The reason you cant lose your salvation is?.....

[chessman]

How does Paul coming to faith in Christ and being saved prove OSAS for the one's before him that were cut out?

Paul was a "cut off" Jew. Or more precisely, Saul was. He's a perfect example of what Heb 6 is addressing. Saul needed to mature via Christ to become Paul. And it DID happen. God would have it no other way.

And inspired (enlightened) by the H.S. he tells the rest of us that are enlightened that God did not reject him or His people. May it NEVER be true that God would do that. It's impossible!

Romans 11:1 Therefore I say, God has not rejected his people, has he? May it never be! For I also am an Israelite, from the descendants of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. ​

Look. A member started an OP that says:

The reason you cant lose your salvation, is because its not yours to lose.

. It's God that saves His people.

Another member says (and you agreed); wait a minute. That's wrong and Heb 6 'proves' it's wrong.

It is possible to commit apostasy for which there is no further repentance available according to Heb 6:4-6 (ESV)

I have provided several evidences to the contrary concerning Heb 6. Pointing out first that it says what is impossible, not what is possible. And that it doesn't even say apostasy. And many other points.

But if you have a Scripture that says a saved person becomes un-saved, post it. But it ain't Heb 6:6 just because it has the phrase "falling away" in it.

There's so much more in Heb 6 than that little phrase that it's mind boggling. Even in the one sentence, it speaks of God's power!

 

[OzSpen]

Who told you this? It's wrong. NT Greek most certainly does use sentence structures that are understandable in English.

http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/HTML_Common/greek_grammatical_terms.html

chessman,

What did I write? I stated, 'NT Greek uses no sentences as we understand in English'. The facts are that there are no punctuation marks in Greek MSS and words are joined together. Sentence structure is based on Greek grammar and syntax. How do I know? I'm a teacher of NT Greek.

This website on 'Punctuation in Ancient Greek Texts, Part 1' stated it simply and clearly:

The ancient Greeks did not have any equivalent to our modern device of punctuation. Sentence punctuation was invented several centuries after the time of Christ. The oldest copies of both the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament are written with no punctuation.

In addition, the ancient Greeks used no spaces between words or paragraphs. Texts were a continuous string of letters, with an occasional blank line inserted to mark the end of a major section, though even this was not always done.

They also had no equivalent to our lower case letters. Texts were written in all capitals [Uncials, or all running writing known as cursive] (available at: http://greek-language.com/grklinguist/?p=657).​

This assessment of the punctuation of the Greek NT states:

It is important for the reader to keep in mind the lateness of some of the editorial devices. The earliest uncial manuscripts were even without breaks between the words. Breathings, accents, and punctuation marks-which often greatly influence the translation-are later editorial additions and should be treated as such (available at: http://www.scripture4all.org/ISA2_help/DatabaseInfo/GNT_intro.html).​

We know this as a copy of Codex Vaticanus 354 of the Gospels demonstrates:

(Courtesy Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus_354)​

We know that punctuation came in over time in bits and pieces but not in the early days of Greek manuscripts. One of the great Greek grammarians of the 20th century, Dr. A. T. Robertson, in his massive, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1934. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press) explained the nature of Greek sentences:

The oldest inscriptions and papyri show few signs of punctuation between sentences or clauses in a sentence, though punctuation by points does appear on some of the ancient inscriptions. In the Artemisia papyrus the double point ( occasionally ends the sentence. It was Aristophanes of Byzantium (260 B.C.) who is credited with inventing a more regular system of sentence punctuation which was further developed by the Alexandrian grammarians. As a rule all the sentences, like the words, ran into one another in an unbroken line (scriptura continua), but finally three stops were provided for the sentence by the use of the full point (p. 242, emphasis added).
​

Oz

 

[Kathi]

That is right all those who are born again believers and who are genuinely saved can not lose their salvation.

 

[chessman]

chessman,

What did I write? I stated, 'NT Greek uses no sentences as we understand in English'. The facts are that there are no punctuation marks in Greek MSS and words are joined together. Sentence structure is based on Greek grammar and syntax. How do I know? I'm a teacher of NT Greek.

