Evidence for God from Science

I am of course making a judgment call in that you are flying in the face of Paul's teaching about what brings our salvation; this is rather inescapable.

Then in Christian spirit, I suppose I would find myself in your prayers, bro.

I'm done with my thread of posts, at least for now, unless in the future I feel led by the Spirit absolutely necessary to respond. In my closing I will leave with just a few comments and two scriptures.

"God forbid me from nitpicking less you can reveal truth to them through your own nitpicking; in which I say if you can use a donkey you can do anything you want to"-zacchaeus

In either case/position you hold on what scripture says about salvation, we must all agree that at our present state determines even unto ourselves our spiritual status; be it saved or not saved. If you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, His Father, and The Holy Spirit, then what does it matter? If you just became saved, lost it and obtained it again, never had it and now do, all becomes irrelevant based on your present spiritual status; not the past and not the future, but right now, if Jesus came back where would you go based on your relationship with Him!!!

(Rom 14:5) one of my favorite scriptures when pertaining to different "opinions".
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

...this is the advice the apostle gives to both parties; his sense is, that he would have each of them fully enjoy their own principle and practice undisturbed; he would have the weak brother, that esteemed one day above another, indulged in his way, since it arose from weakness, until he had better light, nor should he be despised for his weakness; he would have the stronger Christian also peaceably enjoy his sentiment, and pursue what he believed to be right; nor should he be judged, censured, and condemned, as a profane person, and a transgressor of the law: his counsel is, that they would sit down and carefully examine the word of God, and act according to the best light they should receive from thence; and take care especially, that they did not act contrary to their own consciences, with doubt and hesitation; they ought to be thoroughly satisfied in their own minds, and being so, should content themselves with their different sentiments and practices, without despising or censuring one another. --(Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)

(2 Tim 2:23-26) another favorite, about not quarreling and causing strife. In fact all of chpt. 2 is great, but so is all of 2 Tim.
strife; about words, contentions, opinions, disputes, etc. break peace of the Body, and hinder the profit of souls, and the progress of the Gospel.

be gentle unto all men; not only to troubled minds, and wounded consciences, by supplying them with the precious promises and truths of the Gospel; and to backsliders, by restoring them in a spirit of meekness; but even to those who contradict the truth, and themselves, by mild and kind instructions.
Apt to teach, showing a willingness to instruct the ignorant and obstinate, and making use of abilities given for that purpose, notwithstanding all discouragements; for it follows,
patient, or "bearing evil"; not only the infirmities of weak brethren in the church, and the reproaches and persecutions of profane men in the world; but also the contradictions and oppositions of the adversaries of truth, so as not to be irritated and provoked, or to be discouraged, and desist from the defence of the Gospel.

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves,.... To the truth; resist it and deny it; or contradict some other tenets and principles of theirs, or the Scriptures, which they themselves allowed to be the word of God, and the rule of faith and practice, and so are self-convinced and self-condemned. These are to be instructed, being ignorant, and in a tender and gentle manner, though very perverse and obstinate.

If God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth: repentance here designs a repentance of errors in principle, a change of mind upon conviction, and such as issues in a free and ingenuous confession, and acknowledgment of the truth before opposed; and such a repentance is the gift of God: it is he that opens the eyes of the understanding, and works conviction in the mind, and leads into all truth, as it is in Jesus; and induces men to repent of their errors, confess their mistakes, and own the truth; even as repentance of evil practices is not owing to the power of men, nor to the bare influence of means, but to the efficacious grace of God, it being a grant from him. And though this is not certain, that God will give repentance to such contradictors and blasphemers of his Gospel; yet as it is his will, that all his chosen ones should come to repentance, and that some of all sorts should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth; and seeing these things have been brought about under and by the ministry of the word, it is an encouragement to the ministers of the Gospel to continue their instructions in the manner here directed. --(Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)

"The more we follow that which is good, the faster and the further we shall flee from that which is evil."

