Only The Elect Are Saved and Will Be

[Odell]

So you can respond to Michael because he speaks for the rest of us

If I where you I would not take these passages out of context and then read Jn 15 in context of these passages.

Acts 7:51 - you stiff-necked people, you always resist the Holy Spirit. We, by our own freewill, can resist God and His grace, and turn away from Him.

Rom. 11:20-23 – in expounding on Jesus’ teaching in John 15, Paul teaches that the Jews (the natural branches) were broken off by lack of faith (v.20), but says that the Romans stand fast through faith (v. 21). So the Romans are justified. However, Paul then says that the Romans can also be cut off if they don’t persevere in faith and kindness (v. 22-23). Hence, those justified before God can fall away from the faith and lose their salvation (be “cut off”). Paul also says that those who are cut off can be grafted back in if they do not persist in their unbelief, for God has the power to graft them in again (v.23). These verses are devastating to the “once saved, always saved” position.

1 Cor. 9:24-27 – Paul says that all the runners compete, but only one wins the prize. Paul recognizes that if he doesn’t train himself properly in perseverance, he too can become “disqualified.” The word “disqualified” comes from the Greek word “adokimos” which literally means cut off from Christ, or reprobate. When “adokimos” is used in the Scriptures, it always refers to those who are to be condemned by God. It has nothing to do with going to heaven with less rewards. See, for example, Rom. 1:28; Titus 1:16; 2 Tim. 3:8; Heb. 6:8; 2 Cor. 13:5-7. This proves that Saint Paul thought he could lose his salvation. No one would reasonably argue that Paul wasn’t “saved” when he wrote the Scriptures. So if Saint Paul thought that he could lose his salvation, why do many Protestants think that they cannot lose theirs?

1 Cor. 9:24 – Paul says that only one wins the “prize” (brabeion). To further prove that the race Paul is writing about refers to our journey to heaven, “brabeion” always has a soteriological implication. See, for example, Phil. 3:14 where “prize” refers to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (which is heaven).

1 Cor. 9:25 – Paul writes about achieving the “imperishable” (aphthartos) wreath. Again, to further prove Paul is writing about salvation, “aphthartos” always refers to the eternal. See, for example, 1 Cor. 15:51 (the only other place in NT Scripture where “aphthartos” appears relative to humans) where Paul says the dead will be raised “imperishable.” This refers to the resurrection of our salvation. See also 1 Tim. 1:17 where the King of ages is called “immortal” (imperishable).

Rom. 13:11 – for salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. If we already have salvation, then how can we only be nearer to it?

1 Cor. 4:4 - Paul says he is not aware of anything against himself, but he is still not acquitted. Paul is not presumptuous about his salvation. Only the Lord is our Judge.

1 Cor. 6:9-11 - we can be washed, sanctified, and justified, yet Paul still warns us that we can be deceived and become unrighteous.

1 Cor. 10:6-13 – the passage is about how the Israelites, once justified before God, fell away from God. Therefore, let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (v.12). You can be standing in God’s grace, and then fall away. But God will always provide enough grace to overcome the temptation (v.13).

1 Cor. 15:1-2 - we can be believers (predestined to grace) but believe in vain. Scripture refutes the novel Protestant theory “once saved, always saved.”

2 Cor. 6:1 - we can receive the grace of God (predestined to grace) in vain. We can choose not to cooperate with His grace.

2 Cor. 11:2-3 – Paul writes, “I betrothed you to Christ, but I am afraid that your thoughts will be led astray from a devotion to Christ.” The Corinthians already had a sincere devotion to Christ, for Paul wrote to them earlier in the letter, “you stand firm in your faith.” (2 Cor. 1:24). They are already “saved.” But Paul warns them that they can fall away just like Eve fell away (and, remember, Eve was created without sin!) This is another verse that is devastating to the belief of “once saved, always saved.”

Gal. 1:8-9 – Paul says, “if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel to that which we preached to you…let him be accursed.” Paul says “if we,” which means he believed even the sacred writers (currently “saved”) could fall away from the true faith and teach a heretical gospel.

to be continued…

 

[Odell]

Gal. 4:9 – Paul asks those who know God how they can now turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves they once were. Paul acknowledges and warns of this possibility.

