Doesn't Living Like the Devil After Being Saved Disprove Once Saved Always Saved?

[Musicmaster]

I always return to the parable of the soils. In Jesus’ parable of the soils, the varied grounds picture the varied responses of those who hear the word: some receive it with initial joy yet, like rocky or thorn‑choked soil, fall away when pressure, persecution, or competing desires expose the shallowness of their commitment. Only the cultivated soil—the heart God Himself has prepared—perseveres, bearing fruit with patience. The farmer is not a passive observer but the divine cultivator who breaks the ground, removes the stones, and clears the thorns so that His word can take root and endure. This is the distinguishing mark of true discipleship: not momentary belief, but Spirit‑enabled perseverance.

Good points.

How about those phenomenon? What do you say when confronted with those who inject salvation into those elements as opposed to receptivity of the gospel message to Israel...given that Jesus was speaking to Israel at the time, not Gentiles; to keep everything in the focus into which it was spoken?

MM

 

[Omegatime]

Shalom MM

Thinking about 1 Corinthian 5:1 where a man was living with his fathers wife.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?

And yet saved

5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this story

 

[Dave123]

Um, if I may, how did you draw that connection between the Judaizers who had gone out on their own to preach the Kingdom Gospel
to the churches Paul had planted under the Gospel of Grace among the Gentiles, with the later writings of John to Israeli believers in the outlying provinces? If we look at what the contention was over in Acts 15 as Paul's charge against the message of the Judaizers, it had to do with circumcision and following the Law, which the twelve obviously still preached years after the Ascension, which the twelve also still preached as the Kingdom Gospel among believing Jews years after the fall of Israel. James made that abundantly clear in Acts 21:

Acts 21:20-22
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

Notice that James was speaking in positive tones, of praise, rather than criticism for the many thousands of Jews in Jerusalem who were still zealous of the Law and of circumcision requirements. I think we can both agree that would not have at all been the case had the twelve been opposed to following the Law AND the requirement for circumcision, which is precisely the charge Paul leveled against the Judaizers in Acts 15, with Peter saying that no such burdens should be placed upon the Gentiles, and James later speaking of only four moral items the Gentiles should observe.

Hey MM

If you're referring to "they went out from us", from 1 John 2:19, that would be the same people in verse 22, "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?...." . That's why I highlighted both in that passage when I quoted it.

1 John 2:18-23, that appears to be the recurring concern by John when he compared true believers with antichrists. That identity is the same one given in 2 John 1:7, 1 John 4:2-3 by John when contrasting true believers with antichrists. All three passages that I quoted, including 1 John 2:18-23, the antichrists all denied Jesus.

As for Paul, I don't remember making that connection, but all the same, he clearly was teaching against circumcision for justification in Romans 4. In Acts 15, some Jewish pharisees were teaching the Gentiles that they had to be circumcised to be justified, or saved. Just as today people try to teach that water baptism, when coupled with faith justifies us. In fact, elsewhere, recently, I used Paul's argument in Romans 4 to refute the idea that water baptism, when coupled with faith justifies us.

However, for the Jew, circumcision was/is symbolic, and a seal of declaration of sorts. In Colossians 2:9-14, we see the Spiritual side of what it pointed to. It physically symbolized cutting away the sin. This was why the practice continued for these OT Jews, to remind them of the covenant that God made with them through Abraham's Seed. And we know that Gentiles are included, Galatians 3.

I've seen that debate many times, with neither side decisively winning the debate, so it's a moot point here.

I was just saying, I don't think it's a good idea to cling to one translation as being the one without translation problems. Picking one as a favorite translation is one thing, but picking one translation and calling it the true Word of God while others are considered fallen short, or corrupted is another. In the latter context, the KJV would be the last one that I'd be bragging on as the one true translation.

Dave

 

[Musicmaster]

If you're referring to "they went out from us", from 1 John 2:19, that would be the same people in verse 22, "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?...." . That's why I highlighted both in that passage when I quoted it.

Ok, just so I'm tracking correctly, are the two sections of scripture you are comparing include that of Acts 15, where the twelve said the Judaizers going out into Paul's churches and preaching "another gospel" as not being sent out by them to do what they were doing, and drawing lines between that and 1 John 2:19? I'll see if I have time to go back and glean that from the previous posts. Sorry. My typing time is severely limited in the midst of the roar around here.

