Do you believe in (OSAS) Once Saved, Always Saved?

[Carry_Your_Name]

Your last statement above clinches your position. Christ only died for those "whom God made that new covenant with".

In spite of all the verses that specifically say that Christ for all, not "all kinds of".

Then it would be that you don't believe 1 Tim 2:3-6. Do you or don't you?

In 1 Tim 2:3-6, pastor Tim was instructed to preach to “all”, as all are one in Christ, both men and women, Jews and gentiles, great and small. In modern terms, inclusivity and free access. But out of the “all”, only the “many” actually receive Christ and salvation through him.

If you still insist that “many” equals “all”, then I’ve got bad news for you - “many are called, but few are chosen.” - Matt 22:14. Wedding invitations are handed off to all, but in the end, only those who are dressed in the right apparel are accepted as guests.

 

[Magenta]

This means the one "having not believed" does not have eternal life.

Because once a person believes on Christ, they POSSESS eternal life, as
John 5:24 plainly says and they shall never perish, as John 10:28 plainly says.

But you are free to make up your own mind on whether to believe what Jesus said or not.

John 6:37 plus John 10:28

 

[FreeGrace2]

You said "This is a fallacy. Jesus Christ died for everyone's sins." Christ did die for all as the Bible says, but you said He died for "everyone's sins" which to me has a completely different connotation to it and is false.

I've already quoted 2 Cor 5:19 to you. Apparently you aren't in to reading the citations of others.

The atoning sin sacrifice of Jesus does not apply to everyone.

The Bible says otherwise, if that matters to you.

1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Please don't try to give me the phony calvinist response of "whole world" only means the "whole world of the elect".

Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world. I believe that because the Bible SAYS that.

That's all I am saying and I hope you can at least agree with that.

When you make a statement that aligns with Scripture, I WILL agree with it. But not until.

 

[Magenta]

You said "This is a fallacy. Jesus Christ died for everyone's sins." Christ did die for all as the Bible says, but you said He died for "everyone's sins" which to me has a completely different connotation to it and is false.

The atoning sin sacrifice of Jesus does not apply to everyone. That's all I am saying and I hope you can at least agree with that.

Jesus' shed righteous blood is sufficient for all but efficacious only unto believers.

 

[Runningman]

I've already quoted 2 Cor 5:19 to you. Apparently you aren't in to reading the citations of others.


The Bible says otherwise, if that matters to you.

1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Please don't try to give me the phony calvinist response of "whole world" only means the "whole world of the elect".

Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world. I believe that because the Bible SAYS that.


When you make a statement that aligns with Scripture, I WILL agree with it. But not until.

Then you don’t understand the gospel and that should wake you up.

Jesus is the atoning sin sacrifice for those who access it by faith and not everyone in the world who doesn’t believe. That’s Biblical.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus' shed righteous blood is sufficient for all but efficacious only unto believers.

Well said.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
I've already quoted 2 Cor 5:19 to you. Apparently you aren't in to reading the citations of others.


The Bible says otherwise, if that matters to you.

1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Please don't try to give me the phony calvinist response of "whole world" only means the "whole world of the elect".

Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world. I believe that because the Bible SAYS that.


When you make a statement that aligns with Scripture, I WILL agree with it. But not until.

Then you don’t understand the gospel and that should wake you up.

So, from my post above, you conclude that I don't understand the gospel.

Well, you've just proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you have NO comprehension skills.

Jesus is the atoning sin sacrifice for those who access it by faith and not everyone in the world who doesn’t believe. That’s Biblical.

Oh, I see. 1 John 2:2 isn't biblical then.

You are really delusional if you believe that.

What do you think 1 John 2:2 means?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Magenta said:
Jesus' shed righteous blood is sufficient for all but efficacious only unto believers.

Well said.

This is SOOOOOOO inconsistent. You just disagreed with 1 John 2:2 which agrees completely with what Magenta said.

So, you agree with her, and disagree with me. And we both believe the same thing.

 

[Evmur]

Jesus came to save those who were in breach of His commandment ... sinners not the righteous.

