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

[chessman]

Jesus said the soil was not deep enough to sustain what was growing

Funny. Jesus didn't say the soil was not deep enough. He said that seed fell on (not planted in) the rocky ground that did not have any depth of soil.

Matthew 13:5 (LEB) And other seed fell on the rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up at once because it did not have any depth of soil. ​

We know 1) this soil represents a person who was saved in the beginning because Jesus said they believed,

Believed what? Something they didn't understand?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

That's non-OSAS doctrine--everyone who confesses the Son has the assurance of salvation.
Where OSAS misses it is it says (depending on the camp you're in) that you can stop confessing the Son, denying him, and you still have the assurance of salvation, or it's impossible for the believer to deny the Son. We know both of these are not true by this one passage of scripture alone (along and others).

"23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, 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.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:23-26 NASB)

It shows us 1) you can not deny the Son and still have eternal life, and 2) it shows us John warning believers to let the word abide in them, not that it will without a doubt do that. Very simple, easily understood and clearly written truth. OSAS is the doctrine that has to make it so it doesn't 'really' say what it so plainly says.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Funny. Jesus didn't say the soil was not deep enough. He said that seed fell on (not planted in) the rocky ground that did not have any depth of soil.

Matthew 13:5 (LEB) And other seed fell on the rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up at once because it did not have any depth of soil.

Read it. Jesus himself says it "did not have much soil".

"5“Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil." (Matthew 13:5 NASB)

It was in the soil, just not deep in the soil where it could withstand the sun's heat. If it had no soil at all it would not grow at all. like in soil #1. You keep making soil #2 to be nothing more than soil #1 ignoring the difference Jesus himself says exists between the two.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Believed what? Something they didn't understand?

What they understood is what they produced. What they did not understand is what they did not produce. But you're trying to make it so nothing was understood, in which case nothing would be produced, like in soil #1. You're making it so soil #2 is nothing more than, and the same as soil #1, defying the actual words of the passage. If soil #2 had NO understanding it would be soil #1:

"19“When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. " (Matthew 13:19 NASB)

 

[chessman]

Are you trying to argue that there is no one abiding in the word they heard, and never has been?

No. I am proving that you cannot post a Scripture that says anyone other than Jesus has ever abided with (dwelled with) The Father.

Yet you said they had.

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

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No. I am proving that you cannot post a Scripture that says anyone other than Jesus has ever abided with (dwelled with) The Father.

What you seem oblivious to is the fact that this has nothing to do with the fact that you have to be presently abiding in the Father to be presently saved. You're creating a contention that does not have any bearing on this clear non-OSAS teaching in the Bible:

"23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, 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." (1 John 2:23-24 NASB)

"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 1:9-10 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)

You can define abiding in the Father any way you want, but that does not change the simple, plain fact that is what you have to be presently doing in order to be presently saved, having eternal life.

 

[chessman]

You keep making soil #2 to be nothing more than soil #1 ignoring the difference Jesus himself says exists between the two.

You keep saying things that are untrue about me. Spend time posting a Scripture that says anyone beside Jesus ever abided with The Father and backup your claim here:

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

The seed on the path were trampled and eaten by birds which is different than those who received the word about the kingdom with immediate joy.

You're making it so soil #2 is nothing more than, and the same as soil #1, defying the actual words of the passage.

No I'm not. Jesus said it was the good soil that was the one example soil that understood it (the word about the kingdom). If anything, you are the one that's making the rock 'sound' the same as the good soil by implying the seed was planted in the rock when Jesus said the seed landed on the rock. There are several things one must understand about the word of the kingdom. Only the good soil understood it.

 

[chessman]

What you seem oblivious to is the fact that this has nothing to do with the fact that you have to be presently abiding in the Father to be presently saved.

Please post a Scripture that says that anyone is presently abiding with The Father.

 

[chessman]

You can define abiding in the Father any way you want,

No you can't. That's my point.

 

[JLB]

Believed what? Something they didn't understand?

But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
Luke 8:13

They believed the Gospel, therefore they were saved.

What else besides believing the Gospel must be done in order to be saved?


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You keep saying things that are untrue about me. Spend time posting a Scripture that says anyone beside Jesus ever abided with The Father and backup your claim here:
The seed on the path were trampled and eaten by birds which is different than those who received the word about the kingdom with immediate joy.

No I'm not. Jesus said it was the good soil that was the one example soil that understood it (the word about the kingdom). If anything, you are the one that's making the rock 'sound' the same as the good soil by implying the seed was planted in the rock when Jesus said the seed landed on the rock. There are several things one must understand about the word of the kingdom. Only the good soil understood it.

You've so completely muddied up what you believe that I no longer know what you believe about the soils or how it relates to OSAS.
I can not respond to what you say until you make that clear.

No you can't. That's my point.

It doesn't matter if abiding with the Father means you start growing feathers. The point is the Bible plainly says that is a condition for being saved, and remaining saved. You confused the debate so badly that even you seem to have lost the point.

 

[JLB]

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.

Therefore 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. 1 John 2:24

Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. John 14:23


JLB

 

[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.

