Apostate Verses Believer

[netchaplain]

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.

Many receive the knowledge of the truth (salvation by Christ) into the mind, but not into the heart. This is were the error lies in Gnosticism, for they believed that merely knowing about salvation was to be saved (of course not suspecting you here).

These are they who even after being informed (enlightened) about salvation continued as before, without going beyond just knowledge and onto application.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Many receive the knowledge of the truth (salvation by Christ) into the mind, but not into the heart. This is were the error lies in Gnosticism, for they believed that merely knowing about salvation was to be saved (of course not suspecting you here).

These are they who even after being informed (enlightened) about salvation continued as before, without going beyond just knowledge and onto application.

Net baby, these people are sanctified--sanctified by the blood of Christ! (Hebrews 10:29 NASB). The blood of Christ is applied through faith (Romans 3:25 NIV), not head knowledge. These are people who have faith in Christ, are sanctified as a result, but who then trample on that blood that sanctified them and are then condemned to suffer the punishment of the damned. I'm not getting a feel good OSAS moment here, folks.

 

[netchaplain]

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.

I believe that's all Paul intended with the words "gifts and calling." The blessings (gifts) which accompany salvation (calling, i. e "the called"; but not, as in "many are called." which is different than "the called.")

 

[netchaplain]

, these people are sanctified--sanctified by the blood of Christ! (Hebrews 10:29 NASB). The blood of Christ is applied through faith (Romans 3:25 NIV), not head knowledge. These are people who have faith in Christ, are sanctified as a result, but who then trample on that blood that sanctified them and are then condemned to suffer the punishment of the damned. I'm not getting a feel good OSAS moment here, folks.

I see nothing but unsaved individuals described in Heb 10:25-29. I would not think it sensible to conceive that one who is born again could ever "trod under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

It's also too confusing to me to imagine one could no longer "desire" to "do" God's will, considering the "work" which He maintains within (Phil 2:13). I believe that would be a misunderstanding concerning a work of God, which can never fail, e.g. if God works goodness and holiness within an individual, how could it be considered that it was ineffective.

Scripture often references many who will make a false profession, which shows the absence of His work in them, and I believe this is what Scripture designs in all of the passages that have an appearance of showing that one who is "born again" can become unsaved, which are always references concerning those who have professed Christ but never have possessed Him, thus have ever been born again.

 

[JLB]

Many receive the knowledge of the truth (salvation by Christ) into the mind, but not into the heart. This is were the error lies in Gnosticism, for they believed that merely knowing about salvation was to be saved (of course not suspecting you here).

Please compare how this word is used in context in the following verses, as "head knowledge" is not implied at all.

26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge [1922] of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people."
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings:
33 partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated;
34 for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven.
35 Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward.
36 For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise:
37 "For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him."
39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.
Hebrews 10:26-39

This is not the description of a people who simply have "head knowledge", but rather this describes people who have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus and have the Spirit of Grace, since they are being warned not to count the blood of the covenant, by which they were sanctified "a common thing" which is insulting the Spirit of Grace.

Peter says it this way and uses the same Greek word in the phrase "knowledge [1922] of the Lord Jesus Christ"

20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge [1922] 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 2:20-22

It is not by "head knowledge" were are sanctified, and it is not by "head knowledge" we escape the pollutions of the world.

It's certainly not by "head knowledge" that we have known [intimately experienced] the way of righteousness...




JLB

 

[smaller]

I said this:
>I have no idea what this means.
>This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Who does that?
>I don't know what this means.
>How does any of this relate to the issue of eternal security vs loss of salvation?
>I know your view seems to be to blame the devil for your sins. But that is irrelevant to the issue of OSAS vs loss of salvation.

All sin in everyone is directly connected to the devil, not by my sight, but by the sight of The Word. 1 John 3:8, Mark 4:15

THEREfore, there is no such theological creature as "a believer, singular."

The theological standing of a believer is a child of God, saved to the uttermost

AND

in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, the tempter.

Romans 9:18-24, 2 Tim. 2:20-21, Romans 11:8, Mark 4:15 and all the other seed parables.

Your perpetual intention, and the sights of most, are only to view one party. And that is blind sight.

The child of God can not be lost for any reason. The messenger of Satan, in the flesh, can not be saved, obedient, under Grace, lawful or any other Godly thing.