See how often the apostle cautions against disputes in religion; which surely shows that religion consists more in believing and practicing what God requires, than in subtle disputes. The same God who gives the discovery of the truth, by his grace brings us to acknowledge it, otherwise our hearts would continue to rebel against it. There is no peradventure, in respect of God's pardoning those who do repent; but we cannot tell that he will give repentance to those who oppose his will. Let them remember they never can escape, except by repentance, which is the gift of God!--(Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary)

Yall have a blessed day... and remember to study yourselves approved and work-out your own salvation!!! I cannot stress that enough, less your disobedient and refuse to work-out your salvation, cause according to scripture you would loose it. Read the scripture for that is the truth and cannot be disputed. "There are no two truths and truth itself cannot lie or else there would be no truth!!!"-zacchaeus

zacchaeus wrote:Just Read Scripture The Living WORD, if you do that, well then you can never fail!!! The Word speaks for itself. Again, its not up to me what I think or what you think, or even if you agree what I think. As long as we follow, obey, and are obedient to the word of GOD and don't go against it then we are okay....

And who has done this? I suppose you think that you have?

Yes we need to read the word. We need to read it 'rightly divided.' Instead of taking parables written to describe the Kingdom age for Israel and trying to apply them as means of salvation to the church, the body of Christ.

"Will NOT Inherit The Kingdom Of Heaven"!!!

So, this means salvation? A common error. That is equivocating Kingdom of Heaven as salvation.

But if I continue and without repentance, which literally means to turn away from and never do again

That is not what repentance means. That is a definition ascribed by man. The bible even says that God repented.
Plus it doesn't line up with, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” Luke 17:3-4
The only your position holds up is

Bottom line, though today's bible surfer in lazy in knowledge and ignorant, we must study our own selves approved "rightly dividing the word of TRUTH"!!! (2 Tim 2:15)

It is apparent that you do not know what the word 'divide' means.

neo-x wrote:I'm sorry but the Gospel is for the Jew and Gentile alike, you are separating it and that is why we cannot agree.

But that is exactly what the bible does. If the gospel is the same, then please explain why we have an apostle Paul? Why did Paul instruct Timothy to "divide?" Jesus had already called 12 and charged them with what to do. Yet, they don't do it. Why? Explain why Paul describes his own gospel, and that he was entrusted by Christ to deliver it? Why does he say it was a mystery 'hidden' from ALL the prophets? Does that sound like the same thing to you?

I'd like you to find one scripture where Jesus preaches faith in His death, burial, and resurrection as the Gospel of the Kingdom. SOM? Nope. Yet we are told over and over that the gospel of the 'KINGDOM" was preached by John and Jesus. It is very obvious by the disciples reaction that none of them knew this, or they would have been waiting outside the tomb. Of course Jesus is central in the Gospel to Israel, that being the restoration of the Kingdom. And of course our Gospel of grace which is to all who would believe.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I'm sorry if anyone thinks I'm aggressive in this, but I won't apologize for being passionate. I truly consider the idea that someone can walk away from God to be a doctrine from hell, and I think the whole concept is used far too often to justify behavior instead of adhere to Scripture.

Paul felt the same way.
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"
Gal 1:8

Strong's G3340- metanoeō (repent) Luke 17:3-4 μετανοέω
1) to change one's mind, i.e. to repent

2) to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins

"Repentance (metanoia, 'change of mind') involves a turning with contrition from sin to God; the repentant sinner is in the proper condition to accept the divine forgiveness." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 97.)

Dictionary:
1)to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent.

So now let me ask you:
Do you think one whom repents and shortly after commits the same sin he repented for, really actually had a change of mind or that he really was truly remorseful, or that he even changed his life??? Please note with the utmost respect that this question at its best is rhetorical on the highest level!!! If your earnest about your remorse and are truly and deeply sorry about sin, then you would turn away from it and never do it again; period!!! Did I say that is what people do and on a regular basis at that? NO!!! I didn't say that I just said what the word really means despite whether people know it or not, or do it or not. All the scripture you used says that "if", not that he will but contingent upon and conditional, just as salvation is, someone continues to do wrong that you are to forgive him. I wonder why we are to forgive him, maybe because (Matthew 6:15) . See how I just rightly divided the word, brother... Maybe you do divide the word rightly; just not on this one in which you erroneously "used" GODs word unjustly and bias to your point of view and limit of knowledge only to try and prove your point even if it was wrong. Now that is quite an offense, but according to the scripture in Luke and in Matthew I have no choice but to forgive you!!! Which I do forgive you... and please forgive the sarcasm, I'm really not trying to be a douche-bag, and this is the first time I used the smilies, just so happens to be on this post I've chose to mess around with them LOL!!!

