“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pat De: Because you do not understand the Biblical understanding of apostate does not make me wrong; but it does make you wrong because I do understand the meaning and the example is accurate. What makes one an apostate is that they turn from what they professed to believe, not from what they genuinely believed because if they genuinely believed they would not turn away from it - get it!!

There are two kinds of faith, genuine faith and a false or professing faith. If you understood the Parable of the soils, then you would understand the difference and much more as Jesus implies in Mark’s account of that particular parable.

JL: Show me don’t just make useless statements.

Ask yourself, how can one be an apostate if they never possessed what they apostatized from? Did Paul ever write letters to the Church of UNBELIEVERS? Aren’t all Paul’s letters addressed to BELIEVERS? Did those UNBELIEVERS preserve and give, to the Church of BELIEVERS, the letter to the Hebrews? How could we trust a letter preserved by UNBELIEVERS?

[Hb6:4 For it is impossible for those who were ONCE ENLIGHTENED, and have TASTED of THE HEAVENLY GIFT, and were made PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, 5 And have TASTED the good WORD OF GOD, AND THE POWERS OF THE WORLD TO COME, 6 IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY, TO RENEW THEM AGAIN unto repentance; SEEING THEY CRUCIFY to themselves THE SON of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.]

Paul is addressing a Christian community of those who have been ENLIGHTENED. They are not on the brink of being enlightened they are ENLIGHTENED and HAVE TASTED OF THE HEAVENLY GIFT, MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, They have the indwelling Holy Ghost.

Paul warns believers, with the indwelling Holy Spirit, of the danger of apostasy, alluding to those once Christian Jews, who left the Christian community and returned to Judaism. Having rejected Christ’s sacrifice, returning and placing their faith in animal sacrifice, which can never renew them again to repentance, taking away sin. It is impossible for them to repent and be renewed, apart from Christ and the Christian Community. As long as they remain hostile to the Gospel, it is impossible to renew them unto repentance. They are separated from Christ and his people, by choice and crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, as long as they remain obstinate.

If OSAS, why warn believing Christians against falling away if it can’t happen? How can non-believers, fall away from something they don’t have? Could non-believers be RESTORED to something they haven’t first possessed? The point is when a believer falls away from Christ, they will not find salvation in anyone other than Christ, it is impossible, as there is no other sacrifice or name under heaven by which men can be saved.

2Pt2:20 For if after they have ESCAPED the POLLUTIONS OF THE WORLD THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ, they ARE AGAIN ENTANGLED THEREIN, and overcome, THE LATTER END IS WORSE WITH THEM THAN THE BEGINNING. 21 For it had been better for them not to have KNOWN THE WAY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, than, after they have known it, TO TURN FROM THE HOLY COMMANDMENT delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
jlhargus said:
Please show me don’t just make statements, as though I should just accept whatever you say?
Click to expand...
Pat De: All you need to do is read the past 3-5 posts of mine and it is there or pick up your Bible and read through Romans 8 about 8 times until it sinks in.

Anyway; I am out of here and done with this thread because it is a dead thread!!

JL: Well if your answer is in the past 3-5, which I have read, that makes it even easier for you to answer. You wont of course, because you DIDN’T ANSWER and you CAN’T ANSWER. That’s why you are leaving the thread. I have read Roman’s far more times than 8. Maybe you should follow your own advise.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Reverend, Father, Bishop

They do not quote the Talmud. It was not in written form yet. Yes they do quote oral traditions that did not exist in the Talmud because…it did not exist yet.
Click to expand...
You asked, “did they quote the Talmud?” you did not say, the written Talmud as we already established it was not formally written until the 5th century. HOWEVER, there were fragments of it found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, so there were parts of it already in written form by the time of the epistles in question. Why does something have to be written to quote it? This is what you seem to be saying. If I heard the Pope say something and quoted him, does that make it not true because the Pope did not write it? From the tone of your answers I can only surmise then you do not feel that parts of the Torah are accurate because they were oral tradition for centuries. By your logic they are not “scripture” or “inspired” until they are in written form many centuries later.

