John 15:1-6 and loss of slvation

[GodsGrace]

Thank you for the insults, it makes walking away SO much easier.

What possible point would there be in a verse by verse discussion in which we cannot even agree on who the chapter is talking about? I presented my view of who "they" of 2 Peter 2 described over and over in negative terms. You responded with an opening statement that "they" were saved and walked away. I offered a rebuttal from the first three verses why "they" were never saved.

What more is there to explain? We disagree about who "they" are.

2 Peter 2:1 "false teachers" = THEY; "teach destructive heresies" = THEY; "deny the Master" = THEY
2 Peter 2:2 "evil teaching" = THEY
2 Peter 2:3 "make up clever lies to get hold of your money" = THEY; "God condemned" = THEY
[new paragraph]
2 Peter 2:4-6 "He (GOD) made them an example of what will happen to ungodly people." = the point of v.4-6 as applicable to THEM.
2 Peter 2:7-9 "So you see, the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials" = the point of v.7-9 as applicable to US (but not to THEM); "even while keeping the wicked under punishment until the day of final judgment." = the point of v.7-9 as applicable to THEM.
2 Peter 2:10 "who follow their own twisted sexual desire, and who despise authority" = which is the exact same charge leveled against the False Teachers (THEM) of v.1-3.
[new paragraph]
2 Peter 2:12 "These false teachers" = hey! Peter is still talking about THEM, isn't he.; "unthinking animals" = THEM; "born to be caught and destroyed." = THEM (who you claim were once saved ... so they were born to be destroyed, saved, and used their free will to choose to be destroyed.; "they will be destroyed." = THEY
2 Peter 2:13 "Their destruction ... they have ... They love ... They are ... They delight .. they eat" = all abou THEY, the same THEY as the beginning of the chapter.; "with you in your fellowship meals." = YOU as distinct and very different from THEY.
2 Peter 2:14 "They commit adultery" = THEY; "their desire for sin" = THEY; "They lure" = THEY; "they are well trained in greed." = THEY; "They live under God’s curse." = THEY.
2 Peter 2:15 "They have wandered" = still THEY; "Balaam son of Beor, who loved to earn money by doing wrong." = an example of THEM and hardly a poster child for someone "once saved".
2 Peter 2:16 "But Balaam was stopped" = here we have a reason for the hope that is within US. I keep being asked why I believe that Saints WILL Persevere - if God could prevent a greedy profit (pun intended) from doing the wrong thing, why is it so hard to believe that God can do what is needed (even sending a talking donkey) to preserve His sheep?

[Last paragraph skipped because you will just want to argue and I have no desire to play that game.]

I hate to argue.
People who Like to argue dont care to discuss

Im sorry you're so upset.
John 13:35

 

[Jim Parker]

Logic is simple. It's only when man chooses to defy Gods order that things seem illogical.

Amen to that!

 

[GodsGrace]

"THEY" had been set free?

2 Peter 2 [NLT]
1 But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. 3 In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed.


... This 'they' had been set free from sin? Is that your final answer?

Nathan is right.

What does the word "again" mean to you?

 

[Pegasus]

I don't believe it dates from the Calvinist Reformation. It seems to be a more modern derivation of the "P" in the Calvinist "TULIP"**: the "Preservation of the saints."

** 5 points of Calvinism
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

Please explain why you think that.
How does "OSAS" differ from "Preservation of the Saints"?

"Justification by faith" is a different topic from "OSAS."

Just to be clear, Luther was NOT a reformer. He was just a better Catholic than his hierarchy and got tossed out for making waves by preaching against the sale of indulgences (buying a stairway to heaven??) but his theology remained essentially identical to that of the RCC.

iakov the fool

Yes but we know no true Calvinist calls it OSAS. Also known as is not the same thing as expressed in doctrine. Why? Because perseverance of the saints hinges on actually being in that status.

Now of course the argument against what is coined OSAS are the apostate references in the NT. Which I would add can be defended by both adherents of perseverance as outlined in the canons of Orange, but also argued at face value by those opposed.

Which I go back to the analogy of losing salvation.
Is it like losing your car keys? Then you realize later you found them?

Or is it like throwing the car keys in the car, dousing the car with gasoline, then lighting a cigarette flicking it in the car and then walking away with a maniacal cackle.

What is usually missing from most of these discussions is that God is sovereign in salvation. An important note as we know we cannot justify ourselves before him, nor can we raise ourselves from the dead glorified. What makes us think God is silent in our sanctification? Did He stop working on us the moment we came up from our baptismal waters? I say no. He is still conforming us to the image of Christ. He works with the new man and not the old.

Which brings up the most concerning thought of all....is someone who "loses their salvation" a new creature in Christ to begin with? Which Paul tells us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.