Also note: The passage you used speaks to the very nature of our LOVING and forgiving FATHER, how He always forgives us, and not that He want; but its not that He wills that we don't mean it either and use it as a scapegoat, excuse, or license to sin just because we have the very "free" gift of REPENTANCE, "if" and when we choose!!!

neo-x wrote:

by Canuckster1127 on Mon May 02, 2011 9:23 am

It must be a great comfort to God to know when the time comes for Him to assume the Judgement seat that so many will have been there in advance, keeping it warm for Him .....

but then this would apply to all history, even the reformation (since it did judge the catholic doctrine to be in error)....

I did get your point however.

I'm glad somebody did.

I'm not against attempting to understand things

When I see a lack of humility and equaling one's own interpretation with the scripture itself then I'll dare to say something

How sarcastically it comes across seems to be product of how sure someone is that they have it and God all figured out

Do you think one whom repents and shortly after commits the same sin he repented for, really actually had a change of mind or that he really was truly remorseful, or that he even changed his life??? Please note with the utmost respect that this question at its best is rhetorical on the highest level!!! If your earnest about your remorse and are truly and deeply sorry about sin, then you would turn away from it and never do it again;

Speaking personally. I have sinned. Then felt deep contrition. And, sadly did it again. I've also experience victory over sin. I've delt with a number of addicts who have deeper contrition than you or I can imagine, yet are often overwhelmed by temptation to return to their vice. We should turn from our sin, and never do it again. Amen. You won't get any argument from me on that. But that really isn't the question. You are implying that this is what repentence constitutes. A good example? We'll you gave it. You said,

I'm done with my thread of posts, at least for now

I guess you repented.

I suppose then that you have turned away from all your sins, and you can say for sure that you will never do them again. If not, I guess we would be safe to say, that be your standard, you are hell bound.

See how I just rightly divided the word, brother... Maybe you do divide the word rightly; just not on this one in which you erroneously "used" GODs word unjustly and bias to your point of view and limit of knowledge only to try and prove your point even if it was wrong. Now that is quite

Sorry my friend. But you are not even applying the word 'divide' in the correct sense.
Bias to my point of view? I used it to show that your claim didn't hold up under the weight of how you are using the scripture.

OK, let's take Strong's definiation #2.

The bible says that God repented. The septuigent translates into metanoeō. Would you care to list God's sins? Of course not. We know that is foolish talk.
The verb “repent” occurs 19 times in the Septuagint and the noun once
(Prov. 14:15). Of these twenty occurrences of “repent” and “repentance,” thirteen pertain
to God repenting or not repenting (1 Sam. 15:29-twice, Jer. 4:28, 18:8, 18:10, Joel 2:13,
2:14, Amos 7:3, 7:6, Jonah 3:9, 3:10, 4:2, Zech 8:14). Are we to take that we today have a better definition of the word than those who actually spoke the language and were scholars of it?

Do you think one whom repents and shortly after commits the same sin he repented for, really actually had a change of mind or that he really was truly remorseful

First. It would be foolish of me to answer, becauwe I would have to conceed to using a definition of repent, that I think there is good evidence to reject.
I would say that there are sins I have forgotten that I never 'truly' felt remorse for. I would never be so bold to say that I was 'truly' remorseful for every wrong I've done. And I'm not sure how you gauge that. Is there a sorrow gauge?
I'd say that is true of anyone. However, repent has to be interpreted in the context of its usage. The root of the word doesn't mean to turn from one's sins. Specifically not as used in NT times. Otherwise, to associate God's mind with sin in any such form is blasphemy.
Obviously God did not sin. The danger is whenever the word is used, people adopt this 2ndary definition as primary. Example: "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." So, the one who holds your presuppositions might say something like this, "Have the right amount of contrition, turn from and forsake all your sins, then you can be baptized and saved." And, "If you sin again, you have to have the proper amount of contrition, foresake that sin again, and if not, you lose your salvation and go to Hell. And this my friend is "GOOD NEWS!!"

