“Full Assurance of Faith” (Hebrews 10:22)

[JLB]

John 5:24 (LEB) Truly, truly I say to you that the one who hears my word and who believes the one who sent me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Yes, believe is the key word.

Believing for a while, then longer believing, is not believing, but un-believing. Unfaithful.

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8


here is an example from the Lord, about an un-faithful servant.

His servant that was faithful, and was promoted to being a ruler over His household, then later became un-faithful.

45 “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing.47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of,51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 45-51


But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 8:12

and again

30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:...41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:30-41


JLB

 

[chessman]

Because 'fall away' in the parable is the equivalent of no longer believing (Luke 8:13 NASB).

Then what justification do you have, Biblically speaking, to redefining "fall away" to being equivalent to lose of salvation? None really.
It's equivalent to no longer believing in the immediate joy, if you ask me. Someone (some soil) that hears the word preached by an "abundant joy, word of faith@ pastor with big teeth and blinky eyes comes to mind.

And John and Paul both say that you have to continue in the word of God to be saved.

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:9 NASB)

When the disciples asked Jesus what the parable meant, Jesus didn't say 'see Paul's letter to the Corinthians or John's first and second letters. He told them what it meant right then and there. Never, not once, mentioning salvation other than the first soil that we agree were never saved. Cause Jesus said so.

But, by the way, "the teaching of Christ" is the doctrine that Jesus is the Messiah.

The teaching that trials and tribulations should be considered joy, is an additional doctrine. One many saved people struggle with maturing in.

James 1:2-4 (LEB) Consider it all joy, my brothers, whenever you encounter various trials, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing. ​

That's how one interprets 'fall away' into de-salvation'.

Yep. That's my point. You think Jesus didn't really answer their question when they asked, but rather left it to Paul and John to answer later. I reject that notion.

The rest of your post isn't apologetic. It's simply unsubstantiated accusations of "twisting", "decet" and even Satanic.

 

[JLB]

Never, not once, mentioning salvation other than the first soil that we agree were never saved. Cause Jesus said so.

Believing for a while, then longer believing, is not believing, but un-believing. Unfaithful.

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

Jesus said so in Revelation 21:8


JLB

 

[JLB]

But, by the way, "the teaching of Christ" is the doctrine that Jesus is the Messiah.

The doctrine of Christ is everything He taught.

24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
Matthew 7:24-27

and again

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. Matthew 28:19-20



JLB

 

[chessman]

Obviously if a person can still die, then they don't have the reality of eternal life.

That's just it. A saved "person" never dies.

I believe Jesus understand's eternal life in a way we don't or can't, yet.

I believe I understand Eternal Life in the way Jesus explained and Paul confirmed.

Just look at what Jesus said to the saved person beside Him on the cross. Someone might understand the thief died after his belief/salvation. I don't. I think he lives forever, including that night.

We have the promise of eternal life.

No, we have Eternal Life.

Luke 20:38 (LEB) Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him!”
​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Then what justification do you have, Biblically speaking, to redefining "fall away" to being equivalent to lose of salvation? None really.

Really Chessman? Why aren't you reading my posts?
Here it is again:

...'fall away' in the parable is the equivalent of no longer believing (Luke 8:13 NASB). And John and Paul both say that you have to continue in the word of God to be saved.

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:9 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life." (1 John 2:24-25 NASB)

"12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:12 NASB)

"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

That's how one interprets 'fall away' into de-salvation'. To fall away is to no longer believe (Luke 8:13 NASB). To no longer believe is to no longer have the Father, the Son, and eternal life.

It's equivalent to no longer believing in the immediate joy, if you ask me. Someone (some soil) that hears the word preached by an "abundant joy, word of faith@ pastor with big teeth and blinky eyes comes to mind.

When the disciples asked Jesus what the parable meant, Jesus didn't say 'see Paul's letter to the Corinthians or John's first and second letters. He told them what it meant right then and there. Never, not once, mentioning salvation other than the first soil that we agree were never saved. Cause Jesus said so.

But, by the way, "the teaching of Christ" is the doctrine that Jesus is the Messiah.

The teaching that trials and tribulations should be considered joy, is an additional doctrine. One many saved people struggle with maturing in.

James 1:2-4 (LEB) Consider it all joy, my brothers, whenever you encounter various trials, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing.

I see. So now the 'word of the kingdom' is the message of 'joy in tribulation':

13“Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear (the message of joy), receive the word (of joy) with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe (the message of joy) for a while, and in time of temptation fall away (and don't have joy anymore)." Luke 8:13 NASB parenthesis added)

I have noticed this is usually where OSAS ends up. It can't stand up to the scrutiny of scripture, so in a last gasp of hope, fundamental words and phrases like 'saved' and 'word of the kingdom' are conveniently defined in the attempt to make it so the passage in question is not even talking about salvation to begin with. This argument you're putting forth here is so absurd that I see it as OSAS being out of ammo and throwing itself on it's opponent's bayonets in a last ditch effort to win the battle.

 

[smaller]

It is a very safe assumption that these remain under the adverse judgment of the Spirit. Gal. 5:17.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

It is also a safe assumption that this is ONLY achievable by the changing of the "vile body" by the Power of Christ, Himself, which is the Promise of the Gospel. Phil. 3:21, and our HOPE in Him.

