Prove it.

[annsni]

HP: It does not, nor would it have to, say that any believer will be cut down. It simply sets forth the possibility that one that was a believer but turned from that belief, could be. A believer in the end will only be those that remain faithful to the end. All others will never have believed or believed but turned from that belief in disobedience. No one that is a believer and remains faithful will ever be cut off.

True believers continue in obedience, they are not simply those that believed and then turned from it and as such were cut off.


Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, IF ye continue in my word, THEN are ye my disciples indeed;

True believers continue in obedience. They will not be perfect. They will fall. But they will not fall so far as to be cut off.

 

[DHK]

HP: It does not, nor would it have to, say that any believer will be cut down. It simply sets forth the possibility that one that was a believer but turned from that belief, could be. A believer in the end will only be those that remain faithful to the end. All others will never have believed or believed but turned from that belief in disobedience. No one that is a believer and remains faithful will ever be cut off.

True believers continue in obedience, they are not simply those that believed and then turned from it and as such were cut off.

You cannot make a parable stand on its ear and force a meaning into every single verse. Parables were not made to do that. A parable is simply an earthly story with a heavenly meaning--not even many meanings, often just with one meaning. Usually Christ is trying to get across one central meaning with a parable. It is an illustration used to illustrate a point of doctrine. One cannot draw doctrine from a parable. If the doctrine is not taught elsewhere in the Bible, it cannot be taught from the parable.

To look at what the parable teaches one must look at the application from what Jesus himself gives after giving the parable. He takes the parable, and then He Himself expounds on his own parable. That is where the teaching is. The teaching is centered around abiding in Christ, and bearing fruit. Nowhere does the parable teach about loss of salvation. Christ does not touch upon that at all. To read into the parable any such doctrine goes against hermeneutical principles, and the very teachings of Christ. That is not what Christ was teaching. The teaching of Christ was plain. Go to the teaching of Christ after the parable, as he explains it to his disciples, and there you will find out what he wanted to teach by giving the parable in the first place.

 

[Martin Luther]

HP: It does not, nor would it have to, say that any believer will be cut down. It simply sets forth the possibility that one that was a believer but turned from that belief, could be. A believer in the end will only be those that remain faithful to the end. All others will never have believed or believed but turned from that belief in disobedience. No one that is a believer and remains faithful will ever be cut off.

True believers continue in obedience, they are not simply those that believed and then turned from it and as such were cut off.


Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, IF ye continue in my word, THEN are ye my disciples indeed;

Most of these OSAS people are closet dispensationalists. With one breath they claim no one is saved by the law, and then with the next breath they claim that O.T. saints and those alive during Christ’s life are not saved the same way the rest of us are. Well if they are not saved by the works of the law then what salvation was Christ teaching them? You hit it on the head with this one.


Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, IF ye continue in my word, THEN are ye my disciples indeed;[/QUOTE]

 

[Martin Luther]

Now let's look at Romans 11 where it further speaks of the branches and the vine:

If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

We see where Jesus was going to use the axe. It is not for believers but for the Jews. John was speaking of the Jews who would not accept Christ.

The two stories having nothing to do with eachother.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: True believers continue in obedience. They will not be perfect. They will fall. But they will not fall so far as to be cut off.

HP: Let’s simply cut to the chase. Are you going to give us a list of sins that one can commit and get into heaven and then give us a list of sins that if one commits them, refusing to repent, will suddenly find out that they were never saved in the first place? If not, walk with me just a little longer.:thumbs:

Let's say that a believer commits adultery and refuse to repent, continuing in that lifestyle until he or she dies…… Or, say a believer commits murder, and refuses to repent. Lay out your hope to these that ‘have believed’ of their eternal salvation. If, by some chance, you are going to tell me that they were never saved with in the beginning if they are lost in the end, tell us what sins in a persons life are evident that they have never been saved, and what sins might be evident in the normal believers life.

