The problem of the statement of “never saved to begin with”

[Magenta]

1 John 5:11-13 + John 6:47 ~ This is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

 

[TrustandObey]

I agree with you.

YOU, and others that believe you can lose your salvation, are absolutely right.

YOU can!

But those of us that KNOW Jesus, and have been born again to new life as a child of the Living God, can’t!!

Praise your Holy Name Father ABBA!

We know, that although You may discipline us when we sin, and do wrong, like every good father does, You will NEVER cast your precious kids into hell.

Please forgive those that that claim You would.

There is only one Gospel.

There is no gospel for the OSAS believers and another gospel for Christians.

Just the Gospel of Christ.

 

[TrustandObey]

I'm explaining what the passage actually means.

"I'm explaining what the passage actually means."

This is rather telling.

Get over yourself.

 

[Believer08]

"I'm explaining what the passage actually means."

This is rather telling.

Get over yourself.

I find it very wasteful time discussing stuff with others online. I don’t even know why I’m here. I’ve been accused of earning salvation simply because I don’t believe in OSAS, been accused of works based salvation, and probably other stuff. It’s ridiculous, and it’s no use discussing doctrinal or theology with people who refuses to listen or to understand the other side. Most people on here are set in their ways.

 

[PennEd]

There is only one Gospel.

There is no gospel for the OSAS believers and another gospel for Christians.

Just the Gospel of Christ.

Yep

 

[GWH]

Again you conflate terminology. Innocence is not righteousness. Trust/faith is what is in view. I already explained why.

Found this by googling:

In the New Testament four terms are used for innocent.

The first means unmixed or pure (Matthew 10:16; Philippians 2:15 );
the second, free from (Matthew 27:4 ,Matthew 27:4,27:24 );
the third, just, righteous, or upright (Matthew 23:35; Luke 23:47 );
and the fourth, clean or pure (Acts 18:6; Acts 20:26 ).

Don't see trust/faith mentioned.

Also, try substituting "innocence" and "trust/faith" for righteousness in Scripture and see which works better.
For example, RM 3:22a:

"This righteousness is given [imputed/credited per RM 4:3f.] through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

 

[GWH]

"Again you conflate terminology."???

If innocence is not righteousness, then trust is not faith.

I suspect you are purposely nit-picking.

I agree.

 

[Cameron143]

"I'm explaining what the passage actually means."

This is rather telling.

Get over yourself.

Interesting that you respond this way and don't quote the entire post.

The original poster I responded to conflated terms that didn't consider the context of the passage. The second poster didn't follow the discussion and responded without the context of the particular passage. And you respond by pulling out a statement of my response to the second poster without its context, and give correction for a spiritual problem you believe exists in me, albeit, you do so void of love.

Perhaps, read back through the discussion and follow the whole argument, and quote entire posts so as not to skew truth or intention.

 

[Cameron143]

Found this by googling:

In the New Testament four terms are used for innocent.

The first means unmixed or pure (Matthew 10:16; Philippians 2:15 );
the second, free from (Matthew 27:4 ,Matthew 27:4,27:24 );
the third, just, righteous, or upright (Matthew 23:35; Luke 23:47 );
and the fourth, clean or pure (Acts 18:6; Acts 20:26 ).

Don't see trust/faith mentioned.

Also, try substituting "innocence" and "trust/faith" for righteousness in Scripture and see which works better.
For example, RM 3:22a:

"This righteousness is given [imputed/credited per RM 4:3f.] through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I'm not arguing what terms mean, as such. I'm arguing that what is in view in the passage is trust, and not innocence.


To make this point, I made the distinction between innocence and righteousness. While children do possess innocence, their innocence is not the result of righteousness; it's source is ignorance. This being the case, your explanation does not fit with...of such is the kingdom of God. Implicit trust/faith does fit...of such is the kingdom of God.

 

[GWH]

I'm not arguing what terms mean, as such. I'm arguing that what is in view in the passage is trust, and not innocence.

