Once saved always saved (OSAS) debunked
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You couldn't be more in error. If this is the best you can do in "explaining" my verses, we're done.
God's gifts INCLUDE both salvation and eternal life. You failed to prove otherwise.
First, this is a parable. Jesus didn't teach theolgocial doctrines from parables. His purpose in teaching parables was to teach truth to those who wouldn't believe anyway, because they were so negative toward Him, and that fulfilled Scripture.
So using a parable to each anything is useless. However, those with spiritual discernment, Jesus was teaching the value of forgiveness, and the penalty of failing to forgive. What isn't in this parable is anything about losing salvation.
God's gifts INCLUDE both salvation and eternal life. You failed to prove otherwise.
First, this is a parable. Jesus didn't teach theolgocial doctrines from parables. His purpose in teaching parables was to teach truth to those who wouldn't believe anyway, because they were so negative toward Him, and that fulfilled Scripture.
So using a parable to each anything is useless. However, those with spiritual discernment, Jesus was teaching the value of forgiveness, and the penalty of failing to forgive. What isn't in this parable is anything about losing salvation.
-
1
- Show all
Be back shortly. A Good Article from Gospel Coalition on Free Grace and its late 20th century roots: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/free-grace-theology/
How ‘Free Grace’ Theology Diminishes the Gospel
JULY 25, 2016 | JUSTIN DILLEHAY
It’s safe to assume that if you’re a Christian, you love the gospel. For that reason, it’s safe to assume that if something were diminishing the gospel, you’d want to know what it was.
That’s why Wayne Grudem’s new book, “Free Grace” Theology: Five Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, is relevant for you. It’s relevant even if you’ve never heard of the “Lordship salvation” controversy. And it’s relevant because it deals with an issue at the heart of the gospel: the nature of saving faith.
How does saving faith relate to repentance? Does it always produce good works? Should we ever doubt our faith is genuine? And what does it mean to say we’re justified by faith alone? These are the sorts of vital questions Grudem tackles in this book.
What’s ‘Free Grace’ Theology?
In case you were worried, Grudem—author of numerous books including the widely read Systematic Theology—hasn’t suddenly turned against the doctrine of free grace. Look closely at the book’s title. The phrase “Free Grace” Theology (note the quotation marks) refers to a specific set of teachings that originated in the late 20th century among a minority of professors at Dallas Theological Seminary, foremost of whom was the late Zane Hodges. It is currently promoted by organizations like Free Grace Alliance and Grace Evangelical Society (23), and by theologians like Charles Bing, Robert Wilken, Fred Lybrand, and Joseph Dillow.
The distinguishing mark of Free Grace Theology (FGT) is its understanding of what it means to be justified by faith alone. For Grudem, this is also its distinguishing error:
The mistakes of the Free Grace movement today all stem from a misunderstanding of the way the word alone is used in the expression “justification by faith alone.” (139; cf. 36–37)
PURCHASE
"Free Grace" Theology: Five Ways It Diminishes the Gospel
WAYNE GRUDEM
CROSSWAY. 160 PAGES.
Grudem’s central argument is that the FGT understanding of “faith alone” is directly at odds with the New Testament’s, and that the difference turns on two questions: (1) Is repentance from sin (in the sense of remorse for sin and an internal resolve to forsake it) necessary for saving faith and (2) Do good works and continuing to believe necessarily follow from saving faith? (22).
FGT answers no to both questions, whereas Grudem argues (successfully, in my judgment) that both the Bible and classic Protestantism answer yes. Herein lies the substance of the book.
What Are the Five Ways?
Each of the five ways FGT diminishes the gospel gets its own chapter, so the book lays out neatly in five chapters along with an introduction and conclusion.
First, FGT doesn’t accurately reflect the Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone, which was often summarized in the formula “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone” (26). Translation: even though faith is the only human act God responds to in justification (it’s alone in that sense), faith never exists alone in the believer since it always brings with it certain other graces. Grudem’s survey of Protestant confessions spanning five centuries amply demonstrates that this formula represents the pan-Protestant understanding of faith alone (26–30). That this formula stands squarely at odds with FGT teaching is confirmed by the fact some openly reject the formula as an illogical cliché (34–35).
Second, FGT teaching weakens the gospel by “avoiding any call to unbelievers to repent of their sins” (39). Grudem helpfully shows how repentance appears in key New Testament summaries of the gospel message, even in places where faith isn’t explicitly mentioned (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). Additionally, passages like Acts 20:21 tie repentance and faith closely together (42), justifying the classical Protestant understanding that faith and repentance are like two sides of the same coin, or better—two perspectives on the same conversion event, with repentance being a turning from sin and faith being a turning to Christ. In short, we can’t preach the full gospel without preaching repentance. Even apart from its polemical purpose, this chapter provides a helpful overview of the biblical teaching on repentance.
