Will all born-again Christians make it to heaven?

[John Zain]

If you believe you are saved, absolutely certain, and are referring to final judgment,
well, you are wrong.
No one can know that before they stand before the Christ.
Belief otherwise doesn't make it so.

Yes, was Paul pulling our collective legs when he wrote about
his uncertainty concerning himself ... and us also?

1 Cor 9:27 • Paul disciplined his body into subjection so he should not be disqualified.
1 Cor 13:5 • Examine yourself to see if you are in the faith, unless you are disqualified.
1 Cor 15:2 • You are saved, if you hold fast to the word, unless you believed in vain.
Phil 2:12-13 • Work out your salvation with fear and trembling (for God is working in you).

 

[Grappler]

I am not falling for that trick question.

It is not a trick question....it is a question that i think every child of God would love to tell everyone. Why can't you? Let me ask you this...have you been born-again?

Well, if you "think every child of God would love to tell everyone", then why haven't YOU yet???

Let me hear your definition and I'll tell you what I think.

Regards

Because you never asked. I asked you and all you can do is ask me to tell you first....rather childish but whatever. To be born-again to me means that I have a personal relationship with Jesus the Son of God. God regenerated my spirit with His Spirit and now i have become a new creature in Christ...Even if i wanted to go back to being spiritually "dead" i cound not. Can a man become un-born? Sure he may wish he was never born but he can never be un-born...i am speaking of the flesh. Can a child of God become un-born...in a spiritual sense? No. Just as the body can not become un-born neither can the soul once God has regenerated it. Nothing i did earned my salvation....nothing i can do will lose my salvation.

 

[chessman]

See post #208. I have explained it there and several other places lately, forgive me if I am not about to do it a fourth time so recently.

I did review that post and its Scriptural arguments. After all, you may very well be correct. I will admit that I guess I didn’t fully grasp your argument for the false prophets being actually “freed from sin” versus hypothetically “feed from sin”. Because when I read the text of 2 Peter 2, I read it as IF they had been “freed from sin” and then later it “would have” been better for them. It sounded pretty clear to me what Peter’s point was. I never thought anyone would understand it any differently. Your point was short and sweet, so I kind-of read past it, I guess. Nothing wrong with short and sweet as long as it’s correct and Scriptural.
In your argument, you say basically, that (relative to who the “they” are in verses 20-22 and claiming they were actually once saved persons) the false prophets are actually freed from corruption/sin and therefore saved (at least at one point in time). By:

HOW EXACTLY does one become free from the "corruption of the world"? That is sin, correct??? … We have here a person who was freed from sin and continued in that transformed manner, with full knowledge of his being saved and the actions of Christ.

You say they had “become free” yet the texts says “20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world…”
That’s a big/important “If”. To big to just leave out, in this case.

From the Greek the word in the text is Transliterated “Ei” Definition: if, whether

This is one of the countless examples within Scripture where there is good evidence/proof for its inspiration (versus man-made only). Peter could have used the word Transliterated Hote (hot'-eh Definition: When, whenever, while, as long as) to mean what you say it means. But He didn’t.

I don’t think we should overlook the “if” especially considering Peter just got through saying:
1) “Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.”
2) “born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.”

I've not seen you really address this issue. Maybe I read past it as well. Sorry. I'm not the brightest candle.

Then later, even in the “kicker verse” 21 he says “would have been” emphasizes this is his hypothetical statement of them (being freed from corruption/sin) that is.

I don’t think Peter would be contradictorily saying in one place they were condemned, then later that they were not condemned for a period, then condemned again. Which of course is my argument. Post #208 really doesn’t address this at all.

Thankfully, he didn’t say this (their being freed from sin/corruption, i.e. saved, then ensnared by sin again later) as it would seem like an error or contradiction with his earlier statement about their condemnation.

But I'll move on and hope that I've not mistated anything you've said or missed where you've address this point elsewhere, textually.

Is it not evident from Scriptures that one must call upon God and ask for forgiveness BEFORE He grants it?

No, not to me. I'm not that knowledagble, however. What Scriptures do you mean specifically here? I see Christ’s blood as a requirement, but not anything man must do.

Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

If God were subject to our calling upon Him for His purposes (all of them), that kind-of makes God a demigod and not truly sovereign over all things. But I’d be glad to look at the Scripture that you mean teaches your point. Maybe I missed them.

Can you reference the evidential Scriptural support for “God aiding us” in our salvation?

 

[Danus]

If you believe you are saved, absolutely certain, and are referring to final judgment, well, you are wrong. No one can know that before they stand before the Christ. Belief otherwise doesn't make it so. The best we can hope for is to remain in Christ and rely on His promises to those who have faith working in love. That is why it is called "faith" and "hope". You do understand the definitions of these words?

God's sovereignty will not be set aside. He will judge us. All of us, whether we believe that or not. Judgment is based upon what we do here.

Now, if you have absolute confidence that you are not going to commit a deadly sin between now and then, is it a wonder why people consider such talk "presumptuous"?



What kind of "saved" am I?



What kind of "saved" are you? Didn't you just get done telling me about being more clear in using the term "saved"?

I am 100% saved in Christ, today, tomorrow & to the end.

As long as you remain in Him, one can have that confidence. However, you know that a year from now, with absolute certainty, that you will display "saving faith"??? You know this with absolute certainty??? Knowing full well that your interpretations are being made by a fallible man??? Based upon an unknowable future that God will allow to happen??? You will have saving faith in 10 years???

