Repentance Vs. Eternal Security

[Butch5]

1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
1Jn 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.

This passage has no bearing one what Paul said in Hebrews.

The point is that they did not believe and trust.

It seems you're presuming that. There is nothing in the text that says they didn't believe. If that were the case then it would be of no use to Paul's admonition to his readers.

 

[heymikey80]

Please give scripture to backup this statement. I'm at a loss as to where either statement is supported.

Thanks

In fact on the contrary, "He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities." Psalm 103:10 ESV

That's what forgiveness is.

 

[heymikey80]

If one quits believing will or will he not perish?

What is "quitting believing"? Demonstrate this is possible and happens from Scripture and we can discuss the distinction between belief, and saving belief.

Oh, and I have no trouble with the concept of quitting believing btw. But there is no such thing as quitting the belief through which you have eternal life.

One cannot uneternalize, eternal life.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

What is "quitting believing"? Demonstrate this is possible and happens from Scripture and we can discuss the distinction between belief, and saving belief.

Oh, and I have no trouble with the concept of quitting believing btw. But there is no such thing as quitting the belief through which you have eternal life.

One cannot uneternalize, eternal life.

One who smokes can quit smoking. One who believes can quit believing and become atheistic or agnostic. Paul wrote of those who depart from the faith, they left their faith - quit believing 1 Tim 1:4,6 1 Tim 5:12,15 2 Tim 2:18 2 Tim 4:4 Twice in the Galatian epistle Paul asked them why they no longer obeyed the truth Gal 3:1 Gal 5:7 Peter refers to one who stops believing as a 'dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.' Heb 3:12,13 "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." Those that stop beleiving do so for they were "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." Heb 4:11 one can go fom belief to unbelief. 2 Tim 2:13 a Christian can quit believing.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

In that verse John is speaking in the present tense. It's not giving a statement about the future. If I said I am remaining in my home, it means I am remaining there now. It says nothing of what I will do tomorrow. Likewise John is saying the one who is remaining now has Christ remaining in him.

So are you saying, that God has to continually be giving us His Spirit, and we have to continually be confessing the Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, in order to remain in Him and He in us?

How often does that have to happen?

If God has given us His Spirit, and if we have confessed that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and we somehow do not remain in Him, and He in us, then it is a lie.

So, should I believe what God has said, or some wishy washy theory made up by a man?

 

[Butch5]

So are you saying, that God has to continually be giving us His Spirit, and we have to continually be confessing the Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, in order to remain in Him and He in us?

How often does that have to happen?

One isn't continually confessing that Jesus is the Christ. That is done once if one believes it they live accordingly and remain in Him.

If God has given us His Spirit, and if we have confessed that Jesus is the
Christ the Son of God, and we somehow do not remain in Him, and He in us, then
it is a lie.

No it's not a lie. If I give you a dollar and you give it back, was it a lie that I gave you a dollar? No.

So, should I believe what God has said, or some wishy washy theory made up by a man?

What we have to do is to make sure that it is what God said. Translators translate the Scriptures the way they understand them. If they misunderstand a passage then they translate it in a misunderstood manner. To further compound that many times when a translator is not sure what a passage means he'll look at other translations. If they misunderstood the passage also it can get real complicated. Looking at the original languages is a big help in understanding what God said. It also helps when you look at English translations because it help point out errors. The Greek language is more precise than English. For instance, in English if something happened in the past we use the past tense. John ran, is past tense. All it tells us is that John ran. We don't know when he ran or if he is still running. The Greek on the other hand as different tenses just within the past tense. For instance, if in Greek we said John ran, and used the aorist tense it would be like English we would know that John ran at some point in the past. If we wrote John ran in the perfect tense it would mean that John ran and is still running now. If we wrote John ran in the imperfect tense it would mean that John ran for a period of time in the past but is not running now. So, you see these differences are not seen in the English text, we just see John ran.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

One isn't continually confessing that Jesus is the Christ. That is done once if one believes it they live accordingly and remain in Him.



No it's not a lie. If I give you a dollar and you give it back, was it a lie that I gave you a dollar? No.



