The problem of the statement of “never saved to begin with”

[Kroogz]

OSASER’s explain away passages. It’s ridiculous how dishonest they are with them.

The truth of fellowship, discipline and sanctification is lost in "loss of salvation."

In light of these truths, read them. Rather than going into the verse reading"loss of salvation" read "loss of fellowship."

The prodigal son was dead to the father in regards to fellowship......He always remained the fathers son.

 

[HeIsHere]

The truth of fellowship, discipline and sanctification is lost in "loss of salvation."

In light of these truths, read them. Rather than going into the verse reading"loss of salvation" read "loss of fellowship."

The prodigal son was dead to the father in regards to fellowship......He always remained the fathers son.

In my view anyone who adheres to self - maintaining salvation (obedience, abiding, keep believing) along with a losable salvation

(usually go together) has nothing to teach me until that get themselves aligned with scripture on saved is saved.

 

[Musicmaster]

The disciples of Christ Jesus did what they were trained to do, which is to primarily minister to Israel. Jesus Himself called Gentiles "dogs," and for good reason:

Ephesians 2:11-13
11 Wherefore remember, that ye [Gentiles] being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Verse 13 is the key to the mystery revealed (the body of Christ) only to Paul at first, not to the eleven, is yet again something that so many miss because of their failure to rightly divide the word of truth. Before the fall of Israel, Gentiles had only the priesthood of Israel through which they could enter to be in Christ. The reformed gang can't see the forest for the trees, along with the RCC and many other groupings and denominations.

The lack of discernment on the part of many is amazing. Failure for so many to grapple with such things as this parable is what feeds the fires that burn away understanding:

Luke 13:6-9
6 He spake also this parable; A certain man (Messiah) had a fig tree (Israel) planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit (faith) thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years (hint, hint) I come seeking fruit on this fig tree (Israel), and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down (Stephen's stoning).

(Parentheses entries above and below are mine.)

The nay-sayers out there have demanded that this parallel isn't correct, and yet they have no other parallel to place along-side this parable recorded in Luke's gospel. It speaks volumes to the fall of Israel:

Romans 11:11-13
11 I say then, Have they stumbled (Israel) that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them (Israel) to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness (restoration)?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

This is so very overlooked by the LoS and other groupings of blind and indifferent claimants to following Christ Jesus. Notice in verse 13 where Paul declared that HE is the apostle to the Gentiles. Throughout the four gospels, we have to recognize this command from Christ to them at that time:

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

It was only to bloodline Israel they were commanded to go at that time, and to the scattered twelve tribes abroad. James remained true to that command after the ascension of Christ:

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

James was not writing to the Gentiles because he was not the apostle to the Gentiles.

So, sticking today to what was written TO us under the Gospel of Grace, we can indeed reverence the truths written TO Israel, but when we try to integrate the two sets of instructions into one, there results only confusion and inconsistencies.

Gentiles were never "scattered abroad," because that's where they lived...

MM

 

[HeIsHere]

The king revoked (took back) the forgiven debt of his servant. (Parable of the Unforgiving Servant)

Interesting how the master revoked the debt but no mention of who bore the debt.

I would say parables should not be stretched out to include some statement about a losable salvation which is clearly not the point of the parable,

 

[Lamar]

thank Goodness the son still had his fathers blood. He never stopped being the son.

He was still a dead son, he was still a lost son.

DNA does not save. There is no hope in being a dead and lost son.

Better a live dog then a dead lion. (Ecclesiastes 9:4)

There is also no point in clinging to a forgiveness that has been revoked/taken back. (Matthew 18;21-35)

But hey, if you think you can claim a forgiven debt that was revoked, I guess feel free.

 

[Lamar]

Interesting how the master revoked the debt but no mention of who bore the debt.

???????
Who bore the debt? The servant in Matthew 18:24, of course.

I would say parables should not be stretched out to include some statement about a losable salvation which is clearly not the point of the parable,

The whole parable is about forgiveness and the revoking of forgiveness.

What do you think this parable is about?

 

[PennEd]

The Daddy (Abba) said that his son was lost, he said he was dead. (The Parable of the Lost Son)

The king revoked (took back) the forgiven debt of his servant. (Parable of the Unforgiving Servant)

The son/servant were not "disciplined" they were in a condemned state.

Jesus spoke the Parables in Luke 15 as if they were one in trying to get them to see that God will always draw to Himself, and find those that His sheep.

The optimal verse in 15 is 4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost UNTIL HE FINDS IT?

