Can a TRUE believer turn away from the faith?

How long is eternal life?
Does eternal mean eternal?

 

Bob and HP, you guys just keep on working yourselves towards heaven. I have faith that my Father isn't going to let any man pluck me out of his hand. Not you with your bad doctrine. Not even me. The born again do not become unborn. Eternal means eternal, not something else where the context somehow magically destroys the meaning of the word.

 

Faith not rooted in obedience is faith fit for deceived individual.

 

But it is faith nevertheless.
How long is eternal? When does eternal stop being eternal?

 

How necessary is "forgiveness for sins" in your view of OSAS? (hint - Matt 18 shows how forgiveness if revoked).

How necessary is "Christ" in your view of OSAS (note John 15:1-6 shows how branches that are "IN CHRIST" are removed from Him - killed and then burned.

How necessary is "the body of Christ" in your view of OSAS (note Romans 11 shows how both natural branches (Jews) and the wild branches (Gentiles) are IN the body of Christ - but some of the natural branches (Jews) were "removed for unbelief" -- but as Paul says "HE is able to graft them in AGAIN IF THEY do not continue in unbelief"

How necessary is "Grace" and being in fellowship with Christ - in your view of OSAS? In Gal 5:4 we see the case of those who fave "FALLEN FROM Grace and have been SEVERED FROM Christ".

If you have a Christless, lifeless, Graceless, not-forgiven, not-part-of-the-body-of-Christ version of OSAS -- so that you can claim that OSAS remains in all of those Bible conditions that the NT warns us about -- then you have an OSAS that includes "being lost".

in Christ,

Bob

 

You keep getting the answer and claiming that you don't need to deal with the texts that show your problem in that case.

As I stated - 1 John 5 is great if you snip off the rest of scripture --

As it turns out - the BIBLE provides boundary texts for each concept - I have given you the "limits" in scripture for how to retain eternal life (a subject that John 5 does not address - however John 15 DOES address).

Your response is to pretend that 1John 5 is the only text in the Bible.

As I have already stated - if that were true - then you would have a good case for OSAS.

But unfortunately for OSAS - John also wrote chapter 15.

in Christ,

Bob

 

1. I have repeatedly addressed the Eternal life promise of 1John 5 showing that if this were your only text - we would have a case for OSAS. You keep ignoring that response as if it did not exist.

2. I have addressed John 10:5 showing that "my sheep HEAR my voice" is not the same as "I sheep WILL NEVER hear another voice" claim that was made in a recent post.

3. Eph 2:8-9 makes no case for OSAS - when you look at vs 10 as well. It says nothing about "will never be able to choose again". It says nothing about Jam2 and Romans 2 teaching regarding the need for perseverance and the warning that "you see then that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone" James 2.

As usual - the OSAS arguments try to avoid any of the "limiting texts" or the "warning texts" -- and of course that sliced view is necessary to even hold to OSAS in the first place.

4. Romans 6 deletes your entire OSAS argument from Eph 2 as Paul insists there that if you are overcome by sin - you are its slave and are not saved.

Since the OSAS group is trying to avoid the "limit" and "warning texts" regarding salvation - it would have done me no good to run off at every rabbit trail they offerred trying to avoid discussion of the boundary texts on the subject. It would only have served the OSAS need to avoid the texts that are problem for OSAS.

Stop and think for a minute. BOTH sides agree to the promises of salvation - where OSAS stands or FALLS is in the area of the boundary texts that LIMIT those promises by warnings.

You did make some wild claims -- but when we looked at the full scope of Romans 2, Romans 9 and Romans 11 we saw that ALL of them included explicit references to NT gentiles being included in the term "Israel".

A point that you simply ignore so far.

Since you now claim to



That be the case, let's look at your argument this once and see how you have butchered the Scriptures to try and make a point.

You said above that:
"as Paul says in Romans 2 "He is a Jew that is one INWARDLY and circumcision is of the HEART by the Holy Spirit"
So what? What is your point?

And so? What is the point" I am still waiting to deal with each of the problems for OSAS found in Romans 2, and Romans 9 and Romans 11 -- let us see if you can actually (and with good exegesis) work your way through the problem texts for OSAS.

If that is supposed to pass for exegesis here - then you guys have missed the basic concept entirely.

Still not an ounce of exegesis - no reference to the text itself at all!

How "unnexpected".

You have yet to warm up to the actual text itself -- you are still telling stories instead of looking at the text.

let me help you in the next post --

The reader will notice that we will start by looking at the text and "noticing" the inconvenient details.

