Eternal security or conditional security?

[JLB]

y "natural branches" Paul mean the people of Israel.

By natural branches, Paul referred to the children of Abraham, the root being that Covenant that the Lord made with Abraham.

We as wild olive branches are grafted in to the natural olive tree, are are in that Abrahamic Covenant through faith in Jesus Christ, the same Lord who made Covenant with Abraham.


JLB

 

[chessman]

I dont care if they are/were Israel they were His they missed up and He cut them off.. What makes any one else think He should not do the same. The Scripture are for our learning .. For me that is something i have learned..

Yes they were His, they messed up, He cut them off and they are still saved. I have no doubt He will do the same to anyone else that messes up.

But He didn't remove their salvation (Eternal Life) is my point.

What made me learn that the symbolism Paul used in Romans 11 of breaking off natural branches is not meant to symbolize de-salvation is the fact that both Paul and Moses were broken off natural branches yet they still have their eternal life. Since both Paul and Moses are still saved, it can't mean de-salvation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Then am I to believe that that is the reason anyone born of God sinneth not according to 1 Jn 5:18? Would it be a sin to quit believing in God delivering us from a cancer for instance? And then of course we read in 1 Ki 8:46 ( . . there is no man that sinneth not,).

You are confusing faithlessness in daily living with an outright denial of God/Christ. The latter is what will end your relationship with God. It is the reason a person sins that determines whether or not they are putting their salvation in jeopardy. If a person sins because they are weak, or fearful, or just plain stupid, Christ can cover that. But if a person has gone back to their former lifestyle because they don't care about the grace they have received anymore and don't want anything to do with Christ, that represents a denial of Christ that will eventually end their relationship with God in Christ if they don't respond to his call to come back.

If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
13If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
(2 Timothy 2:12-13 NASB)

The text plainly says above that if you deny Christ, he will in turn deny you. But in contrast, if we are faithless (not having the courage to do right, etc.), Christ remains faithful to us.

Obviously, there has to be a difference between denying him, and being faithless to him. Or else the passage is meaningless. They have to be different because the outcome of each is different. It is only when you outright deny Christ that he will deny you. But when you are simply not being faithful to do what's right, for any reason other than denying him, you still belong to him and, therefore, he will not deny you because you still belong to him. But it is a denial of Christ that separates you from him so that he has no further obligation to remain faithful to you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But He didn't remove their salvation (Eternal Life) is my point.

Moses was never cut off from God. He continued to commune with him after his punishment for being faithless (he NEVER denied God). Paul was never grafted in to begin with in that he was somehow saved and then cutoff. The branches represent the nation of Israel as a whole. Paul was cutoff in that sense. And, just as Paul says, because he had faith, he was grafted back into the root (Romans 11:23-24 NASB). Not the whole of Israel, him personally.

The letter to the Romans, where Paul says the Israelites are cut off from the root (Romans 11:20 NASB), was written while the Jews were still in the Land, so we know Paul did not intend being cut out of the root to mean being cut off from the Land.

When talking about being cut off from the root, the important point is that the person, or nation, that is cut off from the root no longer has access to the life giving sap (John 15:6 NASB). That's the important point. Being cut off means being cut off from the supply of life and dying as a result. Branches that are dried up because they aren't connected to the life source anymore are spiritually dead, not still alive as is being argued.

 

[MarkT]

Yes they were His, they messed up, He cut them off and they are still saved. I have no doubt He will do the same to anyone else that messes up.

But He didn't remove their salvation (Eternal Life) is my point.

What made me learn that the symbolism Paul used in Romans 11 of breaking off natural branches is not meant to symbolize de-salvation is the fact that both Paul and Moses were broken off natural branches yet they still have their eternal life. Since both Paul and Moses are still saved, it can't mean de-salvation.

When Paul says branches were broken off, he means dead branches were broken off; the dead can not see or hear, neither can they understand. Mt. 13:13-16 He is talking about that part of Israel who did not believe Jesus was the Christ. That would include the scribes and the Pharisees who didn't believe Jesus was the Christ; also the people who wanted to stone Jesus, and everyone who fell away, and everyone who did not receive his words and believe.

