Can you be saved and not know it?

Would you like to explain that Bob?
Birth + rejection of Christ = natural death + eternal death + eternal, eternal death?
Where is your third death?

 

A son is a son is a son.
The Lord knows them that are his.
Once a son, the father does not disown his own.
In this physical life, you cannot change the facts of life. Your genes that you inherited you can't give back to your parents and ask for another set. You will always be their child. It won't change. Once a child of God; always a child of God. He was a son of his father. You can call him names Bob. Call him dead, prolifigate, a disgrace, an adulterer, a drunk, etc. But he was still his father's son. And that could never change.

 

Birth already dying natural death from Adam

Sin = second death

born again= Salvation and escape of second death


I don't believe you are born natural with the second death already pronounced on you.

Jesus said "such is the Kingdom", not going to be. Also, the soul that sinneth shall die. Now if it were already dead when born how could it die.

 

The "dead and the lost" are going to hell. Call them what you want. Do you believe the lost are going to Heaven. Why am I asking this of you?

You can't change the fact that because you and all men have life is because God give you breath either.

Jesus held the child and said "such is the Kingdom of Heaven". If that child grew up and sinned then its soul died in sin and Satan became its Father, and if it was never "born again", it would of died and went to hell as an adult. You do know what "born again" is don't you, it means the father you had is no longer your father, but your Father is now the Heavenly Father.

 

A child is born in Satan's family.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

We are born into the family of Satan; thus Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Ye must be born again." You must be born into God's family.

To take scripture out of context (such is the kingdom of God) that has nothing to do with this subject, is not rightly dividing the Word of truth. There Jesus was teaching about faith, not salvation.

The son in the parable remained a son of the Father. He never was a son of anyone else. He didn't need another birth.

 

Was the child a part of the conception?

Jesus felt different than you do about the infants.

You are among those who believe children are hell bound, right?

When he was in whoredom, he had an evil spirit which is the spirit of the devil and therefore the devil was his father. Whosoever you lend your members you are the servant thereof. How can you say you have the devil's spirit but a child of God?

God put Israel away. He will also put us away when we sin. "the soul that sinneth shall die". You don't die natural but you are dead to God.

Maybe you can see it but not me God looking at whoredom and saying "those are my children". hogwash.

 

What do you think Jesus meant when He said "You must be born again?" He meant that becoming a Christian must entail a remarkable change in someone's lifestyle. When Christ told the rich young ruler that he must sell all that he had and give it to the poor he was not saying that money prevents someone from entering the kingdom of heaven, although He did say it made it more difficult. No, Jesus was saying that a true Christian must make Christ the Lord of his life. You cannot serve two masters. Only t5hose who serve the Lord are saved.

 

Well, bein' as you asked nicely...:laugh: :laugh: I should have added coveteous and on his own "pity parties", to the older brother's 'faults', but unfortunately did not at first. Anyway, Luke 15: 17-32 - NKJV, with the text interspersed with my comments

The 'prodigal' has here repented, i.e. "changed his mind, or thinking". (That is what 'metanoeO' means.) Now he is going to do something further about this, having already "repented". He is going to now confess to his father, and has his speech already worked out. And is going to ask his father to take him in as he would a slave. (Follow, as a slave)

Did you note that the Father was always looking for the son to return? He could have gone and forcefully brought him back, I guess, but did not. And he did not even let the son finish his speech and offer for slavehood. His position as a son had never changed with the father, even absent the close fellowship, but not so in the eyes of his brother as we will now see.

He got his information, second-handed, relying on 'hearsay' rather than seeing for himself. I'd say that is at least a bit onery, to say the least, wouldn't you?

IOW, "My feelings are hurt, and I'm mad about this, and I ain't having nothing to do with that trash!!" Why was he angry? He had been wronged in no way. He was "angry at his brother without cause", as Jesus said in another place, and you do remember what were the warnings of that, I presume. I'd call that obnoxious; how about you?

His father had to come out and personally plead with him. Does that sound like he was in good fellowship with his father to you?

"I feel like you treat me like a slave!!" Pity party No. 1

"Haven't you noticed how righteous I am and have been??" Well, self-righteous, anyway!

"I didn't get anything! Never mind that it is all mine anyway, it still is not enough! I want more!" Would you call that coveteous?? I would, but maybe that is just me.

"I don't get to have any fun with my buddies! " Pity Party No.2

"He ain't MY brother; He's YOUR son!! Oh yeah, and you know how he had to have been living! I've heard stories about that place! Oh yeah, and that dinner you are throwing should have been for me!!" (What he did not voice was, "I don't really care about my brother, I love that calf more than I love that scum!")

Well, third-hand 'hearsay' anyway. (Judgmental, maybe??) He just tripped himself up. (Note that he said he'd always been with the father for all these years in v. 29? And the father will agree, that the older brother was always with him in verse 31.) I'd say that is "bearing false witness". And the attitude that he 'knew' what the absent brother was really doing is certainly pharisaical, IMO, anyway. Would you agree, or not?

Note that the father said that everything was just as much the older brother's as it was the father's own. It was all his, already! And note the words of grace, love, and forgiveness exhibited by the father to the younger brother, for the benefit of the older brother, as well in verse 32a. just as in verse 24. And the father used the same words to the older brother, that he used himself in v. 24, only he says "your brother" in exactly the same way he said "my son".
But there is no word anywhere that the older son, ever agreed with his father in this. That may not seem to be "out of fellowship" to you, but it sure does to me.
So yes, I say the older brother was out of fellowship with the father, even right under his nose for all those years.

Hope that helps.

Ed

 

The Father disagreed with you Ed; The older son had not lost anything.
Also, God will receive all back that have went astray if they will repent. As long as we are serving the Devil then we chose who our father is.