Obviously that is works based salvation. Repentence (in this usage, not mine) preceeds one's personal salvation. Some go further and place water baptism as a requirement as well. However, there is very sound scholorship to indicate that sin is not the focus or root meaning of the word.

Example: John the Baptits' and Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom Gospel says, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Simply, ready your mind, or renew your mind, for God is doing a new thing in the Earth. The 1st century Jew would immediately recognize this as Messianic claim.

This is the most detailed scholarship I have found on the word metaneo.
http://www.cocoris.com/Topical%20Pages/ ... %20PDF.pdf

I find it quite amusing that you chide people for casually strolling through the scriptures. Yet, I used to hold your exact same position. Particulary regarding the word repent. And it was through careful study that I was enlightened to the truth, and was able to escape this false doctrine.

If you would like to quote me please do so accurately!!! You so totally just nitpicked my own quote, again to try and prove your own point, even if its wrong. Did you just "casually stroll through" my response??? Here is what I said in ref to my thread, "I'm done with my thread of posts, at least for now, unless in the future I feel led by the Spirit absolutely necessary to respond." The Spirit has the authority more so then myself. The trinity is the ultimate Headship and if I'm doing what I'm led then I'm just being obedient, and if I don't, then of course I'd repent; but not for saying I'm done with my thread and then continuing under obedience. That's a preposterous reference that holds no bearing on the point your trying to make.

The scriptures used where God repents is a completely different one, yet you've concluded that they must mean the same, and therefore used contextually the same. "Would you care to list God's sins? Of course not. We know that is foolish talk." Exactly my point... He didn't sin so your right, at what point would He need to repent in the sense that you think the words mean the same? He wouldn't...
Strong's H5162 - nacham (repent) This word is used Where you say God repented, which means...

1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a) (Niphal)

1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b) (Piel) to comfort, console
c) (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d) (Hithpael)

1) to be sorry, have compassion
2) to rue, repent of
3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
4) to ease oneself

In essence its what the whole entire thing is about, God had compassion on man for their sin, not His for He didn't and does not sin... Especially when He is the ultimate moral-lawgiver, in which sin means literally to transgress against, and where there is no law there is no sin. God had compassion, so He didn't just kill us and wipe us out and start over. God had compassion to send His Son to die for "our" not His sins so that we may be saved. God didn't repent in the way you would like to think He did, He repented and had compassion.

We repent because of our sorrow of sin, we are to change our mind, sounds a lot like renewing our mind, not conforming but transforming, and becoming a new creature. Its quite impossible to become a new creature and then go back to the same very thing in whence you were delivered from and brought out of...

Remember when God rested on the seventh day, do you think He was really that tired??? Such a silly rhetorical question aint it? The word used and rendered rested doesn't mean He was physically tired, impossible spiritually, but that He simply "ceased" work... go figure, who would have thought.

I'm not sure who said this but someone in an earlier post said something to the extent of why would someone want to go back after haven tasted the glory of God, making the implication that after tasting its impossible to loose salvation. I don't know ask them its not for me to say other than the fact of flesh, but I know people personally who have. I mean why do we like certain foods that taste amazingly celestial, and years later grow out of a taste for the same food we use to love. I don't know, I'm not sure, does that negate the fact it happens, even if you can't prove why.

What about the unpardonable sin, blaspheme against the Holy Spirit? To whom do you think this warning in scripture is to? Its certainly not to the unbeliever who doesn't believe, who doesn't read the scripture and would never probably even come across it, nor does he know what sin is, or blaspheme, or who the Holy Spirit is to even blaspheme against if he knew all of the formal!!! Its a warning to the believer to be careful and cautious, lest he falls, falls from what? Not to mention that the one sin is unpardonable, and unforgiven, furthermore whats your response to God when He says He will turn us over to a reprobate mind and to the lust and desires of our own hearts if we continue in sin? I guess your gauge would be (1) if you committed that sin...