Excuse me, but I don't believe anyone can know that with "absolute certainty".

Are you telling me you never had a strong belief and then later changed your mind or re-considered what you thought? Having new evidence that could make you re-think the situation is kept under wraps in case the theology is overturned so as not to disrupt the "absolute certainty"??? You have no idea what will happen 10 years from now, presuming you are still alive. It strikes me as adolescent to make such claims. Experience in life teaches us otherwise.

Oh yea, I can talk the talk that I would do "x" when subject to "y". But when "y" actually happens, THAT is when the rubber meets the road, when reality sets in, and often, our most cherished ideas and thoughts about OURSELVES are overturned...

Example; Combat.

One is trained and taught and they strongly believe that under fire, a soldier would respond appropriately. "oh, no, I will not run away, I will kill any enemy that comes over here, blah blah..." Big words and talk based on our BELIEFS in something we have NOT EXPERIENCED. But when men "see the elephant" or come under fire, all of those lofty thoughts mean crap when your life is at risk. THAT is when you learn something about yourself. And in SOME people, it is not pretty - that knowledge about self. Things that you could never imagine yourself doing - you do.

Another example; adultery.

How many pastors thought that they would break the commandment of God and cheat on their wife, even to the point of leaving ministry??? Don't you think that a year before the temptation, they talked the same talk you are now??? So I imagine "they never were saved to begin with"??? Sophistry, plain and simple.

So don't tell me about 'absolute certainty' of what will happen years and years from now.

We don't have absolute certainty about anything in the future of this life, except that we will die...

You can't even know if you will be breathing tomorrow, much less usurp God's sovereignty to judge you as He sees fit...

----------------

I apologize if this part may seem "realistically harsh", but I've been alive for awhile and have experienced a thing or two. "Talk is cheap", they say. With good reason. I've seen lots of talk and little action to back it up from some people. Not meant as a dig to you, but refering to people I have met in my life who THOUGHT they knew themselves pretty well. And then they screwed up.

Regards

I appreciate your cantor & detail.

If my salvation where a strong feeling I might agree more. It's just not. In fact it's not something I ever really sought. For me it's a change within me that started at a point in time of which I am aware more than just a personal conviction. I'm not suggesting someone can't be saved seeking salvation, but clearly we have a difference of faith in our individual salvation. Why that is, is more than what each of us think about scripture & more to do with how God has worked in our lives.

 

[Danus]

I still want to try to make you further understand the point of view of the "I don't truly know who is and who isn't" people. Let's say, I somehow rounded up 100,000,000 people who claimed that they are "saved Christians". I say, it's extremely possible that when all is said and done, at least one of these people will have proven to have either lost their salvation, or they were never saved in the first place, whichever way you like to put it. So, in conclusion, my questioning of a person's salvation, even if I only give their possible loss of salvation a .0001% chance, is valid. Can you agree?

Sorry, I was not avoiding you. Just got busy.

Can't really agree with this, although I understand what your saying. As you can see there are various views about salvation, how we are saved, how salvation is maintained and such. Often each view claims to be the view.

Could a person say they are saved and not really be so? I suppose someone could say anything they want, but that leads to many questions. The biggest being what does anyone mean when they say they are saved? Of course we can define salvation biblicaly, but then again, as you can see, even that is not an agreed definition.

One thing most Christians will agree on, is that salvation is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I do not venture beyond that in defining salvation. Some have a need to add to that in some way. I do not.

If you'll notice the OP's question is "will all born again Christians make it to heaven?" ??? It's a bad question because the op does not define born again and assumes a false position of the term "born again". Exactly what that false assumption is? We don't know. Maybe you know? What he, and others want to say is that the born again are just a bunch of people saying they are saved or something. Again I can't say, but you'll find more threads of this nature started in the A&T section than any other. Sometimes I think they start them to save the born again ;)....you know, set those confident Christians, the ones who claim to have faith in Christ, set them straight I guess. I honestly don't know.

I spend more time defending my faith with others claiming to be followers of Christ then I do with people who do not know Christ. What a waste of apologetics that is. What a waste of the gospel trying to spread it to people who know more of it then I do, and who know more about my salvation then I do. At first glance it seems like the OP has a question, something he does not know or needs help with, but actually it's just a stupid trap designed to say stuff and take the unsuspecting down a rabbit hole.

The Christian life is best spent actually reflecting Christ to those who really need it. Anyone concerned more about their own salvation more than of the person of Christ, or those who don't or refuse Christ anyway, should be left to their own freewill.

 

[francisdesales]

To be born-again to me means that I have a personal relationship with Jesus the Son of God. God regenerated my spirit with His Spirit and now i have become a new creature in Christ...

OK, fair enough. I have no problems with that. By your definition, I am "born again".

Even if i wanted to go back to being spiritually "dead" i cound not. Can a man become un-born? Sure he may wish he was never born but he can never be un-born...i am speaking of the flesh. Can a child of God become un-born...in a spiritual sense? No. Just as the body can not become un-born neither can the soul once God has regenerated it. Nothing i did earned my salvation....nothing i can do will lose my salvation.