What we have to do is to make sure that it is what God said. Translators translate the Scriptures the way they understand them. If they misunderstand a passage then they translate it in a misunderstood manner. To further compound that many times when a translator is not sure what a passage means he'll look at other translations. If they misunderstood the passage also it can get real complicated. Looking at the original languages is a big help in understanding what God said. It also helps when you look at English translations because it help point out errors. The Greek language is more precise than English. For instance, in English if something happened in the past we use the past tense. John ran, is past tense. All it tells us is that John ran. We don't know when he ran or if he is still running. The Greek on the other hand as different tenses just within the past tense. For instance, if in Greek we said John ran, and used the aorist tense it would be like English we would know that John ran at some point in the past. If we wrote John ran in the perfect tense it would mean that John ran and is still running now. If we wrote John ran in the imperfect tense it would mean that John ran for a period of time in the past but is not running now. So, you see these differences are not seen in the English text, we just see John ran.

1Jn 4:14 And we--we have seen and do testify, that the Father hath sent the Son--Saviour of the world;
1Jn 4:15 whoever may confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God in him doth remain, and he in God;

If John had said, ' in this we know that in Him we 'did' remain in him' it would be past tense.

If John had said, ' in this we know that in Him we 'will one day' remain in him' it would be future tense.

Since John has said, ' in this we know that in Him we 'do' remain in him' it would be present tense.

John is not saying this is something of the past, not something that we hope will happen in the future. John wants us to know that it applies now 'today' for all who have confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, because God has given us His Spirit.

John does not add any if's or but's

Our remaining (continuing in Him and He in us) is because of this one thing only 'He has given us of His Spirit'

If we would somehow fail to remain, then it would be because His Spirit has failed to keep us. That my friend is impossible.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved [kept] (voice: passive) in Jesus Christ, and called:

 

[Butch5]

1Jn 4:14 And we--we have seen and do testify, that the Father hath sent the Son--Saviour of the world;
1Jn 4:15 whoever may confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God in him doth remain, and he in God;

If John had said, ' in this we know that in Him we 'did' remain in him' it would be past tense.

If John had said, ' in this we know that in Him we 'will one day' remain in him' it would be future tense.

Since John has said, ' in this we know that in Him we 'do' remain in him' it would be present tense.

John is not saying this is something of the past, not something that we hope will happen in the future. John wants us to know that it applies now 'today' for all who have confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, because God has given us His Spirit.

John does not add any if's or but's

Our remaining (continuing in Him and He in us) is because of this one thing only 'He has given us of His Spirit'

If we would somehow fail to remain, then it would be because His Spirit has failed to keep us. That my friend is impossible.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved [kept] (voice: passive) in Jesus Christ, and called:

Hi Dustoftheearth,

I agree for the most part, however, I believe you're making two assumptions here that the text does not state. John doesn't say that one remains in Christ because of the Spirit. It's not a failure of the Spirit that is at issue, it's the failure of man that is at issue. You quoted Jude 1:1, notice it's in the past tense. In the Greek text it is in the past perfect tense, that means that the preservation began at some time in the past and the results continue to the present. In other words, at some point in the past God began to preserve them and that preservation was still continuing at the time of Jude's writing his letter. He is not saying anything about the future of this preserving, only that it had started in the past and was till active at the time of his letter. However, Peter elaborates on this preserving that God does.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
(1Pe 1:3-5 KJV)

Here Peter uses the present tense of the Greek word translated kept. Again there is no mention of any future preservation. As long as on is present tense believing they are being preserved. If they stop believing they no longer belong to the group who is presently believing and are outside of being kept. It's only through faith that one is kept. If one casts off their faith in Christ they are no longer kept

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Hi Dustoftheearth,

I agree for the most part, however, I believe you're making two assumptions here that the text does not state. John doesn't say that one remains in Christ because of the Spirit. It's not a failure of the Spirit that is at issue, it's the failure of man that is at issue. You quoted Jude 1:1, notice it's in the past tense. In the Greek text it is in the past perfect tense, that means that the preservation began at some time in the past and the results continue to the present. In other words, at some point in the past God began to preserve them and that preservation was still continuing at the time of Jude's writing his letter. He is not saying anything about the future of this preserving, only that it had started in the past and was till active at the time of his letter. However, Peter elaborates on this preserving that God does.

