us perfect or sinless. It makes us forgiven. We only respond by the faith that God gave us. He did all the work at Calvary!!! If Paul was persuaded He would keep us to the end so should you be. Saying Paul believed in conditional salvation is unscriputural. Neither he or the Lord Jesus believed that!!!:smilewinkgrin: :jesus:

 

[JSM17]

Matthew 24:13 - "But he who endures to the end shall be saved."

Note: Part of the meaning of the word "saved," from the Greek word "sozo," is "to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgement." The word that Jesus Christ spoke will judge in the last day (John 12:48). That hasn't happened yet, so technically we are not saved from that yet. This being saved is clearly conditional. We must ENDURE to the end, and then we will be saved.

Matthew 24:48-51 - "But if that evil servant says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' (note: you see, Christ was his Master, but he turned evil) and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites (note: the word hypocrites is associated with the enemies of the gospel in the previous chapter, when Christ explains that they will not be saved. So these former servants of Christ will go where the enemies of Christ go). There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."


Luke 12:45,46 - "But if that servant says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the UNBELIEVERS." ~ Note: That's plain and simple. One can be a servant of Christ, start the practice of sin, and not be ready for eternal life when Christ comes back again. This person will go where the unbelievers go.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Deafposttrib makes an excellent rebuttal to the notion of eternalism. (Eternalism being the false notion that because the word ‘eternal’ is used in conjunction with salvation, it somehow establishes OSAS) Salvation is conditional just as DPT so aptly points out. Heb 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, IF we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.


Salvation is not based on works and nothing man does merits salvation, but neither will any be saved in the end that have not works consistent with walking in the Spirit. Conditions of salvation are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ and are never thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of.’ Only the grounds of our salvation is thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of, the grounds being the grace and mercy of God.

Steaver suggests that I have run from the debate when he mentions eternalism as being the case, when the facts are hundreds of posts to the contrary prove differently. Everytime one mentions the fact of salvation having conditions they are in fact rebutting the false notion of eteranlism. The reason why I often do not reply to Steaver when he mentions eternalism is because it has been dealt with not only from the angle of conditions to salvation but other issues as well, .....IF one has ears to hear.

When we speak of salvation by faith as opposed to being held by absolute knowledge, one is effectively rebutting eternalism. When one consistently, post after post, points out that deception is not only possible but a reality in the lives of many, one again is effectively rebutting eternalism. When one points out that in this life it is by hope that we ‘know’ we have eternal life, and that until that hope is finally realized in the reality of the next world as we all stand before God in judgment, and that absolute knowledge will not exist concerning our hope until that day, one again is effectively refuting eternalism.

So you see Steaver, if you have been listening and comprehending, you should have heard many hundreds of posts if not thousands of posts that have spoken directly to the false notion of eternalism that you so seem to cherish. No one has run from you or your arguments just because we do not answer every post you write. No one has run from your arguments just because one does not direct your attention to the numerous posts on the subject every time you claim the upper hand in the debate, due to your lack of listening carefully to the arguments already presented directly refuting the position you hold. Lack of careful consideration of the truth on your part does not constitute running from the arguments presented on the part of others.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Excellent passages JSM17. :thumbs:

Here are two more plain passages that a wayfaying man, though a fool, should not err therein. Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Eze 18:26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DR. Timo: If Paul was persuaded He would keep us to the end so should you be. Saying Paul believed in conditional salvation is unscriputural.

HP: In all due respect, it is simply not as you indicate it is Dr.

First, context brother context! If it is Romans 8 you are referring to, where is Paul establishing the dogma of OSAS in the passage? It simply is not there. Paul was simply expressing his personal persuasion based upon his understanding in light of his conscience and obviously in light of the confidence he had in the lives of others as well.

If one desires to have Paul’s assurances one needs to have Paul’s testimony concerning his conscience. “I know nothing of myself..” “As many of us as are perfect..” Ac 23:1 ¶ “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” “Being made free from sin..” Ac 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.” ….just to post a few indicating why he could have such confidence of his end.

 

[Dr. Timo]

HP: In all due respect, it is simply not as you indicate it is Dr.

First, context brother context! If it is Romans 8 you are referring to, where is Paul establishing the dogma of OSAS in the passage? It simply is not there. Paul was simply expressing his personal persuasion based upon his understanding in light of his conscience and obviously in light of the confidence he had in the lives of others as well.

If one desires to have Paul’s assurances one needs to have Paul’s testimony concerning his conscience. “I know nothing of myself..” “As many of us as are perfect..” Ac 23:1 ¶ “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” “Being made free from sin..” Ac 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.” ….just to post a few indicating why he could have such confidence of his end.

With all due respect I was not talking about a verse in Romans or in Acts. I was talking about II Timothy 1:12. You can context all you want but enduring is not anything we can do. Apart from Christ we can do nothing!!! While salvation is a process, that process cannot stop. God has predestined us to be conformed into His image!!! It's a good thing God is in control and not you!!!:laugh: :godisgood:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DrTimo: He did all the work at Calvary!!!

HP: All are not saved. Was His work insufficient to save all or did He simply choose not to save some? Your remark seems to support predestination of the damned as well as the elect. Whatever He did on Calvary was either ineffective or simply not done, and that by His choice as well, if one follows what your post seems to indicate out to its logical end.

Christ truly did all that was needed to save the entire world and forgive every sin on the cross, but no sin was forgiven simply because He made an atonement for sin on the cross. A way was made, a bridge was built whereby God could, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, forgive all sin, but no sin is actually forgiven or in reality atoned for individually until man meets the stated conditions of salvation, which are initially repentance and faith. Yes, 'His' work of providing the way, of providing the bridge between sinful man and God, was done on the cross. Now it is up to man to fulfill the stated conditions in order to have that atonement applied on their behalf. 2Pe 3:9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.