The question is not about whether you can lose your initial salvation!!! The question is whether that initial salvation perseveres until the end. NEVER have I said that a person becomes "unborn" and that something that once happened "never happened". That is the OSAS comment. "you were never saved to begin with". You can't be "unborn". But that is what we hear when Johnny Smith is born again - by your definition - lives a life in Christ for 5 years, and then commits adultery and falls away from service to Christ, gradually falling further into sin. Two Peter 2 would describe this man very well. An OSAS will then proclaim "you were never saved to begin with".

In other words, "POOF - you are unborn"

Regards

 

[chessman]

As you can see there are various views about salvation, how we are saved, how salvation is maintained and such. Often each view claims to be the view.

Could a person say they are saved and not really be so? I suppose someone could say anything they want, but that leads to many questions. The biggest being what does anyone mean when they say they are saved? Of course we can define salvation biblicaly, but then again, as you can see, even that is not an agreed definition.

One thing most Christians will agree on, is that salvation is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I do not venture beyond that in defining salvation. Some have a need to add to that in some way. I do not.

If you'll notice the OP's question is "will all born again Christians make it to heaven?" ??? It's a bad question because the op does not define born again and assumes a false position of the term "born again". Exactly what that false assumption is? We don't know. Maybe you know? What he, and others want to say is that the born again are just a bunch of people saying they are saved or something. Again I can't say, but you'll find more threads of this nature started in the A&T section than any other. Sometimes I think they start them to save the born again ;)....you know, set those confident Christians, the ones who claim to have faith in Christ, set them straight I guess. I honestly don't know.

I spend more time defending my faith with others claiming to be followers of Christ then I do with people who do not know Christ. What a waste of apologetics that is. What a waste of the gospel trying to spread it to people who know more of it then I do, and who know more about my salvation then I do. At first glance it seems like the OP has a question, something he does not know or needs help with, but actually it's just a stupid trap designed to say stuff and take the unsuspecting down a rabbit hole.

The Christian life is best spent actually reflecting Christ to those who really need it. Anyone concerned more about their own salvation more than of the person of Christ, or those who don't or refuse Christ anyway, should be left to their own freewill.

Danus,
This is a gem of a post! Has to be in my top ten on this subject, if not every subject that I’ve viewed on CF.net so far in my short time here. I almost hate to mess this thread up by replying to it, thus making it less visible to viewers (hidden within a maze of confusion, even some hatefulness of other posts). Much like a sticky post that remains on top of any forum location, in my opinion, your post could remain at the bottom of this one as an appropriate conclusion to 229 posts so far. You could just keep copying it and re-posting it and, I’m sure, it would still say the most important things to be said here on this subject. Thank you for saying them. I’m blessed by your words.

The Christian life is best spent actually reflecting Christ to those who really need it. Anyone concerned more about their own salvation more than of the person of Christ, or those who don't or refuse Christ anyway, should be left to their own freewill.

When I read this, I thought WOW. That almost sounds like it’s a Bible verse. I’m ashamed to say I didn’t have a couple memorized that reflect this principle. So I searched for them. Here’s what I found:

1 Peter 3:15 (NET) But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess.
​

(ironic that one Scripture is 1 Peter 3:15 and that it didn’t even occur to me within the A&T forum. Shows just how bad I am at putting Christ first in my life.)

Heb 12:1-2 (NASB) Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
​

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I still want to try to make you further understand the point of view of the "I don't truly know who is and who isn't" people. Let's say, I somehow rounded up 100,000,000 people who claimed that they are "saved Christians". I say, it's extremely possible that when all is said and done, at least one of these people will have proven to have either lost their salvation, or they were never saved in the first place, whichever way you like to put it. So, in conclusion, my questioning of a person's salvation, even if I only give their possible loss of salvation a .0001% chance, is valid. Can you agree?

Sorry, I was not avoiding you. Just got busy.

No problem.

Good post.



I found this portion to be very intelligently written:

I spend more time defending my faith with others claiming to be followers of Christ then I do with people who do not know Christ. What a waste of apologetics that is. What a waste of the gospel trying to spread it to people who know more of it then I do, and who know more about my salvation then I do. At first glance it seems like the OP has a question, something he does not know or needs help with, but actually it's just a stupid trap designed to say stuff and take the unsuspecting down a rabbit hole.

 

[francisdesales]

I did review that post and its Scriptural arguments. After all, you may very well be correct. I will admit that I guess I didn’t fully grasp your argument for the false prophets being actually “freed from sin” versus hypothetically “feed from sin”. Because when I read the text of 2 Peter 2, I read it as IF they had been “freed from sin” and then later it “would have” been better for them. It sounded pretty clear to me what Peter’s point was. I never thought anyone would understand it any differently. Your point was short and sweet, so I kind-of read past it, I guess. Nothing wrong with short and sweet as long as it’s correct and Scriptural.

I find most people don't read long winded posts, so I attempt to be succinct.

From the Greek the word in the text is Transliterated “Ei” Definition: if, whether. This is one of the countless examples within Scripture where there is good evidence/proof for its inspiration (versus man-made only). Peter could have used the word Transliterated Hote (hot'-eh Definition: When, whenever, while, as long as) to mean what you say it means. But He didn’t.

The plain sense of the verses support the indicative. A conditional. "If x happens, then Y is the result". That is the ordinary meaning of "If"

If you jump off a cliff, you will get hurt...

If you, once being freed from sin, return to a life of sin, your condition is worse than before.

Verse 21 verifies this plain meaning.