If you don't mind, I would like to add to what you said in that Jude is not talking about Calvinistic predestination where God before the world began was suppose to have unconditionally, randomly chose certain individuals to be save/preserved no matter what. Before the world began God foreknew a class of people, a group ( "them" Jude uses) called "Christians" that are preserved in Jesus Christ. God predetermined this group would be preserved in Christ and not certain individuals preserved unconditionally. I can obey the gospel and become part of this preserved group and I am therefore preserved being in this group. But I can become unfaithful and fall away from this preserved group. Even though I fall from this group, the group still remains preserved it's just I am no longer part of that group. It is the group that was in the past passively preserved and not certain individuals preserved unconditionally. God foreknew and preserved the group but God never predetermined what individuals would be in that group, that is a choice each indiviual has to make to be in that preserved group or not.

So one cannot read Calvinistic predestination into the verse either.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

Hi Dustoftheearth,

I agree for the most part, however, I believe you're making two assumptions here that the text does not state. John doesn't say that one remains in Christ because of the Spirit.

Sorry I must have somehow missed giving verse 13:

1Jn 4:13 in this we know that in Him we do remain, and He in us, because of His Spirit He hath given us.

It's not a failure of the Spirit that is at issue, it's the failure of man that is at issue. You quoted Jude 1:1, notice it's in the past tense. In the Greek text it is in the past perfect tense, that means that the preservation began at some time in the past and the results continue to the present. In other words, at some point in the past God began to preserve them and that preservation was still continuing at the time of Jude's writing his letter. He is not saying anything about the future of this preserving, only that it had started in the past and was till active at the time of his letter. However, Peter elaborates on this preserving that God does.

Strong:

Tense-Perfect

The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in
English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been
completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be
repeated.

Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI ("It is finished!")
is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense,
namely "It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely,
once and for all time."

Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related
to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense
in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few
cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the
normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above.

3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
(1Pe 1:3-5 KJV)

Here Peter uses the present tense of the Greek word translated kept. Again there is no mention of any future preservation. As long as on is present tense believing they are being preserved. If they stop believing they no longer belong to the group who is presently believing and are outside of being kept. It's only through faith that one is kept. If one casts off their faith in Christ they are no longer kept

 

[Butch5]

Sorry I must have somehow missed giving verse 13:

1Jn 4:13 in this we know that in Him we do remain, and He in us, because of His Spirit He hath given us.

OK, I missed that. He's not saying the Spirit is the cause of one remaining in Christ. He said, we know we are remaining (present tense) in because of the Spirit He has given us. He's saying the Spirit is evidence of their remaining not the cause of it.

Strong:
Tense-Perfect

The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in
English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been
completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be
repeated.

Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI ("It is finished!")
is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense,
namely "It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely,
once and for all time."

Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related
to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense
in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few
cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the
normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above.

I agree that the Perfect tense denotes a past action. It doesn't, however, denote a permanent one. What is the source of you Strong's quote here? It seems it disagrees with everything I've seen regarding the Perfect tense. Below are a few Greek Grammars that state it differently.


Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics

I. The Perfect Tense

Introduction

Although this section on the perfect tense will be brief, one mustnot assume that the length of discussion corresponds to the significance of thetopic. We are brief because the primary uses of the perfect are fairly easy tocomprehend, though they are not insignifi­cant. As Moulton points out, theperfect tense is “the most important, exegetically, of all the Greek Tenses.”2The perfect is used less frequently than the present, aorist, future, orimperfect; when it is used, there is usually a deliberate choice on the part ofthe writer.3

Definition

The force of the perfecttense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we arespeaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the presenttime (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for “indicating not the past action as suchbut the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action.”4

BDF suggest that theperfect tense “combines in itself, so to speak, the present and the aorist inthat it denotes the continuance of completed action. . . .”5

574

Chamberlain goes too far when he suggests that the perfectsometimes is used to “describe an act that has abiding results.”6The implication that “the perfect tells you that the event occurred and stillhas significant results”7goes beyond grammar and is therefore misleading. Even more misleading is the notion, frequently found incommentaries, that the perfect tense denotes permanent or eternalresults. Such a statement isakin to saying the aorist tense means “once-for-all.” Implications of thissort are to be drawn from considerations that are other than grammatical innature. One must be careful not to read his or her theology into the syntaxwhenever it is convenient.





Davis, Beginners Grammar to the Greek New Testament.