 

[DHK]

HP: Let’s simply cut to the chase. Are you going to give us a list of sins that one can commit and get into heaven and then give us a list of sins that if one commits them, refusing to repent, will suddenly find out that they were never saved in the first place? If not, walk with me just a little longer.:thumbs:

Let's say that a believer commits adultery and refuse to repent, continuing in that lifestyle until he or she dies…… Or, say a believer commits murder, and refuses to repent. Lay out your hope to these that ‘have believed’ of their eternal salvation. If, by some chance, you are going to tell me that they were never saved with in the beginning if they are lost in the end, tell us what sins in a persons life are evident that they have never been saved, and what sins might be evident in the normal believers life.

That onus is on you. What are the "mortal sins" that are going to keep a believer out of heaven. I am sure the RCC knows, but do you. I don't believe in such a theology. But if you do, you must give a list, not others. That responsiblity falls on you.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ML: Most of these OSAS people are closet dispensationalists. With one breath they claim no one is saved by the law, and then with the next breath they claim that O.T. saints and those alive during Christ’s life are not saved the same way the rest of us are. Well if they are not saved by the works of the law then what salvation was Christ teaching them? You hit it on the head with this one.

HP: This debate reminds me of building a block tower with my grandchildren. I build, what in my estimation is, a fine tall tower, just to see them, with one fatal blow sporting a big grin on their face, knock my tower to the ground, as if to ask, “ What tower?!”

Every time a clear condition is set forth on this list, many simply dismiss it by any number of unrelated notions, (generally if not always involving the presupposition of OSAS) and then continue to demand, “Prove it!”

There is in my mind a clear danger in such an approach to truth.

 

[DHK]

There is in my mind a clear danger in such an approach to truth.

You have grandchildren, so obviously had children.
When you raised your children whose responsibility was it to shelter and clothe them? Did you fail in your responsibility? As long as they were children under your roof, did they remain your children, and even now are they your "children," even though they be grown. Is there any way they can change the fact that they are not your children. Can they change the DNA that God gave them. They will always be your children.

So it is when a person is born again. They will always be a child of God, and nothing they can do can change that fact.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: That onus is on you. What are the "mortal sins" that are going to keep a believer out of heaven. I am sure the RCC knows, but do you. I don't believe in such a theology. But if you do, you must give a list, not others. That responsiblity falls on you.

HP: I would be happy to answer for myself. Why do not you answer the questions I asked of Amy as well. I would like to see your answer..... Or will you just point your finger at me and fail to do so yourself?

Here is my answer. I will answer questions as to my beliefs as herein posted subsequent to DHK and Amy answer my questions. :thumbs:

HP: There will be none in heaven who have shown a heart of refusal to repent and to turn from their sins. Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Now a lot of the problems on this list surrounds yet another misconception, i.e., what is ‘sin’? Sin to some on this list could be an inherited problem much like the color of ones hair or the color of their skin, to the involuntary reflex of ones muscle, not involving the will in the least. I believe that well entrenched but false notions surrounding the nature of sin is at the heart of the false notions of OSAS. That as well needs a thread of its own as we have had in the past but is obviously in need of addressing again.

 

[webdog]

Most of these OSAS people are closet dispensationalists. With one breath they claim no one is saved by the law, and then with the next breath they claim that O.T. saints and those alive during Christ’s life are not saved the same way the rest of us are. Well if they are not saved by the works of the law then what salvation was Christ teaching them? You hit it on the head with this one.


Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, IF ye continue in my word, THEN are ye my disciples indeed;

[/quote]Can you show who? I have yet to see that here on the BB at all, yet see this accusation quite often.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You have grandchildren, so obviously had children.
When you raised your children whose responsibility was it to shelter and clothe them? Did you fail in your responsibility? As long as they were children under your roof, did they remain your children, and even now are they your "children," even though they be grown. Is there any way they can change the fact that they are not your children. Can they change the DNA that God gave them. They will always be your children.

So it is when a person is born again. They will always be a child of God, and nothing they can do can change that fact.