What it does NOT mean is that believers lose salvation. What believers do LOSE is detailed by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:42-49. It is in the power of no man to turn their own corruption into eternal incorruption, eternal power, eternal glory, eternal life. These are not ours to give ourselves. They are ours in Him, by His Promises.

This same sight is noted many times in the N.T. for example:

Romans 8:
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Although it seems obvious that the redemption of the "vile body" is quite well beyond our power and only in His Power, it might seem prudent to LOOK TO HIM Alone, As Perfection, For His Perfection, for this Promise of Completion, and not think that it is "our power" that will bring this to pass, as that is a rather entirely futile undertaking, and I might even term it delusional.

When it happens, we'll ALL know it. In the meantime, there is not much use kidding ourselves about the fact of our current planting, which is also delineated in detail in 1 Cor. 15:42-49. And again, to most these present things should be rather obvious, because they are our present reality.

But I suspect, as usual, that the flesh does not care to see itself the way it really is.

The bottom line here is this: Our outward man just ain't going to make it. Our inward man is the only one moving on.


2 Corinthians 4:16
For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

These two states grow in opposite directions. One, the outward man, draws closer to death each day our flesh lives tick off the clock. But the inward man grows unto eternal life and can not be lost.

 

[chessman]

Really Chessman? Why aren't you reading my posts?

I did read your post. That's how I know and replied that you were/are claiming that part of Jesus' interpretation comes from Paul and John's letters. Which of course it didn't. Why are you claiming that I didn't read your post, when I did, is the question you should be asking yourself. We both know why that is.

Long before Paul and John wrote their letters, Jesus asked the disciples if they'd understood His interpretation of the parable. They said yes. Your anding Paul and John's Scriptures to His interpretation (which don't teach de-salvation either BTW) is simply creating a fruit salad interpretation of Jesus' parable. Why do that? Because we both know that you can't get de-salvation from Jesus' interpretation of the parable.

Matthew 13:51 (LEB) “Have you understood all these things?” They said to him, “Yes.”​

Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear (the message of joy), receive the word (of joy) with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe (the in an immediate message of joy, though that's not the complete message) ...

First, I didn't say they heard a message of joy. I said they received the message with immediate joy in Matthew. Because that's what Jesus said happened. Similar (but not exactly the same) as soil 1 who didn't understand the message. Soil 2 didn't REALLY understand it completely either. They skipped (or ignored) the first step to the true message. Which was in my reply post but you either didn't read it completely, didn't understand it completely or just choose not to address that point. For whatever reason. I could speculate on your reason, but self-edited it out (it wasn't pretty).

Notice how this (my understanding) comes, not from later letters given in much different contexts, settings and written to other people. But rather, comes from Jesus' own and immediate interpretation of the very text in question. And just in case my speculation about your reasons is wrong, allow me to expand my understanding a little more.

Matthew 13:19-20 (LEB) When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is what was sown on the side of the path. ​

[for many years I heard the true Gospel message about the Kingdom of God (thus I have no desire to add the first several parentheses you added and accused me of in your paraphrase, so I struck it out). But I did not really understand it (that is the True Gospel message of The Kingdom) at first. I mostly just sat on the back row and played hangman or connect the dots. Or flirted with girls. It was not until I actually 'got it' that I felt I was a sinful and guilty soul in need of salvation. How about you? Did you understand the message of the Kingdom the very first time you heard it spoken to you? If so, I'd say that's unusual. Especially for a harden soil. Compared to some hard soils I know, I was pretty soft.]

And what was sown on the rocky ground—this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy.​

[My point is, that I had to feel guilty of my sin, before I accepted Christ and became "saved". And frankly, that didn't come easy for me. I fought it for months. Even after accepting my guilt, I didn't want to yield to Christ as my Lord. It was not until The Holy Spirit actually spoke to me (quite literally a divine moment) did I yield to Him. I felt torn up, plowed and cultivated (if you will) inside prior to yielding. Not exactly a joyful time, as I recall though it was almost 40 years ago. How bout you? Did you ever get overpowered by your guilt to the point of being torn down and broken prior to yield to The King?

So with the corrections to your paraphrasing of my argument that I didn't say or mean to begin with, yes you could say my understanding is as follows:

Matthew 13:20-21 (Chessman's understanding)
And what was sown on the rocky ground—this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he does not have a root in himself (does not have Christ in himself), but lasts (joyfully) only a little while, and when affliction or persecution happens because of the word, immediately he falls away (from his Christless joy).

 

[GodsGrace]

Can you show even one definition of the Biblical word "eternal" where it doesn't mean eternal/everlasting? Or truly doesn't mean truly? Repeated, lest some think He didn't really mean truly.

John 5:24 (LEB) Truly, truly I say to you that the one who hears my word and who believes the one who sent me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
​

Biblically speaking, Eternal Life is eternal (everlasting, never perishing) else it's not Biblical.