For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.

There is no "if" on "knowing the way of justice" - and TURNING BACK from that way means that they WALKED in that way, not just "knew it intellectually"

Are you familar with a means of "turning" from sin without being saved?

I don’t think we should overlook the “if” especially considering Peter just got through saying: “Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. “born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.”

I don't see how this makes a difference. The fact is that they were freed from sin. They WALKED in a life free from sin. Do you know of another means of being freed from sin besides being saved or baptized into Christ?

I've not seen you really address this issue. Maybe I read past it as well. Sorry. I'm not the brightest candle.

I will try to be more patient. I think it is clear to the open-minded person who believes that the Bible is the Word of God.

Then later, even in the “kicker verse” 21 he says “would have been” emphasizes this is his hypothetical statement of them (being freed from corruption/sin) that is.

Again, this is based on the conditional. Conditionals are hypothetical in practice until someone does them. The fact that Peter mentions this AT ALL states that the case is possible, since the context will not support Peter speaking about something that CANNOT happen, and he is only expressing senseless banter. Clearly, Peter has someone in mind, unless the entire Chapter 2 is a figment of his imagination.

If a saved person does "x", then "y" results. Simple as that.

I don’t think Peter would be contradictorily saying in one place they were condemned, then later that they were not condemned for a period, then condemned again.

The passage, by verse, is not in chronological order. The man in question has already been condemned as a result of his actions, described before verse 20. Verse 20-22 merely detail the entire result. Man unsaved. Man finds Christ, becomes saved. Avoids sin as a result. Becomes a teacher. Man returns to sin, is condemned. Been better if he had remained unsaved. Such a man is like the dog returning to the vomit...

Is it not evident from Scriptures that one must call upon God and ask for forgiveness BEFORE He grants it?

No, not to me. I'm not that knowledagble, however. What Scriptures do you mean specifically here? I see Christ’s blood as a requirement, but not anything man must do.

Why does the Lord tell people to "believe and repent"???

Who is doing the believing and who is doing the repenting here???

Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness

Under the Old Covenant, blood is required. God is not subject to the Law, Jews were.

God doesn't need blood to have sins forgiven, that was something placed upon Jews, a ritual to prepare them for the total self-giving that Christ would provide. Willingly, not out of requirement to meet the Law.

If God were subject to our calling upon Him for His purposes (all of them), that kind-of makes God a demigod and not truly sovereign over all things. But I’d be glad to look at the Scripture that you mean teaches your point. Maybe I missed them.

Why does God tell us to pray? Why doesn't Jesus tell the apostles what you say when THEY ask him "teach us how to pray"?

Can you reference the evidential Scriptural support for “God aiding us” in our salvation?

Which salvation are you talking about, initial salvation or final salvation?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I appreciate your cantor & detail.

If my salvation where a strong feeling I might agree more. It's just not. In fact it's not something I ever really sought. For me it's a change within me that started at a point in time of which I am aware more than just a personal conviction. I'm not suggesting someone can't be saved seeking salvation, but clearly we have a difference of faith in our individual salvation. Why that is, is more than what each of us think about scripture & more to do with how God has worked in our lives.

I provided the human experience regarding the ideal that people cannot fall away. Human experience doesn't support the idea. Even in the Bible, we see examples of the difference between what "ought to be" and "what is" The two didn't necessarily match. First Corinthians is full of people falling short, some seriously (1 Cor 5 is serious, even to the pagan). Now, no doubt, you will posit that such men was "never saved". There is absolutely no sense of that in Scriptures, it is a wholly-invented fabrication.

In other words, Scriptures just does not support the idea of two classes of Christians, one saved and the other not saved. One "super" Christian, the other, just "pew sitters". ANYONE who is baptized has been freed from sin, saved, justified, has become a new creation, and receives all the promises. There is no "super" requirements laid out before people to "advance" to this "higher" state within Christianity, the "born agains". Ironically, this is a Gnostic notion that you lay out, a secret "knowledge" that distinguished between two groups of Christians. It is not supported by the Scriptural witness and is condemned by the earliest writers of the Church. These same Gnostics believed that Jesus did not come in the flesh, and salvation was based on secret knowledge.

Thus, if EVERY baptized Christian is saved, born from above, etc., we need to re-evaluate the possibility of whether one can lose that status of righteousness in God's eyes. Whether one is just while returning to a life of evil. Since human experience and sacred Scriptures verifies that people DO return to their former lives (just as some disciples who followed Jesus returned to their former lives in John 6:66), one cannot make statements that ignore the reality with terms of "absolute certainty" that THEY cannot fall away, based upon their opinion that Christ will prevent that, while Christ allowed OTHER people to do just the very same thing.

We simply do not have that knowledge. God does. He knows whom He has chosen to be part of the final elect. We would like to think that we are, but we simply do not have the evidence before us, since we realize that people BETTER than us have faltered and we do not know the Mind of God. That is why the Scriptures are so full of "persevere until the end". This would be a senseless exhortation to "born agains".

Regards

 

[John 8:32]

Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness

Under the Old Covenant, blood is required. God is not subject to the Law, Jews were.

God doesn't need blood to have sins forgiven, that was something placed upon Jews, a ritual to prepare them for the total self-giving that Christ would provide. Willingly, not out of requirement to meet the Law.


Regards

What an odd thing to say, that the blood of Christ is not necessary to forgive sin...

