Explicit future denials of apostasy of true children of God

1 John 2:19

 

I have no problem with the pig analogy. Go back and read what I said and it's the sheep analogy I objected to because they are naturally clean animals. We, on the other hand, are like pigs. We are sinners by nature. Even after being saved we are still burdened by our natural consupiscence. Unlike pigs, however, our humanity makes us capable of being washed with the blood of the lamb. Like pigs, however, we may return to our natural state. What is so hard about that? I really don't see why you don't get it. I repeat, these verses talk about returning to the bad state. How can you return to something you never left?

 

But pigs did not get a new nature. Sheep hear Gods voice "holy spirit"...pigs and dogs "outsiders" cannot. Do you think everyone who enters a church building is a convert?

 

I don't get it because I disagree with the falling from grace view?

 

Jesus said his sheep know his voice and follow him. Sheep who do not know Jesus do not recognise his voice; they only know their shepherd's voice which is that of the ravenous wolf, the devil.

 

A "false convert" is one who professes to believe on Jesus Christ but by their teachings or actions they prove themselves to be liars.

Oxymoron is correct, it is the same as saying "false Christian" or "false believer". It is a common expression used to make a distinction.

Paul put it like this concerning his persecutions; 2Cr 11:26 [In] journeyings often, [in] perils of waters, [in] perils of robbers, [in] perils by [mine own] countrymen, [in] perils by the heathen, [in] perils in the city, [in] perils in the wilderness, [in] perils in the sea, [in] perils among false brethren;

It is not a foriegn expression to scripture. You would say, either they are brethern or they are not and how can one be a false brethern?

These men are sneaky and can lead astray true believers (see there again a need to define a believer with "true" or "false") because they claim to know Jesus Christ but are really preaching and living their lives in opposition to His teaching and life.

Gal 2:4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

It wasn't a slip up or mistake on my part (this time) the very fact that these men were "among them" reveals that they slipped in under the pretense of being a "true" Christian but are in reality "false" Christians.

So with that all cleared up, what about the fact that DW and DHK demonstrated clearly by context that these men were false converts, or for those who have a problem with that expression, say non-Christian?

 

It's not quite cleared up. There are indeed "false converts" but there are also true converts who fall away. See, e.g., James 5:19-20; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:4-6. In each of these instances we have, speaking in geometric terms, persons who are at Point A, then move to Point B, and finally return to Point A. You, DW, DHK and others are saying there really isn't a Point B but the plain language of scripture contradicts your postulate.

 

They are only at "point A" according to your own declaration. The scripture itself does not say any such thing. And as we compare scripture with scripture one cannot honestly come to your conclusion or else there would be created a mountain of contradictions.

This whole issues rest in the doctrine of "born-again". Unless one comes to the understanding of this doctrine one will never grasp the truth of OSAS.

You will find that those who oppose OSAS do not place much emphasis on "born of God". To them, born of God is just the Holy Spirit coming and going as the person obeys or disobeys. They do not understand the New Covenant and the bride of Christ being formed.

 

Steaver, is context infallible or does the possibility exist one can misuse, abuse, or otherwise simply misunderstand it? Could ones philosophy/theology, possibly have an impact on what one might see as the context of a passage? Is context to some degree subjectively understood, or again, is it infallibly known?

 

Should we bring philosphy into the study of scripture? I don't believe that is wise. Many things of God would be considered "unreasonable". We have to take Him at His word. The world rest in philosophy, we rest in the Supernatural.

Can one be wrong concerning context? Of course, but I don't know why you want philosophy to be part of your doctrine building. I don't.

 

HP: Steaver you are either utilizing a philosophy to develop your theology, or you are building a theology by fallible means whether you desire to do so or want to admit it.

If you can be wrong about context, you just shot yourself and a lot of others in the foot by acting as if though your interpretation of the context must be accepted by others. If one is going to say they are the best shoe cobbler in town, they are going to have to produce some clear evidence to prove it. Beating on the pulpit proclaiming 'my context is better than your context' does cut the mustard.

So what truth will you use to prove your 'context' is in reality to truth? Personally, I will utilize God given universal first truths of reason whenever applicable. :thumbsup:

 

I use prayer, observe scripture with scripture, greek and hebrew, history and godly counsel from the body of Christ.

But your idea of a universal truth can be tainted without the Word of God to define those truths.

 

HP: Excellent. :thumbsup:
Quote:
HP: Personally, I will utilize God given universal first truths of reason whenever applicable

HP: If that was so, the heathen which have not the Scriptures could be held to no absolute standard. I believe Scripture is clear that they are. Besides, the truths I have mentioned are absolutely universally understood by all men of reason. Even those that deny such truths with their interpretation of Scripture live their lives daily in accordance to them. Again, without such irrefutable truths, how could the heathen possibly do the things contained in the law, and how could they ever be judged justly? What standard would be their just judge??

 

Thanks for your arrogant reply. It may come as a shock to you but the OSAS crowd does not have a monopoly on understanding being born again or the workings of the Holy Spirit.

And you left out something about my declaration--the most important part, that they journeyed to Point B and returned to Point A. You can deny this all day long, and I can deny that airplanes can fly because I refuse to look up.

 

Define born again for us.

Sorry, I meant point B not A, my mistake. They never became born of God.

 

DW, if I knew how to implement it I would throw down this challenge to you. Find a Hindu, Moslem, atheist [fill in the blank with your choice] who has never read the Bible, never heard it preached, never read about Christianity or never discussed Christianity with anyone else. Give him a New Testament to read, tell him to read it with common sense giving words and phrases their ordinary meaning, and when he is finished, pose this question: "Once a person is saved according to the doctrines taught in this book, is it possible for that person to ever lose his salvation so that he becomes unsaved?" There can be no doubt that the answer would be an emphatic yes.

 

HP:That is simply a distortion, with no connection to the truth as Zenas justly points out.