It Is satanic Heresy to Deny Eternal Security

[eternally-gratefull]

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.

Sorry bro, But vs 7 and 8 would reject this though. Again Context. which you overlooked.

[SUP]7 [/SUP]For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; [SUP]8 [/SUP]but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.



You also continue to comment on the main context of the saying, "it is impossible to be renewed to repentance"

why is that?

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."

You got the context all mixed up. It does not support your theory, because it is talking baout blessing or lack of (reward) and not the person himself.

And I actually mentioned those verses in my last post. And you claimed I skipped it?

That passage says it quite clearly.

A child of God has the ability to be used. If he allows himself to be used, he will recieve blessing, if not. He will see his blessing (reward) burned. And be NEAR TO BEING CURSED.

Again, Just like 1 cor 12. Gold silver precious stone, wood hey straw.

Some will stand in front of God with no rewards, having everything burned, Yet he himself will be saved (STILL) even though as through fire (ie near to being cursed, whos end is to be burned.

It is not the person who will be burned, but his reward.

 

[apostolic862004]

You got the context all mixed up. It does not support your theory, because it is talking baout blessing or lack of (reward) and not the person himself.

And I actually mentioned those verses in my last post. And you claimed I skipped it?

That passage says it quite clearly.

A child of God has the ability to be used. If he allows himself to be used, he will recieve blessing, if not. He will see his blessing (reward) burned. And be NEAR TO BEING CURSED.

Again, Just like 1 cor 12. Gold silver precious stone, wood hey straw.

Some will stand in front of God with no rewards, having everything burned, Yet he himself will be saved (STILL) even though as through fire (ie near to being cursed, whos end is to be burned.

It is not the person who will be burned, but his reward.

eternally, you are saying that he is talking about rewards? And you say that I am the one taking things out of context?!?!

You also continue to comment on the main context of the saying, "it is impossible to be renewed to repentance"

why is that?

You obviously are not reading my posts or you are ignoring them because I just explained why I do not comment on every scripture in the bible every time I post. SMH

 

[Atwood]

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.

Apostolic:

The point is that the apostates who can't repent now, are distinct from saved persons. Saved persons do not and cannot fall into that category.

[/quote]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.
[/quote]

The passage not only does not say "saved," it says that such a description of persons not saved.

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.

There is no "will do" stated or implied. The author of Hebrews speaks of their present condition as saved in his opinion.

If it was impossible for them to fall away, then there is no point in . . . even telling them this in the first place.

In any congregation there are likely to be some professed Christians who were never saved, but they joined the church. So there is a point in it. Professed Christians can apostatize, and as 1 John 2 tells us, the apostasy proves that they were never part of the Body of Christ. True members remain and endure. The is no amputation of body parts from the Lord Jesus' body.

But whatever the point or lack of it, 6:9 tells us that the preceding group is a group of unsaved persons. Saved persons have a better description; the description is not a description of saved persons. It is not saved persons who got lost, which is never a Bible category. The words saved or salvation & lose, never even occur in the same verse in the Bible, nor "lose" and "faith."

Heb 6:9 settles the hash on the passage; the passage does not teach that someone saved loses salvation.

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

Let any professed Chrstian take the warning. Make sure you are saved. There are many professed Christians who have never trusted Christ as Savior, they think of Him as a chance-giver. Let the professed Christian take the warning. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved; repent of regarding Him as a chance-giver instead of as your Savior.

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

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You got the context all mixed up. It does not support your theory, because it is talking baout blessing or lack of (reward) and not the person himself.

And I actually mentioned those verses in my last post. And you claimed I skipped it?

That passage says it quite clearly.


eternally, you are saying that he is talking about rewards? And you say that I am the one taking things out of context?!?!


You obviously are not reading my posts or you are ignoring them because I just explained why I do not comment on every scripture in the bible every time I post. SMH

you have a problem.

