I was wondering who believes you can get unsaved.

[Beckworth]

In regard to Hebrews 10:26, to "sin willfully" here carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is continuous action, a matter of practice. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows continuous, willful, habitual, continuous action. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God. (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9)

Confidence is rooted in the sacrificial death and blood of Jesus, yet those who draw back to perdition and do not believe to the saving of the soul (Hebrews 10:39) demonstrate a lack of confidence which culminates in a lack of perseverance. So, those Hebrews who reject the sacrificial death and blood of Jesus for the Levitical system, have in effect of trampled the Son of God underfoot, counting the blood of the covenant as a common thing, and insulting the Spirit of grace. For such folks, there no longer remains a sacrifice to atone for our sins that is, no further offering to anticipate.

You are trying to “qualify” here where God does not qualify; you are trying to “limit” sin where Gos has not “limited.” But you know, it really doesn’t matter, because God still makes His point —that a SAVED Person can so sin as to be lost. It doesn’t matter to our debate , if he has sinned one time or 1000 times, look at what God is saying.

Hebrews 10
Verse 19- He calls them “BRETHREN”. He says they had entered the “Holiest” by the blood of Jesus. He is talking to SAVED brethren. He tells them to “draw near” to God, to “HOLD FAST” to their salvation. Why would He admonish them to do that if they can’t lose it??? And then, he says, BECAUSE if we (the saved) sin willfully…we will be LOST and verse 27 says they will suffer judgement from God and fire. Why? Because those who sin willfully “trample underfoot the Son of God,” they “treat the blood of Jesus as a common thing,” and they “insult the Holy Spirit (verse 29). Then he says the Lord WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE. “HIS PEOPLE” ,”These are the saved who are doing these things. Keep reading.
verse 32, He tells them to remember the “former days” when they were saved, faithful to God. They were willing to suffer persecutions BECAUSE, verse 35, they knew they had “a better and enduring possession in heaven”. They were saved at that time, in the “former days.” Verse 35, he tells them “DO NOT CAST AWAY YOUR SALVATION WHICH HAS GREAT REWARD. They were going to lose it al!. Like the “lost sheep” in Luke 15, they needed to repent.

Anyone can read this chapter for themselves and see that it is NOT teaching “once you are saved, you can’t be lost.” It is teaching just the opposite of that. Be honest.

 

[Beckworth]

I think Paul knew what he was talking about in 1st Corinthians 2 and particularly verse 14. As well as whom was giving him his information.

Paul is comparing the “natural man) unsaved to the “spiritual” man saved. Don’t know exactly what your point is.

 

[Beckworth]

There's no loophole. My remarks comport with scripture.

Those Elect of God can never be lost.

That's God's seal. Not my opinion.

where is the scripture that says or shows that a SINNER will be saved in His sins. ( unrepentant)? you have based your premise on an assumption of your own making. Don’t give me scripture that show God “sealing” the saved, faithful child of God—we all know that salvation is secure for the FAITHFUL who are in God’s fold. You need a scripture that shows a child of God who has gone astray but is still saved. I have one for you—the “lost lamb “ in Luke 15. Oh, but, no, that one shows a child of God can leave God and be “lost” spiritually unless he repents. What about the “prodigal son”? Not that one either. It shows a “lost” child of the Father who repents and comes back to God. How about Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8? He had believed and was baptized. Jesus said “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16:16. Are you going to tell Jesus, “Simon wasn’t saved in the first place? You won’t be the first—some of your friends have already said that. How presumptuous of you—to claim to know who is saved and who is not. Are you not putting yourself on a level with God? Has God made you a judge to know who is saved and who isn’t? There again, you are basing your whole doctrine if “on ve saved, always saved” on an assumption of your own making. Simon sinned and Peter said he was going to “PERISH”. Open your eyes. You are fighting against God and His word.

 

[Cameron143]

There is a difference between being separated from the “LOVE” of God and being separated from God, as I’m sure you know. So to try to use this verse to prove the impossibility of apostasy makes me wonder what could be your motive?

Also, I believe Luke 15, the story of the “lost sheep” has already proven that a “sheep” or child of God, who was once in the “fold” of God, doesn’t have to “ pry open the hands of God” but can simply “walk away” of his own free will. Jesus was very clear about that in this story. So who should I believe—-you, who can’t offer 1 true scripture showing a “sinner” will be saved anyway, or Jesus who has all authority?

Yes, you are right. Jesus gives those who are in His fold, the saved, the faithful, eternal life and nothing can separate them from His LOVE. But we are admonished by John to “ABIDE” in His love. Abide means to “maintain or continue in”. Totally unnecessary if we can’t be lost. If that were true, it wouldn’t matter whether we abide in His love or not—we would be saved anyway, regardless. Don’t you see, the doctrine of John Calvin does not harmonize with God’s word. Also, in John 15:9-10, where he tells us to “abide” stay in God’s love, he tells us how to do it. “You abide in His love—“IF”— you keep His commandments.” Do you believe the words of John? No. Not if you believe John Calvin. Look closely to yourself and who you are following.

