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

[Jethro Bodine]

No you didn't answer it previously. Quote where you addressed my question (reposted above) before now, if you did.

What post is your original question in? That will help me find my first answer to your question.

 

[GodsGrace]

'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.

Thanks Chessman. I like your friendly tone. I don't like to argue, I like to discuss. It's up to the Holy Spirit to convince - besides convicting.

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).

I have also learned from JLB. He has a simple and direct way of explaining, which is how it should be.
He says this in his post no. 435:

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.

It really cannot be explained any better than this.
And it stands t reason that if you are "not persuaded", you do not believe and you will also not obey.

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.

Free will, as you said, is definitely influenced by both both internal and external forces. Anything we know and are aware of will help us to come to any decision, not only spiritual decisions.
My whole point is that if we're free to enter into salvation, then we must also be free to abandon it. If not, then at that point our free will would be taken away.

CONT'D

 

[GodsGrace]

PART II

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.

A Christian is sealed, safe and secure, as long as he believes. As long as he believes and has faith in Jesus and His salvific work, the believer is safe. He is sealed. His name is in the book of life. So, now, can I not decide that I no longer wish to serve God and am I not free to have the will to leave Him and His salvation?
I believe that a decision must be made. We either have free will, or we don't. The bible teaches me that I must make choices. I am to choose not only between good and evil, but I'm also required to choose whether or not I wish to be saved.

John 6:66 Many of Jesus' DISCIPLES, withdrew, and were not walking with Him ANYMORE.
They were disciples, followers of Jesus, believers in Jesus, but now they were walking with him NO MORE.

1 Timothy 1:18-19
We are asked to fight the good fight. We are asked to keep the faith and keep a good conscious, WHICH SOME HAVE REJECTED and suffered SHIPWRECK in regard to their faith.

Mathew 24:10
Many at that time (of tribulation) WILL FALL AWAY.
Jesus Himself said it is possible to fall away!

Hebrews 10:26-29
Anyone who GOES ON sinning after receiving the truth should expect a terrifying judgement because he is trampling underfoot the Son of God. This is a person who RECEIVED the TRUTH and THEN goes on sinning. Does it sound to you like this person is still safe from the wrath of God?

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'.

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.

Easy Chessman. Above is stated one of the most fundamental principles of our Christian faith.
THE ONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE (present) Of course present! You must believe presently, now, to be saved.

HAS ALREADY BEEN JUDGED (past) When one is born, he is born lost. You must attain salvation or you die lost. So when you are born, you are already judged. Past tense. You WERE born, at the time you WERE judged to be lost.

BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED (past) When he dies, in the future, he will be lost because HE HAS NOT BELIEVED, at some time in the past, in the one and only name... This is a person who never believed. He was born lost, he never believed, and he will die lost because he never believed.

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.

You should take the time to re-read Calvin's five points if you do not believe they change the character of God as I said and which you deny above.. Let's go thru them quick:

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)

Unconditional Election - God picks you. You have nothing to say about it. You do NOT have free will. You are thus a puppet doing only what God wants you to do or believe with no interaction by you.

Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement) - Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was only valid for certain persons - not everyone. Does this sound like a good God to you? He actually picks who is to go to hell?
This does not change the character of God? I thought He was a good and loving God??

Irresistible Grace - Again, God infuses grace into us. We have no choice as to whether or not we want to receive it.
.
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved) - God not only chooses whom He will save, but He insists on keeping saved those He chooses - no choice on their part as to whether or not they want to remain saved and in God's service.

What if I become saved, and then decide to serve satan the rest of my life? Am I still saved?
You may say I was never saved to begin with. Why not? If my life denoted a change and I claimed to be saved then why wouldn't I be? Because, by Calvin's theory, I HAD NO FREE WILL to choose or not choose. So, I could never really be certain, at any given moment as to whether or not I really am saved. @ Jethro Bodine speaks to this really well and often.

All ideas to consider...


Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

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).


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.
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
It’s you. No we are not puppets.

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

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.
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.

I'm sorry to say Chessman, that you seem confused to me in your beliefs as seen by your statements above.
Lack of time - will get to this tomorrow.

W

 

[JLB]

What if I become saved, and then decide to serve satan the rest of my life? Am I still saved?
You may say I was never saved to begin with. Why not? If my life denoted a change and I claimed to be saved then why wouldn't I be? Because, by Calvin's theory, I HAD NO FREE WILL to choose or not choose. So, I could never really be certain, at any given moment as to whether or not I really am saved. @ Jethro Bodine speaks to this really well and often.

Yes ma'am.

It couldn't be any clearer...I HAD NO FREE WILL to choose or not choose. So, I could never really be certain, at any given moment as to whether or not I really am saved.

