The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[FHII]

No they don't say " never". See the difference?

Ok. Not of us vs never of us... You grasped at a straw and caught it. Big deal!

Your original position was that this was talking about false teachers. Even if it was (and ot isn't and thats why you changed your attack) you have no foundation. Thw fact is this verse says that if they were of us the would have continued with us. Thus, even though they did what we did, they NEVER were us.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Another misunderstood verse.
1 John 2:18-19

Little children, it is the last hour and as you have heard that the Anti-Christ is coming, even now many anti-christs have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be manifest, that none of them were of us.

John speaks of false teachers (anti-christs) who went out “from us” (the true gospel teachers) and thus proved by their going that they were not “of us.” John is specifically speaking of false teachers leaving the company of the true gospel teachers and proving by their leaving that they are not in harmony with the true gospel. Had they continued in the truth they would have no reason to leave but since they had abandoned the truth they could no longer keep company with the true gospel teachers and went out from them to spread their heresies.
The passage says nothing of the false teachers’ prior spiritual condition. It only tells us that at the time of their going they were not “of” the true gospel teachers. They were committed to false doctrine when they left and left for that reason, but we have no way of knowing whether or not they had at one time genuinely embraced the truth.

Actually it does tell us who they are.

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

these are not just false teachers, they deny Christ hence the term antichrist.

their spiritual state is lost, and it was never in a saved state (they were never of us)

 

[Renniks]

I disagree with your interpretation on the following basis. Paul's analogy with the pot and the potter illustrates the concept of transcendence. The pot will not say to the potter, "why did you make me like this?" will it? The question is predicated on Paul's assertion that God made some pots for honorable use and other pots for dishonorable use. In this course, God will not judge a man based on his behavior good or bad, but based on the purpose God gave the pot. The potter isn't waiting to find out what the pot does, i.e. resist his will first. The potter makes a pot to suit his own needs. Thus the question, "who resists his will?" The obvious answer, no one.

Except that isn't the answer the Bible gives us.
Acts 7:51
In fact, the majority of the OT is about people resisting God's will and being punished for it. And the Potter and clay analogy is a good place to settle this issue, because it's laid out very clearly in Isaiah.

13 The Lord says:

“These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is based on merely human rules they have been taught.
14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”
15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the Lord,
who do their work in darkness and think,
“Who sees us? Who will know?”
16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it,
“You did not make me”?
Can the pot say to the potter,
“You know nothing”?

Here's the amusing thing about these potter and clay verses, here and in Jerimiah (where Paul obviously stole them from) They are both about God telling people that they are resisting his will! The Calvinists are exactly like the one talking back and turning things upside down and claiming no one resists God's will when God is saying the opposite! It's crazy! How can anyone miss this?

"This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” 3 So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me. 6 He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

11 “Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, ‘This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.’ 12 But they will reply, ‘It’s no use. We will continue with our own plans; we will all follow the stubbornness of our evil hearts.’”

How can anyone read this and say" "Oh, well, no one resist's God's will?

 

[Renniks]

Actually it does tell us who they are.

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

these are not just false teachers, they deny Christ hence the term antichrist.

their spiritual state is lost, and it was never in a saved state (they were never of us)

lol, Again, it doesn't say they were never of us. Of course, if someone falls away and denies Jesus is God, he's a little anti-Christ. That's got nothing to do with whether he was saved, to begin with. We are warned against false teachings for a reason. Because we can fall away!

 

[Renniks]

Ok. Not of us vs never of us... You grasped at a straw and caught it. Big deal!

Your original position was that this was talking about false teachers. Even if it was (and ot isn't and thats why you changed your attack) you have no foundation. Thw fact is this verse says that if they were of us the would have continued with us. Thus, even though they did what we did, they NEVER were us.

Still trying to sneak "never" in where it never was, I see.

 

[Renniks]

Consider the following passage.

John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Isn't this saying that God is the author of everything? I think so. If I bring my own free-will choices into existence myself, then something came into being apart from God.

Um, creating everything makes God the author of everything we do? How? Not if we have any autonomy at all. God gave us dominion over some stuff. He not just moving all of us like pawns on a chess board.

 

[FHII]

Still trying to sneak "never" in where it never was, I see.

You are still grasping at straws. You are still trying to argue a point that has already been settled.

"Umm... This verse is talking about false teachers! This verse never says never!" Whats going to be your next excuse?

 

[Renniks]

You are still grasping at straws. You are still trying to argue a point that has already been settled.

"Umm... This verse is talking about false teachers! This verse never says never!" Whats going to be your next excuse?

Excuse? The verse just doesn't say what you obviously want it to.

 

[FHII]

Excuse? The verse just doesn't say what you obviously want it to.

Oh my goodness.. Renniks: have fun in la la land. I no longer have the patience to deal with you.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

lol, Again, it doesn't say they were never of us. Of course, if someone falls away and denies Jesus is God, he's a little anti-Christ. That's got nothing to do with whether he was saved, to begin with. We are warned against false teachings for a reason. Because we can fall away!

