Not By Works

[Discern]

Here is my interaction with Judges post. Before you read, please read the question he was replying to. I do disagree with the last line, but a lot of the stuff leading up to the last line I agreed with ONLY as in the context to the question I asked him...

I have a question for everyone. If a person, say like Bart Eerman, says they used to be a believer, but then turns around and says the Gospels are not reliable, and that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Do you believe a person who has been born of God can do such

You cannot understand my partial agreement unless you consider the context, that is, the question I had asked. I asked if a born again person could deny the faith to such an extent that he would deny the Gospel and the resurrection. My opinion is NO, a person who truly knows or has known God would not do that. Now to Judge's answer, please consider in the context of the question.)

The problem is everyone is trying to answer this in an 'either/or, black&white' way. And that, IMO, is a mistake.

According to the Parable of the Sower, it depends on what kind of soil the word is planted in, (True, not every soil receives or retains the Word.) and to what extent of suffering and/or prosperity the word is exposed to (In the case of the one who received the Word in the stony ground, trials and temptation did prevent the Word from producing fruit) that determines if you will retainthe word of God planted in you to the very end with little or no chance of losing it. (Not losing it, per se, but the word becomes unfruitful in two of the four soils, and it does not produce fruit to maturity in the third. )

There are mature believers who will never renounce the kingdom of God, even under threat of death, (True) and there are those who because of immaturity may renounce the kingdom of God at the next broken finger nail (True in a hyperbolic sense) (more hyperbole, lol). What God is doing is warning us along the way to maturity to not lose the word planted in us (Hebrews 2:1) which can save us (James 1:21)and to become more and more the kind of soil in which the word of God perseveres no matter what conditions the soil is exposed to. (preserves from falling into unbelief, the question was regarding a person who denies the faith) This by far is the more useful and practical and edifying approach to this matter of once saved always saved. (It is better to be kept from falling than being kept in a fallen state)

Think of Simon, who in a similar analogy, started out on shifting sands and denied him out of fear of persecution, but who ended up as Peter, solid as the Rock of Jesus himself who, like Jesus, did not refuse to be crucified. (yes)It think it more wise to look at never being able to lose your salvation as a progression, not a one-time state settled at the moment of conversion (Disagree here.).

 

[Discern]

Here is my interaction with Judges post. Before you read, please read the question he was replying to. I do disagree with the last line, but a lot of the stuff leading up to the last line I agreed with ONLY as in the context to the question I asked him...



You cannot understand my partial agreement unless you consider the context, that is, the question I had asked. I asked if a born again person could deny the faith to such an extent that he would deny the Gospel and the resurrection. My opinion is NO, a person who truly knows or has known God would not do that. Now to Judge's answer, please consider in the context of the question.)

IN other words, I was evaluating the answer in reference to the question I asked, but I did not see the last line. If I had, I would not have agreed.

 

[Discern]

very well said by brother dan... i agree with you

 

[Discern]

One of the funniest, old shows ever made....

 

[Discern]

You know what, you’re right on that one. I agreed with the post in general until the very last sentence. I missed that last sentence. I stand corrected on that.

I do not agree, strongly disagree, with the last sentence

Don't worry about the last replies regarding Judge's post. I still don't agree with the last line.

 

[dcontroversal]

You know what, you’re right on that one. I agreed with the post in general until the very last sentence. I missed that last sentence. I stand corrected on that.

I do not agree, strongly disagree, with the last sentence

look, I like you.....and I know you believe in eternal security by what you say.....Religion has a form of Godliness, but denies the power thereof.....you notice his response to you..he is not even denying who he is and I can say 999 things that are true or seemingly right, but if I add one lie to the context of what I said, that makes it ALL a LIE.....Satan added ONE word in the garden.......that is why an embellished salvation dogma is so dangerous......ONE word leads to death! Keep hammering the truth and in this thread it goes back to SALVATION and what is the correct message and that is why I cut these clowns NO SLACK.