What this proves [if you think about it] is that whether one observes the law, keeps the commandments or not, has ZERO to do with salvation before being born again or after.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

FreeGrace2 said:
I've already quoted 2 Cor 5:19 to you. Apparently you aren't in to reading the citations of others.


The Bible says otherwise, if that matters to you.

1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Please don't try to give me the phony calvinist response of "whole world" only means the "whole world of the elect".

Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world. I believe that because the Bible SAYS that.


When you make a statement that aligns with Scripture, I WILL agree with it. But not until.

So, from my post above, you conclude that I don't understand the gospel.

Well, you've just proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you have NO comprehension skills.


Oh, I see. 1 John 2:2 isn't biblical then.

You are really delusional if you believe that.

What do you think 1 John 2:2 means?

Haven’t you admitted that all CAN be saved, but not all will? Then that should’ve settled it, what’s the point of throwing the book at everybody and being so mean? In fact, in Rev 18, the WHOLE WORLD will be DECEIVED- through “sorcery”, aka Big Pharma, and the vast majority will comply. After all, broad is the way that leads to destruction.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Haven’t you admitted that all CAN be saved, but not all will?

Yes, I have.

Then that should’ve settled it, what’s the point of throwing the book at everybody and being so mean?

I don't know what you're talking about.

In fact, in Rev 18, the WHOLE WORLD will be DECEIVED- through “sorcery”, aka Big Pharma, and the vast majority will comply. After all, broad is the way that leads to destruction.

What hasn't been "settled" according to you?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, you know. Cherry picking your favorite proof text ain’t gonna help. It’s been told that anybody can pick a bible verse to back any idea. In the end you just become an inactive NPC responding to anything with the same script, that’s what “throwing the book at everybody” means. I’ve got enough of that already, don’t expect for more here.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
I don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, you know. Cherry picking your favorite proof text ain’t gonna help.

Whenever you want to REJECT clear verses, that's your business. I have verses that actually SAY what I believe. Which is WHY I believe them.

By "cherry-picking" if you mean quote a verse that actually SAYS what you believe, then of course I do.

Why would I quote verses that aren't related to a point I'm making? That wouldn't make sense.

Can you quote a verse that supports one of your points?

It’s been told that anybody can pick a bible verse to back any idea.

And so you actually believe that idea, huh? Anyone who backs an unbiblical idea by a verse can EASILY be refuted. Just looking at the context is usually enough.

But I guess you haven't figured that out.

Since you seem to want to apply that saying to me, then feel free to refute what I say about a verse from the context.

In the end you just become an inactive NPC responding to anything with the same script, that’s what “throwing the book at everybody” means. I’ve got enough of that already, don’t expect for more here.

What I do expect from fellow believers is to accept the truth when it is shown to them.

And I've been sorely disappointed.

 

[Edify]

Do you believe in Once Saved, Always Saved?

NO! There's too many warnings to the church in the NT about being deceived & departing from the faith.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

FreeGrace2 said:
I don't know what you're talking about.

Whenever you want to REJECT clear verses, that's your business. I have verses that actually SAY what I believe. Which is WHY I believe them.

By "cherry-picking" if you mean quote a verse that actually SAYS what you believe, then of course I do.

Why would I quote verses that aren't related to a point I'm making? That wouldn't make sense.

Can you quote a verse that supports one of your points?


And so you actually believe that idea, huh? Anyone who backs an unbiblical idea by a verse can EASILY be refuted. Just looking at the context is usually enough.

But I guess you haven't figured that out.

Since you seem to want to apply that saying to me, then feel free to refute what I say about a verse from the context.


What I do expect from fellow believers is to accept the truth when it is shown to them.

And I've been sorely disappointed.

I’ve just refuted you with the entire book of Revelation, in which the whole world was deceived, and Jesus returns to JUDGE the whole world.