Grudem is at his sharpest when examining FGT’s faulty thought processes on assurance. First, he argues their thinking rests on a category mistake:
The question is not: How do I know that Christ has died for people’s sins and that he will save those who believe in him? The question is rather: How do I know that I have truly believed? (83)
Then he argues that FGT employs a kind of fallacious mathematical reasoning when it asks, “How many good works does one have to do in order to be assured of salvation?” (88), as though such things could be quantified. To which Grudem’s somewhat humorous but biblical answer is, “Some” (90).
Fourth, FGT “overemphasizes agreement with facts and underemphasizes heartfelt trust in the person of Christ” (97). Whereas classical Protestantism has seen faith as knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia), FGT majors on the former two. Grudem parses FGT carefully, noting that while some like Hodges and Wilken define saving faith solely as intellectual assent to facts about Christ (98), others like Bing allow that faith includes trust in the person of Christ (99). But in the end, even the healthiest forms of FGT downplay this aspect of saving faith, and for an obvious reason:
The more we emphasize coming into the presence of Christ and trusting him, the more the idea of optional submission to his Lordship becomes unthinkable. (103–04)
Fifth, FGT is forced to rely on “numerous, highly unlikely interpretations of the NT” in order to defend their understanding of faith alone (118). Given the nature of the charge, this chapter unavoidably feels the most stinging. Examining the FGT interpretation of 11 “problem passages,” Grudem concludes that FGT advocates simply “have no idea how strained, how idiosyncratic . . . and how completely unpersuasive and foreign to the New Testament these interpretations sound,” both to laypersons and scholars outside the FGT camp (117–118). He suggests this is why almost all FGT books are published by their own organizations rather than by recognized evangelical academic publishers (135 n. 27). When a theology forces people to suggest that one can “receive” eternal life without “possessing” it, be “in” the kingdom without “inheriting” it, and enter the heavenly city without entering “by the gates” (134), it’s hard not to think something’s amiss.
Why ‘Diminish’ and Not ‘Destroy’?
Finally, a word about what’s at stake.
“Diminishing” the gospel is a serious charge—serious enough to warrant a book. But it’s not the same as “destroying” the gospel. And Grudem makes clear from the outset that he views this as an in-house debate among Christians, and for him a “difference . . . among friends” (16). He cites several FGT proponents whose correspondence helped him better understand their position, and whose presence I suspect also helped give the book its civil and charitable tone ...
Justin Dillehay (MDiv, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is a pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Hartsville, Tennessee, where he resides with his wife and their three children."
How ‘Free Grace’ Theology Diminishes the Gospel
JULY 25, 2016 | JUSTIN DILLEHAY
It’s safe to assume that if you’re a Christian, you love the gospel. For that reason, it’s safe to assume that if something were diminishing the gospel, you’d want to know what it was.
That’s why Wayne Grudem’s new book, “Free Grace” Theology: Five Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, is relevant for you. It’s relevant even if you’ve never heard of the “Lordship salvation” controversy. And it’s relevant because it deals with an issue at the heart of the gospel: the nature of saving faith.
How does saving faith relate to repentance? Does it always produce good works? Should we ever doubt our faith is genuine? And what does it mean to say we’re justified by faith alone? These are the sorts of vital questions Grudem tackles in this book.
What’s ‘Free Grace’ Theology?
In case you were worried, Grudem—author of numerous books including the widely read Systematic Theology—hasn’t suddenly turned against the doctrine of free grace. Look closely at the book’s title. The phrase “Free Grace” Theology (note the quotation marks) refers to a specific set of teachings that originated in the late 20th century among a minority of professors at Dallas Theological Seminary, foremost of whom was the late Zane Hodges. It is currently promoted by organizations like Free Grace Alliance and Grace Evangelical Society (23), and by theologians like Charles Bing, Robert Wilken, Fred Lybrand, and Joseph Dillow.
The distinguishing mark of Free Grace Theology (FGT) is its understanding of what it means to be justified by faith alone. For Grudem, this is also its distinguishing error:
The mistakes of the Free Grace movement today all stem from a misunderstanding of the way the word alone is used in the expression “justification by faith alone.” (139; cf. 36–37)
PURCHASE
"Free Grace" Theology: Five Ways It Diminishes the Gospel
WAYNE GRUDEM
CROSSWAY. 160 PAGES.
Grudem’s central argument is that the FGT understanding of “faith alone” is directly at odds with the New Testament’s, and that the difference turns on two questions: (1) Is repentance from sin (in the sense of remorse for sin and an internal resolve to forsake it) necessary for saving faith and (2) Do good works and continuing to believe necessarily follow from saving faith? (22).