All the folk on the "you can lose your salvation" crowd are vainly trying to "save their flesh" by their actions. They can act all they please. The messenger of Satan, the tempter in the flesh is utterly DOOMED regardless. Matt. 23:33 Luke 3:7

And the OSAS crowd has the reverse problem, covering their entirety with security, when in fact the messenger of Satan, the tempter in their own flesh is not saved and never will be. 2 Cor. 12:7, 1 Tim. 1:15

Such a debate point, OSAS is completely worthless, when there are two opposite fates that will come upon every believer-messenger of Satan in the flesh.

All the OSAS whining in the world will not save the tempter in the flesh, or any of this "sinners" actions in the flesh. How valid is OSAS then? It is only applicable to one side of these matters, and the position does not and can not address the other side.

Paul himself carried a perpetual death sentence in his own flesh, precisely because of the corruption of the tempter, therein, which same is OSAS in the reverse sense-> Guaranteed Eternal Damnation. 2 Cor. 1:9

If you want to pump OSAS you could at least address the other side of the ledgers, simultaneously, to be "truthful."

OSAS and Guaranteed Eternal Damnation are walking around in the same pair of shoes.

 

[netchaplain]

Please compare how this word is used in context in the following verses, as "head knowledge" is not implied at all.

26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge [1922] of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people."
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings:
33 partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated;
34 for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven.
35 Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward.
36 For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise:
37 "For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him."
39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.
Hebrews 10:26-39

This is not the description of a people who simply have "head knowledge", but rather this describes people who have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus and have the Spirit of Grace, since they are being warned not to count the blood of the covenant, by which they were sanctified "a common thing" which is insulting the Spirit of Grace.

I believe the phrase "knowledge of the truth" is the key to understanding the intention of this chapter, and it is where unbelievers stop, and where believers continue. Thus vs 26-29 refers to to the prior, and 32-39 refers to the latter. A true believer will never "reject" (v 28) Christ, but rather "cometh unto me" (Jhn 6:37,45).

Those who have never accepted but rather rejected Christ are those who never "hear My voice" (Jhn 10:27), or they would "follow Me" (Jhn 10:27). The phrase "follow Me" assumes the intention of continuance, otherwise it would be presented as those who "follow Me" and never stops. The concept does not hint of cessation, therefore, those who stop following are those who never heard, because only those who "hear" are defined as those who "follow," not those who follow and then stop following.

God's blessings to you, and God be blessed!

 

[netchaplain]

Peter says it this way and uses the same Greek word in the phrase "knowledge [1922] of the Lord Jesus Christ"

20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge [1922] 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 2:20-22

It is not by "head knowledge" were are sanctified, and it is not by "head knowledge" we escape the pollutions of the world.

It's certainly not by "head knowledge" that we have known [intimately experienced] the way of righteousness...

How about giving Gill's comment here (vs 20-22) a view, in order this time to conserve space:

http://www.christianity.com/bible/comments/2peter/gill/2peter2.htm

 

[FreeGrace]

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

Basically, the aorist tense is a tense without duration, like a snapshot. If the claim that one must continue to believe in order to continue to be saved, Paul would have most assuredly used the present tense. And, there would be verses that very clearly indicate that believing must continue in order to continue to be saved.

Yet, we find none of that in Scripture. In fact, just the opposite; God's gift (Rom 6:23 - eternal life) is irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

So, not only is the claim of continuing faith necessary to remain saved not stated in Scripture, the opposite is stated.

 

[FreeGrace]

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.

Where does the Bible define our faith as a gift? And, please don't cite Eph 2:8. There, the gift is salvation, not faith.

Because it doesn't fit into your theology?

Because faith isn't defined as a gift in the Scirpture.

btw, why doesn't Rom 1:11, 3:24, 5:15,16,17 and 6:23 qualify as the gifts that Paul said were irrevocable in Rom 11:29?

The context for gifts in 11:29 come from the text of Romans, not unrelated texts that Paul didn't cite in his letter to the Romans.

He defined what he meant by God's gifts, and then he said that they are irrevocable. It could not be more clear than that.

But, each of us must face Scripture and decide whether we're going to believe it or not.

 

[FreeGrace]

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

In fact, we KNOW what Paul meant by "gifts of God" in Rom 11:29 by HOW he defined what God's gifts are in the letter before he got to 11:29.

1. spiritual gifts in 1:11
2. justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
3. eternal life in 6:23

These gifts have been specifically defined by Paul before he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. It is these gifts that he was referring to, because there are NO OTHER gifts noted by Paul before he wrote 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"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).

Nope. I'm curious as in 'I dunno' why anyone would so blatantly reject what is so clear from Paul's writings.