What you’ve got wrong in this whole debate is that the second and third soils, aka shallow and lukewarm believers, are not saved ONLY IF they remain shallow and lukewarm till the end. However, as I said before, they can BECOME the fertile soil for the seed of gospel to grow by tilling the ground and removing the thorns, and that’s the power of the Holy Spirit. They’re NOT condemned to be stony or thorny forever. Just take a look at Peter, first disciple of Christ, totally broken at the crucifixion, denying Jesus three times, back to fishing with others, and transformed by the Holy Spirit, anointed as the first church father.

 

[Runningman]

Haven’t you admitted that all CAN be saved, but not all will? Then that should’ve settled it, what’s the point of throwing the book at everybody and being so mean? In fact, in Rev 18, the WHOLE WORLD will be DECEIVED- through “sorcery”, aka Big Pharma, and the vast majority will comply. After all, broad is the way that leads to destruction.

Good question.

 

[Runningman]

Magenta said:
Jesus' shed righteous blood is sufficient for all but efficacious only unto believers.

This is SOOOOOOO inconsistent. You just disagreed with 1 John 2:2 which agrees completely with what Magenta said.

So, you agree with her, and disagree with me. And we both believe the same thing.

Magenta said something clear and Biblical. You don't say clear and Biblical things. When you start saying clear biblical things I will agree with you. Furthermore, you just tend to argue even when an agreement is entirely possible. It's just your argumentative spirit and disrespectful attitude that provokes other people. Occasionally you'll run into people who won't be bullied by you. You don't pick your battles though wisely though. You would literally argue with a wall.

 

[FreeGrace2]

XavierJesusLovesIndia said:
Do you believe in Once Saved, Always Saved?

NO! There's too many warnings to the church in the NT about being deceived & departing from the faith.

None of the warnings are about losing salvation. They are about losing blessings and eternal reward.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I’ve just refuted you with the entire book of Revelation, in which the whole world was deceived, and Jesus returns to JUDGE the whole world.

That doesn't "refute" me. That's MY point as well.

What you’ve got wrong in this whole debate is that the second and third soils, aka shallow and lukewarm believers, are not saved ONLY IF they remain shallow and lukewarm till the end.

Where do you get your ideas from? Because they aren't found in the Bible. In fact, the Bible is clear: those who believe ARE SAVED.

Where does lifesstyle come in for either getting saved, or staying saved? Where is your evidence?

However, as I said before, they can BECOME the fertile soil for the seed of gospel to grow by tilling the ground and removing the thorns, and that’s the power of the Holy Spirit.[/QUOTE]
What are you saying? That by "tilling the ground/removing thorns" a person can be saved??? That's nothing LESS than "cleaning up your life in order to get saved". Is THAT what you think the Bible is about???

They’re NOT condemned to be stony or thorny forever.

This sentence is deluded. It means nothing.

If you want to talk about condemnation, read John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12. These 2 verses are VERY CLEAR about who will be condemned. Both of them say it is those who "have not believed" who will be condemned.

So much for the nonsense of "tilling the ground/removing thorns" for salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Magenta said something clear and Biblical. You don't say clear and Biblical things.

I quote verses. Sorry for your difficulties.

When you start saying clear biblical things I will agree with you.

No you won't. You apparently will never agree with me, even though my views are straight biblical. But you don't believe that even though I've proved it WITH verses.

None of the verses you focus on even say what you believe. There's the difference.

Furthermore, you just tend to argue even when an agreement is entirely possible.

OK, give me a clear example of that. With post # so EVERYONE can see what you mean.

It's just your argumentative spirit and disrespectful attitude that provokes other people.

Every time you say this garbage I am reminded of ALL the "thumbs up" and "friendly" emojis I get on so many of my posts.

I think blowing smoke is pretty obvious to most people. But you are free to your opinion.

Occasionally you'll run into people who won't be bullied by you.

And that would include everyone, because I haven't bullied anyone.

I guess, however, that being challenged for clear verses is considered being bullied. Is that the problem you have with me?

You don't pick your battles though wisely though.

Thank you once again for your unwise opinions.

You would literally argue with a wall.

Do you actually not know that this sentence is just an ad hominem. And yet you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of all the things you post to me.