FGT answers no to both questions, whereas Grudem argues (successfully, in my judgment) that both the Bible and classic Protestantism answer yes. Herein lies the substance of the book.
What Are the Five Ways?
Each of the five ways FGT diminishes the gospel gets its own chapter, so the book lays out neatly in five chapters along with an introduction and conclusion.
First, FGT doesn’t accurately reflect the Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone, which was often summarized in the formula “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone” (26). Translation: even though faith is the only human act God responds to in justification (it’s alone in that sense), faith never exists alone in the believer since it always brings with it certain other graces. Grudem’s survey of Protestant confessions spanning five centuries amply demonstrates that this formula represents the pan-Protestant understanding of faith alone (26–30). That this formula stands squarely at odds with FGT teaching is confirmed by the fact some openly reject the formula as an illogical cliché (34–35).
Second, FGT teaching weakens the gospel by “avoiding any call to unbelievers to repent of their sins” (39). Grudem helpfully shows how repentance appears in key New Testament summaries of the gospel message, even in places where faith isn’t explicitly mentioned (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). Additionally, passages like Acts 20:21 tie repentance and faith closely together (42), justifying the classical Protestant understanding that faith and repentance are like two sides of the same coin, or better—two perspectives on the same conversion event, with repentance being a turning from sin and faith being a turning to Christ. In short, we can’t preach the full gospel without preaching repentance. Even apart from its polemical purpose, this chapter provides a helpful overview of the biblical teaching on repentance.
We can’t preach the full gospel without preaching repentance.
Third, FGT weakens the gospel by giving many professing Christians a false assurance of salvation. It’s not hard to see why this would happen. If repentance, good works, and continuing in belief don’t necessarily follow saving faith, then the lack of them can’t serve as evidence that our faith is dead, and the answer to James’s question “Can that faith save him?” would seem to be “yes” (James 2:14–17).Grudem is at his sharpest when examining FGT’s faulty thought processes on assurance. First, he argues their thinking rests on a category mistake:
The question is not: How do I know that Christ has died for people’s sins and that he will save those who believe in him? The question is rather: How do I know that I have truly believed? (83)
Then he argues that FGT employs a kind of fallacious mathematical reasoning when it asks, “How many good works does one have to do in order to be assured of salvation?” (88), as though such things could be quantified. To which Grudem’s somewhat humorous but biblical answer is, “Some” (90).
Fourth, FGT “overemphasizes agreement with facts and underemphasizes heartfelt trust in the person of Christ” (97). Whereas classical Protestantism has seen faith as knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia), FGT majors on the former two. Grudem parses FGT carefully, noting that while some like Hodges and Wilken define saving faith solely as intellectual assent to facts about Christ (98), others like Bing allow that faith includes trust in the person of Christ (99). But in the end, even the healthiest forms of FGT downplay this aspect of saving faith, and for an obvious reason:
The more we emphasize coming into the presence of Christ and trusting him, the more the idea of optional submission to his Lordship becomes unthinkable. (103–04)
Fifth, FGT is forced to rely on “numerous, highly unlikely interpretations of the NT” in order to defend their understanding of faith alone (118). Given the nature of the charge, this chapter unavoidably feels the most stinging. Examining the FGT interpretation of 11 “problem passages,” Grudem concludes that FGT advocates simply “have no idea how strained, how idiosyncratic . . . and how completely unpersuasive and foreign to the New Testament these interpretations sound,” both to laypersons and scholars outside the FGT camp (117–118). He suggests this is why almost all FGT books are published by their own organizations rather than by recognized evangelical academic publishers (135 n. 27). When a theology forces people to suggest that one can “receive” eternal life without “possessing” it, be “in” the kingdom without “inheriting” it, and enter the heavenly city without entering “by the gates” (134), it’s hard not to think something’s amiss.
Why ‘Diminish’ and Not ‘Destroy’?
Finally, a word about what’s at stake.
“Diminishing” the gospel is a serious charge—serious enough to warrant a book. But it’s not the same as “destroying” the gospel. And Grudem makes clear from the outset that he views this as an in-house debate among Christians, and for him a “difference . . . among friends” (16). He cites several FGT proponents whose correspondence helped him better understand their position, and whose presence I suspect also helped give the book its civil and charitable tone ...
Justin Dillehay (MDiv, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is a pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Hartsville, Tennessee, where he resides with his wife and their three children."
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Nice try, buddy.
You can't win your argument against the truth, so you attack those who believe the truth. Just like the Democrats and the "woke".
They can't win their arguments either, so they just attack and demonize their opponents.
What is at stake is the truth. And you don't believe the truth. Jesus could not have been more clear about eternal security, but you just keep attacking that doctrine with verses that don't even mention salvation.
Pitiful. But that's the state of the world today.
