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

[Grandpa]

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.

You're not even close to saying the same thing.

You may think you are, but you are miles away.

If you agree with Magentas statement then you just agreed with the Calvinist position.

There is no WAY you could agree to that. Not knowingly.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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


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.

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???


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.[/QUOTE]

Since you keep lecturing on me that those who believe are saved, then tell me, do the second and third soils truly believe? If your answer is yes, then that's certainly unbiblical, 'cause as a principle, Jesus is the vine and we're branches, those are IN HIM yet fail to bear fruit He CUT OFF. (John 15:1-2) Same for the fig tree, no fruit when Jesus passed by, got in danger of being chopped down. Also the last servant who didn't produce any profit with the one talent he received from the Master. Nothing is found in the bible to suggest that they're believers entitled to be saved. My only point is that they are not total lost causes compared to the wayside. And don't dismiss this as "metaphor", then you've just fulfilled the purpose of these parables - hearing you will hear and not understand, seeing you will see and not perceive.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You're not even close to saying the same thing.

You may think you are, but you are miles away.

Then, please, explain to me how I am miles away.

If you agree with Magentas statement then you just agreed with the Calvinist position.

There is no WAY you could agree to that. Not knowingly.

There a things that I agree that Calvinists claim. Like eternal security. There are things Arminians say that I agree with, like free will.

That makes me neither of those. I believe what the Bible says.

She said Christ's death was SUFFICIENT for all. Maybe you have a different understanding of what "sufficient" means. However, the key point is that Magenta agrees that Christ did die for everyone. I certainly agree with that.

Do you agree with that? Then you are at the most, a 4 point Calvinist. Many Calvinists are 3 or 4 pointers.

I take her statement, which is a common one, that Christ's death was sufficient to remove the sin barrier for all. Which it did.

2 or 5:19 is clear enough.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Since you keep lecturing on me that those who believe are saved, then tell me, do the second and third soils truly believe?

Oh, there's that pejorative "truly" tossed in to question the Bible when it describes someone as believing. The Bible NEVER adds these silly adjectives to the word "believe". Check it out for yourself.

When the Bible uses the word "believe" in context of salvation, it ALWAYS means saving faith. Every time. Those who add those silly adjectives like "truly believe" or "false belief" or "temporary belief" etc are only fooling themselves, since the Bible NEVER says that.

The only time the Bible uses "false" is in "false brethren". These are intentional liars.

So, Luke's account is the clearest because v.13 SAYS the 2nd soil believed. But you don't believe the Bible.

If your answer is yes, then that's certainly unbiblical

That is only your opinion.

'cause as a principle, Jesus is the vine and we're branches, those are IN HIM yet fail to bear fruit He CUT OFF. (John 15:1-2)

Sadly, you don't even know what this means. Which contributes to your confusion.

Same for the fig tree, no fruit when Jesus passed by, got in danger of being chopped down.

So you think a withered fig tree, not a chopped down fig tree, is an example of loss of salvation????

Also the last servant who didn't produce any profit with the one talent he received from the Master.

That parable was about loss of reward, not salvation.

Apparently your theology has no room for eternal rewards. In spite of clear biblical teaching.

Nothing is found in the bible to suggest that they're believers entitled to be saved.

Wow. Really? You really think anyone is "entitled" to be saved. Well, there's your biggest problem of all. That isn't even close to biblical teaching.

My only point is that they are not total lost causes compared to the wayside.

So then, it seems you believe that people can be saved, lost and saved again???

And don't dismiss this as "metaphor", then you've just fulfilled the purpose of these parables - hearing you will hear and not understand, seeing you will see and not perceive.

You don't even understand them. lol

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Oh, there's that pejorative "truly" tossed in to question the Bible when it describes someone as believing. The Bible NEVER adds these silly adjectives to the word "believe". Check it out for yourself.

When the Bible uses the word "believe" in context of salvation, it ALWAYS means saving faith. Every time. Those who add those silly adjectives like "truly believe" or "false belief" or "temporary belief" etc are only fooling themselves, since the Bible NEVER says that.

The only time the Bible uses "false" is in "false brethren". These are intentional liars.