Then you should speak more precisely and correctly and say that NT Greek uses no English punctuation marks. Nor does it use English words.

http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/HTML_Common/greek_grammatical_terms.html

VII. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES

A. A conditional sentence is one that contains one or more conditional clauses. This grammatical structure aids interpretation because it provides the conditions, reasons or causes why the action of the main verb does or does not occur. There were four types of conditional sentences. They move from that which was assumed to be true from the author's perspective or for his purpose to that which was only a wish.


VI. CONJUNCTIONS AND CONNECTORS​

A. Greek is a very precise language because it has so many connectives. They connect thoughts (clauses, sentences, and paragraphs). They are so common that their absence (asyndeton) is often exegetically significant. As a matter of fact, these conjunctions and connectors show the direction of the author's thought. They often are crucial in determining what exactly he is trying to communicate.​

Therefore, follow the conjunctions and, as I said, Heb 6:4-6 is one sentence structure in NT Greek or English.

 

[Gregg]

It is possible to commit apostasy for which there is no further repentance available according to Heb 6:4-6 (ESV) :

4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (emphasis added).
​

Some are enlightened about God and Christ, but prefer to hide in their darkness.
Some taste the heavenly gift, but but never inwardly consume Christ's blood and flesh.
Some are made to experience the Holy Spirit working near them, but deny His power to themselves.
Some taste the goodness of the word of God, but do not hear in their hearts, never receiving the One who spoke the words.
Some witnessed the powers of the age to come, but deny the Resurrection and the Life.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Some are enlightened about God and Christ, but prefer to hide in their darkness.
Some taste the heavenly gift, but but never inwardly consume Christ's blood and flesh.
Some are made to experience the Holy Spirit working near them, but deny His power to themselves.
Some taste the goodness of the word of God, but do not hear in their hearts, never receiving the One who spoke the words.
Some witnessed the powers of the age to come, but deny the Resurrection and the Life.

What about those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant but who then fall away?

Paul was a "cut off" Jew. Or more precisely, Saul was. He's a perfect example of what Heb 6 is addressing. Saul needed to mature via Christ to become Paul. And it DID happen. God would have it no other way.

And inspired (enlightened) by the H.S. he tells the rest of us that are enlightened that God did not reject him or His people. May it NEVER be true that God would do that. It's impossible!

Romans 11:1 Therefore I say, God has not rejected his people, has he? May it never be! For I also am an Israelite, from the descendants of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.​

Let's try it again. You're not answering the question.

How does a Jew being cut out of the tree because of unbelief, and then a completely different Jew born later being grafted into the tree by his/her faith prove that a person can not lose their salvation? How is OSAS proved right by that?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That is right all those who are born again believers and who are genuinely saved can not lose their salvation.

What do we do with the passages of scripture that plainly exhort people reconciled to God through faith to not to stop believing so that they can gain what that faith secures and not lose it?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Look. A member started an OP that says:
. It's God that saves His people.

Another member says (and you agreed); wait a minute. That's wrong and Heb 6 'proves' it's wrong.

We're not debating that God saves people. We're debating whether or not you can stop what God said you must do to be saved by him, or whether salvation is so utterly of him alone that it doesn't matter what you do, good or bad, to continue to be saved by him.

But if you have a Scripture that says a saved person becomes un-saved, post it. But it ain't Heb 6:6 just because it has the phrase "falling away" in it.

There's so much more in Heb 6 than that little phrase that it's mind boggling. Even in the one sentence, it speaks of God's power!

What does the Bible say you have to have to have the protection of God's power in salvation? Do you know what scripture tells us?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The fact that we cannot re-crucify Christ again (it's impossible) means there can be no other foundation laid that leads to Eternal Life (true repentance) other than the one Jesus (God) laid.
[...]
What's impossible is to create any other path to repentance than the one God himself laid through Jesus. Though many try.

Okay, good. So what happens to the person who loses that path to repentance (that is, the one and only way of Christ)? How does a person lose that way, that path? The Bible tells us. Do you know?

 

[chessman]

what happens to the person who loses that path to repentance (that is, the one and only way of Christ)?

God changes their names from Saul to Paul. Right on the path on which they walk. Look at Paul's example. He appears to them.

In fact, by taking away the temple the Hebrews and Gentiles have no other foundation. They can rebuild it all they want. God ripped the curtain and the foundation IS Christ. Always was and will be forever.

You've still not posted a Scripture that examples a saved person getting lost and never being found by their shepherd.