1. I proved he spoke of rewards (blessings are rewards, sorry but you can not get out of that one)
2. You still have not responded to the phrase "impossible to renew to repentance)

your the one who asked the question, It was answered. Maybe next time your fishing for something you KNOW you do not want to discuss, you should study more.

 

[Cassian]

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

an assertion that neither you or anyone else has ever presented any evidence to sustain it. I fully understand that for any false teacher the Truth must be minimized at least, dismissed at best, and demonized in order for any other interpretation can stand

So, unless you can present the evidence is stands as a vacuous assertion. .

 

[Atwood]

So, unless you can present the evidence is stands as a vacuous assertion. .

Do you deny that your commitment to your denomination is unconditional? Do you deny that you are unwilling to seriously consider that it might be wrong on eternal security or anything else? Is it not for you a fact that if the Easternolas say so, that proves it; case closed? Thus for you scripture quoted proves nothing?

Sola Easternola.


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.

Audience, do you think that Cassiana will ever stop regarding the Lord Jesus as just a "chance-giver" and actually trust Him as Savior?

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

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]

The Undenial, Unbreakable ES Golden Chain of Romans 8

And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. For whom
he foreknew,
he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: and whom
he foreordained, them
he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom
he justified, them
he also glorified

foreknew >forordained >called >justified >glorified

The Old Titanic has been hit by the iceberg.
The consequences may not be avoided even by every man on board grabbing an bucket & bailing. It is unglorification, Davy Jones' Locker.

For the believer, the death blow to any condemnation was struck on the cross. "It is finished" was the cry.

He who believes in the Son of God is justified by faith.
Glorification must follow.
To stop this would be to stop the omnipotent Savior.

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

 

[Atwood]

Calvin Shmalvin

Evidently someone thinks that to discredit Eternal Security all he need do is accuse it of Calvinism, as if the Trinity & the Deity of Christ were errors because Calvin believed them.

I guess said debater gets comfort out of repeating "Calvinism" like a mantra. His argument seems to be like this:

1) my denomination is infallible, [wrong]
2) my denomination has declared Calvin a twit and a fink, and Calvinism as an abominable heresy,
3) only TULIP-Calvinism teaches eternal security [wrong],
4) therefore, ES is an error.

Now if you really want to argue traditions, denominations, theological systems, & theillogical systems systems, go and consider the POV of famous apologist, Norman Geisler, PhD from a RCC school (Loyola),
who rejects much of Calvinism and (I think) denies the T, U, L, & I of the Calvinist TULIP; yet he maintains the P, the perseverance of the saint (eternal security).

I link Geisler's Home Page below:

Dr. Norman Geisler - Home Page

[TABLE="width: 518"]
[TR]
[TD="class: auto-style5, align: center"][/TD]
[TD="class: auto-style59"]"Dr. Norman Geisler, PhD, is a prolific author, veteran professor, speaker, lecturer, traveler, philosopher, apologist, evangelist, and theologian. To those who ask, "Who is Norm Geisler?" some have suggested, "Well, imagine a cross between Thomas Aquinas and Billy Graham and you're not too far off."

"Norm has authored/coauthored over 80 books and hundreds of articles. He has taught theology, philosophy, and apologetics on the college or graduate level for over 50 years. He has served as a professor at some of the finest Seminaries in the United States."

[BTW, I do not hold Geisler's position on election; but I am not arguing eternal security here as dependent on that basis. So don't go quoting me and asking me to defend his POV.][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

My guess is that said debater will give no heed to the straw man nature of his argument, and go on reciting Calvin, Calvin, Calvin, Calvin, like a mantra.

Who knows, maybe a die-hard 5 point Calvinist will turn up & go at it with him. We could then sit back & watch the fun.

Only this debate is serious.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.
There is no promise of salvation for trusting Christ as a mere "chance-giver."

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

 

[apostolic862004]

you have a problem.

