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

[rewriter]

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

I have submitted my logic, in detail, to multiple NT scholars. None of them, looking at my full logic and arguments, see the problems that you see. Instead, they see a more overall consistent approach to the NT documents than they claim to have seen from any other scholar. Matthew and Luke show clear parallels to Greco-Roman biographies. Virgin births and resurrections were also common features of special persons in the 1st centuries BCE and CE. There are other hints throughout the NT that something is being hidden, as well as more evidence from Herodian coinage, but which takes far longer to explain, and YOU are the one who called for brevity. I have consistently argued that brevity does not allow for my case to be made because there are too many details purposely concealed by tradition. I devote my first chapter to "clearly irrelevant" history. I then apply that history to just one specific part of the NT and produce a far different understanding than does tradition. I then progress to other works and show the consistency of my logic.

Now would you care to explain why Matthew seems to present Jesus as a scapegoat in his account of the events leading up to the crucifixion? Would you care to identify Theophilus, who seems to be a well-known historic figure, or perhaps the full name of Joseph of Arimathea, I can cite obscure evidence, staying consistent with "difficult" passages in the NT (some scholars, see "A: as the solution, others say "B" and still others "C", none of which are consistent with other NT passages, unlike my interpretation) to support my conclusions

I link Paul to the synoptics, recognizing links known since the 19th century at least, plus links to John some from the late 20th century, some from my understanding of John, plus links to other NT writings. Revelation is clearly by a different author than the other Johannine writings, so who do you think he was, I can identify him, but to do so contradicts some NT accounts, but I also explain why they were written as they were, again staying consistent. Acts has the apostles linked to the Jerusalem, but tradition claims that its fall did not bother Christians, is that consistent? I find it inconsistent, but can again, find an overall consistent reans to make that claim, can you?

Some things cannot be properly presented in a brief form, no matter how much one wishes for one.

 

[Musicmaster]

I have submitted my logic, in detail, to multiple NT scholars. None of them, looking at my full logic and arguments, see the problems that you see. Instead, they see a more overall consistent approach to the NT documents than they claim to have seen from any other scholar.

I'm not so easily swayed by exhaustive reasoning because, from my experience, the systematic delamination of the layers that comprise our understanding of the mostly clear language of scripture is more of a weaponized tool than a useful one. You see, I was once challenged by one of my post-grad students, especially in his thesis, to lean toward the middle ground between the simplicity of scripture as it reads and the vast complexities of thematic dissertations that go so deep into the many facets of scholastic studies in the background of the text that, eventually, one can become convinced that up, is down, to make use of an extreme example. In other words, the simplicity became my acid test of the comp.exities of exhaustive, scholastic writings.

I have no doubts that you wrote a good piece on various topics and found some common ground with some scholars, but that is only SOME, not all...obviously. 1 John 2:27 has become the foundational bolstered of my departure from mere scholarship, for some of my fellows out there lack the spiritual depths in Holy Spirit to which we're called in Christ Jesus. So, I do appreciate your zeal for in-depth understanding, but my having been to the extremes of mere scholarship was a wakeup call to me that I was missing the target. There is a coldness of sterility and seeming distance from the Spirit in that place where the seeming vacuum of the Spirit became strikingly painful, it became unbearable.

So, if the Lord is directing you there, then go in with both feet. Perhaps my journey isn't aligned with yours. I do not scorn knowledge, but I do love the simplicity that is in Christ toward us (2 Cor. 1:12, 11:3).

Matthew and Luke show clear parallels to Greco-Roman biographies. Virgin births and resurrections were also common features of special persons in the 1st centuries BCE and CE. There are other hints throughout the NT that something is being hidden, as well as more evidence from Herodian coinage, but which takes far longer to explain, and YOU are the one who called for brevity. I have consistently argued that brevity does not allow for my case to be made because there are too many details purposely concealed by tradition. I devote my first chapter to "clearly irrelevant" history. I then apply that history to just one specific part of the NT and produce a far different understanding than does tradition. I then progress to other works and show the consistency of my logic.

Now would you care to explain why Matthew seems to present Jesus as a scapegoat in his account of the events leading up to the crucifixion? Would you care to identify Theophilus, who seems to be a well-known historic figure, or perhaps the full name of Joseph of Arimathea, I can cite obscure evidence, staying consistent with "difficult" passages in the NT (some scholars, see "A: as the solution, others say "B" and still others "C", none of which are consistent with other NT passages, unlike my interpretation) to support my conclusions

I link Paul to the synoptics, recognizing links known since the 19th century at least, plus links to John some from the late 20th century, some from my understanding of John, plus links to other NT writings. Revelation is clearly by a different author than the other Johannine writings, so who do you think he was, I can identify him, but to do so contradicts some NT accounts, but I also explain why they were written as they were, again staying consistent. Acts has the apostles linked to the Jerusalem, but tradition claims that its fall did not bother Christians, is that consistent? I find it inconsistent, but can again, find an overall consistent reans to make that claim, can you?