And furthermore, Jesus doesn't leave us confused, deceived or twisted on the Biblical definition of "the one who hears my word and who believes (present tense) means verse someone who has not believed in the past either:

John 3:18 (LEB) The one who believes in him is not judged, but the one who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.​

He doesn't say 'he has stopped believing in the name of the one and only Son of God' or your famous twist: "he who believes for awhile is saved for awhile' .... He said what he meant to say; unbelievers in Him are people (soils if you will) who have NOT believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. And furthermore, who have already been judged (past tense). Not some fictional charcter who believed in Him (in the name of the one and only Son of God) for awhile then stopped.

And while we're on the Biblical word "believes', it is often defined by a non-salvific usage: Even the demons "believe" comes to mind. James 2:19 and many other passages use "belief" this way (non-salvifically). The word itself doesn't mean to be saved. It depends on what (or Who) it is that's the object of their belief.

Beliving with immediate joy, comes to mind too.

Mark 4:16 (LEB) And these are like the ones sown on the rocky ground, who whenever they hear the word immediately receive it with joy.
​

​

Does someone (some soil) who does not hear the word of the kingdom (never has seed sown into it) become saved? No, IMO. Nor does this soil bear any kingdom fruit. It's cursed soil from long ago.

Does someone (some soil) who hears the word of the kingdom but does NOT understand it become saved? No, says Jesus. Nor does this soil bear fruit, says Jesus.

Does someone (some soil) who hears the word of the kingdom but receives it with immediate joy become saved? No, IMO. Jesus doesn't say, one way or the other. Becoming saved involves an immediate awareness of guilt due their (our) personal sin/dirty nature. Then comes sorrow and repentence. Yes, one must first recognize then turn from their dirty sin. Then comes a yielding to The King. Then comes Salvation. Then comes Joy. Then comes (potentially) kingdom fruit given enough moisture and sunlight. But if you receive the word with immediate joy, you haven't repented. Regardless, does this soil bear any fruit, No, says Jesus.

​

You are supporting loss of salvation above and maybe do not realize it.

It's interesting that you understand about tenses and verbs sometimes, and at other times you don't.

In the first highlighted and underlined, you say:

the one who hears my word and who believes the one who sent me has eternal life,

Since you understand about tenses, the above should be very easy for you.
One has ETERNAL LIFE, which means forever and ever.
BUT it's conditional on something.
It's conditional on BELIEVING.

Does that sound like a past tense to you?
A present tense? A future tense?

BELIEVING is ongoing. You believed at some point and you keep believing into the present time.

Who BELIEVES the one who sent me HAS ETERNAL LIFE.
Who BELIEVES = present tense
Has ETERNAL life = IF you BELIEVE NOW, you have eternal life.. Now, in the PRESENT.

You believe, you have eternal life.
You stop believing, you don't have eternal life.

The second highlighted and underlined is the same.
PRESENT TENSE.

The one who HEARS my word
and who BELIEVES the One who sent Me has eternal life.

All the underlined are present tense words.
You must believe NOW to be saved.
If you don't believe NOW you are not saved.

W

 

[netchaplain]

As Christians it seems we should be happy, elated, ecstatic, overjoyed, delighted, and embracing good works, not arguing against them and making good works the enemy.

Hi WIP - I think works serve as evidence for strengthening the saved and drawing the lost, which glorifies God; not a means of obtaining salvation but exemplifying salvation. Understanding the purpose of works should enhance embracing them.

 

[chessman]

Since you understand about tenses, the above should be very easy for you.
One has ETERNAL LIFE, which means forever and ever.
BUT it's conditional on something.
It's conditional on BELIEVING.

I know. I even pointed it out myself.

I DO NOT believe anyone who believes in a salvific way, can stop believing in a salvific way (i.e. OSAS). But I could stop believing in OSAS (I could fall away from believing in OSAS) if there were any Scriptures that taught it. Just not Eternal Life. If you could lose Eternal Life, then the Word of God is not true. So for me to come to believe Eternal Life is not really Eternal, I'd have to stop believing the Word of God. I'm unwilling to do that.

Does that sound like a past tense to you?
A present tense? A future tense?

Present tense, as I said.

And furthermore, Jesus doesn't leave us confused, deceived or twisted on the Biblical definition of "the one who hears my word and who believes (present tense) means

You might want to try giving what I say a chance to actually be correct and accurate before Implying I misrepresented the tenses in the verse.

BELIEVING is ongoing. You believed at some point and you keep believing into the present time.

Amen. Now your being Biblical.

That's what Paul said in 1 Cor 15:1-2 about those in Corinth that had not believed in vain too. He never said someone (an individual) had stopped believing in His name (including His ressuection). He said some had believed in vain in the past (not believing in His resduection).

You believe, you have eternal life.
You stop believing, you don't have eternal life.

If your second statement were true about someone who had been given Eternal Life, then it was not eternal. Thus I reject that notion. Plus, the Bible clearly teaches it is eternal. It's called eternal for a reason. It's not just theoretically eternal. It really, truly is eternal.

Has ETERNAL life = IF you BELIEVE NOW, you have eternal life.. Now, in the PRESENT

I know. Never have I said otherwise.

All the underlined are present tense words.

Okay, but that's not Scripture. The second Scripture explains:

John 3:18 (LEB) The one who believes in him is not judged, but the one who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

How much clearer can it be stated?

For the unsaved individual:
The one (presently) who does not believe has already been judged (past in English, perect in Greek). And Jesus even tells us why that is. Because that one person has not believed in the name ... (in the past). You just simply cannot have Jesus stating that any unsaved individual has NOT believed in the past, when he has believed in the name (according to JB and JLB) in their past.. Simple really.

