It Is satanic Heresy to Deny Eternal Security

[Sinnner]

OSAS does not say that...if the term mislead you to believe that's what it meant, then let's use other terms for the exact doctrine.

OSAS = Eternal Security = Perseverance of the saints = held by God (terms that are synonymous).

It does not teach antinomianism and apostasy, which is very contrasted to it.

You are wrong. I've heard many popular OSAS teachers teach that a saved person could live a life full of sin like the world and still go to heaven. Its a very popular teaching that millions of people believe and its a lie. They deny Jesus with their lifestyles and are not saved even if once they were.

 

[Spokenpassage]

You are wrong. I've heard many popular OSAS teachers teach that a saved person could live a life full of sin like the world and still go to heaven. Its a very popular teaching that millions of people believe and its a lie. They deny Jesus with their lifestyles and are not saved even if once they were.

Sir, just because people add their own definition to the scriptures doesn't make it true. You are thinking of Antinomianism, it falsely teaches that because people are saved by grace that it doesn't matter if you obey the truth or not. One can tell such a doctrine is a lie from Satan.

 

[Atwood]

Rom 2:7 Canard Nothing to Do with Eternal Security

In the middle of prophet Paul's argument in Rom 1-3 where he brings all mankind under condemnation (there is none righteous, no not one), a passage occurs which seems curious in that context, a passage which seems to be used to claim that contrary to the entire context, Paul is saying men can be saved by good works. Of course since over and over again works is denied & salvation by grace through faith affirmed, Rom 2:7 cannot be interpreted to mean salvation by good works. Neither does this verse say a thing against Eternal Security. The whole section Rom 1-3 has to be considered, but look at the immediate context:

"but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works:
to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek: for there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;"

The question arises as to whether anyone qualifies for eternal life by good works? The context says no; "There is none who does righteousness, no not one." All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Because of the whole thrust of the passage to bring all men, Jews and Gentiles under condemnation for sin, I conclude that this rule of eternal life for good works is a rule that is never applied to anyone, because everyone is a sinner. It remains a theoretical true principle. If anyone were righteous and did good works without sinning, of course the Lord would not deny him eternal life.

The passage has nothing to do with eternal security. If the passage did refer to some group of persons who by patience in well-doing sought for glory (though we are told later that none seeks God), then that would indicate that those who trust Christ and thus are given the gift of eternal life do in fact by patience in well-doing seek for glory after they are saved. But the good works indicated would be the result of salvation and trusting Christ as savior; not the cause of salvation, but the proof that they are saved, the necessary result of being saved.

But IMHO, the better interpretation is that this is a principle of judgment which is never applied because no one qualifies. But in any case, there is no contradiction of eternal security in the passage.

BTW, you can find a few similar passages elsewhere which seem to indicate a hypothetical salvation by works; like in Romans 10:


"For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses writes that
the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby.
But the righteousness which is of faith saith thus, Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.)"

Similarly the Lord Jesus told the rich young man who asked what to do to have eternal life, that the man would enter into life if he kept the commandments; then the Lord showed him that he did not keep the commandments, leading to His statement that with man salvation is impossible, but with God all things are impossible (see Mt 19).


"Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? . . . if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith to him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? Jesus said to him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions. . . . Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

But you see, no man ever did the Law of Moses, except the Lord Jesus. Salvation by human works is impossible.

Now tell me, you who want to claim that somehow Rom 2:7 denies eternal security, to what length will you go to try to win this argument? Will you endorse salvation by works to prove your OSNS theory (once saved . . . not saved).

Hardly any doctrine is clearly in the Bible than the fact that we are not saved by good works.