With all due respect you are grasping at straws here to make your point that they never quoted an outside source be it oral or written.

Fr. John cited where you could find it in the Pseudepigrapha, this WAS written but not fully excepted by all. Do ALL Jews orthodox and reformed except the Talmud and Mishnah?** I have not found many that agree between the two camps.** Fr John also cited a particular commentary where these things can be found and I have not heard you refute this either. I also have a copy of said commentary and it DOES say that they quote outside sources.

What do you want here? Properly cited Protestant commentaries and other web sites also agree with us on the sources of these things. What do you want us to say? Do you want us to go against already established commentaries and other theological sites to agree with a falsehood? Not going to happen here I am sorry to say. It would run counter to every bit of theological training that I have had and I would dare say Fr John and Rev Joe. I know that I do not speak for the other two, but I feel that you have been given sufficient evidence to refute your statements and as far as I am concerned the issue is settled. Sorry to think that you do not feel this way, but I guess that is how it is going to have to be. If you wish to disagree with already established sources be my guest.
 
jlhargus said:
Pat De: Because you do not understand the Biblical understanding of apostate does not make me wrong; but it does make you wrong because I do understand the meaning and the example is accurate. What makes one an apostate is that they turn from what they professed to believe, not from what they genuinely believed because if they genuinely believed they would not turn away from it - get it!!
Click to expand...
I 100% agree with your take on Hebrews 6: 4. these were people who had been “enlightened” or thought they had the Lord. Even Jesus speaks of the Word of God falling on different kinds of soil in the parable of the sower. there is one kind who receives the word with gladness BUT FALLS AWAY because of the cares of the world. Doe not sound like once saved always saved to me!!!🙂
Click to expand...
 
Padrej said:
You asked, “did they quote the Talmud?” you did not say, the written Talmud as we already established it was not formally written until the 5th century. HOWEVER, there were fragments of it found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, so there were parts of it already in written form by the time of the epistles in question. Why does something have to be written to quote it? This is what you seem to be saying. If I heard the Pope say something and quoted him, does that make it not true because the Pope did not write it? From the tone of your answers I can only surmise then you do not feel that parts of the Torah are accurate because they were oral tradition for centuries. By your logic they are not “scripture” or “inspired” until they are in written form many centuries later.

With all due respect you are grasping at straws here to make your point that they never quoted an outside source be it oral or written.

Fr. John cited where you could find it in the Pseudepigrapha, this WAS written but not fully excepted by all. Do ALL Jews orthodox and reformed except the Talmud and Mishnah?** I have not found many that agree between the two camps.** Fr John also cited a particular commentary where these things can be found and I have not heard you refute this either. I also have a copy of said commentary and it DOES say that they quote outside sources.

What do you want here? Properly cited Protestant commentaries and other web sites also agree with us on the sources of these things. What do you want us to say? Do you want us to go against already established commentaries and other theological sites to agree with a falsehood? Not going to happen here I am sorry to say. It would run counter to every bit of theological training that I have had and I would dare say Fr John and Rev Joe. I know that I do not speak for the other two, but I feel that you have been given sufficient evidence to refute your statements and as far as I am concerned the issue is settled. Sorry to think that you do not feel this way, but I guess that is how it is going to have to be. If you wish to disagree with already established sources be my guest.
Click to expand...
Rev, Bishop, and Father.
The Talmud alluded to was not written prior to 65 AD. The dates are established fairly late as it has been alluded to. The central issue begins in attempting to suggest that Paul or anyone else believed something to be inspired that was not. That just did not happen.
Its largely an issue of semantics but I am right. Jude cannot quote the Talmud and he did not. There is also no evidence that any inspired writer considered an uninspired document inspired. That is also a fact.
Theological training? Um…do not go that route with me.
We would not want to get into a RA v. unaccredited discussion…would we?
 
