1 John 2:19—Proof of Eternal Security?

[ResidentAlien]

Proponents of eternal security are quick to quote 1 John 2:19: "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 none of them were of us." This supposedly proves that if someone falls away and returns to a life of sin they were never saved in the first place. I have some problems with this notion and I'd like to examine it more carefully.

First, it says they "were not of us." The whole basis of the argument rests on this phrase. So what does it mean, really? I don't think it's conclusive that John meant they weren't saved at one point. It could very well mean they were saved but didn't have the same level of commitment and when trials and temptations arose they fell away.

Second, think about the implications. If falling away and returning to a life of sin means a person was never saved to begin with, then no saved person would ever succumb to sin.

Third, how does someone know the people described in 1 John 2:19 were never saved? Because they succumbed to sin? You can say they were never saved, but where in this passage does it indicate these people were never saved? You can't just speculate, you have to follow the text.

For these reasons we have to reject arguments for eternal security based on 1 John 2:19.

 

[RaceRunner]

Everybody has "Eternal Security"; Most people go to hell and some people go to heaven.

 

[cv5]

Proponents of eternal security are quick to quote 1 John 2:19: "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 none of them were of us." This supposedly proves that if someone falls away and returns to a life of sin they were never saved in the first place. I have some problems with this notion and I'd like to examine it more carefully.

First, it says they "were not of us." The whole basis of the argument rests on this phrase. So what does it mean, really? I don't think it's conclusive that John meant they weren't saved at one point. It could very well mean they were saved but didn't have the same level of commitment and when trials and temptations arose they fell away.

Second, think about the implications. If falling away and returning to a life of sin means a person was never saved to begin with, then no saved person would ever succumb to sin.

Third, how does someone know the people described in 1 John 2:19 were never saved? Because they succumbed to sin? You can say they were never saved, but where in this passage does it indicate these people were never saved? You can't just speculate, you have to follow the text.

For these reasons we have to reject arguments for eternal security based on 1 John 2:19.

John 10:26-29 bro. Another thing: election. Something beyond our purview.

 

[oyster67]

Second, think about the implications... no saved person would ever succumb to sin.

And that is the big allure of Calvinism. They think they can get saved and then just do their own thing.

God knows who is fertile soil and who is not. He knew all along that Judas would betray Him, but Jesus let him follow for a season anyway. Foreknowledge is not a logical defense for Calvinism.

 

[cv5]

if someone falls away and returns to a life of sin

The problem is changing gods (or giving the true God the boot) or heretical doctrine. Not "sins". IMO.

 

[wattie]

Falls away... depends what we mean when we say this.

I'm in the belief that a believer can fall into serious sin and still be saved.. but they can expect rebuke and discipline from the Holy Spirit indwelling in them.

Mathew 18:19-20 has the process of discipline for a believer in a church. They could be kicked from their church.

Their family may also cut them off.

They may even be taken from the earth by death, from God, to stop them continuing their sin.

But I'm not into people saying a believer won't fall away, WILL do good works.

There is many a believer who is nominal in their faith due to the world around them and they've followed it.

And yeah OSAS does not equal calvinism .

Calvinists do teach eternal security ... but only for the pre chosen ones who WILL do good works and WILL be faithful to the end.

True OSAS is the underlying commitment of Jesus thru His forgiveness of past, present and future sins. Regardless of whether they are faithful to the end.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Proponents of eternal security are quick to quote 1 John 2:19: "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 none of them were of us." This supposedly proves that if someone falls away and returns to a life of sin they were never saved in the first place. I have some problems with this notion and I'd like to examine it more carefully.

First, it says they "were not of us." The whole basis of the argument rests on this phrase. So what does it mean, really? I don't think it's conclusive that John meant they weren't saved at one point. It could very well mean they were saved but didn't have the same level of commitment and when trials and temptations arose they fell away.

Second, think about the implications. If falling away and returning to a life of sin means a person was never saved to begin with, then no saved person would ever succumb to sin.

Third, how does someone know the people described in 1 John 2:19 were never saved? Because they succumbed to sin? You can say they were never saved, but where in this passage does it indicate these people were never saved? You can't just speculate, you have to follow the text.

For these reasons we have to reject arguments for eternal security based on 1 John 2:19.

People read too much into that passage. Details arent given so we dont really know what happened. All we see is John writing that some left and he gives reason not to distressed over it. Its possible that the statement was simple rhetoric. "They left because they really never were with us."
There just ismt enougn information there to form or support an eternal security doctrine. The only thing we can really take from that passage is that some folks left the church. We can learn from it that sometimes folks will leave the church and its not in our hands.

We use these same term when our children habe a falling out with their friends, we say they never were your friend to start with. Not because its a fact that they never were friends, but because this is where it ends and there is nothing that can be done about it.