However we do know that we are saved because... The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, Romans 8:16


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The word "saved" only even appears one time in the parable or it's interpretation. Jesus never said the rocky soil was "saved". What we know (because He said it) was that the only one that understood the word about the kingdom was the good soil.

I'm weary of these long, verbose posts and reasonings, all to make 'believe' not really mean believe:

"13“Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away." (Luke 8:13 NASB)

We don't have to wonder if soil #2 was saved, or not. You're making this so terribly complicated. Jesus himself says the soil represents people who believed. But they only believed for a while, as signified by the word withering away in them. And because they did not continue to believe, as signified by the lack of the word living in them, we know that they are no longer saved:

"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--if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins-vs.17." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2,17 NASB bold and underline mine)

Meanwhile, the 4th type of soil does hold fast the word it received:

15“But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." (Luke 8:15 NASB)

Which even you acknowledge means salvation. And we know that (as if it's in doubt anyway) because Paul said holding fast the word that was preached is the condition for presently being saved. Soil #2 did not do that, therefore, it became unsaved soil--the rejection of the word by the soil being the obvious evidence that it is not 'holding fast' the word it believed in and received in the beginning.

Very elementary and easily understood truths, plainly written in our Bibles. OSAS is the doctrine that has to twist and contort the word of God to arrive at it's so-called truth.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm weary of these long, verbose posts and reasonings, all to make 'believe' not really mean believe:

"13“Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away." (Luke 8:13 NASB)

We don't have to wonder if soil #2 was saved, or not. You're making this so terribly complicated. Jesus himself says the soil represents people who believed. But they only believed for a while, as signified by the word withering away in them. And because they did not continue to believe, as signified by the lack of the word living in them, we know that they are no longer saved:

"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--if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins-vs.17." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2,17 NASB bold and underline mine)

Meanwhile, the 4th type of soil does hold fast the word it received:

15“But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." (Luke 8:15 NASB)

Which even you acknowledge means salvation. And we know that (as if it's in doubt anyway) because Paul said holding fast the word that was preached is the condition for presently being saved. Soil #2 did not do that, therefore, it became unsaved soil--the rejection of the word by the soil being the obvious evidence that it is not 'holding fast' the word it believed in and received in the beginning.

Very elementary and easily understood truths, plainly written in our Bibles. OSAS is the doctrine that has to twist and contort the word of God to arrive at it's so-called truth.

:nod

 

[Jethro Bodine]

:nod

And kudos to you for your thoughtful, educated contribution to this subject.

 

[chessman]

if they do they will no longer abide in Christ and the Father and will lose their salvation.

Can you show Scripture where anyone on this Earth (other than The Son (Christ Jesus) has ever abided (dwelled with) in The Father? We (the saved that John wrote his letters to) will abide (dwell) with The Father and also The Son in the New Heaven. For now, we abide (dwell) in The Son via The Spirit.

OSAS says either believers are incapable of denying Christ, or that they can deny Christ and they will still have Christ/the Father and eternal life. Both are shown to be false in the passages above.

No both are not shown to be false by those passages.
An OSAS doctrine that claims that no true believer has ever or will ever deny Christ, is NOT shown to be false in the passages above (or any other passage of Scripture). Name one. It's your idea(s) that denies what John says. You keep saying these type things that are just not factual and are mever substantiated Biblically.

Here's one example:

"If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (1 John 2:24 NASB)

Now just apply simple logic to the verse's statement of universal fact:

If what Chessman heard from the beginning abides in Chessman, Chessman also will (in the future) abide in the Son and in the Father (in the New Heaven). Poof, OSAS.

I've asked you multiple times in the past to name even just one example from the Bible of someone who has abided in Christ (i.e. is saved) then no longer saved. The type of person that would indeed prove OSAS false. I don't recall you personally ever naming someone from the Bible. You've mentioned your wife. But JLB did. He named Judas, even though Jesus specifically said Judas was NOT a believer from the beginning. But putting his contradiction aside for a moment, I'll just play along with Judas being the best Biblical example and try out your 'claim' above:

If what Judas heard from the beginning abides in Juda, Judas also will (in the future) abide in the Son and in the Father (in the New Heaven). Obviously, the only way for that to be true is that Judas never had what he heard abiding in him. Yet you just ignore the contradiction that Scripture would have if Judas did once have the Son abiding in him at one time.

I showed that it's your doctrine that has a logical contradiction with Scripture.