You can't win your argument against the truth, so you attack those who believe the truth. Just like the Democrats and the "woke".
They can't win their arguments either, so they just attack and demonize their opponents.
What is at stake is the truth. And you don't believe the truth. Jesus could not have been more clear about eternal security, but you just keep attacking that doctrine with verses that don't even mention salvation.
Pitiful. But that's the state of the world today.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Says you. If he believes what you do, his views are unbiblical. Your "interpretation" of Eph 1:13,14 totally missed the point, which is very hard to miss.
Eph 1-
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
Eph 4:30 - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
2 Cor 1:22 - set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
2 Cor 5:5 - Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
OK, all these verses are saying the same thing.
So, 3 of them speak of a guarantee of what is to come, and 2 of them NAME what is guaranteed. Can you tell me what Paul was referring to by 'guaranteeing WHAT IS TO COME'?
Eph 1-
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
Eph 4:30 - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
2 Cor 1:22 - set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
2 Cor 5:5 - Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
OK, all these verses are saying the same thing.
So, 3 of them speak of a guarantee of what is to come, and 2 of them NAME what is guaranteed. Can you tell me what Paul was referring to by 'guaranteeing WHAT IS TO COME'?
-
2
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Semantics bro. Taking the term "free grace" and bashing people with it.
But yea.....grace is free for the asking. So is Salvation. True believers that recognize and know that Jesus is their Lord and Savior and love Him for who He is and what He has done for them have nothing to worry about.
But yea.....grace is free for the asking. So is Salvation. True believers that recognize and know that Jesus is their Lord and Savior and love Him for who He is and what He has done for them have nothing to worry about.
-
3
- Show all
The book is not bashing the idea that grace is a free gift, nor is it bashing the doctrine that this gift has been given freely without repentance. What it is pointing out is that this doctrine has been distorted from what it was at the time of Calvin to ignore people living in sin. I don't really see how anyone can not see this. We have the LGBTQ+ community and their churches. It is not just Lesbians who are pastors, or Gays who are pastors, we even have churches that have Trans as pastors or guest speakers. How can they do that? Well they ignore certain bible verses, they have their own rules, and they teach a version of OSAS that says all you have to do to be saved is pray a little prayer and then you can live any way you want.
The apostate churches are using the "free gift of grace" as a way to short circuit the ten commandments.
The apostate churches are using the "free gift of grace" as a way to short circuit the ten commandments.
-
1
- Show all
Nope. That post isn't bashing anyone bro. Just explaining the history of the doctrine and its main proponents today.
As for OSAS, I still haven't found an OSAS proponent who can explain this simple verse: "32Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.35“So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”
This is the exact opposite of what Jesus would have said if He wanted to teach OSAS. In fact, if He had, the wicked servant could have said, to the Master, "Oops, too late! you already forgave me once! Hence, I am once saved, always saved, and cannot go to Hell". But he couldn't and did go to Hell. How anyone can say, as was said above, that going to Hell has nothing to do with Salvation is beyond me. Salvation is precisely deliverance from Hell.
As for Rom 11, which was cited as an OSAS Biblical proof: reading that whole passage in context in fact shows further reasons why OSAS is not true. E.g. verse 22 which says: "22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
Irrevocable or without repentance in that context means that Israel will one day come to Salvation, that's it. It is the covenant that is irrevocable. It doesn't mean that a believer who falls from grace will not be cut off, and Rom 11:22 clearly shows that.
God Bless.
As for OSAS, I still haven't found an OSAS proponent who can explain this simple verse: "32Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.35“So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”
This is the exact opposite of what Jesus would have said if He wanted to teach OSAS. In fact, if He had, the wicked servant could have said, to the Master, "Oops, too late! you already forgave me once! Hence, I am once saved, always saved, and cannot go to Hell". But he couldn't and did go to Hell. How anyone can say, as was said above, that going to Hell has nothing to do with Salvation is beyond me. Salvation is precisely deliverance from Hell.
As for Rom 11, which was cited as an OSAS Biblical proof: reading that whole passage in context in fact shows further reasons why OSAS is not true. E.g. verse 22 which says: "22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
Irrevocable or without repentance in that context means that Israel will one day come to Salvation, that's it. It is the covenant that is irrevocable. It doesn't mean that a believer who falls from grace will not be cut off, and Rom 11:22 clearly shows that.
God Bless.
Totally agree with you but
There are many true believers who doubt or worry about their salvation because of the doctrines of some on here that you must do this and don't do that in order to be saved.
Not just posts on this thread but also on other threads.
Doctrinal bents of denominations.
Paul says
Romans 11:6
6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
Grace is free BUT only because Jesus died to reconcile us to our Father.
He paid the price so we don't have to and that is priceless.