 

[Sinnner]

I hold to the perspective of ESOTB, which differs from OSAS in a small degree. ESOTB means eternal security of the believer. I use to hold to OSAS until I realized that by definition, it isn't accurate in certain respects. I can say I believe in Once saved, always saved for the believer. But, thats just it, for the believer, once someone leaves the faith they are no longer a believer. So, the acronym ESOTB fits better, as it allows for apostasy. For someone, for whatever reason, to deny Christ and forsake the Gospel of Grace. OSAS holds the perspective that a believer can stop believing and depart from the faith (be an apostate) and still be eternally secure and saved. I am open to that, if shown through scripture, but that would revolutionize my understanding of what an apostate is.

I hope I explained that well enough, that in my current revelation apostasy means that you'v denied Christ and His free gift of salvation having once received it you then reject it (not wanting to take part). If that definition is incorrect, I am open to someone explaining why.

I believe as you do. I don't think one sin and our salvation is gone. Its by faith through grace so if the faith is gone and rejection has taken its place then there is no more salvation for that person. Jesus said if we deny him he will also deny us. Faith is the conduit that gives us access to grace.

 

[Atwood]

You are wrong. I've heard many popular OSAS teachers teach that a saved person could live a life full of sin like the world and still go to heaven. Its a very popular teaching that millions of people believe and its a lie. They deny Jesus with their lifestyles and are not saved even if once they were.

Well Sinnner, I indeed am not perfect and may be wrong on occasion, but I have no idea what you are claiming I am wrong on, since you did not backquote me. But consider the following:

1) what you have heard proves nothing.

2) My thread is not about OSAS, but OSS or Eternal Security (OSS = Once Saved . . . Saved; once you are saved, you are saved!)

3) What OSAS teachers teach is irrelevant; what scripture says is important.

4) If you wish to debate my POV, you may not do so by debunking those who have a different POV from mine.

5) If you go by what many popular teachers teach, you will have all kinds of hocum & baloney. I do not advocate libertinism, like one TV preacher seemed to do. Interview like this:
Newslady: "Preacher, it is reported that you are sleeping with your secretary."
Preach: "Yes I am, and so what?"
(Newslady has nothing to say -- better style by this preacher than by a hypocritical liar.

6) You don't prove the millions theory, you just say it. Who knows? My guess is that due to man's pride, salvation by works is more popular than libertines (count the RCCists and even persons on this site -- like yourself??? Counting heretics proves nothing except that heretics are numerous.

Eternal Security does not imply that persons are not saved and yet saved.
If the Son shall make you free from sin, you shall be free from sin indeed. We who died to sin, how should we any longer live in it?

But I assure you that all Christians do in fact sin plenty, in many things we all stumble. But we do not live in sin.

Eternal security means that you are secure from living in sin as well as secure in going to Heaven.
Eternal security implies that the believer endures and never stops trusting in Christ with Christ praying for him, as for Peter when Peter needed a prayer that his faith fail not.

Along with Eternal Security goes the realization that I am never going to make it by self-righteousness, and if it depends on that, I haven't a chance. God's standard is perfection, Ye shall be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect. You have to humble yourself to be saved, and depend on the Lord Jesus for your eternal destiny.

Stop trying to talk yourself out of eternal life on the grounds that if you trusted Christ to save you from sin, that would make you sin -- when if you don't trust Christ as Savior, sin is all you do anyway.

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.

 

[Atwood]

I believe as you do. I don't think one sin and our salvation is gone. Its by faith through grace so if the faith is gone and rejection has taken its place then there is no more salvation for that person. Jesus said if we deny him he will also deny us. Faith is the conduit that gives us access to grace.

This is a typical argument. One takes a verse that says nothing about salvation or eternal life and makes an inference from it, instead of believing the plain statements about salvation and eternal life. You assume that a believer can stop believing without any scripture quoted to support it. Interestingly enough, Peter is famous for denying the Lord, while before it happened, Christ prayed for Peter than His faith would not fail. Do you suppose the Lord Jesus does not do that for all? If He prays that a believer's faith fail not, is it possible for His prayer to be rejected by the Father?

You also don't prove that faith comes before grace, you just say it.