Some things cannot be properly presented in a brief form, no matter how much one wishes for one.

I agree there are indeed links, but the most important of them all is Christ, with which I'm sure we both agree. The two gospels, the Kingdom Gospel with deep ties to the Mosaic Law, as was declared by James in Acts 21, with not one word spoken in correction of us Jews abiding in that continued ovbservance and zeal for the Law, and the Gospel of Grace, which had only four requirements from the Law laid down upon them. Christ, as the very Vine/Root of the branches, feeds all. Our religious leaders at the time of Christ, they searched the scriptures diligently, only to be scolded by Messiah for seeking salvation in the scriptures while still missing the One of whom they spoke. All that scholarship and the pursuits therein, and they still missed the mark.

When we scholars turn a blind eye tonthe experiences of our fellows and fail to see the simplicity of the depths written to us and the coldness of all those dusty books, I was driven to my knees with tears of anguish for my having overlooked the many joys of reliance upon Holy Spirit filling and instruction.

Yes, I harbor many, many deep items of understanding from my studies, but the greatest of all depths are those things Holy Spirit has shown to me that go so far beyond the greatest depths of scholarship...and they point to the text mostly for what is actually stated coupled with an enlivening in the words that no amount of scholarship can ever hope to touch.

What was most instrumental in showing to me the shallowness of much of what we look at as scholarship is when counseling families and individuals. Successful counseling, I found out, wasn't predicated upon scholastic pressures at the depths below where most swim, but rather sticking to the simplicity of the text, and giving to them the gems and jewels received from only One Source...with them reading for themselves and seeking that same Spirit for understanding.

Sorry, I have to get back to my duties. Typing time is over.

Blessings to you and yours.

MM

 

[steve63]

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

I did not "dismiss" your argument. I actually rebutted it thoroughly. Other than the first sentence, everything in my long post involved "addressing the merits". And the only reason I brought up hyper dispensationalism at all is because it was quite obvious to me that you didn't come up with this idea of a "kingdom gospel" that is distinct from "gospel of grace" on your own and that you were getting this from some teacher. And the reason I used the term "hyper" is to distinguish the teaching from traditional dispensationalism. Hyper dispensationalism is a variation of dispensationalism that didn't appear until the 19th century. I think it's important for any bible student to be cautious about any teaching that didn't come on the scene until 1,800+ years after the Church was born. In any case, I'm not going to get bogged down with petty squabbles over labels. Time to move on....

 

[rewriter]

I'm not so easily swayed by exhaustive reasoning because, from my experience, the systematic delamination of the layers that comprise our understanding of the mostly clear language of scripture is more of a weaponized tool than a useful one. You see, I was once challenged by one of my post-grad students, especially in his thesis, to lean toward the middle ground between the simplicity of scripture as it reads and the vast complexities of thematic dissertations that go so deep into the many facets of scholastic studies in the background of the text that, eventually, one can become convinced that up, is down, to make use of an extreme example. In other words, the simplicity became my acid test of the comp.exities of exhaustive, scholastic writings.

I have no doubts that you wrote a good piece on various topics and found some common ground with some scholars, but that is only SOME, not all...obviously. 1 John 2:27 has become the foundational bolstered of my departure from mere scholarship, for some of my fellows out there lack the spiritual depths in Holy Spirit to which we're called in Christ Jesus. So, I do appreciate your zeal for in-depth understanding, but my having been to the extremes of mere scholarship was a wakeup call to me that I was missing the target. There is a coldness of sterility and seeming distance from the Spirit in that place where the seeming vacuum of the Spirit became strikingly painful, it became unbearable.

So, if the Lord is directing you there, then go in with both feet. Perhaps my journey isn't aligned with yours. I do not scorn knowledge, but I do love the simplicity that is in Christ toward us (2 Cor. 1:12, 11:3).



I agree there are indeed links, but the most important of them all is Christ, with which I'm sure we both agree. The two gospels, the Kingdom Gospel with deep ties to the Mosaic Law, as was declared by James in Acts 21, with not one word spoken in correction of us Jews abiding in that continued ovbservance and zeal for the Law, and the Gospel of Grace, which had only four requirements from the Law laid down upon them. Christ, as the very Vine/Root of the branches, feeds all. Our religious leaders at the time of Christ, they searched the scriptures diligently, only to be scolded by Messiah for seeking salvation in the scriptures while still missing the One of whom they spoke. All that scholarship and the pursuits therein, and they still missed the mark.

When we scholars turn a blind eye tonthe experiences of our fellows and fail to see the simplicity of the depths written to us and the coldness of all those dusty books, I was driven to my knees with tears of anguish for my having overlooked the many joys of reliance upon Holy Spirit filling and instruction.