Which is exactly what 1 Cor 15:1-2 teaches too. Except, there plural pronouns are used so it covers them collectively. Some saved, some not. And the parable of the sower is perfectly consisent with Jesus words here to on my view but not on JB's and JLB's view. The reason, I guess, you anti-OSASers are having a hard time with 1 Cor 15:2-2 is that you (plural) think the statement is about an individual you (singular). It's not. It's plural. Clearly addressed to the entire community there. Some saved, some not. Jesus' statement about the lost in John 3:18 is precisely for individuals. Here Jesus means an individual. He said so. English doesn't have a plural spelling for "you". Thus the reason we say y'all sometimes and the more precise English translations say "the one" or "he".

Anyway:
"You must believe NOW to be saved.
If you don't believe NOW you are not saved."

Okay, I'll buy that. If what you mean is believe in the true Gospel, including His ressurection.
And simply note that 1 Cor 15:1-2 shows that there were some that had not believed in the true Gospel in the past.

 

[Mike]

You might want to try giving what I say a chance to actually be correct and accurate before Implying I misrepresented the tenses in the verse.

This sounds like an over-reaction. To say someone "misrepresents" what scripture says carries with it the connotation that the person purposely misled. I didn't read wondering's response to imply that.

This is a general word of encouragement to everyone to avoid making this personal. That I can see, everyone is presenting an honest view of how they interpret scripture. Please focus on scripture and not the person. I see this thread degrading in that respect.

 

[chessman]

The statements W made were:

It's interesting that you understand about tenses and verbs sometimes, and at other times you don't.

(which, BTW, is pretty personal)

Since you understand about tenses, the above (John 3:18) should be very easy for you.

The second highlighted and underlined is the same.
PRESENT TENSE.

The all CAPs of PRESENT TENSE, about John 3:18 implies (to me anyway) that I stated in my post that it was past tense. Which I didn't. I even stated that it was present tense.

The statement I made was:
"You might want to try giving what I say a chance to actually be correct and accurate before Implying I misrepresented the tenses in the verse."

To say someone "misrepresents" what scripture says carries with it the connotation that the person purposely misled

I agree. I didn't say she mistepresented what Scripture said. I said she implied that I misrepresented what the tense of the verse was. Which she did. That seemed to be the whole counter point to her reply, in fact. Which is odd, since I stated it as such.

But anyway, you're right, saying someone misrepresents what Scripture says is pretty personal. I didn't do that.

 

[chessman]

Believing for a while, then longer believing, is not believing, but un-believing. Unfaithful.

No it's ex-believing. And of course un-specific as to what exactly this person was believing in. Who knows, maybe they were once a believer in a non-ressurected jesus then became an ex-beliver by believing Jesus really did rise.

45 “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season?

If you are quoting from the NKJV, look at the title of this Scripture. It clearly recoginzes this story is about two servants not one. Because it is. Not one servant that was once faithful then later became un-faithful.

His servant that was faithful, and was promoted to being a ruler over His household, then later became un-faithful.

That's nowhere to be found in this Text.

What's asked is:

Matthew 24:45 (LEB) “Who then is the faithful and wise slave whom the master has put in charge of his household slaves to give them their food at the right time?​

Then Jesus says:

Matthew 24:46 (LEB) Blessed is that slave whom his master will find so doing when he comes back.

Matthew 24:47 (LEB) Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. ​

Then says:

Matthew 24:48 (LEB) But if that evil slave should say to himself, ‘My master is staying away for a long time,’ ...​

Thus the title: The Faithful Servant and The Evil Servant. Nowwhere to be found in the story is the fauthful servant becoming the evil servant.

 

[JLB]

No it's ex-believing. And of course un-specific as to what exactly this person was believing in. Who knows, maybe they were once a believer in a non-ressurected jesus then became an ex-beliver by believing Jesus really did rise.

A person who believes for a while, then no longer believes, is no longer a believer.

All the words games, and redefining of words, will not change this simple truth.

The person is not a believer, if they no longer believe.

The promise of eternal life is to those who believe.

If you are quoting from the NKJV, look at the title of this Scripture. It clearly recoginzes this story is about two servants not one. Because it is. Not one servant that was once faithful then later became un-faithful.

45 “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing.47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of,51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 24:45-51

Jesus was teaching His disciples about the responsibility they would have, and that their disciples would have after them, all the way up until He would return.

This parable represents, not one, not two, but His servant's who He gave the responsibility of taking care of His people, as represented by them giving them food in due season.

Jesus taught us the outcome of those who were faithful to do what they we given to do, as well as the outcome of those who were not faithful to do what they were given to do.


Each servant had the responsibility to give his fellow servants the things needed.

One was faithful, in which Jesus said upon His return that he was blessed, and was to be made ruler over all his goods.

The other, who was given the same responsibility was not faithful, but began to carouse with the ungodly and mistreat the servants of the Lord, in which on the day Jesus returns, He will cut this servant in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The servant who was not faithful, was still called His servant, in contrast to the devil's servant...

as it says... the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking.