HP: Our relationship with our earthly children is only 'in some limited way' akin to the relationship we have with our Heavenly Father. God is the Father of all in a limited sense, but there is a point you missed in your father/son illustration. God is in the end going to be the judge of all and at that time will willingly separate for all eternity from those that did not repent, something a father/son relationship as you paint it does not and cannot set forth as it is in reality.

The notion of ‘once a son always a son’ is nowhere found in Holy Writ. Oh yes, I almost forgot. There are some ‘so called translations that absolutely destroy the intended meaning of God’s word to man by placing into their versions that thought. But thank God that there are still some true to the intents God had for the original translators to pen, one such translation being the KJV. Yes, the Holy Spirit undeniably attests to my spirit that the rendering of John 8 as read in the KJV is indeed in agreement to His original inspired Word. The Spirit does NOT testify to my spirit that the same can be said for all other versions that completely change this passage to support the OSAS presupposition.

Does anyone here believe that the possibility of some modern authors of some so-called translations could have been affected by their own adherence to the OSAS dogma? I certainly believe so, and that without question in my mind.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Still waiting on my list DHK and Amy:wavey:

 

[Martin Luther]

Can you show who? I have yet to see that here on the BB at all, yet see this accusation quite often.

Show who what?

 

[DHK]

HP: Our relationship with our earthly children is only 'in some limited way' akin to the relationship we have with our Heavenly Father. God is the Father of all in a limited sense, but there is a point you missed in your father/son illustration. God is in the end going to be the judge of all and at that time will willingly separate for all eternity from those that did not repent, something a father/son relationship as you paint it does not and cannot set forth as it is in reality.

The Father/son relationship is used all throughout Scripture.
It is used in John 3 to illustrate what it means to be born again.
One is born only once into this world; he is born only once into the family of God. Jesus said very clearly: Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
He did not say: Except a man be born again, and again, and again. There is only one new birth, and once born into the family of God one cannot be "unborn." The concept is just ludicrous.

The concept is taught in John 1
Jesus came to his own but his own received him not. Next verse:
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
--Other translations say "children of God," which is more accurate. We become a child of God through faith, believing in his name.
Verse 13 adds even more detail.

John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
--Our birth into the family of God must be of God--a spiritual birth.
It is not of blood. This shoots covenant theology. One cannot be born a Christian.
It is not of the will of the flesh. You cannot become a Christian by simple reformation.
It is not of the will of man--joining a church, baptism, or any of the other rites of mankind's religions.
It is only by God. You must be born again, born from above, born by the Holy Spirit of God. Once that is accomplished God never disowns, disinherits, "unborns" His own. We are His forever.

The story of the Prodigal Son.
The first thing to note that meaning of the word "prodigal" is one who has gone astray. It is not one who is completely lost, but one who has strayed.
Having noted that this is a son, who remained a son, but a son that had strayed from his father. He remained his father's son. That fact could never be changed. When he came home he was not welcomed as a servant, but as a son. The father's attitude was that his "lost" son was found; lost in the sense of strayed. He was lost in that he didn't know where he was; what he was doing. It is a human picture of a parent not knowing where his son was. But God, contrary to a human father, is omniscient, and knows all things. So you can't stretch the parable to fit all points. He was still a son; we always will be a son. The parable points out the differences between the two sons. They were both sons; and both had wrongs that needed to be corrected.
There still is a Father/son relationship. The son was always a son to the father--a bond that could never change. Every day the father waited and watched for the return of his son.

Christ uses parables to teach heavenly truths, as he did here. This truth is taught over and over again, and cannot be denied.
"Our Father who art in heaven..." The unsaved cannot rightly pray this prayer. They don't have a heavenly father.
Satan is their father. They need to be born again.

If one is born once; they will die twice.
If one is born twice; they will die once.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

It is my humble opinion that there are many errors in interpreting the passages of the vine and the branches when they are filtered through the New Covenant.

