It Is satanic Heresy to Deny Eternal Security

[Atwood]

Re: Objections to ES Seem Always Based on Off Topic Ideas

You are pontificating Atwood. Pontificating from false premises as well, rather than what scripture means.

Cassian, you are the one who pontificates without scripture. What is your proof that marking and comparing all scripture on a topic is false premise?

Eph 3 is in the Bible.

Thou shalt call His name Jesus,
for He shall save His people from their sins.

 

[Cassian]

Atwood,

Cassian, you continue to pontificate with no Bible proof and apparently you think you win a debate by repeating the terms Calvin or Calvinism. It proves nothing, though it does make one wonder if you even read what I post.

Calvinism is the ONLY system of theology that can support the theory of OSAS because it is part of it. YOu can say that you separate ES from Calvinism, which is even more bizzare because it does not exist in scripture as scripture was given from the beginning. It is an absurdity because it only makes sense if man is NOT an free moral agent, if Man does not cooperate in attaining eternal life, and if God acts unilaterally upon man. YOu have worked very hard in using all of these predestination formulas to get ES to be in scripture and it just does not work.

"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."

Apostasy proves that the apostate was not in the past "of us," that is not in the Body of Christ. The only apostates are persons who were never saved.

several unscriptural assumptions here as well. Just because one enters into Christ does not mean one remains. You use the word saved (past tense) in referencing our relationship, (the scriptural meaning) which does not exist in scripture. In our relationship with Christ we are in the process of being saved. A dead believer is one who has been saved and cannot fail, cannot apostisize. If one is apostasizing here then that person was in the Body of Christ, in the process of being saved. Scripture does not teach, Anselmianism.

You follow to many man made theories that do not align with scripture. In your case one false theory is leading you to others.

 

[Atwood]

Atwood,
Calvinism

Calvin Shmalvin.

The Word of God!

Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition.. . . making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do."

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

QED

 

[Atwood]

Jehovah redeemeth the soul of his servants;
And none of them that take refuge in him shall be condemned.

 

[Atwood]

1 Thes 5 end:

"And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He Who calls you,
Who will also do it.

 

[Atwood]

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

 

[Atwood]

THE OVERCOMER

Revelation 3:5
The one who overcomes will be clothed thus in white garments, and
I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father… 1 John 5:4-5 For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. And who is he who overcomes the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world.
And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God: and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away. And he that sitteth on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he saith, Write: for these words are faithful and true. And he said unto me, They are come to pass. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
He that overcometh shall inherit these things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But for the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.

 

[Atwood]

2 thes 2:16-17 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.

 

[newbirth]

Re: Objections to ES Seem Always Based on Off Topic Ideas

While the correct way to determine the truth of Eternal Security is to check all the passages on the subject to see what scripture says that the saved persevere, one is ever reading canards based on other considerations, like free will or the idea that somehoe if salvation depends of belief, men must be able to stop being saved on the theory that they can stop believing. And this is just pontificated without scripture to negate either eternal security nor to prove that believers can stop believing. You find neither lose faith nor lose salvation in the Bible, the latter being an oxymoron.

You have to allow for the possibility that the Lord Jesus is the author & perfecter of the believer's faith, & that to the believer it is given to believe.

Now what do you think of Eph 3 where Paul intercedes for the Ephesian believers. Paul is off in Rome apparently, under house arrest, far from Ephesus; but Paul prays for the Ephesians, who would not know that Paul was praying for them. Paul is led by the Spirit to intercede for them, that they would be strengthened with power in the inner man, that Christ might dwell in their hearts' by FAITH.

And that indicates that if Paul's prayer is answered with a YES (& as a prayer inspired by the Spirit it must get a YES answer), then the Holy Spirit is going to strengthen the Ephesians with power in the Ephesians' inner man so that they will have faith which then results in Christ dwelling in their hearts (instead of at the periphery). That prayer sure looks like the faith that the Ephesians are to have is the result of the Holy Spirit, which in turn is the result of Paul's prayer for them.

Now we may all kinds of theories about human free will or the bondage of the will. However, the proof can be debated. Human supposition about how it must be is useless. Thus it is stupid to take an unproven theory about human free will and then argue from that against eternal security. Can you really prove your human will theory? And if you can, what really does that have to do with eternal security? Are you really so sure that God cannot be sovereign over all and man make real choices at the same time?

But I say, set aside the tangential speculations, & focus on what the Word of God directly states.