So, Luke's account is the clearest because v.13 SAYS the 2nd soil believed. But you don't believe the Bible.

Luke 8:13 clearly says they only believe FOR A WHILE, and you're denying the very verse you quote? Seems like you're the who who don't believe the Bible, not me.

 

[Grandpa]

Then, please, explain to me how I am miles away.


There a things that I agree that Calvinists claim. Like eternal security. There are things Arminians say that I agree with, like free will.

That makes me neither of those. I believe what the Bible says.

She said Christ's death was SUFFICIENT for all. Maybe you have a different understanding of what "sufficient" means. However, the key point is that Magenta agrees that Christ did die for everyone. I certainly agree with that.

Do you agree with that? Then you are at the most, a 4 point Calvinist. Many Calvinists are 3 or 4 pointers.

I take her statement, which is a common one, that Christ's death was sufficient to remove the sin barrier for all. Which it did.

2 or 5:19 is clear enough.

You just disagreed with her statement here.

Sufficient and efficacious are two different things.

I guess you need to pay closer attention to what people say before you start arguing.

Not that it really matters. Carry on, I guess.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Luke 8:13 clearly says they only believe FOR A WHILE, and you're denying the very verse you quote?

I haven't denied anything. What does "for a while" mean to you anyway? The verse is about the 2nd soil believing for a period of time and then ceasing to believe due to various circumstances. This isn't hard to figure out.

Now, since you seem all excited about "for a while" when attached to believing, do you have ANY evidence in the Bible that "believing for a while" results in no salvation? That would be your ONLY defense.

Seems like you're the who who don't believe the Bible, not me.

What a ridiculous statement. Now, get to it, and find that verse that is your ONLY defense.

ps: if "believing for a while" means no salvation, and therefore, no eternal life, how in the world can you believe what Jesus said in John 10:28??

He was clear: recipients of eternal life, which is WHEN a person believes, per John 5:24, shall never perish.

No verse teaches that ceasing to believe results in loss of salvation.

You have been believing a lie.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You just disagreed with her statement here.

Sufficient and efficacious are two different things.

Gee whiz. No kidding. Of course they are. But being "sufficient" means it meets the goal, which is to pay the sin debt.

I guess you need to pay closer attention to what people say before you start arguing.

You've done nothing to change anything.

Or maybe you should just believe the Bible and what it says clearly. Jesus died for all. Believe it.

 

[Runningman]

Gee whiz. No kidding. Of course they are. But being "sufficient" means it meets the goal, which is to pay the sin debt.


You've done nothing to change anything.

Or maybe you should just believe the Bible and what it says clearly. Jesus died for all. Believe it.

Your original assertion was that Jesus died for everyone’s sins. Jesus dying for people versus dying for their sins are not the same things so don’t confuse the two.

Furthermore, the nature of Jesus’ death was sacrificial which has a different connotation to it than a non-sacrificial death which is an important distinction you seem oblivious to in some of your non-Biblical heretical posts.

Jesus died for everyone in the sense that there is a sin sacrifice for all sinners that can be accessed through faith, but Jesus didn’t die for everyone in the sense that everyone will be saved.

Why you aren’t readily admitting to and accepting this is a genuine curiosity to me. Most Christians seem eager to agree with the Bible, but you seem to just want to argue about even the gospel.

 

[Runningman]

I quote verses. Sorry for your difficulties.


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.


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


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.


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?



Thank you once again for your unwise opinions.


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.

Fake internet points, upvotes, etc are not valuable compared to a sound Biblical post. Don’t be deceived by the vanity and flattery that seem to have intoxicated you with pride and inflated your already swollen ego. You shouldn’t be here to be a people pleasers, but rather a God pleaser.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I haven't denied anything. What does "for a while" mean to you anyway? The verse is about the 2nd soil believing for a period of time and then ceasing to believe due to various circumstances. This isn't hard to figure out.

Now, since you seem all excited about "for a while" when attached to believing, do you have ANY evidence in the Bible that "believing for a while" results in no salvation? That would be your ONLY defense.