Just to be clear, Luther was NOT a reformer. He was just a better Catholic than his hierarchy and got tossed out for making waves by preaching against the sale of indulgences (buying a stairway to heaven??) but his theology remained essentially identical to that of the RCC.

How very Lutheran of you.

 

[GodsGrace]

Isn't the correct term Eternal Security?

And Pegasus, it's like setting the car on fire.

 

[Jim Parker]

Thank you for the insults, it makes walking away SO much easier.

What possible point would there be in a verse by verse discussion in which we cannot even agree on who the chapter is talking about? I presented my view of who "they" of 2 Peter 2 described over and over in negative terms. You responded with an opening statement that "they" were saved and walked away. I offered a rebuttal from the first three verses why "they" were never saved. .............
[Last paragraph skipped because you will just want to argue and I have no desire to play that game.]

The first three verses describe those who will attempt to lead the saints astray.
But, the last paragraph (which you declined to address) specifically and clearly refutes the OSAS argument by describing saved people who turned away from their faith and went into apostasy.
2Pe 2:20-22
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.

The words: "after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," describes someone who is "saved."

The words: "if...they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first." describes saved people who became apostate; who "fell away;" who are no longer saved.

The words, " it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them." describe who were saved and turned back to their old was of enslavement to sin.

iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Jim Parker]

What is usually missing from most of these discussions is that God is sovereign in salvation.

Calvinists regularly overemphasize the sovereignty of God to the neglect of the free will of man.
A god who sovereignly forces man to love him is not the God of scripture.

An important note as we know we cannot justify ourselves before him, nor can we raise ourselves from the dead glorified.

That's a different topic and a straw man logical fallacy.
Those who reject the OSAS position do not claim that people can justify themselves before God. (or raise themselves from the dead)

What makes us think God is silent in our sanctification?

No one suggested that He was.
That is another straw man logical fallacy.

Did He stop working on us the moment we came up from our baptismal waters?

Straw man again.
Please try to adhere to what those who reject OSAS actually hold to be the truth.

He is still conforming us to the image of Christ. He works with the new man and not the old.

And we cooperate with God by submitting to His leading and chastisement by living a life of repentance; of subduing the desire of the flesh; and imitating Jesus according to God's plan that we be conformed to His image. (Rom 8:29) If our cooperation was not necessary then about half of the NT letters content is not applicable because, in it, Paul and James and Peter and John and Jude tell us how we should act as believers.

Which brings up the most concerning thought of all....is someone who "loses their salvation" a new creature in Christ to begin with?

He was.
He isn't any more.

You need to dig a bit deeper than the handy-dandy proof-texts you've been taught to recite.

iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Anto9us]

There's nothing to argue about.

2Pe 2:20
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

2Pe 2:21
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

Game over.

THEY walked off the court.

 

[Papa Zoom]

sigh

Yes but we know no true Calvinist calls it OSAS. Also known as is not the same thing as expressed in doctrine. Why? Because perseverance of the saints hinges on actually being in that status.

Now of course the argument against what is coined OSAS are the apostate references in the NT. Which I would add can be defended by both adherents of perseverance as outlined in the canons of Orange, but also argued at face value by those opposed.

Which I go back to the analogy of losing salvation.
Is it like losing your car keys? Then you realize later you found them?

Or is it like throwing the car keys in the car, dousing the car with gasoline, then lighting a cigarette flicking it in the car and then walking away with a maniacal cackle.

What is usually missing from most of these discussions is that God is sovereign in salvation. An important note as we know we cannot justify ourselves before him, nor can we raise ourselves from the dead glorified. What makes us think God is silent in our sanctification? Did He stop working on us the moment we came up from our baptismal waters? I say no. He is still conforming us to the image of Christ. He works with the new man and not the old.

Which brings up the most concerning thought of all....is someone who "loses their salvation" a new creature in Christ to begin with? Which Paul tells us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.



How very Lutheran of you.

You might like this short and easy to read essay: https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/the-perseverance-of-the-saints-rome-v-reformed/

 

[Nathan]

atpollard , I don't think the question is if the ones talked about in Peter are false teachers. Rather, were they ever believers? The context and words used to describe them indicate they were.

 

[Nathan]

Yes but we know no true Calvinist calls it OSAS. Also known as is not the same thing as expressed in doctrine. Why? Because perseverance of the saints hinges on actually being in that status.

Now of course the argument against what is coined OSAS are the apostate references in the NT. Which I would add can be defended by both adherents of perseverance as outlined in the canons of Orange, but also argued at face value by those opposed.

Which I go back to the analogy of losing salvation.
Is it like losing your car keys? Then you realize later you found them?

Or is it like throwing the car keys in the car, dousing the car with gasoline, then lighting a cigarette flicking it in the car and then walking away with a maniacal cackle.