Much noise and pulpit pounding there - no substance.

If louder made righter - you might have had something.

But in real life - that method does not work (as it turns out).

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: Sure it is faith….DEAD FAITH, and dead faith will save no one.

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

First we start with DHK's wild claim for Romans 11

We observe the following "details' in that solution by DHK

1. No attention paid at all to trying to get his wild summation to fit the actual text.

2. No exegesis at all

3. The hollow claim that references to "gentiles" seen in Romans 11 will not reference the SAVED.

By contrast with that example of "not looking" at the text
We will now LOOK at the text to "get our answer"

! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.[/quote]

Two points immediately surface.

1. Paul's Rom 11 text explicitly tells us that literal Israel composed of SOME saved and SOME lost (hint - read vs 7).

2. Paul's Rom 11 context includes "the Gospel that comes to GENTILES".

So the "no saved gentiles mentioned in Rom 11" argument dies a crib death in vs 11.

1. At this point - Paul speaks directly to HIS READERs - the Gentiles who were grafted in to the body of Christ

2. Paul refers to them as Gentile Christians whose status Paul "hoped" would make the rebellious segment of literal Jews -- jealous!

3. Paul calls the gentiles "Wild branches" that were "GRAFTED IN" -- the same idea spoken of later about the Jews "God is able to GRAFT THEM IN AGAIN IF they do not continue in unbelief".

Now we see where Paul address the NON-OSAS state (even of Gentiles)!

1. Again Paul speaks to "you" the reader of scripture - in the church at Rome.
2. Paul then shows the non-OSAS state of the Gentile who "STANDS only by your faith"

Now the amazing part of this is DHK's reference to these "standing by faith", "grafted in to the body of Christ" gentile READERS (i.e born again members of the church) reading this letter to the Romans. Gentiles who are making the unbelieving Jews jealous by their IN Christ grafted in state... is in the following dismissive summary.

At which point DHK considers that he has dealt compellingly with the problems for OSAS SEEN in that text above.

Well I will grant DHK one thing - as we have done this careful review of the text above - the point HAS been made glaringly obvious to the objective unbiased reader. But it escapes me how ignoring the text is helping the argument for OSAS!.

As an interesting exercise DHK - it would be good if you would answer even one point from the actual text itself. For example why should an unsaved non-Christian gentile "who stands only by their faith" in the body of Christ "FEAR for if He did not spare them - neither will He spare you"?? What does the unsaved have to FEAR and in what context are they "standing by faith" according to Romans 11?

You have climbed wayyy out on that limb to make your case my friend. I have tried to point that not-so-subtle detail out in the clearest way I know how.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
When will you admit that Romans 11, a discussion of the nation of Israel in prophecy has nothing to do with the security of the NT believer?
It simply shows to all on the board that you relish in taking Scripture out of context to try and demonstrate a view point that doesn't exist. Case closed.

 

That passage should be read like "a car without a battery is dead". It's still a car, it just stopped running.

 

This is how you and Bob avoid tough questions, you flood the board with lots of scriptures in the attempt to have the question forgotten. I see nowhere in this post where you explained 1 John 5 not to be saying that a believer has (present tense) eternal life and can "know" it, something you said cannot exist along side of faith.

The Spirit of truth comes out in you even when you do not realize He is speaking. You are correct in your statement, so now that you know you have eternal life please explain how eternal life can end? Either you have eternal life or you don't, which is it HP?

The problem your pov faces is that the word eternal is unchangeable and thus your pov is destroyed at every passage which speaks of the believers present eternal life.

What this means is that you have to revisit that big list of scriptures you posted and pray God for wisdom to rightly divide them so they do not contradict eternal life.

:jesus:

 

What it means is that 1John 5 is the promise and Matt 18 is the boundary or limit just as Romans 11 is a warning given to those who have received the 1John 5 promise of eternal life.

The idea from the OSAS camp seems to be that we should just read 1John 5 then try to shoehorn any offending text of scripture that interrupts an exaggerated view of 1john 5.

That is not the Bible friendly solution we were hoping they would take.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Your walk around is that you have no answer for the meaning of 1John 5.
Stick with the text itself. What does it mean?
Are you not able to answer a simple question?

 

I opened the discussion up to the actual words found IN Romans 11 - so far you have expressed no interest in that method at all.

You seem to prefer empty papal pronouncements of the kind we see in that comment of yours above.


