“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

[DavidKays]

Did Jesus pay for all of your sins or just some of them? When was this accomplished? What does being saved mean; what are you saved from? So if Jesus paid for all of your sins and you are saved from the penalty of sin, then when is a person actually saved?

There is only one true biblical answer to the question; if you believe that Jesus paid for all of your sins, then the moment those sins were forgiven is the moment one first truly believes (this leaves out the other topic of predestination). If you believe that Jesus only paid for part of your sins, then you blaspheme the work and the name of Jesus according to Scripture.

We still are left with saved, being saved and will be saved; the resolution is rather simple because we still must live and battle the flesh in this life as Christians are aliens in this world so we are continually battling the new creation against the old sinful flesh, but being conformed (sanctified) to the image of Christ and in the end when we shed our sinful nature completely we will then be fully redeemed because when we see Him as He is we will be like Him.

Another way to think of it is we, as humans, are both mortal and immortal; mortal in this life where we fight the battle of the flesh against the spirit and immortal when we die and are present with the Lord. The battle has already been one by Jesus Christ, we are in Him and as such we are new creations with old fleshy bodies and the battle continues, but He who is in the Christian is stronger and greater, than the one who battles the Christian. The real Christian will persevere for this very reason; the ones who are not real will not persevere because they have no supernatural power within themselves.

Boy you have alot written. I am impressed but I don’t understand at all what you are saying. I think I have an ideal. But I am afraid to tell you. You see I am a Greek Orthodox Christian and I think you may be a Protestant. Am I right? I do not know salvation in terms of what Protestants interpret scripture but I do know mine. We do not see Jesus as paying for our sins. Not exactly since we still have to go to Confession. We see salvation in terms of our relationship with Jesus as an onging process and not a momentary thing. We see the crucifixation in terms more of Jesus revealing or exposing the evil one. The act of calvary was to help us in recognizing evil so that we can change and follow the one who can help us defeat it. Protestant teaching is very foreign to me and to the Orthodox. We tend not to use words that you use at all. So it is difficult to know what you are saying. You are probably saying some truth in the matter but it is difficult for me to see all of it as true. You got some points right but the others is very difficult to understand. The Orthodox are more concern about the Communion of Saints and see Jesus as the head of the church. We see Jesus as feeding us with His Precious Body and Blood in Holy Communion, forgiving us in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, talking to us in the Holy Scriptures, healing us in the Sacrament of Holy Unction, hearing us when we say our daily prayers. This ongoing relationship with Him becomes our spiritual growth in redemption and helps us to receive daily the Holy Spirit. It is to this we see salvation and it is a daily journey for us and for all in our Communion. God Bless!

 

[Nicea325]

Did Paul believe the OT canon was open or something to figure out? Lets do look at what the Bible says.
The quote says that their is not disagreement between the Jews. That is what the quote means.

And did Jesus believe the OT canon was open or something to figure out? If it is so imperative,then as I said,strange how not ONE OT, NT writer and the Apostles mention nothing about a canon? Where does the Bible say an OT canon was established or fixed?

Exactly! It means exactly what it means,not that a fixed canon had already been fixed or recently adopted.

 

[Rightlydivide]

**I don’t remember you ever **answering the Hebrews/Maccabees reference. I remember you dancing around the issue but not answering it.
Can you give me the post# where you explained that it was a reference to a non-Deuterocanonical book?

I would have to look it up just like you. And since you were the one not paying attention, I will let you do it.
So dance on and find it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

And did Jesus believe the OT canon was open or something to figure out? If it is so imperative,then as I said,strange how not ONE OT, NT writer and the Apostles mention nothing about a canon? Where does the Bible say an OT canon was established or fixed?

Exactly! It means exactly what it means,not that a fixed canon had already been fixed or recently adopted.

So when Paul wrote

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

This REALLY means

All scripture (if you can figure out what it actually is) is inspired by God and is useful for teaching (if you just happen to pick the right books) for refutation (if you happen to know what it is), for correction (hope you pick the right books) and for training.

Right?

 

[guanophore]

Did Jesus pay for all of your sins or just some of them? When was this accomplished?

Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world on the cross. However, we know that the whole world will not benefit from His sacrifice, because they choose not to be covered by His cleansing blood.