At the time Jesus spoke of the branches being cut off, the NC was not in effect. He is speaking to OT Jews who were still under the Law, for grace had not come yet. It was not yet "finished".


The tree He is speaking of is the Jews, not NT believers. All those (Jews), who although were part of the "tree" (OT covenant), that did not believe in Christ, would be cut out of the tree. All those who were to come (Gentiles with faith in Christ) would be grafted into the tree.

No, Amy, in John 15 the vine Christ is talking about is HIMSELF, not the "OT covenant" (regardless of when it was uttered). He said any branch IN HIM that does not abide IN HIM (and thus doesn't bear fruit) is cut off, and He was addressing His disciples at that time, not unbelieving Jews.

In Romans 11, Paul is addressing Gentile believers under the New Covenant, who were standing by faith, but would be cut off if they didn't continue therein.

All those, both Jew and Gentile who have placed their faith in Christ will receive life from the vine (Jesus) and will produce fruit.

This is NOT talking about people who have received life and then lost it.

On the contrary, as I pointed out in Romans 11, Paul is specifically addressing GENTILE believers who were currently standing by faith and that the (unbelieving) JEWS had been cut off by their unbelief. Paul was warning the GENTILE believers that THEY TOO would be cut off if they didn't continue in God's goodness

The dead branches are those (The Jews) that did not believe in Christ. They cannot receive life without being attached to the vine. Therefore, they are cut off.

In John 15 the branches are those already IN CHRIST who don't abide in Him and don't bear fruit. Again, Christ was addressing HIS DISCIPLES (not unbelieving JEWS) when He called THEM "the branches".

In Romans 11, Paul was addressing GENTILE believers, who were currently standing by faith, warning that they too would be cut off (like the unbelieving JEWS were) if they (the believing GENTILES) didn't continue in God's goodness.

 

[DHK]

HP: I would be happy to answer for myself. Why do not you answer the questions I asked of Amy as well. I would like to see your answer..... Or will you just point your finger at me and fail to do so yourself?

I will gladly hear your answer as to why you should not join the RCC. Do you believe in purgatory as well?

Here is my answer. I will answer questions as to my beliefs as herein posted subsequent to DHK and Amy answer my questions.

With bated breathe I await the answers.

HP: There will be none in heaven who have shown a heart of refusal to repent and to turn from their sins. Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Therefore you must believe that:
1. If David had died before Nathan had reached him, he would be in hell today. Correct.
2. If the man in 1Cor.5:1-5, had died before he had repented (and Scriptures say that he did), he would be in hell today. Correct?
3. I wasn't baptized for two years after I was saved. If I had died before that point, I would be in hell today. Correct? For baptism also is disobedience.

Now, lets look at that verse again:
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
--One of those laws concerns bearing false witness, or to put it simply--lying. It includes the simple sin of lying or deceit.
Again, if you HP, tell a lie, get hit by a truck (or a terrorist) and die immediately without the chance of confessing that sin, you would go straight to hell (RCC theology). Is that correct?

Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Mat.5:27,28)
--Defined by Jesus: looking upon a woman and lusting after her.
Have you ever committed that sin? If so, if you suddenly died via a heart attack and no chance to confess that sin, then according to your theology you would go to hell. Correct.

Thou shalt not commit murder (kill). (Mat.5:21,22)
--Defined by Jesus: being angry with thy brother.
If you die suddenly and have not made things right with one whom you are angry or upset at, then you will go to Hell. Correct? This is your theology. This is the NT teaching of the Ten Commandments. We go by NT interpretation of the Ten Commandments, not by "Ye have heard by them of old times, thou shalt not...." Them of old time did not teach the law correctly, but Jesus did.

Do you honestly think that I will believe you if you tell me that you keep all the law all the time.
No one does. And the Bible indicates that as well.

Now a lot of the problems on this list surrounds yet another misconception, i.e., what is ‘sin’? Sin to some on this list could be an inherited problem much like the color of ones hair or the color of their skin, to the involuntary reflex of ones muscle, not involving the will in the least.