Likewise, all the rest of the parables in the Olivet Discourse teach the same thing, and establish the context of Matthew 25:30-46

30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did itto one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Matthew 25:30-31


These are all His servants, who were either faithful of unfaithful.

• His servants who were faithful, were likened to sheep.
• His servants who were unfaithful, were likened to goats.

JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

The statements W made were:

(which, BTW, is pretty personal)

The all CAPs of PRESENT TENSE, about John 3:18 implies (to me anyway) that I stated in my post that it was past tense. Which I didn't. I even stated that it was present tense.

The statement I made was:
"You might want to try giving what I say a chance to actually be correct and accurate before Implying I misrepresented the tenses in the verse."

I agree. I didn't say she mistepresented what Scripture said. I said she implied that I misrepresented what the tense of the verse was. Which she did. That seemed to be the whole counter point to her reply, in fact. Which is odd, since I stated it as such.

But anyway, you're right, saying someone misrepresents what Scripture says is pretty personal. I didn't do that.

I didn't mean to imply anything Chessman. I was just stating how I understand the scripture.
The all caps was to give importance, sorry if you took it any other way.

I've thought hard and good about Calvinism. It can't be correct and for a very simple reason.
It changes the character of God.
It makes God into a puppet maker.
It makes Him into a Director of a big play that's going on here on earth.
It makes Him into a puppet master.
It takes away our free will.
If I have free will, I can choose to be saved or NOT saved.
If Calvin is right, then I HAVE NO FREE WILL.

We can post scripture back and forth. Know why some scripture sounds like eternal security?
Because the men who wrote the N.T. never imagined they'd have to be so careful with wording because at some distant date in the future someone would even THINK what Calvin taught. Any part of it.

Do we have free will or not? THAT is the question.

If we DO NOT have free will of what value is faith?
Why would we need faith? It is GOD who will decide who is saved and who is not saved. Faith will not be necessary. It will only be necessary for us to wait till our appointed time and God will save us by infusing faith into us and MAKING us believe.

Faith will only function as faith when we have free will and are free to hear the gospel message and decide for ourselves if we wish to BELIEVE it and to have FAITH in it.

Faith: The assurance of things hoped for
The conviction of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1

Why hope for anything if it is God who decides all? In your way of thinking, hope is not necessary. God will save the person and keep him saved. We do nothing.

Adam and Eve were given free will. This is the best proof that we have free will. God told them not to eat of the tree. But they were given the FREEDOM to choose whether or not to eat of the fruit. They CHOSE to eat it. Choice requires free will. If God makes me choose something, then it must mean I have free will to choose between two options.
Deuteronomy 30:19

Jesus did not say, Just Believe In Me and All Will be Fine.
He consistently said. REPENT AND BELIEVE.
Mathew 3:2
Mathew 4:17

Peter taught what he had heard Jesus say for over 3 years in
Acts 3:19

Repent, in Greek, means to turn the other way and go in the opposite direction. If I am asked to repent, I must have the free will to decide to repent, to willingly turn and MOVE in the opposite direction. Is it ME who is moving, or is God MAKING me move? Are we puppets or not?

John also taught that we are to believe.
1 John 3:23 If John is telling us to believe and that belief is necessary (John 3.16) then it must surely mean that we can choose to believe or not believe.

Why would the N.T. ever have had to be written AT ALL, if it was going to be God to choose whom He will save??

Another fact to remember when reading the N.T. is that we are created in the image of God.
Genesis 1:27
How? We have an intellect, we are social, we have the ability to love
and we have the ability of choice. Just as God can choose whether or not to create, we also share in this quality of His. He truly made us in his image, which includes choice.

So, faith requires the ability to choose.
Belief requires the ability to choose.

We could discuss 1 Corinthians 15:2 till the cows come home.
This is not how the bible is to be read. It's a whole and complete idea and should be read that way.

The early church fathers believed in loss of salvation. I put up several links. I trust them more than Calvin.

Wondering

 

[smaller]

I've thought hard and good about Calvinism. It can't be correct and for a very simple reason.

It's not accurate to equate Calvinism with determinism. Even freewillers are determinists in many areas of understandings. And vice versa. There are also numerous degrees as to what extents determinism exists, to what extents non determinism exists. None of these observations are necessarily pat answers that can be put into tiny little boxes of observations, such as the below, what I'd consider petty caricatures of the subject matters.

It changes the character of God.

Determinism in general is hallmarked by Gods Divine Sovereignty over all. Where it starts to fall apart is when the observers "make" their own determinations about what that is or might consist of.

For what I might consider "higher forms" of determinism, it should only be said that 'whatever transpires' falls under the Domain of Sovereign Determinations, and work from that sight to find understandings.

It makes God into a puppet maker.

There is assuredly a Creator and "creations." This by nature makes the Creator much and far greater than any particular things made by The Creator. Do the math from there. There would be no puppet unless The Creator made same. Without a "made" or "created" thing no thing would exist.

I have no issues seeing creation itself as Gods Own puppet by nature of His Overwhelming Superiority by comparisons not to just any thing, but to all things. God Is and Remains Sovereign over "all things" either individually created things or the entire collective of all things. God Is Still Superior to the whole lot and batch.

It makes Him into a Director of a big play that's going on here on earth.
It makes Him into a puppet master.

