1 Thess 5:4-10 teaches eternal security

[FreeGrace]

I hold to the view that eternal security is found only in Christ, and one is united with Christ by faith. If one is in Christ then they share in the Covenant blessings, though if they fall away in unbelief or seek to be justified by the Mosaic law then they are cut off from Christ and no longer have that security.

What they are "cut off" from is God's grace. Not salvation. Not one verse says that salvation can be lost.

This makes eternal security not some kind of separate doctrine of it's own that asserts that a believer cannot be lost, but rather that a believer only has hope of being saved by clinging to Christ.

Think about it for a sec. If one must "cling to Christ", doesn't that involve some kind of effort on the part of the person?

No, all who have believed in Christ for eternal life HAVE eternal life (Jn 3:15,16, 5:24, 6:40, 47, 11:25-27, 20:31). And eternal life is a gift that is irrevocable. Rom 6:23 and 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

I agree, it is very dangerous. I know from experience. I was taught that nothing could change my salvation, nothing, that only my fellowship would be interrupted. I surmised from this that I could sin and would suffer disappointment from God.

Where did you find that in Scripture? In fact, believers can and do face God's judgment per Heb 10:30,31. And ch 12. The KJV "scourges" is literally in the Greek "skin alive with a whip". Obviously, God doesn't literally skin alive any of His children. But the figurative language is real clear; you want to play around? You will suffer for it.

 

[FreeGrace]

They weren't taught very well? The first teachers were Jesus and the apostles.

I wish posters would read my entire post before responding. I specifically noted from the 2nd Century, which would obviously not include Jesus or the original apostles.

I think the idea that no one understood the true faith until the Reformation is beyond belief.

I never said anything close to that. Please read my posts before responding.

 

[Butch5]

I wish posters would read my entire post before responding. I specifically noted from the 2nd Century, which would obviously not include Jesus or the original apostles.
I never said anything close to that. Please read my posts before responding.

But the rejection didn't start in the second century. The issue is the doctrine was rejected from the beginning. I did read your post, this thread argues for a doctrine that doesn't appear in the church until 1450 years after Jesus and the apostles. Logic dictates that the doctrine is not from the Scriptures. Logic dictates that what was first must be true. There cannot be erroneous teaching of a doctrine until that doctrine exists. Therefore whatever is first is true and any change after that is error.

 

[Butch5]

Where did you find that in Scripture? In fact, believers can and do face God's judgment per Heb 10:30,31. And ch 12. The KJV "scourges" is literally in the Greek "skin alive with a whip". Obviously, God doesn't literally skin alive any of His children. But the figurative language is real clear; you want to play around? You will suffer for it.

In the post I didn't say it was in Scripture, I said, I surmised it. It is a logical conclusion from the doctrine. If nothing can separate a person from salvation then they can sin all they want to and not lose salvation. They may suffer but they still are saved according to this doctrine. However, as we see from Scripture those who life according to the flesh shall not see the kingdom

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:21 KJV)

 

[Dewey]

The middle ground

Let's admit that the word of God is purposely cloudy on the subject of whether or not you can lose your salvation. There are verses that seem to teach security of the believer, and there are verses that seem to warn believers that there is a risk of losing salvation. Why would God do this? I believe God doesn't want us to know, and for these reasons:

1- If a man believes in eternal security then he will generally be less cautious of sin in his daily life. He figures, "Hey, if I'm saved no matter what, then why be so dogmatic about holiness?"

2- But if a man believes he can lose his salvation then he tends to become more legalistic, works oriented, and constantly insecure.

God knows that man will try to push things to the limit; to look for loopholes and try to find exactly where the line is so he can get away with as much as possible. I believe God was purposely vague for our own good.

We are God's children; a child wouldn't even think to ask whether their Father is going to abandon them or not. A child's thoughts are on loving and pleasing their Father, and not being concerned with how far he can push things or how much he can get away with.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What they are "cut off" from is God's grace. Not salvation. Not one verse says that salvation can be lost.

That's not what the text says.

"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." Galatians 5:4 (ESV)

Severed from Christ, and fallen away from grace for seeking to be justified by the Mosaic Law.

Also here, in talking about being grafted in to the Covenant Tree.

"Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."Romans 11:22 (ESV)

So unless you come up with some kind of way to twist these texts to fit them to your scheme, there is indeed ample evidence that one can be cut off from Christ and thus cut off from the Covenant promises and blessings.

Think about it for a sec. If one must "cling to Christ", doesn't that involve some kind of effort on the part of the person?

They must endure to the end. Or have you not read Paul?

"Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained." Philippians 3:14-16 (ESV)

Paul sounded like he thought it required some effort.

"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (ESV)

Would you characterize your understanding of being a Christian like Paul's or Jesus'? To take up your cross daily? That being counted as Jesus disciple has a cost?

No, all who have believed in Christ for eternal life HAVE eternal life (Jn 3:15,16, 5:24, 6:40, 47, 11:25-27, 20:31). And eternal life is a gift that is irrevocable. Rom 6:23 and 11:29.

Debating whether or not eternal life can be lost is one thing. Debating that a person who lives as an unbeliever has eternal life is another. Which is why I strongly oppose your hypergrace teachings and warn others of the danger of the doctrine you are promoting.

 

[Butch5]

The middle ground

Let's admit that the word of God is purposely cloudy on the subject of whether or not you can lose your salvation. There are verses that seem to teach security of the believer, and there are verses that seem to warn believers that there is a risk of losing salvation. Why would God do this? I believe God doesn't want us to know, and for these reasons:

1- If a man believes in eternal security then he will generally be less cautious of sin in his daily life. He figures, "Hey, if I'm saved no matter what, then why be so dogmatic about holiness?"

2- But if a man believes he can lose his salvation then he tends to become more legalistic, works oriented, and constantly insecure.

God knows that man will try to push things to the limit; to look for loopholes and try to find exactly where the line is so he can get away with as much as possible. I believe God was purposely vague for our own good.

We are God's children; a child wouldn't even think to ask whether their Father is going to abandon them or not. A child's thoughts are on loving and pleasing their Father, and not being concerned with how far he can push things or how much he can get away with.

I disagree that the word is purposely cloudy, I doubt that it's cloudy at all. The Scriptures are clear when they are understood in context. It's when the passages are pulled from their context and applied outside of it that they are made to appear to teach that one cannot lose their salvation. There is nothing in Scripture that says one cannot lose salvation, yet there are many warnings about it and examples of it.

 

[Gregg]

It could also mean that "asleep" means dead, while "awake," means alive. See the text below.

"For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first." 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 (ESV)

We know that those who have "fallen asleep," are not in reference to those who are living, as it says the "dead in Christ will rise first." This is also a reference by the same author within the same general discussion in the previous chapter so it would not be unreasonable to suppose this interpretation.

Either way, there are understandings of this text that make more sense of the context, and don't contradict other Scripture and certainly don't promote the idea that Christians can just live however they want to live and still be saved.

You begin this point by saying that in 1Thes 5:10 'awake' could mean 'alive'. However, the word used for awake is γρηγορέ, meaning to watch, to be alert, be vigilant, to maintain conscious and earnest attention, and carries the meaning to refrain from religious slumber or moral sleep. The root of the word γρηγορέ comes from the verb εγείρω which means to rise from the posture of sleep or lying down. Being 'awake' is a choice that Christians make, either to be attentive or to be negligent; where physically living and dying is not our choice to make. 1Thes 5:7 makes it clear that Paul is not addressing life and death, but is talking about negligence versus attentiveness, vigilance versus apathy and sluggishness.

Therefore in 1Thes 5:10 "awake" could not mean physically 'alive.' It would follow that "asleep" does not refer to being physically 'dead'. Paul refers to Thessalonians who are physically alive by using the word ζάω (1Thes 4:15, 17), and to the Thessalonians who are physically dead using the word κοιμάω (1Thes 4:13, 14, 15).

1Thes 5:10 says that Christ died on behalf of the Church [every member of His body], for both those who are diligent (1Thes 5:12-13) and those who are less than diligent (1Thes 5:14). The less diligent are still members of the body of Christ.



.

 

[Dewey]

I totally understand why you feel that way; but if it's clear why are people arguing about it?

A conservative believer will only see legalism and works. While the liberal believer will only see grace. I'm sorry that people have such a hard time with, but it's just our natures I guess.

 

[jocor]

Here's the problem with your view. Eternal life is a gift, per Rom 6:23. God's gifts are irrevocable, per Rom 11:29. How do you get around that?

Romans 6:23 is contingent upon the fact that one has Yeshua as their Master and Savior. If one renounces Yeshua and no longer believes he is the Messiah, which many have done falling prey to Jewish anti-missionaries, that person will not receive eternal life. He would be the fulfillment of Romans 11:21 by being broken off in unbelief. I believe the man of Hebrews 6:4-7 is in that condition.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You begin this point by saying that in 1Thes 5:10 'awake' could mean 'alive'. However, the word used for awake is γρηγορέ, meaning to watch, to be alert, be vigilant, to maintain conscious and earnest attention, and carries the meaning to refrain from religious slumber or moral sleep.