I feel sure of better things, things that belong to salvation, for all that are His. Every single individual within the group. (Edited. ToS 2.4, belittling. Obadiah.)
Because it's God desire, not because of dead works. No one can work any harder at maintaing their salvation as Jesus already has. It's impossible for us to lay another foundation built on our works pre or post salvation.

I believe in OSAS because of this message in Heb 6 and the many others.

God has already called them heirs and given them a promise to forgive them of all sins and (fallings away from His desire) and to draw them back with His Seal (HS) when we do "fall". That's what fathers do for sons.

And it's God's unchangeable character and His purpose that has guaranteed it with His oath (not our works).

These two unchangeable things (His character and His purpose) guarantee salvation, else as I've said, He'd not have us in His mouth to begin with. If you are God (and He is), you don't put things in your mouth for no good and sure purpose.

It is impossible for God to lie and He has not lied, ever! Not when He entered into a saved person's heart/life and told them they had eternal life or when He disciplines and reproved them when it's necessary.

We have refuge and strong encouragement to hold fast to this hope since we have His promises and His guarantee set before us and within us as mature believers.

We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain (right where we live).

You've still not posted a Scripture that examples a saved person getting lost and never being found by their shepherd. (Edited, ToS 2.4, belittling. Obadiah)

Problem is, every time so far you've mentioned where it's "plain and clear", that doesn't turn out to be the case when you actually read these passages in their intended meanings and contexts.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

God changes their names from Saul to Paul. Right on the path on which they walk. Look at Paul's example. He appears to them.

When was Paul saved by Christ, and then not saved by Christ, before he got saved in Acts? One Jew who does not believe and is cut out of the tree, and another person born later who does believe hardly proves OSAS. Hardly. So I ask again, "what happens to the person who loses that path to repentance (that is, the one and only way of Christ)"? The Bible tells us that not only can that happen, but what will happen to the person who does that.

"26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES." (Hebrews 10:26-27 NASB)

(Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuations to discredit. Obadiah.)

Hebrews 10 is loaded with stuff. Strap yourself in. You're in for a very bumpy ride.

You've still not posted a Scripture that examples a saved person getting lost and never being found by their shepherd.

The NT has many warnings to believers to not stop believing, or else lose salvation, but you think those warnings cannot mean what they so plainly say simply because the narrative of the Bible only covers the time of the warnings and not later when they either did, or did not, heed the warning? (Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to discredit. Obadiah.)

I feel sure of better things, things that belong to salvation, for all that are His. Every single individual within the group. (Edited. Obadiah.)

But if we can't name names it's only a fictitious group, right?

Because it's God desire, not because of dead works. No one can work any harder at maintaing their salvation as Jesus already has. It's impossible for us to lay another foundation built on our works pre or post salvation.

And who in this thread is suggesting there is any other foundation than faith in Christ?

This is what gets me about grace discussions; people who oppose the requirement for a continuing faith in Christ in order to be saved on the Day of Wrath instantly hear the argument as 'you are saved by your own works'. Amazing. Simply amazing, but I know why it's that way.

I believe in OSAS because of this message in Heb 6 and the many others.

God has already called them heirs and given them a promise to forgive them of all sins and (fallings away from His desire) and to draw them back with His Seal (HS) when we do "fall". That's what fathers do for sons.

But your doctrine does two wrong things: 1) It doesn't differentiate between sinning in the weaknesses of growing up into Christ--all the while depending on the forgiveness of Christ to cover that sin--and the sinning of willfully forsaking Christ altogether and turning your back on the forgiveness of Christ. And 2) you won't acknowledge (Edited, ToS 2.4, belittling. Obadiah.) what happens as a result of turning your back on Christ.

The grace your doctrine insists Hebrews 6 is applying to the willfully sinful, Christ rejecting ex-believer is actually the grace that belongs to the weak but persistent seeker of good. Your doctrine misuses grace and turns it into a license to sin. Hebrews 6 plainly says you have to persevere in your faith to the end to be saved. But somehow your doctrine insists it's a teaching about any and all failure, even not believing anymore, being covered by the grace of God.

And it's God's unchangeable character and His purpose that has guaranteed it with His oath (not our works).