Soil4:

Matt 13:23 (LEB) But what was sown on the good soil—this is the one who hears the word and understands it...​

Matthew 13:19 (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 (Luke 8:12 so that they may not believe and be saved) This is what was sown on the side of the path.​

Your 'explanation' was that they (examples 2 and 3) "understood enough" to become saved. That's called "twisting" the Scripture to fit your idea. Jesus says the good soil was the one among the four examples that understood it, Jethroe says, no, they 'understood emough'. I'm sticking with what Jesus said. And what John said.

 

[chessman]

I'm sorry to say Chessman, that you seem confused to me in your beliefs as seen by your statements above.

Help me with my confusion of your idea:

BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED (past) When he dies, in the future, he will be lost because HE HAS NOT BELIEVED, at some time in the past, in the one and only name... This is a person who never believed. He was born lost, he never believed, and he will die lost because he never believed.

That is true of the lost person who never believed. But THE antiOSAS idea is that persons who once believed are judged along side the lost. Yet the verse specifically says he had not believe.

Your idea has Jesus judging lost people by stating they never belived in Him, yet they did once believe in Him (on your view).

Matthew 7:23 (LEB) And then I will say to them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!’ ​

Help my confusion, please, by explaining your view in comparison to these two verses. Jesus doesn't say depart from me for I once knew you!

 

[chessman]

We don't have to wonder if soil #2 was saved, or not. You're making this so terribly complicated. Jesus himself says the soil represents people who believed.

Yes He said they believed for a while. He did NOT say what it was that they believed, however. He said they did not understand the word about the kingdom by the fact that He said the good soil was the one example of the four that even understood the word about the kingdom.

Short enough?

 

[chessman]

and when those who push their unscriptural doctrine, they decide what was so precisely written, means "something else" than what it so precisely says.

You mean like when you said the person exampled by rocky ground understood the word about the kingdom even though Jesus said that it was the good soil that was the one that understood it?

 

[chessman]

"If whatyou heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."

This plainly shows that the Gospel message must continue to abide in the person who heard, and remain in the person, so that the person remains in the Son and the Father.

That's my point. In order for that verse to be true (and it is) for all people and for all time, what He said must occur in the future must occur.

You are the one denying that this verse is true of Judas, for example.

If what Judas heard from the beginning (Jesus, The Son) abided in him (as you say he did for a while), then he must also one day abided (dwell) with The Son AND The Father. Else the verse is (snd was) untrue for him.

 

[chessman]

We don't have to wonder if soil #2 was saved, or not.

I didn't ask you to wonder if the rocky ground was saved or not. I realize you think those were saved even though Jesus never said they were saved.

I asked you if the rocks understood the word about the kingdom in light of the fact that Jesus said it was the good soil that was the one that understood it.

Then you just said:

Obviously, they understood enough for the seed to become planted in them and start growing. That represents salvation.

Then I pointed out that the seed was never "planted" in the rock to begin with.

The you said:

I'm weary of these long, verbose posts and reasonings, all to make 'believe' not really mean believe:

Which of course I never said believe doesn't mean believe. In that post or any other post. I just asked you to explain how a person can be saved by something they don't understand.

And then you said:

OSAS is the doctrine that has to twist and contort the word of God to arrive at it's so-called truth.

Which is again untrue. I neither twist nor contort the word of God.

I don't understand how the mods let you get away with such personal attacks and untruths.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes He said they believed for a while. He did NOT say what it was that they believed, however. He said they did not understand the word about the kingdom by the fact that He said the good soil was the one example of the four that even understood the word about the kingdom.

It started to grow. If there was the utter absence of understanding as in soil #1 it would NOT have grown but would have been a soil #1.

Can you show Scripture where anyone on this Earth (other than The Son (Christ Jesus) has ever abided (dwelled with) in The Father? We (the saved that John wrote his letters to) will abide (dwell) with The Father and also The Son in the New Heaven. For now, we abide (dwell) in The Son via The Spirit.

"...the one who confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:23 NASB bold mine) 'Has' is in the present tense, indicative mood--representing a statement of present reality and fact.

"...the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 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 1:9-10 NASB bold mine) Again, the 'has' is in the present tense, indicative mood, representing a statement of present reality and fact. Note, too, the instruction given on what to do with the one who does not bring this teaching of abiding.

Now just apply simple logic to the verse's statement of universal fact:

If what Chessman heard from the beginning abides in Chessman, Chessman also will (in the future) abide in the Son and in the Father (in the New Heaven). Poof, OSAS.

Well, first off, as I've just shown you, IF what Chessman heard in the beginning and was saved by abides in him, he will indeed presently be in the Father and the Son and have eternal life. That is crystal clear in the scriptures as I showed you. You won't be waiting for a future time for that to happen.

Secondly, how does 'IF' what you heard in the beginning automatically equate to it always doing that? That makes the 'if' entirely misplaced and meaningless in the passage. Just the fact that John says 'if' it abides shows us that it is quite able to not later be abiding in you. And the reason he's even saying it is because he's warning them to not become as those who were among them in which it did NOT continue to abide in them.