To each his own.

in Christ,

Bob

 

1John 5 -- Eternal life begins with the New Birth. The Work of the Holy Spirit at the point the sinner chooses to accept Christ -- is to "create" the new Creation of 2Cor 5. The sinner receives full forgiveness of sins and is grafted into the "vine" of John 15.

(this is the part where all agree - I would imagine)

But the Gospel is not the promise of being OSAS in a forgiveness revoked state.

So the lesson of Matt 18 on forgiveness revoked - is the lesson that proves that OSAS is simply man made tradition.

The Gospel is not the promise of being severed from Christ and fallen from Grace -- so the warning of Gal 5:4 is the lesson of scripture showing us that OSAS is nothing more than man made tradition.

The Gospel is not the promise of being removed from the body of Christ "for unbelief" - so the very real warning in Rom 11 given to believing Gentiles of the whom the text explicitly says were "grafted IN" to the body of Christ -- is a real warning that proves that OSAS is nothing more than man made tradition.

I suppose we could keep going with these examples - but we already have far more than some of our OSAS friends are willing to study as it is.

in Christ,

Bob

 

No, Bob, you are not even honest.
This is the OP:

You are not telling the truth at all!
The OP specifically says Can a true believer turn away from the faith?, and says nothing about Romans 11. In fact when Romans 11 was introduced into the discussion I immediately gave a warning that Romans 11 was about Israel and should be discussed on another thread. I have given that warning at least twice if not three times. You do not listen do you?
I also specifically said to you that I would answer your one post just this once, and if you want further information start another thread on the subject.
In other words you have interjected a red herring into this subject of eternal security vs. losing one's salvation. The topic of Israel in prophecy has nothing to do with it. So drop the subject.

However 1John 5 has much to do with the subject. And you refuse to give an answer--for the obvious reason that you cannot.

 

1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
--John writes of the record that God has given of His Son. The record is right before us--His Word.

1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
--This is the record. It is right here before us.
God has given to us (present tense) eternal life. This life is in his Son.
How long is eternal? When does it end? When does eternal suddenly become temporal or can it? If it does, doesn't that make Christ a liar?

1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
--John, as the context shows, is speaking of eternal life.
The verse is simple. If you have the Son you have eternal life. If you don't have the Son of God you don't have eternal life. How do you refute this simple truth Bob? How long is eternal? When does it end?

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
--Notice the expression here: "that ye may know." It is not "I hope," "I guess," "maybe," "perhaps" "if I endure to the end," etc. No, the expression is "you may "know that you have eternal life." It is a full assurance. That assurance comes from faith--believing on the name of the Son of God. How long is eternal Bob?

 

HP: Here are five rules evident to this listener DHK employs in all so-called debates. The one here with BR is certainly no exception at all.

1.If a passage is introduced that might even have the possibility of refuting your position, first attack him personally by either calling him a liar or associating the other with blasphemy, heresy, or a cult, even if one of my own making. (the latest manufactured cult being the calling of Church of Christ as a cult)
2. Control the evidence at all cost. Never allow one to interpret your text by another. Demand that any other text, if it can possibly be seen to refute your position, applies to some other argument but not the one at hand.
3. Never fairly examine any evidence that runs contrary to my position. Beg the question whenever possible, always returning to ones favorite proof text alone to beat the drum in favor of my argument. Let absolutely nothing serve to encourage me in any way to a fair examination of any text contrary to my firmly held presuppositions.
4. Use my position as a moderator to cut and chop any remarks which might paint my position in an unfavorable light. Label all such negative remarks or anyone willing to challenge my remarks as a personal attack so I can ‘warn them.’ Repeated warning give the sophistic indication that something must be unfair about the others argument, but it might just make an impact on the ability of others to make a fair examination of the warnings, so I do it regardless of whether of not there is any thing to justly warn about or not.
5. Understand that no one but DHK has any right to determine the context of any passage, and simply and conveniently discard context if it runs counter to DHK's presuppositions.

 

And then all you did was offer papal pronouncements - while totally ignoring the actual text of scripture.

As I stated - I opened the discussion (on Rom 11) to the actual content of the text itself - you by contrast settle for papal pronouncments and then trying to wrench my post as if I had claimed to write the Opening Post -- instead of merely opening this Rom 11 section to the actual content of the text.

Again in Romans 11 you continue to ignore the text itself -- and I do not.

To each his own.

Your papal pronouncements are -- not as substantive as would be an actual review of the text of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob