Loss of salvation???

[Qt]

Who said AI had the Holy Spirit?

You’re using it. Makes no sense to use it unless you think it is lead by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Just_A__Follower]

You’re using it. Makes no sense to use it unless you think it is lead by the Holy Spirit.

Technically, the Bible itself doesn’t have the Holy Spirit; it’s a book. What matters is that the Holy Spirit works in us to understand and apply it. AI, like a book, is just a tool to help us process information. It doesn’t guide anyone spiritually. Should I not use my truck either since it doesn’t contain the Spirit? Your computer and phone aren’t led by the Spirit either, yet you’re using them right now. That makes your comment seem rather absurd.

 

[Toknow]

The NASB draws out the neuter gender better IMO. "All that" may as well but not as succinctly.

Here's how I see this language by following the neuter vs. masculine gender adjectives and pronouns. Note the division of John6:37a & b:

John6:37-40

6:37a Everything the Father gives to Jesus will come toward Jesus

John 6:37a
All THAT the Father gives to Me...
It could be either masculine or feminine things...but it is things.


Then in 6:37b
And WHO comes to Me I will never kick him out.

Paul goes from THINGS to PERSONS

So jesus is given both SOMETHING,,,and it sounds like more than 1 item/thing.
And Jesus is also given PERSONS.

We know that Jesus will never abandon anyone who comes to Him...
it will always be the person that, somehow, abandons God.

But what is the IT/THINGS that are spoken of?

• 6:38 Jesus has come down from Heaven sent by God to do God’s will
• 6:39 This thing is God’s will:
  • EverythingGod has given to Jesus,
    • Jesus does not lose from it
    • Rather, Jesus will raise it in the last day

6:37b Also, the man who comes toward Jesus, Jesus will absolutely not cast [him] outside

• 6:38 Jesus has come down from Heaven sent by God to do God’s will
• 6:40 This thing is God’s will:
  • Every man who beholds the/His Son and believes into Him may have eternal life
  • And I will raise him in the last day

So:

• Why the distinction between things and men?
• Why the difference between not losing things and not casting out men?

Please, anyone jump in since @sawdust is apparently occupied elsewhere. It would be nice if discussion could just be FROM the Text above and not from doctrinal beliefs.

Jesus states that He came down from heaven to do God's will.
verse 38

So we have to ask WHAT IS GOD'S WILL ?
i'd have to say that God's will if for Jesus to atone for mankinds sins.

Verse 6:39 repeats, again, that Jesus is speaking of THINGS.
. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

Jesus says NOTHING not NO ONE.
He will lose NOTHING.

God's will is that the atonement be completed.
Except that the THINGS are in the plural, and the atonement is singular.

So Jesus, at the end of time,,,will resurrect persons
and things....

I tend to believe that the THINGS is referring to the work of the atonement.
Why it's plural I do not have an idea.

I've considered THINGS being what @Kroogz stated since all of creation is waiting for its freedom from sin...
but can this mean that Jesus is going to resurrect created things back to their normal state? (before the fall).

 

[Toknow]

AI’s response. It brings up some interesting issues with your post.

————————————
There are a few logical and interpretive problems in the post. I’ll break them down clearly so you can see where the argument is weak or inaccurate.

---

Misrepresenting the OSAS position (Strawman)​

The writer claims that people who believe in Once Saved Always Saved think:


That is not what most OSAS proponents actually teach.

Most who hold this view (common in many Baptist and Reformed traditions) say:

• True believers will show evidence of faith.
• A life of persistent rebellion likely means the person was never truly saved.
• God disciplines believers who sin.

This doctrine is usually connected to Perseverance of the Saints, which teaches that genuine faith continues and produces fruit.

So the post attacks a caricature of the doctrine rather than its real form.

---

Misunderstanding the argument around the verse​

The post says OSAS believers misuse:

• 2 Timothy 2:13

But the verse is part of a larger passage:

• 2 Timothy 2:11
• 2 Timothy 2:12
• 2 Timothy 2:13

Which says (summarized):

• If we died with Him → we live with Him
• If we endure → we reign with Him
• If we deny Him → He will deny us
• If we are faithless → He remains faithful

Different traditions interpret verse 13 differently. Some say:

• God remains faithful to His promises, including judgment.