What a ridiculous statement. Now, get to it, and find that verse that is your ONLY defense.

ps: if "believing for a while" means no salvation, and therefore, no eternal life, how in the world can you believe what Jesus said in John 10:28??

He was clear: recipients of eternal life, which is WHEN a person believes, per John 5:24, shall never perish.

No verse teaches that ceasing to believe results in loss of salvation.

You have been believing a lie.

Peter and all other disciples only believed “for a while” despite miracles upon miracles, did he “lose” his salvation when he denied Jesus three times? And this is prophesied - “when the shepherd is struck, the sheep scattered”. The truth is, that belief “for a while” during Jesus’s ministry led to their belief till death - which started at the Pentecost with the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and that is the blessed assurance of salvation. Until then he never TRULY believed, otherwise Jesus wouldn’t have chastised him “O ye of little faith.”

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I haven't denied anything. What does "for a while" mean to you anyway? The verse is about the 2nd soil believing for a period of time and then ceasing to believe due to various circumstances. This isn't hard to figure out.

Now, since you seem all excited about "for a while" when attached to believing, do you have ANY evidence in the Bible that "believing for a while" results in no salvation? That would be your ONLY defense.


What a ridiculous statement. Now, get to it, and find that verse that is your ONLY defense.

ps: if "believing for a while" means no salvation, and therefore, no eternal life, how in the world can you believe what Jesus said in John 10:28??

He was clear: recipients of eternal life, which is WHEN a person believes, per John 5:24, shall never perish.

No verse teaches that ceasing to believe results in loss of salvation.

You have been believing a lie.

I’m just gonna repeat this conclusion here: Once saved, always saved; not saved, never saved. The dividing line is the anointing of the a Holy Spirit. Collapse of a false belief could be a humbling experience that LEADS to true belief in Jesus and that anointing of the Holy Spirit, that’s what happened to Peter, Paul and many others, that’s what redemption is for; but IF it doesn’t, you just go apostate and never repent, then, “I never knew you.”

 

[Grandpa]

Gee whiz. No kidding. Of course they are. But being "sufficient" means it meets the goal, which is to pay the sin debt.


You've done nothing to change anything.

Or maybe you should just believe the Bible and what it says clearly. Jesus died for all. Believe it.

I do believe the bible.

And I understand the difference between sufficient and efficacious.

You can't just take one verse and say believe it if it contradicts other verses the way you are using it. You have to understand that verse in LIGHT of the other verses that it "seems" to contradict the way you are using it.

You know, like the difference between sufficient and efficacious...

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your original assertion was that Jesus died for everyone’s sins.

It is still my assertion.

Jesus dying for people versus dying for their sins are not the same things so don’t confuse the two.

I think you are confused. How can there be any difference?

Furthermore, the nature of Jesus’ death was sacrificial which has a different connotation to it than a non-sacrificial death which is an important distinction you seem oblivious to in some of your non-Biblical heretical posts.

All that Jesus did on the cross for mankind WAS sacrificial. Where in the world do you get your ideas from? Certainly NOT the Bible.

Jesus died for everyone in the sense that there is a sin sacrifice for all sinners that can be accessed through faith, but Jesus didn’t die for everyone in the sense that everyone will be saved.

First you say He died in the sense of a sin SACRIFICE for ALL sinners. OK, who is a sinner? EVERYONE. Romans 3 makes that real clear.

Then you add what everyone should know: His death doesn't save anyone.

Why you aren’t readily admitting to and accepting this is a genuine curiosity to me.

What do you think I am supported to admit and accept? You are the confused one.

Most Christians seem eager to agree with the Bible, but you seem to just want to argue about even the gospel.

You are the confused one, and it is amazing how little you seem to comprehend.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Fake internet points, upvotes, etc are not valuable compared to a sound Biblical post.

I have no idea what you are referring to. What is a "fake internet point"? And what is or are "upvotes"? And since you insinuate that I am guilty of using these weird things, please back up your stupid insinuation with evidence from my posts.

Don’t be deceived by the vanity and flattery that seem to have intoxicated you with pride and inflated your already swollen ego.

Your continued bloviationd about what you don't know is really stunning.

You shouldn’t be here to be a people pleasers, but rather a God pleaser.

