Once Saved, Always Saved?

[Ferris Bueller]

There is birth from flesh, and birth from spirit. The Law begets slaves, and the promise begets freemen. And just like Ishmael persecuted Isaac, so it is now. But that begetting according to flesh (Ishmael) is an allegory, not a birth in the sense that we are born from our parents, and born from God.

That's what I'm trying to tell you. And so Jesus, too, is obviously talking about the natural man of law vs. the spiritual man of grace! It's stupid to think Jesus has to inform us that you have to have a literal birth as a baby to see the kingdom. How stupid. He's obviously having a spiritual discussion with Nicodemus - people born into the kingdom via the law vs. people born into the kingdom via the promise.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Did you catch that this passage contains an allegory? I think you are counting the allegory as non-allegorical.

I'm putting forth to you that Jesus is using the same allegory/metaphor. What does being born into existence have to do with it? Jesus is obviously speaking about spiritual matters here - being a son born of the law vs. being a son born of the Spirit. Remember who Jesus is talking to and where things are at in this time in the history of God's workings. They're right in this transition from the covenant of law and John's baptism and the appearing of Jesus and the New Covenant. The Jews have to move from the law to the new way of grace. They have to in order to see and enter into the kingdom of God. You won't see the kingdom of God by repenting to the law through John's baptism of water (being born of water). You must be born again, by the Spirit. Law first, Spirit second.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL! No, but it was sufficient to answer the specific thing that was being discussed.

Oh, you think it's funny that you didn't give the impression that you read any further? That's interesting.

Agreed. No, it is not "exactly what (I'm) doing" at all. I'm sorry you think so, but no.

Yes, you definitely are interpreting verses without taking scripture as a whole into account.

Right, all His elect.

No, you are not reading the passage carefully. Your doctrine is entirely based on taking many scriptures out of context. Look at the passage again and try to be objective this time.

Romans 11:30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

This clearly says that God "has bound EVERYONE over to disobedience". Did you somehow miss the word "everyone" there? He did that "so that he may have mercy on them ALL". That means He bound EVERYONE over to disobedience (are not all people disobedient sinners - Romans 3:23) so that He may have mercy on EVERYONE. I'm not surprised that you would just try to dismiss this passage since it clearly does not agree with your doctrine.

Yes, but yet He does not. And it's most assuredly not firstly due to people "not using their God given free will to choose to repent and have faith as God requires."

So, you think God wants to have mercy on all people, but purposely keeps Himself from doing so? That is complete nonsense.

Scripture also teaches that God wants all people to repent (2 Peter 3:9, Acts 17:30) and to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6). But you think He purposely makes it so that some can't possibly repent and be saved?

As Paul, quoting Moses, who is quoting God, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." And this is dependent on nothing and no one but God Himself and His will. And, you know Ephesians 2, don't you? Even our faith is a gift of God, rather than something we manufacture in and of ourselves.

That is not what it says. Salvation is the gift of God, not faith. And when he said it is not of ourselves he made it clear that what that means was that it's "not of works, so that no one can boast". Faith is not a work in the sense that Paul was talking about, so why you are trying to equate faith and works as if they are the same thing?

You're welcome to your opinion ~ as if I have anything to say about that... :)

You won't ever change my opinion, that's for sure.

Agreed, but that's most assuredly not what I was doing or attempting to do.

So, why are you saying that Paul taught that salvation is not of our faith when all he said is that our salvation is not of our works? He said it's by grace through faith. Whose faith? Our personal faith in Christ just like many other scriptures teach like John 3:16.

I would say, though, that saving faith we have is a work... of God. :) Which I think/hope you would agree with.

Why would I agree with that when it's not taught in scripture? I assume you are probably referring to John 6:29? Let's take a closer look at what that verse really means.

John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” 28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Notice in verse 27 that Jesus is teaching people to work "for food that endures to eternal life". This shows that the work is not the work of God as if God does the work, but rather is something that Jesus is telling people to do. We can see in verse 29 that the work Jesus was talking about was "to believe in the one he has sent". He was not talking about work in the sense that Paul talks about in Ephesians 2:8-9 or that James talks about in James 2, though. We know that because they both differentiated between faith and works. Salvation is by grace through faith, but is not of works. it is not by works, but it is by grace and through a person's personal faith in Christ. Many scriptures say so.