I said that the "being alive," was a possible interpretation, indeed I offered it as the second option.

See here:
"It could mean that they are asleep, as in unprepared and inattentive to the signs of Jesus' coming. This would make sense as the daytime and nighttime distinction isn't a righteousness vs wickedness distinction, but rather attentiveness vs inattentiveness distinction. Such a person inattentive to the signs of Jesus coming, will certainly be saved if they are a believer. However, to leap to the idea that they are completely living as an unbeliever with a life of sin, that they would still be saved is too far."

The root of the word γρηγορέ comes from the verb εγείρω which means to rise from the posture of sleep or lying down. Being 'awake' is a choice that Christians make, either to be attentive or to be negligent; where physically living and dying is not our choice to make. 1Thes 5:7 makes it clear that Paul is not addressing life and death, but is talking about negligence versus attentiveness, vigilance versus apathy and sluggishness.

You're over defining the word, certainly this word can denote the idea of vigilance, and more likely does. However, it could just mean awake, as it does in other contexts. I personally subscribe to the first interpretation given, but many see it as alive vs dead.

Therefore in 1Thes 5:10 "awake" could not mean physically 'alive.' It would follow that "asleep" does not refer to being physically 'dead'. Paul refers to Thessalonians who are physically alive by using the word ζάω (1Thes 4:15, 17), and to the Thessalonians who are physically dead using the word κοιμάω (1Thes 4:13, 14, 15).

1Thes 5:10 says that Christ died on behalf of the Church [every member of His body], for both those who are diligent (1Thes 5:12-13) and those who are less than diligent (1Thes 5:14). The less diligent are still members of the body of Christ.

I agree, however, Freegrace is arguing that the asleep people aren't just less diligent, but rather they are living as unbelievers, sinful carnal Christians. That is what I am refuting.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I take no offense.

Good to hear.

Here's the problem with your view. Eternal life is a gift, per Rom 6:23. God's gifts are irrevocable, per Rom 11:29. How do you get around that?

Romans 6:23, let's take a look at it.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23 (ESV)

This is why I call it Eternal Security in Christ, because that is the way Paul phrases it. That the free gift of God isn't just eternal life, eternal life is in Christ. He who has the Son has life. A person shares in this gift so long as they are in Christ. It is dependent on their union with him, as the newness of life and being alive to God can only be experienced when one is in union with Christ. If one is then cut off from Christ then they lose the Covenant blessings they enjoyed when they were in union with him.

Here is an analogy for you. Say that you're a football player, and you're on the Seattle Seahawks and your team is going to go to the Super Bowl. Yet, your broke a law and are cut from the team right before the big game, even though you were told that you were going to the Super Bowl, it was contingent on the fact that you were part of the team.

The gifts and blessings are all given to Christ and the Father will never revoke these blessings, however we will only possess them so long as we are in Him.

Of course there are stern warnings about a sinful lifestyle. But none of the verses are about loss of salvation. Remember, eternal life is a gift that is irrevocable. It's as simple as that.

This is just an assertion, and you're arguing against the historical understanding of Scripture. Please substantiate that the texts offered do not pertain to loss of salvation.

On the contrary, all sin is subject to the wrath of God. But His wrath is painful discipline, per Heb 12 and loss of eternal rewards.

Please find me one reference in the NT where wrath is used in terms of discipline for believers.

Please note that there is no inheritance IN the kingdom. It does not say anything about nog getting INTO the kingdom.

The Kingdom of God, in the new heavens and new earth is the inheritance, as I demonstrated from Romans 4:13.

I agree. But what does this have to do with loss of salvation.

So they're completely cut off from fellowship, but still saved in your book? If I was a believer and murdered my pastor and wrote, "I don't believe in Jesus," on the wall, would I still be saved?

Did you note what the crowd didn't appeal to Jesus on? Faith. All they had was works. There was no faith. That's why they were rejected.

They called him "Lord," as in they recognized him as Lord and Savior, and he actually cites works as the reason for their rejection not faith. He calls them, "workers of lawlessness."

Specifically v.6, "we (believers) are not like the others (unbelievers)". Who are asleep. In v.4 and 5, Paul tells the believers that they are of the day, and do not belong to the night or darkness. A clear contrast between believers and unbelievers.

You keep inserting unbelievers, but you haven't substantiated that this is justified to do. This seems to be a pattern, and was the issue in the other debate. You inserted words that aren't there.

Unfortunately for your view, eternal life is a gift and God's gifts are irrevocable.

You keep repeating this rather than dealing with the substance of my arguments.