What is usually missing from most of these discussions is that God is sovereign in salvation. An important note as we know we cannot justify ourselves before him, nor can we raise ourselves from the dead glorified. What makes us think God is silent in our sanctification? Did He stop working on us the moment we came up from our baptismal waters? I say no. He is still conforming us to the image of Christ. He works with the new man and not the old.

Which brings up the most concerning thought of all....is someone who "loses their salvation" a new creature in Christ to begin with? Which Paul tells us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.



How very Lutheran of you.

I believe God is sovereign. That means if one wants to leave the faith they can, just like He does not require them to enter it.

Unless you believe a person has no choice to believe in the first place?

 

[Jim Parker]

Unless you believe a person has no choice to believe in the first place?

A god that chooses some people to be saved and changes them so they will love him wile refusing to save other people so he can torture them forever is hell fire is a monster.
God Who reveals Himself in scripture sovereignly allows man to choose to love Him or to reject His love and gift of eternal life.

 

[reba]

A god that chooses some people to be saved and changes them so they will love him wile refusing to save other people so he can torture them forever is hell fire is a monster.
God Who reveals Himself in scripture sovereignly allows man to choose to love Him or to reject His love and gift of eternal life.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

 

[JLB]

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Do you think God knows who are tares and those who wheat ?

Do you think a tare will ever become wheat ?


37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Matthew 13:37-39



JLB

 

[Jim Parker]

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

"Raised thee up" means put into a position where you would act as you normally do and God can use it for His purposes.
Same thing with Judas. God did not make Pharaoh or Judas do what they did. They were jerks all on their own but God used their wilful sin to save mankind.

iakov the fool

 

[Nathan]

A god that chooses some people to be saved and changes them so they will love him wile refusing to save other people so he can torture them forever is hell fire is a monster.
God Who reveals Himself in scripture sovereignly allows man to choose to love Him or to reject His love and gift of eternal life.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

I believe, because God knows the end from the beginning, knows who will choose to believe, and who will not. We learn from the story of pharaoh that he hardened his heart before God did.

That is entirely different that not allowing a choice of whether to believe or not.

 

[reba]

differences of opinion make for good discussion there are more words in that passage then just " raised thee up "

 

[atpollard]

atpollard , I don't think the question is if the ones talked about in Peter are false teachers. Rather, were they ever believers? The context and words used to describe them indicate they were.

A few words in the last paragraph suggest that the people described as "they" in the last paragraph may have been believers. Everything prior to that is clearly a reference to the false teachers who give no evidence of prior belief leading to salvation and almost every evidence of having never been saved. God knows I have no urge to repost their litany of evil accusations completely contrary to a changed life.

I found it interesting that the New Living Translation (not the most scholarly, I know, but translated by experts none the less) actually identifies the 'they' at risk in the last paragraph as neither the evil false teachers, nor the others who are to be wary of them, but rather as the people (new Christians?) being deceived by the false teachers. If a correct interpretation, then there are three distinct groups discussed in this chapter. The never-saved reprobate false teachers whose fate was sealed long ago; those who remain undeceived and hold firm to the truth; those who have been deceived by the false teachers (possibly still unsaved) and are being warned of the consequences of making a wrong choice in which 'gospel' to follow.

A potentially interesting discussion, but pointless when far simpler matters cannot be agreed upon or even honestly discussed.

 

[Kidron]

I believe, because God knows the end from the beginning, knows who will choose to believe, and who will not.

That is entirely different that not allowing a choice of whether to believe or not.

The people who will come to Christ, are known by God before they are born.
This omnipotent ability of Father God to know all things from the "beginning to the end" is defined as "foreknowledge", or, to say, to know what will be before it happens.
And so, all who will come To Christ, since time began, and until the last Soul is saved, are known as the '"elect".
And it is predestined or predetermined that all who are saved will be "conformed to the image of Christ".
So that is the "predestined" part of the "elect" who are known by God's foreknowledge of all things.

 

[Nathan]

A few words in the last paragraph suggest that the people described as "they" in the last paragraph may have been believers. Everything prior to that is clearly a reference to the false teachers who give no evidence of prior belief leading to salvation and almost every evidence of having never been saved. God knows I have no urge to repost their litany of evil accusations completely contrary to a changed life.

I found it interesting that the New Living Translation (not the most scholarly, I know, but translated by experts none the less) actually identifies the 'they' at risk in the last paragraph as neither the evil false teachers, nor the others who are to be wary of them, but rather as the people (new Christians?) being deceived by the false teachers. If a correct interpretation, then there are three distinct groups discussed in this chapter. The never-saved reprobate false teachers whose fate was sealed long ago; those who remain undeceived and hold firm to the truth; those who have been deceived by the false teachers (possibly still unsaved) and are being warned of the consequences of making a wrong choice in which 'gospel' to follow.

A potentially interesting discussion, but pointless when far simpler matters cannot be agreed upon or even honestly discussed.

thanks for this post. "Like"