Others say:

• God remains faithful to His covenant with believers.

So the writer acts as if their interpretation is the only possible one, which is not accurate.

---

Dismissing a legitimate theological question​

The author criticizes people asking:


But that question arises naturally if someone believes salvation can be lost.

If salvation depends on continuing faithfulness, then it’s reasonable to ask:

• What counts as losing faith?
• Is a single sin enough?
• Is prolonged rebellion required?

These are normal theological questions, not bad motives.

---

Emotional reasoning instead of argument​

Statements like:


are rhetorical dismissals, not arguments.

They avoid addressing the real issue.

---

Oversimplifying Christian disagreement​

The debate between:

• Once Saved Always Saved
• Conditional Security

has existed for centuries.

Both sides quote Scripture and have developed theological reasoning. The post treats one side as simply wanting “permission to sin,” which is an unfair oversimplification.

---

In short:
The problems in the post are mainly:

• Misrepresenting the opposing view
• Assuming only one interpretation of a passage
• Dismissing legitimate questions
• Using rhetoric instead of reasoning

You're pitting me against a machine Just.

Could YOU have the conversation with me instead?

I'll just reply to the 4 items listed at the end.

1. AI is taking the opposing view from the net.
I'm taking it from real life experience.
I am NOT misrepresenting the OSAS view.
Charles Stanley clearly taught that salvation could not be lost even if we murdered somene.
Joseph Prince, from Shanghai, taught that salvation could not be lost no matte what.


2. I never take one verse at a time.
Any verse must be reconciled to the entire NT.
I posted 2 Timothy 2:13 and explained how some understand it.
IF it meant what AI is stating as a second interpretation..it would conflitc with verse 12.

3. Which legitimate questions am I dismissing??

4. I use rhetoric instead of reasoning!!!!

I DON'T THINK SOOOOOO.

So what should I do now?
God to AI and see what I should be replying???

If you want to discuss fine...
if you do not, that's fine too.

But I'm not going to discuss theology with an algorhythm...which is all AI is....
FOR NOW.


Here's another view from AI.....
NOW WHAT DO WE DO??


The theological position of "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS)—often termed unconditional eternal security—is argued by many theologians and believers to be unbiblical, as it is seen to contradict numerous scriptural warnings, promote moral complacency, and misunderstand the covenantal nature of salvation. Critics argue that it turns a relationship with God into a one-time legal contract rather than a continuously maintained, living faith.
Here is a breakdown of the scriptural, theological, and historical arguments against OSAS being a biblical theology:

1. Direct Scriptural Warnings Against Apostasy
The Bible contains multiple passages warning believers about the possibility of falling away from faith, which directly contradicts the premise that salvation cannot be lost.
Facebook +1

• Hebrews 6:4-6: Describes those who were "once enlightened" and "partakers of the Holy Ghost" who then "fall away," stating it is impossible to renew them to repentance.
• John 15:6: Jesus warns that if one does not abide in him, they are "cast out as a branch" and burned.
• Galatians 5:4: Paul warns that those trying to be justified by the law have "fallen from grace".
• 2 Peter 2:20-22: Mentions those who have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ but are again entangled and overcome, stating their last state is worse than the beginning.
  Facebook +4

2. The Requirement of Perseverance
Scripture repeatedly highlights that salvation requires endurance and faithfulness until the end, not just a single moment of belief.

• Matthew 24:13: "But the one who endures to the end will be saved".
• Revelation 3:5: Jesus promises that he will not blot out the name of the one who "overcometh" from the Book of Life, implying the possibility of having one's name removed.
• Philippians 2:12: Paul tells believers to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling".
  Facebook +1

3. Misinterpretation of the Covenantal Relationship
Critics argue that OSAS portrays God as bound by an initial decision, even if the person consciously chooses to walk away or live in habitual sin, which violates the biblical requirement of mutual covenantal faithfulness.
Facebook +1

• The "Fruit" Test: The Bible teaches that true faith produces good works and obedience. OSAS is argued to produce "cheap grace"—the belief that one can accept Jesus but live a life contrary to his commands without consequence.
• 1 John 3:6: "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him".
  Reddit +4