What does being saved mean; what are you saved from?  So if Jesus paid for all of your sins and you are saved from the penalty of  sin, then when is a person actually saved?

This is a very good question. Among other things, we are freed from the slavery to sin.

The nature of sin, though, has not changed. Sin still separates us from God. If we continue in sin, after having accepting His blood, there remains no way of salvation.

There is only one true biblical answer to the question; if you believe that Jesus paid for all of your sins, then the moment those sins were forgiven is the moment one first truly believes (this leaves out the other topic of predestination).

I see what you are saying. However, the Apostles taught that this happens when we are joined with Him in His death through baptism. At that time, His blood sacrifice is applied to our individual soul, cleansing and regenerating us.

 If you believe that Jesus only paid for part of your sins, then you blaspheme the work and the name of Jesus according to Scripture.

Although I agree with this statement, I fail to see how it is relevant. Where do you get the idea that some sins are not paid?

We still are left with saved, being saved and will be saved; the resolution is rather simple because we still must live and battle the flesh in this life as Christians are aliens in this world so we are continually battling the new creation against the old sinful flesh, but being conformed (sanctified) to the image of Christ and in the end when we shed our sinful nature completely we will then be fully redeemed because when we see Him as He is we will be like Him.

It seems to me that this is consistent with Catholic teaching.

Another way to think of it is we, as humans, are both mortal and immortal; mortal in this life where we fight the battle of the flesh against the spirit and immortal when we die and are present with the Lord. The battle has already been one by Jesus Christ, we are in Him and as such we are new creations with old fleshy bodies and the battle continues, but He who is in the Christian is stronger and greater, than the one who battles the Christian. The real Christian will persevere for this very reason; the ones who are not real will not persevere because they have no supernatural power within themselves.

I agree with what you are saying here also, except that the Apostles nor scripture distinguish between "real 'and “unreal” Christians. Those Christians that fall away from the faith are also “real”.

Consider the parable of the seeds. 75% of the seeds sprouted. Only 25% of those persevered. The word of God enters, regenerates, and transforms that other 50%, but they fail to persevere. They are choked out by weeds, or fail in persecution.

 

[guanophore]

OSAS is really the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and the question is where does this doctrine originate or is it written in the bible?

The concept of perseversance as you use it originated with John Calvin during the Reformation, 1600 years after the Apostles taught a different concept of perseversance.

I can see, though where you find scriptural support for the Calvanistic view. It is not the first time that the Holy Scriptures have been twisted to support something that theApsotles did not believe or teach. It has been going on since the Scriptures were penned.

Romans 15:5 Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is interesting that you would choose this verse to post, since Calvin, in the course of inventing his doctrines, departed from the unity of mind, accord, and voice that existed in the Apostolic Succession.

You see from Scripture; it is God who freely gives a saint perseverance. A Creator creates for his own good pleasure and for His own good use and this is no different with man; we are created for His pleasure to display His glory, His wrath, His justice, His mercies, patience His love …His His His His and more His.

We have no disagreement with this. Our disagreement is with the newly invented MEANING of perseverance defined by Calvin.

HE is always in control and He is everywhere and can do as He wishes and does with His creation; some vessels for destruction and some for mercy as He tells Moses i will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.

He is in control, and from that complete sovereignty, He has decided to give His creatures a choice about whether they want to remain with Him for eternity.

As far as Galatians Paul is comparing those led by the Spirit (Christians) to those not led by the Spirit (non-Christians). This is common in Pauls’s writings.

No, Pat. the letter is written to the Christians.

[1] Paul an apostle – not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead –
[2] and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:
[3] Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,
[4] who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father;
[5] to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel –

He is writing to those for whom Jesus gave His life to deliver them from evil. He is writing to those who had received the gospel from him. He includes them with himself, and the brethren who are with him by saying “us”.

It is quite possible for someone to become a Christian and not be led by the Spirit. If this were not true, there would not be so many reference to believers falling prey to the flesh.

2] Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
[3] Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?
[4] Did you experience so many things in vain? – if it really is in vain.
[5] Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?

He is writing to those who received the Spirit (so they must be Christians). They experienced many things including the supply of the Spirit, miracles, and hearing with faith. These are the marks of believers, not unbelievers.

[27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

ARe you suggesting it is possible to “put on Christ” or be baptized into Him if one is not a believer?