1. I proved he spoke of rewards (blessings are rewards, sorry but you can not get out of that one)
2. You still have not responded to the phrase "impossible to renew to repentance)

your the one who asked the question, It was answered. Maybe next time your fishing for something you KNOW you do not want to discuss, you should study more.

LOL! You are funny! You think that saying you proved something that you didn't and then refusing to talk about it again means you proved it? Too funny man, too funny. And then to think that insulting me gets you off the hook? LOL! Hilarious! Listen, I will agree with you on one point, I need to study more. I can never get enough of the word of God!

Now to address the part that you claim i am ignoring because I don't know it:

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

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

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)

Awe man! He was so close!

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.

The first "interpretation" as you call it is not an interpretation. That is exactly what the passage says without interpreting it at all. The reason you have "never heard this doctrine" as you said, is because you are willfully ignorant of it. You just read it, you just stated it, and then you said that is not what it says! The scripture SAYS if they fall away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. Then you say:

the first interpretation is not supported in the passage, or scripture.

Then you proceed to put your interpretation on what it actually says. You guys crack me up! You look at it, read it, and they say it doesn't mean what it said!

When the bible says it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance if they fall away, that is what it means! Now what would they be falling away from if they had never been saved? Please, Please, oh pretty pretty please tell me what sinners who have never been saved are falling away from? What is this heavenly gift that these sinners have tasted of? How have they partaken of the Holy Ghost while being sinners? Please tell me?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

LOL! You are funny! You think that saying you proved something that you didn't and then refusing to talk about it again means you proved it? Too funny man, too funny. And then to think that insulting me gets you off the hook? LOL! Hilarious! Listen, I will agree with you on one point, I need to study more. I can never get enough of the word of God!

What is hilarious, is you claim a "blessing (reward) is anything but a blessing.

If that will not prove it to you nothing will.

Whats even more amazing, Is you are the one who attacked. Claiming I jumped to verse 9, When that was Atwood, Not me And then your attack went further, by saying I skipped 7 and 8. When my response to you WAS vs 7-8, yet you have not even admitted your mistake.

As for attacking you. You telling, do you honestly want to sit there and say you were seriously asking a question? And wanted to learn? Your responses prove otherwise.

Now to address the part that you claim i am ignoring because I don't know it:


Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Awe man! He was so close!

lol. So you honestly think this? You must be on your own man, I have studied this topic for decades, and I have never heard anyone claim this.

The first "interpretation" as you call it is not an interpretation. That is exactly what the passage says without interpreting it at all.

This would be false. because if this was true, Vs 7 - 8 have absolutely no meaning in the text. You would have to completely remove them to come up with that interpretaion.

Sorry bro, But the text has to be united in context and meaning.

The reason you have "never heard this doctrine" as you said, is because you are willfully ignorant of it. You just read it, you just stated it, and then you said that is not what it says! The scripture SAYS if they fall away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. Then you say: Then you proceed to put your interpretation on what it actually says. You guys crack me up! You look at it, read it, and they say it doesn't mean what it said!

When the bible says it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance if they fall away, that is what it means! Now what would they be falling away from if they had never been saved? Please, Please, oh pretty pretty please tell me what sinners who have never been saved are falling away from? What is this heavenly gift that these sinners have tasted of? How have they partaken of the Holy Ghost while being sinners? Please tell me?

lol..

Your interpretation is based on belief not the passage.

The if is the problem. It can be if they could fall away, there are examples of this all over scripture and ALL literature. But you do not want to see this, All you want to see is through your blinders to fit your belief.

Again, Vs 7 - 8 (which are parallel with 1 cor and rewards) would destroy the context if we are to see it your way.)

Nice try though.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

an assertion that neither you or anyone else has ever presented any evidence to sustain it. I fully understand that for any false teacher the Truth must be minimized at least, dismissed at best, and demonized in order for any other interpretation can stand

So, unless you can present the evidence is stands as a vacuous assertion. .