And it's the grace of God that sets us free to want to be like him.
There are many true believers who doubt or worry about their salvation because of the doctrines of some on here that you must do this and don't do that in order to be saved.
Not just posts on this thread but also on other threads.
Doctrinal bents of denominations.
Paul says
Romans 11:6
6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
Grace is free BUT only because Jesus died to reconcile us to our Father.
He paid the price so we don't have to and that is priceless.
And it's the grace of God that sets us free to want to be like him.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
So you are going to choke on a passage in spite of the clear words of Jesus about eternal security.
Believing this demonstrates just how detached from the truth of Scripture you are. Very sad.
What you have failed to understand is that Jesus wasn't even teaching about salvation or how to lose it. That's your MAIN problem.
Jesus SAID that whoever believes HAS eternal life in John 5:24. Then, He SAID that recipients of eternal life shall never perish in John 10:28.
These verses are so clear, anyone can understand what Jesus was saying.
When given the gift of eternal life, the recipient WON'T perish. Exactly that.
And here you are, STILL pushing your junk doctrine, which is really one of the "doctrines of demons" noted in 1 Tim 4:1.
Believing this demonstrates just how detached from the truth of Scripture you are. Very sad.
What you have failed to understand is that Jesus wasn't even teaching about salvation or how to lose it. That's your MAIN problem.
Jesus SAID that whoever believes HAS eternal life in John 5:24. Then, He SAID that recipients of eternal life shall never perish in John 10:28.
These verses are so clear, anyone can understand what Jesus was saying.
When given the gift of eternal life, the recipient WON'T perish. Exactly that.
And here you are, STILL pushing your junk doctrine, which is really one of the "doctrines of demons" noted in 1 Tim 4:1.
-
1
- Show all
no one is making a claim as long as they remain trusting in God they can lose their Salvation.
let's examine Verse 13 for example: 13 After you heard the message of truth—the Good News of your salvation—[[((and when you put your trust))]] in Him, you were sealed with the promised Ruach ha-Kodesh.
what's they key phrase and words here?
and when you put your trust....... >in Him<
this discussion is about those who STOP trusting Yeshua. they no longer have the promise!
but if you [[CAN put your Trust in God]] then you can also STOP trusting God.
IF you STOP trusting God, there is NO MORE promise!
when you use the CORRECT Biblical GREEK Text, it explains things and simplifies them.
as long as we KEEP our TRUST in God, we remain SEALED!
what i love about Verse 13 is it shows us that we have to make an EFFORT here. we have to TRUST, which is making an effort on our part.
let's examine Verse 13 for example: 13 After you heard the message of truth—the Good News of your salvation—[[((and when you put your trust))]] in Him, you were sealed with the promised Ruach ha-Kodesh.
what's they key phrase and words here?
and when you put your trust....... >in Him<
this discussion is about those who STOP trusting Yeshua. they no longer have the promise!
but if you [[CAN put your Trust in God]] then you can also STOP trusting God.
IF you STOP trusting God, there is NO MORE promise!
when you use the CORRECT Biblical GREEK Text, it explains things and simplifies them.
as long as we KEEP our TRUST in God, we remain SEALED!
what i love about Verse 13 is it shows us that we have to make an EFFORT here. we have to TRUST, which is making an effort on our part.
-
1
- Show all
The clear words of Jesus refuting eternal security are posted above. The Lord taught the same in numerous instances that you ignore. As ZNP said, you rely on around 2 out of 7000+ verses and largely ignore the rest. Sorry, I won't do that.
Luk 12:42 "The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers."
So the Lord's Words on how His Divine Judgment will go when He returns at His Second Coming also have nothing to do with Salvation, right? Very sad. I choose to believe Jesus Christ, not modern Free Grace theology proponents. Jesus Christ said the Servant who is faithfully doing the Master's Will when He returns will be blessed; not so, the evil servant who is committing all sorts of sins, and disobeying the Master, whom the Lord says He will assign a place with the unbelievers.
I am firmly grounded in the Truth of Scripture. That's how I am able to recognize when an error contradicts it, and to prove it with numerous citations from the Scriptures.
Again, you repeat this absurdity. How is it possible one can go to Hell and you can say this isn't about Salvation? The Lord is precisely saying that, even after being once forgiven or justified, if you remain in hatred and unforgiveness toward your brother (just like John the Apostle later says "You know that No Murderer has Eternal Life abiding in him") you can, after being forgiven, lose your soul and go to Hell. If you want to keep saying that has nothing to do with Salvation, you can, but it will keep being wrong.