1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

The sacrifices were a bloody reminder of this...

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

[francisdesales]

I still want to try to make you further understand the point of view of the "I don't truly know who is and who isn't" people. Let's say, I somehow rounded up 100,000,000 people who claimed that they are "saved Christians". I say, it's extremely possible that when all is said and done, at least one of these people will have proven to have either lost their salvation, or they were never saved in the first place, whichever way you like to put it. So, in conclusion, my questioning of a person's salvation, even if I only give their possible loss of salvation a .0001% chance, is valid. Can you agree?

Sorry, I was not avoiding you. Just got busy.

Can't really agree with this, although I understand what your saying. As you can see there are various views about salvation, how we are saved, how salvation is maintained and such. Often each view claims to be the view.

Could a person say they are saved and not really be so? I suppose someone could say anything they want, but that leads to many questions. The biggest being what does anyone mean when they say they are saved? Of course we can define salvation biblicaly, but then again, as you can see, even that is not an agreed definition.

One thing most Christians will agree on, is that salvation is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I do not venture beyond that in defining salvation. Some have a need to add to that in some way. I do not.

If you'll notice the OP's question is "will all born again Christians make it to heaven?" ??? It's a bad question because the op does not define born again and assumes a false position of the term "born again". Exactly what that false assumption is? We don't know. Maybe you know? What he, and others want to say is that the born again are just a bunch of people saying they are saved or something. Again I can't say, but you'll find more threads of this nature started in the A&T section than any other. Sometimes I think they start them to save the born again ;)....you know, set those confident Christians, the ones who claim to have faith in Christ, set them straight I guess. I honestly don't know.

I spend more time defending my faith with others claiming to be followers of Christ then I do with people who do not know Christ. What a waste of apologetics that is. What a waste of the gospel trying to spread it to people who know more of it then I do, and who know more about my salvation then I do. At first glance it seems like the OP has a question, something he does not know or needs help with, but actually it's just a stupid trap designed to say stuff and take the unsuspecting down a rabbit hole.

The Christian life is best spent actually reflecting Christ to those who really need it. Anyone concerned more about their own salvation more than of the person of Christ, or those who don't or refuse Christ anyway, should be left to their own freewill.

Can you give some Biblical evidence of two groups of Christians, one "saved" and the other "unsaved"?

EVERYONE who is baptized is born from above, freed from sin, etc... There are not two classes of believers. It seems you believe that there is a special class of Christians who are 'saved', while the rest are not saved yet. I would like you to detail your thoughts on this, please.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Under the Old Covenant, blood is required. God is not subject to the Law, Jews were.

God doesn't need blood to have sins forgiven, that was something placed upon Jews, a ritual to prepare them for the total self-giving that Christ would provide. Willingly, not out of requirement to meet the Law.

Regards

What an odd thing to say, that the blood of Christ is not necessary to forgive sin...

1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

You misunderstand what I said. God does not require blood. God utilized blood as a symbol of the reality of its importance. Without blood, you have no life. The blood represents the total self giving to God.

But does God NEED blood? Is God blood-thirsty? What does God state?

O Israel, I will testify against you.
I am God, your God.
8 Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you;
your burnt offerings are continually before me.
9 I will not accept a bull from your house,
or goats from your folds.
10 For every wild animal of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a thousand hills.
11 I know all the birds of the air,
and all that moves in the field is mine.
12 “If I were hungry, I would not tell you,
for the world and all that is in it is mine.
13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls,
or drink the blood of goats?
14 Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving,
and pay your vows to the Most High.
15 Call on me in the day of trouble;
I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.” Psalm 50:7b-15

God doesn't need blood. It is a requirement placed upon Israel as part of their cultic practice. The sacrifice is supposed to represent the inner conviction of the offerer. Christ fulfills that completely in His own selfless offering of His entire life. God utilizes that incredible offering to free man from sin. However, God was not REQUIRED to do anything of the sort. The Law does not dictate to God.

Regards

 

[John Zain]

1 John 1:7
"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
we have fellowship one with another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

However, the OSAS proponent says he is immune to sin
by declaring that he is free from the Law of sin and death.
He is saying he has no sin problem because Jesus took care of it all on the cross.

But the very next verse says:
if you say you have no sin, you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you ...

1 John 1:8
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

 

[chessman]

Thank you so much for the respectful way you dialog with me in this post. It is helpful to me in understanding your position/thoughts on 2 Peter 2. I know this takes up your valuable time/effort and I truly appreciate it.

I'll try to do the same with my response back to you below. Although I'll have to respectfully say your argument(s) has not changed my position on the meaning of what Peter was communicating in 2 Peter 2 nor answered my question "Can you reference the evidently Scriptural support for "God aiding us" in our salvation. But I certainly do now know your position on 2 Peter 2 better than I did before. I also can say that I've considered your alternative exegesis to mine on 2 Peter 2 and decided it's not as merited as mine. I could still be wrong and you are right, but at least I've given your view an honest analysis. Thanks. I mean that honestly and without disrespect to your view.

I find most people don't read long winded posts, so I attempt to be succinct.

Yes, I agree. But, to me, it's a little disrespectful to not answer someone that has asked an honest question. I noticed that you put a question in red and I’ll get to it in a moment.