Like many here, you believe labeling someone makes it so. I'm glad to have discourse with you, but I'm not a Calvinist. So please, make your arguments without ascribing labels.
There is a difference between separation from God and the love of God, but not as you suppose. The love of God being spoken of is a positional love. It is a love IN CHRIST JESUS. So it's not merely a general manifestation of God's love as in creation and Providence. This is an intimate Spirit-experienced love as in Ephesians 1 where we are sealed by God and made to sit in heavenly places. We have no ability to place ourselves in Christ, and, likewise, no ability to remove ourselves from such a position.
The prodigal son is a picture of both of these positions. Before he left and until he returned, he did experience the love of the father, but not intimately. He was able to enjoy the general provision of life on the estate, but only knew his father as creator and caretaker. When he returned, he experienced the lavish mercy and grace of his father. This is a transformational change experienced by all in Christ. Notice too that he did return. All that the Father gives Jesus will come aand none remain lost.

 

[Beckworth]

I get the feeling NONE of the OSAS believers read those verses.....

Why would God put them in the Bible then????


🎂

And there are SO MANY scriptures that are very plain on the possibility of a believer being lost; not to mention parables ( the “lost sheep” and the “Prodigal Son” ; examples (Simon the Sorcerer Acts 8) and Jesus’s own words in Matthew 7 where he says “depart from me” to a group of BELIEVERS who had prophesied in His name, cast out demons, and done miracles in His name. Their only answer is that “they were not saved in the first place” which is an assumption on their part and definitely not proof from the scriptures. They are without Bible authority because they are “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men”.

 

[Jimbone]

We definitely do have free choice and free will. No doubt about it.
Integrated into creation, and so declared FROM BEGINNING TO END.
Anyone may "come". And they did. Rahab did. The Gibeonite Hivites did. The Ninevites did. The widow of Zarephath did.
The Matt 15 Syrophenician woman of Canaan did. The adulterous Samaritan woman at the well did.

God turns down.....NOBODY who sincerely asks Him for His salvation. Nobody.
BUT.....you have to ask!

Gen 2:16
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Rev 21:6
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Rev 22:17
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Choice and "free will" are not on in the same. We have choice and our will is NEVER free. EVER. You're wrong about this, our will is always a slave to our nature. Our nature is "in sin" or in "Jesus righteousness". I get what you mean, and even though I disagree with the amount of power you put in our choice at the expense of taking it from God, I understand what you mean. However you completely ignore a whole level in this as if the spirit has nothing at all to do with it. That is why you feel that simply having our choice is all that's at play. This is why you're wrong too. The man in sin CANNOT make a good decision, just as the man in Christ cannot disobey His will without the Spirit correcting him. The main disconnect here is you completely ignoring that. This also has a lot to do with people believing they can lose their salvation too, you give our choice WAY too much power and strip God of WAY too much power in the equation.

 

[Beckworth]

You cannot be unsaved. Not just a conviction, it's also in the Bible.

Where? And don’t give me a bunch of verses showing the FAITHFUL to God are secure. We all know that God is going to save those who are in His fold. These are not “unfaithful”, wayward, or lost. Show me a REAL scripture that is talking about a child of God who is sinning or living in sin but is saved anyway. That’s what we are talking about here—not how secure the “SAVED” are.

 

[cv5]

Choice and "free will" are not on in the same. We have choice and our will is NEVER free. EVER. You're wrong about this, our will is always a slave to our nature. Our nature is "in sin" or in "Jesus righteousness". I get what you mean, and even though I disagree with the amount of power you put in our choice at the expense of taking it from God, I understand what you mean. However you completely ignore a whole level in this as if the spirit has nothing at all to do with it. That is why you feel that simply having our choice is all that's at play. This is why you're wrong too. The man in sin CANNOT make a good decision, just as the man in Christ cannot disobey His will without the Spirit correcting him. The main disconnect here is you completely ignoring that. This also has a lot to do with people believing they can lose their salvation too, you give our choice WAY too much power and strip God of WAY too much power in the equation.

The thing is, Genesis 3 is the seed plot, and proves that you are up the creek without a paddled.
That and the rest of the entirety of the Bible.

 

[Cameron143]

John 15 :9-10 says we abide in God’s love —IF—we keep His commandments. To suggest that it is not possible to do that is to accuse God of lying. You impeach God’s word and blaspheme. In Luke 18 a rich young ruler asked Jesus, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” What was Jesus’s answer? KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS. Even though the man lived under a different law, John says that is the same answer to us in John 15. “We abide in His love, If. We keep His commandments. It must be possible and necessary if Jesus tells us that’s how we stay in His love. Who are you to argue or contradict Him?

