This can't be good!

[RickD]

My apologies, I wasn't specific enough.

I was calling you a wolf in sheep's clothing, for preaching a false gospel of works and obedience based Salvation, which is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sorry for the confusion.

LOL ok, yet you ignore the many passages that prove it's not a false gospel and choose to focus on one passage which I did address but you just seem to ignore it. Take this one then:

2 Peter 2:18-22 King James Version (KJV)
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Peter says that it would be better for people not to have known the gospel, than to have known it and then turned away. But you'll ignore it as usual.

Stu,

I didn't ignore anything. I posted a link to where jac addressed the verses in Hebrews that you asked about. And regarding the verses in 2 Peter, you do realize that the context has to do with false teachers? It's not good hermeneutics, to rip verses out of their context, just to apply them to every believer.

So, now that I've addressed 2 passages that you brought up, are you going to address my challenge to you regarding John 3:16?

[RickD]

Those are two good pieces of legislation. I might have to think about considering the possibility of maybe revising my opinion of Ted Cruz. Also, the beard makes him look a lot less like a newbie shapeshifter that can't quite do human faces.

I would agree with that legislation.
Birth control should be over the counter.
That said, I do understand WHY it isn't since doctors REALLY want to monitor when women play around with their natural cycles.

I think that women should ALWAYS consul their GP when they are on the pill.

Birth control is cheap, and accessible at any Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, grocery store, convenience store, etc.

Don't you realize how cheap a box of condoms is?

97%

?

[Stu]

My apologies, I wasn't specific enough.

I was calling you a wolf in sheep's clothing, for preaching a false gospel of works and obedience based Salvation, which is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sorry for the confusion.

LOL ok, yet you ignore the many passages that prove it's not a false gospel and choose to focus on one passage which I did address but you just seem to ignore it. Take this one then:

2 Peter 2:18-22 King James Version (KJV)
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Peter says that it would be better for people not to have known the gospel, than to have known it and then turned away. But you'll ignore it as usual.

Stu,

I didn't ignore anything. I posted a link to where jac addressed the verses in Hebrews that you asked about. And regarding the verses in 2 Peter, you do realize that the context has to do with false teachers? It's not good hermeneutics, to rip verses out of their context, just to apply them to every believer.

So, now that I've addressed 2 passages that you brought up, are you going to address my challenge to you regarding John 3:16?

Whether it is directed at false teachers or not, it makes no difference. He is addressing people that ONCE KNEW THE TRUTH AND FOLLOWED JESUS! - BUT THEN TURN AWAY. The consequences would apply to the average person as well!

So:

16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Yes, and I agree with the statement. However it is a broad statement - it doesn't go into DETAIL. What you are attempting to do is limit the Bible to a single verse on the topic of salvation..... The other passages that I quote EXPAND upon that verse.

[Philip]

Stu:

2 Peter 2:18-22 King James Version (KJV)
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Jesus spoke the truth to the crowds - GOD in the flesh was speaking to them what they needed to hear - but many refused to accept and believe Him. "Knowledge of" Jesus, of His truths, can still be rejected. The above is no different. Again, you fail to show a passage clearly revealing a committed, saved person with faith in Christ losing their salvation. Just because some where WITH them, doesn't mean they were ever true believers who had faith in Christ. Worse, you see NO person being saved again - as Stu asserts is necessary. I saw many as a young kid always in church, but as they got close to college age - they fell away. Same deal!

Stu, instead of obsessing over politics, the world is going down the tubes, believers are supposedly able to lose their salvation, etc. - you need to ask instead what your fruitful role is. We all clearly see the crumbling world around us. But how do you KNOW a person who sins was never saved??? Can YOU see in their heart and mind? Have you been telling anyone, "Hey, man, you have abandoned Jesus and need re-saving." So, while you CAN point out sinful behavior, encourage them to repent of sin, obey God, you haven't the foggiest as to whatever believer is supposedly no longer saved. In fact, per your criteria, you have no idea that ANYONE has truly been saved. I mean, all believers still sin, right? The disciple Peter was told by Jesus, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" - meaning, He would give Pete the GOSPEL, which is the knowledge they will be able to utilize to understand the "Key" (faith in Christ) to eternal life. And yet, this was before Peter would deny Jesus three times. And we never see some supposed re-saving of Peter. I mean, he's denied the Lord publicly on three occasions - wouldn't you think there would be some representative passage where the other disciples or Jesus came to Peter, as to bring "back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death." Not even a hint of such, and after sins of denial that many might have precluded Peter wasn't a true follower of Jesus.

So, a saved person might even, in anger or duress, deny Jesus, but still be saved. OR, a person denying Christ may well have NEVER been saved. So how are we to know the difference? The truth is, we can only analyze and guess.