So much evidence has been shown, it is amazing.

Just because you disagree does not mean a thing.

Your the one claiming we follow men. When it is you. Do you hear us quoting men? or saying our church fathers have truth and no one else does?

We like to stick to scripture. And they gets your gull. You can even figure out we do not follow calvin, not even come cose to his belief, Because your to busy listening to what people tell you we believe, instead of figuring it out for yourself

 

[Cassian]

-Atwood,

Do you deny that your commitment to your denomination is unconditional?

strawman again. I don't belong to any denomination.

I am a member of the Church Christ established here on earth, His Body. And that is unconditional.

Do you deny that you are unwilling to seriously consider that it might be wrong on eternal security or anything else?

I did that 17 years ago. The Truth has prevailed unchanged for 2000 years. That Truth never had such a teaching as ES. ES is the result of one man devising a whole new religious system which included OSAS some 1500 years after the Gospel was given.

Is it not for you a fact that if the Easternolas say so, that proves it; case closed? Thus for you scripture quoted proves nothing?

I have faith in Christ, who is Head of His Body the Church which is enlivened by the Holy Spirit and it is the Body that has preserved the Gospel of Christ unchanged from the beginning. So, it is as Christ gave it. Scripture is a witness to that Truth, it is NOT the Truth. Scripture means everything, but only in its original meaning, not what some modern man says a text might mean from his own intellectual persuits.

As yet, you have presented no evidence of any man made theories that I have taught. Produce the doctrine taught by man that has always been believed from the beginning other than the Apostles.

You cannot even summarize what your opponents have presented because you do not understand what they stated. You see your view only and then interpret everything else within the prism of your own false understandings.
YOu still have not produced any evidence of ES from scripture. YOu are locked into your man made theory which is why nothing in scripture can ever support it.

 

[kennethcadwell]

I have shown scriptures that show how some fall away, persevering to the end, enduring to the end, and a full on study of the early church that shows they taught one could lose salvation. Even Augustine though some could lose salvation in the study he did as well.

The only argument they can give back on what I show is trying to say it does not apply to us, I study man instead of scriptures ( however I study scripture plus the original teaching of the apostles in which the scriptures come from ), and they twist scripture around kind of like people with dyslexia flip letters in words.

Example:
( True scripture ) "And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. "

( False scripture, how they want to word it ) But he who is saved, endures to the end.

See how they reverse the scripture which changes the meaning.

 

[apostolic862004]

Whats even more amazing, Is you are the one who attacked. Claiming I jumped to verse 9, When that was Atwood, Not me And then your attack went further, by saying I skipped 7 and 8. When my response to you WAS vs 7-8, yet you have not even admitted your mistake.

I never "attacked" you or Atwood. I never claimed that either of you jumped to verse nine. I simply said let us NOT do that! I did not accuse either of you of doing. Now concerning the fact that you never directed my attention to verse 9, you are absolutely correct. I went back through the posts and you are right it was Atwood and not you so I do apologize about that. That's what I get for trying to answer two different individuals in one post!

As for attacking you. You telling, do you honestly want to sit there and say you were seriously asking a question? And wanted to learn? Your responses prove otherwise.


Now to address the part that you claim i am ignoring because I don't know it:


Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Awe man! He was so close!


lol. So you honestly think this? You must be on your own man, I have studied this topic for decades, and I have never heard anyone claim this.

Yes that is what I am telling you. However, your answers and responses have only confirmed what I already believed. But I did honestly want to know what you guys believe. I realize that when I am just poking a little bit of fun, it is being taken very seriously. I have watched people bash one another on these forums and I don't agree with that. I do enjoy sarcasm but I will not attack you as an individual and I believe if you review my posts you will find this to be true. But I will attack doctrine that I believe is false and you do the same as well. If you believe that is wrong, you should read about Elijah's conversation with the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel! Now that's sarcasm for ya!