There it is again. Please, please show me in the Bible where trusting in Christ, and continuing to trust in Christ is what cannot justify/ save a person. I see where trust in Christ is contrasted with doing works of the law in the hope that those works of the law can justify/ save a person, not equated with it. (Edited, trolling by claiming the entire Christian church is in error. Obadiah)

These two unchangeable things (His character and His purpose) guarantee salvation, else as I've said, He'd not have us in His mouth to begin with. If you are God (and He is), you don't put things in your mouth for no good and sure purpose.

It is impossible for God to lie and He has not lied, ever! Not when He entered into a saved person's heart/life and told them they had eternal life or when He disciplines and reproved them when it's necessary.

So, you're saying the promise of God is completely and utterly unconditional, not even being conditioned on trust in Christ? You do know that is what your doctrine is saying, right? It says I don't have to continue to trust in Christ as a condition for my justification/ salvation because that would make God a liar who said 'you will be justified and saved if you have faith in Christ and have it to the end'. That doesn't even make sense, chessman.

The promise has always been conditioned on trusting God. What makes God a liar is if he removes the condition for faith. It is actually your doctrine that makes God a liar, not mine, by changing the condition for justification/ salvation from having faith to 'you don't have to have faith'. Unless, of course, you now want to go to the other side of the (Edited, Tos 2.4, Obadiah.) OSAS argument and argue that the believer can never stop believing. 2

We have refuge and strong encouragement to hold fast to this hope since we have His promises and His guarantee set before us and within us as mature believers.

We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain (right where we live).

The encouragement is to hold fast. That is, KEEP BELIEVING. But for some reason you (seem to) see the encouragement as being 'God saves you with no conditions attached whatsoever, not even the condition to keep believing' (that is, when you arguing that side of the conflicting OSAS message).

You've still not posted a Scripture that examples a saved person getting lost and never being found by their shepherd. (Edited.)

(Edited, ToS 2.4, personal attack. Obadiah.) But feel free to remind me where I said specific names of people are named in the groups that stop believing that Jesus and Paul talk about, okay?

I'm not surprised that you don't understand the argument and why you have to say things like this. But what you have to do is explain why the Bible makes up fictitious groups of people who believe and who then don't believe and lose what they had. So start explaining, chessman.

Problem is, every time so far you've mentioned where it's "plain and clear", that doesn't turn out to be the case when you actually read these passages in their intended meanings and contexts.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, belittling. Obadiah.) explain how your doctrine makes this passage not really mean what it says:

"...you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. 35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. 37 FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY. 38 BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM. 39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul." (Hebrews 10:34-39 NASB)

Pick it apart, bit by bit, and show us that these people are not really believers, or if they really are believers in this particular passage (lol), why the destruction and loss of promise is not really the damnation that only those who never believed get.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:29 NASB)

 

[chessman]

When was Paul saved by Christ…?

Paul was saved by Christ before the foundation of the world, that’s when.

Ephesians 1:4 Lexham English Bible (LEB)
4 just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love,
​

When was Paul saved by Christ, and then not saved by Christ…

(Edited, Obadiah.) It’s an assumption on your part that Paul was ever “not saved” by Christ even though we have Paul clearly saying otherwise in Eph 1:4 and many many other places which I’ve posted and you’ve simply ignored via any counter response.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuations to discredit. Obadiah.) You MUST prove that Paul was ever “not saved”, not just assume that’s the case.

You are the one assuming Paul was “not saved”, not me (Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuations to discredit. Obadiah.) It would be necessary for you to first show via some “plain and clear” Scripture that Paul was ever “not saved” then try to explain what in the world he means by Eph 1:4 and Rom 11:1 to reconcile it.

Oh, I almost forgot. You said “It’s obvious Rom 11 in not a OSAS passage.”

Romans 11:1 Therefore I say, God has not rejected his people, has he? May it never be!​

(Edited, ToS 2.4 belittling. Obadiah.)
I can only assume that you somehow find some kind of evidence that Paul was “not saved” in Heb 10. Where? Neither Heb 6 nor Heb 10 says as saved person becomes un-saved, much less the individual Paul. (Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to discredit. Obadiah)

So I ask again, "what happens to the person who loses that path to repentance (that is, the one and only way of Christ)"?

Answer is, how can the path to repentance be lost? The path is a done deal. It was a onetime event. The “path to repentance” (Christ) is more solid than any anchor ever hoped to be. It was a Path laid by the Alpha and the Omega.