Where people get tripped up when interpreting John 6:29 is that they read the verse without taking the preceding verses into account. They see that it says the work of God is to believe in the one he has sent, so they assume it's talking about God doing that work for us. That's not the case. When you look at the verse in context, you should see that Jesus was answering the question He was asked in verse 28, which was "What must we do to do the works God requires?". So, what Jesus was saying when He said "The work of God is this" is that the work of which God requires of you is this: to believe in the one he has sent. That understanding of John 6:29 stays in line with the context of the whole passage.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

You seem to be completely missing the point. If we forsake God and fall away, has He left us and forsaken us? No. We would have left and forsaken Him in that case.

Please refer to post #406

 

[L.A.M.B.]

I have been here as a believer of God and his word 45 years, know what I have learned in this time?

1. The most important thing that must be agreed on by his followers is salvation!

• There is only one way to the Father and it is through the sacrifice of his only begotten Son,Jesus. You CANNOT get there through any other man nor name except the Christ!
• Everyone is an individual in the eyes of God,he knew when we were formed in the womb and before our parents named us.
• We all are at different depths in our spiritual walk with him,therefore we have individualized our reading into personal thoughts ,or should have instead of letting man do IT!
• We must not judge the person, rather the sin. Our love should be so great that it causes us to have pain when we view sin in others,whether follower or unbeliever. Do we have this response? Or is it one of superiority ?

2.Heaven will only be fill with the worshippers of God. If you're not doing this in the most submitted and humble way, a check- up with the word is in order.

• We must live by his word only, not what our ministers and teachers say ( except it is backed by the word)
• We must allow the Holy Spirit to be our teacher not man by any name. So if you hold to and label yourself by Luther, Spurgeon, Calvin, Muhammed, Smith, White ect. You must come back to JESUS !
• The word is the light on our foot path,it will keep your steps directed in the steps the Lord has ordered for YOUR life!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not true in either John 3:3-5 or Galatians 4:22-31. Physical literal birth has nothing to do with either passage. It's stupid to think Jesus has to make it a point to tell Nicodemus that you have to be birthed physically.

As far as John 3:3-5 is concerned, no, He wasn't just making the point that you have to be physically birthed. He was making the point that it's not enough to just be birthed physically in order to enter the kingdom of God, but you also must be born spiritually of the Holy Spirit. Many Jews thought that the mere fact that they were ethnic Jews automatically qualified them to be in the kingdom of God, but Jesus made it clear that wasn't enough and they had to also be born of the Spirit.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Please refer to post #406

That's the post I was responding to. What you said there does not mean that someone can't leave and forsake God. If someone leaves and forsakes God that does not mean He leaves and forsakes them.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

As far as John 3:3-5 is concerned, no, He wasn't just making the point that you have to be physically birthed. He was making the point that it's not enough to just be birthed physically in order to enter the kingdom of God, but you also must be born spiritually of the Holy Spirit. Many Jews thought that the mere fact that they were ethnic Jews automatically qualified them to be in the kingdom of God, but Jesus made it clear that wasn't enough and they had to also be born of the Spirit.

Problem: Then Jesus is saying you have to be born a Jew, too, to see and enter into the kingdom. That's why I reject this argument you put forth. It's reasonable, and has merit insofar as that being a subject of it's own (John 8:39-41, Romans 2:28), but in regard to Jesus' teaching it fails to take the multitude of people who aren't born Jews into consideration. In your argument, they lack the "born of water" part of Jesus' teaching.

"“Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. " John 3:5

 

[Ferris Bueller]

That's the post I was responding to. What you said there does not mean that someone can't leave and forsake God. If someone leaves and forsakes God that does not mean He leaves and forsakes them.

The original OSAS teaching taught that if you left God you were never really saved to begin with. The NEW OSAS says you are still saved if you leave God. The NEW OSAS is a horrible doctrine. An end-times doctrine of destruction, IMO.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Problem: Then Jesus is saying you have to be born a Jew, too, to see and enter into the kingdom. That's why I reject this argument you put forth. It's reasonable, and has merit insofar as that being a subject of it's own (John 8:39-41, Romans 2:28), but in regard to Jesus' teaching it fails to take the multitude of people who aren't born Jews into consideration. In your argument, they lack the "born of water" part of Jesus' teaching.