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

you never answer straight always twisting...I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. Can you tell me ,,,,(1) who is ,them and they in that line and (2) how does the speaker recognize them and they?

 

[apostolic862004]

Would someone from the OSAS doctrine please tell me how you explain Hebrews 6:4-6? Im sure you may have done it already on this thread but there are alot of posts and i don't want to go back through them all since I am just getting in on this discussion. I am really curious to see how you explain people who "WERE ONCE ENLIGHTENED" as never having been believers.

Also, if you believe OSAS do you also believe OLAL? (Once Lost, Always Lost)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Would someone from the OSAS doctrine please tell me how you explain Hebrews 6:4-6? Im sure you may have done it already on this thread but there are alot of posts and i don't want to go back through them all since I am just getting in on this discussion. I am really curious to see how you explain people who "WERE ONCE ENLIGHTENED" as never having been believers.

Also, if you believe OSAS do you also believe OLAL? (Once Lost, Always Lost)

Never heard of OLAL, does not make any sense, if OLAL was true, no one could be saved, because we were all lost at one time.

As for Heb.

Context.

If they fall away, it is impossible to renew them to repentance

If is a statement which could be taken one of three way.

1. If (and they will)
2. If (maybe they will, maybe they will not)
3. if (but they will not)

Thus we have to look at these possible interpretations and line them up with scripture.

if they lose salvation, they can never be renewed, means once a person lost eternal life, he is doomed forever. no hope of regaining salvation.

According to the law (which is what the author is arguing against) A person is lost because of sin, and not renewed until the sacrifice was given, thus salvation was a salvation which one had, lost then had again. because every time sin came into ones life. they fell away.

Using this context. The "If they fall away" would be directed to the law. If they fell away. (according to law, they had to sacrifice to renew) but according to grace. they either

1. Can not fall away
2. Can fall away, but then be lost forever.

going even further. Since Christ sacrifice is what took away th elevitical sacrifices (whihc could never take away sin) it is either

1. Not enough to cause a renewal of salvation
2. Put to shame by saying salvation could be lost in the first place.

Which is my interpretation which fits not only with the whole topic of the book of Hebrews. But with the word of God.

Going back to law is foolish, If one who has been saved falls away, they could never be renewed. (the law is insufficient) Saying that salvation can be lost puts Christ to open shame, it says his sacrifice is not good enough. and is insufficient.

The author is making an argument against a doctrine, Not saying what individual people are doing.

 

[Cassian]

Calvin Shmalvin.

The Word of God!

Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition.. . . making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do."

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

QED

Self reflection. You are the one with all the man made theories/traditions. You continually exhibit at least four traditions, doctines devised by man. The fact that you cannot produce any evidence regarding what scripture means is evidence that you are following man's traditions.
Saying it is the Word of God does not make it so when nothing presented has ever been believed from the beginning. Using scripture to extract doctrines, interpretations does not make it scriptural either. Sola scripturists have been doing this for 500 years now and have developed hundreds of differing interpretations many of which you hold, all the while claiming them to be scriptural.


But carry on. You have presented some dismissals of scripture that I have not seen, or at least remember, of the OSAS position. It shows the futility of trying to force a sectarian formula upon scripture.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Self reflection. You are the one with all the man made theories/traditions. You continually exhibit at least four traditions, doctines devised by man. The fact that you cannot produce any evidence regarding what scripture means is evidence that you are following man's traditions.
Saying it is the Word of God does not make it so when nothing presented has ever been believed from the beginning. Using scripture to extract doctrines, interpretations does not make it scriptural either. Sola scripturists have been doing this for 500 years now and have developed hundreds of differing interpretations many of which you hold, all the while claiming them to be scriptural.


But carry on. You have presented some dismissals of scripture that I have not seen, or at least remember, of the OSAS position. It shows the futility of trying to force a sectarian formula upon scripture.

comming from someone who's whole doctrinal belief system is based on the words of men and outside of scripture. this means very little.

 

[apostolic862004]

If they fall away, it is impossible to renew them to repentance

If is a statement which could be taken one of three way.

1. If (and they will)
2. If (maybe they will, maybe they will not)
3. if (but they will not)

No, I am sorry. If means If and nothing else. The items you have in parenthesis are determined by the words that follow the word If. The rest of the sentence will tell you if they will, they wont, or the might. But if simply means if. You are trying to add support to what you are wanting to say and that's fine, but you can't make up your own definitions or interpretations of words.