Here's the thing - whether Stu or anyone thinks someone has lost their salvation, or they are merely a Christian caught up in great sin, OUR response should be the same - to encourage them in or to Christ and Godly behavior. What our responsibility is NOT, is to be some supposed mind reader to discern if person has supposedly lost their salvation. This is a worthless obsession, Stu, over very bad theological thinking. You can't produce one single person that supposedly lost their salvation (in Scripture) that was encouraged to be re-saved. In all of Scripture, THEIR IS NO RE-SAVING OF ANYONE!!! Nor are we instructed that some require re-saving. That's a big problem for people who claim this - and that is on top of much other Scripture refuting this belief: https://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/ ... iever.html BTW, Stu, I'd encourage you to prayerfully go through the Scripture in the link.

Christians love to get sucked into basically irrelevant controversies, and they waste a lot of time in arguing over obscure disagreements with other believers: Length of Genesis days, Old Earth vs. Young Earth; Calvinism vs. Arminianism, women as pastors, etc. And the Apostle Paul warned us not to do this!

[Stu]

Stu:

2 Peter 2:18-22 King James Version (KJV)
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Jesus spoke the truth to the crowds - GOD in the flesh was speaking to them what they needed to hear - but many refused to accept and believe Him. "Knowledge of" Jesus, of His truths, can still be rejected. The above is no different. Again, you fail to show a passage clearly revealing a committed, saved person with faith in Christ losing their salvation. Just because some where WITH them, doesn't mean they were ever true believers who had faith in Christ. Worse, you see NO person being saved again - as Stu asserts is necessary. I saw many as a young kid always in church, but as they got close to college age - they fell away. Same deal!

Stu, instead of obsessing over politics, the world is going down the tubes, believers are supposedly able to lose their salvation, etc. - you need to ask instead what your fruitful role is. We all clearly see the crumbling world around us. But how do you KNOW a person who sins was never saved??? Can YOU see in their heart and mind? Have you been telling anyone, "Hey, man, you have abandoned Jesus and need re-saving." So, while you CAN point out sinful behavior, encourage them to repent of sin, obey God, you haven't the foggiest as to whatever believer is supposedly no longer saved. In fact, per your criteria, you have no idea that ANYONE has truly been saved. I mean, all believers still sin, right? The disciple Peter was told by Jesus, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" - meaning, He would give Pete the GOSPEL, which is the knowledge they will be able to utilize to understand the "Key" (faith in Christ) to eternal life. And yet, this was before Peter would deny Jesus three times. And we never see some supposed re-saving of Peter. I mean, he's denied the Lord publicly on three occasions - wouldn't you think there would be some representative passage where the other disciples or Jesus came to Peter, as to bring "back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death." Not even a hint of such, and after sins of denial that many might have precluded Peter wasn't a true follower of Jesus.

So, a saved person might even, in anger or duress, deny Jesus, but still be saved. OR, a person denying Christ may well have NEVER been saved. So how are we to know the difference? The truth is, we can only analyze and guess.

Here's the thing - whether Stu or anyone thinks someone has lost their salvation, or they are merely a Christian caught up in great sin, OUR response should be the same - to encourage them in or to Christ and Godly behavior. What our responsibility is NOT, is to be some supposed mind reader to discern if person has supposedly lost their salvation. This is a worthless obsession, Stu, over very bad theological thinking. You can't produce one single person that supposedly lost their salvation (in Scripture) that was encouraged to be re-saved. In all of Scripture, THEIR IS NO RE-SAVING OF ANYONE!!! Nor are we instructed that some require re-saving. That's a big problem for people who claim this - and that is on top of much other Scripture refuting this belief: https://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/ ... iever.html BTW, Stu, I'd encourage you to prayerfully go through the Scripture in the link.

Christians love to get sucked into basically irrelevant controversies, and they waste a lot of time in arguing over obscure disagreements with other believers: Length of Genesis days, Old Earth vs. Young Earth; Calvinism vs. Arminianism, women as pastors, etc. And the Apostle Paul warned us not to do this!

I think these two verses speak for themselves:

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

"Escaped" means that they had turned from their original ways. In other words they accepted what Jesus had said and lived that life. But then having done that they turned away from the truth. Peter then says it is better that they had NOT turned away from their sinful ways to begin with! It speaks for itself.

How can this not be an important issue, many (including me) claim that it is a salvation issue. What is more important than that?

You guys quite conveniently ignored all the scriptures I quoted so either you aren't that interested in debating the topic fully or just pick and choose which passages to address, like this one:

James 5:19-20 King James Version (KJV)
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Here we see James saying that if one err's from the truth and someone brings him back and converts him back to the faith that "his very soul will be saved from death"!

