Do you agree, or disagree?

[GodsGrace]

If John meant agnostics, he would have said so.
He's not stupid.

Oops....
I meant GNOSTICS.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I think I met all of them before I came here. lol

Lol, that's possible.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Oops....
I meant GNOSTICS.

I disagree with that also.

 

[JLB]

There's believers all over the place that aren't saved.
1 John 2:26;
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
Where does the Bible teach something that contradicts this passage?

Here is what 1 John 2:26 says —


These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. 1 John 2:26




JLB

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Here is what 1 John 2:26 says —


These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. 1 John 2:26




JLB

You are right, sorry.
Thanks for the correction.
It is 1 John 2:19

 

[JLB]

There's believers all over the place that aren't saved.
1 John 2:26;
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
Where does the Bible teach something that contradicts this passage?

I think you meant this passage. 1 John 2:19

• They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

Context —

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:18-23




John was most likely referring to Jews who did not truly believe Jesus Is the Messiah. That is the context.



I have seen people who believe in OSAS try and spin this verse into meaning a brother who wanders away and becomes lost was never saved to begin with. This is blatantly false.


That would mean the prodigal son was never really the son of his father.





JLB

 

[Hopeful]

Good advice in your 2nd paragraph...but I hate dealing with that tiny cell phone!

Anyway, yes, my point was that I hear that if someone falls away it means that they were never genuine believers.
What is a genuine believer?

Hebrews 3:12
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God...

It seems to me that Paul is stating to be careful not to fall away.
Fall away from what?
The Living God.

And what would make us fall away?
Paul calls them BROTHERS so he's speaking to Christians....
he's telling them to be careful and to avoid an evil and unbelieving heart.

I believe the N.T. teaches that it's possible to be a believer and then to fall away.

I feel that if they really did believe, they would not doubt the promises of adherence or damnation.

 

[Hopeful]

There's believers all over the place that aren't saved.
1 John 2:26;
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
Where does the Bible teach something that contradicts this passage?

The verses you cited say it.
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us.
For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

 

[Hopeful]

Interesting passage! I wonder though, is there a difference between belonging to "us" as Paul indicates and belonging to Jesus, albeit, saved?

No, as the church is Christ's body...on earth now.

 

[Hopeful]

That would mean the prodigal son was never really the son of his father.
JLB

You are using an OT parable to refute NT truth.
If folks leave, they were "not all of us". (1 John 2:19)
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."
Of course, if they repent of sin, etc. they will be welcomed to become Christians

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I think you meant this passage. 1 John 2:19

• They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

Context —

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:18-23




John was most likely referring to Jews who did not truly believe Jesus Is the Messiah. That is the context.



I have seen people who believe in OSAS try and spin this verse into meaning a brother who wanders away and becomes lost was never saved to begin with. This is blatantly false.


That would mean the prodigal son was never really the son of his father.





JLB

Using that verse to relate to the prodigal son doesn't make sense to me.
The prodigal son was saved.
It was the brother who never left that was not saved.

 

[JLB]

Using that verse to relate to the prodigal son doesn't make sense to me.
The prodigal son was saved.
It was the brother who never left that was not saved.

Nothing in the story indicates the brother was lost.

Is there any reference by the father, indicating the broth was lost?


They were both sons of the father. One wandered away and became lost; dead (spiritually) and but became alive again when he returned to the father and was reconciled back to him.


The brother who remained with the father, remained faithful.


Those children of God who wander away and become lost must repent and return to God to be reconciled or they will remain lost; unjust, and dead to God.








JLB

 

[WIP]

Nothing in the story indicates the brother was lost.

Is there any reference by the father, indicating the broth was lost?


They were both sons of the father. One wandered away and became lost; dead (spiritually) and but became alive again when he returned to the father and was reconciled back to him.


The brother who remained with the father, remained faithful.


Those children of God who wander away and become lost must repent and return to God to be reconciled or they will remain lost; unjust, and dead to God.








JLB

In fact, in the story the father said this to the son that remained, "Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours."

Is it reasonable then to deduce that the same would have been for the son that left had he not left?

We must remember that this parable is a continuance of the theme from the previous 10 verses about reclaiming what had been lost.

 

[JLB]

In fact, in the story the father said this to the son that remained, "Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours."

Is it reasonable then to deduce that the same would have been for the son that left had he not left?

We must remember that this parable is a continuance of the theme from the previous 10 verses about reclaiming what had been lost.

Amen. So true.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

PS
Don't expect an answer from Jethro.
He's on some beach somewhere.

Pebble Beach to be exact.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But Javier might be around.

Cynthia hated Javier. You won't see him around anymore.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The brother who remained with

Nothing in the story indicates the brother was lost.

Is there any reference by the father, indicating the broth was lost?


They were both sons of the father. One wandered away and became lost; dead (spiritually) and but became alive again when he returned to the father and was reconciled back to him.


The brother who remained with the father, remained faithful.


Those children of God who wander away and become lost must repent and return to God to be reconciled or they will remain lost; unjust, and dead to God.








JLB

Cynthia hated Javier. You won't see him around anymore.

Cynthia is not around anymore.
We chased her away.
We gave her the old "Ralph ultimatum" and she freaked out!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Cynthia is not around anymore.
We chased her away.
We gave her the old "Ralph ultimatum" and she freaked out!

Hmm.........the Ralph ultimatum. That's rough.
Where did you chase her away to?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Some other forum, on the other side of limbo.....

Hmm.........the Ralph ultimatum. That's rough.
Where did you chase her away to?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

wondering has been there.
she knows everyone there.
just ask her...