Yes, I harbor many, many deep items of understanding from my studies, but the greatest of all depths are those things Holy Spirit has shown to me that go so far beyond the greatest depths of scholarship...and they point to the text mostly for what is actually stated coupled with an enlivening in the words that no amount of scholarship can ever hope to touch.

What was most instrumental in showing to me the shallowness of much of what we look at as scholarship is when counseling families and individuals. Successful counseling, I found out, wasn't predicated upon scholastic pressures at the depths below where most swim, but rather sticking to the simplicity of the text, and giving to them the gems and jewels received from only One Source...with them reading for themselves and seeking that same Spirit for understanding.

Sorry, I have to get back to my duties. Typing time is over.

Blessings to you and yours.

MM

I would agree that we seem to be on differing paths. And I also know that I have contacted only some scholars, but my approach has been to check with scholars who are deemed conservative, middle of the road and liberal. When all members of all three groups agree, I find it hard to believe that I am totally wrong.

Some points I learned from considerable study, often where I was told there was nothing of importance, include that very few non-Roman citizens liked Rome in power, not even all Roman citizens liked it. Among the Herods, Herod the Great, Antipas and Agrippa 1 all got in trouble for taking actions consistent with messianic expectations, but that gets buried. Tiberius, from what appears to be a source datable to the mid-30's CE (deemed irrelevant) wanted Jesus to be a part of the Roman pantheon, a claim also made by Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Jews and Christians suffered the same types of persecution during the 1st Jewish war (largely ignored but possibly hinted at in scripture, Paul specifically) and Nero's famous persecution came within 3 weeks of the end of a long war. Interestingly enough, James the Just was reportedly killed 2 years before the 1st Jewish war began with the Jews taking the Anatolia fortress and killing all the soldiers except two who converted and were circumcised, but the action was supposedly brought about by the death of James. Should we expect massive protests against the ICE shootings of 2025 to occur in 2027, or did they follow shortly after the events? Why do Mark and John appear to have been edited? 1 John is widely viewed as a cover letter for the gospel, and dated to the 80's, why does it appear to contradict the gospel on one point that appears in a section that seems to have been added to the original?

These are just a few of the questions I address in my writing, while actively keeping my assumptions to a minimum, thus linking all these, and numerous others, to just a couple assumptions, unlike tradition that deals with all these issues separately.

And I return the blessings to you and yours with my gratitude.

 

[rewriter]

I did not "dismiss" your argument. I actually rebutted it thoroughly. Other than the first sentence, everything in my long post involved "addressing the merits". And the only reason I brought up hyper dispensationalism at all is because it was quite obvious to me that you didn't come up with this idea of a "kingdom gospel" that is distinct from "gospel of grace" on your own and that you were getting this from some teacher. And the reason I used the term "hyper" is to distinguish the teaching from traditional dispensationalism. Hyper dispensationalism is a variation of dispensationalism that didn't appear until the 19th century. I think it's important for any bible student to be cautious about any teaching that didn't come on the scene until 1,800+ years after the Church was born. In any case, I'm not going to get bogged down with petty squabbles over labels. Time to move on....

Then I trust that you are careful about Anselm's logic, coming in 11-1200 years after the last piece of scripture was written, that presents the offense of sin towards God to be infinite and thus needing a sacrifice of infinite value, aka Jesus.

 

[steve63]

Then I trust that you are careful about Anselm's logic, coming in 11-1200 years after the last piece of scripture was written, that presents the offense of sin towards God to be infinite and thus needing a sacrifice of infinite value, aka Jesus.

If you are talking about penal substitutionary atonement it's simply not true that it was some invention of Anselm. He may have been the first to present it in a systemic fashion but the ideas behind it can be found in many of the early church fathers. It's no different than the Trinity which didn't come together as a well defined dogma until the fourth century even though the ideas it was built upon existed from the beginning. But if you're looking to start a debate about penal substitution I would suggest starting a new thread since that is really off topic from this one.

 

[Roger316]

If you are talking about penal substitutionary atonement it's simply not true that it was some invention of Anselm. He may have been the first to present it in a systemic fashion but the ideas behind it can be found in many of the early church fathers. It's no different than the Trinity which didn't come together as a well defined dogma until the fourth century even though the ideas it was built upon existed from the beginning. But if you're looking to start a debate about penal substitution I would suggest starting a new thread since that is really off topic from this one.

The point is, the penal substitution theory is not Biblical. The Bible says that we are saved by grace, not by law. Our sins are forgiven, not punished.

 

[steve63]

The point is, the penal substitution theory is not Biblical. The Bible says that we are saved by grace, not by law. Our sins are forgiven, not punished.

Well that's your opinion. But I see no relationship whatsoever between PSA and the issue of law vs. grace. In any case, as I said to Rewriter we should not be hijacking this thread by starting a debate about PSA here. PSA has no relationship to the issue of whether salvation can be lost which is the subject of this thread. If you want to explore PSA further I would suggest starting a new thread.