The prodigal son is a great example of a son, that although reckoned lost and dead, NEVER lost his sonship. God allowed him to go through the consequences of his sin, and drew him back (17 “But when he came to himself,) God is fully capable of drawing, finding, AND keeping those that are His.

The king revoked (took back) the forgiven debt of his servant. (Parable of the Unforgiving Servant)

The son/servant were not "disciplined" they were in a condemned state.

First off, this Parable was said as an answer to Peter's question about forgiving his brother. It is a descriptive Parable. If you are His you will forgive. If you are incapable of forgiving someone, you need to examine whether or not you have been born again. His Children WILL forgive. Descriptive.

Secondly, if we extrapolate the Parable into a Salvation metaphor, which is fine, EVERYONE'S sin is forgiven and paid for by Jesus Christ. I do NOT believe in limited atonement.
But we have to believe through faith in that Truth or His Sacrifice will not apply. The lost will know they are lost because they did not believe, and all their debt will be put back on their ledger.
Unlike the Prodigal son, this Parable does NOT say the man was a son.

We become sons of God by believing in faith and then being born again.

Again I ask. You believe Father Abba will cast you into hell if do, or don't do something?

 

[HeIsHere]

???????
Who bore the debt? The servant in Matthew 18:24, of course.
The whole parable is about forgiveness and the revoking of forgiveness.

What do you think this parable is about?

My point is in reality another came in and bore the debt completely and HE had no debt of HIS own.

Therefore the parable is not about a losable salvation.

 

[studier]

Jumping in late and not reading 324 posts to see if John6 was discussed, but John6:60-71 surely looks like it speaks of some who may have seemed "saved," maybe even to themselves. They are called "disciples" 6:60-61, were walking with Jesus 6:66 (interesting verse number), but had never [truly] believed 6:64, came to a point where they found His teaching harsh/hard to their ears 6:60, were offended by Him 6:61, did not let Jesus challenge them by asking what if they saw Him ascend back to Heaven 6:62, then were no longer walking with Him 6:66, etc..

Jesus' answer beyond saying they did not believe, is that our Father had not given/granted them to Him 6:65.

So, in this case it seems the "never saved to begin with" is a valid consideration. Maybe if we challenged more pew-sitters with some aggressive teaching of the Word, we'd find many who never believed walking away as when Jesus challenged disciples who were walking with Him to confirm abiding belief which is part of what true belief is.

From this section of Scripture alone, is non-abiding faith (at whatever point in our years) ever true faith? How do we know we truly believe? How do we know we'll never walk away?

The greater question for me is, who is actually granted? It seems to me we rarely if ever discuss this. It also seems we rarely if ever discuss the Father's position in determining who may or may not have truly come to believe in His Son.

 

[Believer08]

I believe this thread has run its course.

 

[studier]

I believe this thread has run its course.

Did you accomplish what you set out to do?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

He was still a dead son, he was still a lost son.

He was still a son.

A non believer lost soul is not a son. A son is adopted or birthed. they do not stop being sons

DNA does not save. There is no hope in being a dead and lost son.

Actually the DNA of Jesus does save.

Better a live dog then a dead lion. (Ecclesiastes 9:4)

A dog will spend eternity in hell. we know that because a dog returns to his vomit. because he is still a dog.

There is also no point in clinging to a forgiveness that has been revoked/taken back. (Matthew 18;21-35)

But hey, if you think you can claim a forgiven debt that was revoked, I guess feel free.

Jesus said forgive 70 X 7 times..

I guess you would never do that? maybe thats why6 you do not think Christ will

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I believe this thread has run its course.

yeah, it was thoroughly debunked as an anticalvinist thread. that has no bearing on truth

 

[Believer08]

Did you accomplish what you set out to do?

Yes.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Jumping in late and not reading 324 posts to see if John6 was discussed, but John6:60-71 surely looks like it speaks of some who may have seemed "saved," maybe even to themselves. They are called "disciples" 6:60-61, were walking with Jesus 6:66 (interesting verse number), but had never [truly] believed 6:64, came to a point where they found His teaching harsh/hard to their ears 6:60, were offended by Him 6:61, did not let Jesus challenge them by asking what if they saw Him ascend back to Heaven 6:62, then were no longer walking with Him 6:66, etc..

Jesus' answer beyond saying they did not believe, is that our Father had not given/granted them to Him 6:65.

So, in this case it seems the "never saved to begin with" is a valid consideration. Maybe if we challenged more pew-sitters with some aggressive teaching of the Word, we'd find many who never believed walking away as when Jesus challenged disciples who were walking with Him to confirm abiding belief which is part of what true belief is.

