Apostate Verses Believer

[JLB]

And there lies the problem with your view. We are NOT saved by our own action of believing. I cited 1 Cor 1:21 with reference to WHO saves WHOM, and it wasn't addressed. Does your side have no opinion of that verse which refutes your view that we are saved by our own action?

It was addressed and refuted.

You just keep ignoring the truth of the whole counsel of God.

Please explain how a person who believes and is saved, then falls away, and begins to serve other gods, is still a "believer" in Jesus Christ.

The person no longer believes. The person and become an unbeliever again.


This is what Jesus Christ teaches, plain and simple.

Your only answer is what? To refer back to Romans 11:29, which does not contain the word eternal nor life, nor does it contain the word salvation.

Teaching people they can simply believe one day in Jesus, and never get Baptized, never repent and live a sinful life because OSAS, is unbiblical, and leads away from the truth the scriptures teach.


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

Can a person believe in Jesus Christ and be saved, then later take the mark of the beast and still be saved?
Please answer this question.JLB

There is no indication that a believer will take the mark of the beast. And this question simply dodges the real issue regarding what Paul wrote in Romans about justification and eternal life.

Instead of being able to prove that Paul didn't mean justification and eternal life as the gifts of God that are irrevocable, all that is left is to keep changing the subject to extraneous questions and issues.

Where is the verse that TELLS US that one can lose their salvation? There aren't any.

If salvation could be lost by any means, I'm very sure there would be at least 1 very clearly stated verse that actually SAYS SO. But there aren't any.

And, just the opposite has been clearly stated in Romans. Both justification and eternal life were defined by Paul as gifts of God BEFORE he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable.

 

[FreeGrace]

It was addressed and refuted.
You just keep ignoring the truth of the whole counsel of God.
Please explain how a person who believes and is saved, then falls away, and begins to serve other gods, is still a "believer" in Jesus Christ.
The person no longer believes. The person and become an unbeliever again.
This is what Jesus Christ teaches, plain and simple.
Your only answer is what? To refer back to Romans 11:29, which does not contain the word eternal nor life, nor does it contain the word salvation.
Teaching people they can simply believe one day in Jesus, and never get Baptized, never repent and live a sinful life because OSAS, is unbiblical, and leads away from the truth the scriptures teach.JLB

Justification and eternal life HAVE BEEN DEFINED by Paul as gifts of God B4 he penned that God's gifts are irrevocable. That is irrefutable.

One either accepts the clear words of Scripture, or they do not.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I explained what Heb 10:26-31 means, in which your camp has turned a blind eye to. And your opinion is silly because Heb 10:26-31 isn't even in the context of Rom 11:29. What Paul wrote IN Romans is the context for 11:29.

You are making the mistake that all false doctrines make: You are not dividing the Word of God correctly. You're lifting a verse of scripture out from the rest of scripture without properly considering the whole counsel of scripture.

All it takes is a single passage of scripture explaining that a saved person can once again be subject to the wrath of God (the wrath of God that Jesus saves us from--1 Thessalonians 1:10 NIV, and 1 Thessalonians 5:9) and we instantly know that Paul can not possibly be including justification or salvation in the gifts and calling that can not be revoked. I showed you that passage. So we know your opinion that Paul is including justification and/or salvation in the gifts that can not be revoked is false.

 

[Drew]

This theory has been thoroughly put to rest because of Paul's clear words; God's gifts are justification (Rom 3:24 and 5:15,16,17) and eternal life (Rom 6:23). And God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

This isn't debatable.

It is very debatable indeed. For one thing, how do you know that when Paul writes that God's gifts are irrevocable, he is not claiming that God will not renege on his promises. In other words that God will not "take back" his gifts. But that hardly rules out the possibility that we can refuse to accept these gifts.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is no indication that a believer will take the mark of the beast. And this question simply dodges the real issue regarding what Paul wrote in Romans about justification and eternal life.

You are the one who insists a person can fall away and still be saved, so answer the question. Do you want to stick to your own doctrine, or not?

"33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." (Matthew 10:33 NIV)

Your doctrine is in obvious contradiction of the verse above.

 

[JLB]

You are making the mistake that all false doctrines make: You are not dividing the Word of God correctly. You're lifting a verse of scripture out from the rest of scripture without properly considering the whole counsel of scripture.

All it takes is a single passage of scripture explaining that a saved person can once again be subject to the wrath of God (the wrath of God Jesus saves us from--1 Thessalonians 1:10 NIV, and 1 Thessalonians 5:9) and we instantly know that Paul can not possibly be including justification or salvation in the gifts and calling that can not be revoked. I showed you that passage. So we know your opinion that Paul is including justification and/or salvation in the gifts that can not be revoked is false.