Gal. 5:1 – Paul writes that the Galatians are free in Christ, but warns them to stand fast, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. You cannot be severed from Christ if you were never connected to Christ. This warning applies to those who are connected to Christ in faith.

Gal. 5:4 - Paul teaches that we can be in Christ, then be severed from Him and fall away from God’s grace. You cannot be severed from something unless you were previously connected to it.

Phil. 2:12 - we cannot assume salvation. We need to work it out to the end with fear and trembling. If “once saved, always saved” were true, why would the great apostle Paul have to work his salvation out in fear and trembling? What is there to fear if salvation is assured?

Phil. 3:11-14 – Paul writes that “if possible,” he may attain the resurrection, says he is not perfect, and presses on toward the prize of salvation. Paul has no presumption of salvation but works it out in fear and trembling.

Col. 1:21-23 - we have now been reconciled in His body to be presented holy and blameless, provided we continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which we heard. Paul warns them that it is possible to turn away and lose hope in the gospel.

Col. 2:18-19 - a man puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind has lost the connection with Jesus. He had the connection and lost it.

1 Tim. 1:5-6 - some people have wandered away from a sincere faith, a pure heart and a good conscience. They had a sincere (not a fake) faith, and still fell away.

1 Tim. 1:19-20 - Paul tells Timothy to hold fast to the faith, and not shipwreck it like Alexander and Hymenaeus. They had it, and then they lost it.

1 Tim. 4:1 - the Spirit “expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.” God Himself is telling us that some people who had the faith will lose the faith.

1 Tim. 5:8 - if we do not provide for our relatives, we have disowned the faith (we had the faith, and we lost it).

1 Tim. 5:15 – Paul says that some have already turned away and gone after Satan. There is never any distinction between falling away from a true faith versus a false faith.

1 Tim. 6:10 - for the love of riches we may wander from the faith (we had the faith, and we can lose the faith).

Heb. 2:1 - we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. We have it, but we can drift away from it.

Heb. 3:12 – the author warns the Hebrews to take care, lest there be in any one of you an evil heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. We can be with God, and choose to fall away from Him.

Heb. 3:13-14 – the author warns the Hebrews that they need to exhort one another every day, so that none of them may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Paul teaches that we share in Christ, but only if we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

to be continued…

 

[Odell]

Heb. 4:1 - while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. There would be nothing to fear if salvation were assured.

Heb. 4:6,11 - we can receive the good news (predestined to grace) and then disobey it and fall away. The author thus exhorts us to strive to enter that rest, that no one falls by the same sort of disobedience.

Heb. 6:4-6 - those who have been enlightened and partakers of the Holy Spirit (predestined to grace) can fall away, commit apostasy and crucify the Son of God.

Heb. 10:23-29 - we can sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth (predestined to grace) and then face a fury of fire.

Heb. 10:26 - if we continue to sin after knowing truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin - our salvation is jeopardized.

Heb. 10:35 - we can have confidence in salvation (predestined to grace), and then throw it away. We can have it, and lose it.

Heb. 10:36: - we have the need of endurance, so that we may do the will of God and receive what is promised. There is no need for endurance to get what is promised if salvation is assured.

Heb. 10:38-39 – the author says that the righteous live by faith, but can shrink back. He then exhorts the people not to shrink back and be destroyed, but to keep their souls.

James 5:19-20 - we can be in the truth, and then wander from the truth which means death, unless we are brought back.

1 Peter 1:14 – Peter warns that, as obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance. Thus, you can first be ignorant, then receive the truth and become obedient, and later revert back to the passions of your former ignorance.

2 Peter 2:1 - we can be bought by Christ, and then become false teachers of destructive heresies and destroy ourselves.

2 Peter 1:10 – we must be zealous to confirm our call and election; for if we do this we will never fall. But Peter is saying that it is possible to fall, without zeal and perseverance.

2 Peter 2:15 – forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing. They had the right way, and then chose to forsake it.

2 Peter 2:20-22 - we can escape the defilements of the world through Jesus (predestined to grace) and then become entangled again therein.

2 Peter 3:16-17 - we can be the beloved of God and then lose our stability and carried away with the error of lawless men.

1 John 1:7 - if we walk in the light, the blood of Jesus cleanses us. But we need continual cleansing, and can walk out of the light.