Whatever transpires within creation it transpires in the settings that are made or created by The Creator for all the things therein. We also know that The Creator has the option and will employ it to end all things, 1 Peter 4:7, and will make all things new. Rev. 21:5. In the context of Eternal Existence we also have clue zero about what has transpired prior to the 'age' we are currently in other than we know other ages or eons existed in the past and will exist going forward in "our perceptions" of time. It is also debated whether the application of time itself is even applicable to 'Eternal Being.' To me it does not because it would make Eternal Being it's subject. I don't find it credible to make Eternal Being a subject of any particular "thing" including time. God Is the subject or subservient of no "thing."

It takes away our free will.

Freewill is merely an assertion. Whatever we think functions as "a will" functions in the 'created environment' in which it operates. There is no way to "extract" The Creators Hands from His creation/created environment. IT, the created environment does what it was 'created' to do. Whatever such wills do will never and can never usurp The Creators intentions with His creation and will not and can not be "greater than" The Will of The Creator. Even by simple comparisons such an asserted "freewill" can not be equated to the Will of The Creator, which is the only True Free Will that exists. The assertion then is that this supposed "free" being obviously a lesser state of "free" is then free. By the simplest comparison, it is not and can not be. It is simply less.

If I have free will, I can choose to be saved or NOT saved.

What freewillers call "choice" to determinists means conceding to the terms of The Conqueror, Christ. And whether any will submits or not, they will submit and be conquered regardless, even in the freewill postures. By The Greater Will.

1 Corinthians 15:24
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The fantasy that freewill employs is that supposedly freewill existence is able to exert it's supposed implied "resistance" for eternity. That simply won't happen. There is only ONE in Eternity. Only ONE who has been. Only ONE who will be, ever Eternal. Freewill "equals" it's eternal state in such claims. It's not. It's merely an assertion of temporal resistance, which will assuredly pass away in the context of eternity.

When we are "saved" we are essentially "conquered" and "submit to" The Greater.

If Calvin is right, then I HAVE NO FREE WILL.

We have what we have in the context of being "created" in a "created" environment and nothing more than that. Jesus shows the petty temporariness of our own power by stating this about "our thoughts:"

Luke 12:
25 And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?
26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?

IF we want to observe the long term prospects of any person's will, a simple stroll through any graveyard will show how much it's worth in the long run.

We also know by Word, that it is God Himself that upholds "all things" by His Own Power:

Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

IF God has made any will to stand itself up in His Face, He does so for His Own Humor.

Psalm 2:4
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

I think it's pretty funny as well. heh heh heh

 

[chessman]

'Wondering,
Thanks for your reply. It's well thought out.

Frankly I find that I agree with almost all of your conclusions and have some of the same questions/concerns myself that you express in this post. I'm going to study it throughout the day and reply to some of your questions and/or statements just to share my thoughts on this topic. Not so much in disagreement for disagreement’s sake but rather just to share some of my studies, beliefs and conclusions on this topic. Maybe it will be of benefit to us both. I know you've already benefited me. I do appreciate the thoughts/time you've put into this reply. It may seem like I reply exclusively in disagreement, just for the sake of disagreement only. But not really. I want to be sure my understanding(s) stand up to good/logical pressures from opposing views of the same Scriptures/Doctrines. Which is why I’m here.

All the posters here have helped me learn stuff. Yes, even the ones I disagree with in certain areas/understandings. For example, JLB taught me once that the Greek word “apeitheia” (a = not and peitho = “persuaded”) i.e. quite literally “not persuaded” is sometimes translated unbelief and sometimes translated disobedience. It carrys the meaning of “willful disobedience” or “willful unbelief” or more precisely, IMO, “the refusal to be convinced by God’s voice”. This is the word used in Heb 4:6 (and six other verses by Paul). It is sometimes translated “unbelief” and sometimes “disobedience”. But it’s not the same word as is used for belief in John 3:16 or in the other verses we’ve been discussing (just for example). It’s literally only used seven times and all by Paul (if you think Paul to be the author of Hebrews).

To me, the original point/meaning of the Greek word apeitheia is; “a refusal to be convinced by God’s voice”. Call it unbelief or disobedience or not persuaded, same thing really. Either way, it proves man has freewill, IMO. I don’t think it proves saved people loose their salvation (in fact I know it doesn’t since it doesn’t mean ‘not salvation’) but it certainly proves man’s freewill (on any reasonable definition of freewill). Now if someone defines freewill as a will so utterly independent that it cannot be influenced by anything outside of your self will and still be called “free”, then I suppose it doesn’t jive. But that seems like an unreasonable definition of free will to me. Not to mention an illogical definition. Man has all kinds of eternal influences upon his/her will. God’s one of them. Gravity’s another. Try living without the “influence” of oxygen for more than a few seconds and see how independently “free” you are.

Anyway Paul, certainly proves man can sometimes refuse to be convinced by The Holy Spirit, then again sometimes man can be convinced by The Holy Spirit. I’m living proof of that. I just simply think that The Holy Spirit is 100% effective in His primary mission when it comes to sealing a Christian in his/her belief in the name of Christ. Why not, Jesus Christ was/is 100% effective in His mission. So is The Father. It’s kind of what God does for a living.

The all caps was to give importance, sorry if you took it any other way.