Now take Eph 3 in the great intercessory prayer by Paul for the Ephesians. There the order is
1) Paul prays for the Ephesians.
2) The Father grants.
3) The Spirit strengthens the Christian in his weak inner man.
4) The believer exercises faith.
5) Christ dwells in the heart of the believer in response to Him being trusted (instead of at the periphery of the Christian's life).

Steps 1-3 are grace relative to the Ephesian Christians. Step 4 is faith.

So your theory is bogus.

And it cannot overrule the plain statements of the Lord on the subject.
The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable!

And your failure to trust the Lord Jesus with your eternal destiny suggests that you have never been saved. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. Why not right now?

 

[Atwood]

Sir, just because people add their own definition to the scriptures doesn't make it true. You are thinking of Antinomianism, it falsely teaches that because people are saved by grace that it doesn't matter if you obey the truth or not. One can tell such a doctrine is a lie from Satan.

Why can't people believe OSS: Once you are saved, you are in fact saved?

It is strange how a man who does nothing but sin (because He has never trusted the Lord Jesus for his eternal destiny), can object to trusting the Lord Jesus with his eternal destiny, on the grounds that if he did that, he would sin?

 

[Sinnner]

Re: Rom 2:7 Canard Nothing to Do with Eternal Security

In the middle of prophet Paul's argument in Rom 1-3 where he brings all mankind under condemnation (there is none righteous, no not one), a passage occurs which seems curious in that context, a passage which seems to be used to claim that contrary to the entire context, Paul is saying men can be saved by good works. Of course since over and over again works is denied & salvation by grace through faith affirmed, Rom 2:7 cannot be interpreted to mean salvation by good works. Neither does this verse say a thing against Eternal Security. The whole section Rom 1-3 has to be considered, but look at the immediate context:


"but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works:
to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek: for there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;"

The question arises as to whether anyone qualifies for eternal life by good works? The context says no; "There is none who does righteousness, no not one." All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Because of the whole thrust of the passage to bring all men, Jews and Gentiles under condemnation for sin, I conclude that this rule of eternal life for good works is a rule that is never applied to anyone, because everyone is a sinner. It remains a theoretical true principle. If anyone were righteous and did good works without sinning, of course the Lord would not deny him eternal life.

The passage has nothing to do with eternal security. If the passage did refer to some group of persons who by patience in well-doing sought for glory (though we are told later that none seeks God), then that would indicate that those who trust Christ and thus are given the gift of eternal life do in fact by patience in well-doing seek for glory after they are saved. But the good works indicated would be the result of salvation and trusting Christ as savior; not the cause of salvation, but the proof that they are saved, the necessary result of being saved.

But IMHO, the better interpretation is that this is a principle of judgment which is never applied because no one qualifies. But in any case, there is no contradiction of eternal security in the passage.

BTW, you can find a few similar passages elsewhere which seem to indicate a hypothetical salvation by works; like in Romans 10:


"For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses writes that
the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby.
But the righteousness which is of faith saith thus, Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.)"

Similarly the Lord Jesus told the rich young man who asked what to do to have eternal life, that the man would enter into life if he kept the commandments; then the Lord showed him that he did not keep the commandments, leading to His statement that with man salvation is impossible, but with God all things are impossible (see Mt 19).


"Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? . . . if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith to him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? Jesus said to him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions. . . . Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

But you see, no man ever did the Law of Moses, except the Lord Jesus. Salvation by human works is impossible.

Now tell me, you who want to claim that somehow Rom 2:7 denies eternal security, to what length will you go to try to win this argument? Will you endorse salvation by works to prove your OSNS theory (once saved . . . not saved).

Hardly any doctrine is clearly in the Bible than the fact that we are not saved by good works.

If you look back I did back quote it. I back quoted spokenpassage. Unfortunately your belief is taken by millions as OSAS and as a license to sin. The whole book of Jude speaks against this.

 

[Atwood]

Re: OSS = the Correct POV; Not OSNS

you hold a lot of false assumptions that cannot be found in scripture.