Anyways, its pointless to argue for it prospers nothing and winds up hindering others in the process. I touched on this a few posts ago. All I'm saying is read the scripture, period. You cannot argue, dispute, or go wrong with that. Again its not up to you to agree with me, just scripture, but whatever it is let each man be fully persuaded and convinced in his own mind that of which he alloweth. If you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe, then what could man ever tell you. I'm sorry we disagree but thats just it; it is what it is. I want apologize for my stance especially when I back it up with scripture. What we can be in agreement with is that we are both currently saved and going to heaven based on our present spiritual state. Other than that I wish you the best in your endeavors. Keep studying and prospering in the LORD as too I will as well. Its that simple. If I didn't address certain issues you thought I might have, its just I didn't see need in answering or that it even deserved an answer.

Strong's H5162 - nacham (repent) This word is used Where you say God repented, which means...

Surely you are familiar with the septuagint? It was likely the scriptures used by Paul and the early church. These Hebrew scholars translated the word, "nacham" from the Hebrew to 'Metaneo' in the Greek. Are you saying that you have a better understanding of the Hebrew and the Greek, than they?

I would strongly suggest you read the article I linked. You will find the scholarship exhaustive. It also covers the word Nacham, and deals with nearly every occurrence of the word repent in the NT and OT.

God didn't repent in the way you would like to think He did, He repented and had compassion.

-To the contrary, I think you greatly misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that if you are holding to the 2nd part of the strong's definition, or the dictionary definition of repent, then you are greatly misunderstanding.
And that is the crux my argument. That being that you are not rightly defining repent. It would appear to me that you are saying that repent means more than 'a change of mind.' Yes or no?

We repent because of our sorrow of sin, we are to change our mind, sounds a lot like renewing our mind, not conforming but transforming, and becoming a new creature. Its quite impossible to become a new creature and then go back to the same very thing in whence you were delivered from and brought out of...

I agree with that last sentence. It is impossible to be a new creature and then become unsaved. Amen! Although I doubt that is how you meant it to come across. The believer is delivered from the condemnation of sin. (Rom. 8:1) But, you are in fact the one who says they aren't. You are saying, as best as I can tell, that a believer can be genuinely delivered and then undelivered. That once saved, they must not sin anymore, and if they do, they have to feel sorrow,(the right amount and kind) forsake it, and never do it again. If they do do it again, then they didn't really repent in the first place. And thus they will die and go to Hell. Am I wrong?

I'm not sure who said this but someone in an earlier post said something to the extent of why would someone want to go back after haven tasted the glory of God, making the implication that after tasting its impossible to loose salvation.

A lot of people sin knowingly, and hate the fact that they've sinned. Whenever I sin, I feel that same way. I hope we all do.

What about the unpardonable sin, blaspheme against the Holy Spirit? To whom do you think this warning in scripture is to?

So enlighten us. What is the unpardonable sin?
I only know of one. That being refusing to accept the witness of the HS and believe that Jesus is the Son of God. No one can be saved without believing that. It is unpardonable. And many refused to believe, or change their minds about Jesus.

We repent because of our sorrow of sin,

Sure. (2 Cor. 7:10) And, again, context is everything? Godly sorrow will lead to a change of mind. But is it the exclusive thing that leads to genuine repentance in all cases?

The Spirit has the authority more so then myself. The trinity is the ultimate Headship and if I'm doing what I'm led then I'm just being obedient

Forgive me for questioning this. That is quite a position to argue from. You almost seem to be claiming that what you are saying is God breathed and equivalent to scripture. That you have no free will, and that your responses are only genuine guiding of the the HS.

The Truth

Simply stated, the righteousness that comes by faith [in Jesus Christ] happens at the point of repenting and having an obedient faith in Jesus, that is, at initial salvation. Such a righteous and holy standing before God can be lost, nullified and negated through after-conversion sinful activity, believing or preaching a false gospel and/or through disowning Jesus (persecution).