Surely you can see what is being said here.

And I would appreciate your views on all the passages I quoted on post 38: viewtopic.php?f=22&p=244997#p244997

[Philip]

Stu, erring from the truth does not = a saved person now unsaved. Notice there is no concept of being RE-converted, but with an exhortation to convert. Wandering from the truth is the same as not embracing it.

Again - how is your belief even practical? How would you ever know someone who is saved is now unsaved?

Where in Scripture have you seen that a person, specifically described as saved, as later being RE-saved? Or even needing such?

And give the terrible sin of Peter - surely you aren't insisting he was unsaved due to his denial of Christ? And if denial of Christ isn't enough certainty one needed re-saving - least according to your logic - what WOULD be?

[Stu]

Stu, erring from the truth does not = a saved person now unsaved. Notice there is no concept of being RE-converted, but with an exhortation to convert. Wandering from the truth is the same as not embracing it.

Again - how is your belief even practical? How would you ever know someone who is saved is now unsaved?

Where in Scripture have you seen a person, specifically described as saved, as being RE-saved? Or even needing such?

And give the terrible sin of Peter - surely you aren't insisting he was unsaved due to his denial of Christ? And if denial of Christ isn't enough certainty, what WOULD be?

Dude, seriously. READ THE PARTS I UNDERLINED ABOVE....

James 5:19-20 King James Version (KJV)
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way SHALL SAVE A SOUL FROM DEATH, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

What do you think that means?

You keep on ignoring THE SCRIPTURES and instead ask me questions on practicality. Stop it. READ THE BIBLE verses and understand what it says. You also keep on asking me when has a person has lost their salvation or need to be re-saved, well the verse above says JUST THAT!!!!!

I'm not trying to be nasty but you keep on ignoring the scripture I quote in favour of your opinion, and your version of the gospel. The Bible quite clearly says what it says - COMMENT ON THAT.

[Philip]

Stu: Dude, seriously. READ THE PARTS I UNDERLINED ABOVE....

James 5:19-20 King James Version (KJV)
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way SHALL SAVE A SOUL FROM DEATH, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Yes - ALL sinners converted from unbelief are saved from death. But this does NOT prove your point - it does not indicate that this is speaking of a person who was once saved, that now supposedly isn't! You've merely read that missing specific into the text per your belief. It says not one thing about RE-converting or converting AGAIN. Stu, your obsession is over something you say we are to do for those once saved / now unsaved, and yet you haven't a clue how to determine this with anyone, nor any proof that it's necessary, or that people need saving more than once!

[RickD]

Stu: Dude, seriously. READ THE PARTS I UNDERLINED ABOVE....

James 5:19-20 King James Version (KJV)
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way SHALL SAVE A SOUL FROM DEATH, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Yes - ALL sinners converted from unbelief are saved from death. But this does NOT prove your point - it does not indicate that this is a person who was once saved! You've merely read that missing specific into the text per your belief. It says not one thing about RE-converting or converting AGAIN. Stu, your obsession is over something you say we are to do for those once saved / now unsaved, and yet you haven't a clue how to determine this with anyone, nor any proof that it's necessary, or that people need saving more than once!

Where's the proof that this passage is even talking about Salvation?

Salvation isn't even mentioned. Why would someone assume it's talking about salvation?

[Fliegender]

Don't you realize how cheap a box of condoms is?

Condoms have been known to break. I suspect that the best birth control is his personality.

[RickD]

Don't you realize how cheap a box of condoms is?

Condoms have been known to break. I suspect that the best birth control is his personality.

[Philip]

As for this supposed losing one's salvation bit from Stu, seems he'll never agree. But where I think we can agree is that one whom is not in fellowship with Christ needs to be. But from a practical standpoint, for Christians, how could we know whether a person who we might have thought were saved isn't any longer? And how could we ever distinguish such a thing from a person who simply was never saved to begin with? And no matter the reality with a give person - whether once saved / presently not save or whether just never saved - wouldn't our responsibility to encourage them to faith be exactly the same? Point being, it's a dumb rabbit trail that only matters to me, because some Christians fall in to sin or go through rough periods, and then they lose their confidence in their salvation - sometimes repeatedly: "Well, I'm not doing so well this past year - maybe I'm no longer saved." And that will be followed with fear, anxiety, guilt, etc., etc. All because they have bought into the idea that they can lose their salvation, and think they may have. And so people foolishly buy into this false doctrine of losing salvation - AS IF they seem to think THEY are the ones that have been overseeing the maintenance of their salvation - as opposed to Jesus who doesn't make mistakes when He saves a person! As HE is "the founder and perfecter of our faith" - not US!