4. Historical and Theological Arguments

• Not the Historic View: The doctrine of unconditional security was not taught by the early church fathers, who stressed the necessity of perseverance. It is largely a later, specifically Calvinist or Protestant, development (associated with the "Perseverance of the Saints" or in a more extreme form, "Free Grace" theology).
• Misuse of "Sealing" Verses: While Ephesians 1:13-14 speaks of being sealed by the Holy Spirit, opponents argue this seal protects believers while they remain in faith, rather than guaranteeing salvation for someone who actively renounces Christ.
  Reddit +4

5. False Sense of Security
Critics contend that OSAS can be used to deceive believers, undermining their spiritual vigilance and causing them to ignore warnings against apostasy. It may lead to a "false assurance of salvation" for those who have made a superficial, emotional decision for Christ without a true, ongoing transformation of heart.
Instagram +1
Conclusion:
Critics of OSAS argue that the doctrine is a "man-made" idea that contradicts the full testimony of Scripture, which demands that Christians actively abide in Christ and persevere in faith.

 

[Toknow]

Technically, the Bible itself doesn’t have the Holy Spirit; it’s a book. What matters is that the Holy Spirit works in us to understand and apply it. AI, like a book, is just a tool to help us process information. It doesn’t guide anyone spiritually. Should I not use my truck either since it doesn’t contain the Spirit? Your computer and phone aren’t led by the Spirit either, yet you’re using them right now. That makes your comment seem rather absurd.

AI responds depending on how a question is asked.

Also, what are we going to do now?
Speak to each other using AI?

You post YOUR AI
I post MY AI.....

So it's bots taling to each other instead of us.

Nothing to do with the Holy Spirit....
everything to do with HUMAN COMMUNICATION.

 

[Toknow]

I'm surprised to read you say that. What can you mean if you insist that a believer MUST not fall away. He has a free will choice to fall away any time he wants. What is that if not personal effort?

The other member mentioned PERSONAL EFFORT re KEEPING SAVED.
He mentioned WORKS SALVATION.

You know...WORKS has become a filthy word in theology.
May the good Lord forbid that we do good works for Him !!

As to falling away being a free will choice.

Yes. I decided to believe and trust.
I can decide to STOP believing and trusting.

Unless, of course, we lose our free will once we become saved.

 

[Toknow]

I'm surprised to read you say that. What can you mean if you insist that a believer MUST not fall away. He has a free will choice to fall away any time he wants. What is that if not personal effort?

Where did I say a believer MUST not fall away?

Could you give the number of that post please.

 

[Toknow]

As usual... you will deflect and negate anything that stands in your way.

Why should I bother?

You should bother Genez

because YOU made a statement and are apparently UNABLE to give it scriptural support.

WHY do you make statements that you cannot support scripturally.

TALK IS CHEAP....

Don't make statements that you cannot support and then criticize ME to cover for you inabilities.

 

[Toknow]

It was known.

IT was only when false teachers came into the fold that the believers were defending what was always known to be true, the Holy Spirit of God leaves no doubt by His word, and His presence.

Who are the false teachers?

Those that were taught by the Apostles...
or some men from the 1800's who decided that salvation cannot be lost?

I posted history.

Could YOU please do the same and show where OSAS was taught in the early church.
You pick the date cut off, up until the reformation.

You'll find that OSAS was never taught.

 

[HeIsHere]

Who are the false teachers?

Those that were taught by the Apostles...
or some men from the 1800's who decided that salvation cannot be lost?

I posted history.

Could YOU please do the same and show where OSAS was taught in the early church.
You pick the date cut off, up until the reformation.

You'll find that OSAS was never taught.

Why would they teach what is self-evident.

 

[Toknow]

It is the art of double speak in an attempt to avoid/deflect/deny the dissonance in the doctrine.

Jeff, @Roger316 is stating something I never said.

But it's OK.

You just keep taking your cheap shots.
Par for the course.

 

[Toknow]

Why would they teach what is self-evident.

Beautiful !

You are UNABLE to prove what you state.

Do you know why?

Because you're WRONG.

OSAS was NEVER taught in the early church.