367. The tense in Greek called perfect is really a present perfect.The perfect presents the action of the verb in a completed state or condition.When the action was completed the perfect tense does not tell. It is stillcomplete at the time of the use of the tense by the speaker or writer. The perfect expresses the continuance ofcompleted action. It is then a combination of punctiliar action and durativeaction. This kind of action expressed by the perfect tense is sometimescalled perfective action.

368. The perfect tense as tense is timeless. But inthe indicative the time element is present. The perfect indicative generallyexpresses the present result of a past action. It then has to do with the pastand the present. The English perfect is not an equivalent to the Greek perfect.



Burton’s, Moods and Tenses of the Greek New Testament.

The PerfectIndicative

74. The Perfect of Completed Action.In its most frequent use thePerfect Indicative represents an action as standing at the time of speakingcomplete. The reference of the tense is thus double; it implies a past action and affirms an existing result. HA. 847;G. 1250, 3.



Acts 5:28; peplhrw,kateth.n VIerousalh.m th/j didach/j u`mw/n, yehave filled Jerusalem with your teaching.



Romans 5:5; o[ti h`avga,ph tou/ qeou/ evkke,cutai evn tai/j kardi,aij h`mw/n, because the love of God has been poured forth in ourhearts.



2 Tim 4:7; to.nkalo.n avgw/na hvgw,nismai( to.n dro,mon tete,leka( th.n pi,stin teth,rhka, I have fought the good fight, I have finished thecourse, I have kept the faith.



REM. On the use of the term complete as a grammatical term, see85. On the distinction between the Perfect and the Aorist, see86.



75. The Perfect of Existing State. The Perfect is sometimes used when the attention is directedwholly to the present resulting state, the past action of which it is theresult being left out of thought. This usage occurs most frequently in a fewverbs which use the Perfect in this sense only. HA. 849; G. 1263.



Matt 27:43; pe,poiqenevpi. to.n qeo,n, he trusteth on God.



1 Cor 11:2; evpainw/de. u`ma/j o[ti pa,nta mou me,mnhsqe, nowI prase you that ye remember me in all things.



Luke 24:46; ou[twjge,graptai, thus it is written, i.e. standswritten. See also Rev 19:13.



76. There is no sharp line ofdistinction between the Perfect of Completed Action and the Perfect of ExistingState. To the latter head are to be assigned those instances in which the pastact is practically dropped from thought, and the attention turned wholly to theexisting result; while under the former head are to be placed those instancesin which it is evident that the writer had in mind both the past act and thepresent result.



77. The Intensive Perfect. ThePerfect is sometimes used in classical Greek as an emphatic or intensivePresent. It is possible that under this head should be placed certain Perfectsof the New Testament more commonly assigned to one of the preceding uses. Thus pe,poiqa practically expresses the thought of pei,qomai intensified. Pepi,steuka is also clearly a stronger way of saying pisteu,w. John6:69; pepisteu,kamen kai. evgnw,kamen o[ti su. ei= o` a[gioj tou/ qeou/, we have believed and know that thom art the Holy Oneof God. See also 2 Cor 1:10.Whether this usage is in the New Testament a survival of the ancient intensiveuse of the Perfect, regarded by some grammarians as an original function of thetense (Del. IV. 94 ff., Br. 162), or a later development from thePerfect of completed action, affirming the present existence of the result of apast act, need not, for the purpose of the interpreter, be decided.



Chart 70 - The Force of the Perfect
Note: The symbol (–––––) indicates the results of an action.

The chart shows that the perfect may be viewed as combining theaspects of both the aorist and present tense. It speaks of completed action(aorist) with existing results (present). The basic question to be asked iswhich of these aspects is emphasized in a given context.

 

[heymikey80]

One who smokes can quit smoking.

Can one who sins, quit sinning?

One who believes can quit believing and become atheistic or agnostic. Paul wrote of those who depart from the faith, they left their faith - quit believing 1 Tim 1:4,6 1 Tim 5:12,15 2 Tim 2:18 2 Tim 4:4

Show me one. Let's take 1 Tim 5:11-12 for example. Are you saying that widows attracted to remarrying actually left their faith ...? Or did their initial assertions of a faith with solid roots, instead that assertion of a deep faith did not prove true. As that's the kind of faith God grants those who are being saved, it would be pointless to argue over a faith so shallow that human attraction would overcome it.

Why is it we're talking about faith that God doesn't give? We're not talking about that. Does God give gifts that faith the receiver?