Okay, thanks. I did take it another way since you also asked me the question; “Was it Present, Past or Future tense?” in the verse and also said that I didn’t understand the tenses in the verse. I simply thought you might have missed the fact that I too pointed out that the tense in that verse for believing was present tense believing. We both agree that there it is present tense in that verse, but it’s not present tense (rather past tense) in the second verse I posted. Do you have any thoughts on the statement Jesus made in John 3:18?

John 3:18b (LEB) … the one who does not believe (present) has already been judged (past), because he has not believed (past) in the name of the one and only Son of God.​

It seems to me that a person that once was saved and then no-longer is saved (assuming such a person exists) contradicts Jesus’ statement in this verse. An ex-believer (according to the believed for a while, saved for a while logic) did believe in the name of the one and only Son of God at some point in his/her past. But here, Jesus says that the person presently not believing has NOT believed in the past. A direct contradiction to the logic involved in ‘believe for a while, saved for a while'.

I've thought hard and good about Calvinism. It can't be correct and for a very simple reason. It changes the character of God.

I’m no expert on Calvin’s teachings. I picked up a copy of Institutes a few months back and started to read it. I found myself not really enjoying the style of his writings nor the rigor he used to defend his doctrinal teachings, understandings and conclusions. So I dropped reading it about two chapters in. But I do have it on ebook. I doubt very seriously that his teachings were intended to ‘change the character of God’ or ‘make God into a puppet maker’. But whatever, I’m not here to defend Mr. Calvin. Don’t really even know that much about him, nor care to.

I plan to reply to some of your other comments/questions later on today.

But thanks again for the interaction.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I did read your post. That's how I know and replied that you were/are claiming that part of Jesus' interpretation comes from Paul and John's letters. Which of course it didn't. Why are you claiming that I didn't read your post, when I did, is the question you should be asking yourself. We both know why that is.

Long before Paul and John wrote their letters, Jesus asked the disciples if they'd understood His interpretation of the parable. They said yes. Your anding Paul and John's Scriptures to His interpretation (which don't teach de-salvation either BTW) is simply creating a fruit salad interpretation of Jesus' parable. Why do that? Because we both know that you can't get de-salvation from Jesus' interpretation of the parable.

Matthew 13:51 (LEB) “Have you understood all these things?” They said to him, “Yes.”​

First, I didn't say they heard a message of joy. I said they received the message with immediate joy in Matthew. Because that's what Jesus said happened. Similar (but not exactly the same) as soil 1 who didn't understand the message. Soil 2 didn't REALLY understand it completely either. They skipped (or ignored) the first step to the true message. Which was in my reply post but you either didn't read it completely, didn't understand it completely or just choose not to address that point. For whatever reason. I could speculate on your reason, but self-edited it out (it wasn't pretty).

Notice how this (my understanding) comes, not from later letters given in much different contexts, settings and written to other people. But rather, comes from Jesus' own and immediate interpretation of the very text in question. And just in case my speculation about your reasons is wrong, allow me to expand my understanding a little more.

Matthew 13:19-20 (LEB) When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is what was sown on the side of the path. ​

[for many years I heard the true Gospel message about the Kingdom of God (thus I have no desire to add the first several parentheses you added and accused me of in your paraphrase, so I struck it out). But I did not really understand it (that is the True Gospel message of The Kingdom) at first. I mostly just sat on the back row and played hangman or connect the dots. Or flirted with girls. It was not until I actually 'got it' that I felt I was a sinful and guilty soul in need of salvation. How about you? Did you understand the message of the Kingdom the very first time you heard it spoken to you? If so, I'd say that's unusual. Especially for a harden soil. Compared to some hard soils I know, I was pretty soft.]

And what was sown on the rocky ground—this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy.​

[My point is, that I had to feel guilty of my sin, before I accepted Christ and became "saved". And frankly, that didn't come easy for me. I fought it for months. Even after accepting my guilt, I didn't want to yield to Christ as my Lord. It was not until The Holy Spirit actually spoke to me (quite literally a divine moment) did I yield to Him. I felt torn up, plowed and cultivated (if you will) inside prior to yielding. Not exactly a joyful time, as I recall though it was almost 40 years ago. How bout you? Did you ever get overpowered by your guilt to the point of being torn down and broken prior to yield to The King?

So with the corrections to your paraphrasing of my argument that I didn't say or mean to begin with, yes you could say my understanding is as follows:

Matthew 13:20-21 (Chessman's understanding)
And what was sown on the rocky ground—this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he does not have a root in himself (does not have Christ in himself), but lasts (joyfully) only a little while, and when affliction or persecution happens because of the word, immediately he falls away (from his Christless joy).

We know the second type of soil was saved because it retained the word of God having started to grow (in contrast to soil #1). And we know it stopped being saved because it stopped retaining the seed it had received.
These have always been truths. They didn't start becoming truths when John and Paul wrote them down for us. They were true even before Jesus uttered the parable.

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:9 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life." (1 John 2:24-25 NASB)

"12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11 NASB)

"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

John has specifically warned about this spirit of antichrist at work in the church to deceive us about the truth about abiding in the word:

26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:26 NASB)
10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:10 NASB)

 

[chessman]

Know why some scripture sounds like eternal security?
Because the men who wrote the N.T. never imagined they'd have to be so careful with wording because at some distant date in the future someone would even THINK what Calvin taught. Any part of it.

