Last week, I posted a clip from a sermon on Hebrews 6:1-12, “Going On To Maturity.” The clip shows the danger of apostasy as addressed by the Hebrews writer to his audience.
As you might imagine, I immediately began receiving emails saying that I taught false doctrine in this clip. The reason, according to the skeptic, that I had taught false doctrine was because I showed from the text the very real danger of apostasy. According to the Calvinist, there is no such thing as apostasy. That is, they do not believe that a Christian can fall away from the faith. If someone does seemingly fall away then, according to them, he was never really a Christian to begin with.
One of the emails I received stated:
The question must be asked. Did Jesus lie about our security? He makes it plain that all that the Father give Him, He would lose none (Jn. 6:38). The key word is “lose”.
John makes it plain that anyone who is born of God does not live in sin, because God’s seed remains in him and he cannot sin (1 Jn.3:9). If God’s seed remains in him how does the believer lose his/her salvation? The key word is “remain”.
I responded to this individual with the following invitation:
I would love to discuss this with you on my blog at bibleqna.com. Just select a post that exposes the false doctrine of once-saved-always-saved and post your comment there. Then, as we study this issue together, others interested in studying it can follow along and everyone can benefit from our discussion. A good place to start would probably be the “Calvinism” category. There are a couple of articles there exposing the once-saved-always-saved error.
I decided to just go ahead and start a new post specifically for this discussion. And I’ll start it off by answering the erroneous Calvinistic use of the two passages above (i.e. Jn. 6:38-39; 1 Jn. 3:9).
According to Calvinism, any verses that seem to indicate that a believer can be lost is really talking about those who were never really converted. Now, I address that in the video “Going On To Maturity,” and I hope you will watch it. However, the use of Jn. 6:38-39 in an attempt to demonstrate that a true believer cannot fall away is a severe misuse of that passage.
In this passage Jesus refers to himself as the bread of life (Jn. 6:35, 48, 51). As the bread of life, he is the source of spiritual nourishment that provides eternal life, just as physical bread provides nourishment for physical life. Jesus, in no whatsoever, gives the impression here that feeding on him, as the bread of life, is a one time act. Rather, he says that we must feed on his flesh and feed on his blood (Jn. 6:57). The word feeds in this verse is in the present active tense, indicating a continuing action. The Calvinist takes this passage and makes it mean that if you ate of Christ, the bread of life, at any time (past tense) then you will have eternal life from that one time act. However, as Christ describes himself as the bread of life and tells the people that they can have eternal life by feeding on him, he is referring to a continuing activity. Just like eating physical bread, if you stop eating, you stop receiving the physical nourishment. So with Christ, if we stop feeding on him then we stop receiving the spiritual nourishment he provides. When Christ says that he will loose none, he is referring to those who are actively feeding on him. It does not have under consideration at all those who stop feeding on him.
And what is it that is clearly identified as feeding on his flesh and blood? Notice, Christ is not talking about his physical flesh and blood but his words as the source of spiritual nourishment (Jn. 6:63). After many departed from him, being unable to accept this hard saying, Jesus asked the twelve if they would leave him also. Peter’s response shows his clear understanding of what Jesus had taught about being the bread of life. “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (Jn. 6:68). He understood that when Jesus was talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he was referring to feeding on his doctrine the same way one would feed on physical bread. As long as you keep eating you continue receiving the nourishment. We must take the doctrine of Christ in and “live on it” the same way our bodies rely on physical food!
This passage is clearly referring to those who are actively feeding on the doctrine of Christ. To say that this passage teaches the one-saved-always-saved error is to twist the Scriptures to your own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).
Then with 1 John 3:9, Calvinists actually have John contradicting himself. They say that John teaches a true child of cannot sin but in 1 John 1:8-9 John says that if “we” (i.e., Christians) say that we do not sin or that we have not sinned then we don’t know the truth. So, which is it? Do we or don’t we? Obviously, when John is talking the impossibility of a child of God sinning he is not talking about a literal impossibility. Rather, it is in reference to a practice of lifestyle. Notice, in 1 John 3:6, it is the one who abides in him that does not sin. Likewise, it is the one who practices righteousness the is righteous (1 Jn. 3:7). “He who sins” is the one who turns to a lifestyle of sin (1 Jn. 3:8). One who is born of God cannot be given to lifestyle of sin because then he would no longer be abiding in Christ. This whole passage is contrasting the lifestyle of a child of God to that of the lifestyle of the sinner. It teaches the impossibility of harmonizing a sinfull lifestyle with abiding in Chirst. It does not in any way teach that a person cannot change from one to the other. If this passage taught that a child of God could not cease abiding in Christ, then it would also teach that a sinner could never become a child of God. Clearly, the Calvinistic use of the passage is in error.