Your side is trying to define Rom 11:29 from OUTSIDE the context of Romans, when WITHIN the context of Romans Paul specifically defined what he meant by God's gifts. He could mean no other kind of gift. That refutes your side and is why your side works so hard to try to re-define what Paul "must have" meant in 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

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.

I'll take the scholars words over either yours or mine, as they have WAY MORE TRAINING than either of us.

So, it must be your opinion that the translators totally failed to properly translate the word, huh??

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...

Since I accept the scholarly work of the translators, I will disregard the opinion provided. They translated the word as "irrevocable" for a reason. They know more than the both of us combined.

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

lol

 

[FreeGrace]

All sin in everyone is directly connected to the devil, not by my sight, but by the sight of The Word. 1 John 3:8, Mark 4:15

This statement is untrue. First, 1 Jn 3:8 only acknowledges that the devil was the first sinner and got the first humans to sin. The second verse doesn't say anything close to your claim.

Regarding humans, let's look at what the Bible says about where sin comes from.
Jer 17:9 - “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
Matt 12:34 - “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
Matt 15:18,19 - 18“But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

Quite clear, really. Sin comes from the heart of man. None of these verses ascribes man's sins to the devil.

THEREfore, there is no such theological creature as "a believer, singular."

The theological standing of a believer is a child of God, saved to the uttermost

Yep. Once saved, always saved.

AND
in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, the tempter.

Your perpetual intention, and the sights of most, are only to view one party. And that is blind sight.

You're still not making any sense. If the devil is the source of all our sin, why would God hold man accountable for his own sin? The messenger of Satan has NOTHING to do with eternal security. Apparently you think so, but have failed to explain clearly how he would relate to OSAS.

The child of God can not be lost for any reason.

Once again, OSAS!

The messenger of Satan, in the flesh, can not be saved, obedient, under Grace, lawful or any other Godly thing.

No one thinks the messenger can be saved, so WHY on earth is this keep being brought up?

All the folk on the "you can lose your salvation" crowd are vainly trying to "save their flesh" by their actions.

Please give an example of one of them who does this.

They can act all they please. The messenger of Satan, the tempter in the flesh is utterly DOOMED regardless. Matt. 23:33 Luke 3:7

Seems to me all evangelicals already believe this.

[QUOTEAnd the OSAS crowd has the reverse problem, covering their entirety with security[/QUOTE]
This is so confused. You've already stated that a child of God cannot be lost for any reason. So, there is NO PROBLEM with their eternal security. None at all.

when in fact the messenger of Satan, the tempter

in their own flesh is not saved and never will be. 2 Cor. 12:7, 1 Tim. 1:15

This is totally irrelevant to OSAS. The fact that messengers of Satan cannot be saved has NO RELEVANCE to the eternal security of any believer.

Such a debate point, OSAS is completely worthless, when there are two opposite fates that will come upon every believer-messenger of Satan in the flesh.

This sounds more like schizophrenia to me. There is NO issue regarding this messenger of Satan and OSAS.

btw, the Bible only notes that Paul suffered this messenger and even gives us the reason for it. Why would anyone assume that this messenger of Satan effects all of us. Have you been to the third heaven and heard things that man is not permitted to tell? I assure you that neither you nor anyone other than Paul has. The messenger was to keep him humble. Your fixation on this messenger is just so misplaced as to be puzzling.

All the OSAS whining in the world will not save the tempter in the flesh, or any of this "sinners" actions in the flesh.

Who cares? Of course Paul's messenger won't be saved. That isn't even an issue.

How valid is OSAS then?

Totally.

It is only applicable to one side of these matters, and the position does not and can not address the other side.

I reject this schizophrenia.

Paul himself carried a perpetual death sentence in his own flesh, precisely because of the corruption of the tempter, therein, which same is OSAS in the reverse sense-> Guaranteed Eternal Damnation. 2 Cor. 1:9

This makes no sense.

If you want to pump OSAS you could at least address the other side of the ledgers, simultaneously, to be "truthful."

There isn't one. I reject schizophrenia theology totally.

OSAS and Guaranteed Eternal Damnation are walking around in the same pair of shoes.

 

[smaller]

This statement is untrue. First, 1 Jn 3:8 only acknowledges that the devil was the first sinner and got the first humans to sin. The second verse doesn't say anything close to your claim.

Yeah, you tried to make that dry run effort once before, and it didn't work. 1 John 3:8 doesn't say sin "used to be" of the devil. Kind of a funny angle though, to dodge that connection. Particularly when Paul himself had a messenger of Satan in his own flesh, and the god of this world blinds the minds of unbelievers.