Now, you're going the way of another member here who makes bold statements and does not back them up.

YOU said OSAS was always taught in the early church.

Please post supporting evidence of your claim.

Thanks.

 

[Toknow]

Technically, the Bible itself doesn’t have the Holy Spirit; it’s a book. What matters is that the Holy Spirit works in us to understand and apply it. AI, like a book, is just a tool to help us process information. It doesn’t guide anyone spiritually. Should I not use my truck either since it doesn’t contain the Spirit? Your computer and phone aren’t led by the Spirit either, yet you’re using them right now. That makes your comment seem rather absurd.

HOW is the Holy Spirit working in you if you use a program to come to a conclusion or to learn something
instead of your brain power??

Sorry, this my page fell on this when responding to another member.

 

[HeIsHere]

Beautiful !

You are UNABLE to prove what you state.

Do you know why?

Because you're WRONG.

OSAS was NEVER taught in the early church.

Now, you're going the way of another member here who makes bold statements and does not back them up.

YOU said OSAS was always taught in the early church.

Please post supporting evidence of your claim.

Thanks.

The words of Christ Jesus.... they were understood and taken in as they stood and taught by the Paul and others,

It was false teachers that starting writing that salvation was not secure and people believed them as so often happens, until the truth was recovered.
The heresy entered the church first and then the church responded.

 

[Toknow]

The words of Christ Jesus.... they were understood and taken in as they stood and taught by the Paul and others,

It was false teachers that starting writing that salvation was not secure and people believed them as so often happens, until the truth was recovered.
The heresy entered the church first and then the church responded.

What false teachers?
Could you post something please.

I mean,,,,I could be wrong.....even after having studied church history,,,I could still be wrong.

So please show how the early church believed in OSAS because I can't find that it did.


The following is from Gemini......
Seems even AI is not useful to you.

Know why?

Because OSAS was NEVER taught by the Apostles or those the Apostles taught.
It was NEVER taught in the early church but is a new idea invented by a MAN.

You are following the teachings of MEN instead of those of JESUS.



The modern doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS) or perseverance of the saints was not generally taught by the early church fathers for the first 1,500 years of church history. The concept is primarily attributed to John Calvin in the 16th century.
Simon Peter Sutherland +5
Key Findings on Historical Views:

• Lack of Early Support: The majority of early church fathers (A.D. 100–250) believed that faith and works went together, and they did not hold that salvation was irrevocably guaranteed.
• Augustine of Hippo (354-430): Augustine is sometimes cited as a pre-Reformation figure who believed in a form of perseverance, but he did not believe that believers could have total assurance of their final salvation. He spoke of a "gift of perseverance" for the elect.
• Alternative Views: Most early, medieval, and some Reformation-era Christians (including Luther) believed in the possibility of falling from grace.
• Theology Shift: The idea of absolute security gained traction during the Reformation, especially through Calvin's developed theology of the elect.

 

[Just_A__Follower]

You're pitting me against a machine Just.

Could YOU have the conversation with me instead?

I'll just reply to the 4 items listed at the end.

1. AI is taking the opposing view from the net.
I'm taking it from real life experience.
I am NOT misrepresenting the OSAS view.
Charles Stanley clearly taught that salvation could not be lost even if we murdered somene.
Joseph Prince, from Shanghai, taught that salvation could not be lost no matte what.


2. I never take one verse at a time.
Any verse must be reconciled to the entire NT.
I posted 2 Timothy 2:13 and explained how some understand it.
IF it meant what AI is stating as a second interpretation..it would conflitc with verse 12.

3. Which legitimate questions am I dismissing??

4. I use rhetoric instead of reasoning!!!!

I DON'T THINK SOOOOOO.

So what should I do now?
God to AI and see what I should be replying???

If you want to discuss fine...
if you do not, that's fine too.

But I'm not going to discuss theology with an algorhythm...which is all AI is....
FOR NOW.


Here's another view from AI.....
NOW WHAT DO WE DO??


