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

[Drich]

Can you show to us how salvation plays into the quenching of the Spirit?

Yes.
Salvation does not happen when the individual decides to be saved. Only Jesus is in a position to decide who is and who is not saved. Jesus in mat 7 says that decision is made "On that Day"/Day of judgement. Not when you pray the sinners prayer, or get baptized or get confirmed or anything else, why? because salvation is not a work, but a free gift from God. Jesus does not hand out this gift according to Mat 7 till "On that day."

So when you pray that sinners prayer or whatever your denomination prescribed methods/works must be complete, you are not saving your self by completing those works/tasks. You are simply declaring yourself a disciple of Christ. Like Judas was a disciple, and Like judas/A disciple, we have the ability to turn from Jesus/grieve the Holy Spirit, as we are not saved at this point. We are not 'saved' till judgement day.

From judgement day forward we can never loose our salvation.

Where is salvation loss stated in any of those contexts? Please elaborate if you wouldn't mind.

It's not, Once you are saved. But, again you are not saved till you are judged 'saved' by Jesus Himself. Look at Jesus' picture of judgement day in mat 7:

True and False Disciples​

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!’

Those who cry out "lord, Lord" clearly thought their plans of salvation,/their confessions of faith (As they are literally confessing with their mouths in this passage that Jesus is Lord,) and list out instances where they literally performed legit miracles/powered by the Holy Spirit to one degree or another. are in fact saved. Yet Jesus says I never knew you at their judgement.

So it is not that they lost their salvation after doing all of the religious stuff they thought that would save them.. It's that Jesus Never considered them saved. We can not do anything to Merritt salvation.

Ok, that seems to be an absolute statement.

indeed. Because once we have been judged saved by Christ, we will never loose our salvation.

So, His promises are circumvented by whom He wants to save?

Nope. I think evangelicals simply take too much liberty in their own salvation. Meaning they assume that by their works of.. baptism, confession of faith, sinners prayer or whatever rite, ritual or creed is what saves them when they perform the correct work.

It's not. Only Jesus can save. No man comes to the Father, but Through Jesus. What this means is Jesus must approve your entry into Heaven. This approval process happens at judgement, not before.

In other words, faith in His gospel isn't the means to salvation,

No, Faith in His Gospel is Key. Meaning we must have faith that We believe and follow Jesus He will judge us saved.

but rather something he preconceived, akin to Calvinism? Sorry, just trying to grapple with what you're saying.

No. Judgement happens after this life is over. unlike calvinism/judgement was made before you where born.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

So let's define condemnation as you seem to use this word as a synonym of judgement:

condemnation
/ˌkändemˈnāSHən/
Condemnation means strong disapproval, legal property seizure, or a formal judgment of guilt. It is widely used in everyday speech, real estate law, and moral or religious contexts. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
(Dictionary.com)

Now, Let's look at judgment:
Judgment (also spelled judgement) means an opinion, a decision, or the mental ability to make good choices. It covers personal evaluations, legal court rulings, and spiritual beliefs.

Condemnation is always a guilty verdict.

Judgement is to decide . in the verses that preceed the passage you quoted Jesus tells us God the Father Has Given Him the power to Judge:
22For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

So You will be judged by Christ no matter what. (Keep reading to the end of the chapter it spells it out there) You just will not be condemned if you believe in Christ. Why? Because you will HATH-ITH eternal life-ith.

Your passage says if we believe in Jesus we will not be condemned but have eternal life. This passage does not excuse you from being placed before Christ in judgement. it only saves you from condemnation. Again judgement and condemnation are two very different things. The reason you will not be condemned at the moment of your judgement is because you are saved..

So, this speaks in the present tense rather than future tense of something that will happen instantaneously in the moment, not something in the future...appart from the fact that present salvation is guaranteed against future condemnation.

Again, the verbiage does not support your assumption that condemnation and judgement are the same. This passage speaks in the present tense because it is telling you why you will not be condemned automatically at judgement like those who do not have Christ at their judgement.

Again go back to mat 7, these 'christians' call out to Jesus Lord, Lord. Jesus Immediately judges them by saying I never knew you. Meaning clearly in the act of calling out to Jesus these men meet the John 5's requirement of belief in Jesus, in life spelled out by their many miracles. yet they where automatically judged and condemned.. So judgement is there for everyone to contend with. Condemnation however is not. If you are not condemned at judgement, it is because you are saved.

This verse, among others, should serve as a modifier against extreme interpretation of other verses that state "shall be saved," as if that is speaking directly to those in HIs hearing in that moment rather than being a salvation projected for all into some future point of judgement.