1 John 1:9 - if we confess our sins, Jesus will forgive them and cleanse us. But we need continual cleansing. Growing in holiness is a lifelong process.

1 John 2:19 - “they left, but didn’t not belong to us” refers to those who were Christians who did not persevere and were thus not predestined to glory.

1 John 2:28 - we must abide in Him so we have confidence and don’t shrink in shame. If we fail to abide, we are lost.

2 John 8 - look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for. You can lose the grace you currently have.

Jude 6 - even some of the angels, who beheld the face of God, fell. How much more could we fall?

Gen. 3:6 - Adam and Eve, who were already living the divine life of supernatural grace, fell away from God. Is falling more possible for us?

Ezek. 3:20; 18:24; 33:12,13,18 – the Lord clearly teaches us in these verses that a righteous man can turn away from his righteousness and commit iniquity. He was righteous (there is nothing about having phony righteousness), but he fell away and chose unrighteousness. When he does, his prior good deeds shall be forgotten, and he shall die.

All this was taken from scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html#salvation-V

Do your homework

 

[sandusky]

This is not only for the elect, is it?

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37 KJV)

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44 KJV)

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. (John 6:65 KJV)

Yes, for the elect only.

Catholic Apologist James Akin says:
Akin:

So by my opponent’s own admission, “The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not . . . continuously believe.” What this text says is that anyone who continuously comes to Jesus will not be cast out by Jesus. That’s absolutely true. What my opponent needs is a passage which says that anyone who is ever a true Christian will always come to Jesus and never stop coming. But this passage doesn’t say anything like that.

Holy Double Standard, Batman!!

When any Catholic can provide one verse concerning their eucharist that contains the word “transubstantiation,” or one verse concerning the immaculate conception that contains the words “immaculate conception,” or one verse concerning the papacy and apostolic succession that contains the words, “pope/apostolic succession,” then perhaps I’ll consider that standard of proof that Akin doesn’t require of himself.

John 6:38-39 (Father’s will)

True. It is the Father’s will that he lose none of those given to him. It is also the Fathers will that nobody commit murder and adultery, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t commit murder and adultery. They do. You have to distinguish between which divine will you are talking about, the will by which he desires what will happen and the will by which he decrees what will happen. In this passage, Jesus is talking about the former, and we know that because some who have been given to him are lost. In John 17:9-12, Jesus says: “I am praying for . . . for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. While I was with them . . . I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

So of those the Father gave to Jesus, Jesus lost Judas in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled. In one sense God wants all who are given to Jesus to persevere, but in another sense God allows some of them, like Judas, to not persevere.

I’ve brought up the difference between God’s will of desire, and God’s secret decretive will, with respect to the Catholic twisting of 1Tim 2:4, and the idea of a will of desire, and a will of decree has been soundly rejected by Catholics. But here, Catholics remain silent.

There is no objection because there can’t be; in spite of the fact that Christ promises that His sheep will never perish, and that no one has the ability to separate the sheep from His hand, or the Father’s hand, including the sheep, because no one means just that, in spite of all those statements by the Lord, Catholics must insist that what Christ really means is that although no one can snatch away the sheep, the sheep of themselves can leave.

The Catholic must cling to his dearly held theological presupposition because his church says he must.

My Catholic neighbor insists that Jn 10:28-29, as with1 Jn 5:13, ”don’t mean what they say!”

There’s that dearly held Catholic theological presup again!

As far as God’s allowing Judas not to persevere, the writer begs the question, offering no support, but assuming that his dearly held theological presupposition is correct.

I’ve offered proof that Judas wasn’t elect to salvation, and will repost it.