According to the law (which is what the author is arguing against)

Using this context. The "If they fall away" would be directed to the law. If they fell away. (according to law, they had to sacrifice to renew) but according to grace. they either

1. Can not fall away
2. Can fall away, but then be lost forever.

Wrong again. He is not referring to or arguing against the law in this passage. Neither the preceding verses nor the preceding chapter mention the law at all. In verse one of chapter 6 he specifically mentions the "Doctrine of Christ." That is what he is talking about. He is talking about falling away from the doctrine of Christ. What is the doctrine of Christ? He tells us in verses one and two. Then he continues his thought about the doctrine of Christ and says those that were once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, have partaken of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, if THEY shall fall away. The only one of those four things that would have pertained to those under the law would have been the word of God. Those under the law did not have the Holy Ghost. They did not partake of the Holy Ghost. So you're whole premise is flawed because it isn't even in context.

 

[Atwood]

Self reflection. It shows the futility of trying to force a sectarian formula upon scripture.

Yes, Sola Easternola is a futile system of a sect. And no matter what the Bible says, are not your arguments based on human tradition?

Dear Audience, Here is another ES passage. The Psalmist proclaims eternal security in Ps 61:

For thou hast been a refuge for me,
A strong tower from the enemy.
I will dwell in thy tabernacle forever:

 

[Atwood]

No, I am sorry. If means If and nothing else. .

Hebrews 6:9 explains the preceding verses.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No, I am sorry. If means If and nothing else. The items you have in parenthesis are determined by the words that follow the word If. The rest of the sentence will tell you if they will, they wont, or the might. But if simply means if. You are trying to add support to what you are wanting to say and that's fine, but you can't make up your own definitions or interpretations of words.

This is a dogmatic approach which limits what is being said, and is a dangerous assumption to take.

Anytime the word if is used it can mean any of those things. Sorry if you disagree, but if you do you disagree with the language structure.

Wrong again. He is not referring to or arguing against the law in this passage.

The whole book is arguing against returning to law/ Sorry but you are wrong, and again are limiting yourself and your interpretation.

Neither the preceding verses nor the preceding chapter mention the law at all. In verse one of chapter 6 he specifically mentions the "Doctrine of Christ." That is what he is talking about. He is talking about falling away from the doctrine of Christ. What is the doctrine of Christ? He tells us in verses one and two. Then he continues his thought about the doctrine of Christ and says those that were once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, have partaken of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, if THEY shall fall away. The only one of those four things that would have pertained to those under the law would have been the word of God. Those under the law did not have the Holy Ghost. They did not partake of the Holy Ghost. So you're whole premise is flawed because it isn't even in context.

Again, the whole book is context of law. So sorry you are wrong. And you limited yourself to "if they fall away" and left out what followed, which totally destroys what is being spoken of.

The fact you stopped there is did not even go on further shows that you are taking things out of context.

"they cannot be renewed to repentance"

Why would he say this? this subject is the "what is impossible" in the text.

you only have two possible interpretations.

1. One can fall away, but then they are lost forever, with no hope of returning to Christ
2. One can not fall away, And the author is arguing this point (which is also proven by the part which immediately follows. Where it says one is "near to being cursed" One can be just saved, with no reward or blessing (wood hey straw for example) yet still be saved, even though as through fire)

the first interpretation is not supported in the passage, or scripture. unless you think one can lose salvation and never be re-saved again. which would be a new doctrine I have never heard.

 

[Atwood]

Heb 6:9 Explains the Preceding Verses

Would someone from the OSAS doctrine please tell me how you explain Hebrews 6:4-6? Im sure you may have done it already on this thread but there are alot of posts and i don't want to go back through them all since I am just getting in on this discussion. I am really curious to see how you explain people who "WERE ONCE ENLIGHTENED" as never having been believers.
Also, if you believe OSAS do you also believe OLAL? (Once Lost, Always Lost)

Good morning apostolic. On reading your OLAL I feel inspired to break into

O la la la la, O la la la la, Happy Birthday, sweet 16,

Whenever you find a passage which seems to indicate that a saved person could be lost,
the rule is to "read on" to find the explanation.

One should not stop at verse 6, read on through 6:9:

it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the land which hath drunk the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receiveth blessing from God: but if it beareth thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak:

The preceding description might lead one to think that it described saved persons. But 6:9 tells us it does not describe the saved. Then if you go back & analyze the verses you should see that they could describe Judas, who had a demon and was never saved, though a disciple & an apostle.