Jeff B says
Just wanted to note that there are over 2,500 references to falling away and losing one's salvation in the bible. With so many references it's quite remarkable that one could come to the conclusion of "Once saved-Always saved".
I personally like to use 2 John 8, "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought (worked for, NKJV), but that we receive a full reward."
I still have an issue with this doctrine. It is possible maybe I miss something , but I cannot see HOW a man can lose an eternal gift. Eph 4:30 tells us we are SEALED until the day of redemption. Paul said that HE being Christ who begun a good work will finish it! (Phil. 1:6) I do not see how one can lose this salvation. Much of the Hebrew letter , and I may be wrong , was dealing with JEWS and there continuation to want to keep the old way after coming to Christ. Hebrews 6:4-6 states, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” This is one of the Bible’s most difficult passages to interpret, but one thing is clear—it does not teach that we can lose our salvation. There are two valid ways of looking at these verses:
One interpretation holds that this passage is written not about Christians but about unbelievers who are convinced of the basic truths of the gospel but who have not placed their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. They are intellectually persuaded but spiritually uncommitted.
According to this interpretation, the phrase “once enlightened” (verse 4) refers to some level of instruction in biblical truth. However, understanding the words of scripture is not the same as being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. For example, John 1:9 describes Jesus, the “true Light,” giving light “to every man”; but this cannot mean the light of salvation, because not every man is saved. Through God’s sovereign power, every man has enough light to be held responsible. This light either leads to the complete acceptance of Jesus Christ or produces condemnation in those who reject such light. The people described in Hebrews 6:4-6 are of the latter group—unbelievers who have been exposed to God’s redemptive truth and perhaps have made a profession of faith, but have not exercised genuine saving faith.
This interpretation also sees the phrase “tasted the heavenly gift” (Hebrews 6:9) as referring to a momentary experience, akin to Jesus’ “tasting” death (Hebrews 2:9). This brief experience with the heavenly gift is not seen as equivalent to salvation; rather, it is likened to the second and third soils in Jesus’ parable (Matthew 13:3-23), which describes people who receive the truth of the gospel but are not truly saved.
Finally, this interpretation sees the “falling away” (Hebrews 6:6) as a reference to those who have tasted the truth but, not having come all the way to faith, fall away from even the revelation they have been given. The tasting of truth is not enough to keep them from falling away from it. They must come all the way to Christ in complete repentance and faith; otherwise, they in effect re-crucify Christ and treat Him contemptuously. Those who sin against Christ in such a way have no hope of restoration or forgiveness because they reject Him with full knowledge and conscious experience. They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with His enemies. It is impossible to renew such to repentance.
The other interpretation holds that this passage is written about Christians, and that the phrases “partakers of the Holy Ghost,” “enlightened,” and “tasted of the heavenly gift” are all descriptions of true believers.
Both of these interpretations support the security of the believer in Christ. The first interpretation presents unbelievers rejecting Christ and thereby losing their chance of salvation; the second interpretation presents the very idea of believers losing salvation as impossible. Many scriptures make it abundantly clear that salvation is eternal (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:35, 38-39; Philippians 1:6; 1 Peter 1:4-5), and Hebrews 6:4-6 confirms that doctrine. I just am not sure that I can see one who WAS in Christ , and now has LEFT him. If this is the case … then at which sin do we fall away ? ! I see baptism for remission of sins TOTALLY , and would even now go as far as to say I can agree , BUT wouldnt it mean that in order to get BACK into Christ once again we must be baptized again after falling away? and if so then wouldnt this be in contradiction to Paul in Eph. 4:4-5 ? many will say "Well , they WERE saved and begin living in sin …. well how do you know they ever WERE a born again Christian ? 1 John 2:4 tells us if we ARE then we will keep his commandments. Notice Judas, he always followed Christ and was a great help … for a while then he turned. So , I ask you … was Judas saved and fell away ? OR was he never saved at all yet was in th habit of doing the motions? I dont believe he was ever saved because the Bible says a demon spirit entered into him (Luke 22:3) and we know that were LIGHT (Jesus) is Satan cannot enter . This would be impossible. So , I have studied this , and I just dont think I can see apostasy as a threat to the believer. I appreciate the conversation and comment , and def would love to hear more on the issue. Thanks !