 

[Doxiemom]

Luke 13:23 Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, 24 "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

The Lord’s answer is yes!!! Only a few but not because of what you stated.

…So that sin MAY be forgiven…it didn’t mean automatically forgiven. A person has to lay aside their pride and seek that forgiveness. you must be willing to be be naked, in a sense, for no amount of baggage or wealth, or self provided excuses will work. For He knew you sinned before your formation.

The narrow gate (or needle gate)(eye of a needle that a camel goes through) was the only gate by which you could enter into Jerusalem at night. A person had to leave everything outside(by necessity) so as to show that you were not armed or dangerous. They would have had to unload their camel for it to squeeze in. The baggage stayed out until light.

Few are willing to be that unshielded. Few are willing to squeeze through. They will stay outside the gate in the dangerous dark. They want to enter into Jerusalem though a wider gate during the day without all the pressure. Some eventually live though the night, having not been killed or robbed, but many refuse what was offered (the narrow gate) too many times or even one time and they are carted off by Satan.

No one is forced to stay in Jerusalem. You come and go. Through either gates. But one night you turn away from the needle gate because you think you don’t need the safety or want the safety of jerusalem . Satan has promised you pleasure in a far country that you never have to leave and you can do all you want to do. Only you must take a vow never to listen to the holy Spirit again. And a person does it.

 

[Nicea325]

So when Paul wrote

This REALLY means

All scripture (if you can figure out what it actually is) is inspired by God and is useful for teaching (if you just happen to pick the right books) for refutation (if you happen to know what it is), for correction (hope you pick the right books) and for training.

Right?

Are you making the claim the above scriptural verse proves a fixed canon? Then tell me what exact books belonged to the fixed canon in 30 B.C.? If…

All scripture (if you can figure out what it actually is) is inspired by God and is useful for teaching (if you just happen to pick the right books) for refutation (if you happen to know what it is), for correction (hope you pick the right books) and for training.

 

[elvisman]

I would have to look it up just like you. And since you were the one not paying attention, I will let you do it.
So dance on and find it.

I was being facetious. You NEVER answered the challenge. You simply danced around it and changed the subject and I’m not letting you off the hook:

Show me an OT reference to Eph. 6:13-17 (the armour of God) OTHER than the Deuterocanonicals - specifically, Wis. 5:17-20.
AND
Explain the Heb 11:35 reference to the martyrdom of the mother and her sons from 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

The REAL reason you’re dodging this subject is because you have to come to the realization that the Catholic position is correct. By choosing to remain living in falsehood because you refuse to admit the Church is right is the sin of Spritual Pride.

 

[Rightlydivide]

250
282
I did not dodge. You forgot one and did not see the other. Spend less time figuring out your latest font next time.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Are you making the claim the above scriptural verse proves a fixed canon? Then tell me what exact books belonged to the fixed canon in 30 B.C.? If…

All scripture (if you can figure out what it actually is) is inspired by God and is useful for teaching (if you just happen to pick the right books) for refutation (if you happen to know what it is), for correction (hope you pick the right books) and for training.

The Jewish canon is the one we use.

 

[elvisman]

250
282
I did not dodge. You forgot one and did not see the other. Spend less time figuring out your latest font next time.

Again with the fonts? More proof of your desperation . . .

Your posts 250 and 282 were no proof at all. They were your opinions - nothing more.
**I furnished you with God-breathed Scrioture and all you could do is reject it.

Do you also reject the names “Jannes and Jambres” (The magicians who challenged Moses) Paul wrote about in 2 Timothy 3:8-9?
You won’t find those names in the OT at all - not even the Deuteros.

Jesus Christ - who is GOD - said in Matt. 23:2-3, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice".
There is NO mention of a “Seat of Moses” ANYWHERE in the OT - not even the Deuteros.

**Are we to surmise that Paul and Jesus are liars because they don’t adhere to your set of hermeneutical rules?? I think not, my spiritually prideful friend.
**

 

[elvisman]

The Jewish canon is the one we use.

Ummm . . . the Post-Christ, Post-Temple Jewish canon, I might add.

**The Church doesn’t hold to this post-Christ, post-temple canon because the mantle of authority under the New Covenant had been passed from Judaism to Christianity. **
**The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the Gospel) and new wineskins (the Church). **
Didn’t know that? Crack a Bible open and you’ll find it . . .