 

[Roger316]

Well that's your opinion. But I see no relationship whatsoever between PSA and the issue of law vs. grace. In any case, as I said to Rewriter we should not be hijacking this thread by starting a debate about PSA here. PSA has no relationship to the issue of whether salvation can be lost which is the subject of this thread. If you want to explore PSA further I would suggest starting a new thread.

Okay, but please allow me to say this one thing first. I respect your wish that we don't engage PSA, but it’s worth noting—at least as an aside—that PSA sits right at the center of the “grace vs. law” debate. If penal substitution is true in the strict sense—that Christ bears the exact legal penalty the Law demands—then salvation cannot be described as “grace” in the way some people mean it. Under PSA, God does not simply forgive; He satisfies the Law’s judicial requirements through a substitute. In that framework, grace is not the absence of penalty but the transfer of penalty. So PSA doesn’t eliminate law; it presupposes it. And that means PSA must be accounted for whenever someone claims that grace operates independently of the Law’s demands.

 

[Drich]

That kingdom will be on this earth in the Millennium, yes.

Irrelevant. The point made is Jesus judges who who is, and who is not saved. Our efforts in initiating the salvation process is not the water shed event of our salvation.

This judgement of Christ's is consolidated on a given day. (In this life or the next )

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.

Mat 7's teaching is one of three chapters known as the sermon on the mount. Jesus was not speaking only to the Jews in this sermon, He is speaking to everyone/a mixed crowd. This means what was said in mat 7 was not "for the jews only." It was directed at everyone.

Here is some information you can share with your "theological circles/backgrounders" concerning what the sermon on the mount was, the chapters in the book of Matthew it is comprised of, and to whom this sermon was directed.

What is the Sermon on the Mount? | GotQuestions.org

What is the Sermon on the Mount? Was the Sermon on the Mount a complete sermon that Jesus gave, or just a summary of what Jesus taught on the mount?

www.gotquestions.org

I'm not sure how you think you know that.

Because Jesus says so in mat 7. 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?’

Clearly these men think they are christian as they performed many good works, disciple level works and yet where banished from God's Kingdom:

23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

How do I know this judgement is consolidated to a day? Well, first Jesus in John 5 says God gave Him the power and authority to judge everyone. So individual judgement is coming for each and everyone of us; and here in mat 7 Jesus says that "Many will say to me on that day," This means on the day of their individual judgement.

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:

I do not think you know the bible well enough to try and correct someone with it WITHOUT looking up the passage you are quoting first: The story you are referencing is in acts chapter 8:
20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

24 Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”

So yes simon the sorcerer did try and buy the Holy Spirit because he simply did not know how things worked. After his atempt Peter Rebuked him. Rebuking means to strongly correct and call him into repentance. You said he was cursed. to Curse means to petition God/wish evil on someone. Which is not what the disciples did here. They corrected the man and called him to repentance which he repented of his sin. So no, your example here does not support your claim.

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?

Is mark 7:6 not a judgement from Christ levied against the hypocrites Jesus identifies?? Does Christ not look deep/beyond the surface of their actions and look at their heart's intentions? The answer is Yes. So for them this is the day of their judgement. Don't get hung up on word phrasing: "one single day or Judgement day" is just a term that describes the day Christ will judge. The thief on the cross is another example where Christ "saved/judged" someone before their death.

Again, how can you possibly know that about people you've never met nor can see into their hearts?

lol, I do not presume the verdict. I only point out that salvation or condemnation comes after Jesus' judgement.

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.

yuup.

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.

cool.

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.

Yeaah...

Maybe let's look at mat 7 together as it seem your bible may be different, because i have referenced this many times with you and you still do not get it. In my bible Jesus pronounces these men condemned and not saved. Meaning I need not prove anything because Jesus Himself identifies these men as being 'evil doers.'

Jesus is speaking here in the sermon on the mount, to everyone:

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,

So here in the first Part of 21 Jesus declares not everyone will go to heaven. Specifically, not everyone who thinks they are a follower of Christ. Next He provides the conditions of salvation:

but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Verse 22 Jesus makes a judgement of those who come to Him on the day they are being judged:

22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord,

In the act of calling out to Jesus "Lord, Lord recognizes Jesus Place, Power and Authority of being the Lord, of Lord. Meaning these men being Judged by Christ at this moment in this verse think they are saved followers of Christ. They attempt to prove this, by providing a list a works equivalent of the works of the apostles as seen here:

did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’

Then Jesus Cast Judgement against them condemning them:

23&Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

The identification of them being 'evil doers.' condemns them to Hell as no evil doer will be welcomed into God's Kingdom.

So there's your proof that the men in mat 7 are going to Hell, and it has nothing to do with my knowing their hearts. Jesus used this illustration to repersent many who think they are saved when they are not.

 

[Drich]

• Straw man: you simplified the other view into “they thought they were saved by works,” which may not be what was actually argued.

argued by who? The text is clear, these condemned men presented a list of works to Christ to try and justify their salvation. No other proof was offered. So there is nothing to argue contextually.