Or it could be because eternal security is true and that the men that wrote the N.T. (and O.T.) were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write down carefully and with precise enough wording to depict exactly what God wanted them to write. To me, the Bible reads like no other book I’ve ever read. Hands down, by far, the most precision and exact intricate perfection ever.

Do we have free will or not? THAT is the question.

Depends on your definition of free will. But I say yes, given this definition: The ability to choose A or not A.

Let’s say A = to lie. Does man have the ability to choose to sin or not to sin? I say yes. Simple really.

Now where it gets complicated (but not contradictory) is what external influences rise to the level of preventing and/or cause man to make his/her choice of either A or not A. It’s also complicated (but non-contradictory) when someone wants to compare man’s free will to God’s free will under this definition. For example, Does God (The Father) have the ability to choose to sin or not to sin??? Does God (The Son) have the ability to choose to sin or not to sin??? (like being tempted in the desert).

If we DO NOT have free will of what value is faith?

I’m not sure exactly what’s being asked. Plus we do have free will, so I may not be the best person to ask. But putting on a strict determinist hat for a minute, I’d say that the value faith given no free will is the same as the value given free will. If everything man chooses (either A or not A, either sin or not sin) is determined for him by an external agent (say God), then faith has value. Or, if man can choose to either sin or not sin, then faith has value. Either way, faith has value.

Why would we need faith? It is GOD who will decide who is saved and who is not saved. Faith will not be necessary. It will only be necessary for us to wait till our appointed time and God will save us by infusing faith into us and MAKING us believe.

I do not believe GOD has caused/created me to not have the ability to choose A or not A (choose to have faith or not have faith). Either before or after receiving Eternal Life. I pretty much know that I had the ability to choose faith. I certainly felt the urging of the Holy Spirit (as I also felt the urging of my flesh), but to me, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t have chosen faith or not faith at that time (or any other time). So I’m not the person to ask this question of.

Faith will only function as faith when we have free will and are free to hear the gospel message and decide for ourselves if we wish to BELIEVE it and to have FAITH in it.

Okay. All I know is that when I made a decision to make Jesus Christ Lord, I did so with heavy influence from the Holy Spirit to choose faith. Could I have held out longer and longer and chose not faith? I don’t know. Maybe. But I didn’t.

Faith: The assurance of things hoped for
The conviction of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1

Biblical faith is assurance and conviction of things. Sure it’s assurance and conviction of things hoped for and not seen. But let’s not forget that it’s the assurance and conviction of those things.

Why hope for anything if it is God who decides all? In your way of thinking, hope is not necessary. God will save the person and keep him saved. We do nothing.

That’s not my way of thinking and I’m pretty sure I know the way I think. I think that I have assurance and conviction of future things not seen (like seeing the New Heaven) because God has told me so.

Adam and Eve were given free will. This is the best proof that we have free will. God told them not to eat of the tree. But they were given the FREEDOM to choose whether or not to eat of the fruit. They CHOSE to eat it. Choice requires free will. If God makes me choose something, then it must mean I have free will to choose between two options.
Deuteronomy 30:19

Okay. Makes sense to me. Eve had the ability to choose A and not A (eat it or not eat it, in this case) and she choose to eat it. Even while God said not to and the Serpent said eat it. Poof, free will.

Is it ME who is moving, or is God MAKING me move? Are we puppets or not?

It’s you. No we are not puppets.

Another fact to remember when reading the N.T. is that we are created in the image of God.
Genesis 1:27
How? We have an intellect, we are social, we have the ability to love
and we have the ability of choice.

Okay. I’ll buy that. Makes sense to me.
So, faith requires the ability to choose.
Belief requires the ability to choose.

We could discuss 1 Corinthians 15:2 till the cows come home.
This is not how the bible is to be read. It's a whole and complete idea and should be read that way.

I try my best to read, study and understand the Text in a systematic way. I can assure you I do not intentionally take a Text out of its intended context. If someone care prove to me that I’m not understanding the context of a passage broadly enough to get it right, I’ll listen and learn.

The early church fathers believed in loss of salvation. I put up several links

Most of the writings we have from them did, sure. Most all of Israel believes in lose of salvation each week/month. Those coming out of a Jewish lifestyle certainly struggled with this new idea of believing in a one-time sacrifice covering their sins. Billions of RCC members do too, to this day. I don’t really see the point nor the Biblical case for lose of salvation, though. If I did, I wouldn't be OSAS. We only have a small fraction of the Apostolic Father’s writings. Who knows what was written among all the lost letters and other students of the original apostles. Secondly, if there’s anything clear from reading them (and I’ve read a lot), is that they disagreed about a whole lot of things. You think CFnet get’s rough. These guys fought to the death or exile over many of their doctrinal disagreements. What I mostly learn from the Greek Speaking Early Church Fathers is how they viewed the usage of the actual Greek words within the Greek manuscripts. There’s not an Early Church father that expressed the doctrine of the Trinity until around 180 A.D. Yet, we hold that doctrine as orthodox Christianity. Why? Because the Bible was written carefully with the wording to support such a doctrine.