1 John 2:18-23, that appears to be the recurring concern by John when he compared true believers with antichrists. That identity is the same one given in 2 John 1:7, 1 John 4:2-3 by John when contrasting true believers with antichrists. All three passages that I quoted, including 1 John 2:18-23, the antichrists all denied Jesus.

As for Paul, I don't remember making that connection, but all the same, he clearly was teaching against circumcision for justification in Romans 4. In Acts 15, some Jewish pharisees were teaching the Gentiles that they had to be circumcised to be justified, or saved. Just as today people try to teach that water baptism, when coupled with faith justifies us. In fact, elsewhere, recently, I used Paul's argument in Romans 4 to refute the idea that water baptism, when coupled with faith justifies us.

However, for the Jew, circumcision was/is symbolic, and a seal of declaration of sorts. In Colossians 2:9-14, we see the Spiritual side of what it pointed to. It physically symbolized cutting away the sin. This was why the practice continued for these OT Jews, to remind them of the covenant that God made with them through Abraham's Seed. And we know that Gentiles are included, Galatians 3.



I was just saying, I don't think it's a good idea to cling to one translation as being the one without translation problems. Picking one as a favorite translation is one thing, but picking one translation and calling it the true Word of God while others are considered fallen short, or corrupted is another. In the latter context, the KJV would be the last one that I'd be bragging on as the one true translation.

Dave

As to translations, yes. I agree. The reservations I have is with the newer translations that are filled with even more errors because of the inclusions of older texts that disagree with one another to a far greater percentage than the TR manuscripts with each other. When the newer translations call into question the authenticity of, "Man does not live by bread alone," and then questions the rest, " but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Those five older manuscripts that they uphold as higher authorities for such questions is a fundamental fallacy in their appeal to antiquity. They obviously didn't have philosophers among them.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Shalom MM

Thinking about 1 Corinthian 5:1 where a man was living with his fathers wife.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?

And yet saved

5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this story

That goes hand in hand with what we're called to do for those who fall off into sin, which is to restore them with love, and if they won't turn, then put them out from the fellowship until they return with humbleness. Some church organizations refuse to uphold biblical mandates along this line, others do so more stringently and with malice as the other extreme.

Very good point you have made, and I hope more people offer their thoughts.

MM

 

[rewriter]

Ok, just so I'm tracking correctly, are the two sections of scripture you are comparing include that of Acts 15, where the twelve said the Judaizers going out into Paul's churches and preaching "another gospel" as not being sent out by them to do what they were doing, and drawing lines between that and 1 John 2:19? I'll see if I have time to go back and glean that from the previous posts. Sorry. My typing time is severely limited in the midst of the roar around here.



As to translations, yes. I agree. The reservations I have is with the newer translations that are filled with even more errors because of the inclusions of older texts that disagree with one another to a far greater percentage than the TR manuscripts with each other. When the newer translations call into question the authenticity of, "Man does not live by bread alone," and then questions the rest, " but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Those five older manuscripts that they uphold as higher authorities for such questions is a fundamental fallacy in their appeal to antiquity. They obviously didn't have philosophers among them.

MM

You have touched on one of the biggest questions in translating the scriptures. Older does not necessarily mean better, but neither does any other single criteria. The variants among the older texts raises questions as to what the original sources were and requires one to make judgements, but those judgements need to be supported by something other than later doctrine as doctrinal decisions may or may not reflect originality. Since ancient sources also include passing quotes in preserved sermons and other non-scriptural sources, these may be used to assist in determining what the earliest sources said and how they were understood, but it takes much more effort.

 

[Roger316]

Good points.

How about those phenomenon? What do you say when confronted with those who inject salvation into those elements as opposed to receptivity of the gospel message to Israel...given that Jesus was speaking to Israel at the time, not Gentiles; to keep everything in the focus into which it was spoken?

MM

The parable applies to anyone who hears the word of God, even the message about salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Musicmaster]

The parable applies to anyone who hears the word of God, even the message about salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.

I agree with you. What I'm asking is your understanding of the magnitude of what He was saying. In other words, do you, as some do, believe Jesus was also alluding to an alleged loss of salvation for those who are represented by the shallow soil?

You see, the problem with the idea of His addressing salvation is that one must believe slavation to be something that grows from the proverbial seed cast onto the shallow soil or the good soil, when in fact salvation is instantaneous upon faith in Paul's Gospel. That the seed sprouted at all is the substance of salvation instantaneously, even if his faith later withers and dies.