Obviously Paul wasn't a dead branch; he was an apostle of Jesus Christ. And Moses wasn't dead. God spoke to Moses and Moses answered back. Moses' transgression was a lack of faith in the LORD, or rather Moses didn't sanctify the LORD in the eyes of the people when he should have, or the people's lack of faith, so the LORD was angry with Moses on their account. This was when they contended with the LORD through Moses saying it would have been better if they had died with their brethren than to be led into the wilderness where there was no water. Numbers 20:1-13

It's not the same as being broken off. Moses wasn't broken off. He was punished for his lack of faith.

 

[FreeGrace]

I usually avoid using situations in allegorical or metaphorical statements by Jesus as intending literal fact of reality.

I think Matt 25:46 and Jude 7 are literal regarding eternal punishment.

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes. I believe what Jesus said. He did not say he who doesn't believe in Me will live.

We are in agreement.

I said this:
"If this verse means believers will be thrown into hell, then His words from John 11:25 and 26 cannot be true."

It doesn't, so your logic escapes me. Did Martha fall away after Jesus raised Lazarus? No. So what's your point?

Again, we are in agreement.

If you don't believe Jesus, then there's no sense in quoting Paul. Jesus said, "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." John 15:6

Please explain what it means to "abide in me". We may not agree on this.

 

[FreeGrace]

Those who believe are His sheep.

Those who believe for a while, are His sheep for a while.

I am patiently waiting for any verse or passage that plainly teaching this. Until then, this is just an assumption.

 

[JLB]

Yes they were His, they messed up, He cut them off and they are still saved. I have no doubt He will do the same to anyone else that messes up.

But He didn't remove their salvation (Eternal Life) is my point.

What made me learn that the symbolism Paul used in Romans 11 of breaking off natural branches is not meant to symbolize de-salvation is the fact that both Paul and Moses were broken off natural branches yet they still have their eternal life. Since both Paul and Moses are still saved, it can't mean de-salvation.

Paul and Moses were broken off natural branches yet they still have their eternal life.

The testimony about Moses in the scripture is that He was faithful. Why would you say he was broken off from covenant with God.

Paul was one of the greatest Apostle for the Lord, faithfully carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles and writing most of the new testament.

Why would anyone believe the Lord removed Him from covenant?

• Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, 2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house. Hebrews 3:1-2

• For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing. 2 Timothy 2:6-8

Teaching God's people such nonsense as, Moses and Paul were "broken off" as branches is a false statement.



JLB

 

[chessman]

The branches represent the nation of Israel as a whole. Paul was cutoff in that sense.

I know. Whom God also has not rejected. May it never be. (Rom 11:1) even though that nation was cut off, they are never rejected.

Paul was a member of the natural branches. He was a natural branch among the natural branches. It takes individuals to make up a group. So Paul is another example of why this phrase doesn't mean de-salvation.

Paul was never grafted in to begin with in that he was somehow saved and then cutoff.

What passage leads you to believe that the phrase "cut off" is ever used by Paul in the sense of being "cut off" from salvation? Cause it's certainly not used that way in Rom 11. That's my point.

The letter to the Romans, where Paul says the Israelites are cut off from the root (Romans 11:20 NASB), was written while the Jews were still in the Land, so we know Paul did not intend being cut out of the root to mean being cut off from the Land.

They were in the land now under Roman control and under heavy taxation and increasing persecution. Becoming poorer by the day and about to be totally kicked out (70 A.D.)

We know what Paul meant by Being connected to the root:

Romans 11:17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although you were a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the root of the olive tree’s richness,​

In this context, clearly being "cut off" means to be "cut off" from sharing in the roots' richness. But it doesn't mean becoming de-saved. And thusly shouldn't be used to teach de-salvation.

 

[FreeGrace]

You are confusing faithlessness in daily living with an outright denial of God/Christ. The latter is what will end your relationship with God.

Relationship between birth parent, whether physical or spiritual, is PERMANENT, and cannot be "ended", as you say. What can be ended is FELLOWSHIP, which is the state of the relationship.

In the physical relationship between parent and child, the child HAS the parent's DNA. That cannot be changed.

In the same way, in the spiritual relationship between God and His children, the children have the indwelling Holy Spirit. And that cannot be changed. For Jesus promised that He would be with us forever. And we are sealed with the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption.

And no one has provided any verses about this particular seal being broken by any means.

It is the reason a person sins that determines whether or not they are putting their salvation in jeopardy.