The theological position of "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS)—often termed unconditional eternal security—is argued by many theologians and believers to be unbiblical, as it is seen to contradict numerous scriptural warnings, promote moral complacency, and misunderstand the covenantal nature of salvation. Critics argue that it turns a relationship with God into a one-time legal contract rather than a continuously maintained, living faith.
Here is a breakdown of the scriptural, theological, and historical arguments against OSAS being a biblical theology:

1. Direct Scriptural Warnings Against Apostasy
The Bible contains multiple passages warning believers about the possibility of falling away from faith, which directly contradicts the premise that salvation cannot be lost.
Facebook +1

• Hebrews 6:4-6: Describes those who were "once enlightened" and "partakers of the Holy Ghost" who then "fall away," stating it is impossible to renew them to repentance.
• John 15:6: Jesus warns that if one does not abide in him, they are "cast out as a branch" and burned.
• Galatians 5:4: Paul warns that those trying to be justified by the law have "fallen from grace".
• 2 Peter 2:20-22: Mentions those who have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ but are again entangled and overcome, stating their last state is worse than the beginning.
  Facebook +4

2. The Requirement of Perseverance
Scripture repeatedly highlights that salvation requires endurance and faithfulness until the end, not just a single moment of belief.

• Matthew 24:13: "But the one who endures to the end will be saved".
• Revelation 3:5: Jesus promises that he will not blot out the name of the one who "overcometh" from the Book of Life, implying the possibility of having one's name removed.
• Philippians 2:12: Paul tells believers to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling".
  Facebook +1

3. Misinterpretation of the Covenantal Relationship
Critics argue that OSAS portrays God as bound by an initial decision, even if the person consciously chooses to walk away or live in habitual sin, which violates the biblical requirement of mutual covenantal faithfulness.
Facebook +1

• The "Fruit" Test: The Bible teaches that true faith produces good works and obedience. OSAS is argued to produce "cheap grace"—the belief that one can accept Jesus but live a life contrary to his commands without consequence.
• 1 John 3:6: "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him".
  Reddit +4

4. Historical and Theological Arguments

• Not the Historic View: The doctrine of unconditional security was not taught by the early church fathers, who stressed the necessity of perseverance. It is largely a later, specifically Calvinist or Protestant, development (associated with the "Perseverance of the Saints" or in a more extreme form, "Free Grace" theology).
• Misuse of "Sealing" Verses: While Ephesians 1:13-14 speaks of being sealed by the Holy Spirit, opponents argue this seal protects believers while they remain in faith, rather than guaranteeing salvation for someone who actively renounces Christ.
  Reddit +4

5. False Sense of Security
Critics contend that OSAS can be used to deceive believers, undermining their spiritual vigilance and causing them to ignore warnings against apostasy. It may lead to a "false assurance of salvation" for those who have made a superficial, emotional decision for Christ without a true, ongoing transformation of heart.
Instagram +1
Conclusion:
Critics of OSAS argue that the doctrine is a "man-made" idea that contradicts the full testimony of Scripture, which demands that Christians actively abide in Christ and persevere in faith.

I wasn’t arguing for or against OSAS. I was simply using AI as a quick way to show the issues in your post. You would have had the same reaction whether I used AI or said them on my own.

You’ve dismissed a few questions that I’ve seen. This was your post:

It would be this idea that some want what a member here calls A LINE OF DEMARCATION.

IOW, I'm often asked HOW FAR does a person have to go before they lose their salvation.
What kind of question is this?
Why would anyone even think to ask this?

AI listed them this way:

• What counts as losing faith?
• Is a single sin enough?
• Is prolonged rebellion required?

I’ve personally asked you if we must do works then how many. I’ve also asked what sins cause you to lose salvation.

When you get on a highway, it’s not wrong to want to know the speed limit so you don’t get a ticket. A baseball player wants to know how many strikes they get before they’re out. Clear standards matter.

The same type of questions can be asked of the OSAS position as well. For example, if someone claims to be saved but later becomes a serial killer, are they still saved? These questions simply test the consistency of the doctrine.

Here’s a couple scenarios:

1)One person believes in OSAS and if they fall away, well then they never truly believed to begin with.

2)Another person believes they can fall away and lose their salvation.

3) And another isn’t sure that they are saved.