 

[wattie]

The other thing is whether this is about leaving church.. and not about salvation. Is 'us' in this passage.. a local church?

If this is the case then it's not so much about saying unsaved or not.

 

[ResidentAlien]

John 10:26-29 bro. Another thing: election. Something beyond our purview.

Right.

 

[ResidentAlien]

John doesn't say, the left because they never were of us, but they are not of us. The context seems to suggest they left over disagreements about doctrine.

 

[John146]

Proponents of eternal security are quick to quote 1 John 2:19:

I've never thought of using this passage, nor have I ever heard of any one else use this passage for eternal security.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I've never thought of using this passage, nor have I ever heard of any one else use this passage for eternal security.

Okay, thanks for your input.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Proponents of eternal security are quick to quote 1 John 2:19: "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 none of them were of us." This supposedly proves that if someone falls away and returns to a life of sin they were never saved in the first place. I have some problems with this notion and I'd like to examine it more carefully.

First, it says they "were not of us." The whole basis of the argument rests on this phrase. So what does it mean, really? I don't think it's conclusive that John meant they weren't saved at one point. It could very well mean they were saved but didn't have the same level of commitment and when trials and temptations arose they fell away.

Second, think about the implications. If falling away and returning to a life of sin means a person was never saved to begin with, then no saved person would ever succumb to sin.

Third, how does someone know the people described in 1 John 2:19 were never saved? Because they succumbed to sin? You can say they were never saved, but where in this passage does it indicate these people were never saved? You can't just speculate, you have to follow the text.

For these reasons we have to reject arguments for eternal security based on 1 John 2:19.

Eternal security happened on the cross for all of God's elect that he choose before the foundation of the world, (Eph 1:4) and predetermined that Jesus Christ would adopt them as his children (Eph 1:5) by giving them to his Son to redeem them from their sins and securing their inheritance in an everlasting heaven by Jesus statement that "he would not lose any of them, but would raise them all up at the last day". (John 6:39).

 

[ResidentAlien]

Eternal security happened on the cross for all of God's elect that he choose before the foundation of the world, (Eph 1:4) and predetermined that Jesus Christ would adopt them as his children (Eph 1:5) by giving them to his Son to redeem them from their sins and securing their inheritance in an everlasting heaven by Jesus statement that "he would not lose any of them, but would raise them all up at the last day". (John 6:39).

What are your thoughts on the topic of this thread?

 

[ForestGreenCook]

And that is the big allure of Calvinism. They think they can get saved and then just do their own thing.

God knows who is fertile soil and who is not. He knew all along that Judas would betray Him, but Jesus let him follow for a season anyway. Foreknowledge is not a logical defense for Calvinism.

And you think that you can be eternally saved by your good works and resist sin.

 

[ResidentAlien]

And you think that you can be eternally saved by your good works and resist sin.

Don't you believe in doing good works?

 

[ForestGreenCook]

What are your thoughts on the topic of this thread?

Gen 32:28 - Jacob's name was changed to be no more called Jacob, but to be called Israel. Jacob as Israel represents all of God's elect (Rom 9:11) from every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (Rev 5:9) known as the "house of Israel". There is a "remnant of the house of Israel" that did not fallaway, Zeph 3:13, The remnant of Israel shall do no iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth, for they feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.

Those of the house of Israel that have fallen away are known as the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (not lost eternally, but lost from the knowledge of the righteousness of God"s revelation of what his Son accomplished on the cross.). Jesus instructed his apostles to go and preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 10:5).

The house of Israel has a history of turning away from God as indicated from their journey through the wilderness on their way to the promised land.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Don't you believe in doing good works?

Eph 2:10 - For we ( those who are born again) are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. WE do not always do good works because of the fleshly desires of our old man that we do carry with us, although we are born again.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Gen 32:28 - Jacob's name was changed to be no more called Jacob, but to be called Israel. Jacob as Israel represents all of God's elect (Rom 9:11) from every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (Rev 5:9) known as the "house of Israel". There is a "remnant of the house of Israel" that did not fallaway, Zeph 3:13, The remnant of Israel shall do no iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth, for they feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.

Those of the house of Israel that have fallen away are known as the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (not lost eternally, but lost from the knowledge of the righteousness of God"s revelation of what his Son accomplished on the cross.). Jesus instructed his apostles to go and preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 10:5).

The house of Israel has a history of turning away from God as indicated from their journey through the wilderness on their way to the promised land.

I'm sorry for your condition. You do have ADD, have you not? They're doing great things for that these days.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Eph 2:10 - For we ( those who are born again) are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. WE do not always do good works because of the fleshly desires of our old man that we do carry with us, although we are born again.

So why do you assume someone is trying to earn salvation by works simply because the don't subscribe to eternal security? It's quite illogical.