[Stu]

As for this supposed losing one's salvation bit from Stu, seems he'll never agree. But where I think we can agree is that one whom is not in fellowship with Christ needs to be. But from a practical standpoint, for Christians, how could we know whether a person who we might have thought were saved isn't any longer? And how could we ever distinguish such a thing from a person who simply was never saved to begin with? And no matter the reality with a give person - whether once saved / presently not save or whether just never saved - wouldn't our responsibility to encourage them to faith be exactly the same? Point being, it's a dumb rabbit trail that only matters to me, because some Christians fall in to sin or go through rough periods, and then they lose their confidence in their salvation - sometimes repeatedly: "Well, I'm not doing so well this past year - maybe I'm no longer saved." And that will be followed with fear, anxiety, guilt, etc., etc. All because they have bought into the idea that they can lose their salvation, and think they may have. And so people foolishly buy into this false doctrine of losing salvation - AS IF they seem to think THEY are the ones that have been overseeing the maintenance of their salvation - as opposed to Jesus who doesn't make mistakes when He saves a person! As HE is "the founder and perfecter of our faith" - not US!

It's not only from me, there are many others that share the same view as mine. You make it sound as if it is only a small group. It's not.

- What about the fact that God says he will spew you out of His mouth if you are lukewarm?

- What you are essentially saying is that God would force salvation on a person. What happened to free-will? God gives us the choice, yet you are saying that, no, once we become a Christian we no longer have free-will, that we are locked in to Christianity even if we choose to walk away from God and become, for instance, a Muslim.

- And what of 1 Timothy 4:1?

1 Timothy 4:1 King James Version (KJV)
4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

To depart from something you have to have been IN something. So if some will depart from the faith, instead following seducing spirits and doctrines of devils how can OSAS be true?

[Philip]

Stu: What about the fact that God says he will spew you out of His mouth if you are lukewarm?

Stu, you cherrypick verses and either read into them or out of context. So, let's look at the "lukewarm" passage, to see what it's really about.

15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

First place, works do not save - but they ARE often an indication of a person's spiritual condition.

"17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked."

OK, so now verse 17 reveals an unbeliever it is addressing: This is directed at a church whose members are not saved, as they are merely playing a meaningless game of religion! They think they are wealthy and sufficient of their own doing and need nothing - not God or anything, due to their conceit and trust in their wealth and materialism. And God asserts them to be in a wretched state AND in total denial about it - meaning it is a church filled with unbelievers who need to turn to Christ instead.

And then God counsels these church members to "buy from me gold refined by fire" - in other words, to embrace the Lord in faith - to enable a way out of their wretched spiritual state - as they were never saved:

"18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see."

God wants these unsaved religious game players to truly commit themselves to Him - or else they'll suffer the consequences. But He still, nonetheless, loves them. And awaits their response to Him - because at this point, they are unsaved and uncovered by Christ's righteousness:

19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. 21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

Stu: What you are essentially saying is that God would force salvation on a person. What happened to free-will? God gives us the choice, yet you are saying that, no, once we become a Christian we no longer have free-will, that we are locked in to Christianity even if we choose to walk away from God and become, for instance, a Muslim.

Stu, ALL who come to Christ do so freely. But not of their own power! John 6:44 tells us that NO one can answer God's prompting without His help: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." So, God must prompt us FIRST! Would you suggest that God's drawing FORCED you to embrace Him? There IS an action of desire, IN RESPONSE, To obey God's prompting that WE must do - and freely. Similarly, we could not maintain our own salvation just of our own free will. God's prompting is irresistible to the WILLING heart. And God will help us remain steadfast in that - which is why the Apostle Paul had confidence that Christ would protect our status in Him by bringing those saved all the way to "The Day of the Lord." And without God's help in that, EVERYONE would fall away. Stu, you don't think you are maintaining your own salvation do you? If so, you should be VERY fearful!

Stu: And what of 1 Timothy 4:1?

1 Timothy 4:1 King James Version (KJV)
4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

To depart from something you have to have been IN something. So if some will depart from the faith, instead following seducing spirits and doctrines of devils how can OSAS be true?

This passage is about not getting deceived by false teaching inspired by demons. "Depart from the faith" refers not to abandoning one's faith, but to the dangers involved in abandoning the truth and true teachings of the Apostles / Christ, found in Scripture - the essentials of the faith. If you'll spend some time reading various commentaries, you'll see this to be the prevailing view. In fact, verse 7 punctuates the contrast: "7 Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths." As does verse 16: "16 Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers." Stu, it's all about not abandoning Scriptural teachings as opposed to false belief and doctrine - that is the abandonment being talked about.

[Stu]

Philip, I'm going to have to disagree with much of what you said I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one...
I'll leave you with this video on false grace with Dr Michael Brown with questions by Sid Roth. Watch it as time permits.