What ignorance. I was only pointing out that many others not only understand what I post, but agree with it. But I guess that was too deep for you, so you went lower and resorted to your childish ad hominem attack again.

It seems you must be a very unhappy person.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Peter and all other disciples only believed “for a while” despite miracles upon miracles, did he “lose” his salvation when he denied Jesus three times?

First, where do you get that all the aposbles only bleieved for a while? That is just an opinion.

Second, no, Peter did not lose his salvation when He denied the Lord 3 times.

And this is prophesied - “when the shepherd is struck, the sheep scattered”.

This had nothing to do with losing belief in Him. It had everything to do with their own fear of death.

The truth is, that belief “for a while” during Jesus’s ministry led to their belief till death

I don't understand what your point is or what the sentence means.

- which started at the Pentecost with the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and that is the blessed assurance of salvation.

The blessed assurance of savlation is found in what Jesus SAID.

Until then he never TRULY believed, otherwise Jesus wouldn’t have chastised him “O ye of little faith.”

What's wrong with you? Why do you confuse "no faith" with "little faith"? Do you think there's no difference?

btw, when Jesus said that, it was in a severe storm and the disciples were afraid of dying. They didn't think He could or would save them from drowning. This isn't soul salvation faith but lifestyle faith. They weren't trusting Him for their sustenance. Lifestyle faith is trusting God for their necessities.

Like the Exodus generation, God kept them alive all the while they grumbled and complained and acted like He wasn't.

Too bad so many believers don't even know the difference between saving faith and lifestyle faith. They get confused all the time.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I’m just gonna repeat this conclusion here: Once saved, always saved; not saved, never saved.

Huh? who ever said "not saved, never saved" anyway? What is your point?

The dividing line is the anointing of the a Holy Spirit.

Do you have a verse for that opinion?

Collapse of a false belief could be a humbling experience that LEADS to true belief in Jesus and that anointing of the Holy Spirit

Please quote any verse that talks aout a "false belief". I don't believe anyone who says such things. They aren't biblical. So prove yourself.

that’s what happened to Peter, Paul and many others, that’s what redemption is for

This is nonsense. None of them had a "false belief". And no, that's NOT what redemption is for. You are confused.

but IF it doesn’t, you just go apostate and never repent, then, “I never knew you.”

I haven't understood a single thing in your post. Very confusing and confused.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I do believe the bible.

And I understand the difference between sufficient and efficacious.

You can't just take one verse and say believe it if it contradicts other verses the way you are using it. You have to understand that verse in LIGHT of the other verses that it "seems" to contradict the way you are using it.

You know, like the difference between sufficient and efficacious...

Let's get to the point here.

Show me where the Bible differentiates between sufficient and efficacious if you can. That should suffice.

 

[Runningman]

I have no idea what you are referring to. What is a "fake internet point"? And what is or are "upvotes"? And since you insinuate that I am guilty of using these weird things, please back up your stupid insinuation with evidence from my posts.


Your continued bloviationd about what you don't know is really stunning.


What ignorance. I was only pointing out that many others not only understand what I post, but agree with it. But I guess that was too deep for you, so you went lower and resorted to your childish ad hominem attack again.

It seems you must be a very unhappy person.

Who cares what you say. I certainly don’t even a little bit.

Bottom line is you argue with almost everyone. Proof is in your comments; you’re the definition of incorrigible. You have no credibility and cite your thumbs up and winner emojis received from other users as your proof of validity. It’s really pathetic.

Meanwhile, I cite the righty-divided word of God and the only person who argues with me is you, but that’s your MO so no surprise there.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Huh? who ever said "not saved, never saved" anyway? What is your point?


Do you have a verse for that opinion?


Please quote any verse that talks aout a "false belief". I don't believe anyone who says such things. They aren't biblical. So prove yourself.


This is nonsense. None of them had a "false belief". And no, that's NOT what redemption is for. You are confused.


I haven't understood a single thing in your post. Very confusing and confused.

You're confused because you slice and dice other people's replies. What is false belief? Simple - "Lord, lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?" "I never knew you, depart from me, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS!". You don't understand that because you're in a state of denial.