Cassian, again you go on, not quoting a verse at all, but just saying things. And your argument methinks is not sincere. I think you believe what you believe not because the Bible says so at all, but because your denomination says so, a denomination with human traditions placed about the Word of God.

Eternal Security is in scripture over & over.
A person who does not trust the Lord Jesus to save him, doesn't have any saving faith at all, not even "faith-in-trust," a phrase never found in the Bible.

So if you don't trust the Lord Jesus with your eternal destiny, why are you here telling us what's what on the subject?

Philippians 1:6
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

I urge anyone who has not initially trusted Christ as Savior, to do so in confidence that the Lord will complete it.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Re: Rom 2:7 Canard Nothing to Do with Eternal Security

If you look back I did back quote it. I back quoted spokenpassage. Unfortunately your belief is taken by millions as OSAS and as a license to sin. The whole book of Jude speaks against this.

Now you are judging, that's something we all need to avoid.

 

[Sinnner]

To Atwood, Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior? I know you do, therefore you are a brother in Christ, I hold the same belief. Do you think we should strive for perfection and seek to be sinless daily, but not for our salvation but to show the power of God so that we may lead others to Christ? If/when you lead others to Christ do you start telling them that there's nothing that they can do to lose their salvation like lose faith and reject Jesus? Or rather would you tell a new believer to find a bible based church and read their bible, pray and keep the faith?

I ask these things because I cant seem to grasp the division between professed believers. There is a foundation set forth in the bible that if followed leads to being saved. If one has faith he is saved. If someone had faith and no longer does there is no more salvation, right?

 

[Atwood]

I hold to the perspective of ESOTB, which differs from OSAS in a small degree. ESOTB means eternal security of the believer.

If a man can lose his salvation (oxymoron) he has no security at all. The truth is OSS = Once saved, saved (once you are saved, you are truly saved -- not just given a chance at it.

I use to hold to OSAS until I realized that by definition, it isn't accurate in certain respects. I can say I believe in Once saved, always saved for the believer. But, thats just it, for the believer, once someone leaves the faith they are no longer a believer.

Where is it ever said that someone stops believing? Apostasy is a fact. Heb 6:9 says that the apostates never were saved. The apostates had characteristics of professed Christians, like Judas, but not the things that go with true salvation.

"But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak"

And 1 John 2 says that the departure (apostasy) proves that they were never part of the Body of Christ to begin with -- for if they had been, they would have stayed.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us."

" OSAS holds the perspective that a believer can stop believing and depart from the faith (be an apostate) and still be eternally secure and saved."

I never ever heard such a thing. Eternal Security does not say that. I says that believers do not stop believing. The Lord Jesus prayed for Peter than his faith would not fail. Eternal Security implies that we are eternally saved and thus do not depart from the faith. The believer's nature has been changed permanently to child of God. His Old Man flesh hangs around until death, and the Christian can still sin and does sin. But the New Nature remains and cannot be destroyed.

I hope I explained that well enough, that in my current revelation apostasy means that you'v denied Christ and His free gift of salvation having once received it you then reject it (not wanting to take part). If that definition is incorrect, I am open to someone explaining why.

It is incorrect because not taught in the Bible.

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.
The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

I urge you to trust the Lord Jesus with your eternal destiny; accept Him as Savior, not as one who gives you a chance to be saved.

 

[Sinnner]

Re: Rom 2:7 Canard Nothing to Do with Eternal Security

Now you are judging, that's something we all need to avoid.

It is? How so? Anyway I thought we are to judge those in the church.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13[SUP]12 [/SUP]What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? [SUP]13 [/SUP]God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[SUP][[/SUP]

 

[Spokenpassage]

Re: Rom 2:7 Canard Nothing to Do with Eternal Security

It is? How so? Anyway I thought we are to judge those in the church.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13[SUP]12 [/SUP]What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? [SUP]13 [/SUP]God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[SUP][[/SUP]

Now you are misusing scripture to justify your judgment.

