Justified by His Blood alone !

[Kidron]

So, let me get this straight.....the church is to completely ignore the plain words of scripture and instead go with your carefully constructed words, right? I find it completely and utterly unreasonable to ignore the plain words of scripture in favor of your version of the gospel that directly contradicts them.
But you are boldly and blatantly telling the church they still have eternal life if they do not continue in the Father and the Son. If that is not destroying the temple of God, causing believers to stumble, what is, Kidron, what is? Seriously, what is?

Now, do not separate the context of the passages above and explain to the church how they do not mean eternal life is not contingent on continuing in the Father and the Son. DO NOT BREAK APART THE CONTEXT OF THESE PASSAGES!

-

So, let me get this straight.....the church is to completely ignore the plain words of scripture and instead go with your carefully constructed words, right? I find it completely and utterly unreasonable to ignore the plain words of scripture in favor of your version of the gospel that directly contradicts them.
-------------------------------------------------------


You are to trust Christ alone to save you and keep you saved.
You are NOT to twist the scriptures into your personal theological chains that talk endlessly about WORKS, to try to strangle the truth out of believers.




But you are boldly and blatantly telling the church they still have eternal life if they do not continue in the Father and the Son. If that is not destroying the temple of God, causing believers to stumble, what is, Kidron, what is? Seriously, what is?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Im telling them that "Jesus is the author and finisher of their faith", and not them.
im telling them that "GOD who began a good work (salvation) in them WILL BE FAITHFUL TO COMPLETE IT".
See, their FIRST TRUE Faith, released GOD to save them....AND THEY ARE........and you are trying to get them to save themselves, AFTER THEY ARE ALREADY SAVED.
= Galatians 1:8



Now, do not separate the context of the passages above and explain to the church how they do not mean eternal life is not contingent on continuing in the Father and the Son. DO NOT BREAK APART THE CONTEXT OF THESE PASSAGES
---------------------------------------------


"ETERNAL LIFE", IS ONLY CONTINGENT ON HAVING THE ONE WHO IS ETERNAL LIFE.
Jesus IS eternal life, and He is IN the Believer, = they have HIM = who IS eternal life = SO THEY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
This isnt rocket science, JB.
This is 3rd grade ...."Koine Greek"**...... translated into 5th grade english.
Its just logical biblical truth, courtesy of John and Paul and the Holy Spirit.
No need to resist the truth.
Begin right now to Trust in Jesus to get you to heaven, and stop tying to earn your way there.
That is all you have to do, JB.
You take Christ, and God takes you.
= Salvation.

**
Koine Greek (UK English /ˈkɔɪniː/, US English /kɔɪˈneɪ/, /ˈkɔɪneɪ/ or /kiːˈniː/; from Koine Greek ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, "the common dialect"), also known as Alexandrian dialect, common Attic or Hellenistic Greek (Modern Greek: Ελληνιστική Κοινή, "Hellenistic Koiné", in the sense of "Hellenistic supraregional language"

 

[Runner]

Will these adverse spiritual agents EVER agree on anything? Uh, no. They like to keep us all in stitches with these stupid religious debates.

OK, fair enough. That does give me a better understanding of what you were saying. I don't disagree that there are demonic influences at work in stirring up strife among believers.

Some doctrines do, of course, have black-or-white answers. "Did Jesus actually exist?" has only one acceptable answer for a Christian. "Did the Resurrection actually occur as a historical event?" should have only one acceptable answer, but this has not stopped very serious "Christian" scholars from coming up with completely different "answers" even for a doctrine this central to the faith. When we get into things like predestination, OSAS, etc., there truly are ambiguities in the verses and room for legitimate differences of interpretation, so I suppose these are especially fertile soil for forces that wish to stir up strife. It seems to me the way to shut them down is to be content with your own understanding (assuming you've done enough homework to have an informed understanding), recognize that others have different understandings, and refuse to be drawn into "these stupid religious debates."