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. (Gal 6:7-9)

DAN CORNER
Evangelical Outreach
PO Box 265 Washington PA 15301
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org

The Never Saved Argument Scrutinized

Dan Corner

For a person to say that a professing Christian was never saved, if he turns away from God to sin, is fallacious in at least 7 different areas. If you are a Christian, carefully ponder the following so you can help others see the dangerous folly of such a declaration.

Reason 1

For one to say a professing Christian who turns away from God to sin was never saved is also to deny that we can know who is saved and who is not by their present tense behavior. Such is clearly unscriptural:

This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)

Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil. (1 John 3:7,8)

We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1 John 2:3,4)

The Bible is crystal clear that we can know them by their fruit (Mt. 7:16,17) and there is observable evidence of God’s saving grace:

News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. (Acts 11:22,23)

● To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is to deny that others were ever able to identify him as a non-Christian before that happened.

Reason 2

For one to say a professing Christian who turns away from God to sin was never saved is also to have an inconsistent message. If those same teachers were consistent they would have to say David, Solomon and Peter were never saved because they backslid. David turned to adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11); Solomon turned to idolatry (1 Kings 11:4-10) and Peter disowned Jesus three times (Mt. 26:33,34). Both David and Peter repented and returned to God but Solomon continued in wickedness. There is no evidence that Solomon ever returned to God.

● To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is to exclude prominent Biblical characters who were truly saved before terribly falling to that degree. On this basis alone, the never saved argument is destroyed.

Reason 3

To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is to imply that true Christians will not turn away to sin but continue to obey God. But that type of message is often opposed and scoffed at by the same teachers. In other words, those same teachers declare Christians constantly sin in thought, word and deed. They also wrongly use Romans 7:14-25 for support and to teach that Paul was like that and such is the normal Christian life! Imagine that! They teach like that then turn 180 degrees around and teach the same crowd if you turn away you were never saved—two completely opposite teachings, yet their audience seems oblivious to it.

● To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is also to teach that a true Christian will always obey God and never backslide, which is denied by their misuse of Rom. 7:14-25.

Reason 4

To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is to ignore at least 26 Scriptures in the NT which show people who previously were disciples and followers of Christ later fell away, turned away, went back, etc. and not once in those 2 dozen plus passages do we read because they went back that was evidence which proves they were never saved. Scripture shows it can be somewhat common for followers of Christ to turn to wickedness; get deceived into believing a false gospel; etc.

● To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is also to display ignorance of those 26 Scriptures (plus all the other relevant Scriptures) which teach the opposite. (See The Believer’s Conditional Security, p. 632 for a listing of those Scriptures.)

Reason 5

To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is also to teach you can never know if anyone is a Christian brother or sister, including the preacher himself who taught you this never really saved absurdity. Maybe he is just a false convert too.

Their doctrine would have us believe another’s salvation can’t be known as long as one remains alive, because as long as they remain alive they might apostatize and thereby prove they were never saved. If you can’t tell if another is a Christian then you can’t consider someone to be a spiritual leader or a possible spouse to marry, since both require true Christians.

● To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is also to teach that no Christian can ever know another to be a possible spiritual leader or spouse for marriage.

Reason 6

To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is only backed by two passages, which are both misused.

Matthew 7:23

The first is Mt. 7:23 where Jesus tells continuous tense evildoers that he never knew them.

Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?” Then I will tell them plainly, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (Mat 7:21-23)

The context shows the religious ones referred to there were never saved but were continuous tense evildoers. Those religious-but-continuous evildoers never had evidence of saving grace, that is, a freedom from sin addictions which occurs when one contacts the blood of Jesus at true conversion (Rom. 6:22; John 8:34-36; Rev. 1:5; etc.), but that doesn’t mean others who had a true conversion can’t shrink back, as the Bible shows has happened.

Furthermore, the never saved proponents focus in on the one and only passage which has the words never saved (or its equivalent), but conveniently overlook three passages which show others were also not known by the Lord Jesus, but not told they were never saved:

But he replied, “I tell you the truth, I don’t know you.” (Mat 25:12)

Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, “Sir, open the door for us.” But he will answer, “I don’t know you or where you come from.” (Luke 13:25)

But he will reply, “I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!” (Luke 13:27)

Jesus didn’t tell them, I never knew you, like in Mt. 7:23, but instead I don’t know you. That implies they were once known (saved), but later lost their salvation. This is especially clear with the 10 Virgins teaching (Mt. 25:1-13).