"“Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. " John 3:5

Jesus Himself had multiple Gentiles in His lineage.

Tamar, Ruth......

There is no Jew that isn't one "inwardly"........

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The original OSAS teaching taught that if you left God you were never really saved to begin with. The NEW OSAS says you are still saved if you leave God. The NEW OSAS is a horrible doctrine. An end-times doctrine of destruction, IMO.

The "New"?????

I believe in "if saved" always saved.

It would be a "poor" religion that made Eternal Life dependent upon the impeccability of flesh.

 

[marks]

I'm putting forth to you that Jesus is using the same allegory/metaphor.

Based on what? Paul identifies that he uses an allegory. Jesus speaks of being born. Birth, and rebirth from the spirit, these are not allegorical births, but real births.

Or do you consider it all allegory? No real "rebirth", just allegorical, all of it?

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Problem: Then Jesus is saying you have to be born a Jew, too, to see and enter into the kingdom.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Jesus was indicating that natural birth wasn't enough for someone to enter the kingdom of God. I'm not just talking about Jews here, I'm talking about anyone who thinks that there's something naturally special about them (being Jewish is only an example) and that is enough to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus is saying, no, that isn't enough to enter the kingdom of God. You must also be born of the Spirit.

That's why I reject this argument you put forth.

You rejected an argument that I wasn't intending to make.

It's reasonable, and has merit insofar as that being a subject of it's own, but in regard to Jesus' teaching it fails to take the multitude of people who aren't born Jews into consideration.

I do take that into consideration as I explained above.

In your argument, they lack the "born of water" part of Jesus' teaching.

"“Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. " John 3:5

You are not recognizing that Jesus equated being born of water with being born of the flesh.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Surely, you know how when a woman is about to give birth it is said that her water breaks? Verse 6 gives the context of what Jesus was saying in verse 5 and you're missing that. Notice in verse 6 He said "Flesh gives birth to flesh". That goes along with His reference in verse 5 to being born of water. And then He said right after that "the Spirit gives birth to spirit". That goes with His reference in verse 5 to being born of the Spirit. So, you're not understanding that in verse 6 He explained what He meant in verse 5.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Based on what? Paul identifies that he uses an allegory. Jesus speaks of being born. Birth, and rebirth from the spirit, these are not allegorical births, but real births.

Or do you consider it all allegory? No real "rebirth", just allegorical, all of it?

Much love!

A literal birth can also be allegorical. Both is an option. One does not preclude the other.

 

[marks]

In your argument, they lack the "born of water" part of Jesus' teaching.

Which is John's Baptism, again, correct? Born of water in John 3 = John's baptism. That's what you've said, right?

Much love!

 

[marks]

The original OSAS teaching taught that if you left God you were never really saved to begin with. The NEW OSAS says you are still saved if you leave God

Straw man . . .

OSAS is that salvation never ceases, then or now. You don't "leave God" if you are born from Him. Just like you don't stop being your mother's offspring. There is no "New OSAS", you are inventing that along with the rest.

Much love!

 

[marks]

A literal birth can also be allegorical. Both is an option. One does not preclude the other.

I believe Biblical allegories are identified in the text, would you agree?

Much love!

 

[marks]

IF "born of water" = John's baptism, then this remains required to enter heaven.

Who here has been baptised by John? Anyone?

Much love!

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Straw man . . .

OSAS is that salvation never ceases, then or now. You don't "leave God" if you are born from Him. Just like you don't stop being your mother's offspring. There is no "New OSAS", you are inventing that along with the rest.

Much love!

I see you don't know the original Calvinist teaching about OSAS.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I believe Biblical allegories are identified in the text, would you agree?

Much love!

At times. Yes. At times. No. Paul's appeal to allegory is certainly a clear indication but we don't have such a definitive statement for all OT Scripture. For example, the birth of Jacob and Esau is clearly allegorical. They represent the first and second Adam. Just making the point in the conversation.