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

it says they denied Christ, and it says they were not of us, that if they were truly of us they never would have departed

it also says they denied the son this do not have the father, while those who did not leave have the son and the father

this is a salvation issue,

you have to twist the whole passage to make it say otherwise

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Still trying to sneak "never" in where it never was, I see.

Actually the verb tense is imperfect. It is an action that was in the past and continues today.
Literally it says they were not of us and they still are not of us. (They never were). If they were of us (in the past and continuing to today) they would have stayed.

your wrong on all accounts my friend

 

[Renniks]

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

it says they denied Christ, and it says they were not of us, that if they were truly of us they never would have departed

it also says they denied the son this do not have the father, while those who did not leave have the son and the father

this is a salvation issue,

you have to twist the whole passage to make it say otherwise

King James Version
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


Whenever John refers to false teachers (historically in this case it would be the Gnostics) he uses the word third person (they, them, and he but in a broad sense of the usage).


Therefore, the context of 1 John 2:19 has in view the false teachers (antichrists). This becomes plain that John is referring to the Gnostics in 1 John 2:23. The “whoever” of 1 John 2:23 are the same false teachers found in verses 18-19. John reminds the disciples that they have an anointing from the Holy One (v.20) in reference to the gnostic idea that they were enlightened but others were not. In the gnostic understanding, they had the truth and only they but John regards them as liars (v.22). Clearly then 1 John 2:19 is speaking of these gnostic teachers who went out from the apostles claiming to be super apostles and above the apostles. However, they did not continue in the doctrine of the apostles as the early Church had always done (Acts 2:42). This clearly reveals, writes John, that they were not of the apostles (v.19). This is why they are called “antichrists” (2 John 7; cf. Matthew 24:4,5).

None of this has anything to do with whether they were once truly saved or not.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

King James Version
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


Whenever John refers to false teachers (historically in this case it would be the Gnostics) he uses the word third person (they, them, and he but in a broad sense of the usage).


Therefore, the context of 1 John 2:19 has in view the false teachers (antichrists). This becomes plain that John is referring to the Gnostics in 1 John 2:23. The “whoever” of 1 John 2:23 are the same false teachers found in verses 18-19. John reminds the disciples that they have an anointing from the Holy One (v.20) in reference to the gnostic idea that they were enlightened but others were not. In the gnostic understanding, they had the truth and only they but John regards them as liars (v.22). Clearly then 1 John 2:19 is speaking of these gnostic teachers who went out from the apostles claiming to be super apostles and above the apostles. However, they did not continue in the doctrine of the apostles as the early Church had always done (Acts 2:42). This clearly reveals, writes John, that they were not of the apostles (v.19). This is why they are called “antichrists” (2 John 7; cf. Matthew 24:4,5).

None of this has anything to do with whether they were once truly saved or not.

you skipped vs 22 and 23, don’t give some doctrinal viewpoint, give me fact,
leaving those two passages out and trying to spin gnostic this or that does not help you case

they (those who deny Christ) were not truly of us, at any time, they were impostors, people who claimed to have faith, but never had true faith at all, if they had true faith they never would have departed as nonbelievers.

 

[Renniks]

you skipped vs 22 and 23, don’t give some doctrinal viewpoint, give me fact,
leaving those two passages out and trying to spin gnostic this or that does not help you case

they (those who deny Christ) were not truly of us, at any time, they were impostors, people who claimed to have faith, but never had true faith at all, if they had true faith they never would have departed as nonbelievers.

Well, that's what you've been taught, so be it. I have a different perspective. OSOS just isn't borne out by scripture. And I really tried to believe it at one point, but it just doesn't work.

 

[justbyfaith]

OSOS just isn't borne out by scripture.

Once Saved Only Saved?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Well, that's what you've been taught, so be it. I have a different perspective. OSOS just isn't borne out by scripture. And I really tried to believe it at one point, but it just doesn't work.

No, it is not what I was taught,

It is what John said,

in the passages you give, John speaks of antichrists

in the passage you keep skipping, he tells us who those antichrists are, and what god says about them

you skip those verses because your belief does not match. I can’t do that

oh, and eternal life, the hope of which my faith is based on, I have it right now. What you believe about osas does not matter, what God says does,

if I do not have eternal life, I have no hope, and I am of all people hopeless

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<So, if someone is not of the elect, Jesus didn't die for them, is that what you are saying?>>>

Jesus died for them, for the atonement of their sins, for Christ offered his life as an atoning sacrifice for the whole world. But that is different from the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

<<<If that is the case, then if someone is not of the elect, they cannot be saved even if they do what is prescribed scripturally in order to be saved (such as what is written in Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39 or Romans 10:8-13).>>>

If one is not among those given by the Father to the Son, what could we expect? Do you expect him to be saved by Christ?