“the path to repentance” cannot be lost. It’s there for the taking and laid as a foundational path, once for all. It’s impossible to re-sacrifice the path. See Heb 6 and 10. For some it takes more nudging by God their Father, than it does for others to find the path. It took quite a bit of nudging for Paul to “see” it and believe it. But, the point is, he did finally get his scales removed so that he saw it. May it never be otherwise (ToS 2.4, insinuation to discredit. Obadiah.)

One Jew who does not believe and is cut out of the tree, and another person born later who does believe hardly proves OSAS. Hardly.

I didn’t say that it did. God proves OSAS. God’s promise proves OSAS. God’s attribute to never lie proves OSAS. God tells any (and all) believers they have eternal life upon believing in the One Sacrifice.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to discredit. Obadiah.)

So I ask again, "what happens to the person who loses that path to repentance (that is, the one and only way of Christ)"? The Bible tells us that not only can that happen, but what will happen to the person who does that.

(Edited, ToS 2.4 insinuations to discredit. Obadiah.) First, you assume the path can be lost (which it can’t) then you say that the Bible tells us that it can be lost which is 180 degrees away from the truth.
Then you suggest “losing the path” is a phrase equivalent to “losing salvation” and that therefore Heb 10:26-27’s FIRE is applicable to this (Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to discredit. Obadiah) argument to begin with.
Heb means what it says, sure. (Edited, ToS 2.4, insinuation to discredit. Obadiah.)
You got any “guess” as to way the LEX translation titles Heb’s 10; Christ’s One Sacrifice for Sin?
Or better yet, why verse 1 describes The Law as a shadow of what Christ did once to make PERFECT those who draw near Him? Hint, it’s impossible to lay any other foundation for sin, either on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis.
Verse 26-27 is there for a reason:

First, Poke around verse 14-15 to find out what it’s there for. Or for that matter, re-read Heb 6 and see that same principle being repeated here in Heb 10.

14 For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,16 “This is the covenant that I will decree for themafter those days, says the Lord: I am putting my laws on their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
17 He also says, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will never remember again.”​

The reason “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,” is that The Law has been perfected in The One Sacrifice, for all time for all that are made holy by Him (not us) and as His Holy Spirit testifies to us.

No more weekly, monthly or yearly sacrifices remain viable as a “sacrifice for sins”.

Hmm, The One Sacrifice made by Him at Golgotha “no longer remaining”??? Sounds like one of those impossible absurd things to me. Now that He’s done it perfectly; the weekly, monthly, yearly blood and bull sacrifices no longer remaining viable sounds pretty NT to me.

First, you're probably going to make 'receiving the knowledge of the truth' mean 'not really being saved'.

Let me get this straight. The Hebrew people as a group, you know the ones Christ came only to, “received the knowledge of the truth’” via Christ literally coming to them as a group but now you are going to assume this phrase is speaking of an individual being saved. Really? (Edited, ToS 2.4, personal insult. Obadiah.)

2) they are saved and the punishment threatened really isn't hell fire, but rather a loving chastisement of God. Which will it be this time?

(Edited, insinuation to discredit. Obadiah.) You can assume “receiving the knowledge of the truth” means an individual is saved if you’d like. But it’s not good exegesis.

The NT has many warnings to believers to not stop believing,

Yes the NT has many warning to believers to not stop believing. Jesus warned the disciples to not stop believing right to their faces, too. I don’t follow your logical argument of how that demonstrates saved believers cannot head that warning given the Holy Spirit abides in all true believers. (Edited, ToS 2.4, be4littling. Obadiah.)
(Edited, response to edited post. Obadiah.)

But if we can't name names it's only a fictitious group, right?

No, it’s not a fictitious group. Just one that remains anonymous.

And who in this thread is suggesting there is any other foundation than faith in Christ?

I don’t know. Nobody I suppose. But I know who’s not doing that. It’s the author of Hebrews. Where did you get the idea that there can be no other foundation other than Christ and it’s impossible to do if, even if one tried? Heb 6, maybe?
What do you think, can another foundation be laid by an individual post-salvation or not?

Your doctrine misuses grace and turns it into a license to sin.

No it doesn’t. I’m yet to meet one single person that believes in OSAS that teaches it’s a “license to sin”. That’s a non-OSAS person saying it’s so.

Hebrews 6 plainly says you have to persevere in your faith to the end to be saved.

