Not By Works

I spent most of the afternoon explaining to chris how Saul was not a true believer, and God eventually departed from him, and David was a true believer , and even through he sinned ( badly), God never departed from him.


religious people like chris have no interest in seeing anything other than their beliefs. they ignore their own sin.

I know. I have a cousin just like this. blinded by religion .

Yes! But don't tell me, tell those who insist that you don't have to live in holiness to be saved when Jesus comes back because you can't lose your salvation.

I would go so far as to say rationalization of sin is a hallmark of those who defend once saved always saved doctrine.

Yes, my judgments are very biased......biased according to scripture. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you are to consider it a duck. That's an entirely scriptural bias.

Actually, I agree with this. Just as I believe that going on the defensive about other people living in holiness is generally the rant of an unbeliever.

You keep bringing up these fringe denominations that none of us takes very seriously to defend this supposed fact that working to earn your salvation is a problem in our mainline evangelical denominations we call the church. No, the exact opposite is true. We have an evangelical church full of people who have been brainwashed into thinking that not having works of obedience does not matter because salvation is not by works (which it isn't) and because it isn't by works once you are saved you are always saved.

That being said, I will say that if the church is guilty of any reliance on any 'works' it's their reliance on their association and participation in church activities. Note I said church activities and ministries, not works of obedience. And they will make their plea to enter the kingdom of God based on those ministerial duties and their association with Jesus and the church. They will not enter the kingdom of God. You know this.

it says they CANT (Descriptive)

you twist it to say they MUST NOT (prescriptive)

i pray you see the major problem soon.

Jesus is referring to what Catholics call "transubstiation" (spelt something like that).
A very real happening, along the path of the "overcomer", to the "Holy Priesthood."
And, I'm not, nor ever was a Catholic!

Again! Simply the "perils" of the OSAS crowd!

I agree that reading John 6 only one would conclude its OSAS one and done.

But how do we reconcile that with some treading on the son of God and the blood by which they *were* sanctified? How can they be sanctified by the blood if they were not saved.

These demand an answer as well, how can we view them in light of what John 6 is saying? I realize many answers can be answered with they went out from among us because they were not of us, but how does that work with these who have been sanctified by the blood? Could you respond to that, or anyone else? I would like to thank VCO again for responding to me regarding 1 Cor 6:9-11 and I found his view of it biblical and logical, good view.

Because you have the trait common to unbelievers of going off on people who, real or not, live in holiness.

Stop right there.
Not all beliefs about being able to lose your salvation breed insecurity. If a person thinks the abundance of their works earns their salvation, then yes, that will probably breed insecurity as to whether you have enough works to earn salvation. But that is hardly what I've been sharing here.

Assurance of a secure salvation comes out of knowing that as long as you believe and trust in Christ's blood right now you are in fact very much saved, right now. The flip side is if you don't believe in the blood of Christ, or are living in your old unchanged life you should be very insecure and not assured of any perceived salvation you may think you have. That awareness is not a bad thing! You show me in the Bible where it says not to have that kind of fear and I will show you in the Bible where it says to have that fear. Deal?

I honestly don't care about Mormons and Catholics and various other denoms outside of mainstream evangelical Protestant Christianity. Myself and many others don't consider them relevant to a discussion about matters within mainline evangelical church. You're reaching outside of the church to make a case inside the church. That's not going to work. Instead why don't you talk about the reliance on ministerial works and the association with Jesus and his people that those in our circles rely on?

Like I say, don't tell me. Tell your once saved always saved friends who think works don't matter because salvation is not by works and because of that once you are saved you are always saved.

That is exactly what the evangelical once saved always saved crowd needs to hear.

Once again, don't tell me, tell your once saved always saved brethren. They are the one's being deceived into thinking they can live in sin.

The only meaningful difference between my doctrine and your's is I believe a person is free to go back to unbelief. I don't know why it's so important for you to insist that a person can not go back to unbelief after having genuinely believed other than you can't help but to see that if a person thinks they can lose salvation that can only mean they believe salvation is by works.

I do believe a person can fall away from genuine belief and be lost, and I absolutely do not believe that works earn salvation. I'm on that narrow road between the works gospel and the 'you can't lose your salvation' gospel. We exist.....we're a few people who believe you must keep believing to be saved and who do not believe that works earn salvation. Stop thinking that if don't believe in once saved always saved doctrine then you can only be a works salvationist and, therefore, you are wrong in your beliefs.

Paul said to run the race to the end, and I can imagine him saying, "The OSAS people have left, they do not belong to us."

They claim that 'sanctified' is referring to unbelievers who have been sanctified by God for contact with believers, like an unbelieving spouse and their children are 'sanctified' for contact with by a believer.

Problem: No where in scripture does God sanctify a willfully sinning unbeliever to be in contact with believers in the church. The Bible instructs us to expel them for the very reason that they are NOT sanctified.

It doesn't.
Even right in John's letter where he says 'those who left show they were never with us' he instructs the believers who remained to not leave, too. That obviously indicates 1 John 2:19 doesn't mean what once saved always saved is sure it means. Besides, the believing Galatians and Corinthians departed from the pure message of the gospel they received. They were really saved, and they left. Kind of ruins the once saved always saved interpretation of 1 John 2:19. So it means something else, and I think it has to do with the reason why they left. The leaving in their case seems to have had to do with never having the correct fundamental knowledge of Christ's appearance in the world upon which to be born again.

You're missing the point I made.
The text says to discipline that person in the church so their spirit may be saved when Jesus returns.
But if you can't lose your salvation why must their flesh die so they may be saved when Jesus returns?

....so he may be saved when Jesus returns.
Kind of kills once saved always saved doctrine which says there would be no need to do that to be saved because you are already saved.

Why don't you believe in eternal security? Who and what do you depend on to keep you saved?

Also when you speak of falling away and turning away from God do you mean not believing in Jesus anymore or sinning too much or something else?

Why do you suppose the 'once saved always saved' church at large is not following their lead then?

I believe his point that the difference involves those who believed among Israel verses this as who did not believe in Jesus. Remember that Paul himself was an Israelite.

Look into the passage more if you like. It can help if you think a passage contradicts another one, to research more about it.

This is atypical "tradition/precept of man" response from one who has been cut-off!

Boast much?

Just like everyone else who doesn't "believe" as he sez "they" do!

It's a matter of being a son who inherits eternal life and being one who doesn't.

Remember, Abraham had two sons.

NO it is NOT of the OSAS crowd, as we believe it is SYMBOLISM, that the Wine and the Bread only represents, and do not TURN INTO the Body and Blood, upon ingesting it. Your concept of OSAS is Severely Distorted. Get your Info on OSAS, directly from us; instead of repeating what your teachers have unwittingly taught you about our Beliefs, which only amounts to lies.

The word is spelled: transubstantiation, and refers to the belief of the Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, and a few others.

No, I don't think there is a contradiction.
I just like to point out that Romans 11 says, both, Israel has been cast away, and Israel has not been cast away, whenever it comes up in debate.

Saul was a believer... for GB9 (helping with the highlighter).

We are saved eternally provided we continue with the Lord to the end, do not grieve the Holy Spirit, or have a change of heart. I know you people say that cannot happen, but I know how changeable people can be. The Bible is very specific about backsliders, the warnings are horrendous and the Israelites flip-flopped very easily between the true God and false gods. We would not be warned against it happening, if it were not true. My concerns are not for myself but for others, and they are not dispelled by their easy dismissal of such things. All scripture is to be taken seriously, but the cults are very selective, and it is this selectivity and misapplication of scripture that causes me to be alarmed.