• No true Scotsman: if “real Christians” are defined as only those who end up saved, then the claim becomes unfalsifiable.

Jesus in luke 11 tell us how to obtain eternal life.

• 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.

A simple disagreement in what I said would have you address the points you disagreed with, as witnessed by your reactions to my last post./the post you read.. You make no references to anything I have already pointed out that previously addresses the questions you are currently asking. for example in my opening post to you, I not only referenced mat 7: 21-23 I cut and pasted the scripture to my post.. Yet you still needed me to provide book chapter and verse as if you where completely unaware. of what mat 7 had to say. This leads me to conclude that you did not read the post I made, or you did not understand it.

Why else would you ask for a bible reference that had been previously posted and dissected for you if you read/understood what was being discussed.

My ad Hom Comment was an effort to determine whether you had not read my post or did not understand it. This is in an effort to help better tailor my responses to you.

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

Again, if you had addressed the material in my opening post to you, you would have found ample opportunity to examine the proof you where looking for.

MM

Drich

 

[steve63]

Okay, but please allow me to say this one thing first. I respect your wish that we don't engage PSA, but it’s worth noting—at least as an aside—that PSA sits right at the center of the “grace vs. law” debate. If penal substitution is true in the strict sense—that Christ bears the exact legal penalty the Law demands—then salvation cannot be described as “grace” in the way some people mean it. Under PSA, God does not simply forgive; He satisfies the Law’s judicial requirements through a substitute. In that framework, grace is not the absence of penalty but the transfer of penalty. So PSA doesn’t eliminate law; it presupposes it. And that means PSA must be accounted for whenever someone claims that grace operates independently of the Law’s demands.

Describing salvation as "grace" is talking about US. WE receive grace, Christ did not receive grace as the sin bearer. Grace does not mean the elimination of law altogether, it's the elimination of OUR debt to the penalty of breaking the Law which Christ paid. But again, let's not keep this going on this thread. I'm not trying to avoid your questions if you post a new thread I have no problem responding there but let's keep this thread on subject.

 

[Roger316]

Describing salvation as "grace" is talking about US. WE receive grace, Christ did not receive grace as the sin bearer. Grace does not mean the elimination of law altogether, it's the elimination of OUR debt to the penalty of breaking the Law which Christ paid. But again, let's not keep this going on this thread. I'm not trying to avoid your questions if you post a new thread I have no problem responding there but let's keep this thread on subject.

Okay, I might open a thread to discuss our theories of the atonement, but I am reluctant because my threads seem to go no where. In the meantime, I want to respond to something you said above, couching my response in terms of the original topic of this thread. What I am about to say you probably already know. So forgive me for stating the obvious. But I think it is important and bears repeating.

I agree with you that grace does not eliminate the Law. Paul never suggests that grace abolishes the Law or renders obedience irrelevant; rather, grace reorients the believer’s relationship to the Law. In Romans, Paul speaks directly into a cultural assumption that Israel had long embraced—that the Law itself was the pathway to securing God’s approval. Israel “pursued a law of righteousness” but failed to obtain it because she sought acceptance through performance rather than through faith. Paul’s claim that salvation is “by faith apart from works” is not an attack on the Law but a correction of Israel’s misunderstanding of its purpose. The Law was never given as the means of earning divine favor; it was meant to reveal God’s character and expose human need. Grace changes the orientation: obedience is no longer an attempt to achieve God’s approval but the grateful response of those who have already received it through faith in Christ.

Some have embraced “once‑saved‑always‑saved” in a way that distorts the gospel rather than honors it. They treat perpetual forgiveness as a kind of moral immunity, as though grace were a license to sin rather than the power to walk in newness of life. Paul confronts this mindset directly: the problem is not the doctrine of security but the orientation of the heart that receives it. When someone uses forgiveness to justify indifference, apathy, or rebellion, they reveal that they have misunderstood grace at its core. Grace is not permissive; it is transformative. It frees us from condemnation, but it never frees us from the call to holiness. In fact, the very permanence of forgiveness is meant to produce humility, gratitude, and obedience—not moral carelessness.

Paul is adamant that Gentiles are not under the Mosaic Law; their covenantal relationship to God does not require Torah observance. But Paul would never argue that those who are perpetually forgiven may adopt an ethic that contradicts God’s moral vision. Justification apart from the Law does not mean sanctification apart from righteousness. The freedom of grace is not freedom from morality; it is freedom from the Law as a system of earning God’s approval. Paul’s gospel removes the Law as a ladder but never as a light. The forgiven are not lawless—they are Spirit‑led. And the Spirit never leads a person into an ethic that contradicts the character of the God who saved them.


What do you think?