 

[smaller]

OK, fair enough. That does give me a better understanding of what you were saying. I don't disagree that there are demonic influences at work in stirring up strife among believers.

Some doctrines do, of course, have black-or-white answers. "Did Jesus actually exist?" has only one acceptable answer for a Christian. "Did the Resurrection actually occur as a historical event?" should have only one acceptable answer, but this has not stopped very serious "Christian" scholars from coming up with completely different "answers" even for a doctrine this central to the faith. When we get into things like predestination, OSAS, etc., there truly are ambiguities in the verses and room for legitimate differences of interpretation, so I suppose these are especially fertile soil for forces that wish to stir up strife. It seems to me the way to shut them down is to be content with your own understanding (assuming you've done enough homework to have an informed understanding), recognize that others have different understandings, and refuse to be drawn into "these stupid religious debates."

I have only one measure when it comes to anyone who has called upon Jesus to save them. Save them He Will, (John 5:24) regardless of what they may think to the contrary. There is no reward for me to figure out how Jesus is going to damn another believer to eternal hell. I really don't want to be found damning anyone in my heart, least of all believers. That's just absurd. There are exactly no depictions of this kind of fate for any believer anywhere in the scriptures to start with. I do recognize that 'threats and the instilling of fear" to believers pays well however, to those who promote it. It's really just a money scheme by scripture manipulators imho. And it also panders to people's ego's, to think they have that kind of power, to make that determination. I'd rather think the opposite and actually love them all instead.

I believe God will turn out to be much more Gracious than anyone expects.

 

[Runner]

I believe God will turn out to be much more Gracious than anyone expects.

Ditto. My short answer to all hellfire and brimstone enthusiasts is simply, "I am confident God will deal with everyone in a way worthy of the Creator of the Universe. Whatever that way may be, we will see that it was worthy of the Creator of the Universe."

 

[smaller]

Ditto. My short answer to all hellfire and brimstone enthusiasts is simply, "I am confident God will deal with everyone in a way worthy of the Creator of the Universe. Whatever that way may be, we will see that it was worthy of the Creator of the Universe."

Brilliant deduction.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You are to trust Christ alone to save you and keep you saved.

And I've been saying something different than this? Really?
What do you think "holding fast the word", and "let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning" means?

You are NOT to twist the scriptures into your personal theological chains that talk endlessly about WORKS

WHO in this entire forum has said that we keep ourselves saved on the merit of our works. I won't believe anyone has until you quote them.

you are trying to get them to save themselves, AFTER THEY ARE ALREADY SAVED.

How is trusting Christ to get saved 'not saving yourself', but the exact same trusting Christ (that is, continuing in the word that saved you) is you trying to save yourself? And before you simply restate your scripture deprived argument, explain how all these passages together don't mean loss of eternal life:

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:24-26 NASB bold mine)
​

This is a direct challenge to you. Using all of the passages above explain how John does not really mean you lose eternal life when you don't continue in the word by which you were saved, but only fellowship with God. Once you do that, then you can launch off into another condescending, chastising post about how believers don't have to continue to believe in order to continue to have eternal life.

"ETERNAL LIFE", IS ONLY CONTINGENT ON HAVING THE ONE WHO IS ETERNAL LIFE.
Jesus IS eternal life, and He is IN the Believer, = they have HIM = who IS eternal life = SO THEY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
This isnt rocket science, JB.

I agree completely. This isn't rocket science. All you need to do is take the passages above and explain to us according to the third grade language being used that John is not saying you lose eternal life when you lose the Father and the Son by not continuing to abide in that "which you heard from the beginning". This a direct challenge to you. This is a debate forum. You're on.

 

[WIP]

Okay....some of the posts are getting a little more personal than necessary. Let's tread with care please.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I insist that Kidron accept the challenge I have offered him in the spirit of forum debate.
I will leave it at that.