Churchianity is very good at being the place where there's much shallow soil given that the program isn't geared toward discipleship. One may hear an altar call message for believing the gospel message, but thereafter it's hit-n-miss as to if one happens to hear messages from the pulpit to help them solidify their faith by way of watering of the word. Not many churchianity organizations have an aggressive discipleship drive to bring new converts into a relationship-driven growth toward the fullness of the stature of Christ Jesus.

So, what is your take on the soils and seed parable, given the actual context for what it says and what it is not saying?

MM

 

[steve63]

None of us, as humans, can definitively know another person’s salvation status. Salvation isn't evidenced by roles like pastor or seminary graduate but solely by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ

Yes, salvation is by faith but according to the apostle James there are 2 kinds of faith, a saving faith and a dead faith. A saving faith is evidenced by works. The works do not save, but they demonstrate that faith is real. The problem is too many people think "faith" is merely believing some information about Jesus. They think as long as they intellectually believe Jesus died for their sins, they are "in" and obedience is optional. But that is not scriptural. Genuine faith involves a change in disposition toward God that makes a person desire to turn away from sin. Yes, Christians can still sin even grievously because their flesh remains. But if they are saved then they have the Holy Spirit within them who will bring conviction. If there is never any conviction then there was never any faith. I think the passages in Scripture that SEEM to teach salvation can be lost are being interpreted incorrectly. Salvation can't be lost but a "dead faith" can be lost. That's what it's talking about in the numerous "warning" passages of Scripture.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" (James 2:14)

 

[2Christ]

Why is it impossible that everyone is saved and only needs convinced of it before they are lost forever?

Because Jesus said so, not many will make it.

 

[2Christ]

Well, I don't pretend to have unseated Christ from His Judgement Seat with me sitting in His place, but one thing we do know is that Judas had not committed that which Jesus said would be forgiven no man. So, his state at his point of death, even in the midst of his infamy in betrayal, that is strictly in the Hands of the Most High, not us.

MM

Selling the son of God for 30 pieces of silver is not an unforgivable crime according to you.....? its the worst crime possible in my book.

 

[2Christ]

MM

you want to know what people think? You are teaching so many false doctrine here that i am afraid for you, you don't know anything about Jesus and quote almost exclusively Paul see posts no 134 to 137 from his epistles that you do not understand and twist the meanings of what he said. time is short Repent before its too late because now at this time you make a mockery of scripture and are convinced you are correct and wont listen to anyone. this was my lase post to you. no need to reply

 

[Roger316]

I agree with you. What I'm asking is your understanding of the magnitude of what He was saying. In other words, do you, as some do, believe Jesus was also alluding to an alleged loss of salvation for those who are represented by the shallow soil?

You see, the problem with the idea of His addressing salvation is that one must believe slavation to be something that grows from the proverbial seed cast onto the shallow soil or the good soil, when in fact salvation is instantaneous upon faith in Paul's Gospel. That the seed sprouted at all is the substance of salvation instantaneously, even if his faith later withers and dies.

Churchianity is very good at being the place where there's much shallow soil given that the program isn't geared toward discipleship. One may hear an altar call message for believing the gospel message, but thereafter it's hit-n-miss as to if one happens to hear messages from the pulpit to help them solidify their faith by way of watering of the word. Not many churchianity organizations have an aggressive discipleship drive to bring new converts into a relationship-driven growth toward the fullness of the stature of Christ Jesus.

So, what is your take on the soils and seed parable, given the actual context for what it says and what it is not saying?

MM

The key to the parable comes at the end when Jesus says, "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." The "fruit" is salvation itself. The parable contradicts the teaching of some that salvation takes place immediately upon belief. According to Jesus, belief is not the deciding factor of those whom God is saving; perseverance is.

Paul does not treat salvation as something that happens the moment a person first believes; rather, he identifies the truly saved as those whom God has already set apart as “saints,” the holy ones marked out for His future redemption. For Paul, the decisive indicator of this set‑apart status is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit—the Spirit is both the sign and the guarantee of God’s saving purpose. Those whom God has made holy will not only come to faith but will persevere in faith, because the Spirit who dwells in them sustains their believing. In this way, Paul ties salvation not merely to an initial act of trust but to God’s ongoing work in those He has claimed as His own: the saints are the ones in whom the Spirit lives, and therefore the ones whose faith endures.