 

[steve63]

Okay, I might open a thread to discuss our theories of the atonement, but I am reluctant because my threads seem to go no where. In the meantime, I want to respond to something you said above, couching my response in terms of the original topic of this thread. What I am about to say you probably already know. So forgive me for stating the obvious. But I think it is important and bears repeating.

I agree with you that grace does not eliminate the Law. Paul never suggests that grace abolishes the Law or renders obedience irrelevant; rather, grace reorients the believer’s relationship to the Law. In Romans, Paul speaks directly into a cultural assumption that Israel had long embraced—that the Law itself was the pathway to securing God’s approval. Israel “pursued a law of righteousness” but failed to obtain it because she sought acceptance through performance rather than through faith. Paul’s claim that salvation is “by faith apart from works” is not an attack on the Law but a correction of Israel’s misunderstanding of its purpose. The Law was never given as the means of earning divine favor; it was meant to reveal God’s character and expose human need. Grace changes the orientation: obedience is no longer an attempt to achieve God’s approval but the grateful response of those who have already received it through faith in Christ.

Some have embraced “once‑saved‑always‑saved” in a way that distorts the gospel rather than honors it. They treat perpetual forgiveness as a kind of moral immunity, as though grace were a license to sin rather than the power to walk in newness of life. Paul confronts this mindset directly: the problem is not the doctrine of security but the orientation of the heart that receives it. When someone uses forgiveness to justify indifference, apathy, or rebellion, they reveal that they have misunderstood grace at its core. Grace is not permissive; it is transformative. It frees us from condemnation, but it never frees us from the call to holiness. In fact, the very permanence of forgiveness is meant to produce humility, gratitude, and obedience—not moral carelessness.

Paul is adamant that Gentiles are not under the Mosaic Law; their covenantal relationship to God does not require Torah observance. But Paul would never argue that those who are perpetually forgiven may adopt an ethic that contradicts God’s moral vision. Justification apart from the Law does not mean sanctification apart from righteousness. The freedom of grace is not freedom from morality; it is freedom from the Law as a system of earning God’s approval. Paul’s gospel removes the Law as a ladder but never as a light. The forgiven are not lawless—they are Spirit‑led. And the Spirit never leads a person into an ethic that contradicts the character of the God who saved them.


What do you think?

I would agree with everything you are saying here. Although I do believe in "once saved always saved", I would concur with you that there are some in that camp who distort the gospel with it. Most of these people have been brought up in an evangelical subculture (which I would consider myself part of) that believes salvation occurs when people say the "sinner's prayer". They also believe (rightly in my opinion) that salvation can not be lost. So when someone "prays the prayer" and then goes on to live like the Devil (using the language of this thread title), they conclude that person must still be saved they will just get less rewards. All the Scripture passages that warn about apostasy and perseverance in holiness are reinterpreted to be talking about rewards even where the context is clearly talking about salvation. The problem is that these people have a deficient view of faith. They think faith is something that only affects the mind rather than both the mind AND the heart, so that if a person intellectually believes they are a sinner and that Christ died for them then they are saved. If you say that true faith will result in a changed heart that will lead to repentance from sin, they will accuse you of sneaking works into the gospel. The problem is that they are not letting the full counsel of Scripture define faith. Rather, they take a few passages from Paul where he talks about salvation by faith alone and build their definition of faith from those, ignoring what the rest of Scripture has to say (including many other passages from Paul himself). So they end up with a distorted view of faith that severs faith from works completely, and they end up with this "cheap grace" kind of a gospel.

 

[Musicmaster]

I would agree that we seem to be on differing paths. And I also know that I have contacted only some scholars, but my approach has been to check with scholars who are deemed conservative, middle of the road and liberal. When all members of all three groups agree, I find it hard to believe that I am totally wrong.

I don't tout scholarship as the end-all, be-all, as is so popular in this culture...when it fits the agendas. Political pundits are always glamorizing the scholars who happen to be on their side of the agendas that define them, and turn right around and trash scholars who don't stand on their side of things. Just a game.

Scholarship has its uses, and working around what you describe as being a wide swath from conservative to liberal, yes. I'm around them all the time, and I remain unimpressed with us all, including myself. When the glassy-eyed students first enter my class, I set about to shatter their illusions about all of us who have plethora of letters attached to our names. It's rather amusing to see the stars snuff out in their eyes as they begin to reaize we're fallible too.

Some points I learned from considerable study, often where I was told there was nothing of importance, include that very few non-Roman citizens liked Rome in power, not even all Roman citizens liked it. Among the Herods, Herod the Great, Antipas and Agrippa 1 all got in trouble for taking actions consistent with messianic expectations, but that gets buried. Tiberius, from what appears to be a source datable to the mid-30's CE (deemed irrelevant) wanted Jesus to be a part of the Roman pantheon, a claim also made by Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Jews and Christians suffered the same types of persecution during the 1st Jewish war (largely ignored but possibly hinted at in scripture, Paul specifically) and Nero's famous persecution came within 3 weeks of the end of a long war. Interestingly enough, James the Just was reportedly killed 2 years before the 1st Jewish war began with the Jews taking the Anatolia fortress and killing all the soldiers except two who converted and were circumcised, but the action was supposedly brought about by the death of James. Should we expect massive protests against the ICE shootings of 2025 to occur in 2027, or did they follow shortly after the events? Why do Mark and John appear to have been edited? 1 John is widely viewed as a cover letter for the gospel, and dated to the 80's, why does it appear to contradict the gospel on one point that appears in a section that seems to have been added to the original?

