Explicit future denials of apostasy of true children of God

HP: Zenas, let God’s Word be true and every man a liar. You are absolutely right on and let nothing or anybody deter you from it. Unlike them, we need to use these clear admonitions to make our calling and election certain.

The problem with JK, DW, DHK and others is that most of the time in reality, neither context , nor grammar or the GK, nor reason or logic, nor pre or post cross, for they are all employed merely as a means to an end when it is deemed by them advantageous to do so. What it is all about is providing cover for an unproven presupposition known as OSAS. Hang in there!:thumbs:

 

I don't gamble. If I did I would place a wager that HP has not read the context that he refers to. Otherwise he would not post such gibberish.

Let's look at it.
CONTEXT
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
--This is context: False teachers and false prophets that are bringing into the church damnable heresies.

2 Peter 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

2 Peter 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
--True believers aren't the HP?

2 Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
--A servant of corruption is not a saved individual.

2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

2 Peter 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
--False teachers know the way of righteousness. So does Satan and all of his demons know the way of righteousness. Knowledge is one thing.

2 Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
--And as the proverb goes.
They remained dogs, and they remained pigs. They were not converted. Their habits were not changed.

 

HP: That is an interesting verse indeed. Tell us DW, how does one believe with the heart? If one merely has head knowledge, can that be considered believing with the heart?

 

HP: Agreed.

HP: Agreed.

HP: Agreed.

HP: Now here is precisely what I am speaking about when I mention philosophy.:thumbs: Would you not agree that your philosophy as stated will inevitably impact how you interpret Scripture? Would you not also agree that if ones philosophy is in error their theology might in fact be impacted negatively as well?

 

Would you not agree that your philosophy as stated will inevitably impact how you interpret Scripture? Would you not also agree that if ones philosophy is in error their theology might in fact be impacted negatively as well?

 

Is Pride a sin anymore? Arrogance? If you really believe as you do that you can sin so far and loose your salvation..........Oh but you must of got a get outta Hell free card for this.

 

HP: JK, the manner in which you word that sounds a bit 'self incriminating' to me. Logic might conclude that there is clearly sin in the life of JK, otherwise why would he think he would be shaking???? Just wondering.

 

Obviously you didn't read too well
.

 

Oh, sorry.

 

HP,

You get defeated over and over again in these OSAS debates when it comes to context.

DW and DHK clearly laid out the context of 2 Peter 2 and yet you ignore it.

Why?

Who is the one here looking at the scriptures through their own personal philosphy?

Can you admit that 2 Peter 2 is speaking about FALSE converts?

 

HP: That sounds like an oxymoron to me. :thumbs:

 

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Since verse one speaks clearly of false prophets and false teachers, that is probably what Steaver had in mind. It is evident that no matter which way you look at it these individuals had never been saved.

 

Sheep are naturally clean so you can't use the analogy. Dogs and pigs are dirty animals who had become clean (saved) and then returned to their natural state (unclean/unsaved). By the way, the natural state of man is dirty/unclean. We are only made clean by the blood of Christ, but we are always free to return to our natural sinful state.

 

OK, I've caught up with the debate now. So far no one has explained the concept of 2 Peter 2: 20-22. Each of these three verses restate the principle of a sinner being saved and then returning to his sinful habits. You can repeat ad nauseum that they weren't really saved but verses like this belie it. There are numerous others, e.g., Galatians 5:4 "You have fallen from grace." You can't fall from grace unless you were first in a state of grace. By the way, what is the difference between being saved and being "really" saved?

 

False teachers teach falsehoods, and false prophets make false prophesies, but what does a false ‘convert’ do?? If they are a convert and OSAS rules, nothing can separate them from Christ now can it? Once a convert always a convert. OSAS states nothing false can exist in a convert, that matters anyway. So, define a 'false convert.'

 

I disagree. If ones nature is not changed they will go back. You can take a pig and wash it,put a big red bow and nice perfume....BUT they will run back to the mud because they are pigs by nature. They were never changed on the INSIDE to begin with. So yes...I can use that analogy.

 

Why are you dwelling on this.
Steaver referred to both me and DW giving you the proper context.
And then mistakenly he says false "convert" when I believe he meant "false teacher." You can ask him to make sure. But that is what I believe he meant. After all, he did say that I gave you the proper context. Chalk it up to a slip of the "keyboard."