(continued)

 

[mikeledes]

Now going back to the issue of subordination. I think we should allow Jesus to explain what He meant in John 11. Let’s read what Jesus clearly said again:

1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

And compare it with two other clear passages dealing with ths same theme:

Romans 11:21-22

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Galatians 5:2-4

2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of NO benefit to you.
3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Christ unambiguously states that the “taken away” branches in question are “in me.” The phrase “in me” is exclusively and unambiguously used in the Bible as a reference to a spiritual and salvific union with Christ. I challenge any Calvinist to cite any passage in the Bible where “in me” and its variants (“in Him”, “in the Son,” “in Christ”) are ever used as a reference to mere membership in His visible body? Moreover, I challenge them to explain how anyone can cease to continue - because that is what “meno” or “abide” means - in someone they were never a part of in the first place? I would also like them to explain how “taken away”, “thrown away”, “dries up”, “thrown in the fire and burned” does not refer to loss of salvation, especially when this terminology is always used as a reference to eternal damnation (Matthew 3:10, 12; 13:42, 50; 18:9, etc.). It is also significant the order of events in John 15:6 ( thrown away, dries up, burned). The drying up signifies death and it is the result of being cut off ans the end is being burned. This means that while that “branch” was in Christ the Vine, he enjoyed spiritual life. Once he was no longer a part of the Vine, he experienced a spiritual death (i.e. drying up) and is finally thrown into hell. Who does the cutting off? The Father (v. 2). Hence it is the Father that gives and it is the Father that takes away. No one forced Him to do anything and no force outside God did the cutting off.

John 15 is as clear as can be. Now let’s look at John 11. Does “never” always mean guaranteed and without conditions? I gave at least one example from the Bible where this is not the case (2 Chronicles 7:16-22). So there can be more than one understanding of never. Now can there be more than one understanding of “in Me”, “in Him”, “in the Son,” or “in Christ.” No! There is only one exclusive understanding of that phrase. So if we look at the order of subordination, its is John 11 that has to be subordinated to John 15 because the latter is unambiguous and clearer than the former. “In Me” has one
unambiguous meaning, while “never” has more than one.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #160)

John 6:40 (Raise up)

Next Jesus says: “For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

True. But the key verbs in this verse are present tense, so what it actually says is: “For this continues to be the will of my Father—that everyone who continues to see the Son and who continues to believe in him should continue to have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” My opponent gets no support here.

No support from what?

His higher standard of proof requirement which states that what is needed is, “…a passage which says that anyone who is ever a true Christian will always come to Jesus and never stop coming?”

He continues:

John 6:44 (Draws him)

Finally Jesus says: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Again, absolutely true. But again the Greek word for “can” is present tense and the Greek word for “come” is inceptive second aorist, meaning to begin to continually come. And the Greek for “draw” is inceptive first aorist, indicating the Father beginning and continuing to draw him.

So what the passage says is: “No one can come and keep coming to me unless the Father who sent me draws and keeps drawing him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

That is absolutely true. If the Father keeps drawing you, you will keep coming. But it doesn’t say anything about the Father not drawing some people only for a time.

The first time I heard this, I thought, “that’s ridiculous!”

Be that as it may, I heard Akin retract that argument in a radio discussion with White, and admit that it’s “silly.” I’ll say it’s silly.

Although I don’t have a link to the audio, White, on his blog, notes Akins retraction of his “silly argument.”

Now, what makes me chuckle here is just this: the key argument Akin presented in 1995 had to do with John 6 and his assertion that Jesus used an “inceptive aorist” here. Since then Akin has admitted the argument was silly, but, despite this, Porvaznik still thinks he won, even though Akin has abandoned one of his most important arguments stated in the debate! You gotta love ol’ Phil. Refuted repeatedly, but nothing—even obvious facts—can keep the boy down. That’s the kind of defender Rome needs, one that is never rattled, even by the truth! Way to go, Phil! You deserve the “True Crusader” Award.

Amazing!

 

[mikeledes]

It is simply amazing how when some are directly challenged, they always try to bring up other issues (Mary, transubtantiation, etc.). Mr. Akin logically challenged Mr. White to cite a passage in the Bible that supported his postion because that is the only authority White accepts, whether Mr. White is write or wrong about authority is besides the point. That is not a double standard. That is common sense.

Mr. Akin made an argument based on John 6. The Catholic position does not stand or fall on Mr. Akin’s argument. In fact, many Catholic theologians and apologists have been able to do a very good defense of the Catholic position without ever having to resort to Mr. Akin’s argument. Besides, I am pretty sure that Calvinist apologists have had to abandon certain arguments they’ve used to defend their positions because they were erroneous. But in their eyes, that does not take away the basic truths of Calvinism.