1 John 2:19

The second Scripture misused by the never saved OSAS crowd for support is 1 John 2:19, which refers to people who did not believe Jesus was the Christ, as shown in 1 John 2:22:

Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.

Their doctrine clearly excluded them from being a Christian. They too had no evidence of saving grace since they denied Jesus was the Christ.

● To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is also to rely chiefly upon two Scriptures, both of which are misused and misapplied. Hence, there is no solid Biblical support for it. The people referred to in each never had evidence of saving faith because they were either continuous tense evildoers or doctrinally denied Jesus was the Christ.

Reason 7

To say a professing Christian who turns away from God to wickedness was never saved is also cited as an argument to conceal the license for immorality that the once saved always saved doctrine declares itself to be. When their doctrine gets exposed as the security in sin gospel or they notice gross immorality among those they have been preaching to, they then tend to mention their contradicting, inconsistent, double message with no Scriptural support—the never saved absurd argument.

With some people, it has actually succeeded in confusing the issue enough to conceal the glaring wickedness and security-in-sin being taught through eternal security at other times.

● People who cite the never saved argument are either grossly ignorant of hundreds of Scriptures which counter the never saved doctrine or are intentionally hiding those related-but- contradictory-truths to preserve their own doctrine, which began with the devil himself in Gen. 3:4.

There are well over 100 relevant Scriptures which refute the never saved argument. They only have 2 verses, which are both misused and misapplied. Which will you believe?

One more point: Calvinist John MacArthur is one of the leading proponents (along with Ray Comfort) of this absurd unscriptural never saved (or false convert) argument. Yet MacArthur clearly teaches, at times, there are Christian adulterers, Christian drunks, Christian thieves, Christian liars, Christian murderers, etc.

Please consider getting our 801 page book refuting eternal security entitled, The Believer’s Conditional Security. There is MUCH in it that can help you better understand this salvation related subject. NO Eternal Security Book

The Believer’s Conditional Security is the most exhaustive and comprehensive refutation to eternal security ever written.

GOD BLESS YOU.

But that is exactly what the bible does. If the gospel is the same, then please explain why we have an apostle Paul? Why did Paul instruct Timothy to "divide?" Jesus had already called 12 and charged them with what to do. Yet, they don't do it. Why? Explain why Paul describes his own gospel, and that he was entrusted by Christ to deliver it? Why does he say it was a mystery 'hidden' from ALL the prophets? Does that sound like the same thing to you?

I'd like you to find one scripture where Jesus preaches faith in His death, burial, and resurrection as the Gospel of the Kingdom. SOM? Nope. Yet we are told over and over that the gospel of the 'KINGDOM" was preached by John and Jesus. It is very obvious by the disciples reaction that none of them knew this, or they would have been waiting outside the tomb. Of course Jesus is central in the Gospel to Israel, that being the restoration of the Kingdom. And of course our Gospel of grace which is to all who would believe.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:
I'm sorry if anyone thinks I'm aggressive in this, but I won't apologize for being passionate. I truly consider the idea that someone can walk away from God to be a doctrine from hell, and I think the whole concept is used far too often to justify behavior instead of adhere to Scripture.

Paul felt the same way.
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"
Gal 1:8

lol...I think you have decided very well in your mind to try and prove your point by whatever means possible (to the point of mentioning Gal 1:8) and so any answers would be irrelevant. By the way just making statements and Judging others doesn't make you right, by default. And I think now your stance actually is pure, strict, absolute Calvinism. Anyways, You failed to prove your argument, all you did was assert your POV, that is all. Your argument was never complete and you never answered the questions earlier presented that would prove otherwise. Thinking only you understand the scripture better than others and there is no way any other could make sense is quite childish if not foolish. For me this topic is finished as it is not fruitful anymore, as Bart said, it lacks humility now, it is just blaming and accusation of heresy, (doctrine from hell and he is to be accursed ) lol and things like that. I would like to save you more Judgement, so you do not have to reply to this, cuz either it will be a cover up or just more assertion to prove your pov, which in both cases, fail to inspire. I hold no offense, God bless you.