Padrej said:
You asked, “did they quote the Talmud?” you did not say, the written Talmud as we already established it was not formally written until the 5th century. HOWEVER, there were fragments of it found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, so there were parts of it already in written form by the time of the epistles in question. Why does something have to be written to quote it? This is what you seem to be saying. If I heard the Pope say something and quoted him, does that make it not true because the Pope did not write it? From the tone of your answers I can only surmise then you do not feel that parts of the Torah are accurate because they were oral tradition for centuries. By your logic they are not “scripture” or “inspired” until they are in written form many centuries later.

With all due respect you are grasping at straws here to make your point that they never quoted an outside source be it oral or written.

Fr. John cited where you could find it in the Pseudepigrapha, this WAS written but not fully excepted by all. Do ALL Jews orthodox and reformed except the Talmud and Mishnah?** I have not found many that agree between the two camps.** Fr John also cited a particular commentary where these things can be found and I have not heard you refute this either. I also have a copy of said commentary and it DOES say that they quote outside sources.

What do you want here? Properly cited Protestant commentaries and other web sites also agree with us on the sources of these things. What do you want us to say? Do you want us to go against already established commentaries and other theological sites to agree with a falsehood? Not going to happen here I am sorry to say. It would run counter to every bit of theological training that I have had and I would dare say Fr John and Rev Joe. I know that I do not speak for the other two, but I feel that you have been given sufficient evidence to refute your statements and as far as I am concerned the issue is settled. Sorry to think that you do not feel this way, but I guess that is how it is going to have to be. If you wish to disagree with already established sources be my guest.
Click to expand...
You did a great job, and I found it very helpful and informative. Thank you for your efforts. 👍
 
Padrej said:
I 100% agree with your take on Hebrews 6: 4. these were people who had been “enlightened” or thought they had the Lord. Even Jesus speaks of the Word of God falling on different kinds of soil in the parable of the sower. there is one kind who receives the word with gladness BUT FALLS AWAY because of the cares of the world. Doe not sound like once saved always saved to me!!!🙂
Click to expand...
The OSAS folks just say that they are “not true believers” but ‘false Christians’ or perhaps what we know of today as "nominal Christians’? They are those who say “Lord, Lord” but do not what He says.

I don’t see how you can fall away frmo something to which you are not attached. 🤷
 
Padrej said:
You asked, “did they quote the Talmud?” you did not say, the written Talmud as we already established it was not formally written until the 5th century. HOWEVER, there were fragments of it found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, so there were parts of it already in written form by the time of the epistles in question. Why does something have to be written to quote it? This is what you seem to be saying. If I heard the Pope say something and quoted him, does that make it not true because the Pope did not write it? From the tone of your answers I can only surmise then you do not feel that parts of the Torah are accurate because they were oral tradition for centuries. By your logic they are not “scripture” or “inspired” until they are in written form many centuries later.

With all due respect you are grasping at straws here to make your point that they never quoted an outside source be it oral or written.

Fr. John cited where you could find it in the Pseudepigrapha, this WAS written but not fully excepted by all. Do ALL Jews orthodox and reformed except the Talmud and Mishnah?** I have not found many that agree between the two camps.** Fr John also cited a particular commentary where these things can be found and I have not heard you refute this either. I also have a copy of said commentary and it DOES say that they quote outside sources.

What do you want here? Properly cited Protestant commentaries and other web sites also agree with us on the sources of these things. What do you want us to say? Do you want us to go against already established commentaries and other theological sites to agree with a falsehood? Not going to happen here I am sorry to say. It would run counter to every bit of theological training that I have had and I would dare say Fr John and Rev Joe. I know that I do not speak for the other two, but I feel that you have been given sufficient evidence to refute your statements and as far as I am concerned the issue is settled. Sorry to think that you do not feel this way, but I guess that is how it is going to have to be. If you wish to disagree with already established sources be my guest.
Click to expand...
Padre
I am going to have to agree with you that Rightlydivide is “grasping at straws.” He has been faced with evidence that the Talmud was quoted although still mostly oral at the point of AD 65, yet it was still quoted. The Pseudepigrapha was also given him and he would not accept this either. Cited in Protestant commentaries and still not accepted.
Your point is well taken that
From the tone of your answers I can only surmise then you do not feel that parts of the Torah are accurate because they were oral tradition for centuries. By your logic they are not “scripture” or “inspired” until they are in written form many centuries later.
Click to expand...
as it is the same logic.
as far as I am concerned the matter has been proven and if Rightlydivide refuses the facts than I am through also.
 
guanophore said:
The OSAS folks just say that they are “not true believers” but ‘false Christians’ or perhaps what we know of today as "nominal Christians’? They are those who say “Lord, Lord” but do not what He says.