Not if you understand the difference between judgement and condemnation.
The term "you will be Saved." (Pointing to some future event) is mentioned 18 times.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: will be saved

www.biblegateway.com

And again the verbiage of this passage does not safe guard one from judgement, only condemnation.

 

[Drich]

I've quoted a case in point that doesn't align with this statement. Here's more:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

point 1; Again the present tense states that salvation is the result of the gospel. "You are saved by the Gospel." This passage is not saying once you accept the gospel in that moment you are saved. it is saying the good news is Jesus has made it possible for his followers to not be condemned when judged..

Point 2:
1 Corinthians 15 ESV
​

The Resurrection of Christ​

15 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

1 Corinthians 15 NIV
​

The Resurrection of Christ​

15 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

The I am posting the ESV the NIV next to your KJV is the verbiage that says you are saved, can also support "you will be saved" Why because is not in the original language. "Are or will" are verbs that are added to the text/translation so it reads correctly for us in english.

This is made apparent when you look at the original greek. IDK if you are familiar with the blue letter bible or not. but it has every word of the KJV paired with the original greek. So in this case the word "saved" is stacked with "You are saved" Meaning the "You are" part was added to the original text, as the original passage in the greek says literally says "Which You Saved."

the verbs "Will be" or Are saved where never apart of the original text.

See for yourself:

1 Corinthians 15 :: King James Version (KJV)

1 Corinthians 15 - Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

www.blueletterbible.org

†σώζω sṓzō, sode'-zo; from a primary σῶς sōs (contraction for obsolete σάος sáos, "safe"); to save, i.e. deliver or protect (literally or figuratively):—heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.

I fully agree with you in that it's not about works, but placing the point of salvation off into the future at some judgement, that leans in the direction of works-based salvation.

Actually it doesn't. What it does is puts the power of salvation in the hands of Christ and His work on the cross, leaving us in a position where we are to exercise faith just like scripture says.

Notice Paul's use of the fully present tense of ARE SAVED, not WILL BE saved at some future point.

Again, not a valid point as Paul message could be translated "you will be saved" just as easily as "you are saved.' The original greek will support either translation.

Since there are only 2 passages that could be confused to say you are saved (present tense) and 18 that say you will be saved (future event) the translation in the kjv that says you are saved is most likely incorrect. as again the original text will support either translation, but there are overwhelming instances where the bible points to salvation as a future event.

This is confusing.

I'll try and explain.

You initially said it's not by works,

yes.

then here above you throw in works of confession, baptism and endurance...that's all works-based salvation.

Yeah.. I'm saying those things do not save us. (Add sinners prayers, confessions of faith, or any other plan of salvation/check list theology, that makes an evangelical think he is saved. ) Those things are what we tell people we must do to be saved. When in reality Jesus is who decides we are saved or not. That list of religious works are little more than a declaration of discipleship

I'm not sure where you stand amongst those contradictions with the no-works salvation stance you initially mentioned.

I stand by what I said. Nothing we can do saves us. So if nothing we can do saves us salvation in imparted to us at a different time/place outside of this life. That time and place according to Jesus in mat 7 is judgement day.

Please do clarify.

Thank you.

MM

hope this helps.

 

[Musicmaster]

In Galatians 2:1-2, Paul claims to have gone to Jerusalem to present the gospel to those deemed leaders he was teaching among the gentiles as the result of a revelation because he "wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain". Now the issue of circumcision is a separate one from his gospel, and it was on this separate issue that he did not yield, but regarding the gospel he preached, the message was approved. Now if I would have sufficient space, 40 or so 8 1/2x11 pages, I could spell out both the specifics of what Paul was preaching in my opinion, and why I think that the gospel of John was written in support of Paul's gospel, although it was later rewritten by a lesser writer.

Agreed, in that Paul deemed the running of his race to be somewhat in vain if not divided rightly between the twelve and himself. The mitigation to that potential for his running in vain is summarized here:

Galatians 2:6-9
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Committed. That speaks of an already established assignment from the Lord of Glory Himself to Paul, alternatively to the twelve rather than something that needed the endorsement of the twelve who also were under the same Lord for their assigned work.

So, the twelve added nothing to Paul and his ministry other than to offer their right hand of fellowship, with the understanding that the twelve ministered to Israel and Paul to Gentiles...and those Israelis whom had not yet been taken in under the ministry of the twelve because:

Romans 15:20
Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

This agreement between Paul and the twelve who added nothing to him (given that Paul was already commissioned by Christ Jesus, thus the twelve offering nothing in addition to what Paul was already tasked), this escapes so many Evangelicals out there and other religionists who have given themselves over to the side of replacement theology and/or numbers of its rudiments. How sad indeed.

