Jesus Died For You To Be Saved

[KV-44-v1]

You are not actually interacting with the evidence or proofs, but you keep repeating the same thing. It's a bit like an argument from silence which is a logical fallacy, i.e., a particular fact is not explicitly mentioned therefore it's false, which is considered bad reasoning. The absence of the mention of a specific person does not falsify that eternal life applies to a specific person.

This is why we actually discuss things, examine the Scripture, look at the preponderance of evidence, to come to a sound and reasonable conclusion.

So what you're saying comes off as "you're wrong no matter what you say."

What you can do next is provide evidence that Jesus was not speaking to Judas, if you can.

brightfame52
Please try to use an effective argument, not just a copypasta one-liner.

 

[KV-44-v1]

lost his eternal life

He basically " cast it off" , assuming he was saved . He did not slip on a banana peel and "lose" it. Ie, his becoming unsaved was not an accident.

 

[brightfame52]

How's this? Jesus gives eternal life to those who the Father gave to him. Judas, the son of destruction, was given to Jesus, but was lost. So he lost his eternal life. What's your workaround for this? And don't say "Nothing is said about giving Judas eternal life there you read that into it" this time because he's mentioned.

John 6
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 10
28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

John 17
2For You granted Him authority over all people,a so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him.
12While I was with them, I protected and preserved them by Your name, the name You gave Me. Not one of them has been lost, except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

Nothing about giving judas eternal life. In fact he wasnt even present in the Jn 17 narrative to hear that prayer.

 

[brightfame52]

Standalone assertions are still poor arguments. Calling weak, one-sentence assertions "truth" does not make it true.

Ask yourself, "Why am I terrible at persuading others".

None of your arguments stood up. :/


"God is real" is a true standalone statement, but just saying is not effective for a convincer, even on the easiest-to-convert athiest.

Back to you, nothing says judas was given eternal life. He was chosen to be a apostle in order to fulfill his evil deed of betraying the innocent blood. Everyone is chosen to fulfill a role God has for them in His Purpose, but everyone isnt chosen to eternal life. Some are chosen to perdition as was judas.

 

[brightfame52]

Parroting yourself 100 times does not make it true.

Doesnt make it not true.

 

[brightfame52]

brightfame52
Please try to use an effective argument, not just a copypasta one-liner.

Try quoting something Jesus said about giving judas eternal life, instead of reading it into the narrative.

 

[KV-44-v1]

instead of reading it into the narrative.

You have already set yourself up to believing that anything Running says on the subject automatically equates to "reading into".
How do we know you aren't "reading into"?

 

[brightfame52]

You have already set yourself up to believing that anything Running says on the subject automatically equates to "reading into".
How do we know you aren't "reading into"?

I have nothing to do with what you might know, I just dont see anything about judas being given eternal life, its not stated in any text.

 

[KV-44-v1]

I have nothing to do with what you might know, I just dont see anything about judas being given eternal life, its not stated in any text.

Do you believe that the Bible can - and does- imply things? (not just things about Judas.)
Yes or no

 

[brightfame52]

Do you believe that the Bible can - and does- imply things? (not just things about Judas.)
Yes or no

Yes things are implied, but when they are there is substantial biblical evidence that will collaborate it. Nothing collaborates judas was given eternal life, but that he was given eternal death, perdition

 

[KV-44-v1]

Yes things are implied, but when they are there is substantial biblical evidence that will collaborate it. Nothing collaborates judas was given eternal life, but that he was given eternal death, perdition

You could be correct. Or not. But I'm mainly here to plug logic holes.
I do not really know if Judas was ever saved, and then he cast it off, or if he never got saved.

Never:

Judas — Does the Bible indicate that Judas was not saved?