Actually, I don’t even disagree that a truly, spirit filled believer preservers in saving faith to the end to be saved. That’s kind of the point of OSAS.
Heb 6, 10 and every other chapter of the Bible simply makes the point that it is God that ensures it happens, not us.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins..." (Hebrews 10:26 NASB)

So, knowing that the Hebrews, to whom the letter is addressed, are indeed saved, we see that willfully turning away from the grace the author says they have received ends the forgiveness they had. What provision for the sin of refusing the sacrifice of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins is there? None, of course. Stop believing in Christ and you lose the forgiveness of sin that belief secured for you.

 

[chessman]

"...you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. 35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. 37 FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY. 38 BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM. 39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul." (Hebrews 10:34-39 NASB)

Okay, now you're on the right team. Glad to have you on the OSAS side.

Believers do have a Better possession and a lasting one. (Edited, Obadiah.)

Please don't throw away that confidence anymore and lose that great reward now that you've found Heb 10:34-39.

All believers have a need of endurance, Amen brother. Philippians 4:19 And my God will fulfill your every need according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

What promise? And behold, I am sending out what was promised by my Father upon you, but you stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Amen brother. How sweet it is to be clothed with His righteousness so that we can live by faith and not shrink back to the way we were before. You know, headed toward destruction.

That would not be right for someone so clothed from on High to do that would it? Good thing a believer doesn't do that since we now have that steadfast anchor wrapped around us.

So, you're saying the promise of God is completely and utterly unconditional, not even being conditioned on trust in Christ? … That doesn't even make sense, chessman.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, belittling and insulting. Obadiah.)

I’ve asked you over and over to stop misrepresenting things I’ve said. You refuse to stop doing it. (Edited, ToS 2.4, Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice. Obadiah.)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

(Removed, response to highly edited post. Obadiah.)

 

[Kathi]

What do we do with the passages of scripture that plainly exhort people reconciled to God through faith to not to stop believing so that they can gain what that faith secures and not lose it?

Some people have never been saved even though they proclaim they are a Christian.Also some will lose rewards and the judgment.Some may just barely make it to heaven.

 

[Deborah13]

Paul was saved by Christ before the foundation of the world, that’s when.

Ephesians 1:4 Lexham English Bible (LEB)
4 just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love,
​

The ___________ of your question is as “circular” as it gets. It’s an assumption on your part that Paul was ever “not saved” by Christ even though we have Paul clearly saying otherwise in Eph 1:4 and many many other places which I’ve posted and you’ve simply ignored via any counter response.

That Paul was ever “not saved” by Christ is such a “plain” and clear circular argument that it jumps off the page to anyone that understands logic and debate. So most of the time, I just ignored it. This time, I pointed it out. Since it’s really impossible to take much more of your argument to seriously otherwise. Out of respect for your time/effort I’ll respond to some of the other things you say below. But technically, it’s not really necessary. You MUST prove that Paul was ever “not saved”, not just assume that’s the case.

You are the one assuming Paul was “not saved”, not me nor should any good and proper debaters reading this thread. It would be necessary for you to first show via some “plain and clear” Scripture that Paul was ever “not saved” then try to explain what in the world he means by Eph 1:4 and Rom 11:1 to reconcile it.

Oh, I almost forgot. You said “It’s obvious Rom 11 in not a OSAS passage.”

Romans 11:1 Therefore I say, God has not rejected his people, has he? May it never be!​

Nice response. You do realize that a group of people is made up of individuals, right? Or do you think it’s necessary for Paul to point this out?

Regardless, I can only assume that you somehow find some kind of evidence that Paul was “not saved” in Heb 10. Where? Neither Heb 6 nor Heb 10 says as saved person becomes un-saved, much less the individual Paul. You’ve struck out once again.

Answer is, how can the path to repentance be lost? The path is a done deal. It was a onetime event. The “path to repentance” (Christ) is more solid than any anchor ever hoped to be. It was a Path laid by the Alpha and the Omega.

“the path to repentance” cannot be lost. It’s there for the taking and laid as a foundational path, once for all. It’s impossible to re-sacrifice the path. See Heb 6 and 10. For some it takes more nudging by God their Father, than it does for others to find the path. It took quite a bit of nudging for Paul to “see” it and believe it. But, the point is, he did finally get his scales removed so that he saw it. May it never be otherwise for God’s no liar.
I didn’t say that it did. God proves OSAS. God’s promise proves OSAS. God’s attribute to never lie proves OSAS. God tells any (and all) believers they have eternal life upon believing in the One Sacrifice.