If one's salvation is put in jeopardy for sin, then Jesus Christ failed in His mission and purpose. John the baptizer said this of Him:
"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Jn 1:29

If John the baptizer was correct, then sin cannot be an issue in sending anyone to the lake of fire. And that is exactly what we find in Rev 20:11-15. It is not having eternal life that sends one to the lake of fire.


If a person sins because they are weak, or fearful, or just plain stupid, Christ can cover that. But if a person has gone back to their former lifestyle because they don't care about the grace they have received anymore and don't want anything to do with Christ, that represents a denial of Christ that will eventually end their relationship with God in Christ if they don't respond to his call to come back.

If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
13If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
(2 Timothy 2:12-13 NASB)

The text plainly says above that if you deny Christ, he will in turn deny you. But in contrast, if we are faithless (not having the courage to do right, etc.), Christ remains faithful to us.

Obviously, there has to be a difference between denying him, and being faithless to him. Or else the passage is meaningless. They have to be different because the outcome of each is different. It is only when you outright deny Christ that he will deny you. But when you are simply not being faithful to do what's right, for any reason other than denying him, you still belong to him and, therefore, he will not deny you because you still belong to him. But it is a denial of Christ that separates you from him so that he has no further obligation to remain faithful to you.[/QUOTE]

 

[FreeGrace]

You are confusing faithlessness in daily living with an outright denial of God/Christ. The latter is what will end your relationship with God. It is the reason a person sins that determines whether or not they are putting their salvation in jeopardy. If a person sins because they are weak, or fearful, or just plain stupid, Christ can cover that. But if a person has gone back to their former lifestyle because they don't care about the grace they have received anymore and don't want anything to do with Christ, that represents a denial of Christ that will eventually end their relationship with God in Christ if they don't respond to his call to come back.

If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
13If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
(2 Timothy 2:12-13 NASB)

The text plainly says above that if you deny Christ, he will in turn deny you.

It is interesting that you failed to quote v.11-12A. I wonder why. So, let's examine what Paul was referring to in regard to what is being denied by Him:
11 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

From v.11, we know that those who have "died with Him" will also live with Him. Who has "died with Him"? All who have believed in Him. Rom 6:8 says: "Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him".

In v.12A, we find a conditional clause. The result of enduring (for Him, obviously) is to reign with Him. iow, those who don't endure in their faith surely won't reign with Him.

Then, in v.12B, Paul states the opposite of enduring for Him; which is to deny Him, which occurs even when we don't make a stand for Him during our daily lives. Keeping our mouths closed instead of being a testimony for Christ is a denial of Him. The result, He will deny us the privilege of reigning with Him.

This verse is about possible reward in heaven, or how to lose out on reward. We will be rewarded for enduring, and we will lose reward by keeping our mouths shut when we should be a testimony.

This is nothing in the context to conclude that Paul means that Jesus will deny salvation.

But in contrast, if we are faithless (not having the courage to do right, etc.), Christ remains faithful to us.

Which is another verse about eternal security. Because we have the Holy Spirit in us, God cannot deny Himself. And we are sealed for the day of redemption.

Obviously, there has to be a difference between denying him, and being faithless to him. Or else the passage is meaningless. They have to be different because the outcome of each is different. It is only when you outright deny Christ that he will deny you. But when you are simply not being faithful to do what's right, for any reason other than denying him, you still belong to him and, therefore, he will not deny you because you still belong to him. But it is a denial of Christ that separates you from him so that he has no further obligation to remain faithful to you.

This isn't supported by the passage. v.13 is a guarantee that even when a believer's life is one of denial, though he will be denied reward, but will NOT be denied salvation.

 

[JLB]

It is interesting that you failed to quote v.11-12A. I wonder why. So, let's examine what Paul was referring to in regard to what is being denied by Him:
11 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

From v.11, we know that those who have "died with Him" will also live with Him. Who has "died with Him"? All who have believed in Him. Rom 6:8 says: "Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him".

In v.12A, we find a conditional clause. The result of enduring (for Him, obviously) is to reign with Him. iow, those who don't endure in their faith surely won't reign with Him.

Then, in v.12B, Paul states the opposite of enduring for Him; which is to deny Him, which occurs even when we don't make a stand for Him during our daily lives. Keeping our mouths closed instead of being a testimony for Christ is a denial of Him. The result, He will deny us the privilege of reigning with Him.