Judas is known as the disciple who betrayed Jesus. John 17:12 refers to him as the son of perdition. Did Judas lose his salvation?

www.neverthirsty.org

Was Judas Iscariot forgiven / saved?​

GotQuestions.org
https://www.gotquestions.org › Judas-saved

---------------
Was: https://www.thegospelofchrist.com/knowledge-base/tgoc--6mb74-g9xgy-kxwcz-hrlyr

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d63d5eabaa52d0001d2604f/t/63f679102a683c3dd6fd1897/1677097232552/Was+Judas+Saved.pdf

 

[Free]

These verses seem to be talking about if someone says "theyve never sinned before".
I don't see anything indicating people saying "never sinning again from repentance, onward"

Here is Wuest's translation of 1 John 1:8-10:

If we say that sin we are not having, ourselves we are leading astray, and the truth is not in us. If we continue to confess our sins, faithful is He and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from every unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned and are now in a state where we do not sin, a liar we are making Him, and His word is not in us.

The point is, there is no distinction being made about sins before conversion and sins after. Therefore, it is referring to all sinning before and after conversion.

Context matters.

Yes, it does. What don't you understand about the context?

And, see that "cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness"? Hopeful 2 Take notes. ;)

Is that addressed to me as well? If so, I'm not sure what your point is.

What sins was Hopeful calling "Not a sin"?

All his sins.

Does God "auto forgive" the believer if they accidentally sin?

Why should he?

Why didn't the translators catch your "keep on"?? How many translations have that vs how many do not?

Most don't have it stated explicitly, although it can be said to be implied in the ambiguousness of English. You'll notice that Wuest's translation does explicitly state it; it's the only translation I have that does. It's a translation committees decision, so you would have to ask them why they didn't make the full meaning more clear. I suspect that because most seem to try to stick with a "word-for-word" translation as much as possible, they didn't want to add the extra wording in. Some things do get lost in translation, which is why proper study is necessary.

From Robertson's Word Pictures: 'If we confess (ean homologōmen). Third-class condition again with ean and present active subjunctive of homologeō, “if we keep on confessing.”'

That's a very heavy charge. What Scripture demonstrates this?

The easier question is: What Scripture doesn't demonstrate this? Most of the commands in the NT demonstrate this; it is one of the main reasons for all those books having been written.

We also see Paul's struggles in Romans 7 and his confronting Peter's sin in Gal 2. We have John's clear statements in 1 John 2:1 and 5:16. Also, from James:

Jas 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (ESV)

Jas 5:16 Be confessing to one another the trespasses, and be praying for one another, that ye may be healed; very strong is a working supplication of a righteous man; (YLT)

Notice also this from Paul, writing to believers:

1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.
1Co 11:22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
...
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
1Co 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (ESV)

1Co 11:30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. (NIV)

The Greek word translated as "died" ("fallen asleep" or "sleep" in the NIV, NASB, KJV) is koimaō, and means to "fall asleep," "be asleep," "to put to sleep." It's used 18 times in the NT, mostly for referring to believers who have died. So, notice the effects of sinning while participating in the Lord's Supper.

What EXTRA-Biblical evidence has proven this?

The life of every Christian believer who has ever lived. Just a deep, hard, honest look at your own life or read some autobiographies if you're unwilling to do the former.

What fruits do you think "True Believers Never sinning AGAIN" belief has bore?

Very bad fruit, based on exactly what John himself states in 1 John 1:8, 9. A professed believer who truly believes they have never sinned after being saved is self-deceived, doesn't have the truth in them, makes God a liar, and doesn't have his word in them.

This could lead many new believers astray, as it really means that there is no such thing as sin after becoming a Christian. It's to say that the sins they are continually committing as a professed believer aren't actually sins. That is why John says they are self-deceived and make God a liar.

Why do you hate the belief that Christians can 'quit sinning from repentance onward' so much?

Because it goes against the clear teaching of Scripture and makes God a liar. It's about what the Bible says, not what I think.

Hopeful 2 is not teaching that the "sinning no more Christian" never sinned ONCE in their life. He's saying that believers can sin "NO MORE".

I know what he's saying.

I doubt your heavy charge is taught there.

It clearly is.

Struggling with committing it, or struggling with temptation and the effects of sin in general?

All the above.

And if the believer struggles with sin, but doesn't actually do any sin, he hasn't sinned. Struggling with it doesn't necessitate caving to doing it.

And, yet, every believer continues to struggle with sinning.