To be continued…

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The “snatcher” and the subject of the “snatching” cannot be the same person. I am holding the hand of a five year old child and no one will be able to snatch him away from me, the snatcher is logically distinct from the child. Secondly, as I’ve said twice already, the word “snatch” in Greek is harpazo and that means to take by force. bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=726&version=kjv No creature can take anything away from God by force. Immediately after his sheep parable and before the passage in John 10 that is in question, Jesus says in John 10:17-18:

**17"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.
18"No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again This commandment I received from My Father." **

In other words, Jesus has allowed the Jewish leadership and the Romans to kill him. They did not take it away from Him by force. Similarly, no one can snatch any Christian away from God’s hands. Any Christian that leaves God’s hands leave His hands because God has allowed it. In other words, that person’s fall was in accordance with His permissive will. That’s why we read in John 15 that the Father is the vinedresser and He does the following:

"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He [a]prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

This is reaffirmed by Romans 11:22-23 and Galatians 5:2-4. we also see this in Revelation 22:19:

19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

God places in you in Christ, God establishes the conditions, and God is the one that maintains or takes away. No creature can do that.

And we also read in 1 John 2:24-25

24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.

Life is only found in the Son. We continue to enjoy this life as long as we continue/abide in the Son. That’s why the branches cut off from the vine dries up!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Now going back to the issue of subordination. I think we should allow Jesus to explain what He meant in John 11. Let’s read what Jesus clearly said again:

**1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me ** that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

And compare it with two other clear passages dealing with ths same theme:

Romans 11:21-22

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Galatians 5:2-4

2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of NO benefit to you.
3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Christ unambiguously states that the “taken away” branches in question are “in me.” The phrase “in me” is exclusively and unambiguously used in the Bible as a reference to a spiritual and salvific union with Christ. I challenge any Calvinist to cite any passage in the Bible where “in me” and its variants (“in Him”, “in the Son,” “in Christ”) are ever used as a reference to mere membership in His visible body? Moreover, I challenge them to explain how anyone can cease to continue - because that is what “meno” or “abide” means - in someone they were never a part of in the first place? I would also like them to explain how “taken away”, “thrown away”, “dries up”, “thrown in the fire and burned” does not refer to loss of salvation, especially when this terminology is always used as a reference to eternal damnation (Matthew 3:10, 12; 13:42, 50; 18:9, etc.). It is also significant the order of events in John 15:6 ( thrown away, dries up, burned). The drying up signifies death and it is the result of being cut off ans the end is being burned. This means that while that “branch” was in Christ the Vine, he enjoyed spiritual life. Once he was no longer a part of the Vine, he experienced a spiritual death (i.e. drying up) and is finally thrown into hell. Who does the cutting off? The Father (v. 2). Hence it is the Father that gives and it is the Father that takes away. No one forced Him to do anything and no force outside God did the cutting off.

John 15 is as clear as can be. Now let’s look at John 11. Does “never” always mean guaranteed and without conditions? I gave at least one example from the Bible where this is not the case (2 Chronicles 7:16-22). So there can be more than one understanding of never. Now can there be more than one understanding of “in Me”, “in Him”, “in the Son,” or “in Christ.” No! There is only one exclusive understanding of that phrase. So if we look at the order of subordination, its is John 11 that has to be subordinated to John 15 because the latter is unambiguous and clearer than the former. “In Me” has one
unambiguous meaning, while “never” has more than one.

God Bless,
Michael

The above challenge remains.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

It is simply amazing how when some are directly challenged, they always try to bring up other issues (Mary, transubtantiation, etc.). Mr. Akin logically challenged Mr. White to cite a passage in the Bible that supported his postion because that is the only authority White accepts, whether Mr. White is write or wrong about authority is besides the point. That is not a double standard.

**Holy hypocrisy, Batman!

How did you know that he would twist this into a declaration that Akin’s statement was not a double standard?

In fact, many Catholic theologians and apologists have been able to do a very good defense of the Catholic position without ever having to resort to Mr. Akin’s argument. Besides, I am pretty sure that Calvinist apologists have had to abandon certain arguments they’ve used to defend their positions because they were erroneous.

Holy blindness, Batman! How did you know that he wouldn’t realize that what I was pointing out was the fact that he posted a blatant error; doesn’t he get the importance of fact checking?

How many others of his posts contain these kinds of factual errors?

I’m very busy, and will be offline for some time now.