If the Holy Spirit inspired men to write down very carefully and with precise wording what God wanted them to write, how come we don't agree on eternal security?
Who are we to believe regarding this? Someone who was born 1,500 years after Jesus was crucified, or those who were closer to His time and heard directly from those who heard him. Let's see what the early church Fathers thought about eternal security:
QUOTES FROM EARLY CHURCH FATHERS BEFORE THE CORRUPTION OF UNCONDITIONAL ETERNAL SECURITY SET IN:

“And pray ye without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For ‘cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God.’” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, A.D.110)

“Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ye ready, for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh. But often shall ye come together, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if ye be not made perfect in the last time.” (Didache, A.D.140)

“That eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary disposition.” (Justin Martyr, fragment in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, 5:26:1, A.D.156)

“Christ shall not die again in behalf of those who now commit sin, for death shall no more have dominion over Him; but the Son shall come in the glory of the Father, requiring from His stewards and dispensers the money which He had entrusted to them, with usury; and from those to whom He had given most shall He demand most. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. And therefore it was that Paul said, ‘For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also spare not thee, who, when thou wert a wild olive tree, wert grafted into the fatness of the olive tree, and wert made a partaker of its fatness.’” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:27:2 A.D. 180)

“But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery. But if it is of necessity that God grants us the symbol of death, then He does so unwillingly. But who permits a gift to be permanently retained which he has granted unwillingly? For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? Is not this gift taken away from many?” (Tertullian, On Repentance, 6 A.D. 204)

“Grace with the Lord, when once learned and undertaken by us, should never afterward be cancelled by repetition of sin.” (Tertullian, A.D. 203)

“Only those who fear the Lord and keep His commandments have life with God; but as for those who do not keep His commandments, there is no life in them.” (Barnabas, A.D. 70)

Many more where these came from: http://safeguardyoursoul.com/what-early-church-fathers-said-about-eternal-security/


CONT'D

 

[GodsGrace]

PART II

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).

Chessman - God does NOT SIN!!!
When you get to heaven YOU will also no longer have the choice of sinning.
You will have a glorified body and sinning will no longer be in your vocabulary.
God, the creator of the universe, cannot sin.

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.

I was asking you of what value is faith if God chooses us.
Faith is only necessary if WE choose God. If God chooses us, of what value if faith? In that case nothing is dependent on us, but only on God, so faith is not necessary. If an external agent chooses for us, we do not need faith. My faith in a person allows me to make certain decisions - if that person is making all the decisions for me, why would I need faith?

If you believe in the ability to be able to choose, then you must believe that this ability stays with you forever. If the ability to choose disappears once you become saved, your free will has also disappeared - and you just said you believe in free will.

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.

If you are a believer in free will, then you must also believe that it's possible to lose salvation IF I SO WILL IT.
The idea must be carried through - free will is NOT LOST once one is saved.

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.

Can't argue with you. Except to say that we can only go by what was left to us.

Do you believe what Jesus said? He told the parable of the Prodigal Son to teach us the rules for belonging to the Kindgdom of God:.

Luke 15:24New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.

Please note the word AGAIN. The son was saved, he became lost, and now he was come to life again. He had become lost.

He was saved, he became lost and has been found.
cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

John was with Jesus over 3 years. He says:

1 John 3:10New American Standard Bible (NASB)
10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Notice that he is speaking about practicing righteousness and loving our brother in the present tense. If you do NOT practice this NOW, present tense, you will NOT be righteous with God.

Also, please read:
Hebrews 10:26
Romans 2:7-8

And far too many to post.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Help me with my confusion of your idea:

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!

No confusion in my ideas Chessman. They're VERY CLEAR.
We weren't discussing Mathew 7:23 -

You asked me about John 3:18b, to which I replied in my post no. 463.

W

 

[JLB]

Do you believe what Jesus said? He told the parable of the Prodigal Son to teach us the rules for belonging to the Kindgdom of God:.

Luke 15:24New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.

Please note the word AGAIN. The son was saved, he became lost, and now he was come to life again. He had become lost.

He was saved, he became lost and has been found.
cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

“A son who deserts his father in order not to pay him obedience is considered deserving of being disinherited and having his name removed forever from his family.” (Lactaintius, A.D. 304)



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

“A son who deserts his father in order not to pay him obedience is considered deserving of being disinherited and having his name removed forever from his family.” (Lactaintius, A.D. 304)

JLB

Thanks JLB.
This can also go to our name being written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
The name is written and will remain written for as long as we wish it to be there by believing in the one who saves us.

If we no longer believe in Him, we return to the same condition we were in BEFORE we ever believed. (we are lost).
Believing is the key, as you've said many times.

W

 

[JLB]

Thanks JLB.
This can also go to our name being written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
The name is written and will remain written for as long as we wish it to be there by believing in the one who saves us.

If we no longer believe in Him, we return to the same condition we were in BEFORE we ever believed. (we are lost).
Believing is the key, as you've said many times.

W

The browned eyed beauty has spoken the truth! :nod

 

[chessman]

I can not respond to what you say until you make that clear.

Bingo!

Matthew 13:14, 23 (LEB) and with reference to them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says, “You will listen carefully and will never understand, and you will look closely and will never perceive. ...
But what was sown on the good soil—this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, this one a hundred times as much, and this one sixty, and this one thirty.” ​