I hate to tell you but you crossed yourself several times but that ok, just typical. You can add to the scripture but you sure don't want anyone else to.:laugh: :laugh: You are a blast Ed;

You are posting that the younger son who had chose the devil was still the son of the Father but the older son who stayed home but pouted was LOST. Now that is
Hilarious.

 

Actually, neither Jesus, nor the father, nor the 'prodigal' ever said that "he was in whoredom". Only the older brother, whom by his own admission, could not have known that for himself, made that charge.

Ed

 

I have never claimed the older son was 'lost'. In fact, I have specifically said (although not in this thread, I do not think) that both sons were always sons. And I did not say the older son had lost anything. You unfortunately misread that. It was all the older son's, just as much as it was the father's. But the younger son had lost all his worldly goods.

And I'm not sure that paraphrasing is "adding to the scripture", as I said IOW, or using the vernacular of today, any more than preaching a sermon, or writing a commentary, necessarily is. I am not one that particularly takes any offense to the paraphrases such as the Living Bible, or The Message, to name two, as long as either (or any other) does not contradict the actual Greek language. I do not know any Hebrew or Chaldee, so I do prefer a more 'literal' translation for any OT Scripture.

Ed

 

Luk 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

He probably was a saint.

I never say where he denied it. Something made him feel unworthy now didn't it.

I am sure now that it was you that did it Ed; you probably are right. Why in the world would you accuse others and then do it yourself, now that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?

 

Granted, some saints ain't too 'saintly'.

I believe your disagreement, if there is any, with me is founded in three things, actually. First is my rejection of NT "repentance", as meaning "turning from sin". I hope that all do turn from sin, after repenting, but that is not the meaning of the word. And you have also argued the same point with others, as well as me. With little success, though. :laugh:

Secondly is the belief that believers can commit all kinds of sins. Again, I hope any do not, but Scripture never says one can't. Would you have welcomed the Mayor of Sodom into your assembly, and called him a righteous individual, after knowing he offered his daughters to the mob, as another poster mentioned in this thread? I probably would not have called him righteous, either, but God did.

And the third is your listing of a specific group of sins that will cause one to not be saved. There is only one, unbelief, as I see Scripture. So I guess we can and do disagree on this. Does that about cover it? FTR, I don't recall ever labeling anyone on the BB as "hypocritical", although I have strongly disagreed with some (usually over what free grace is), but I could have and could be mistaken in this. Gotta run, for now.

Ed

 

What is "repentance" Ed;?

You are right here Ed; I believe God's Grace can save us and I also believe God's Grace can keep us until the end.

I have made no such claim that any sin can't be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. I do believe that the believers don't commit such actions as homosexuality, adultereous and etc. I believe God's Grace is stronger than that but apparently you don't.

Have a good evening Ed;

 

That is a very hypocritical statement Bob.
"I have no such claim that any sin can't be forgiven except...homosexuality, adultery, and etc." The latter part of your statement contradicts the former part of your statement, so why make the statement at all. Either God forgives or he doesn't. You just made a statement showing how the God that you believe in does not forgive sins. That is a dreadfully poor outlook or view of God.
"I believe God forgives sins, except..." There is no exception clause with God. His forgiveness is unconditional. There is no sin that he cannot forgive. Not one. If there was any sin that God could not forgvie then his death would be in vain, for he atoned for ALL the sins of the world not just 50 or 60% of them. Or don't you believe that Christ paid the penalty of all of our sins.

Tell me what you believe:

Is it this:
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Or this?
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him 60 % of the iniquity of us all.

Which sins did the blood of Christ not pay for? Perhaps it was that adultery that a Christian committed (as in 1Cor.5). Correct? Or is that list of sins mentioned in Rev.22? Where is your list of unforgiveable sins? Christ's blood is not sufficient to pay the penalty of all of our sins according to your theology is it?

 

That is a start, and I'm sure I could find more posts about this if I took another couple of hours. But that should effectively give a short summary.

Ed

 

It does not, that is the problem, you can't seem to comphrend what I did write. I was talking about believers and unbelievers if you can figure that out. I really think you misunderstand what my posts say most of the time, because its hard to believe someone believes like you do.

Unforgiven sins. Think about it a while, if all sins were forgiven there would be no LOST.

 

Luk 13:4Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

Luk 13:5I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.


Act 11:18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


Repentance is what Jesus asked us all to do Ed; You miss the whole point of who is saved.

Act 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 26:20But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Act 17:30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

You got yourself all messed up about repentance Ed;

 

No I don't "miss the whole point", at all. I 'preach' repentance, and that it is commanded (Acts 17:30) all the time. I repented toward the Lord many years ago for salvation (Acts 20:21), and repented from dead works in the same manner. (Heb. 6:1) That is what I believe and teach, for that is what the Bible says. I 'preach' that one should certainly 'repent', concerning sin, but that cannot happen to a lost individual. at all, as one who is lost is still "in your sins".

What I do not 'preach' and do not believe, and the Bible does not teach, is some convoluted "turn or burn"; "forsake or bake"; "try and cry, or you will fry" religion. That is what is "messed up", just as is the continuing insistence that the phrase "repent of your sins" is really what is meant, when one sees the word "repent", even though the phrase never occurs in Scripture.

And as I have asked many times before, God is said to "repent" or "not repent" 30 times in the Bible (which is at least 27 times more than any individual), so what sins is the absolutely holy LORD God supposed to have to have "repented of"?

I'm still waiting for a good answer to that one!

Ed

 

All these people were lost when these scriptures were preached to them Ed;

If repent is to turn:

Jon 3:10¶And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did [it] not.

You tell me Ed;????