Quite clear, really. Sin comes from the heart of man. None of these verses ascribes man's sins to the devil.

And Jesus was fibbing here as well:

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Matthew 13:19
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Luke 8:12
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

You're still not making any sense. If the devil is the source of all our sin, why would God hold man accountable for his own sin?

As it pertains to believers sin, yes the devil will be held to account for every sin that transpires in the flesh.

It is impossible to 'de-link' any sin from the devil.

 

[netchaplain]

In fact, we KNOW what Paul meant by "gifts of God" in Rom 11:29 by HOW he defined what God's gifts are in the letter before he got to 11:29.

1. spiritual gifts in 1:11
2. justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
3. eternal life in 6:23

These gifts have been specifically defined by Paul before he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. It is these gifts that he was referring to, because there are NO OTHER gifts noted by Paul before he wrote 11:29.

I can understand your reasoning here but I do not see anything other that salvation being centric of Paul's writings in the passages we are all discussing (justification, eternal life, hence salvation).
If the theme within the context (all verses before and after v 29) of Romans 11:29 be maintained, it's salvation being disclosed. Not to pick on number 1. above but to comment only, I believe Romans 1:11 mention of "spiritual gift" (singular) is other than the plural usages of spiritual gifts or gifts of the Spirit, which are then in reference to the gifts of the Spirit in 1Co 12.

 

[FreeGrace]

Yeah, you tried to make that dry run effort once before, and it didn't work. 1 John 3:8 doesn't say sin "used to be" of the devil.

Please read my posts. It doesn't even come close to what is being falsely claimed. I said the devil was the first sinner and got the first humans to sin.

Kind of a funny angle though, to dodge that connection. Particularly when Paul himself had a messenger of Satan in his own flesh, and the god of this world blinds the minds of unbelievers.

Completely missing the point. The messenger of Satan was for Paul specifically, not all believers, as your posts seem to claim.

And Jesus was fibbing here as well:

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Matthew 13:19
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Luke 8:12
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

These weren't believers. Luke 8:12 And Jesus never fibs. So there is no need for such snippy quips.

As it pertains to believers sin, yes the devil will be held to account for every sin that transpires in the flesh.

This has no relevance at all to eternal security.

It is impossible to 'de-link' any sin from the devil.

Irrelevant to the issue of eternal security.

 

[FreeGrace]

I can understand your reasoning here but I do not see anything other that salvation being centric of Paul's writings in the passages we are all discussing (justification, eternal life, hence salvation).
If the theme within the context (all verses before and after v 29) of Romans 11:29 be maintained, it's salvation being disclosed. Not to pick on number 1. above but to comment only, I believe Romans 1:11 mention of "spiritual gift" (singular) is other than the plural usages of spiritual gifts or gifts of the Spirit, which are then in reference to the gifts of the Spirit in 1Co 12.

Thanks for agreeing that Rom 11:29 is about salvation, also known as justification and eternal life.

 

[JLB]

Thanks for agreeing that Rom 11:29 is about salvation, also known as justification and eternal life.

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Romans 11:28-30

Why would they who were "broken off" through unbelief, need to still be called to salvation if salvation were "irrevocable"?

Salvation nor eternal life are mentioned in Romans 11:29, however the calling to salvation which is actually mentioned is without repentance.

JLB

 

[smaller]

Please read my posts. It doesn't even come close to what is being falsely claimed. I said the devil was the first sinner and got the first humans to sin.

Sin "is" of the devil. Not was.

Christians still sin and "our" sin is likewise, of the devil. 1 John 3:8

Completely missing the point. The messenger of Satan was for Paul specifically, not all believers, as your posts seem to claim.

I don't have a claim. I read that sin is of the devil, and that believers sin.

Paul didn't hold himself out as some "exception" to this rule. Nor did John the Apostle who likewise said if we say we have no sin the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8.

We are forgiven. The devil isn't.

These weren't believers. Luke 8:12 And Jesus never fibs. So there is no need for such snippy quips.

I understand you may not care for the "universal quotient" that all mankind is under sin in the flesh and such sin is demonic.

Paul addresses how much better we are than the unbelievers, here:

Romans 3:9
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

This has no relevance at all to eternal security.

It has every relevance for sound judgments to remain. Paul didn't justify the messenger of Satan in his flesh, his evil actions, his evil thoughts. But condemned them on the basis that these things are in fact demonic and this operation of the tempter is in all flesh.

I have no issues with OSAS, and believe it's fully true for all believers.

I don't accept that is "all" that believers consist of however.