I don’t see how you can fall away frmo something to which you are not attached. 🤷
Click to expand...
Excellent point! “Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom” as said by Jesus himself. I have NEVER heard a ASAS try to debunk this.
 
guanophore said:
The OSAS folks just say that they are “not true believers” but ‘false Christians’ or perhaps what we know of today as "nominal Christians’? They are those who say “Lord, Lord” but do not what He says.

I don’t see how you can fall away frmo something to which you are not attached. 🤷
Click to expand...
In my mind it is a weak excuse to call them “not true believers” as it negates personal holiness and the sanctification of the believer that is an ongoing process.

Let me address the “I don’t see how you can fall away from something to which you are not attached.” Think of when you were first dating, you loved the other person and called them thought of them, but lets say as time marched on you realized that this person is not for you you lost the attachment. The Book of Revelation speaks of “leaving your first love” and it is this first joyous experience that Christians leave behind when they get caught up in the cares of the world and go back to the old ways. Colossians speaks to the point that a Christian is supposed to put off the old man and put on the new. So you can rely on the promises if you are doing your part and have the hope of the resurrection.
 
FrJohnB said:
Padre
I am going to have to agree with you that Rightlydivide is “grasping at straws.” He has been faced with evidence that the Talmud was quoted although still mostly oral at the point of AD 65, yet it was still quoted. The Pseudepigrapha was also given him and he would not accept this either. Cited in Protestant commentaries and still not accepted.
Your point is well taken that as it is the same logic.
as far as I am concerned the matter has been proven and if Rightlydivide refuses the facts than I am through also.
Click to expand...
I think it is a lack of appreciation for Sacred Tradition that causes this. The Jews did not separate the Word of God into written and oral. It makes me wonder how they think Moses knew what happened from Adam and Eve to himself!?

Do they think the book of Genesis was only inspired when it was written? That does not make any sense! The Sacred Tradtition was inspired and inerrant from the beginning, not just when Moses committed it to writing.
 
FrJohnB said:
Padre
I am going to have to agree with you that Rightlydivide is “grasping at straws.” He has been faced with evidence that the Talmud was quoted although still mostly oral at the point of AD 65, yet it was still quoted. The Pseudepigrapha was also given him and he would not accept this either. Cited in Protestant commentaries and still not accepted.
Your point is well taken that as it is the same logic.
as far as I am concerned the matter has been proven and if Rightlydivide refuses the facts than I am through also.
Click to expand...
Father, Bishop, Reverend

How so? In what way did I not accept this as a source?
 
guanophore said:
I think it is a lack of appreciation for Sacred Tradition that causes this. The Jews did not separate the Word of God into written and oral. It makes me wonder how they think Moses knew what happened from Adam and Eve to himself!?

Do they think the book of Genesis was only inspired when it was written? That does not make any sense! The Sacred Tradtition was inspired and inerrant from the beginning, not just when Moses committed it to writing.
Click to expand...
Based on…
The Bible calls scripture inspired…where does it say the same thing about tradition?
Or since that is probably not the route you want to go, when was it first asserted that tradition was inerrant?
 
Padrej said:
In my mind it is a weak excuse to call them “not true believers” as it negates personal holiness and the sanctification of the believer that is an ongoing process.