To make this point, I made the distinction between innocence and righteousness. While children do possess innocence, their innocence is not the result of righteousness; it's source is ignorance. This being the case, your explanation does not fit with...of such is the kingdom of God. Implicit trust/faith does fit...of such is the kingdom of God.

Making a distinction between innocence IS arguing about what the terms mean,
but my point is that we should not be arguing at all,
because I agreed that trust/faith are in view, too, and even primarily, perhaps.
You seem to be biased against agreement,
whereas I desire agreement/unity/harmony.

 

[Eli1]

I find it very wasteful time discussing stuff with others online. I don’t even know why I’m here. I’ve been accused of earning salvation simply because I don’t believe in OSAS, been accused of works based salvation, and probably other stuff. It’s ridiculous, and it’s no use discussing doctrinal or theology with people who refuses to listen or to understand the other side. Most people on here are set in their ways.

I'm curious, why do you continue to have these discussions then, which have no answer?

 

[Cameron143]

Making a distinction between innocence IS arguing about what the terms mean,
but my point is that we should not be arguing at all,
because I agreed that trust/faith are in view, too, and even primarily, perhaps.
You seem to be biased against agreement,
whereas I desire agreement/unity/harmony.

Appreciate the discussion. Grace and peace.

 

[GWH]

Appreciate the discussion. Grace and peace.

I agree.
(Ditto :^)

 

[Believer08]

I'm curious, why do you continue to have these discussions then, which have no answer?

So that others (who are not involved in the convo) can see the truth who might be viewing it or who come across it. Other than that, I suppose it’s time to bow out from them.

 

[Musicmaster]

When faced with the truth of people falling away from the faith, departing from the faith, etc etc…people who believe in the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy typically says “he/she never had faith” or “he/she was never truly saved to begin with”

But….

That means it’s entirely possible for someone to believe they are saved but not be…

How comforting is that?

I wonder if these people would apply that same line of reasoning with themselves? Or are they the exception to it? I wonder how consistent they would be? If they themselves depart, would they say they were never saved?

If so, then when would they know for sure???

Are any of them absolutely, positively certain without a doubt they are saved at this very moment???

Of course they’d say yes…

But…

If any of them depart from their faith, all their OSAS friends will say...

You were never saved to begin with!!

So, according to their view, it is possible for someone to believe they are saved but not be!!!

Not only were these individuals not Christians now, but they were never Christians in the first place, despite the fact that in the past these people did everything that current devoted believers of OSAS will cite as proof of their own conversion!

It can be challenging for individuals to apply the same reasoning to themselves as they do to others. If someone who believes in OSAS were to depart from their faith, they might struggle with the question of whether they were ever truly saved themselves. This inconsistency can lead to confusion and doubt about their own salvation.

If someone departs from their faith, they may feel a loss of that assurance, leading to uncertainty about their own standing before God.

If someone who believes in OSAS were to depart from their faith, they might grapple with questions about their own salvation.

The ugly reality behind the supposed comfort of the doctrine of once saved always is It's supposed to provide believers with the assurance of salvation, but logically, it does the opposite. Those who live like faithful Christians, who sincerely (to every appearance) describe themselves as being children of God, can still fall away and thereby prove that they were never regenerated/saved at all. To be true and honest with their belief, no person who believes in OSAS would categorize anyone to be saved, as such an individual will prove their salvation to be genuine by dying to the faith.

Some believe in what you termed, "...impossibility of apostacy..."? Have you met someone who believes that?

What I question is the works-based salvation that is the logical conclusion to the idea that anyone can lose their salvation. In other words, if we have to DO something to retain our salvation, keeping it from being lost, then it's works-based, which is a false doctrine from the very outset.

MM

 

[GWH]

Some believe in what you termed, "...impossibility of apostacy..."? Have you met someone who believes that?

What I question is the works-based salvation that is the logical conclusion to the idea that anyone can lose their salvation. In other words, if we have to DO something to retain our salvation, keeping it from being lost, then it's works-based, which is a false doctrine from the very outset.