As for the second part of your quote, if you have never heard anyone claim this, I would like to say that I am glad to be the first one that you heard the truth about this scripture from! (Sorry, couldn't help the sarcasm! Its in my blood!)

The if is the problem. It can be if they could fall away, there are examples of this all over scripture and ALL literature. But you do not want to see this, All you want to see is through your blinders to fit your belief.

See, there you go again changing what it said. It does not say "If they COULD fall away." It says "If they FALL away." There is no "Could" there because they can. When God wanted to emphasize the word "could," he had no problem doing it. Matt 24:24 makes it very obvious that it is not possible for the elect to be deceived. There is a distinct difference between that passage and this one. Can you tell the difference?

 

[kennethcadwell]

In the scriptures our Lord compares us to those of the past for example the angels who fell. They were in Gods grace in heaven, but left their celestial abode to come down to earth. The scriptures show that they are being held for judgment of hell fire, and we are no different then them for we can fall away too.

Would those angels be cast into the lake of fire if they stayed in heaven ? NO
Because they did they will be.

Same with us, if we stay in the way of our Lord we will be saved. If we leave our celestial abode ( spiritual mind set ) to go back to a world mind set we lose that gift.

 

[Cassian]

So much evidence has been shown, it is amazing.

Just because you disagree does not mean a thing.

Your the one claiming we follow men. When it is you. Do you hear us quoting men? or saying our church fathers have truth and no one else does?

We like to stick to scripture. And they gets your gull. You can even figure out we do not follow calvin, not even come cose to his belief, Because your to busy listening to what people tell you we believe, instead of figuring it out for yourself

Your lack of understanding of scripture, and history should have already been clear that any and all false teachings originate from scripture. I don't know of a single false teaching that is not based on scripture. That is why it is called a false teaching, as opposed to a false or alternate religion.

You and other supporters are espousing a man made theory, ES, which has always and only ever been a teaching of Calvinism under the foundation of predestination. It is why it is so easy to know and understand false teachings, they are always derived by man using scripture.

Using scripture as a sola scripturist uses it, one could not any more prove Mormonism incorrect than prove whatever teaching you might have as developed by you to be correct.
The true text of the meaning of scripture is has it been believed, taught the same from the beginning. Not what some man developed 1500 years later of even more modern than that.

If you would actually stick to scripture as it has always been believed you would be on the right road.

If you do not follow Calvin, you follow your own personal intellectual accumen which is not any better or worse than Calvin. It is still a man made theory that cannot be shown to have been believed from the beginning. It is also obvious you will never figure it out for yourself either. For 500 years man has been doing that and all you can do is come up with more personalized gospels, more sectarian, more philosophical ideas from a text that now number in the thousands.

You have elevated yourself to the ultimate power and authority over a text and it is YOUR personal interpretation that is infallible. You cannot even acknowledge that some other guy beat you to your false teaching. Your ego and arrogance needs to claim it for yourself. The very antithesis of Chiristianity - individualism with man's ego run amuck.

 

[Atwood]

The very antithesis of Chiristianity - individualism with man's ego run amuck.

So its Sola Easternola, if not Sola Cassiana -- I note you typically just do the ol' Sola Cassiana routine, as here.

So contrary to the Lord Jesus who settled debates with "It is written."
Shall I say?:
"Hypage Cassiana, for it is written:

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

The authorized sword is the Word of God, not ecclesiastical tradition.

 

[kennethcadwell]

That one scripture seems to be the only one you keep quoting, but does that say when the eternal life is given...NO

If you read other scriptures like the ones I have given with out reversing them like to tend to do, or trying to say they don't apply you will see through to this.

" But he who endures to the end will be saved. "

" I come quickly and My reward is with Me. "

So its Sola Easternola, if not Sola Cassiana -- I note you typically just do the ol' Sola Cassiana routine, as here.

So contrary to the Lord Jesus who settled debates with "It is written."
Shall I say?:
"Hypage Cassiana, for it is written:

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

The authorized sword is the Word of God, not ecclesiastical tradition.