Yes, that's correct. And His Word also says adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and no murderer has Eternal Life abiding in Him. Did you read what I asked earlier about Hitler. Do you consider Hitler to have had Eternal Life? He claimed he believed in Jesus, which you say is enough to have eternal life. Yet, he was a murderer, and the Word says no murderer has Eternal Life. So, what follows, logically? That he once had it, and then lost it. Or, do you believe he never had it, or alternately that he does have Eternal Life, though he was a murderer?
That's an inaccurate paraphrase. He said those Sheep of His Flock who (1) hear His Voice, (2) who know Him, and (3) who follow Him, will be given both the Gift of the Holy Spirit, as well as the Gift of Never Perishing, i.e. Perseverance in Grace.
Yet, you misunderstand them.
More clear projection on your part. And I thought you said something about bashing? Yet here you are doing just that.
Listen, believe whatever you want to believe. I will believe what I know is the Truth. There are so many verses showing it.
The Free Grace theology opinion broke out as a rejection of Lordship Salvation. Lordship Salvation is more grounded in the Bible: "The dispute opposes two soteriological visions: "whether it is necessary to accept Christ as Lord in order to have Him as one's Savior. The question then becomes, If someone accepts Christ as Savior without also explicitly accepting Him as Lord, is such a person truly saved?". That is, whether accepting Jesus Christ as saviour necessarily implies one must make a concrete commitment in life toward the Christ such as following a certain behaviour or moral system. The first opinion, that of the lordship salvation supporters, is, as Arthur W. Pink summarises: "No one can receive Christ as His Savior while he rejects Him as Lord. Therefore, those who have not bowed to Christ’s scepter and enthroned Him in their hearts and lives, and yet imagine that they are trusting Him as Savior, are deceived." The second opinion is that of those opposing lordship salvation: that one can accept Jesus Christ as saviour, but does not need to accept the Christ's lordship.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation_controversy
In the end, if we faithfully follow 2 Pet 1:5-11, we will have both Salvation and Rewards, and never stumble, as it says there. If we neglect to, we may lose Rewards, though not Salvation, as long as we both believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and love Him as Lord until death. If however, we turn away from even believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, we will have neither Salvation nor Rewards. Those Free Grace proponents who contest this and say even apostates can still be saved, although they will face discipline from the Lord, are mistaken, and Heb 10:39 and 2 Pet 2:20-22 show that very clearly.
In Christ,
Xavier.
Luk 12:42 "The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers."
So the Lord's Words on how His Divine Judgment will go when He returns at His Second Coming also have nothing to do with Salvation, right? Very sad. I choose to believe Jesus Christ, not modern Free Grace theology proponents. Jesus Christ said the Servant who is faithfully doing the Master's Will when He returns will be blessed; not so, the evil servant who is committing all sorts of sins, and disobeying the Master, whom the Lord says He will assign a place with the unbelievers.
I am firmly grounded in the Truth of Scripture. That's how I am able to recognize when an error contradicts it, and to prove it with numerous citations from the Scriptures.
Again, you repeat this absurdity. How is it possible one can go to Hell and you can say this isn't about Salvation? The Lord is precisely saying that, even after being once forgiven or justified, if you remain in hatred and unforgiveness toward your brother (just like John the Apostle later says "You know that No Murderer has Eternal Life abiding in him") you can, after being forgiven, lose your soul and go to Hell. If you want to keep saying that has nothing to do with Salvation, you can, but it will keep being wrong.
Yes, that's correct. And His Word also says adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and no murderer has Eternal Life abiding in Him. Did you read what I asked earlier about Hitler. Do you consider Hitler to have had Eternal Life? He claimed he believed in Jesus, which you say is enough to have eternal life. Yet, he was a murderer, and the Word says no murderer has Eternal Life. So, what follows, logically? That he once had it, and then lost it. Or, do you believe he never had it, or alternately that he does have Eternal Life, though he was a murderer?
That's an inaccurate paraphrase. He said those Sheep of His Flock who (1) hear His Voice, (2) who know Him, and (3) who follow Him, will be given both the Gift of the Holy Spirit, as well as the Gift of Never Perishing, i.e. Perseverance in Grace.
Yet, you misunderstand them.
More clear projection on your part. And I thought you said something about bashing? Yet here you are doing just that.
Listen, believe whatever you want to believe. I will believe what I know is the Truth. There are so many verses showing it.