So, given this, it does not seem much of an arg against Hopeful's "believers can sin no more" teaching.

Given what? You have only given your opinion and no Scripture.

Why?
If Hopeful's teaching is correct, Born Again Believers will always follow them.

Because, if the writers of the NT have to continually remind believers to not sin, it's because they struggle with sinning. If believers just stopped sinning, then there would be no need to write commands to stop sinning.

It's more likely the "sin-stuck believers" theory does that.

And what do you have to provide to the discussion?

 

[Fastfredy0]

Here is Wuest's translation of 1 John 1:8-10:

If we say that sin we are not having, ourselves we are leading astray, and the truth is not in us. If we continue to confess our sins, faithful is He and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from every unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned and are now in a state where we do not sin, a liar we are making Him, and His word is not in us.

The point is, there is no distinction being made about sins before conversion and sins after. Therefore, it is referring to all sinning before and after conversion.

Yes, it does. What don't you understand about the context?

Is that addressed to me as well? If so, I'm not sure what your point is.

All his sins.

Why should he?

Hands Free a "patience of Job award". *giggle*

 

[Runningman]

Nothing about giving judas eternal life. In fact he wasnt even present in the Jn 17 narrative to hear that prayer.

The prayer isn't a conditional statement that only has application if the son of perdition hears it. Judas is directly mentioned in John 17:12. Of all of Jesus' disciples, none were lost except Judas therefore he is the son of perdition. Judas was given to Jesus, Jesus turns none away who are given to him, and he gives eternal life to those the Father gives him. Judas was lost, therefore he lost eternal life.

John 17
12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

 

[Runningman]

He basically " cast it off" , assuming he was saved . He did not slip on a banana peel and "lose" it. Ie, his becoming unsaved was not an accident.

I agree with that.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Yup. Can't "draw back" if you were "never saved" in the 1st place.

I think the word "saved" may be a misnomer.
As salvation won't be assured until the Lord's return-day of judgement, the word "converted" would fit better.
Man can rescind his conversion.

 

[Free]

I think the word "saved" may be a misnomer.
As salvation won't be assured until the Lord's return-day of judgement, the word "converted" would fit better.
Man can rescind his conversion.

Wow. “Perfectly sinless” and still may not be perfect enough to be saved in the end. Must be a terrible feeling.

 

[electedbyHim]

Wow. “Perfectly sinless” and still may not be perfect enough to be saved in the end. Must be a terrible feeling.

Ouch.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Wouldn't it be only because of God? man couldn't do it alone, they NEEED God.

Certainly, and He is soooo ready to help !

What Scriptures in-context make you think it's adressing darkness-people only?

Two kinds of people are mentioned in 1 John 1, (and really, throughout1 John).
Those who walk in God...who is the light; and those who walk in sin...which is darkness. (Pro 4:19)
Seeing as those who walk in God have confessed their sins, been washed by the blood of Christ, and started walking in God, only the residue walk in sin-darkness.
John alternates between the 2 sorts of people in order to juxtapose one against the other.
God-sin. God-sin, God-sin.
Light-darkness. Light-darkness. Light-darkness.
V5-v6. V7-v8. V9-v10....(though verse 9 is more of a 1st step to walking in light-God)
A-B. A-B. A-B.
Paul uses the same method of juxtaposing in Rom 8, where he pits those walking in the flesh against those walking in the Spirit.

??
Works salvation? Is the human enduring on his own will, or is God gifting him endurance?

Nope.
The works of the Law, (the only works Paul wrote against) have no bearing on NT conversion or salvation.
The truly repentant were promised the gift of the Holy Ghost, in Acts 2:38.
We are expected to work out our own salvation.
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil 2:12)
Thanks be to God, though, as He has given us everything we need to do so.
I especially like this verse..."There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Cor 10:13)
Didn't that put a smile on your face ????

 

[Hopeful 2]

Wow. “Perfectly sinless” and still may not be perfect enough to be saved in the end. Must be a terrible feeling.

One perfect lap won't win a two mile race.
Paul wrote..."Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil 2:12-13)
Who is working in the sinners ?