G
guest1
Guest
No I read it the other way so thanks for clarifying that you had me concerned lol.Wait... you realize I was disagreeing with that, right?
No I read it the other way so thanks for clarifying that you had me concerned lol.Wait... you realize I was disagreeing with that, right?
Different covenant. The children in Psalms 89 are Christ's sheep. It's the Davidic covenant
What is the condition of the covenant of grace?The point is rather how God's promises/covenant works.
There is a conditional element to them.
1) Why would I say that?There's serious problems with this logic.
If we were to say by virtue of a branch being in Christ, every single thing the branch produces must necessarily be only from Christ, then when the branches sin—and we all sin—Christ has to necessarily be the source of that sin.
Never said they were. If you're adding to my commentary then I agree. If that argument is supposed to reflect my post then it's a straw man.Branches are connected to another source. They are not, literally the source.
No, they have a dependent mechanism....What this means is, the branch has some independent mechanisms for facilitating its source.
Hmmm.... the branch determines how much fruit it bears even though Jesus explicitly states 1) those remaining in him and him in them, and 2) apart from him nothing can be done. Scripture disagrees with that statement.The branch, itself, determines how much fruit comes through it.
Non sequitur. Not a single word of that has anything to do with what I previously posted and if it is thought otherwise then I will simply direct you back to a more thorough and contemplative reading of what was posted. I'll also add this: the context for what I said, that a tree bears fruit according to its kind, was almost completely ignored. The a priori condition of sin was leveraged to contest this point, but it did so in antithesis ignoring the substance of the point. The question is not, "Does Christ bear sinful fruit?" but "Does Christ bear righteous fruit?" or perhaps, "Does Christ bear righteous fruit from a previously diseased branch?" and the idea of inserting and "only" in there where none belongs is bad form.We do not blame the vine for all its branches produces. If I thought Jesus was the source of how Christians have treated me, I'd think Christ was cruel and unloving. Those branches are responsible for their lack of fruit, by stopping Christ's flow.
What is the condition of the covenant of grace?
Dare we agree that the faithless and unfaithful are not chosen to accompany Christ . . .Faith!
Having God's Spirit and the birth only He can give.What is the condition of the covenant of grace?
I think Paul's statement in I Corinthians 10:1-13 clearly indicates against OSAS.Many of us Christians have pondered the possibility of our losing our salvation. I would like to briefly argue that no, we cannot lose our salvation. To see why, it's important to understand that a Christian is more than a "believer"; a Christian is a steadfast actor and a thinker as well. When we are saved, truly saved, we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This regeneration transforms us forever into new creatures. We can no longer anger God to the point at which He would need to punish us for sin. In other words if we are genuinely saved we are no longer in danger of God's wrath. The reason why is that we no longer deserve to be punished because we have been fundamentally changed. We no longer think or act sinfully. If we did think sinfully or act sinfully, then we would still deserve God's judgment which is not what salvation is! So if you are saved, then you are saved eternally and eternally freed from sin. Those who sin such as those who are revilers, liars, extortioners, thieves, or drunkards are not saved or at least not saved yet. To be saved, you must "put on the new person" giving up forever the sins of your past. If you fail to do so, then you won't inherit the kingdom of Heaven, and you are deluded to think otherwise. As Jesus told us: "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
We are kept by God's power, not our own, if we have truly been born again. 1 Peter 1:5I think Paul's statement in I Corinthians 10:1-13 clearly indicates against OSAS.
So parts of the Bible are wrong?I think Paul's statement in I Corinthians 10:1-13 clearly indicates against OSAS.
Who does that? Were they hypocrites who pretended to be Christians? Or maybe mentally ill?People misunderstand and conflate a rejection of grace for an ability to apostatize.
It is not "out-sinning" the Cross, or being under a system of performance one fails to meet, that brings a loss of salvation.
It is a willful rejection of Christ and his grace, a deliberate choice to renounce faith in the gift of God.
In that case a person can be saved and still go to hell. Does that make sense to you? How can you be saved only to be damned?I think Paul's statement in I Corinthians 10:1-13 clearly indicates against OSAS.
Amen! The Bible teaches Perseverance of the Saints.Many of us Christians have pondered the possibility of our losing our salvation. I would like to briefly argue that no, we cannot lose our salvation. To see why, it's important to understand that a Christian is more than a "believer"; a Christian is a steadfast actor and a thinker as well. When we are saved, truly saved, we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This regeneration transforms us forever into new creatures. We can no longer anger God to the point at which He would need to punish us for sin. In other words if we are genuinely saved we are no longer in danger of God's wrath. The reason why is that we no longer deserve to be punished because we have been fundamentally changed. We no longer think or act sinfully. If we did think sinfully or act sinfully, then we would still deserve God's judgment which is not what salvation is! So if you are saved, then you are saved eternally and eternally freed from sin. Those who sin such as those who are revilers, liars, extortioners, thieves, or drunkards are not saved or at least not saved yet. To be saved, you must "put on the new person" giving up forever the sins of your past. If you fail to do so, then you won't inherit the kingdom of Heaven, and you are deluded to think otherwise. As Jesus told us: "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
In that case a person can be saved and still go to hell. Does that make sense to you? How can you be saved only to be damned?
Amen! The Bible teaches Perseverance of the Saints.
God has given you a keen sense of deduction, @Dizerner and I think your username is apt in this respect.if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard (Col. 1:23 NKJ)
If any form of eternal security were true, continuing in the faith would be the only option, and so this passage would be completely misleading.
I don't know what version you use, but the NRSVUE tells us in John 3:16:Nowhere is salvation considered something "permanent" in Scripture.
And here's what John 6:37-40 has to say:“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
I can post more passages assuring us of "permanent" salvation if you don't understand those two.37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away, 38 for I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me but raise it up on the last day. 40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.”
Where does the Bible say that? It's entirely possible that some do "progress toward" salvation, but such a process doesn't make salvation any less permanent once it is attained. If a person still sins, then she or he still needs progress to attain salvation which she or he does not yet have.It is a process and a progress—being saved, will be saved.
Unsaved sinners are warned to repent and be saved. Once salvation is attained, then warnings are no longer necessary.Else, no warnings would be necessary, really they would be misleading and lying to God's people.
I agree! It's just human nature to want it "both ways" which is to say we want rewards without following the rules to attain those rewards. We see it as easier that way: "All this and heaven too!" But as I've documented throughout this thread, scripture clearly states that without repentance there is no salvation. The good news is that sin is no real, lasting pleasure, and it doesn't begin to compare to the life God wants us to live. God is the greatest pleasure--not sin. Sin only leads to destruction but God to everlasting life!I guarantee you that "almost" saved people who merely "heard" the Gospel are not pouring over God's warnings and taking them to heart.
Thank the good Lord for Pastors who can be relied on to exegete scripture correctly. One of mine was even a consultant for the NASB and teaches Greek at the university.if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard (Col. 1:23 NKJ)
If any form of eternal security were true, continuing in the faith would be the only option, and so this passage would be completely misleading.
You appeal to human authority but according to Scripture, rather than God predetermining who "continues in the faith" and who "departs from the faith", God predetermines those whom He foreknows will continue in the faith to be conformed to the image of Christ.Thank the good Lord for Pastors who can be relied on to exegete scripture correctly. One of mine was even a consultant for the NASB and teaches Greek at the university.
Only an Arminian could reject Perseverance of the Saints;