I cannot begin to tell you how happy I am over the progress you have made on the issue of baptism for the remission of sins. The reader may not be aware of the fact that the "questions" in the "Answering The Skeptic" series were from you. Well, I am overjoyed beyond words that you are no longer a skeptic of the biblical doctrine of baptism.
With that said, we still have some work to do.
I won't take the space here to repeat what has already been written in other places. Let me just remind the reader that the majority of Kyle's points here have already been answered in "God's Second Law of Pardon," "The Point Of No Return" and the lesson "Going On To Maturity," among other places on this blog.
While you are correct, Kyle, in that the Hebrews letter was written to Jews. You need to be more complete in your description of who it was written to. It was written to Jews who had been converted to Christ. The Hebrews writer repeatedly refers to his audience as those who were saved.
In Heb. 3:1, they are "holy brethren." How could people who were not saved be referred as "holy brethren"?
In Heb. 3:1, they are "partakers of the heavenly calling." The word "partakers" means "companions" or "sharers." The Hebrews writer is clearly writing to those who "share in" and are companions in the "like precious faith" (2 Pet. 1:1).
In Heb. 3:12, the warning is to "brethren," not to follow the example of the Israelites who died in the wilderness because of an "evil heart of unbelief." Were the children of Israel truly God's people or did just pretend that they were his people? As God's chosen people, was it possible for them to choose to rebel against God? Yes, that's the whole point of their example in Hebrews 2-3. Just as they failed to trust in God and fell in the wilderness, if a Christian turns from his trust and devotion to God he too will fall. The Hebrews writer is very clear that any failure to receive the eternal reward is a failure on the part of our faithfulness, not God's.
In Hebrews 10:19, these are "brethren" who are able to enter into the Holiest with full assurance that they have the authority to do so by the blood of Christ.
In Hebrews 13:22, these brethren are encouraged to be faithful in "the word of exhortation." This exhortation is the Hebrews letter that was written to encourage them to remain faithful to the doctrine of Christ and not be tempted to turn back to Judaism.
In Hebrews 13:23, these are the brethren of Timothy, the faithful Christian minister.
There is no way that one can come to any other conclusion than that the Hebrews letter was written to Christian to exhort them to remain faithful to Christ. What would be the point of such a letter if apostasy is an impossibility?
Even those who believe the false doctrine of once-saved-always-saved have had to admit that this passage is clearly talking about Christians. Notice this statement from Warren Wiersbe (a very popular Baptist writer and staunch believer in the once-saved-always-saved error):
So, what is Wiersbe's conclusion to Hebrews 6:4-6? He says it is a hypothetical situation that could never really happen! So, acknowledging that the passage is clearly talking about true believers, he must conclude that the Hebrews writer is talking about something that could never truly happen because Wiersbe says it can't happen. Um, sorry but I'm not willing to go along with someone who says the Hebrews writer was warning his audience against something that couldn't really happen to them anyway. How absurd!
All of the passages dealing with eternal security are in regard to God's ability to fulfill his promise, not our inability to uphold our end of the deal. Also, many of the spiritual security passages, wrongfully interpreted as once-saved-always-saved, are talking about some outside influence forcing us to be lost. No outside force can make us be lost. But that doesn't say anything about our ability to choose to stop following Christ. God has promised to save those who are faithful to His Son. There is nothing anyone can do to cause God to fail in His promise or to force us to be unfaithful to God. However, that says nothing about our ability to choose to give up that promise through apostasy.
Kyle, you must remember the bible always has a parallel passage if you are going to use for example Eph 4:30, there has to be another Script, that further enlightens that Script. How about Isaiah 63:10-17. The OT is for our learning did all of the that left Egypt see the promised land? No many were lost in the wilderness, if they can fall away who once believed why is it such a stretch to believe that we under the Christian/grace and true dispensation can also fall away. Does not the NT elude to this very fact in 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 and following. Once saved not always saved. If Adam the first man fell so can we. Did he not die two ways because of his transgression? I'm not saying he was forever lost. I don't read much more of him in the OT. We know for certain that many under the Mosaic dispensation lost their lives in their sin immediately. Aren't you glad we have a better covenant with better promises. However, that does not mean we cannot lose our salvation. Remember the OT is for our learning Rom 15:4, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
Thanks for the reply. I suppose my confusion has come because I have always been taught and even believed … that Hebrews (who we speculate may have been from Paul) was written to the Jews. See , many like to use the argument "It was to the Jews" to remove the weight of obligation of a command off themselves and that bothers me , and I dont want to be in that crowd. I have been presented many studies on the book and will def be looking into the subject deeper and with more studying. I do agree then that this book was written to Converted Jews or what we today would call messianic. With that being said then they are in Christ as us under the same instruction. I will definitely be studying more into the book and taking some time out for the subject. Thanks!