 

[JLB]

There is no indication that a believer will take the mark of the beast. And this question simply dodges the real issue regarding what Paul wrote in Romans about justification and eternal life.

No indication that a believer will take the mark? Why do you think this warning is in the scriptures then, to warn the world?

9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Revelation 14:9-12

This warning is from God to His people through the Apostle John.



4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. Revelation 20:4


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

You are making the mistake that all false doctrines make: You are not dividing the Word of God correctly. You're lifting a verse of scripture out from the rest of scripture without properly considering the whole counsel of scripture.

This is, of course, nonsense. Paul defined what he meant by God's gifts in his letter to the Romans:
spiritual gifts in 1:11
justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17,
eternal life in 6:23

Then, he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. Your camp rejects this truth in favor of a false doctrine that isn't stated anywhere in Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace]

It is very debatable indeed.

Not.

For one thing, how do you know that when Paul writes that God's gifts are irrevocable, he is not claiming that God will not renege on his promises.

Is there any verse that teaches that God will or has reneged on His promises? No. What a silly idea.

In other words that God will not "take back" his gifts. But that hardly rules out the possibility that we can refuse to accept these gifts.

Yes, that silly idea is ruled out by the FACT that the Bible doesn't teach that we can refuse the gifts. The only ones who never receive these gifts are unbelievers, those who have never believed. So your premise is quite flawed.

 

[FreeGrace]

You are the one who insists a person can fall away and still be saved, so answer the question. Do you want to stick to your own doctrine, or not?

"33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." (Matthew 10:33 NIV)

Your doctrine is in obvious contradiction of the verse above.

lol I know that the Bible teaches eternal security, from what Paul very clearly wrote in Romans. It is curious that people will totally disregard what is so clearly stated in Romans and try to find verses that would refute what Paul very clearly stated.

Matt 10:33 is very similar to 2 Tim 2:12. The denying is about rewards, not one's salvation. If either of those verses were about loss of salvation (or any other verse, for that matter), then God's Word is internally contradicted, which is totally unacceptable.

I am puzzled as to why the concept of denial of rewards isn't acceptable to your camp, in light of the very clear words of Paul who defined what he meant by God's gifts and that they are irrevocable.

The simple fact is that Paul's words refutes the notion that salvation can be lost.

 

[FreeGrace]

No indication that a believer will take the mark? Why do you think this warning is in the scriptures then, to warn the world?

It's a statement of fact. To inform believers of what is to come.

This warning is from God to His people through the Apostle John.

It's a statement of fact to God's people of what is to come.

 

[OzSpen]

Treating salvation as though the believing must continue, as in the present tense is fallacious, since there are verses that use the aorist tense, which has no consideration at all for time.

Acts 16:31 Believe (aorist: in a point in time) and you will be saved (future to the action of believing).

The aorist tense refutes the theory that if one ceases to believe, they cease to be saved. There is NO WHERE in Scripture that teaches that one must continue to believe in order to continue to be saved. I'm tired of asking for Scriptural references because none have been given. Because none exist.

FreeGrace,

I encourage you to read the article, 'A closer look at the aorist tense'. Here you will see the nuanced versions of the aorist. Acts 16:31 (ESV) - the command, 'believe' - seems to be an ingressive aorist that deals with the start of an action and does not particularly emphasise the point action what you have stressed.

Oz

 

[netchaplain]

I believe this is one of many good examples concerning the meaning of appearing to saved but truly not saved:

"But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition,...." 'There is a drawing back which is not unto perdition; persons may be attended with much unbelief, may be very cold and indifferent to Gospel ordinances, may fall into great sins, and may greatly backslide, and yet be recovered, as David, Peter, and others.

And there is a drawing back to perdition; when Christ is rejected as the alone Savior; when He is not held to as the head; when false doctrines and damnable heresies are given into; and when men draw back, and never return, nor are they, nor can they be returned, and their apostasy is total, and final.

"But true believers do not, and cannot draw back in this sense; because they are held fast in the arms, and with the cords of everlasting love, are chosen of God unto salvation, are given unto Christ, and secured in him; they are redeemed and purchased by him; they are united to him, and built upon him; they are interested in his prayers and preparations, and are his jewels, and his portion; they are regenerated, sanctified, inhabited, and sealed by the Spirit of God, and have the promises and power of God, on their side." John Gill

www.christianity.com/bible/comments/hebrews/gill/hebrews10.htm

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is, of course, nonsense. Paul defined what he meant by God's gifts in his letter to the Romans:
spiritual gifts in 1:11
justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17,
eternal life in 6:23

Then, he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. Your camp rejects this truth in favor of a false doctrine that isn't stated anywhere in Scripture.