 

[FreeGrace]

Here's what you do when it seems two passages are contradicting one another. If one passage or verse can no longer be true under any circumstances by making another one true according to what you say it means then you can not make that verse true according to what you say it means. Let's put this test to your claim:

You say it is impossible that these passages means eternal life can be lost:

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."
"9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God"
(1 John 5:11-12 NASB, 2 John 1:9 NASB)

Because of this verse:

"I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. " (John 10:27-28 NASB)

So, let's make John 10:27-28 above true according to what you say it means (that eternal life can not be lost). The problem is, that makes this very same author's other words in the other passages completely and utterly contradictory. Why? because they are so plain and unable to be redefined or reinterpreted to be consistent with what you say John 10:27-28 means.

But if we reverse the logic it's easy to see that John 10:27-28 can still be true if we read the simple words of the other passages to mean exactly what they say, that eternal life can be lost. It's just simple, honest logic.

Making John 10:27-28 true according to your doctrine makes 1 John 5:11-12, 2 John 1:9 not true. So we know your interpretation is WRONG. But making 1 John 5:11-12/ 2 John 1:9 true for what it plainly says does not make John 10:27-28 false. It can still be true if 1 John 5:11-12/ 2 John 1:9 says eternal life can be lost. We can do the same with ANY other OSAS passage or verse you bring up. It's impossible to define your so-called OSAS verses the way you do and not make 1 John 5:11-12/ 2 John 1:9 false. Impossible.

How about just doing this: explain HOW eternal life cannot be included in Rom 11:29, where Paul did NOT note ANY exceptions about any gifts being revokable, or not being irrevocable.

That would actually advance the discussion. As it is, all that is being done is fall back on your pet verses and ignoring the verses I've quoted. I've explained ALL the verses you've quoted to show what they DO teach, which isn't loss of salvation.

 

[FreeGrace]

Lol, nobody has been able to explain how the person who didn't really believe makes it so the condition for holding fast the word is not true for the one who really did believe.

Once again, you've completely misunderstood the verse.

So stop ignoring the question and explain it for us: How does not believing in the first place make it so Paul is not saying to those who really did believe "you are saved if you hold fast the word" (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB)

It has NEVER been about "not believing". It's ALWAYS been about "believing in vain". Which I've repeatedly explained what that means. But some are not willing to accept what the Greek word means.

Paul was teaching that one believe the gospel, rather than believing anything else in order to be saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How about just doing this: explain HOW eternal life cannot be included in Rom 11:29, where Paul did NOT note ANY exceptions about any gifts being revokable, or not being irrevocable.

I did that already.
For you to make eternal life included in the gifts that are irrevocable makes these passages completely and utterly false:

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:24-26 NASB bold mine)​

But, making eternal life REvocable according to the plain words of these passages does not make Romans 11:29 false. It simply shows us that Paul could not have been including eternal life when he said, "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB). It's just simple, honest logic.

If we go with what you say then we have no choice but to conclude that the Bible is in stark contradiction and, therefore, not really the inspired word of God and we can all go back to our own private interpretations of how to be saved and at peace with God.

I offer the same challenge to you. Prove using all of the scriptures above that John was saying we only lose fellowship, not eternal life, when we lose the Father and the Son through disbelief (that is, not continuing in the word we heard in the beginning by which we were saved).

 

[FreeGrace]

It's right there in black on white to see, plainly, in 2 Cor. 12:7.

Which I just explained.

There is also another unpopular fact with believers, that being the Spirit is "actively" against and contrary to our own flesh. Gal. 5:17.

And again you've not explained how this even relates to loss of salvation.

If it were as easy as you claim, the majority of christiandom doesn't see it.

Ain't that the truth!

And there are adverse spiritual reasons that it is NOT seen that are Divinely Intentional.

What does this even mean?? Please explain WHY God has intentionally garbled the truth. That certainly doesn't make any sense.

Neither Satan or his messengers are "metaphors."

And no one has said otherwise. So that is immaterial to the discussion.

They are real adverse spiritual entities that have sway over the flesh, just as Jesus shows in Mark 4:15.