Twice in the Galatian epistle Paul asked them why they no longer obeyed the truth Gal 3:1 Gal 5:7 Peter refers to one who stops believing as a 'dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.'

Obedience and knowledge, neither is faith, as you've so often pointed out! So why are we arguing verses which refer to obedience and knowledge ...? They don't apply. They apply to obedience and knowledge -- do they not? And not to faith.

Heb 3:12,13 "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." Those that stop beleiving do so for they were "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." Heb 4:11 one can go fom belief to unbelief. 2 Tim 2:13 a Christian can quit believing.

And of course here, it's simple to point out, the Apostle is talking about a shallowness of faith that leads to departure -- not a transition from faith to nonfaith.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Can one who sins, quit sinning?

Cannot quit sinning in the sense of being perfectly sinless but can quit sinning in the sense of quit living continuous life style in sin, 1 Jn 3:9.

Can one who belives quit believng? Yes. Man by his own volition chooses to believe and can by his own voliton choose to quit believing. As in Jn 10:27-28 the ones that God will not allowed to be snatched from His hand are the ones who of their own voliton chose to continue to hear and follow Christ. Can one quit hearing and follwoing Christ by his own choice? Absolutely.

Show me one. Let's take 1 Tim 5:11-12 for example. Are you saying that widows attracted to remarrying actually left their faith ...? Or did their initial assertions of a faith with solid roots, instead that assertion of a deep faith did not prove true. As that's the kind of faith God grants those who are being saved, it would be pointless to argue over a faith so shallow that human attraction would overcome it.

Why is it we're talking about faith that God doesn't give? We're not talking about that. Does God give gifts that faith the receiver?

1 Tim 5:11-12 "But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith."

If a person could not quit believing then it would not be possible to cast off faith.

If it is argued they never truly had faith to begin with, then it is not possible to cast off something they never had to begin with. Paul goes on to say in v15 "For some are already turned aside after Satan." How could they turn aside after Satan if they never had a 'solid rooted" saving faith to begin with and was therefore was always turned to Satan?

God does not give faith in the sense God alone determines who does and does not have faith for that puts culpablity for the lost upon God.

Obedience and knowledge, neither is faith, as you've so often pointed out! So why are we arguing verses which refer to obedience and knowledge ...? They don't apply. They apply to obedience and knowledge -- do they not? And not to faith.

The truth is the gospel and when one leaves the gospel he is leaving the gospel faith. It is not possible for one to leave the truth yet maintain a saving faith. They is why Paul told the Galatians they were "so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel", and "who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth" and "ye are fallen from grace".

They could not be removed from Christ that called them if they were never in Christ, hey could not quit obeying what they had never obeyed before, they could not fall from grace if they were never in grace to begin with.

And of course here, it's simple to point out, the Apostle is talking about a shallowness of faith that leads to departure -- not a transition from faith to nonfaith.

I do not see the word 'shallowness' in the context. How could one "depart from the living God" if they never were with God to begin with? How can they become "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin" if they never were truly saved to begin with but were always hardened by sin?

Why iin 2 Tim 2:12-13 does Paul say it is possible that "we" Paul and Timothy, i.e., Christian could deny Christ and become faithless? "Those who understand this passage as containing soothing, comforting voices for the sinner, for the faithless Christian who has left his first love, are gravely mistaken ... This is one of the sternest passages in the Book of Life; for it tells how it is impossible for the pitiful Redeemer to forgive in the future life ... He cannot treat the faithless as though he were faithful - cannot act as though faithfulness and faithlessness were one and the same thing." H. D. M. Spence

 

[heymikey80]

Cannot quit sinning in the sense of being perfectly sinless but can quit sinning in the sense of quit living continuous life style in sin, 1 Jn 3:9.

Agreed here -- the constancy is in finding and removing sins that we are doing though, so the idea of "not living ... life style in sin" itself can't be sustained. We enter into a lifestyle of finding and putting sin to death; but we're still in progress toward even quitting the lifestyle, because the lifestyle is entrenched in our fleshly existence.

Can one who belives quit believng? Yes. Man by his own volition chooses to believe and can by his own voliton choose to quit believing.

But one who believes to the salvation of his soul cannot quit believing. Once reliance is set on its primary focus, nothing moves. This Primary Focus of faith doesn't move unless He betrays the one relying on Him. Does that happen?