The Free Grace theology opinion broke out as a rejection of Lordship Salvation. Lordship Salvation is more grounded in the Bible: "The dispute opposes two soteriological visions: "whether it is necessary to accept Christ as Lord in order to have Him as one's Savior. The question then becomes, If someone accepts Christ as Savior without also explicitly accepting Him as Lord, is such a person truly saved?". That is, whether accepting Jesus Christ as saviour necessarily implies one must make a concrete commitment in life toward the Christ such as following a certain behaviour or moral system. The first opinion, that of the lordship salvation supporters, is, as Arthur W. Pink summarises: "No one can receive Christ as His Savior while he rejects Him as Lord. Therefore, those who have not bowed to Christ’s scepter and enthroned Him in their hearts and lives, and yet imagine that they are trusting Him as Savior, are deceived." The second opinion is that of those opposing lordship salvation: that one can accept Jesus Christ as saviour, but does not need to accept the Christ's lordship.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation_controversy
In the end, if we faithfully follow 2 Pet 1:5-11, we will have both Salvation and Rewards, and never stumble, as it says there. If we neglect to, we may lose Rewards, though not Salvation, as long as we both believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and love Him as Lord until death. If however, we turn away from even believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, we will have neither Salvation nor Rewards. Those Free Grace proponents who contest this and say even apostates can still be saved, although they will face discipline from the Lord, are mistaken, and Heb 10:39 and 2 Pet 2:20-22 show that very clearly.
In Christ,
Xavier.
The problem is with those who make the claim that salvation can be lost for any reason. You know that there are no verses that teach this. It is a distorted view of the Bible.
Jesus taught that believers HAVE (possess) eternal life per Jn 5:24. That means they possess eternal life WHEN they become a believer.
Jesus also taught that those He gives eternal life (believers, per Jn 5:24) shall never perish, per Jn 10:28.
Why do you keep kicking the goads? Why don't you believe what Jesus taught?
Why did you stop at v.13? Because v.14 REFUTES your unbiblical claim.
v.14 - who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
Apparently you don't believe this verse either. So, why is the "deposit"? The Holy Spirit IN the believer.
What is this "deposit" for? GUARANTEEING OUR INHERITANCE.
How long is this inheritance? "until the REDEMPTION OF THOSE WHO ARE GOD'S POSSESSION.
So, who are God's possession? Those who "having believed" (v.13) [notice the past tense] have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, who GUARANTEES their inheritance until the "redemption", meaing the resurrection.
When YOU read both verses, you should realize that your view of v.13 is WRONG.
The ONLY proof of this being true would be a verse that plainly explains that losing faith means losing our sealing. And you don't have any such verses. Just your opinion.
You don't even understand v.13, nor the clear implications of v.14.
Based on what v.13 teaches, consider these verses:
Eph 4:30 - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Even idiot believers who GRIEVE the Holy Spirit (nothing about "breaking the seal" nonsense) are STILL sealed for the day of redemption. Not even close to the idea of losing salvation.
2 Cor 1:22 - set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
2 Cor 5:5 - Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Now, could you please explain what Paul meant by "guaranteeing what is to come" in these 2 verses.
Jesus taught that believers HAVE (possess) eternal life per Jn 5:24. That means they possess eternal life WHEN they become a believer.
Jesus also taught that those He gives eternal life (believers, per Jn 5:24) shall never perish, per Jn 10:28.
Why do you keep kicking the goads? Why don't you believe what Jesus taught?
Why did you stop at v.13? Because v.14 REFUTES your unbiblical claim.
v.14 - who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
Apparently you don't believe this verse either. So, why is the "deposit"? The Holy Spirit IN the believer.
What is this "deposit" for? GUARANTEEING OUR INHERITANCE.
How long is this inheritance? "until the REDEMPTION OF THOSE WHO ARE GOD'S POSSESSION.
So, who are God's possession? Those who "having believed" (v.13) [notice the past tense] have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, who GUARANTEES their inheritance until the "redemption", meaing the resurrection.
When YOU read both verses, you should realize that your view of v.13 is WRONG.
The ONLY proof of this being true would be a verse that plainly explains that losing faith means losing our sealing. And you don't have any such verses. Just your opinion.
You don't even understand v.13, nor the clear implications of v.14.
Based on what v.13 teaches, consider these verses:
Eph 4:30 - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Even idiot believers who GRIEVE the Holy Spirit (nothing about "breaking the seal" nonsense) are STILL sealed for the day of redemption. Not even close to the idea of losing salvation.
2 Cor 1:22 - set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
2 Cor 5:5 - Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Now, could you please explain what Paul meant by "guaranteeing what is to come" in these 2 verses.
FreeGrace2 said:
So you are going to choke on a passage in spite of the clear words of Jesus about eternal security.
Since Jn 5:24 with 10:28 are TOO CLEAR to miss, it is YOU who misses the truth. You have rejected the truth of eternal security in spite of Jesus' very clear words, and you have accepted the doctrine of demons instead.
Rather than "ignore", I REFUTE your baseless opinions about the verses you wrongly believe teach that salvation can be lost. You have not been taught. Rather, you have been deceived.
I'm GLAD you said this. Since neither YOU nor anyone else can prove that Jn 5:24 and 10:28 don't teach eternal security, the 7K that you mention CANNOT teach anything opposite of eternal security. So you have just proved yourself wrong.