Is this an actual suggestion that demons can cause one to lose their salvation? Is that your point????

But believers can't see that as a fact either.

What would be "a fact", specifically? Your posts continue to be vague. I can't read between any of your lines.

Even though the evidence of Satan and his minions overlap with mankind in the flesh is one of the most pronounced matters in the Gospels.

So what? What's the point?

There was no such animal as Paul, a freestanding individual. Paul's flesh had indwelling sin.

And no one has argued otherwise.

He had evil present with him. His flesh was contrary to and against the Spirit just like everyone else.

So what? We're all born sinners. Jesus described good fathers as being "evil". So yes, are flesh is corrupt.

But you've YET to explain how any of that related to the discussion of loss of salvation.

And if we LOOK to our "very real" adversary's we'll understand this subject matter much much better and not take a blind approach that any believer in the flesh is just them.

This is just as vague and unintelligible as anything else you've posted. Can you be specific?

That's NOT what scripture presents. You can try to metaphor Satan out of the picture but it ain't going to happen.

This makes no sense. How have I tried to "metaphor Satan" out of the picture? The lack of being specific is quite frustrating. Show me where I've tried to do that.

We do have battles with our adversaries.

Of course. Who denies that?

And they do PUT OUT our eyes to that matter. Eph. 6:11-12.

What ever does that mean?? Please stop being so vague.

What most don't understand is that the battle ground is our own body and the enemies "work" in that battlefield.

So please provide a conclusion to your theory.

You on the other hand don't want to look at them and would rather even say they are saved. Just like the other side of the debate.

Look at WHAT, specifically? Vagueness plagues your posts.

Neither side wants to get ALL the parties to the drama on the discussion table, and they CAN NOT because of our adversary.

So far, as far as I can get through all the vagueness, is that your view is that somehow demons can get us to become unsaved. And I think that view is nuts.

If there was no vagueness in your posts, maybe there could be actual discussion. As it is, I really don't have any idea what the messenger of Satan has to do with the discussion of loss of salvation.

And...how many posts have been made regarding this? Please try to be as specific as possible.

 

[FreeGrace]

So, let me get this straight.....the church is to completely ignore the plain words of scripture and instead go with your carefully constructed words, right?

Here are the plain words of Scripture:
The gifts of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:29
Eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23
Both verses are about the gifts of God. 6:23 names one of them. 11:29 describes ALL of them.

I find it completely and utterly unreasonable to ignore the plain words of scripture

Wow. I completely agree with you here.

\in favor of your version of the gospel that directly contradicts them.

Exactly my view!!

 

[smaller]

Which I just explained.

Which you just blew off. It shows that with a believer two simultaneous but different fates await.

It is therefore quite pointless to see it one way or the other. We can see eternal salvation for Paul, and eternal damnation for the "metaphor" in Paul's flesh, which happens to be a messenger of Satan, and evil entity bound for hell.

And again you've not explained how this even relates to loss of salvation.

What you are quite hopelessly trying to see is this:

[eternal salvation & eternal damnation] as this [eternal salvation.] That is not the case. There are two separate fates to two different entities.

No differently than what we would see here, with Peter for example:

Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Interesting how metaphors speak from a person's lips, huh?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Here are the plain words of Scripture:
The gifts of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:29
Eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23
Both verses are about the gifts of God. 6:23 names one of them. 11:29 describes ALL of them.

But for you to include eternal life in the gifts that are irrevocable makes what John said here completely and utterly false:

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:24-26 NASB bold mine)​

That's how we know eternal life is not included in Romans 11:29 -- it makes what John said false. But if we go with the simple and plain words of John, that eternal life is REvocable, we don't make Romans 11:29 false. We simply see that Paul was not including eternal life in the gifts to Israel that are irrevocable. That's just simple, honest logic. But feel free to explain how you can dare make John the liar in the passages posted above in order to make eternal life included in Romans 11:29 and you still somehow preserve the validity of Christianity.