Enjoy yourselves until the OP returns.** :tiphat:

 

[fbl9]

I’m so very glad, I now know only the elect have any chance for salvation. You see, I’m not one of the elect, I sin. In fact I sin quite often. I have always been under the impression God would forgive my sin, but since I’m not of the elect I now know there is no chance of that. I can now go and enjoy my sins. Thanks, that takes a lot of pressure off. After all it is all God’s will. Actually, there really isn’t any sin, if God predestined me to hell, He surely doesn’t expect me to try right? Watch out ladies I’m free!

i sure hope you meant this as sarcasm. i once felt this way to,honestly,i felt there was nothing i could do so i might as well enjoy what i was doing.it is only through sin grace has entered the world,so should we continue to sin to get more grace?NOT…once being a slave to sin,helped me to recognize the what freedom means in the christain sense,we can choose to sin if we feel like it,but we are really free to choose NOT to sin. we are no longer under the yoke of sin.

 

[NotWorthy]

i sure hope you meant this as sarcasm. i once felt this way to,honestly,i felt there was nothing i could do so i might as well enjoy what i was doing.it is only through sin grace has entered the world,so should we continue to sin to get more grace?NOT…once being a slave to sin,helped me to recognize the what freedom means in the christain sense,we can choose to sin if we feel like it,but we are really free to choose NOT to sin. we are no longer under the yoke of sin.

I’m fairly certain that our good friend Tom was literally dripping with sarcasm.

 

[Odell]

In case you missed this sandusky

Now going back to the issue of subordination. I think we should allow Jesus to explain what He meant in John 11. Let’s read what Jesus clearly said again:

**1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me ** that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

And compare it with two other clear passages dealing with ths same theme:

Romans 11:21-22

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Galatians 5:2-4

2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of NO benefit to you.
3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Christ unambiguously states that the “taken away” branches in question are “in me.” The phrase “in me” is exclusively and unambiguously used in the Bible as a reference to a spiritual and salvific union with Christ. I challenge any Calvinist to cite any passage in the Bible where “in me” and its variants (“in Him”, “in the Son,” “in Christ”) are ever used as a reference to mere membership in His visible body? Moreover, I challenge them to explain how anyone can cease to continue - because that is what “meno” or “abide” means - in someone they were never a part of in the first place? I would also like them to explain how “taken away”, “thrown away”, “dries up”, “thrown in the fire and burned” does not refer to loss of salvation, especially when this terminology is always used as a reference to eternal damnation (Matthew 3:10, 12; 13:42, 50; 18:9, etc.). It is also significant the order of events in John 15:6 ( thrown away, dries up, burned). The drying up signifies death and it is the result of being cut off ans the end is being burned. This means that while that “branch” was in Christ the Vine, he enjoyed spiritual life. Once he was no longer a part of the Vine, he experienced a spiritual death (i.e. drying up) and is finally thrown into hell. Who does the cutting off? The Father (v. 2). Hence it is the Father that gives and it is the Father that takes away. No one forced Him to do anything and no force outside God did the cutting off.

John 15 is as clear as can be. Now let’s look at John 11. Does “never” always mean guaranteed and without conditions? I gave at least one example from the Bible where this is not the case (2 Chronicles 7:16-22). So there can be more than one understanding of never. Now can there be more than one understanding of “in Me”, “in Him”, “in the Son,” or “in Christ.” No! There is only one exclusive understanding of that phrase. So if we look at the order of subordination, its is John 11 that has to be subordinated to John 15 because the latter is unambiguous and clearer than the former. “In Me” has one
unambiguous meaning, while “never” has more than one.

God Bless,
Michael

:coffeeread:

 

[Tom]

I’m fairly certain that our good friend Tom was literally dripping with sarcasm.

ME??? I am so offended!!! LOL
Hey somebody has to do it!

 

[NotWorthy]

ME??? I am so offended!!! LOL
Hey somebody has to do it!

God Bless you, Tom!!

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, I finally had the time to look at this quote, for it bothered me the other day when you said it. I happened to stumble across the same situation while reading Ezekiel this morning.