Why is the gift of faith exempt from your definition of the gifts and calling that can not be revoked in Romans 11:29 NASB. Because it doesn't fit into your theology?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition,...." 'There is a drawing back which is not unto perdition; persons may be attended with much unbelief, may be very cold and indifferent to Gospel ordinances, may fall into great sins, and may greatly backslide, and yet be recovered, as David, Peter, and others.

Right.
This is called being unfaithful.
God is faithful even when we in weakness and/ or doubt fail, but continue to trust in Christ as the agent of our forgiveness, or more accurately, have not officially denounced it as such through neglect or contempt for it.

And there is a drawing back to perdition; when Christ is rejected as the alone Savior; when He is not held to as the head; when false doctrines and damnable heresies are given into; and when men draw back, and never return, nor are they, nor can they be returned, and their apostasy is total, and final.

Correct.
This is actually denouncing Christ, not just failing to be faithful to him or struggle with doubt as in the above explanation.

Sinning by itself does not remove one from salvation. Christ's sacrifice has that covered. Sinning because you have willfully and consciously rejected and trampled on "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace" (Hebrews 10:29 NIV) is not covered. Christ's sacrifice does not cover that. It can't. You can't have the continuing benefit of Christ's ministry and sacrifice for sin when you have purposely rejected that ministry and sacrifice.

"But true believers do not, and cannot draw back in this sense; because they are held fast in the arms, and with the cords of everlasting love, are chosen of God unto salvation, are given unto Christ, and secured in him; they are redeemed and purchased by him; they are united to him, and built upon him; they are interested in his prayers and preparations, and are his jewels, and his portion; they are regenerated, sanctified, inhabited, and sealed by the Spirit of God, and have the promises and power of God, on their side." John Gill

Sounds good, Mr. Gill.
But why are you not aware of the author's warning to sanctified people that they will suffer the wrath of God (you know the wrath of God Jesus is supposed to be saving them from-1 Thessalonians 1:10 NASB) if they later reject that blood of Christ?

"26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him,and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:26-29 NIV emphasis mine)

This is what finally got me off the fence about OSAS. Sanctified people--sanctified by the blood of Christ, no less--who, because of a willful trampling of that blood, left with only the expectation of the raging fire of Judgment reserved for the enemies of God.

Enough of this ear tickling doctrine of OSAS that turns the grace of God into a license to sin with (salvic) impunity! If you, sanctified Christian walk away from your faith in Christ, you have nothing to look forward to but the fires of God's Judgment reserved for his enemies.

 

[netchaplain]

For the gifts and calling of God,.... By "gifts" are meant, not the gifts of nature and providence, as life, health, strength, riches, and honour, which God sometimes gives, and repents of, and takes away; as he repented that he had made man upon earth, and Saul king of Israel; which must be understood by an "anthropopathy," after the manner of men, and that not of a change of the counsel of his mind, but of the course of his providence: nor do gifts here design external gifts of grace, or such gifts of the Spirit, which qualify men for ministerial work, for public service in the church; for these may be taken away, as the "parable" of the "talents" shows, Matthew 25:29; see 1 Corinthians 13:8; but the special and spiritual gifts of God's free grace, which relate to the spiritual and eternal welfare of the souls of men, even that, grace which was given to God's elect in Christ before the world was, and all those spiritual blessings wherewith they were then blessed in him: these

"are without repentance; that is, they are immutable and unalterable; God never revokes them, or calls them in again, or takes them away from the persons to whom he has made such a previous donation: the reasons are, because that his love from whence they spring is always the same; it admits of no distinction, nor of any degrees, nor of any alteration; and electing grace, according to which these gifts are bestowed, stands sure and immovable; not upon the foot of works, but of the sovereign will of God, and always has its sure and certain effect; and the covenant of grace, in which they are secured, remains firm and inviolable; and indeed, these gifts are no other than the promises of it, which are all yea and amen in Christ, and the blessings of it, which are the sure mercies of David." Gill

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It is curious that people will totally disregard what is so clearly stated in Romans and try to find verses that would refute what Paul very clearly stated.

You're only curious as in 'I dunno' because you won't listen to the plain scriptures being presented that make it impossible that Paul is including justification and salvation in the gifts and calling that can not be refuted (Romans 11:29 NASB).

Matt 10:33 is very similar to 2 Tim 2:12. The denying is about rewards, not one's salvation.