Just as an aside, I typically scan a post within A&T and look for its Scriptural references/content. If I don't see any, it's a very, very quick and cursory read for me. I find a very high percentage of the posts that have absolutely no Scripture within them are just not very useful to me. I'm sure I miss some good input via this method, but it beats reading a bunch of hateful dogmatic banter back and forth with no real content to it. I digress.

You even put some questions with multiple questions marks behind them, as an answer to my question. I don’t see how your questions there answer my question nor do I see how they are helpful to the OP. But out of respect, I’ll answer them anyway.

Why does the Lord tell people to "believe and repent"??? Who is doing the believing and who is doing the repenting here???

I’ll use Matthew’s summary (Mat 3:1-2) with John the Baptist saying

2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.†3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said,

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight!’â€
​

We repent becuase we should be repentant. We owe it to our Creator, in a sense, for our sinful behavior and because of Christ.
We humans do the repenting. No one esle, makes any sense.
We humans are doing the believing. But neither my repentance or my believing are very perfect. Only Crhist has perfection in Him. I don't see even hypothetically how I could ever have any perfect repentance or believing based on me alone. I fail miserably at repentance and belief, at times.

"If x happens, then Y is the result".

I see your point. But in this text, I don’t see X as actually having occurred (as you seem to by using it to prove someone can/has lost their salvation) but rather specifically and clearly Peter is saying X is hypothetical therefore Y has to be hypothetical as well. You seem to agree with:

A conditional. "If x happens, then Y is the result". That is the ordinary meaning of "If"

Yet you’re not flowing this fact into verse 21. I suppose that’s where we just disagree in exegesis principles. For example, you say:

If you, once being freed from sin, return to a life of sin, your condition is worse than before.

I’d say “If you, once being freed from sin, return to a life of sin, your condition would be worse than it would have been before. Which reads truer to the text, in my opinion and the NASB’s,etc. “It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness…â€

I understand, however, how someone reading the KJV translation of just verse 21 and 21 alone might have a differing interpretation (though even in the KJV, your exegesis doesn’t make sense unless you ONLY read verse 21 without verse 20, which doesn’t seem sound to me).

For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.

I notice that only the KJV has verse 21 this way out of the many others that I scanned. I don’t get overly sensitive to the perfection of any one particular translation versus another, since none are perfect to the original. None are perfect, in my opinion. If I find some type of discrepancy or someone points out a potential difference to me, I then go to the Greek and other experts then decide for myself. In this case, I think the KJV is the worst as compared to the Greek translations from ALL the other choices I looked at. Maybe I’m wrong, but at least I tried. But my evidence is that looking at verse 20 AND verse 21 in the KJV, the conjunctive in verse 21 requires these two verses (and the subjects for which they speak) to be read together. i.e. the hypothetical subjects discussed in verse 20 are still just as hypothetical in verse 21 as they were in verse 20.

“20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ†KJV

It all boils down to, you just cannot simply remove the “if†from verse 20 and not see that the whole passage (20 AND 21) is one big run on subject. If there were dozens of Scriptures elsewhere in the Bible that seemed to conflict with my interpretation, I’d be very skeptical of my interpretation here. However, I don’t know of any. But I do know of many that conflict with your interpretation.

You say

I don't see how this makes a difference. The fact is that they were freed from sin.

for example when 2 Peter does not say the fact is they were freed from sin in the first place. Peter was hypothetically saying it.

But at this point, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But theses post are now there for others to evaluate the merits of both possibilities.

You ask

Are you familar with a means of "turning" from sin without being saved?

No, not in the true sense of “turning†i.e. from God’s perfect knowledge of everyone’s heart. I’m familiar with means that seems to indicate to us mere mortals that someone has indications of true turning, but they are actually not really, truly, in their heart of hearts, “turning†and repenting as you rightly point out is a part of salvation. I knw two examples from Scripture of a false “turningâ€. The false prophets in 2 Peter 2 and Judas. I know another, me.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I can kind of sense another possible hole in the OSAS (theory). It seems to take away from one fear and trembling. If one is really OSAS and it is true, then wherein is the fear and trembling?

I can't imagine coming into the presence of God without fear and trembling.
That's where Jesus comes in, he is our advocate.
I hold onto Romans 10:9-10.
Our hearts are the center of life.

 

[John 8:32]

1 John 1:7
"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
we have fellowship one with another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

However, the OSAS proponent says he is immune to sin
by declaring that he is free from the Law of sin and death.
He is saying he has no sin problem because Jesus took care of it all on the cross.

But the very next verse says:
if you say you have no sin, you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you ...

1 John 1:8
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

We are in complete agreement here.

 

[Danus]

I still want to try to make you further understand the point of view of the "I don't truly know who is and who isn't" people. Let's say, I somehow rounded up 100,000,000 people who claimed that they are "saved Christians". I say, it's extremely possible that when all is said and done, at least one of these people will have proven to have either lost their salvation, or they were never saved in the first place, whichever way you like to put it. So, in conclusion, my questioning of a person's salvation, even if I only give their possible loss of salvation a .0001% chance, is valid. Can you agree?

Sorry, I was not avoiding you. Just got busy.

Can't really agree with this, although I understand what your saying. As you can see there are various views about salvation, how we are saved, how salvation is maintained and such. Often each view claims to be the view.

Could a person say they are saved and not really be so? I suppose someone could say anything they want, but that leads to many questions. The biggest being what does anyone mean when they say they are saved? Of course we can define salvation biblicaly, but then again, as you can see, even that is not an agreed definition.