OLALaLaLa? It does imply that some persons reach a point of apostasy in which they cannot be saved; they are judicially hardened. Of course I would never assume such a thing about anyone. To lost men in general, the gospel is Whosoever will.

Unfortunately there are the Whosoever Won'ts.

How many persons must there be, pretend Christians, church members, who regard the Lord Jesus only as a chance-giver, instead of the Savior.

Thou shalt call His name Jesus,
for he shall save His people from their sins.

 

[Atwood]

Re: Objections to ES Seem Always Based on Off Topic Ideas

Atwood saith: "But I say, set aside the tangential speculations, & focus on what the Word of God directly states.

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

you never answer straight always twisting...I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. Can you tell me ,,,,(1) who is ,them and they in that line and (2) how does the speaker recognize them and they?

NewB,

Shall we sing it? "Come on baby, let's do the twist."

Dear NewB, sigh,

"I give them eternal life" = the sheep = the believers.
= Such as sing, recite, & believe Ps 23:

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;
He leadeth me beside still waters.
He restoreth my soul:
He guideth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil; for thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
Thou hast anointed my head with oil;
My cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and lovingkindness shall follow me all the days of my life;
And I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

Such sheep trust the Lord Jesus as Savior, not as "chance-giver."

Next Question from NewB:

(2) how does the speaker recognize them and they?

There is no statement about how the Lord Jesus recognizes them. He is omniscient and knows who is a saved believing sheep and who is a pretending church member who regards him as only a chance-giver. He has known everything there is to know or ever will be known about everyone since eternity past; He is God.

There is nothing about recognizing and no condition put on his promise to believers, to sheep. It is stated positively that "I know them." The sheep hear Christ's voice (they know him), and conversely, He knows them.

Of the sheep it is said that the Lord Jesus gives them eternal life, and they shall never perish -- nothing about condition, cause, or result between those characteristics, & Christ's gift. Eternal life is not earned, it is the gift of God. "The wages of sin is death." You earn that one. "but the free gift of God is eternal life, in Jesus Christ our Lord." That one is not earned, it is not of works, but a free gift.

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.
My sheep

1) hear my voice, and
2) I know them, and
3) they follow me:
and [ not if the preceding ]
4) I give to them eternal life; and
5) they shall never perish, and
6) no one shall snatch them out of my hand.
My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatchthem out of the Father’s hand.

We are connecting as the Bible connects -- no conditional connections are given between hearing voice and following. There are no such conditions at all.


Dear NewB,

Could today be the day when you live up to your screen name & stop denying the saving ability of Christ,
when you stop thinking of Him as a chance-giver, and start trusting Him to be your real Savior?

Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.

 

[apostolic862004]

Atwood and eternally-grateful, I will answer both of your posts in one.

Atwood, I must confess that the OLAL questions was really tongue in cheek. I know of no such doctrine, just was having a little fun.

You both mentions that verse 9 tells what he was talking about and I completely agree. He said I am PERSUADED BETTER things of you. That means he "BELIEVED" that they would not fall into that category! Which also means that they COULD HAVE FALLEN INTO THAT CATEGORY! And that is exactly the reason that he wrote this unto them. It was a warning.

You also both admonished me to read on. I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt as I give to you that when I stop at a scripture in my posts, it is to emphesize a point and not that I haven't read on. But since you both pointed this out, let us not skip verses 7 and 8 to get to 9. Verses seven and eight re-emphesize the point he was making. He uses the analogy of the ground getting rain so that it will bear fruit for those who labor in it. Hopefully we can all agree that the rain is analogous of the Holy Ghost being poured out, and the land is us. The ground is expected to bring forth fruit because of the rain. And when the ground brings for fruit, it is blessed of God. But when that same ground that is receiving rain does not bring forth fruit it is cursed and burned. Which burned in this case would be analogous of hell fire. So when an individual that has been a partaker of the rain, does not produce the expected fruit, they are rejected. So that further emphesizes having once been saved and being rejected. That field will get no more rain, its going to be burned.

At this point Paul tells them, I am persuaded better things of you, or in other words, I am persuaded that you will do better than that. If it was impossible for them to fall away, then there is no point in Paul even telling them this in the first place. And there is no point in him saying I am "persuaded" better things. He would have just said, "Don't worry, it is impossible for this to happen to you."