For the purpose of this discussion, that’s simple enough. The following passage supports your thesis:Romans 9:10-13

10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;

11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”

13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

This comes from the Navarre Bible Commentary. I think this brings up one of the biggest problems with translations. Do you translate the sentences as they read? Or do you translate the sentences to convey what the author meant (which, of course, brings up a whole new can of worms).

The use of opposites like this is a common Semitic way of indicating preference for the first-mentioned, while still accepting the second-mentioned, in this case those “hated”. For example, Jacob “loves” Rachel but “hates” Leah (cf. Gen 29:30-31). and Jesus will even say that a person who “does not hate his own father and mother … cannot be my disciple” (Lk. 14:36)

But in any event, God is a God of Love. I don’t think He hates anyone.

At the risk of quoting Dr. Laura Schlesinger, “Hate the sin, love the sinner”.

 

[mikeledes]

Holy hypocrisy, Batman!

How did you know that he would twist this into a declaration that Akin’s statement was not a double standard?

Holy nonsense! Could this be global warming? The ice is melting!

Let’s go over this again. James White believes in Sola Scriptura. James Akin challenges him to cite a passage from Scripture to back up one of his claims. That is not a double standard. Akin is holding White to the standard White has established.

**Holy blindness, Batman! How did you know that he wouldn’t realize that what I was pointing out was the fact that he posted a blatant error; doesn’t he get the importance of fact checking?

How many others of his posts contain these kinds of factual errors? **

Holy desperation! This is starting to sound like Hillary Clinton’s attack on Barack Obama’s credibility by accusing him of plagiarism. And we all know why she’s doing that. I quoted Akin because I thought he made a good argument, not because I thought my beliefs depended on it. If he was mistaken, then I take full responsibility for posting his error and I apologize. Being human, I can err. If I have factual errors in my posts, then the Calvinist should be able to point them out and not wonder if I have any. Besides, even if Akin was wrong in his analysis of the Greek, the point he was making is still valid and thoroughly supported by Scripture:

Colossians 1:21-22

21And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach–
23if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister

Oh, BTW, Colossians 1:21-22 establishes the context and condition of Colossians 2:13ff, a passage posted by one who shall remain nameless.

**

**I’m very busy, and will be offline for some time now.

Enjoy yourselves until the OP returns.**

:tiphat:**

I am looking forward to the return of the OP and will continue to enjoy myself afterwards as well. I’ve faced very intelligent, seasoned, and formidable opponents in the past, and I’m prepared, if it be the will of God, to face the challenges ahead.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

Let’s go over this again. James White believes in Sola Scriptura. James Akin challenges him to cite a passage from Scripture to back up one of his claims. That is not a double standard. Akin is holding White to the standard White has established.

It’s claimed that all of the teachings of the Catholic Church are taught in the Bible; isn’t that correct?

Oh, BTW, Colossians 1:21-22 establishes the context and condition of Colossians 2:13ff, a passage posted by one who shall remain nameless.

The greater context is v13, which again, puts God in complete control of the salvation He gives to those He saves.

The “snatcher” and the subject of the “snatching” cannot be the same person. I am holding the hand of a five year old child and no one will be able to snatch him away from me, the snatcher is logically distinct from the child. Secondly, as I’ve said twice already, the word “snatch” in Greek is harpazo and that means to take by force.

No creature can take anything away from God by force. Immediately after his sheep parable and before the passage in John 10 that is in question, Jesus says in John 10:17-18:

**If I were to say **the following:

There is now no dying of hypothermia for those who are in Hawaii

or…

Those who are inhabitants of Hawaii will never die of hypothermia

Does this really mean that the inhabitants can never die of hypothermia under anycondition? Obviously not! The assumed precondition is that they remain in Hawaii. What if they decide to leave Hawaii and move to Maine, Alaska, or Greenland? Obvioulsy, they no longer enjoy the special protection from hypothermia that the climate of Hawaii provided. In these cases, you can not say never!

Those are human analogies, and human operations.

As I stated in my post 120The Father seals the believer with the HS (Eph 4:30); the HS is an earnest, or down-payment for the final glorification of the saint. **In a human operation, the operation is vulnerable until it is completed; however, with God’s operation of salvation, the Spirit keeps the believer secure until the salvation work is finished (Php 1:6).**Furthermore, as stated in that same post:God is able to keep His people. God is omnipotent, and therefore, able to bring His purposes to fulfillment, and to finish His work in those He saves (2 Tim 1:12; Jude 24; Jn 10:28-29; Phil 1:6). Nothing in the creature’s power can cause God to fail (Is 46:10). Salvation is wholly of God, and human failure cannot void God’s promises given in the New Covenant; neither can their failures jeopardize their salvation (Rom 3:3-4; 8:32ff; Jer 31:31-37).