No one here believes that. That is simply your imagination, or your warped sense of what sin is. The Bible defines what sin is. Here it is:

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
--Sin is a transgession of the law. It is that simple. Break the law and you have sinned.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
--Coming short of the glory of God is sin. The phrase means "missing the mark." We all sin because we miss the mark of holiness that God has set for us. We fail. We come short. It is sin. We have missed God's mark.

I believe that well entrenched but false notions surrounding the nature of sin is at the heart of the false notions of OSAS.

Perhaps your constant refusal of unbelief in some of the basic doctrines of the Bible no matter how clearly they are shown to you is sin in and of itself.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Yes, the Holy Spirit undeniably attests to my spirit that the rendering of John 8 as read in the KJV is indeed in agreement to His original inspired Word.

I almost cracked up when I read this. :laugh:

You are absolutely certain the Holy Spirit attests to you about the KJV, but you consistantly question me and others when we say that the Holy Spirit attests to our spirits that we are OSAS.

That is funny.

 

[Amy.G]

Still waiting on my list DHK and Amy:wavey:

Sorry HP, remind me what you're waiting for.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The Father/son relationship is used all throughout Scripture.

HP: Yes, to a degree, but not to the degree or extremes OSAS places upon the illustration. Again, God is also the Ultimate Judge, and He has placed conditions in His Word ‘without which’ any of us could in the end find ourselves separated from him for eternity. Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

DHK: It is used in John 3 to illustrate what it means to be born again.
One is born only once into this world; he is born only once into the family of God. Jesus said very clearly: Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
He did not say: Except a man be born again, and again, and again. There is only one new birth, and once born into the family of God one cannot be "unborn." The concept is just ludicrous.

HP: Yes, such a picture is indeed ludicrous. That is often the case with straw men arguments not formed by sound undertstading the nature of our faith and how we hold knowledge in this present world by faith. Such false ideas are manufactured as a result of not understanding that salvation is not finished by one act of faith, but in its entirety encompasses three areas. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. “Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

The very same issues apply to every passage you bring forth in your post so I will not address each one.

DHK: Once that is accomplished God never disowns, disinherits, "unborns" His own. We are His forever.

HP: Once again you present a false concept of salvation. Salvation is not only about ones birth, but of continued obedience until the end.

DHK: The story of the Prodigal Son…..

The parable points out the differences between the two sons. They were both sons; and both had wrongs that needed to be corrected.
There still is a Father/son relationship. The son was always a son to the father--a bond that could never change. Every day the father waited and watched for the return of his son.

HP: This story ended well, but all will not end so well. There are some sons that will not return to the father, just as happens in true life. They often die in their rebellion. If the prodigal son would not have voluntarily returned with a repentant heart, he too would have been lost.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Did the branches ever give fruit? If they ONCE gave fruit then stopped bearing fruit, you might have an argument. But the branches NEVER gave fruit - meaning that they were never alive to begin with.

The passage doesn't say the dead branches "NEVER gave fruit"--it doesn't say one way or the other whether they ever did or did not. The point is that the branches already in HIM must continue to abide in Him in order to bear fruit. "Abiding" implies a continual process, one which the "branches" already in HIM were accountable for doing. If one was never "saved" then it makes no sense whatsoever saying that one was ever a branch in HIM to begin with.

At any rate, Paul in Romans 11 certainly assumed that the Gentile believers, who were currently standing by faith, could be cut off if they didn't continue in His goodness. That certainly wouldn't retroactively indicate that they never were really standing by faith in the first place(!).

And the writer of Hebrews certainly warned the "holy brethren" about the possibility departing from the living God through an evil heart of unbelief. It they did depart, that would not somehow retroactively indicate that they weren't ever really "holy brethren" at one point. If one can depart from the living God through unbelief (which the writer warns is a real possibility), then it makes no sense saying that one was never really with God to begin with (!).