Well, Paul was the first to actually call such believers carnal. 1 Cor 3:3.

He is talking about people who are new believers in Christ, let's look at the context.

"But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?" 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 (ESV)

He calls them "infants in Christ," as they are not mature, as they are having issues with division in claiming who they follow. There is a difference between a person who is an infant in Christ and is maturing, versus someone living completely as an unbeliever and still claims to be saved.

I fully agree. He won't. His mighty hand of discipline will discipline such believers. Heb 12.

Indeed God will, but if you're continually living a life of sin, God's seed does not abide in you, that's what the Apostle John asserts.

Yes, the key is the Holy Spirit. But recall that believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18), to walk by means of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16) and we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Also we are commanded to stop grieving the Spirit (Eph 4:30) and stop quenching the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19).

1 Jn 3 is about living in the human spirit rather than in the flesh. Since God has given believers new life, and are new creatures, we have the means to live obediently. But we must not grieve or quench the Spirit, but rather be filled and walk by means of the Spirit. Or we'll be carnal.

I'm afraid that you're mistaken on 1 John 3.

"No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him." 1 John 3:6 (ESV)

"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15 (ESV)

 

[FreeGrace]

But the rejection didn't start in the second century. The issue is the doctrine was rejected from the beginning.

Hardly. Paul wrote Rom 6:23 AND 11:29. Eternal life is a gift and God's gifts are irrevocable. Add in Rom 8:35-39.

I did read your post, this thread argues for a doctrine that doesn't appear in the church until 1450 years after Jesus and the apostles.

Refuted by Rom 6:23, Ro 11:29 and Rom 8:35-39.

Logic dictates that the doctrine is not from the Scriptures.

Scripture dictates that your statement is fuzzy logic.

Logic dictates that what was first must be true. There cannot be erroneous teaching of a doctrine until that doctrine exists. Therefore whatever is first is true and any change after that is error.

Please provide any verse that teaches that salvation can be lost. That will resolve the issue, since you haven't been swayed by Rom 6:23, 8:35-39 and 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

In the post I didn't say it was in Scripture, I said, I surmised it. It is a logical conclusion from the doctrine. If nothing can separate a person from salvation then they can sin all they want to and not lose salvation.

This seems to be a big bugaboo for those who reject eternal security. But since God is omniscient and knows everything, and He STILL doesn't revoke His gifts (Rom 11:29), you have no point.

They may suffer but they still are saved according to this doctrine. However, as we see from Scripture those who life according to the flesh shall not see the kingdom.

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:21 KJV)

You say "shall not SEE the kingdom", but the verse says "shall not INHERIT the kingdom". But you don't see the problem with that.

Inheriting involves ownership. There will be many believers IN the kingdom but without any inheritance. Is that how you want to spend eternity; being there but NOT being a part of the inheritance there? Maybe that's just a small thing to you, but the warnings in Scripture are about severe discipline during one's life on earth, and loss of rewards (inheritance) in eternity.

 

[FreeGrace]

The middle ground

Let's admit that the word of God is purposely cloudy on the subject of whether or not you can lose your salvation. There are verses that seem to teach security of the believer, and there are verses that seem to warn believers that there is a risk of losing salvation.

I won't admit such a thing. The issue is settled: eternal life is a gift per Rom 6:23. Justification is a gift per Rom 5:16. Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable. That is NOT cloudy. It is crystal clear.

Eternal life is an irrevocable gift.

 

[FreeGrace]

That's not what the text says.

"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." Galatians 5:4 (ESV)

Severed from Christ, and fallen away from grace for seeking to be justified by the Mosaic Law.

Yet, nothing at all about loss of salvation. Please don't insert into Scripture what isn't there.

Consider these clear verses:
Eph 1:13,14 - 13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.
Eph 4:30 - Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
2 Cor 1:22 - who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.
2 Cor 5:5 - Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.

and…John 14:16 - “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;

How can anyone claim that one who has believed and sealed with the Holy Spirit FOR the day of redemption, which is a PLEDGE or promise from God will lose their salvation????

Every believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit, who Jesus said would be with us FOREVER. And the seal is God's pledge FOR the day of redemption.

Not to forget that eternal life is a gift and God's gifts are irrevocable.

The issue is settled. Salvation cannot be lost. Or God doesn't keep His promise.


Also here, in talking about being grafted in to the Covenant Tree.

"Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."Romans 11:22 (ESV)

So unless you come up with some kind of way to twist these texts to fit them to your scheme, there is indeed ample evidence that one can be cut off from Christ and thus cut off from the Covenant promises and blessings.


They must endure to the end. Or have you not read Paul?

"Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained." Philippians 3:14-16 (ESV)

Paul sounded like he thought it required some effort.

"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (ESV)

Would you characterize your understanding of being a Christian like Paul's or Jesus'? To take up your cross daily? That being counted as Jesus disciple has a cost?


Debating whether or not eternal life can be lost is one thing. Debating that a person who lives as an unbeliever has eternal life is another. Which is why I strongly oppose your hypergrace teachings and warn others of the danger of the doctrine you are promoting.[/QUOTE]

 

[FreeGrace]

There is nothing in Scripture that says one cannot lose salvation.

Please consider Eph 1:13,14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, and John 14:16. Then consider Rom 5:16, 6:23 and 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

Romans 6:23 is contingent upon the fact that one has Yeshua as their Master and Savior.

We know from many verses that eternal life is obtained by faith in Christ. And we know from Scripture that those who have believed are sealed with the Holy Spirit as a pledge or promise from God for the day of redemption: Eph 1:13,14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5. And The Holy Spirit will be with us forever, according to Jesus in John 14:16.

If one renounces Yeshua and no longer believes he is the Messiah, which many have done falling prey to Jewish anti-missionaries, that person will not receive eternal life.

The problem with this opinion is that there are NO verses that teach this. In fact, we KNOW that at the moment one believes in Christ, they HAVE eternal life.
Jn 5:24 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into udgment, but has passed out of death into life.

He would be the fulfillment of Romans 11:21 by being broken off in unbelief. I believe the man of Hebrews 6:4-7 is in that condition.

Rom 11:21 is an agricultural figure of speech, speaking to usefulness, or the lack thereof.

When a person believes in Christ for eternal life, they HAVE eternal life. And that gift (Rom 6:23) is irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

There are no verses that say that salvation or eternal life can be lost, forfeited, given back, etc.

 

[FreeGrace]

Romans 6:23, let's take a look at it.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23 (ESV)

This is why I call it Eternal Security in Christ, because that is the way Paul phrases it. That the free gift of God isn't just eternal life, eternal life is in Christ. He who has the Son has life.

Your view ignores or discounts or rejects the clear principle of the fact that one who has believed in Christ has been sealed as a promise from God with the Holy Spirit FOR the day of redemption. How is this not clear?

A person shares in this gift so long as they are in Christ.

Please provide Scriptural evidence for your opinion.

It is dependent on their union with him

The error here is thinking that union with Christ can be broken. Consider Eph 1:13,14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5.

Here is an analogy for you. Say that you're a football player, and you're on the Seattle Seahawks and your team is going to go to the Super Bowl. Yet, your broke a law and are cut from the team right before the big game, even though you were told that you were going to the Super Bowl, it was contingent on the fact that you were part of the team.

Actually, a pretty good analogy. Yes, the player misses the super bowl, which is analogous, not to salvation, but to rewards and blessings. However, the player is STILL a member of the team, right?

The gifts and blessings are all given to Christ and the Father will never revoke these blessings, however we will only possess them so long as we are in Him.

And Paul made very clear that all who have believed are sealed with the Holy Spirit FOR the day of redemption.

Your point has been refuted.

Please find me one reference in the NT where wrath is used in terms of discipline for believers.

Heb 10 and 12.

So they're completely cut off from fellowship, but still saved in your book? If I was a believer and murdered my pastor and wrote, "I don't believe in Jesus," on the wall, would I still be saved?

Paul answers it best: God's gifts are irrevocable. If you have been given eternal life, that gift is irrevocable.

They called him "Lord," as in they recognized him as Lord and Savior, and he actually cites works as the reason for their rejection not faith. He calls them, "workers of lawlessness."

"As in…"?? Where do you get that crowd in Matt 7:21-23 recognized Jesus as Savior? That's just quite an assumption. Their WHOLE appeal was based on their works. Which was rejected.

Those who reject eternal security make a lot of huge assumptions.

He is talking about people who are new believers in Christ, let's look at the context.

"But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?" 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 (ESV)

He calls them "infants in Christ," as they are not mature, as they are having issues with division in claiming who they follow. There is a difference between a person who is an infant in Christ and is maturing, versus someone living completely as an unbeliever and still claims to be saved.

Another huge assumption. Paul was calling them babies. Not new believers, but grossly immature believers, who had no excuse for their actions. A simple read through 1 Cor reveals an extremely fleshly or carnal congregation. Yet, Paul considered them saved.

Indeed God will, but if you're continually living a life of sin, God's seed does not abide in you, that's what the Apostle John asserts.

Where does John "assert" that a sinful life will result in loss of God's seed? Another huge assumption.