One thing most Christians will agree on, is that salvation is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I do not venture beyond that in defining salvation. Some have a need to add to that in some way. I do not.

If you'll notice the OP's question is "will all born again Christians make it to heaven?" ??? It's a bad question because the op does not define born again and assumes a false position of the term "born again". Exactly what that false assumption is? We don't know. Maybe you know? What he, and others want to say is that the born again are just a bunch of people saying they are saved or something. Again I can't say, but you'll find more threads of this nature started in the A&T section than any other. Sometimes I think they start them to save the born again ;)....you know, set those confident Christians, the ones who claim to have faith in Christ, set them straight I guess. I honestly don't know.

I spend more time defending my faith with others claiming to be followers of Christ then I do with people who do not know Christ. What a waste of apologetics that is. What a waste of the gospel trying to spread it to people who know more of it then I do, and who know more about my salvation then I do. At first glance it seems like the OP has a question, something he does not know or needs help with, but actually it's just a stupid trap designed to say stuff and take the unsuspecting down a rabbit hole.

The Christian life is best spent actually reflecting Christ to those who really need it. Anyone concerned more about their own salvation more than of the person of Christ, or those who don't or refuse Christ anyway, should be left to their own freewill.

Can you give some Biblical evidence of two groups of Christians, one "saved" and the other "unsaved"?

EVERYONE who is baptized is born from above, freed from sin, etc... There are not two classes of believers. It seems you believe that there is a special class of Christians who are 'saved', while the rest are not saved yet. I would like you to detail your thoughts on this, please.

Regards

[MENTION=94584]chessman[/MENTION], Thank you for your kind and affirming words. My own stubborn self will drove my into this, but I was corrected by the Spirit of God in prayer. Your response affirms that for me.


[MENTION=3354]francisdesales[/MENTION], Sure.

There may in fact be five types of believers. One thing for sure, there are verities of maturity in the Christian faith that I think would be difficult for some to see depending on their own maturity in Christ, but here are some examples I'd site for you. You can make of theses what you will depending on the answer you may already have in mind of your question, but since your asking me, I owe you an answer and examples, so here it is.

Believer 1 "The weak in faith"

Romans 14:1-2 (NIV) "The Weak and the Strong" - 14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

1 Corinthians 8:7 (NIV), 7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.

Believer 2 "The strong in faith"
Romans 15:1 (NIV)15 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves.

Romans 14:22 (NIV) 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.

Romans 14:14 (NIV) 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

1 Corinthians 8:9-12 (NIV) 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Believer 3. "The legalistic Believer" - He lacks in biblical understanding of the believer's freedom in Christ and his deliverance from the works of the law, or from human works as a means of salvation or spirituality. I don't have specific verses for this one, but consider the Pharisee.

Believer 4. "The Stumbling Believer" - This one is difficult to truly define, but it's one who is weaker than the weak believer. This believer is known to God, but not to man. This is one who we might say could turn away, fall back, or worse, be turned away by the church in some cases. For this reason the stronger are advised; Romans 14:13 (NIV) 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

Believer 5. "The Servant Believer" - This one I put last, because this believer put's himself last. This believer will forgo his liberty for the sake of others if he thinks he might be a stumbling block for his brother. The servant believer does not say things for his own glory, or to show others how smart and strong he is in Christ. There are many verses that speak of this believer, but in light of the other believers I've mentioned, I think this is an important verse. Romans 14:15-21 (NIV) 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

On the question if all these believers are saved, and I would say yes. They are all saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, be that faith small, big, weak, or strong, faith in Christ is faith in Christ. Another concept or idea being kicked around in this, and many other threads, is the question of the security, or guarantee of salvation. ie...will all these believers remain in a state of grace? My answer is yes, because I believe that faith is a gift of the Holly spirit to anyone whom the Father gives to the Son, and that they are held firm by the Son as a new work that can do nothing but grow in His name.

Others will say no, or we can't know, or still others will say that none of these believers are in fact saved until they reach home base, where (Metaphorically) the umpire of the universe declares them safe, or out, depending on how they ran the bases and whether or not they where tagged out by the demon ball of sin. However, that's my best explanation of how others understand salvation in their way, and I used the baseball metaphor to be brief on that idea more than sarcastic.

Regardless, the Christian life is best reflected in Jesus Christ and I think the servant believer is the best example. God keeps reminding me of this, and I thank Him for it. It is my hope that I might also reflect the same in my responses, although I know I don't always do, and that in doing so others might be compelled in the same way.

When we ponder salvation, I think our motives for doing it are self motivated, even when we might say we are just concerned about others. If you think about it, God is far more concerned about others than we could ever possibly be. So, rather than absorb ourselves with the worrisome question of our own salvation, or how that stacks up to others, we would do better to let our own faith be built up by basking in the glory of the one who offers salvation it in the first place. In this way, one surly takes care of the other. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (NIV) 14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

If Christ is in our hearts we feel it. He occupies us in ways that show in how we speak, what we do, what we think and feel. It is a joyous, virtually otherworldly reflection because it is not of us, and we know this clearly, but never the less leading us. Surly Christ is not where He is not welcome, but even where he is welcome the door may be shut, but His presents opens it time and time again because He is welcomed.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Well Danus, I don't see how we can add to that.

Amen!