neo-x wrote:

Yes a believer can sin his way out of salvation.Some people God just didn't forgive, And some of those examples I even quoted in my previous posts including Annais and saphira, they were Christians and they were believers, they lied (which is not something exclusive to non-Christians ). Well, they lied to the Lord, don't Christians today do that? do you think the penalty should have been death? because by what you are saying clearly implies that they had salvation and they should have been pardoned, at best they could have been given a chance to repent. Doesn't their salvation has any bearing on the way they were punished? Why didn't salvation saved them?

the salvation didn't do any good to them. did it?

Can you please explain what happened? And please do not say that they never had true faith in the first place, you do not know that.

Acts 5:1-11 NIV

1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
------------------------------------------


What then killed Ananias and Sapphira? I'd say that they had no revelation of Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour and they had therefore no sense of forgiveness of sins or redemption, reconciliation, God's mercy and God's grace. Sorry if that disappoints you, but it is my take on it. It is likely that fear killed Ananias and Sapphira, a fear born of their sin and hightened by their ignorance of God. Jesus talks about men's hearts failing them from "fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth." Luke 21:26.

neo-x wrote:

I am of course making a judgment call in that you are flying in the face of Paul's teaching about what brings our salvation; this is rather inescapable.

Then in Christian spirit, I suppose I would find myself in your prayers, bro.

Of course, brother Neo!

What then killed Ananias and Sapphira? I'd say that they had no revelation of Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour and they had therefore no sense of forgiveness of sins or redemption, reconciliation, God's mercy and God's grace. Sorry if that disappoints you, but it is my take on it. It is likely that fear killed Ananias and Sapphira, a fear born of their sin and hightened by their ignorance of God. Jesus talks about men's hearts failing them from "fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth." Luke 21:26.

Thank you for your reply, Danny. Appreciate it a lot. I am not disappointed in the sense that you differ from me, that for me is respectable, Bro. I am actually disappointed by how this whole argument was pulled from a decent discussion to an outright personal level "only what I say is right" kind of useless arguing. I do hope we all avoid it in future. God bless you too and thanx for remembering me in your prayers.

Zac,

First of all, delayed as it is, welcome to our forum.

Obviously this is a subject of some passion for you, and that's certainly welcome. Allow me to suggest a few things that may help make your interaction here more enjoyable and more effective:

1. Some on our board enjoy spirited debate and indepth analysis on issues although not all here do or are necessarily equipped to do it. You might want to consider your audience if your purpose here is to have a discussion, not a monologue.

2. Cutting and pasting huge elements of systematic theology and escalating that when questioned or challenged, has a feel to many of us of "piling on" and attempting to "win" a debate instead of actually having a conversation. The temptation is to imagine that if you can beat your opponent into silence because they lack the time or inclination to address the many additional elements that you introduce into the conversation. If the purpose is to have a conversation, it's usually more productive to stay on point and narrow the scope of the conversation, not dump half of a systematic theology textbook on people.

You may not apppreciate this, but the fact it, that systematic theology is at least as much about the structures that are used and the logical underpinnings of them as the scripture proof texts that are arranged in accordance. That's one reason why I prefer an approach more of Biblical Theology, meaning not the systematics aren't "Biblical" but rather than attempting to push the text into a presumed structure, start with Biblical texts and seek to understand them in their large portions with references to other passages where needed or appropriate.

This way Scripture paints its own pictures instead of pressing the small elements into interlocking pieces and making a jigsaw puzzle that is then held up as the equal of scripture itself.

I don't know what your intent is. If it was simply to drive by and grant us the privilege of your voliminous information, then ... mission accomplished.

If you wish to be a part of our community here and interact and discuss things and be open to learning as well as to sharing the benefit of your point of view, then may I suggest that you reconsider the approach used thus far and take it down a notch and allow other the courtesy of participating in the conversation with equal footing and respect shown in both directions.

If you want to discuss this further, please feel free to respond here or PM me.

blessings,

bart