I've seen in atwoods posts that he does not approve of sin. You obviously said he does because he believes in eternal security of the believer. Your scripture quote refers to right judgement, not false witnessing.

 

[Sinnner]

Re: Rom 2:7 Canard Nothing to Do with Eternal Security

Now you are misusing scripture to justify your judgment.

Clearly, I've seen in atwoods posts that he does not approve of sin. You obviously said he does because he believes in eternal security of the believer. Your scripture quote refers to right judgement, not false witnessing.

I've never said Atwood approves of sin. I've only stated that the OSAS teaching gives a license to sin. I'm not saying that the teachers of this are OK with sin but the product of this teaching is a large group of people (millions) who live like hell and think they are saved. Its not biblical.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Re: Rom 2:7 Canard Nothing to Do with Eternal Security

I've never said Atwood approves of sin. I've only stated that the OSAS teaching gives a license to sin. I'm not saying that the teachers of this are OK with sin but the product of this teaching is a large group of people (millions) who live like hell and think they are saved. Its not biblical.

This is where silence should creep in. OSAS is the same thing as Preseverence of the saints, which scripture teaches that once a man is born again and saved by the gospel through faith, he continues to grow in the Word and stay in the Word. It does not teach we can sin, people have drawn the wrong conclusion just by hearing the name of it.

Because Atwood believes in OSAS, you are saying he teaches the allowance of sin. Again eternal security is confused with antinomianism. If people are claiming they are the same, they don't know the truth.

 

[Atwood]

To Atwood, Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior? I know you do, therefore you are a brother in Christ, I hold the same belief.

I sincerely wish you did, but you do not apparently. You do not mean the same thing by Savior and Salvation that I mean. You apparently have not yet brought yourself to trust the Lord Jesus with your eternal destiny.

Do you think we should strive for perfection and seek to be sinless daily, but not for our salvation but to show the power of God so that we may lead others to Christ?

Sinnner, I can't accept that you are a we, until you trust Christ with your eternal destiny. No one is likely to be perfect and sinless on any day. Perfection is the standard, but we do not sustain it. I hesitate to define how to live the Christian life with you, because it is a topic that requires trusting Christ as Savior to understand. I find the core teaching on the Christian life in Romans 5-8 and Galatians.

If/when you lead others to Christ do you start telling them that there's nothing that they can do to lose their salvation like lose faith and reject Jesus? Or rather would you tell a new believer to find a bible based church and read their bible, pray and keep the faith?

The gospel as presented to the unsaved person is the message that God so loved the world that He gave His unique Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. I proclaim that you must trust the Lord Jesus as Savior for transformation of being from sinner to Child of God with the free gift of eternal life. Salvation is defined as a state of eternal security in the Savior. There is no satanic question of the Lord Jesus failing to keep His promise of eternal life. If you now trust Christ, you get not merely a change of life now, but eternal life, life without end, not interruptible by you or all the forces of satan. Nothing now nor nothing to come, nor height, nor depth nor any other created thing can separate you from the love of God once you trust Christ as Savior.

I would advise the new Christian that he needs to pray without ceasing and go to a good Bible-believing church where the Bible is taught, where no one spread the idea that Christ will not follow through with one's salvation. He began it, and He will complete it; His promise.

I ask these things because I cant seem to grasp the division between professed believers. There is a foundation set forth in the bible that if followed leads to being saved. If one has faith he is saved. If someone had faith and no longer does there is no more salvation, right?

There is but one thing the Bible requires for salvation, that of trusting Christ as Savior. But you cannot have a Savior who does not save, and you cannot be saved without being saved. There is no category of having faith (in the Savior) & then not having it in the Bible. At the basis of this is the new nature which we get, which is never charged with sin. The new nature begotten of God cannot sin. The believer, however, retains his old nature flesh, like an alternative set of clothes. Even when the Christian sins, his better self is not sinning, but Sin that dwells in His flesh (Romans 7): It is no longer I who do it, but Sin that dwells in me. This does not relieve the Christian of responsibility for sin and the need to confess it. Once you become a child of God, you can no longer stop being his child than you can stop being the physical son of your father.