This verse is about possible reward in heaven, or how to lose out on reward. We will be rewarded for enduring, and we will lose reward by keeping our mouths shut when we should be a testimony.

This is nothing in the context to conclude that Paul means that Jesus will deny salvation.

Which is another verse about eternal security. Because we have the Holy Spirit in us, God cannot deny Himself. And we are sealed for the day of redemption.


This isn't supported by the passage. v.13 is a guarantee that even when a believer's life is one of denial, though he will be denied reward, but will NOT be denied salvation.

Those who live a lifestyle of sin, will receive the wages that they employed their will and effort to do... which is death; eternal death.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9


15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?... For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:15-16,23


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I know. Whom God also has not rejected. May it never be. (Rom 11:1) even though that nation was cut off, they are never rejected.

Paul was a member of the natural branches. He was a natural branch among the natural branches. It takes individuals to make up a group. So Paul is another example of why this phrase doesn't mean de-salvation.

We know the nation as a whole will be grafted back in to it's place where it once was. What so many people haven't considered is that these are new generations of Jews representing the nation of Israel that are being grafted in, not the ones who were actually cut off. Those Jews who died in their rejection of God/Christ are dead and gone to the place where "those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’" (Luke 16:26 NASB).

What passage leads you to believe that the phrase "cut off" is ever used by Paul in the sense of being "cut off" from salvation? Cause it's certainly not used that way in Rom 11. That's my point.

I explained it. Jesus talks in John 15 about the dry branches having NO LIFE IN THEM. Branches that are dead are not still alive as some are insisting here. And simple observation shows that Israel is not alive in salvation in their cut off status. But they would be saved in their cut off status if these doctrines about being cut off doesn't mean not being saved.

They were in the land now under Roman control and under heavy taxation and increasing persecution. Becoming poorer by the day and about to be totally kicked out (70 A.D.)

But not cut off from the Land as you said being cut off means. So you have no point here.

 

[FreeGrace]

Those who live a lifestyle of sin, will receive the wages that they employed their will and effort to do... which is death; eternal death.

Wow. So Christ's death on behalf of all wasn't all that effective, then. John the baptizer said that Jesus was the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."

Per your claims, it would appear He missed more than a few sins.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

This verse is in the context of FELLOWSHIP.

 

[JLB]

Wow. So Christ's death on behalf of all wasn't all that effective, then. John the baptizer said that Jesus was the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."

This verse is in the context of FELLOWSHIP.

If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 1 John 1:6

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

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

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? Romans 6:15-16

For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Romans 8:13


3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.7 Therefore do not be partakers with them. Ephesians 5:3-7


Paul plainly warns these Christians not to be partakers of God's wrath, along with the sons of disobedience.


Those Christians who continue to live in sin, practicing the works of the flesh, after they have been forgiven of their past sins, are warned that they will become partakers of God's wrath along with the sons of disobedience.

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Wow. So Christ's death on behalf of all wasn't all that effective, then. John the baptizer said that Jesus was the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."
This verse is in the context of FELLOWSHIP."

If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 1 John 1:6

Yes, walking in darkness means we are not practicing the truth. It does not say we lose our salvation.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

This verse is in the context of FELLOWSHIP, not relationship.

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

What Paul is saying very specifically is that because all people have Adam's imputed sin (5:12-17), all are headed for the lake of fire. But only those who have eternal life WILL NOT DIE.

Jesus said it a bit differently: those I give eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH, in Jn 10:28.

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? Romans 6:15-16

These verses teach the conflict between the sin nature with our new nature. Not about going to hell because of sin.

For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Romans 8:13

The death here is loss of fellowship, much like the fact that the father considered his prodigal son was dead when fellowship was broken.

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.7 Therefore do not be partakers with them. Ephesians 5:3-7

It is obvious that this passage is about God's discipline for the sins listed. And those who are obedient are not to be partners with them. There is nothing here about loss of salvation.

Paul plainly warns these Christians not to be partakers of God's wrath, along with the sons of disobedience.

Yes, I agree.

Those Christians who continue to live in sin, practicing the works of the flesh, after they have been forgiven of their past sins, are warned that they will become partakers of God's wrath along with the sons of disobedience.