 

[Discern]

look, I like you.....and I know you believe in eternal security by what you say.....Religion has a form of Godliness, but denies the power thereof.....you notice his response to you..he is not even denying who he is and I can say 999 things that are true or seemingly right, but if I add one lie to the context of what I said, that makes it ALL a LIE.....Satan added ONE word in the garden.......that is why an embellished salvation dogma is so dangerous......ONE word leads to death! Keep hammering the truth and in this thread it goes back to SALVATION and what is the correct message and that is why I cut these clowns NO SLACK.

I have not backed down on OSAS with him one bit.

 

[dcontroversal]

sanctification s the work of god in our lives, there are many facets to sanctification. One thing is sure, we will never in this lifetime be completely physically sanctified. All we can do is respond to Gods work in our lives and as Paul said run the race, look forward

justification is not based on how sanctified we become, it is based on gods grace and mercy, something no man or woman will ever deserve.

He will never grasp it........until one understands that positionally before GOD we are JUSTIFIED and SANCTIFIED in Christ with our life being HID within HIS and HIS righteousness IMPUTED by faith, they will remain in their sins and LOST.......

MY life is HID WITHIN CHRIST and when the Heavenly FATHER looks at MY life HE SEES HIS SON JESUS and HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS.......end of story.....Sanctification is DUAL in USAGE....one is POSITIONALLY as described above and the other has to do with the OUTSIDE change because of the INWARD change due to GROWTH and MATURITY...the LATTER is SUBJECT to successes and failures....the first IS NOT and is eternally a done deal due the FAITH and being KEPT by Christ....NOTE...the FAITH HE DEALS, STARTS, FINISHES AND COMPLETES IN US

 

[dcontroversal]

View attachment 208577

Morning BLUEBUG.......

 

[dcontroversal]

If you were truly honest with yourself, verse 29 should settle the matter once and for all.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHA man, you take the cake for dishonesty with the scripture........what a joke

 

[dcontroversal]

View attachment 208578

HAHAHAHHAH I had a double this morning.....I am far from calm HAH

 

[dcontroversal]

A different definition for 'sanctified' gets conveniently used in vs. 29 by once saved always saved so that the verse doesn't conflict with it's doctrine.

More deceit Ralph........kind of like you do with....

Eternal
Everlasting
KEPT
LOSE NOTHING
Begins, finishes and completes
Uttermost
Irrevocable
justified

You will pay....your day is coming.....!!

 

[dcontroversal]

But it is something you must do to be saved, nonetheless.
You can't stop doing that and remain saved.

People....do not believe this blather in this post......this man is false!

 

[stillness]

"Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

 

[Chris1975]

HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHA man, you take the cake for dishonesty with the scripture........what a joke

This scripture: Hebrews 10v29. Lets put it up again. Little babes could understand it:

29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

No amount of contortionist act will be able to overcome what is plainly written there.

 

[dcontroversal]

Well lets look at it:

Hebrews 10v28-31
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” [g]says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Now I realise that this passage doesn't fit your doctrine. That's because your doctrine is wrong.

But don't come and change the plain meaning of this. That would just be disingenuous.

Context proves your twist of this to be false....you are leading people away from the truth and you will pay!

 

[Chris1975]

Context proves your twist of this to be false....you are leading people away from the truth and you will pay!

Vague statements. No dealing with the facts.

 

[dcontroversal]

This scripture: Hebrews 10v29. Lets put it up again. Little babes could understand it:

29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

No amount of contortionist act will be able to overcome what is plainly written there.

You must be dense if you think this equals the loss of salvation.....serious man.....try again Clown

 

[dcontroversal]

Vague statements. No dealing with the facts.

The facts, truth and context means nothing to a cake taking clown that rejects context, verb tense and the very definitions of the words inspired!

 

[Chris1975]

You must be dense if you think this equals the loss of salvation.....serious man.....try again Clown

How can it not mean the loss of salvation?