That is my explanation of how it works. But regardless of my explanation, rest assured that if you truly trust Christ for your eternal destiny, you will have eternal life (not temporary life until you stop believing), and you will never perish.

 

[Sinnner]

Re: Rom 2:7 Canard Nothing to Do with Eternal Security

This is where silence should creep in. OSAS is the same thing as Preseverence of the saints, which scripture teaches that once a man is born again and saved by the gospel through faith, he continues to grow in the Word and stay in the Word. It does not teach we can sin, people have drawn the wrong conclusion just by hearing the name of it.

Because Atwood believes in OSAS, you are saying he teaches the allowance of sin. Again eternal security is confused with antinomianism. If people are claiming they are the same, they don't know the truth.

That would imply that our free will is taken away once we get saved. That's not true either. Even the angels have free will. They chose to fall as satan did. They were in heaven, they didn't even need to be saved yet chose to fall. They had free will as we do also. God wants a people that willingly choose Him and continue to choose Him.

 

[Atwood]

Re: Rom 2:7 Canard Nothing to Do with Eternal Security

If you look back I did back quote it. I back quoted spokenpassage. Unfortunately your belief is taken by millions as OSAS and as a license to sin. The whole book of Jude speaks against this.

Sinnner, I can't bean count those who are libertines and pervert OSAS. But I don't call my POV OSAS; it is eternal security, or OSS = Once saved, saved.

I doubt your millions count. It seems to me that much more abundant (witness this site & the RCC) is the POV that one cannot trust Christ for one's eternal destiny, only for a shot at getting to heaven unless you are a bad boy & do this or that, like stopping believing with no scriptural proof. You see, man is proud & likes the self-righteous idea of having works validated (IMHO).

Jude says nothing against eternal security.

"there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

The deniers of Christ crept in privily; they snuck in to the local church, but they were ungodly men, never saved. That is how to consider those who turn grace into lasciviousness.

Jude ends on a security note:


"Now to him that is able to guard you from stumbling, and to set you before the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy, to the only God our Savior,"

He is able to keep you from losing faith, as Christ did by praying for Peter. Now if he is able to do it and if He loves you, and if He has promised to save you to the uttermost, why would He renege on His promise of eternal life and never perish?

Once you get into His hand, you are never going to get out -- nobody, not even yourself can do that. And while you are in His hand, your ability to sin will be severely impaired. The hand may squeeze you if you need it.

 

[Sinnner]

I sincerely wish you did, but you do not apparently. You do not mean the same thing by Savior and Salvation that I mean. You apparently have not yet brought yourself to trust the Lord Jesus with your eternal destiny.



Sinnner, I can't accept that you are a we, until you trust Christ with your eternal destiny. No one is likely to be perfect and sinless on any day. Perfection is the standard, but we do not sustain it. I hesitate to define how to live the Christian life with you, because it is a topic that requires trusting Christ as Savior to understand. I find the core teaching on the Christian life in Romans 5-8 and Galatians.

Wow, just keep in mind that those you teach OSAS and they end up giving up their faith end up in hell, their blood will be on your hands and head. You will be responsible for them. I am saved and I know that I am. I believe every word in the bible and am also secure with my salvation but I by no means would be so arrogant as to believe I could live a lifestyle filled with sin. I wont buy into your johnny come lately man made doctrine. You should push your pride aside and earnestly seek the Lord on this issue and you would see the truth. I have, I would believe OSAS if God had led me to. Look at your own life, are you getting answers for your prayers? Are people being delivered at your church, are they showing fruit? Anyway, Ive tried to make a connection with you cause we should be able to put doctrinal issues aside an be brothers in Christ, I know I have many brothers in Jesus Christ. Im done with this thread.