These are just a few of the questions I address in my writing, while actively keeping my assumptions to a minimum, thus linking all these, and numerous others, to just a couple assumptions, unlike tradition that deals with all these issues separately.

And I return the blessings to you and yours with my gratitude.

Not to get you to brag, but how much time do you spend listening to the Spirit...that anointing spoken of by John in 1 John 2:27? You don't have to answer, this is just a question of thought provoking reflection.

In addition to the bubble-bursting I do with students, I also like getting them onto the track of thinking that's more detached from the status quo:

Given that Youtube doesn't play sometimes through this site, try this by clicking HERE:

It's amazing to watch the students develop alternative perspectives apart from the mainstream.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Irrelevant. The point made is Jesus judges who who is, and who is not saved. Our efforts in initiating the salvation process is not the water shed event of our salvation.

This judgement of Christ's is consolidated on a given day. (In this life or the next )


Mat 7's teaching is one of three chapters known as the sermon on the mount. Jesus was not speaking only to the Jews in this sermon, He is speaking to everyone/a mixed crowd. This means what was said in mat 7 was not "for the jews only." It was directed at everyone.

Here is some information you can share with your "theological circles/backgrounders" concerning what the sermon on the mount was, the chapters in the book of Matthew it is comprised of, and to whom this sermon was directed.

What is the Sermon on the Mount? | GotQuestions.org

What is the Sermon on the Mount? Was the Sermon on the Mount a complete sermon that Jesus gave, or just a summary of what Jesus taught on the mount?

www.gotquestions.org

Because Jesus says so in mat 7. 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?’

Clearly these men think they are christian as they performed many good works, disciple level works and yet where banished from God's Kingdom:

23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

How do I know this judgement is consolidated to a day? Well, first Jesus in John 5 says God gave Him the power and authority to judge everyone. So individual judgement is coming for each and everyone of us; and here in mat 7 Jesus says that "Many will say to me on that day," This means on the day of their individual judgement.

I do not think you know the bible well enough to try and correct someone with it WITHOUT looking up the passage you are quoting first: The story you are referencing is in acts chapter 8:
20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

24 Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”

So yes simon the sorcerer did try and buy the Holy Spirit because he simply did not know how things worked. After his atempt Peter Rebuked him. Rebuking means to strongly correct and call him into repentance. You said he was cursed. to Curse means to petition God/wish evil on someone. Which is not what the disciples did here. They corrected the man and called him to repentance which he repented of his sin. So no, your example here does not support your claim.


Is mark 7:6 not a judgement from Christ levied against the hypocrites Jesus identifies?? Does Christ not look deep/beyond the surface of their actions and look at their heart's intentions? The answer is Yes. So for them this is the day of their judgement. Don't get hung up on word phrasing: "one single day or Judgement day" is just a term that describes the day Christ will judge. The thief on the cross is another example where Christ "saved/judged" someone before their death.

lol, I do not presume the verdict. I only point out that salvation or condemnation comes after Jesus' judgement.

yuup.

cool.

Yeaah...

Maybe let's look at mat 7 together as it seem your bible may be different, because i have referenced this many times with you and you still do not get it. In my bible Jesus pronounces these men condemned and not saved. Meaning I need not prove anything because Jesus Himself identifies these men as being 'evil doers.'

Jesus is speaking here in the sermon on the mount, to everyone:



So here in the first Part of 21 Jesus declares not everyone will go to heaven. Specifically, not everyone who thinks they are a follower of Christ. Next He provides the conditions of salvation:



Verse 22 Jesus makes a judgement of those who come to Him on the day they are being judged:


In the act of calling out to Jesus "Lord, Lord recognizes Jesus Place, Power and Authority of being the Lord, of Lord. Meaning these men being Judged by Christ at this moment in this verse think they are saved followers of Christ. They attempt to prove this, by providing a list a works equivalent of the works of the apostles as seen here:



Then Jesus Cast Judgement against them condemning them:


The identification of them being 'evil doers.' condemns them to Hell as no evil doer will be welcomed into God's Kingdom.

So there's your proof that the men in mat 7 are going to Hell, and it has nothing to do with my knowing their hearts. Jesus used this illustration to repersent many who think they are saved when they are not.

I disagree given that your case is too full of holes, and that's ok. This isn't a core issue. It's peripheral.

So, speak on and keep the faith.