As long as we're changing our alliances based on some other primary focus of faith, then yes it's possible to change secondary foci of faith.

The issue is one of saving faith. I've pointed out before that other kinds of faith do fail. The faith that saves is the one that is placed solely in Christ Jesus, because no one else has proved His ability to save people from death.

 

[heymikey80]

I do not see the word 'shallowness' in the context. How could one "depart from the living God" if they never were with God to begin with? How can they become "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin" if they never were truly saved to begin with but were always hardened by sin?

I've said it again & again. I leave the city whenever I go on a trip.

But I don't go into the city even 1 minute when I leave.

People can depart from being near a place. The mode of expression is the same in Greek and English.

Why iin 2 Tim 2:12-13 does Paul say it is possible that "we" Paul and Timothy, i.e., Christian could deny Christ and become faithless? "Those who understand this passage as containing soothing, comforting voices for the sinner, for the faithless Christian who has left his first love, are gravely mistaken ... This is one of the sternest passages in the Book of Life; for it tells how it is impossible for the pitiful Redeemer to forgive in the future life ... He cannot treat the faithless as though he were faithful - cannot act as though faithfulness and faithlessness were one and the same thing." H. D. M. Spence

So now you and Spence confuse denial with faithlessness? Hm.

The issue you're interpreting is, Who is God remaining faithful to, in 2 Tim 2:12-13. You're asserting God is not faithful to us, and interpreting the verse in this way. But its history as a chorus or verse sung in the early church that Paul transcribed, undermines that argument. It's either "All Things Dark and Ugly" sung in church, or it is intentionally a very comforting verse to those whose faith fails them in crisis. You're saying it's the former. Hm. I'm saying it's the latter.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I've said it again & again. I leave the city whenever I go on a trip.

But I don't go into the city even 1 minute when I leave.

People can depart from being near a place. The mode of expression is the same in Greek and English.

BUt NONE of the contexts say the faith those people had was not real, it was a "near faith" but not a real true faith. You are adding that idea to the text to get around the fact that faith can be lost, that Christians can turn away from the faith and become lost.

I pointed out the logical implicatoins in my last post when I posted:

If a person could not quit believing then it would not be possible to cast off faith.

If it is argued they never truly had faith to begin with, then it is not possible to cast off something they never had to begin with. Paul goes on to say in v15 "For some are already turned aside after Satan." How could they turn aside after Satan if they never had a 'solid rooted" saving faith to begin with and was therefore was always turned to Satan?

So now you and Spence confuse denial with faithlessness? Hm.

The issue you're interpreting is, Who is God remaining faithful to, in 2 Tim 2:12-13. You're asserting God is not faithful to us, and interpreting the verse in this way. But its history as a chorus or verse sung in the early church that Paul transcribed, undermines that argument. It's either "All Things Dark and Ugly" sung in church, or it is intentionally a very comforting verse to those whose faith fails them in crisis. You're saying it's the former. Hm. I'm saying it's the latter.

I was pointing out from that 2 Tim 2:12-13 context that Paul is implying that himself, Timothy, "we" i.e., Christians can deny Christ and go into unbelief. If it is impossible for a Christian to ever deny Christ (Peter did) and it is impossible for a Christian to fall into unbelief, then Paul's point in this context was mute and makes no sense.

I've never asserted God is not faithful to the Christian. What I have argued (and continue to argue) is there are two sides of the salvation equation:

1) man's faithfulness to God and
2) God's faithfulness to man.

As I have pointed out times before, from Jn 10:27-28:

Verse 27 shows man's faithfulness to God in his continued (present tense) hearing and following Christ.
Verse 28 shows God faithfulness to that man who continues to hear & follow Christ by not allowing him to be snatched from His hand.

Eternal securists always seem to ignore v27 but quote v28 as if God will unconditionally be faithful to that man by not allowing him to be snatched away no matter what man does even if man quites hearing and following Christ. No verse says God will be faithful to the unfaithful, disobedient. God has promised to have vengeance upon those that obey not, 2 Thess 1:8 and save those that obey, Heb 5:9 and since it is impossible for God to lie He will keep those promises. That's why Spence would say God "cannot treat the faithless as though he were faithful - cannot act as though faithfulness and faithlessness were one and the same thing." God cannot be unfaithful to Himself and the promises He has made.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Agreed here -- the constancy is in finding and removing sins that we are doing though, so the idea of "not living ... life style in sin" itself can't be sustained. We enter into a lifestyle of finding and putting sin to death; but we're still in progress toward even quitting the lifestyle, because the lifestyle is entrenched in our fleshly existence.