You have conveniently dismissed and forgotten that I showed you right from the passage that, grammatically, it is impossible to make disowning Christ in verse 12 the same as being unfaithful to him in verse 13.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

For the gifts and calling of God,.... By "gifts" are meant, not the gifts of nature and providence, as life, health, strength, riches, and honour, which God sometimes gives, and repents of, and takes away; as he repented that he had made man upon earth, and Saul king of Israel; which must be understood by an "anthropopathy," after the manner of men, and that not of a change of the counsel of his mind, but of the course of his providence: nor do gifts here design external gifts of grace, or such gifts of the Spirit, which qualify men for ministerial work, for public service in the church; for these may be taken away, as the "parable" of the "talents" shows, Matthew 25:29; see 1 Corinthians 13:8; but the special and spiritual gifts of God's free grace, which relate to the spiritual and eternal welfare of the souls of men, even that, grace which was given to God's elect in Christ before the world was, and all those spiritual blessings wherewith they were then blessed in him: these

"are without repentance; that is, they are immutable and unalterable; God never revokes them, or calls them in again, or takes them away from the persons to whom he has made such a previous donation: the reasons are, because that his love from whence they spring is always the same; it admits of no distinction, nor of any degrees, nor of any alteration; and electing grace, according to which these gifts are bestowed, stands sure and immovable; not upon the foot of works, but of the sovereign will of God, and always has its sure and certain effect; and the covenant of grace, in which they are secured, remains firm and inviolable; and indeed, these gifts are no other than the promises of it, which are all yea and amen in Christ, and the blessings of it, which are the sure mercies of David." Gill

Like I've been telling Freegrace for months now, Jesus explains why the gracious, unmerited forgiveness (that is, free gift) given to the servant in Matthew 25:23-35 NIV was revoked, and tells us that's how it is in the kingdom and that's how the Father will treat each one of us if we act like the servant. This kingdom truth makes it impossible that Paul was including our redemption (the forgiveness of our sins-Colossians 1:14 NIV) in the unrevocable gifts and calling in Romans 11:29 NIV. Impossible. That would directly contradict the way Jesus said it is in the kingdom--that a free gift can indeed be revoked in the kingdom.

And there is zero evidence in the parable that the servant wasn't 'really' forgiven, but lots to show he really was. But that will be one of the arguments used to dismiss the passage as a plain teaching that the forgiveness of sin--our redemption--can be revoked in the kingdom of God. Another argument will be that it isn't talking about forgiveness in regard to justification/ salvation. But that leaves the fact that it was still an unmerited, gracious free gift given, but which was then revoked. But somehow, it being completely identical to the gracious gift of the forgiveness of sins by all definitions, and this happening in the kingdom, it is unable to be included in Paul's definition of gifts that are not revocable? Come on, folks.

 

[JLB]

This is, of course, nonsense. Paul defined what he meant by God's gifts in his letter to the Romans:
spiritual gifts in 1:11
justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17,
eternal life in 6:23

Then, he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. Your camp rejects this truth in favor of a false doctrine that isn't stated anywhere in Scripture.

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Romans 11:29 KJV

Strong's Number: 278 - Ametameletos -

Definition

1. not repentant of, unregretted

King James Word Usage - Total: 2
without repentance 1, not to be repented of 1


This word in Romans 11:29 has nothing to do with taking back something that God has given, like the word "revoke" in a secular dictionary would infer, but rather this word "without repentance" means without regret.

This word is used in one other place, in the new testament 2 Corinthians 7:10, and is rendered -

For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.
2 Corinthians 7:10 NKJV

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
2 Corinthians 7:10 NIV

So much for your "theory" that it is impossible to lose salvation, as Romans 11:29, doesn't even contain the word eternal life, or salvation, and has nothing to do with God "taking back something He gives", but rather it means God doesn't regret, calling Israel to salvation nor giving them gifts...


Furthermore, In this scripture, God did not "revoke" [take back] anything. The person became hardened through the deceitfulness of sin and they themselves turned away from God.


12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;
13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,
Hebrews 3:12-14


Even if without repentance in Romans 11:29 meant "take back", God didn't take anything back.
Their belief became unbelief, through their choices, and they themselves departed from God, He didn't depart from them.

and again

19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage.
20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: "A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:19-22


Again, God is not portrayed as "taking back" salvation here, but rather the person returned to a life of sin, and serving the world...

as it say clearly and plainly... a dog returns to his own vomit.


OSAS blatantly misrepresents what the straightforward scriptures plainly and clearly teaches to the people of God.


as Peter says about these... they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption;



JLB