MM

 

[rewriter]

I don't tout scholarship as the end-all, be-all, as is so popular in this culture...when it fits the agendas. Political pundits are always glamorizing the scholars who happen to be on their side of the agendas that define them, and turn right around and trash scholars who don't stand on their side of things. Just a game.

Scholarship has its uses, and working around what you describe as being a wide swath from conservative to liberal, yes. I'm around them all the time, and I remain unimpressed with us all, including myself. When the glassy-eyed students first enter my class, I set about to shatter their illusions about all of us who have plethora of letters attached to our names. It's rather amusing to see the stars snuff out in their eyes as they begin to reaize we're fallible too.



Not to get you to brag, but how much time do you spend listening to the Spirit...that anointing spoken of by John in 1 John 2:27? You don't have to answer, this is just a question of thought provoking reflection.

In addition to the bubble-bursting I do with students, I also like getting them onto the track of thinking that's more detached from the status quo:

Given that Youtube doesn't play sometimes through this site, try this by clicking HERE:

It's amazing to watch the students develop alternative perspectives apart from the mainstream.

MM

How does one prove that they listen to the Spirit? What signs are present when the spirit one listens to is from God or from a different source, both are capable of appearing consistent with scripture. Far too often that one listens to the spirit is an assumption, just as the claim that all scripture is true is an assumption.

One can see hints that the scriptures, as we have them today, have been changed from their original and if they were, then why? Beating the drum harder when one hears that question does not change the truth, but it can drown out the soft whispers of the Spirit.

 

[Musicmaster]

How does one prove that they listen to the Spirit? What signs are present when the spirit one listens to is from God or from a different source, both are capable of appearing consistent with scripture. Far too often that one listens to the spirit is an assumption, just as the claim that all scripture is true is an assumption.

One can see hints that the scriptures, as we have them today, have been changed from their original and if they were, then why? Beating the drum harder when one hears that question does not change the truth, but it can drown out the soft whispers of the Spirit.

You have asked an astute and worthy question. Thank you for that. Let's allow scripture to answer that:

1 John 2:25-29
25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

You're absolutely right. There is much deception out there, and even those who teach the scriptures as being untrustworthy.

What, then, is the evidence of the Spirit teaching them His truth? That abiding...and the fact that those who are truly under His instruction and are listening to Him, they are in agreement on core things while others catch up, the difference only being in their spiritual maturity and stature they have gained through their abiding in Him. They don't have to prove anything because the Lord is so much bigger than to need us to defend Him. He is mighty and glorious beyond measure.

So, I'm not really saying anything new here, but I do have a calm assurance that I am in harmonious fellowship with those who are willing to let go of it all so that the King can shine through. The Spirit doesn't each different people different things about the same topic or doctrine, in the sense of there being polar opposites that would violate His Law of non-contradiction. He is consistent in ever way.

You're right. No man, not even Christ Himself, was able to convince most of His being Messiah and very Truth incarnate standing before them. We simply speak what He reveals, those who are attuned to His Spirit, there will be a resonance between and within them, with the Spirit drawing us closely into unity. Most are not attuned and will remain in their ignorance and denials and deafness to the Spirit. We don't have to worry about them. The Lord will speak, some will listen, most ill not.

Blessings.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

How does one prove that they listen to the Spirit? What signs are present when the spirit one listens to is from God or from a different source, both are capable of appearing consistent with scripture. Far too often that one listens to the spirit is an assumption, just as the claim that all scripture is true is an assumption.

One can see hints that the scriptures, as we have them today, have been changed from their original and if they were, then why? Beating the drum harder when one hears that question does not change the truth, but it can drown out the soft whispers of the Spirit.

Furthermore, I have been reflecting upon Acts 15 where Paul and Barnabas were at such odds with one another. That situation has made me reform my thinking over the decades and recently of our conversation.

Those two men were filled with Holy Spirit, but they departed from one another without what we, looking upon the outward, would otherwise think should have been total harmony, but they did not. In other words, Holy Spirit didn't enforce any will from our Heavenly Father to remain together. Their ministries were, at that time, no longer something that was to continue in proximity to one another.

You have launched out into the more complex and in-depth treatise for the more intellectual, and I'm not one to criticize your work you feel that you are to engage with others. My path is to minister on a much lower tier in simplicity to those who can receive it. Perhaps this is the higher road for both of us. We are both responsible for our respective adherence to the text of scripture for what it says, and I am content with that.

Amen?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Every thought I've ever seen come across that even hints at the idea for loss of salvation, and I say again, every time, it equates to works-based salvation. I haven't seen anyone escape that at any point in all my years. Every equivocation, nuance, every sinew, inkling and iota always points to works-based salvation.

Is there anything else out there nobody has thought of? Solberg points to salvation having verses that point in both directions, but when looking at the areas of scripture to which he points, there's the failure to rightly divide the word of truth when there are seemingly contradictory statements made throughout.

Thoughts?

MM