From this section of Scripture alone, is non-abiding faith (at whatever point in our years) ever true faith? How do we know we truly believe? How do we know we'll never walk away?

The greater question for me is, who is actually granted? It seems to me we rarely if ever discuss this. It also seems we rarely if ever discuss the Father's position in determining who may or may not have truly come to believe in His Son.

I do not think we will know really who may or may not have come to believe. until we see who is in heaven.

To many make believers out there who profess faith, but sadly reject faith

 

[Musicmaster]

Jumping in late and not reading 324 posts to see if John6 was discussed, but John6:60-71 surely looks like it speaks of some who may have seemed "saved," maybe even to themselves. They are called "disciples" 6:60-61, were walking with Jesus 6:66 (interesting verse number), but had never [truly] believed 6:64, came to a point where they found His teaching harsh/hard to their ears 6:60, were offended by Him 6:61, did not let Jesus challenge them by asking what if they saw Him ascend back to Heaven 6:62, then were no longer walking with Him 6:66, etc..

Jesus' answer beyond saying they did not believe, is that our Father had not given/granted them to Him 6:65.

So, in this case it seems the "never saved to begin with" is a valid consideration. Maybe if we challenged more pew-sitters with some aggressive teaching of the Word, we'd find many who never believed walking away as when Jesus challenged disciples who were walking with Him to confirm abiding belief which is part of what true belief is.

From this section of Scripture alone, is non-abiding faith (at whatever point in our years) ever true faith? How do we know we truly believe? How do we know we'll never walk away?

The greater question for me is, who is actually granted? It seems to me we rarely if ever discuss this. It also seems we rarely if ever discuss the Father's position in determining who may or may not have truly come to believe in His Son.

It's interesting that under the Kingdom Gospel, endurance is what was required for one to be saved, which is not what we are under today who are saved, for we are sealed under the Gospel of Grace.

[Mat 10:22 KJV] 22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved (notice the FUTURE tense).

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (notice the FUTURE tense).

Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (notice the FUTURE tense).

Please pardon the repetitiveness of my pointing out the future tense for the salvation for those who were under the Kingdom Gospel, but this is an important feature of the language written that is so easily missed by so many. Those under the Kingdom Gospel were and will be required to endure. The contrast in the salvational realities under the two different gospels is striking, and when ignorant people try to harmonize them together as if they were written to the same audience, but were not. The nay-sayers will have ignored what I wrote prior in this thread as backing for this, which is their loss.

MM

 

[Believer08]

@Lamar, there are two camps of OSAS: Those who are in the camp as people of Bill Foster, Sam Morris, and Charles Stanley, etc etc…and those in the camp of the “Never truly saved in the first place” camp. The first camp (as heretical as it is, is consistent in with saying someone is ALWAYS saved). The second camp, (which is the most common nowadays since they realize their doctrine is false) falls in the “NTSTBW” (Never Truly Saved To Begin With) camp.

The second camp cannot fathom for the life of them that someone who has pledged their allegiance to Christ end up living in sin, becoming an apostate, etc etc, so they will just say “Oh…well…err…uh…they were never saved…”

Right…

The first camp (like the second) usually have the most illogical explanations to passages that teaches against OSAS.

 

[Musicmaster]

That any true believer can have such a lack of faith in the power of God's transformation in the lives of true believers, that's just astounding...

MM

 

[studier]

I believe this thread has run its course.

Looks like false belief. Maybe belief in some sense but not true in another sense(s).

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

@Lamar, there are two camps of OSAS: Those who are in the camp as people of Bill Foster, Sam Morris, and Charles Stanley, etc etc…and those in the camp of the “Never truly saved in the first place” camp. The first camp (as heretical as it is, is consistent in with saying someone is ALWAYS saved). The second camp, (which is the most common nowadays since they realize their doctrine is false) falls in the “NTSTBW” (Never Truly Saved To Begin With) camp.

The second camp cannot fathom for the life of them that someone who has pledged their allegiance to Christ end up living in sin, becoming an apostate, etc etc, so they will just say “Oh…well…err…uh…they were never saved…”

Right…

The first camp (like the second) usually have the most illogical explanations to passages that teaches against OSAS.

Your still wrong

No camp believes one can lose salvation. hence why they use the term once saved always saved.

if someone could lose salvation. once saved always saved would be a lie. so no one would believe it was even possible.

the only reason anyone would say they were never saved to begin with, is again, the same way John used it, They were never of is. if they were, they would never have departed.