Thanks for your comments.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

There is no such thing as a "kingdom gospel" that is different than the "gospel of grace".

Rather than to play the ad hominem game of slapping offensive labels on you and others, I'll stick to the topic:

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Therein is the Kingdom Gospel preached by the twelve to Israel.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Notice the missing element of water baptism for the remission of sins. The difference is glaring. One doesn't need an advance degree in English Language Assessment to possess the reading comprehension skills necessary to see this difference between the two gospel messages...one to Israel always upholding the kingdom yet to come, the other to Gentiles and Jews alike who were not already under the ministry of the twelve and who were not looking forward to that kingdom as the body of Christ.

Whatever you have seen others say who may or may not label themselves as Dispensationalists or some such, they have their own beliefs derived from whatever they gleaned in their studies and some of whom I disagree on various points, but trying to paint everyone with juvenile, broad brush strokes a color of your choosing on a basis that remains a mystery, that only poisons the well of discussion.

So, do we proceed with reasonable discussion or do you wish to continue the meaningless assaults of negative-sounding labels in an attempt to smear others with whom you disagree? I have no time for such childish antics.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Yes.
Salvation does not happen when the individual decides to be saved. Only Jesus is in a position to decide who is and who is not saved. Jesus in mat 7 says that decision is made "On that Day"/Day of judgement. Not when you pray the sinners prayer, or get baptized or get confirmed or anything else, why? because salvation is not a work, but a free gift from God. Jesus does not hand out this gift according to Mat 7 till "On that day."

I'm not sure where all that came from since I said nothing about "sinners prayers" nor the other things. It is only on the basis of faith, and when I look at Matthew 7, I don't see one verse in there where Jesus said anything about salvation being an eventual reality on the basis of His choosing on the day of judgement. Please quote the verse in its context and discuss it so that I can understand where you're coming from.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Faith, not judgement by way of God choosing whom to save and whom not to save on the arbitrary basis of His own choosing. When He offered that gift to ALL, it was/is available to ALL, instantaneously, not some future thing not yet realized at the point of FAITH, not some prayer or getting wet in a baptistry. Faith is the operative condition the Lord Himself chose as the basis for our salvation offered to ALL.

1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

That is His will for all, right now. If it were something all had to wait for at some judgement, which has nothing to do with us in the body of Christ, then the wording in this verse and many others make no sense and are actually contradictory, offering nothing more than a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

point 1; Again the present tense states that salvation is the result of the gospel. "You are saved by the Gospel." This passage is not saying once you accept the gospel in that moment you are saved. it is saying the good news is Jesus has made it possible for his followers to not be condemned when judged..

The ESV is a pathetic source, which added "being" in relation to salvation. Tragic indeed.

• Romans 10:9–10 — condition (“believe… and confess”) is immediately tied to salvation language (“you will be saved”), i.e., salvation is reached at the point the person believes the gospel.
• Galatians 3:26 — “through faith you are all sons of God.” That “through faith” language treats sonship (a salvation-status reality) as the result of faith, not something later earned or bestowed upon judgement
• Ephesians 2:8–9 — “By grace you have been [past tense] saved through faith…” (the verb is effectively past/perfected in form, grounding salvation as a present possession through faith rather than something worked for later or judged into existence in a judgement that nobody within the body of Christ will endure).
• Colossians 1:13–14 — “He has delivered us… into the kingdom of his beloved Son… in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” That’s salvation-status language described as already accomplished for believers.

Sorry, but I disagree with not only your use of an inferior version but also from the very Greek itself.

MM

 

[rewriter]

Agreed, in that Paul deemed the running of his race to be somewhat in vain if not divided rightly between the twelve and himself. The mitigation to that potential for his running in vain is summarized here:

Galatians 2:6-9
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Committed. That speaks of an already established assignment from the Lord of Glory Himself to Paul, alternatively to the twelve rather than something that needed the endorsement of the twelve who also were under the same Lord for their assigned work.

So, the twelve added nothing to Paul and his ministry other than to offer their right hand of fellowship, with the understanding that the twelve ministered to Israel and Paul to Gentiles...and those Israelis whom had not yet been taken in under the ministry of the twelve because:

Romans 15:20
Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

This agreement between Paul and the twelve who added nothing to him (given that Paul was already commissioned by Christ Jesus, thus the twelve offering nothing in addition to what Paul was already tasked), this escapes so many Evangelicals out there and other religionists who have given themselves over to the side of replacement theology and/or numbers of its rudiments. How sad indeed.