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Are you making the claim the above scriptural verse proves a fixed canon? Then tell me what exact books belonged to the fixed canon in 30 B.C.? If…

All scripture (if you can figure out what it actually is) is inspired by God and is useful for teaching (if you just happen to pick the right books) for refutation (if you happen to know what it is), for correction (hope you pick the right books) and for training.

*The Jewish canon is the one we use. *

Your assumptions are not empirical sources. Sorry,but that is not what I asked you.Apparently you believe 2 Tim 3:16 PROVES St.Paul followed and abided to the current FIXED Jewish canon? Then I’ll ask again,show me ONE ancient source showing the Jews already had a fixed canon prior to Jesus ministry? Who set it? When? Where?

Tell me what books St.Paul only considered scripture?

 

[jerry_kelso]

OSAS is really the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and the question is where does this doctrine originate or is it written in the bible?

Romans 15:5 Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You see from Scripture; it is God who freely gives a saint perseverance. A Creator creates for his own good pleasure and for His own good use and this is no different with man; we are created for His pleasure to display His glory, His wrath, His justice, His mercies, patience His love …His His His His and more His. HE is always in control and He is everywhere and can do as He wishes and does with His creation; some vessels for destruction and some for mercy as He tells Moses i will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.

As far as Galatians Paul is comparing those led by the Spirit (Christians) to those not led by the Spirit (non-Christians). This is common in Pauls’s writings.

Pat De: your view is calvanist and is built on God’s full sovereignty even though they only believe God is sovereign in the act of salvation and persevering but not in their daily life. The TULIP has been disproved long time ago.
God has right to show mercy to those who deserve mercy and to those who deserve destruction but it’s because he gave them opportunity to repent. (Romans 9:22).
Galatians 5:19 is talking about non-believers. However, vs. 16 is the context of christians and the the condition is found in the word, if. If the christian walks in the spirit he won’t fulfill the things of the flesh. Obviously, if the christian does the things of the flesh and apostatizes he won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Ephesians 5:5-8 states that whoremongers, unclean people, coveteous men, and idolaters have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Paul warned the christians not to be decieved for these things bring wrath to sinners and they should not be partakers with them lest they end up with the same judgement. These scriptures show their is a possibility for a person to be saved and then lose their salvation. This is a fact that cannot be disputed and this is why all scriptures that appear to prove OSAS unconditionally are taken out of context. God Bless! Jerry kelso

 

[Rightlydivide]

Again with the fonts? More proof of your desperation . . .

Your posts 250 and 282 were no proof at all. They were your opinions - nothing more.
**I furnished you with God-breathed Scrioture and all you could do is *reject ***it.

Do you also reject the names “Jannes and Jambres” (The magicians who challenged Moses) Paul wrote about in 2 Timothy 3:8-9?
You find those names in the OT at all - not even the Deuteros.

Jesus Christ - who is GOD - said in Matt. 23:2-3, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice".
There is NO mention of a “Seat of Moses” ANYWHERE in the OT - not even the Deuteros.

Are we to surmise that Paul and Jesus are liars because they don’t adhere to your set of hermeneutical rules?? I think not, my spiritually prideful friend.

You enjoy using colors. I, on the other hand, enjoy giving you grief about it. You need to be more tolerant about that.
Now to what content is in your post. There are noncanonical references in the Bible. I said that in my previous posts and you just seem to be agreeing with me. Of course the list is not in almost all cases actual references though as I have shown. No one, not I certainly, will deny that certain noncanonical references get mentioned from time to time. Of course that does not make those noncanonical references then considered scriptured. That is not the Catholic or Protestant stance.
I am not sure what content you wish to me to interact with now.
You should also retract your statement that I avoided them. I did answer them but you missed them. While you may not agree with them, I did answer them. That is simply the truth…which you just acknowledged. 250 and 282 are answers.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ummm . . . the Post-Christ, Post-Temple Jewish canon, I might add.

**The Church doesn’t **hold to this post-Christ, post-temple canon because the mantle of authority under the New Covenant had been passed from Judaism to Christianity.
The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the Gospel) and new wineskins (the Church).
Didn’t know that? Crack a Bible open and you’ll find it . . .