You just did.
Jesus' words in Jn 5:24 and 10:28 are SO CLEAR that is is very apparent that you have been deceived by the devil.
lol. You AREN'T able to recognize the truth. You strongly reject the truth.
None of them say what you want them to say.
I've explained 1 John 3 enough that you have no excuse for continuing to hold onto your false teaching.
The verse doesn't say a believing adulterer won't be IN the kingdom. It says clearly that he won't inherit the kingdom. There is a big difference that you aren't able to discern.
Not ANY verse says this unbiblical claim.
John 5:24 SAYS plainly that believers have eternal life. Jn 10:28 SAYS plainly that recipients of eternal life shall NEVER PERISH.
But you don't believe any of what Jesus taught.
So you are going to choke on a passage in spite of the clear words of Jesus about eternal security.
Since Jn 5:24 with 10:28 are TOO CLEAR to miss, it is YOU who misses the truth. You have rejected the truth of eternal security in spite of Jesus' very clear words, and you have accepted the doctrine of demons instead.
Rather than "ignore", I REFUTE your baseless opinions about the verses you wrongly believe teach that salvation can be lost. You have not been taught. Rather, you have been deceived.
I'm GLAD you said this. Since neither YOU nor anyone else can prove that Jn 5:24 and 10:28 don't teach eternal security, the 7K that you mention CANNOT teach anything opposite of eternal security. So you have just proved yourself wrong.
You just did.
Jesus' words in Jn 5:24 and 10:28 are SO CLEAR that is is very apparent that you have been deceived by the devil.
lol. You AREN'T able to recognize the truth. You strongly reject the truth.
None of them say what you want them to say.
I've explained 1 John 3 enough that you have no excuse for continuing to hold onto your false teaching.
The verse doesn't say a believing adulterer won't be IN the kingdom. It says clearly that he won't inherit the kingdom. There is a big difference that you aren't able to discern.
Not ANY verse says this unbiblical claim.
John 5:24 SAYS plainly that believers have eternal life. Jn 10:28 SAYS plainly that recipients of eternal life shall NEVER PERISH.
But you don't believe any of what Jesus taught.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Go ahead and believe this dribble. The guy has been deceived by the Great Deceiver, just like you. Both of you have rejected the very clear words of Jesus. Neither of you have any excuse, because Jesus' words are too clear.
Those who believe possess eternal life.
Those who possess eternal life shall never perish.
What you can't prove from Scripture is that the possession of eternal life can be removed.
What you can't prove is that those who possess eternal life can or will perish.
Your entire doctrine is made up of opinion, presumption.
Those who believe possess eternal life.
Those who possess eternal life shall never perish.
What you can't prove from Scripture is that the possession of eternal life can be removed.
What you can't prove is that those who possess eternal life can or will perish.
Your entire doctrine is made up of opinion, presumption.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Rather, it is you who reject the Truth and have been deceived/misled yourself. Jesus Christ said in Mat 18 that those die with hatred and unforgiveness will not go to Heaven. That's exactly what happened in the Video. I preach the Truth because I love Souls, especially other Christians, and don't want them to believe lies like that they can live in hatred and unforgiveness and still go to Heaven. What is so difficult about acknowledging the Truth and simply confessing one's hatred and unforgiveness, and being forgiven, as 1 Jn 1:9 says, and then going to Heaven? That I don't know. You will know the Truth on Judgment Day. We all will. OSAS is a false doctrine, especially Free Grace OSAS, which claims apostates and unbelievers who once were Christians can still be saved. That contradicts all of Scripture, including that one Jn 10:28 that you rely on. Apostates don't follow Him, hence they are not His Sheep. Apostates don't hear His Voice, hence they are not His Sheep. Apostates don't know Him, hence they are not His Sheep. They are His Sheep who believe and persevere in believing till death, and do those things commanded by the King of Kings in Matthew 25, for which they will be Rewarded.
In Christ,
Xavier.
In Christ,
Xavier.
-
1
- Show all
There is no guarantee of Verse 14 UNTIL we make a CHOICE to Trust God in Verse 13.
These Verses show we have the Free Will to CHOOSE.
No one trusts without WANTING to do so.
Since we have the decision to make to Trust then we also can choose to not trust.
This Verse is so plainly written we don't need to be reminded we can choose not to trust because we are instructed we must trust to first be Saved.
The logic is right there in black and white.
These Verses show we have the Free Will to CHOOSE.
No one trusts without WANTING to do so.
Since we have the decision to make to Trust then we also can choose to not trust.
This Verse is so plainly written we don't need to be reminded we can choose not to trust because we are instructed we must trust to first be Saved.
The logic is right there in black and white.
-
1
- Show all