Let me address the “I don’t see how you can fall away from something to which you are not attached.” Think of when you were first dating, you loved the other person and called them thought of them, but lets say as time marched on you realized that this person is not for you you lost the attachment. The Book of Revelation speaks of “leaving your first love” and it is this first joyous experience that Christians leave behind when they get caught up in the cares of the world and go back to the old ways. Colossians speaks to the point that a Christian is supposed to put off the old man and put on the new. So you can rely on the promises if you are doing your part and have the hope of the resurrection.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent analogy, thanks! I will put this in my resource archives!

Yes, this describes it well. However, the OSAS folks dismiss the genuineness of this condition entirely. They say “he was never saved in the first place”. But the seed DID sprout, and there WAS a first love!
 
FrJohnB said:
Padre
I am going to have to agree with you that Rightlydivide is “grasping at straws.”.
Click to expand...
Rev JB
Father JB
Bishop JB
I hope it is ok to use initials, its a little more informal that way but I wish to be respectful of our distinguised clergy, lets start over with a simple question for you three guys, do you believe in the inerrancy of scripture? Please pardon me if the question is insulting but I really…don’t know and that could make the conversation go better as I understand each of your differing traditions (Baptist, Catholic, Anglican).
 
Padrej said:
I 100% agree with your take on Hebrews 6: 4. these were people who had been “enlightened” or thought they had the Lord. Even Jesus speaks of the Word of God falling on different kinds of soil in the parable of the sower. there is one kind who receives the word with gladness BUT FALLS AWAY because of the cares of the world. Doe not sound like once saved always saved to me!!!🙂
Click to expand...
JL: Thanks, I have learned a few things reading your posts.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Rev JB
Father JB
Bishop JB
I hope it is ok to use initials, its a little more informal that way but I wish to be respectful of our distinguised clergy, lets start over with a simple question for you three guys, do you believe in the inerrancy of scripture? Please pardon me if the question is insulting but I really…don’t know and that could make the conversation go better as I understand each of your differing traditions (Baptist, Catholic, Anglican).
Click to expand...
Yes I do believe in the inerrantcy of scripture. As guanophore has pointed out, *“The Jews did not separate the Word of God into written and oral.” * I think this is where we are running afoul of one another. As he further states, *“The Sacred Tradition was inspired and inerrant from the beginning, not just when Moses committed it to writing.” * There are many traditions of the Jewish religion that they hold just as sacred as the Torah; the Talmud and Mishnah are in that category. YES they were STILL oral for the most part by the time of the NT, but they were still just as sacred. To say otherwise would be to say that the book of Genesis and the early part of Exodus was not inspired until it was written. What I am trying to say is if Paul, or Peter or Jude are quoting the oral traditions those are just as sacred to them as the rest of the Torah.
 
Padrej said:
Yes I do believe in the inerrantcy of scripture. As guanophore has pointed out, *“The Jews did not separate the Word of God into written and oral.” * I think this is where we are running afoul of one another. As he further states, *“The Sacred Tradition was inspired and inerrant from the beginning, not just when Moses committed it to writing.” * There are many traditions of the Jewish religion that they hold just as sacred as the Torah; the Talmud and Mishnah are in that category. YES they were STILL oral for the most part by the time of the NT, but they were still just as sacred. To say otherwise would be to say that the book of Genesis and the early part of Exodus was not inspired until it was written. What I am trying to say is if Paul, or Peter or Jude are quoting the oral traditions those are just as sacred to them as the rest of the Torah.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this also. I think guanophore it right on target with his analysis that you quote here.
 
guanophore said:
I think it is a lack of appreciation for Sacred Tradition that causes this. The Jews did not separate the Word of God into written and oral. It makes me wonder how they think Moses knew what happened from Adam and Eve to himself!?

Do they think the book of Genesis was only inspired when it was written? That does not make any sense! The Sacred Tradtition was inspired and inerrant from the beginning, not just when Moses committed it to writing.
Click to expand...
Excellent point! I think you hit the nail on the head.
As to Rightlydivde’s question I also believe that scripture is without error, even the parts where they quote an outside source. As you guanophore state
The Jews did not separate the Word of God into written and oral.
Click to expand...
Therefore the oral or written traditions quoted were also considered “inspired” albeit I feel not to the same weight as the canon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top