Now if any of the people endure to the end then they are saved. If any don’t endure to the end they are not saved. Same outcome no matter what one believes now. Now if a person believes they can live how they want then they are delusional and don’t love God anyways.

As for Charles Stanley, I’ve never listened to or read anything of his. But do you believe if a Christian murders someone, they are not able to repent?

 

[Genez]

You should bother Genez

because YOU made a statement and are apparently UNABLE to give it scriptural support.

WHY do you make statements that you cannot support scripturally.

TALK IS CHEAP....

Don't make statements that you cannot support and then criticize ME to cover for you inabilities.

I can give scriptural support.... and a suggestion for hours of excellent lessons you will never listen to.
For, after a while?
You become not too hard to figure out.

 

[Genez]

Now if any of the people endure to the end then they are saved. If any don’t endure to the end they are not saved. Same outcome no matter what one believes now. Now if a person believes they can live how they want then they are delusional and don’t love God anyways.

Those words spoken by rabbi Jesus, was spoken to Jews.
Jews, according to what Jews could know before the Church age began.

The word saved, or sozo in the Greek, can speak of personal salvation, or of being delivered, rescued, protected.

"Those who endure to the end will be 'delivered" speaks to those who will learn the Word and and endure the seven year Tribulation.
They will be delivered into the new heaven and new earth of the Millennium.
That will apply to Jews that rabbi Jesus was speaking to (in its historical context) .

I am not the only one who sees this. https://lindasbiblestudy.wordpress.com/tag/matthew-2413/

We really have to learn the Word of God in detail if we are to avoid keep making the same humanly confident assumptions that are not truth.

 

[Just_A__Follower]

Those words spoken by rabbi Jesus, was spoken to Jews.
Jews, according to what Jews could know before the Church age began.

The word saved, or sozo in the Greek, can speak of personal salvation, or of being delivered, rescued, protected.

"Those who endure to the end will be 'delivered" speaks to those who will learn the Word and and endure the seven year Tribulation.
They will be delivered into the new heaven and new earth of the Millennium.
That will apply to Jews that rabbi Jesus was speaking to (in its historical context) .

I am not the only one who sees this. https://lindasbiblestudy.wordpress.com/tag/matthew-2413/

We really have to learn the Word of God in detail if we are to avoid keep making the same humanly confident assumptions that are not truth.

I wasn’t quoting Matthew 24:13 or making a point about the tribulation. My comment was simply about legitimate questions regarding salvation and perseverance.

 

[sawdust]

No debate with that no matter what others may allege.

Just back to where we started: do we choose to believe & do we choose to continue to believe?

What salvation do we lose exactly if we stop believing and what exactly are we not believing to see that loss materialize?

When we are saved we are made alive spiritually, given to Christ and raised to sit in the heavenly realms, indwelt bodily and sealed by the Spirit. All of that is what God does. (there is more He does but that is enough for the purpose of this conversation) How do we undo it? Or, why would God go to all that trouble knowing we would stop believing Him and He would have to undo His work?

I know you want to look at and analyze the Greek but I don't have the luxury of knowing Greek. I can only think in terms of common sense according to what is written in the plain English. This doesn't mean I don't want to look at the Greek with you and I'm always more than happy to try and put aside any preconceived theologies to be as honest with the text as possible.

We agree we must choose but from what exactly is it one walks away? Look at Hebrews 6. If there was ever a time to think one could lose their salvation it would be there yet it is not said it is impossible to save them again, it says it is impossible to change their minds. Change their minds about what? The Gospel isn't included in the elementary principles listed at the beginning of the chapter so have they changed their minds about that or have they got confused as to how that Gospel should be applied and in doing so have forfeited the blessings that come from living life as the Lord intended. The writer likens it to an analogy of the land further down (v.7&8). It is the production of the land that gets destroyed, not the land itself.

I looked at your post #8702 to @Kroogz and note you said:

Non-OSAS will see them as distinct clauses using different verbs for different purposes:

• The group will be an established group
• Individuals in the group will not be cast out but may have walked away from being pros Christ

What makes you think you can walk away? Do you have a verse that sates plainly that our failing to walk in fellowship with the Lord can cause the loss of the salvation from the penalty of sin God has gifted us? If so, I think that is the verse we should be looking at.