Moreover, the confidence he is expressing is regarding the Phillipians in general - the Greek word for “you” is pural. He is not making a statement regarding all Christians in all of the world and throughout history.

That is the literalist position.

According to you, whenever the writer uses a plural you in his epistle, then what is said in the epistle is a statement regarding only those to whom the epistle is addressed, and not to Christians in general.

So when conditional ”IF” statements occur, they only apply to those to whom the ”IF” statement is addressed, as in the case of the Colossians ***”If indeed you ***[only the Colossians] continue in…

That’s an interesting position.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes says:

So if God’s intent is to bring a person to glorification, He will ensure that that person will reach that goal.

No one can forcefully take true Christians out of God’s hands. He alone establishes the conditions by which we enter His hands and also by which we stay in His hands. One of these conditions for the latter is found in 1 John 2:24-25.

The “snatcher” and the subject of the “snatching” cannot be the same person. I am holding the hand of a five year old child and no one will be able to snatch him away from me, the snatcher is logically distinct from the child. Secondly, as I’ve said twice already, the word “snatch” in Greek is harpazo and that means to take by force.

No creature can take anything away from God by force. Immediately after his sheep parable and before the passage in John 10 that is in question, Jesus says in John 10:17-18:

If I were to say the following:

There is now no dying of hypothermia for those who are in Hawaii

or…

Those who are inhabitants of Hawaii will never die of hypothermia

Does this really mean that the inhabitants can never die of hypothermia under anycondition? Obviously not! The assumed precondition is that they remain in Hawaii. What if they decide to leave Hawaii and move to Maine, Alaska, or Greenland? Obvioulsy, they no longer enjoy the special protection from hypothermia that the climate of Hawaii provided. In these cases, you can not say never!

The two quotes above illustrate what’s called ”Speaking out of both sides of
your mouth,” or, "have your cake, and eat it, too."

On the one hand, no one can remove true Christians from God’s hand.

On the other hand, a true Christian can remove himself from God’s hand.

Will someone please lookup, and post a definition for No one, or, Nobody?

The essence of this interesting teaching is that Jesus fails to keep the will of the Father.

Furthermore, the conditions in 1 Jn 2:24-25 (see initial quote in this post) are "in the plural;" therefore, John “is not making a statement regarding all Christians in all of the world and throughout history,” but only to those Christians to whom John has sent the letter.

 

[sandusky]

NotWorthy:

But in any event, God is a God of Love. I don’t think He hates anyone.

God has many attributes, or, better, perfections.

Yes, God is Love (1 Jn 4:8; 4:16); however, one of God’s perfections is “hatred.”

God’s hatred is the quality of reacting against sin, and sinners. You do believe that God has a negative reaction toward sin, and sinners, don’t you (Ps 5:5)?

That quality of God gives Him an extreme dislike for and opposition toward sinners, and their sins (Ps 5:5; 11:5; Hos 9:15; Mal 1:2-3; Rom 9:13).

Passively, that hatred is expressed as a hostile attitude toward sinners with a resolve to punish them (Rom 1:18; Jn 3:36). Actively, that hatred is expressed as destructive judgment or punishment (Rev 14:19; 15:1; 19:15).

God’s hatred is not the sinful, spiteful hatred that human beings possess toward those they dislike; that hatred is activated by the sin force, and lacks true justice, and it only desires ill toward the offender rather than seeking his well-being.

Furthermore, humans cannot rightly judge the motivations of the heart of those who’ve harmed them, nor the circumstances that led to the harm; therefore, humans are forbidden from avenging the wrong (Rom 12:17-21).

Because of their guilt and sin, God finds nothing in unsaved people that is acceptable to Him or that brings Him pleasure (Rom 3:9-18), but only that which is despicable to Him.

Nevertheless, God deliberately and graciously chose to love sinners and to provide for them the opportunity for salvation through Jesus Christ—alone.