I've asked you multiple times in the past to name even just one example from the Bible of someone who has abided in Christ (i.e. is saved) then no longer saved. The type of person that would indeed prove OSAS false. I don't recall you personally ever naming someone from the Bible.

Do you think the people that John is referring to that did not abide (remain) are hypothetical examples and not real people?

"18Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:18-19 italics in original added by NASB translators)

Are you going to try and argue with endless words that these were not real people? Probably not. What you are going to argue is that these people who did not abide were never 'really' abiding to begin with. Well, first of all, just the use of the word 'abide' indicates that they did once abide. You have to be abiding in something first to then not be abiding later on. That's what the Greek word means--to remain. These people did not remain in that which they heard from the beginning. But John says to the believers, "AS FOR YOU, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning." (2 John 2:24 NASB, bold mine). IOW, don't be like those who did NOT let it abide (remain) in them. .

Secondly, the 'really' in italics is not in the original text. It has been added by the translators. Of course, all translations of the Bibles have to have some interpretation added to help in understanding, but honestly, from the context of the whole passage we can easily see that it does not belong there. How do we know? John warns his audience--whom he himself says are presently abiding in what they heard--to keep abiding, contrasting that with those who did NOT keep abiding in the word. In other words, why warn a group of abiding believers that it is only if they abide (continue) in what they heard from the beginning that they will abide (continue) in the Father and the Son using the example of those who (supposedly) were never 'really' abiding in the gospel to begin with, and argue that only those who never 'really' held fast the gospel can, therefore, not hold fast to it?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't understand how the mods let you get away with such personal attacks and untruths.

Personal?
As long as I address 'OSAS' and not 'Chessman', I'm playing by the rules.

As far as untruths, I was recently in discussion with the mods about whether or not the forum should draw the line on certain OSAS teachings, just like they do with some other teachings, like the Paul vs. Jesus doctrine, and topics of homosexuality, and Catholicism. Even though certain OSAS doctrines tear at the very foundation of the Christian faith, in this case it is better that we can talk about them and get them exposed for what they are rather than stop all conversation about them.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Then I pointed out that the seed was never "planted" in the rock to begin with.

Jesus said the soil was not deep enough to sustain what was growing there in times of trial and tribulation, signified by the heat of the sun. The soil obviously had enough understanding to grow what it did. Like I say, if it had zero understanding, nothing would grow and it would be a type 1 soil, not a type 2 soil. It had enough understanding to grow what it did.

"6“Other seed fell on rocky soil, and as soon as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture.
13Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away." (Luke 8:6,13 NASB)

We know 1) this soil represents a person who was saved in the beginning because Jesus said they believed, and 2) the whole counsel of scripture shows us that they did not remain saved because the word of the kingdom did not remain in them--it dried up and withered away, having rejected it. But, depending on one's strain of OSAS, it is argued that the soil never 'really' believed to begin with (Jesus said it did), or, since it was saved in the beginning it can never become unsaved even though the word of God no longer abides in him (which John clearly says is not true).

 

[chessman]

"...the one who confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:23 NASB bold mine) 'Has' is in the present tense, indicative mood--representing a statement of present reality

I know. But that's not abiding with (dwelling with) The Father. Which was my question. The reality is, everyone who confesses the Son presently will abide with The Father. I say that's true. How bout you? The Scripture(s) you presented is an amazing statement of assurance made to everyone who confesses The Son.

"...the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 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 1:9-10 NASB bold mine) Again, the 'has' is in the present tense, indicative mood, representing a statement of present reality and fact.

I know. The one who abides (dwells, lives, resides) in the teaching has both. But notice again, this verse does not teach that we abide in The Father at this time. Which was my question.

What you are going to argue is that these people who did not abide were never 'really' abiding to begin with.

Please underline that part of this Scripture that says anyone abided with The Father. Which was my question.

I didn't read the rest of your verbose post. Way to long yet short on answering the challenge to present a Scripture that says anyone has abided with the Father except The Son.

 

[chessman]

Personal?
As long as I address 'OSAS' and not 'Chessman', I'm playing by the rules.

OSAS doctrine didn't say a word in the post you replied to. I did.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I know. The one who abides (dwells, lives, resides) in the teaching has both. But notice again, this verse does not teach that we abide in The Father at this time. Which was my question.

I explained it to you. The verb tense proves that if you satisfy the condition for abiding in the word you heard and were saved by you do indeed presently have the Father. Are you trying to argue that there is no one abiding in the word they heard, and never has been? Because that is the only argument that can be derived from what you're defending.