 

[francisdesales]

Thank you so much for the respectful way you dialog with me in this post. It is helpful to me in understanding your position/thoughts on 2 Peter 2. I know this takes up your valuable time/effort and I truly appreciate it.

I will do the best I can to respond to you, but I also respond to others and I have a life, so I cannot do the detailed responses that some would like or prefer.

Yes, I agree. But, to me, it's a little disrespectful to not answer someone that has asked an honest question. I noticed that you put a question in red and I’ll get to it in a moment.

I did not answer that question because it didn't have much to do with the topic at hand. If you think it has an application, ask again. I don't remember the question right now.

You even put some questions with multiple questions marks behind them, as an answer to my question. I don’t see how your questions there answer my question nor do I see how they are helpful to the OP. But out of respect, I’ll answer them anyway.

Sometimes I answer questions with other questions that cause a person to answer their own question. Thus, my question on prayer to you, or the question asking about whether there is another way to be free from sin. The question is asked because it has rhetorical effect. The answer is "no", of course, and thus, your argument is stopped. A person MUST have been saved by Christ to have been freed from sin.

[/INDENT][/INDENT]We repent becuase we should be repentant. We owe it to our Creator, in a sense, for our sinful behavior and because of Christ.
We humans do the repenting. No one esle, makes any sense.
We humans are doing the believing. But neither my repentance or my believing are very perfect. Only Crhist has perfection in Him. I don't see even hypothetically how I could ever have any perfect repentance or believing based on me alone. I fail miserably at repentance and belief, at times.

Well, now you are confusing me, as you first responded that it is all God responsible for salvation - so I asked you about repentance. Since salvation is conditional - a person must believe and repent - I asked who was doing the believing and repenting.

There is no requirement in Scriptures that I am aware of that requires "perfect repentance". One must only be sincere and repent from the heart, and God has promised that He would respond. Of course, this lays out the "drama" of salvation, in that the Lover and the beloved have a part to play.

I see your point. But in this text, I don’t see X as actually having occurred (as you seem to by using it to prove someone can/has lost their salvation) but rather specifically and clearly Peter is saying X is hypothetical therefore Y has to be hypothetical as well. You seem to agree with:

What part of "x" don't you see happening when Peter, for 19 verses, talks about false teachers who had sinned, and then brings up verse 20-21, connecting the false preachers to what follows? Clearly, Peter is not just making illusionary comments. He is GOING somewhere with chapter 2. He lays out the sins of false preachers. How they effect the CHRISTIAN community. How they are false. You think he is inventing the whole thing?

Now, note carefully. These preachers HAD TO HAVE BEEN accepted by the community at one point. They were part of the community, otherwise, who were they to teach anything to Christians? To be a teacher, one must be ACCEPTED by the community, and surely, Christians were not going to listen to some pagan's comments about Jesus Christ. Peter's comments on false teachers cannot be disconnected with his summary comments in 20-21. It makes no sense. Chapter 2 is not a hypothetical series of comments!!!

I feel pretty certain that you are begging the question here. You are basing your "hypotheticals" on your already preconceived notion that OSAS must be true. Thus, through that lense, you will discount any Scriptures that appear to make OSAS false. The simple reading is that something DID happen. Peter is not wasting words on "when if there were false teachers"...

Yet you’re not flowing this fact into verse 21. I suppose that’s where we just disagree in exegesis principles. For example, you say:

I’d say “If you, once being freed from sin, return to a life of sin, your condition would be worse than it would have been before. Which reads truer to the text, in my opinion and the NASB’s,etc. “It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness…”[/FONT]

Does Peter ever say that this is hypothetical and CANNOT happen? No, he doesn't. He says "if a person returns to a life of sin, then...".

CLEARLY, the people mentioned in 1-19 ARE sinning.

If Christianity has taught such a thing from the beginning, why is there a necessity of placing such a hypothetical in Scriptures? Peter is simply saying "WHEN THIS HAPPENS", "THIS IS THE RESULT". Nowhere does Peter state this as an impossibility. He clearly has an example in mind! It would silly to talk about Christian preachers who had fallen away (because of the actions described in 1-19) and THEN say, "well, this can't happen".

Again, I see this as begging the question, not interpreting what the Scriptures actually say.

“20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” KJV[/quote]

How does a person become a teacher within the Christian community without becoming a Christian? Who would listen to such a person, considering Christianity had been around for at least 30 years when this was written? Does your community invite secular speakers to preach the Word of God to you? That seems mighty strange that you think this person had NOT been freed from sin.

The flow of the Scriptures is that the "if" was met, since the condition he relates is clearly met in 1-19. It would be senseless to make such a long-winded series of comments about false Christian teachers and then say "if they were saved" (hypothetically) and then return to the reality, that they were sinners.

The fact that Peter sees them as sinners makes the ENTIRE statement realistic and true.

You ask

Are you familar with a means of "turning" from sin without being saved?

No, not in the true sense of “turning” i.e. from God’s perfect knowledge of everyone’s heart. I’m familiar with means that seems to indicate to us mere mortals that someone has indications of true turning, but they are actually not really, truly, in their heart of hearts, “turning” and repenting as you rightly point out is a part of salvation. I know two examples from Scripture of a false “turning”. The false prophets in 2 Peter 2 and Judas. I know another, me.

My question was whether you know of any other way man is saved from sin.

Regards