But one who believes to the salvation of his soul cannot quit believing. Once reliance is set on its primary focus, nothing moves. This Primary Focus of faith doesn't move unless He betrays the one relying on Him. Does that happen?

As long as we're changing our alliances based on some other primary focus of faith, then yes it's possible to change secondary foci of faith.

The issue is one of saving faith. I've pointed out before that other kinds of faith do fail. The faith that saves is the one that is placed solely in Christ Jesus, because no one else has proved His ability to save people from death.

There is nothing written anywhere that says one who believes cannot quit believing. What you posted here is your personal philosophy about faith for you can never show me from the bible that it is impossible for one who believes to quit believing. The old "wasn't saved to begin with" is an inadequate excuse given to get around the problem of salvation being conditional.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

Cannot quit sinning in the sense of being perfectly sinless but can quit sinning in the sense of quit living continuous life style in sin, 1 Jn 3:9.

Does that mean one can kill now and again, or commit adultery occasionally, tell the odd lie here and there, as long as it is not their continuous lifestyle?

Can one who belives quit believng? Yes. Man by his own volition chooses to believe and can by his own voliton choose to quit believing.

Impossible for someone who has truly believed.

As in Jn 10:27-28 the ones that God will not allowed to be snatched from His hand are the ones who of their own voliton chose to continue to hear and follow Christ. Can one quit hearing and follwoing Christ by his own choice? Absolutely.

You are adding your opinion to what Jesus said.

Jesus said: My sheep hear

Jesus said: My sheep follow



Jesus said nothing about the volition to choose.
Do sheep have a volition?

 

[iLOVE]

Does that mean one can kill now and again, or commit adultery occasionally, tell the odd lie here and there, as long as it is not their continuous lifestyle?




Impossible for someone who has truly believed.



You are adding your opinion to what Jesus said.

Jesus said: My sheep hear

Jesus said: My sheep follow



Jesus said nothing about the volition to choose.
Do sheep have a volition?

Excellent reply.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Does that mean one can kill now and again, or commit adultery occasionally, tell the odd lie here and there, as long as it is not their continuous lifestyle?

Rom 6:11 Paul said the Christian is 'dead to sin, but alive unto God'. John said the Christian "doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 Jn 3:9.

This does not mean the Christian is perfectly sinless but it does mean the Christian cannot live a sinful lifestyle. The Christian is to strive not to sin.

Paul said of the Corinthians " Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor 6:9-11

Paul describes some of the sins the Corinthians were living in prior to becoming Christians. But after becoming Christians Paul said "such were some of you" meaning they left that lifestyle of sin. Paul says "but" a contrasting word between how they were when they lived in sin to being Christians now (washed, justified, sanctified)


Paul to the Ephesians said "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved" )


In times past the Ephesians lived a lifestyle of sinning, they 'walked according to the course of this worls" and they "had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh" BUT, a contrasting word, when they became Christians they became 'dead to sin' having been quickened together with Christ.


In the case of both the Corinthians and Ephesians Paul makes a clear contrast from the previous lifestyle in sinning and now being a Christian dead to sin.

Impossible for someone who has truly believed.

Not according to the bible. Is it "impossible for someone who has truly believed" just because eternal securists say so?

You are adding your opinion to what Jesus said.

Jesus said: My sheep hear

Jesus said: My sheep follow



Jesus said nothing about the volition to choose.
Do sheep have a volition?

Huh? And you accused me of adding my opinion to what Jesus said?

Where in the context did Jesus say "I force sheep to hear and follow me against their will and I will never allow them to stop hearing and following Me even if they want to"? The context does not say the sheep have no volition. If they had no volition it would be impossible for sheep to stray away, but they do, Isa 53:6 Matt 18:12 2 Pet 2:15

When Jesus said MY sheep hear and MY sheep follow Jesus made being a sheep of his conditional upon your hearing and follwoing Him. Therefore you would not qualify to be a sheep of Christ's if you do not conditonally hear and follow Him.