 

[Atwood]

In the scriptures our Lord compares us to those of the past for example the angels who fell. They were in Gods grace in heaven, but left their celestial abode to come down to earth. The scriptures show that they are being held for judgment of hell fire, and we are no different then them for we can fall away too.

Kenneth, We are very different. One cannot show from Scripture how Christ became an angel; Christ did not die for angels, as Hebrew 2:16 says:

For verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham.

The Lord Jesus became a man; he entered the race of Adam, and as our substitute died for our sins, paying for them on the cross. He never did that for angels, neither is there any indication that angels are a race instead of individual creatures.

Also, he did not give a promise to angels that if they trusted Him as Savior they would get eternal life. Now scripture does speak about elect angels, so I figure from that that the elect angels do have eternal security; they don't have to worry that some day they might sin & be lost. While there is no "salvation" indicated for angels, there are "elect angels" (1 Tim 5:21).

This is how it appears to me:
Angels were created to show God's holiness. They are ever holy and have no itch to sin, never sin, & never will. If they ever did, it would be the Lake of Fire with no redemption. But men were created to be a trophy of God's grace (see Eph 1). We have the honor of manifesting that strange attribute of God's called grace; how He may extend favor to His enemies & even to vile sinners like us.

"Same with us" is a big error in comparing to angels.

Your post is a typical example of trying to apply something off topic to eternal security in order to negate it. To disprove you need to show that "eternal life" is something you can lose, salvation is something you can lose. And at the same time you need to show that the Lord Jesus is no Savior, but just a "chance-giver."

Why not give over and trust Him as Savior?

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

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I never "attacked" you or Atwood. I never claimed that either of you jumped to verse nine. I simply said let us NOT do that! I did not accuse either of you of doing. Now concerning the fact that you never directed my attention to verse 9, you are absolutely correct. I went back through the posts and you are right it was Atwood and not you so I do apologize about that. That's what I get for trying to answer two different individuals in one post!


Yes that is what I am telling you. However, your answers and responses have only confirmed what I already believed. But I did honestly want to know what you guys believe. I realize that when I am just poking a little bit of fun, it is being taken very seriously. I have watched people bash one another on these forums and I don't agree with that. I do enjoy sarcasm but I will not attack you as an individual and I believe if you review my posts you will find this to be true. But I will attack doctrine that I believe is false and you do the same as well. If you believe that is wrong, you should read about Elijah's conversation with the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel! Now that's sarcasm for ya!

As for the second part of your quote, if you have never heard anyone claim this, I would like to say that I am glad to be the first one that you heard the truth about this scripture from! (Sorry, couldn't help the sarcasm! Its in my blood!)


See, there you go again changing what it said. It does not say "If they COULD fall away." It says "If they FALL away." There is no "Could" there because they can. When God wanted to emphasize the word "could," he had no problem doing it. Matt 24:24 makes it very obvious that it is not possible for the elect to be deceived. There is a distinct difference between that passage and this one. Can you tell the difference?

Well thanks.

You confirmed what I thought also (that I can not believe you way) But thanks for trying.

You can say it has to say if they could. But it does not. Again we see it all the time, The word IF has that as one of its defenitions any time it is used.

Again, Vs 7 - 8 (which again you do not desire to even acknowledge) would show this is false. He is talking about rewards (blessings, or having blessings burned) to show a person can not fall away. They can lose reward, and have nothing to show. But they can not fall away.

Jews taught salvation could be lost and gained. The author was refuting this Reward can be lost or gained. NOT SALVATION.

The context of heb 6 is not progressing, remaining a babe,

Heb 5 is about melchizadeck (high priest)

Heb 7 is about the same (jesus as a better high priest.

heb 6 is right dab in the middle it is part of the discussion of jesus as our high priest. A better high priest than the levitical. which could NEVER take away sin.