 

[Runner]

Should this thread perhaps be moved to Humor, Jokes & Games? I, at least, am laughing out loud.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"How about just doing this: explain HOW eternal life cannot be included in Rom 11:29, where Paul did NOT note ANY exceptions about any gifts being revokable, or not being irrevocable."

I did that already.

There it is again. That did NOT happen, and all that is done is to dodge the challenge and fall back on your own pet verses.

For you to make eternal life included in the gifts that are irrevocable makes these passages completely and utterly false.

No, they don't. And you've still NOT provided ANY reasonable explanation of where Paul in the context of Romans 11:29 excluded the gift of eternal life.

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:24-26 NASB bold mine)​

​

Those who hold to conditional security simply don't believe that to abide refers to fellowship and not relationship. For that reason, there can be no reasonable discussion. Until one understands the difference between fellowship and relationship, the discussion cannot move forward.

But, making eternal life REvocable according to the plain words of these passages does not make Romans 11:29 false.

There is NOTHING in your verses that are "plain words" that say that eternal life is revocable.

It simply shows us that Paul could not have been including eternal life when he said, "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB). It's just simple, honest logic.

I'm happy to point out that trying to pit John against Paul isn't even legitimate. Since Paul wrote Rom 11:29, it is up to Paul to clearly and plainly state ANY exceptions to the verse. Not John.

If we go with what you say then we have no choice but to conclude that the Bible is in stark contradiction and, therefore, not really the inspired word of God and we can all go back to our own private interpretations of how to be saved and at peace with God.

Nonsense. The verses you've provided have been explained clearly and thoroughly. What is being rejected is that there is a huge difference between fellowship and relationship. Therefore, there is NO contradiction.

I offer the same challenge to you. Prove using all of the scriptures above that John was saying we only lose fellowship, not eternal life, when we lose the Father and the Son through disbelief (that is, not continuing in the word we heard in the beginning by which we were saved).[/QUOTE]

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Should this thread perhaps be moved to Humor, Jokes & Games? I, at least, am laughing out loud.

I agree.
It's a complete joke that people can look at the plain third grade words of these passages...

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:24-26 NASB bold mine)​

...and then conclude that the believer can in no way ever lose eternal life. But then again, look at how the Protestant church has so completely misrepresented what the Bible says in plain words about how to tithe.

 

[FreeGrace]

Which you just blew off. It shows that with a believer two simultaneous but different fates await.

This makes no sense. Your statement is totally unbelievable. Every person faces ONLY 1 fate. Unbelievers face the lake of fire, and believers face heaven.

It is therefore quite pointless to see it one way or the other.

I think your view is pointless.

We can see eternal salvation for Paul, and eternal damnation for the "metaphor" in Paul's flesh, which happens to be a messenger of Satan, and evil entity bound for hell.

Of course all fallen angels are going to end up in the lake of fire, but that has NOTHING to do with the believer.

What you are quite hopelessly trying to see is this:

[eternal salvation & eternal damnation] as this [eternal salvation.] That is not the case. There are two separate fates to two different entities.

I already know that all fallen angels will end up in the lake of fire.

No differently than what we would see here, with Peter for example:

Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Interesting how metaphors speak from a person's lips, huh?

Your posts continue to be so vague as to be totally undecipherable in any discussion of loss of salvation.

Fallen angels were never saved. We can even say that the elect angels are saved. The Bible doesn't address such things.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There it is again. That did NOT happen, and all that is done is to dodge the challenge and fall back on your own pet verses.

Again, the challenge lies before you. Show us using the plain words of all these passages that John does not really mean eternal life can be lost when the believer loses the Father and the Son by not continuing to abide in the word that saved them:

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:24-26 NASB bold mine)
​

Don't reiterate your argument that Romans 11:29 must include eternal life (because it doesn't actually say it does). I already refuted that argument with the passages above. Now you have to address the passages above and show they don't really mean that you can lose eternal life. The challenge remains. Are you up to it?