<<<That would mean that if they come to Him, Jesus will cast them out.>>>

John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

It is inferred that not all of mankind is given by the Father to the Son. Those who are given are they who will come to Christ. Those who are not, understandably will not.

So, those who come to Christ are of the elect, is what you are saying, and those who do not come to Christ are not of the elect?

How is that any different from the idea of predestination according to foreknowledge?

That the Lord chooses people from eternity on the basis of whether or not they receive Him in time?

For if those who do not receive Him are the non-elect, then they are non-elect because they did not receive Him;

Especially if He will not reject them if they come to Him.

Since the non-elect are the non-elect if they do not receive Him; it follows that God did not choose them because He looked down the annals of time and saw that they would not receive Him.

Otherwise God arbitrarily chose them to be the non-elect and is wholly responsible for their choice to walk according to the sin nature and to never receive Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

And if God is wholly responsible for that, they are not at all responsible for that decision.

Therefore when they are sent to hell, they can even comfort themselves by saying that God was an unjust monster in that He chose them out for hell and gave them no opportunity to make any decision that would change their fate. Because God was wholly responsible for their decision to reject Christ. So it isn't their fault that they are in hell; and God has actually been unjust in placing them there.

<<<So, those who come to Christ are of the elect, is what you are saying, and those who do not come to Christ are not of the elect?>>>

That depends on what you mean by “come” to Christ.

<<<How is that any different from the idea of predestination according to foreknowledge?>>>

That again depends on what your idea of predestination and foreknowledge is.

<<<That the Lord chooses people from eternity on the basis of whether or not they receive Him in time?>>>

Not on the basis of whether they receive Him in time, but according to His nature ~ for Who He is.

<<<For if those who do not receive Him are the non-elect, then they are non-elect because they did not receive Him;>>>

That is not my view. Those who were not chosen will turn out to not receive Him. Those who were chosen will turn out to receive Him. The receiving is more of a manifestation rather than a condition.

<<<Especially if He will not reject them if they come to Him.>>>

As I showed you scriptures, it says that those the Father has given to the Son, those are who will come to Him. And those who
comes to Christ, He will not reject but will raise up in the last day.

<<<Since the non-elect are the non-elect if they do not receive Him; it follows that God did not choose them because He looked down the annals of time and saw that they would not receive Him.>>>

No that is not my view.

<<<Otherwise God arbitrarily chose them to be the non-elect and is wholly responsible for their choice to walk according to the sin nature and to never receive Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.>>>

God is not at all responsible for the choices of of those who are perishing. Also, He did not arbitrarily chose, but have chosen according to His nature ~ Who He is: God.

<<<Therefore when they are sent to hell, they can even comfort themselves by saying that God was an unjust monster in that He chose them out for hell and gave them no opportunity to make any decision that would change their fate.>>>

God never is unjust in all that He did and do. He was not unjust in not giving the fallen angels together with Satan. He was not unjust at all when He gives mercy to whom He wills to give. He is not indebted to any of His creature, so that all that He does is because He wills it and not because He is forced by indebtedness to do it.

<<<Because God was wholly responsible for their decision to reject Christ. So it isn't their fault that they are in hell; and God has actually been unjust in placing them there.

Again, God is not responsible for the decisions of those who are perishing. And definitely, it is the fault of them who are perishing that they will perish in hell.

Tong
R1993

 

[justbyfaith]

That is not my view. Those who were not chosen will turn out to not receive Him. Those who were chosen will turn out to receive Him. The receiving is more of a manifestation rather than a condition.

I think that as long as we are on the same page in this: that those who have received Christ are the elect and are not rejected by Christ: I have no beef with your doctrine.

I will say that the doctrine of Calvinism is often understood as saying that if someone is not of the elect, they cannot come to Christ even if they wanted to. Or that, if you have come to Christ there is still a chance that you are not one of the elect; and therefore your decision to receive Christ did not avail for you because you are not of His elect and therefore your decision did not mean anything.

 

[Renniks]

you skip those verses because your belief does not match. I can’t do that

Yes, that's exactly what false teachers do, deny that Christ is real and really God. How does that change what I said?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Um, creating everything makes God the author of everything we do? How? Not if we have any autonomy at all. God gave us dominion over some stuff. He not just moving all of us like pawns on a chess board.

Again, creators don't move pawns. They create pawns. Just as God said, "Let there be light", he says, "let there be pawns moving on a chess board."

Anyway, we have gone far off topic. I would argue against the premise that salvation is the result of God's efforts and Man's efforts working together.

I almost forgot the original question. So let me state it another way. Are we being saved because we responded in a positive way to the offer of salvation? Are we being saved because we believed the evangelist? Might there be another reason why we believed? And why do we persevere under trial? Why do some believe while others fall away?

What did Jesus teach us about perseverance? Paul? Peter? James?

In the final analysis, does perseverance in faith depend on our free-will choices alone?
What must be present in order to persevere in the faith?