To abide in Christ one must first be in Christ. If you take the time to understand all that this entails, you will understand why abiding is dealing with whether or not someone is walking in the Spirit or not, and not about whether someone is saved or not.
Further, you misunderstand the relationship between obedience and abiding. You believe you obey and therefore abide. I believe I abide and therefore obey. You believe your efforts cause you to obey and abide. I believe the Spirit of God leads me in abiding and lives obediently through me. You believe you can please God in the flesh. I believe there is no good thing in the flesh. You seek to be obedient. I seek God’s kingdom and righteousness. You seek to live. I seek to die that Christ Christ might live in me. You believe God responds to you. I believe I am to respond to what God is doing.
In short, you live in your own strength. I live in the power of the risen Lord.
You should be careful. The Pharisees were the ones who cried blasphemy of Jesus. They were apparently wrong as are you. You are selling an old covenant message in a new covenant time. I ask you to prayerfully consider what I have shared.

 

[JesusIsSovereign]

Where? And don’t give me a bunch of verses showing the FAITHFUL to God are secure. We all know that God is going to save those who are in His fold. These are not “unfaithful”, wayward, or lost. Show me a REAL scripture that is talking about a child of God who is sinning or living in sin but is saved anyway. That’s what we are talking about here—not how secure the “SAVED” are.

I did in another post. God has already hand picked the ones He has chosen to save before the ages began and the foundation of the world. God will providentially save those He chose to save. God can and will work out His plan as He set it. It's not like Jesus dying for us just made salvation possible, it actually secured salvation for those God wanted to be saved. I can give verses on this but I did on another post. I'll give these though: Ephesians 1:4-5; 2 Timothy 1:9; Romans 8 and 9 (just read the whole of both).

 

[MeowFlower]

where is the scripture that says or shows that a SINNER will be saved in His sins. ( unrepentant)? you have based your premise on an assumption of your own making.

That assumption of one's own making would be your doing.

I've never stated what you claim there.

 

[MeowFlower]

Paul is comparing the “natural man) unsaved to the “spiritual” man saved. Don’t know exactly what your point is.

I know you don't.

 

[Beckworth]

Like many here, you believe labeling someone makes it so. I'm glad to have discourse with you, but I'm not a Calvinist. So please, make your arguments without ascribing labels.
There is a difference between separation from God and the love of God, but not as you suppose. The love of God being spoken of is a positional love. It is a love IN CHRIST JESUS. So it's not merely a general manifestation of God's love as in creation and Providence. This is an intimate Spirit-experienced love as in Ephesians 1 where we are sealed by God and made to sit in heavenly places. We have no ability to place ourselves in Christ, and, likewise, no ability to remove ourselves from such a position.
The prodigal son is a picture of both of these positions. Before he left and until he returned, he did experience the love of the father, but not intimately. He was able to enjoy the general provision of life on the estate, but only knew his father as creator and caretaker. When he returned, he experienced the lavish mercy and grace of his father. This is a transformational change experienced by all in Christ. Notice too that he did return. All that the Father gives Jesus will come aand none remain lost.

Wow! I am amazed that you can know all that—the love of God is a “positional love”, and somehow you know that the prodigal son “did not experience the love of God intimately “ and all without the Bible telling you that. Not even a hint. Amazing how you can know all that without Christ explaining it to us. Are you divine?

 

[Beckworth]

You do realize you just both contradicted and exampled your criticism of my prior observation and by your post at its beginning and end respectively

???? Not enough information here so that I can figure out what exactly what you are accusing me of.

 

[Beckworth]

I know you don't.[/QUOTE

Well, then, maybe try to be a little more specific

which book?
how many books are there?
study!

Give me a scripture that I can study and a contex that I can read. I don’t know to what you are referring.

 

[Cameron143]

Wow! I am amazed that you can know all that—the love of God is a “positional love”, and somehow you know that the prodigal son “did not experience the love of God intimately “ and all without the Bible telling you that. Not even a hint. Amazing how you can know all that without Christ explaining it to us. Are you divine?

At the risk of exposing more of your heart, the word in is a preposition that shows position. In Christ is therefore a positional relationship. Hence, the love of God in Christ is a positional love; that is, a love that is characteristic of one in Christ. I offered Ephesians 1 as an example of what it consisted in. That these things attended the father-son relationship when he returns and not before certainly suggests that the son is experiencing the father in ways hitherto unknown to him. And this, coincidentally, is the experience of all who are genuinely saved.
And I am a partaker of the divine nature. Does this make me divine?

 

[Beckworth]

They never truly were saved in the first place.

An ASSUMPTION on your part. Nowhere in the scriptures did God ever say that. Your whole premis-doctrine- is built on an assumption not found in the Bible. Neither can you KNow it because you are not God.

 

[Beckworth]

At the risk of exposing more of your heart, the word in is a preposition that shows position. In Christ is therefore a positional relationship. Hence, the love of God in Christ is a positional love; that is, a love that is characteristic of one in Christ. I offered Ephesians 1 as an example of what it consisted in. That these things attended the father-son relationship when he returns and not before certainly suggests that the son is experiencing the father in ways hitherto unknown to him. And this, coincidentally, is the experience of all who are genuinely saved.
And I am a partaker of the divine nature. Does this make me divine?

I’m afraid not. Neither does it make you correct in your doctrine.