I believe Him. You don’t. It’s that simple.

Can you not see how circular this is? First, you assume the path can be lost (which it can’t) then you say that the Bible tells us that it can be lost which is 180 degrees away from the truth.
Then you suggest “losing the path” is a phrase equivalent to “losing salvation” and that therefore Heb 10:26-27’s FIRE is applicable to this hypothetical circular reasoned and fallacious argument to begin with.
Heb means what it says, sure. And it’s only a “bumpy ride” if I were to listen to your circular arguments and false teaching about what it says. I don’t.
You got any “guess” as to way the LEX translation titles Heb’s 10; Christ’s One Sacrifice for Sin?
Or better yet, why verse 1 describes The Law as a shadow of what Christ did once to make PERFECT those who draw near Him? Hint, it’s impossible to lay any other foundation for sin, either on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis.
Verse 26-27 is there for a reason:

First, Poke around verse 14-15 to find out what it’s there for. Or for that matter, re-read Heb 6 and see that same principle being repeated here in Heb 10.

14 For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,16 “This is the covenant that I will decree for themafter those days, says the Lord: I am putting my laws on their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
17 He also says, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will never remember again.”​

The reason “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,” is that The Law has been perfected in The One Sacrifice, for all time for all that are made holy by Him (not us) and as His Holy Spirit testifies to us.

No more weekly, monthly or yearly sacrifices remain viable as a “sacrifice for sins”.

Hmm, The One Sacrifice made by Him at Golgotha “no longer remaining”??? Sounds like one of those impossible absurd things to me. Now that He’s done it perfectly; the weekly, monthly, yearly blood and bull sacrifices no longer remaining viable sounds pretty NT to me.
Let me get this straight. The Hebrew people as a group, you know the ones Christ came only to, “received the knowledge of the truth’” via Christ literally coming to them as a group but now you are going to assume this phrase is speaking of an individual being saved. Really? That’s so funny it’s ridiculous.
There’s that circular reasoning of yours shining through once again. You can assume “receiving the knowledge of the truth” means an individual is saved if you’d like. But it’s not good exegesis.
Yes the NT has many warning to believers to not stop believing. Jesus warned the disciples to not stop believing right to their faces, too. I don’t follow your logical argument of how that demonstrates saved believers cannot head that warning given the Holy Spirit abides in all true believers. But whatever.
How about I speak for myself and you stop telling me what I think (or have said by misquoting me) and what that amounts to.
No, it’s not a fictitious group. Just one that remains anonymous.
I don’t know. Nobody I suppose. But I know who’s not doing that. It’s the author of Hebrews. Where did you get the idea that there can be no other foundation other than Christ and it’s impossible to do if, even if one tried? Heb 6, maybe?
What do you think, can another foundation be laid by an individual post-salvation or not?

No it doesn’t. I’m yet to meet one single person that believes in OSAS that teaches it’s a “license to sin”. That’s a non-OSAS person saying it’s so.

Actually, I don’t even disagree that a truly, spirit filled believer preservers in saving faith to the end to be saved. That’s kind of the point of OSAS.
Heb 6, 10 and every other chapter of the Bible simply makes the point that it is God that ensures it happens, not us.

chessman, just making a quick assessment of Eph. 1:4
Eph 1:3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who did bless us in every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
Eph 1:4 according as He did choose us in him before the foundation of the world, for our being holy and unblemished before Him, in love,

I see 'us' is a group. God determined before the foundation of the world that there would be a 'group' of people who would believe Him, by grace through faith.
However, I do not see in that scripture where is says that each person in that group was 'chosen from the foundation of the world.'

 

[chessman]

chessman, just making a quick assessment ...
I see 'us' is a group. God determined before the foundation of the world that there would be a 'group' of people who would believe Him, by grace through faith.

I agree.

However, I do not see in that scripture where is says that each person in that group was 'chosen from the foundation of the world.'

We were talking about Paul in particular. Since Paul said "we" and "us", don't you think he was including himself as an individual in that group? If not, why?

 

[Deborah13]

I agree.




We were talking about Paul in particular. Since Paul said "we" and "us", don't you think he was including himself as an individual in that group? If not, why?

Yes, Paul included himself in that group.