MM

Not if what is done to remain saved is the same as what is done to be saved. There is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living (EPH 2:8-10, 2CR 5:7), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

When faced with the truth of people falling away from the faith, departing from the faith, etc etc…people who believe in the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy typically says “he/she never had faith” or “he/she was never truly saved to begin with”

But….

That means it’s entirely possible for someone to believe they are saved but not be…

How comforting is that?

I wonder if these people would apply that same line of reasoning with themselves? Or are they the exception to it? I wonder how consistent they would be? If they themselves depart, would they say they were never saved?

If so, then when would they know for sure???

Are any of them absolutely, positively certain without a doubt they are saved at this very moment???

Of course they’d say yes…

But…

If any of them depart from their faith, all their OSAS friends will say...

You were never saved to begin with!!

So, according to their view, it is possible for someone to believe they are saved but not be!!!

Not only were these individuals not Christians now, but they were never Christians in the first place, despite the fact that in the past these people did everything that current devoted believers of OSAS will cite as proof of their own conversion!

It can be challenging for individuals to apply the same reasoning to themselves as they do to others. If someone who believes in OSAS were to depart from their faith, they might struggle with the question of whether they were ever truly saved themselves. This inconsistency can lead to confusion and doubt about their own salvation.

If someone departs from their faith, they may feel a loss of that assurance, leading to uncertainty about their own standing before God.

If someone who believes in OSAS were to depart from their faith, they might grapple with questions about their own salvation.

The ugly reality behind the supposed comfort of the doctrine of once saved always is It's supposed to provide believers with the assurance of salvation, but logically, it does the opposite. Those who live like faithful Christians, who sincerely (to every appearance) describe themselves as being children of God, can still fall away and thereby prove that they were never regenerated/saved at all. To be true and honest with their belief, no person who believes in OSAS would categorize anyone to be saved, as such an individual will prove their salvation to be genuine by dying to the faith.

Saying someone was never saved to begin with if they are presently not saved is not problematic. Its the truth.

One can not lose something they never could earn to begin with

John said those who depart were never of us.. If they were,. they never would have left.

sadly we have possibly many in our churches who may think they are saved but they are not saved. many of these people will leave and profess that Jesus is not real these people were never saved as John says
others will fall back into sin, like a dog. returning to their vomit. They were still dogs. and reverted to their true self
yet even many more will be prodigal children. Who have lost their way not their salvation..

Non of us are God. we can not judge..

 

[GWH]

Saying someone was never saved to begin with if they are presently not saved is not problematic. Its the truth.

One can not lose something they never could earn to begin with

John said those who depart were never of us.. If they were,. they never would have left.

sadly we have possibly many in our churches who may think they are saved but they are not saved. many of these people will leave and profess that Jesus is not real these people were never saved as John says
others will fall back into sin, like a dog. returning to their vomit. They were still dogs. and reverted to their true self
yet even many more will be prodigal children. Who have lost their way not their salvation..

Non of us are God. we can not judge..

Yes, but we should endeavor to discern correctly.
(MT 7:3-5)

 

[Magenta]

Yes, but we should endeavor to discern correctly.
(MT 7:3-5)

I hope you do.

 

[Believer08]

Saying someone was never saved to begin with if they are presently not saved is not problematic. Its the truth.

One can not lose something they never could earn to begin with

John said those who depart were never of us.. If they were,. they never would have left.

sadly we have possibly many in our churches who may think they are saved but they are not saved. many of these people will leave and profess that Jesus is not real these people were never saved as John says
others will fall back into sin, like a dog. returning to their vomit. They were still dogs. and reverted to their true self
yet even many more will be prodigal children. Who have lost their way not their salvation..

Non of us are God. we can not judge..

The only reason one can say they were never saved is because they do not want to handle the truth. You cannot lose it, but if you do then you never had it to lose it, which makes no sense. Yes, there are all kinds of problems saying someone was never saved if or when they got saved according to God’s word, as it makes God’s word out to be a liar, which it is not. And if you cannot judge, then you should stop saying someone was never saved.,