Just as Jesus’ parable portrays the good soil as soil God Himself has cultivated, Paul sees the perseverance of the saints as the direct result of God’s powerful, internal work through the Spirit. The Spirit’s indwelling is the divine cultivation that breaks the hardness, removes the stones, and clears the thorns so that faith not only begins but endures.

 

[Musicmaster]

Yes, salvation is by faith but according to the apostle James there are 2 kinds of faith, a saving faith and a dead faith. A saving faith is evidenced by works. The works do not save, but they demonstrate that faith is real. The problem is too many people think "faith" is merely believing some information about Jesus. They think as long as they intellectually believe Jesus died for their sins, they are "in" and obedience is optional. But that is not scriptural. Genuine faith involves a change in disposition toward God that makes a person desire to turn away from sin. Yes, Christians can still sin even grievously because their flesh remains. But if they are saved then they have the Holy Spirit within them who will bring conviction. If there is never any conviction then there was never any faith. I think the passages in Scripture that SEEM to teach salvation can be lost are being interpreted incorrectly. Salvation can't be lost but a "dead faith" can be lost. That's what it's talking about in the numerous "warning" passages of Scripture.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" (James 2:14)

So, if I may ask, are you assuming salvation, or the lack thereof, into what James said? If so, then how does one escape the inevitable belief in works-based salvation?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Selling the son of God for 30 pieces of silver is not an unforgivable crime according to you.....? its the worst crime possible in my book.

This is one reason you and I didn't become inspired writers included within scripture.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

MM

you want to know what people think? You are teaching so many false doctrine here that i am afraid for you, you don't know anything about Jesus and quote almost exclusively Paul see posts no 134 to 137 from his epistles that you do not understand and twist the meanings of what he said. time is short Repent before its too late because now at this time you make a mockery of scripture and are convinced you are correct and wont listen to anyone. this was my lase post to you. no need to reply

If that were true, then you should be able to quote and counter what I allegedly said that got wrong what he wrote. Short little quips of accusation are meaningless, if I may be so bold.

MM

 

[Drich]

How does one reconcile “once saved, always saved” with cases where, for example, a pastor, religious leader of some sort or even a layman acquaintance of yours lives in open sin and even claims God sanctioned their ungodly relationship.

There are several passages of the Bible that do infact teach OSAS. Yet at the same time you have passages like Hebr 10 and 2 pet2. that talk about quenching the HS/loosing salvation. How are these seemingly two different passages reconciled?It's simple really. Once we are truly 'saved' We are always saved.

But, here's the thing. salvation is not a work. Meaning salvation is not something we can do. It is not a prayer we pray, not a confession of faith, it has nothing to do with rites, rituals, (Baptism) sacerments or anything else we can do to be 'saved.' It is a free gift that only Jesus decides who receives it.

Example Jesus in mat 7 demonstrates that salvation come at judgement:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’Many will say to me on THAT DAY 'lord, lord...' And He will say I never knew you. "On that day" is the day Jesus judges us. This is the day we are saved.

From This day forward we can never loose our salvation. One other thing that supports this idea that salvation happens at judgement, is that nearly every single point in scripture where it talks about salvation/being saved, it points to a future event. Believe and be baptized you will be saved, confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and you will be saved. endure to the end and you will be saved. etc... Even the thief on the cross was promised a future (later on that same day) salvation, but only after Judgement from Christ who judged him on the cross.. This is why Paul talks about remaining faithful to the end and compares life to running a long distance race, one that we must keep pace to the end.

So in life we can float in and out of salvation because we are not saved by our works/desires. we are saved by Christ. This salvation happens on the day of our judgement.

 

[rewriter]

Selling the son of God for 30 pieces of silver is not an unforgivable crime according to you.....? its the worst crime possible in my book.

According to scripture, all sin, from what we humans want to call the smallest or least to what we humans want to call the greatest or worst, is an abomination. God does not make distinctions when it comes to sin. So your stealing a paperclip from work or going 1 mph over the speed limit is as bad as what Judas did in God's eyes.

 

[Mem]

Because Jesus said so, not many will make it.

Jesus said that the way was narrow, and few find it. He didn't say there's no way for some.

 

[Omegatime]

Because Jesus said so, not many will make it.

I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left.