Thanks for your comments.

MM

Your logic fits with tradition but give me maybe 40-50 pages and i can show an unrecognized connection between John and Paul, with a possible further connection back to Mark making Mark and John (1st editions of both) the first two gospels. This also resolves questions about women's hair in Corinthians and implications in 2 Timothy 3:16. Linking in Luke-Acts would take another 25-30 pages.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

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.

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.

Even saved individuals, including the Apostle Paul, struggle with sin due to the sin nature; a malady that not one of us can claim to have overcome. See Romans 7:15, 17, and 24. See also 1 Corinthians 5:1–5, which shows to us that a brother can commit grievous sin and should be disciplined (put out of the assembly) rather than presumed lost, as is the devilish practice of some.

In other words, the practical response to seeing someone err is not to conclude they lost salvation, but that we should all pursue restoration and ensure they hear the gospel truth, erring on the side of sharing gospel truth with everyone, without offense, confirming they understand and believe the gospel of grace and the necessity for living a holy life in Christ Jesus.

The sole means of salvation is faith in what the Lord Jesus Christ did. Self-righteousness and reliance on religious status are insufficient and can leave even prominent religious figures unsaved.

MM

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Indeed? How do you know anyone is saved or not just by looking at them and what they're doing or saying? Is it the external by which you judge them, what most call their "fruit"?

In other words, if you see a neighbor who says he was once saved, and then he hits upon a stretch in his life where he "lives like the devil," you can say that you personally know that he was never really saved in the first place?

What about all the rest of his life that you may or may not see, up to the point he takes his last breath? Is that what places the finality upon your judgement of him if he continues in his sinful state up to the point of death?

I'm asking because I've heard all this before and most...they stumble about with justifications for what they could never know, all while avoiding this:

1 Corinthians 3:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

So, that man or woman was saved, and then withdrew...for whatever reason, right up to their last breath, and this verse will likely be absolutely applicable to them, but you...you seem to know something contrary to what this verse and other verses and contexts reject about your stated position. Why is that?

Who have you ever known in your life that you could point your finger at and say to them that, although they thought they were once saved, they were never saved to begin with on the basis of what you personally observed in their lives up to that point?

Who sits on that Judgement Seat of Christ Jesus? Given that we ALL still sin, each and every day, I can say that I'm glad that it's He who is on that Throne, and not some man looking at the externals.

Does that make sense? Does that strike a chord?

Thoughts?

MM

There will always be Christians who for some reason, - some situation in their lives cast aside their Christianity and return to a life of sin. God does not force anyone to be believers. He has always provided freedom of choice. E.g. Adam and Eve, Judas, etc.

Satan does all he can to draw us away from Christ. But those who do fall away, can return to Him, if they so choose to do so. But continual rejection of the Holy spirit constitutes the unforgivable sin.

Once saved always saved is a ridiculous belief. Others have mentioned the judgement. Which way will the scales tip? Given that our every word and action is recorded in heaven.

Adventists are not Calvinists and do not believe in the false doctrine that Christians can deliberately do what they like, and yet be saved. By their fruit, you will know them.

 

[steve63]

Rather than to play the ad hominem game of slapping offensive labels on you and others, I'll stick to the topic:

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Therein is the Kingdom Gospel preached by the twelve to Israel.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Notice the missing element of water baptism for the remission of sins. The difference is glaring. One doesn't need an advance degree in English Language Assessment to possess the reading comprehension skills necessary to see this difference between the two gospel messages...one to Israel always upholding the kingdom yet to come, the other to Gentiles and Jews alike who were not already under the ministry of the twelve and who were not looking forward to that kingdom as the body of Christ.

Whatever you have seen others say who may or may not label themselves as Dispensationalists or some such, they have their own beliefs derived from whatever they gleaned in their studies and some of whom I disagree on various points, but trying to paint everyone with juvenile, broad brush strokes a color of your choosing on a basis that remains a mystery, that only poisons the well of discussion.

So, do we proceed with reasonable discussion or do you wish to continue the meaningless assaults of negative-sounding labels in an attempt to smear others with whom you disagree? I have no time for such childish antics.