No, not "along with sons of disobedience". Those Christians who continue to live in sin ARE the sons of disobedience.

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8
JLB

Are you suggesting that Christ did not die for any of these specific sins?? John the baptizer described Jesus as "the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sins of the world. Jn 1:29

Since He did die for all sin, how can anyone be thrown into the lake of fire for any sin??

The key to Rev 21:8 is the last 2 words: second death. Which is specifically referring to the lake of fire. And we know WHY people will be thrown into the lake of fire; their names aren't in the book of life. iow, they never received God's gift of eternal life.

Those without God's life, which is eternal life, must exist in the second death.

Do you have any idea what all the verses in the OP are teaching?

 

[chessman]

We know the nation as a whole will be grafted back in to it's place where it once was.

Yes we do. A place where the nation as a whole is sharing once again in the richness of God.

What so many people haven't considered is that these are new generations of Jews representing the nation of Israel that are being grafted in, not the ones who were actually cut off.

I guess. I can't really speak for what "so many people" have considered. But I have considered what Paul was talking about in Romans 9-11 and agree with you that the re-grafting in will occur within a new/future generation. I take it then that you are not one to use Romans 11's "cut off" and grafting or re-grafting back in as a de-salvation or re-salvation passage on an individual by individual basis? That's my point too.

Thus, I asked you:

What passage leads you to believe that the phrase "cut off" is ever used by Paul in the sense of being "cut off" from salvation?

You answered:

Jesus talks in John 15 about the dry branches having NO LIFE IN THEM.

You either misunderstood my question or you think Paul had access to John's Gospel.
Paul died before John wrote his Gospel. How could Paul have John 15 in mind?
Plus, as I posted, Paul told us exactly what he meant by being grafted into the root (to become a sharer in the root's richness).

Rom 11:17 (LEB) Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although you were a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the root of the olive tree’s richness, ​

But not cut off from the Land as you said being cut off means.

Where did I say that? You must have misunderstood me or confused me with someone else. My point about them being under Roman occupation and under persecution wasn't so much about the land itself (though that's a part of it) but rather the nation no longer sharing in God's richness. Again, as a nation though. My point is that it wasn't about an individual Jew being cut-off from their salvation. And it's not. And thusly shouldn't be pointed to as a de-salvation passage.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes we do. A place where the nation as a whole is sharing once again in the richness of God.

...but not grafted in yet as a nation. As I showed, being in or out of the Land is not what defines 'cut off' in regard to Jesus' and Paul's metaphor.

But I have considered what Paul was talking about in Romans 9-11 and agree with you that the re-grafting in will occur within a new/future generation. I take it then that you are not one to use Romans 11's "cut off" and grafting or re-grafting back in as a de-salvation or re-salvation passage on an individual by individual basis? That's my point too.

It most certainly is in regard to personal salvation. The day is coming when all of Israel will respond individually and each person will be grafted into the life giving sap of the root. These are NEW Israelites, not ones who died in their denial of Christ and went to the place where you can't cross over to the other side once you are there (Luke 16:26 NASB).

You either misunderstood my question or you think Paul had access to John's Gospel.
Paul died before John wrote his Gospel. How could Paul have John 15 in mind?

Written late in his life, John recorded decades old accounts of Jesus. Why would Paul and others not know the teachings of Jesus that Paul later recorded in his letter?

Where did I say that? You must have misunderstood me or confused me with someone else.

Here:

What made me learn that the symbolism Paul used in Romans 11 of breaking off natural branches is not meant to symbolize de-salvation is the fact that both Paul and Moses were broken off natural branches yet they still have their eternal life.

When you say, "see, Moses was cut off from the Promised Land, but was still saved", you are equating being a broken off branch with simply not being in the Land anymore. I have refuted that.

 

[JLB]

Yes, walking in darkness means we are not practicing the truth. It does not say we lose our salvation.

If you are walking in darkness then you don't have the benefit of the blood of Jesus to cleanse you of your sins, as you are not confessing your sin, and thereby being cleansed.


If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

If you do not practice the truth, then you are a liar, who practices lying.

Maybe you didn't make the connection?

I posted this scripture and bolded red the word all liars for you, but you still missed it.

Maybe you couldn't see it?

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

So much for your "theory" of walking in darkness not having any effect of your salvation or eternal life.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9


JLB