Oh no. It was not post-Christ, there is no proof of your view. My stance has more patristic support and naturally biblical support.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Your assumptions are not empirical sources. Sorry,but that is not what I asked you.Apparently you believe 2 Tim 3:16 PROVES St.Paul followed and abided to the current FIXED Jewish canon? Then I’ll ask again,show me ONE ancient source showing the Jews already had a fixed canon prior to Jesus ministry? Who set it? When? Where?

Tell me what books St.Paul only considered scripture?

Tell you what…how could Paul have written what he did if the people did not know what scripture was? Then we will go some more into the overwhelming evidence to support my view. The first one of which was Josephus, the most prominant and respected Jewish historian who said that they had a canon they all agreed with. Listen, when it comes to believing what occured with the Jews, should I believe Josephus or you? Paul or you?
IF you can answer those questions, or even if you don’t I suppose, then I will present new evidence. But first, lets address what Saint Paul said shall we. Because you have not presented a rebuttal.
See your basic presuppositions is wrong. When Peter called Paul’s writings scripture, Peter knew that Paul was accepted as such. He was not making a new statement was he? The biblical pattern does not support a single person or group of people officially setting a canon. That is not even what Catholicism officially teaches. You believe the authority was subsequent. Its in your infallible documents…according to your beliefs anyway.

 

[elvisman]

You enjoy using colors. I, on the other hand, enjoy giving you grief about it. You need to be more tolerant about that.
Now to what content is in your post. There are noncanonical references in the Bible. I said that in my previous posts and you just seem to be agreeing with me. Of course the list is not in almost all cases actual references though as I have shown. No one, not I certainly, will deny that certain noncanonical references get mentioned from time to time. Of course that does not make those noncanonical references then considered scriptured. That is not the Catholic or Protestant stance.
I am not sure what content you wish to me to interact with now.
You should also retract your statement that I avoided them. I did answer them but you missed them. While you may not agree with them, I did answer them. That is simply the truth…which you just acknowledged. 250 and 282 are answers.

Nice try (above, in red) hoping that I’ll just go away now. * Ain’t gonna happen, my spiritually prideful friend.*

Up until now, your whole argument about the Deuteros is that they were NOT quoted or referred to by NT writers.
NOW, you’ve changed your story and have created this new dynamic, whereby the NT writers DO quote the Deuteros, but not as truth - Uhhh . . . they’re not actual quotes, but sort of. That’s what is known as a “cop out”.
Neither Jesus nor Paul make references to anything but God-inspired Truth in the NT in these passages.

Like I’ve said many times before, you have to do some pretty impressive Scriptural acrobatics to arrive at the opposite side of the truth of the Catholic Church . . .

**NOW - you still haven’t addressed the “Armour of God” reference from Eph. 6:13-17 and the same thing being spoken of in Wis. 5:17-20. You BARELY addressed the other reference - but at least you’ve been exposed.

---

PLEASE simply address the isse without copping-out and resorting to your newly-invented tactic . . .

 

[elvisman]

Oh no. It was not post-Christ, there is no proof of your view. My stance has more patristic support and naturally biblical support.

Oh, it WAS post-Christ according to one of the most respected Protestant scholars, Norman Geisler:
The Jewish scholars at Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of heir own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha. [Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, *Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 169.]

**Now, I know you’ll tell me that you don’t **believe in what Geisler says and that is your right as a splintered, seperated Protestant. You don’t have to adhere to what any other Protestant says because the Holy Spirit has guided you all to "differing truths" . . .

As for the Fathers, they didn’t all agree on a canon until the end of the 4th century. This is ONE of the reasons that the Catholic Church rejects your false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Oh - by the way - most of the Fathers DID adhere to one or more of the Deuteros as well as some non-canonical books like Shepherd of Hermas, Enoch, the Epistles of Barnabas and so on. Many of these books were used up to the end of the 4th century. It was the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit who declared the canon of Scripture to end the confusion - not each individual Father.

Boy - it’s a GOOD thing that Jesus gave full authority to the Church to make such decisions like the Canon of Scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 16:15-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-16, 20:21-23).

---

Without that authority - we would have the same thing you have: the confusion of the tens of thousands of bickering, constantly-splintering Protestant sects . . .