MM

I have not engaged in any ad hominem attacks. I never put any label on you. I simply pointed out that the ideas you are proposing are commonly taught by hyper Dispensationalists. Whether you put that label on yourself I have no idea, but I didn't put it on you. Moreover, calling someone a dispensationalist is not a slur. It's just a label that helps identify the theological system one adheres to. It's like calling someone a Catholic, a Calvinist, a Baptist, etc. Most people (including Dispensationalists) have no problem putting that label on themselves if that's the theological system they embrace. And arguing that any theological system is unbiblical (whether it's dispensationalism, Catholicism, or whatever) is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is going after someone's character or impugning their motives. I have not done that in any way, so if you are going to be that hyper sensitive about any challenges to the theological beliefs you hold then perhaps there is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Drich]

I'm not sure where all that came from since I said nothing about "sinners prayers"nor the other things.

You missed the bigger point. I am saying that we are not saved when we initiate what we think is the salvation process.
Me mentioning the sinners prayer along with several other examples where Christian believe their salvation begins is actually not when salvation starts.

It is only on the basis of faith, and when I look at Matthew 7, I don't see one verse in there where Jesus said anything about salvation being an eventual reality on the basis of His choosing on the day of judgement.

Funny, I looked at everything I said and I do not see that either. Perhaps that is an over exaggeration of what is actually being said.

Please quote the verse in its context and discuss it so that I can understand where you're coming from.

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!’

when Jesus says "Many will say to me on that day," "On that day" refers to the day of Judgement. Then He says Many will come to me saying "Lord, Lord." Those who cry out to Jesus "Lord, Lord" are those who believe That Jesus is Lord, meaning they are christians. IE they did all of the christian stuff, but at their Judgement Jesus proclaims that He never knew them.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

This verse works in context, works for me more, than it works for your arguement. Here it is in context:
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Those works include the plans of salvation that I listed out earlier (Sinners prayer, confession of faith, confirmation, communion, baptism etc etc) None of these works save you.

The men in mat 7:22 who cry out to Jesus "Lord, Lord" thought they where christian. They though they where saved by thier works as well, but clearly where judged unsaved on the day of judgement. It's not that they lost their salvation. Jesus said "I never knew you."

Yet these men did not find out till the day of judgement.

Faith, not judgement by way of God choosing whom to save and whom not to save on the arbitrary basis of His own choosing. When He offered that gift to ALL, it was/is available to ALL, instantaneously, not some future thing not yet realized at the point of FAITH, not some prayer or getting wet in a baptistry. Faith is the operative condition the Lord Himself chose as the basis for our salvation offered to ALL.

1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

That is His will for all, right now. If it were something all had to wait for at some judgement, which has nothing to do with us in the body of Christ, then the wording in this verse and many others make no sense and are actually contradictory, offering nothing more than a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

MM

It is clear you did not fully read or understand my last post as I have already addressed your objections.

 

[Musicmaster]

Your logic fits with tradition but give me maybe 40-50 pages and i can show an unrecognized connection between John and Paul, with a possible further connection back to Mark making Mark and John (1st editions of both) the first two gospels. This also resolves questions about women's hair in Corinthians and implications in 2 Timothy 3:16. Linking in Luke-Acts would take another 25-30 pages.

Thanks for the response and the offer.

I do have to say that, in our scholastic circles, we have names for that kind of expansive and spacious reasoning style in support of things that have no continuities and/or that violate the law of non-contradiction. In mathematics, it's called "proofs." In other words, with enough lines of seemingly logical progression, one can use "proofing" to show that 2+2=5, for example. In this classic phenomenon, mistakes are hidden somewhere deep in a long derivation, be it mathematical or theological. One may also hear “long derivation with a hidden error”—but the standard math term is just an incorrect proof (or a proof that leads to a contradiction).

Another way of looking at your proposal is that it's also called "overinterpretation" or "forcing a connection." That is to say that, a long writeup can make almost any proposal look convincing. The sharper terms are with the mind-numbing length of a verbose field riddled with so many holes that one eventually ends up lost in the mix:

• Cherry-picking — selecting only evidence that supports the claim
• Confirmation bias — interpreting facts to fit a preconceived conclusion
• Overly-specious reasoning — sounding plausible but being weak or misleading
• Argument by verbosity — using lots of pages to create an illusion of depth

Would you be willing to make your case by simply quoting the passages and simply explaining what you think they're saying so that the rest of us can compare your reasoning with what's actually stated? I apologize, but my time online is so limited, and all the workload of reading assignments and dissertations, I hope you can appreciate the desire for greater simplicity. Not everyone here is on the level of such a mind to stick with long reasoning content.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

You missed the bigger point. I am saying that we are not saved when we initiate what we think is the salvation process.

I believe I understood quote well, given that salvation is not a process.

Me mentioning the sinners prayer along with several other examples where Christian believe their salvation begins is actually not when salvation starts.

I agree with you. Salvation isn't a matter of any magical prayers. It's a matter of faith, and only faith, whether one prays it out or not.

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.

That kingdom will be on this earth in the Millennium, yes. If you interpret it as being anything other than that, then you obviously haven't moved about in the theological circles I have, especially given my own ethnic background and upbringing as a Messianic Jew. Jesus was speaking to US of Israel, not Gentiles.

when Jesus says "Many will say to me on that day," "On that day" refers to the day of Judgement. Then He says Many will come to me saying "Lord, Lord." Those who cry out to Jesus "Lord, Lord" are those who believe That Jesus is Lord, meaning they are christians.

I'm not sure how you think you know that. The magician who wanted to purchase that power was cursed for his thinking that such power could be bought. Do you not remember other of what Jesus told us Jews who were under the Kingdom Gospel:

Mark 7:6
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

So, it's no surprise at all that many who honor the Lord with their lips are NOT people of genuine faith because of the distance they set upon their hearts from the truth of scripture and the Truth Himself. Does that make sense?

IE they did all of the christian stuff, but at their Judgement Jesus proclaims that He never knew them.

Again, how can you possibly know that about people you've never met nor can see into their hearts? Jesus, who clearly saw into their hearts, saw what brought about His condemnation, and He called out what the prophet predicted by inspiration from the Lord.

Those works include the plans of salvation that I listed out earlier (Sinners prayer, confession of faith, confirmation, communion, baptism etc etc) None of these works save you.

I agree with you that NO works will ever save anyone. Paul argued that point well:

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

The men in mat 7:22 who cry out to Jesus "Lord, Lord" thought they where christian. They though they where saved by thier works as well, but clearly where judged unsaved on the day of judgement. It's not that they lost their salvation. Jesus said "I never knew you."

Yet these men did not find out till the day of judgement.

It is clear you did not fully read or understand my last post as I have already addressed your objections.

That sounds very convincing, but it's fundamentally flawed. You're perpetrating several fallacies as a mix in there:

• Begging the question: you're assuming the conclusion (“they were never saved”) instead of proving it.
• Straw man: you simplified the other view into “they thought they were saved by works,” which may not be what was actually argued.
• No true Scotsman: if “real Christians” are defined as only those who end up saved, then the claim becomes unfalsifiable.
• Skirting ad hominem in the dismissive tone: “you did not fully read or understand” attacks me personally rather than the argument.

I simply disagree with you about salvation being imputed only at the time of the judgement of all people. I will not ever be at that judgement to stand before that Throne. If you think YOU will be there, then you have a serious problem in your theology so far as I can see. The Judgement is reserved for the unsaved at the second resurrection, not the saved who had already been taken up with Christ and already have our glorified bodies.

Conclusion: The core problem is really assuming the interpretation is already settled and then treating the text as proof of that same interpretation.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I have not engaged in any ad hominem attacks. I never put any label on you. I simply pointed out that the ideas you are proposing are commonly taught by hyper Dispensationalists.

The fallacy is your use of guilt by association: you tried to discredit my statements by making use of my statements to a group you obviously want to frame negatively. More precisely, it can also be said that you attempted the use of a soft ad hominem if the label “hyper Dispensationalists,” used to dismiss the argument instead of addressing its merits.

MM

 

[rewriter]

Thanks for the response and the offer.

I do have to say that, in our scholastic circles, we have names for that kind of expansive and spacious reasoning style in support of things that have no continuities and/or that violate the law of non-contradiction. In mathematics, it's called "proofs." In other words, with enough lines of seemingly logical progression, one can use "proofing" to show that 2+2=5, for example. In this classic phenomenon, mistakes are hidden somewhere deep in a long derivation, be it mathematical or theological. One may also hear “long derivation with a hidden error”—but the standard math term is just an incorrect proof (or a proof that leads to a contradiction).

Another way of looking at your proposal is that it's also called "overinterpretation" or "forcing a connection." That is to say that, a long writeup can make almost any proposal look convincing. The sharper terms are with the mind-numbing length of a verbose field riddled with so many holes that one eventually ends up lost in the mix:

• Cherry-picking — selecting only evidence that supports the claim
• Confirmation bias — interpreting facts to fit a preconceived conclusion
• Overly-specious reasoning — sounding plausible but being weak or misleading
• Argument by verbosity — using lots of pages to create an illusion of depth

Would you be willing to make your case by simply quoting the passages and simply explaining what you think they're saying so that the rest of us can compare your reasoning with what's actually stated? I apologize, but my time online is so limited, and all the workload of reading assignments and dissertations, I hope you can appreciate the desire for greater simplicity. Not everyone here is on the level of such a mind to stick with long reasoning content.

MM

One big problem is if a "false proof" is accepted for a long enough period of time, it takes extensive work to point out the error(s) hidden within it as they have been accepted as correct for so long. If Jews and Christians were early allies, and some obscure evidence suggests that they were for the entire period going into the 1st Jewish War, the error would have been intentional, and obvious to many people when first presented, but also with clear reason to advance the official, intentional error, but over the course of 1950+ years the obviousness of the error could easily be lost. Correcting the error would then take extensive work and could not truly be simplified.

 

[Musicmaster]

There will always be Christians who for some reason, - some situation in their lives cast aside their Christianity and return to a life of sin. God does not force anyone to be believers. He has always provided freedom of choice. E.g. Adam and Eve, Judas, etc.

????? Why lump Judas in with Adam and Eve? How did you make that connection?

As I see it, the flaw is your hasty generalization and false analogy. You took a small sampling—Adam and Eve, Judas—and used them to claim a broad rule about how God always works. That doesn’t prove the general statement. You're also skirting the question-begging fallacy if the conclusion “God does not force belief” is assumed from the examples rather than demonstrated. Your statement cites selective examples, but those examples don’t by themselves establish a universal principle.

Satan does all he can to draw us away from Christ. But those who do fall away, can return to Him, if they so choose to do so. But continual rejection of the Holy spirit constitutes the unforgivable sin.

I agree that "continual rejection," if faith had never been a defining reality in the person's life, yes, they will be lost for never having believed.

However, those who truly had faith and then later fall away into sin and unbelief up to the point of their death, no. Claiming that to be truth is teaching a works-based salvation, which can save nobody at any point in their lives.

Once saved always saved is a ridiculous belief. Others have mentioned the judgement. Which way will the scales tip? Given that our every word and action is recorded in heaven.

I can see why you would say that when standing upon a works-based salvation that you can't escape when claiming being in Christ, calling away into a loss of salvation, and then coming back again.

Adventists are not Calvinists and do not believe in the false doctrine that Christians can deliberately do what they like, and yet be saved. By their fruit, you will know them.

Who in here ever said anything about 'doing whatever they like? That's a straw man argument. Please demonstrate the merit for your use of that statement that I have yet to see anyone here claim?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

One big problem is if a "false proof" is accepted for a long enough period of time, it takes extensive work to point out the error(s) hidden within it as they have been accepted as correct for so long. If Jews and Christians were early allies, and some obscure evidence suggests that they were for the entire period going into the 1st Jewish War, the error would have been intentional, and obvious to many people when first presented, but also with clear reason to advance the official, intentional error, but over the course of 1950+ years the obviousness of the error could easily be lost. Correcting the error would then take extensive work and could not truly be simplified.

Well, again, you're arguing something that has:

• Unwarranted assumptions: you're assuming there was a “false proof,” and that it was intentional, and that Jews and Christians were “early allies,” without establishing those points as comparable to what I have said in previous posts.
• You're also begging the question by treating the disputed claim as already true in order to explain why it was accepted.
• You also are appealing to complexity: “it takes extensive work” doesn’t show the claim is correct; it just says it’s hard to untangle.
• Your speculation, presented as explanation, phrases like “could easily be lost” and “would then take extensive work” are plausible, but they’re still conjecture in relation to my statements.
• Conspiracy framing: “official, intentional error” suggests a hidden, coordinated deception, but no evidence is given for that as of yet.

So, the core problem is that you explain why a false idea might persist, but you didn't actually prove your idea.

MM

 

[rewriter]

Well, again, you're arguing something that has:

• Unwarranted assumptions: you're assuming there was a “false proof,” and that it was intentional, and that Jews and Christians were “early allies,” without establishing those points as comparable to what I have said in previous posts.
• You're also begging the question by treating the disputed claim as already true in order to explain why it was accepted.
• You also are appealing to complexity: “it takes extensive work” doesn’t show the claim is correct; it just says it’s hard to untangle.
• Your speculation, presented as explanation, phrases like “could easily be lost” and “would then take extensive work” are plausible, but they’re still conjecture in relation to my statements.
• Conspiracy framing: “official, intentional error” suggests a hidden, coordinated deception, but no evidence is given for that as of yet.

So, the core problem is that you explain why a false idea might persist, but you didn't actually prove your idea.

MM

Well to give you a partial look into things, I have often referenced Herodian numismatics. Scholars struggle to explain the frequent appearance of a star on the coinage of Herod the Great and Antipas. But if the star is a reminder of the "star prophesy" of Numbers 24:17, then those Herodians were pro-Messianic, not inclined to oppose a Messiah during a time when Jewish expectations were that the messianic age was imminent.

Secondly, 1st century writers were expected to derive their inspiration from "classic" works. One such classic work opened with a declaration of the divine origin of the main character and their physical birth. It then digressed to reference a normal physical person, and then returned the focus to the now physical divine person. There is a lot of emphasis on the point that the established powers did not recognize or approve of the now physical divine person, who performs various miracles, including healings, producing wine and raising a person from the dead. Does that simple description remind you of anything in the NT? Of course, the connection could not be accurate though, tradition denies it, even as it dates the wedding at Cana to a special day for the divine entity in the classic work, but that must be pure coincidence.

 

[rewriter]

Well to give you a partial look into things, I have often referenced Herodian numismatics. Scholars struggle to explain the frequent appearance of a star on the coinage of Herod the Great and Antipas. But if the star is a reminder of the "star prophesy" of Numbers 24:17, then those Herodians were pro-Messianic, not inclined to oppose a Messiah during a time when Jewish expectations were that the messianic age was imminent.

Secondly, 1st century writers were expected to derive their inspiration from "classic" works. One such classic work opened with a declaration of the divine origin of the main character and their physical birth. It then digressed to reference a normal physical person, and then returned the focus to the now physical divine person. There is a lot of emphasis on the point that the established powers did not recognize or approve of the now physical divine person, who performs various miracles, including healings, producing wine and raising a person from the dead. Does that simple description remind you of anything in the NT? Of course, the connection could not be accurate though, tradition denies it, even as it dates the wedding at Cana to a special day for the divine entity in the classic work, but that must be pure coincidence.

Oh, and I might add, in the classical work, women's uncovered hair and disruptive worship post arise, just as they do in Corinthians.

 

[Musicmaster]

Well to give you a partial look into things, I have often referenced Herodian numismatics. Scholars struggle to explain the frequent appearance of a star on the coinage of Herod the Great and Antipas. But if the star is a reminder of the "star prophesy" of Numbers 24:17, then those Herodians were pro-Messianic, not inclined to oppose a Messiah during a time when Jewish expectations were that the messianic age was imminent.

Secondly, 1st century writers were expected to derive their inspiration from "classic" works. One such classic work opened with a declaration of the divine origin of the main character and their physical birth. It then digressed to reference a normal physical person, and then returned the focus to the now physical divine person. There is a lot of emphasis on the point that the established powers did not recognize or approve of the now physical divine person, who performs various miracles, including healings, producing wine and raising a person from the dead. Does that simple description remind you of anything in the NT? Of course, the connection could not be accurate though, tradition denies it, even as it dates the wedding at Cana to a special day for the divine entity in the classic work, but that must be pure coincidence.

In this post, I see you arguing from speculation, “The star might mean X” is treated as if it supports a big historical conclusion. There's non sequitur because even if the coin star has some direct reference to Numbers 24:17, it doesn't follow that the Herodians were pro-Messianic or friendly to a Messiah. This selective evidence picks one symbol and builds a broad claim from it while ignoring other plausible explanations. Do you offer more than just that one line of thought in your treatise?

Also, I see false analogy, in that the literary parallel being described may resemble the NT in some ways, but resemblance alone does not prove dependence or borrowing. Also there's question-begging when saying," “That must be pure coincidence” dismisses alternative explanations without proving them.

At last there's loaded phrasing, “scholars struggle,” “of course,” and “must be” are used to push the conclusion instead of demonstrating it cohesively. Overall, the core flaw is that you moved from suggestive similarities to a strong, historical claim without establishing the causal link in short order. That it would take 40-50 pages for an explanation, I suspect the fallacies would remain intact throughout your proofing treatise. In other words, the fallacies I see you perpetrating here in more simplistic phraseology and content length appears to be a reflection of the totality of anything considerably longer.

You seem to be suggesting that the Lord is incapable of stating what He means to the average person, and so there there must be tomes and volumes to ease us all into an understanding, which is why there are Calvinists and other extraneous belief systems rooted in volume after volume of complex derivations to dull the critical thinking cap clean off the head of the reader, taking his hair with it...

MM