Just let me know of any questions you have regarding this issue and I will be happy to study through it with you. Hopefully, the person who challenged what I taught on YouTube will follow through with what they said and come here for an honest discussion. I'm sure such a discussion would be beneficial for your study of the issue.
Bible Q-n-A is all about studying God's word just for what it says. We must study Scripture without preconceptions and man-made doctrines to truly see what God teaches us in His word. So many times people study only to verify what they already believe. They get their doctrine from the Pastor on Sunday morning and then read the Bible through the lenses of what they have been taught, rather than searching the Scriptures to see whether what they have been taught is true (Acts 17:11). If the Bareans were commended for checking out the apostle Paul then we should check out the men we hear, including me, the more so. It is sad that so few people truly do that.
Richard Gagnon says
It is always a tragedy to deceive people in such a way that others are not able to see the full light of the Word in a proper perspective. Unfortunately, this is exactly what Norm did to Kyle, who, by the way, was right in the first place.
Norm used a very powerful and astute way to introduce his answer to Kyle. Let's look to how he replied to him.
No wonder Norm is "happy" and "overjoyed" to see the way Kyle progresses. Obviously Kyle was right in the first place and Norm was wrong. But as the "Chief of the blog" Norm has a great ascendancy over all on this website. No matter what he might say, this is a FACT, for those who are not solid enough to challenge his theological viewpoint. I tell you a secret. I am already expecting a reply from Norm or from others of the same opinions than his, to rebuke me or telling others that I am a false teacher. I would be surprised to read some blogs where Norm admitted that he was wrong and how he was challenged by others in the past!!! Probably such posts are few, if any.
As you can see, what a strategic way to introduce another false doctrine which says that a Christian might be lost once he was saved by Christ. Yet, Kyle had good points in his question, before being rebuked by Norm. For the purpose at hand let's think together about crucial facts.
1. What is the nature of God? To correctly understand the doctrine of salvation, one has to understand that.
2. What was the mission of Christ when he came on earth? Was it to save really and efficaciously or was it ONLY to make humankind savable? Norm will have to deal with that to be biblical.
3. Regarding the work of Christ, when he said that he was sent to make the will of his Father and this will was that he loose none (John 6:39), what would the final result be if ONLY one were lost? He would have failed his mission. Isn't it? Now, some will say that Judas Iscariot was lost before he died. Here, do not be deceived. Judas was one of the twelve, but Jesus had chosen him to fulfill a prophecy (Psa. 109:8; John 17:12). It is clear from the beginning that even if he was among the twelve, his heart was not with the Lord (John 6:64-71; 13:11; 18:8, 9).
I challenge Norm (or others) to make a solid case showing that salvation is loosable, once we are really saved, inhabited by the Holy Spirit.
Now, to come back on the false doctrine of the necessity to be baptized to be saved, I ask my reader to go back to the proper thread where this topic was discussed and read what I added recently. See it here (a post that Norm should accept since it is from his own website: http://bibleqna.com/baptism/the-necessity-of-wate…
To be continued (I hope)…
Jeff B. says
What about Annanias and Sapphira (Acts 5)? What about Demas (II Timothy 4:10; Philemon 24)? Were they saved? Did they lose their salvation when they sinned/turned back to the world?
Annanias and Sapphira were saved at one point because they were attempting to give a free-will offering, and it's only proper for members of the church to do so. Also, the only ones who are members of the church are those who are saved (Acts 2:27). They clearly lost thier salvation when they committed the sin of lying and were immediatly struck dead (Acts 5:5,10).
Demas was also saved at one point. Paul calls him and Marcus (Mark), Aristarchus, and Lucas (Luke) fellowlabourers (Philemon 24). Paul is clearly referring to being fellowlabourers in Christ. Demas was also mentioned by Paul in Colossians 4:14. Paul then said that Demas had "forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica" (II Timothy 4:10), showing that Demas had fallen away from the faith. However, whether or not Demas repented and regained his salvation is unknown.
As for some Old Testament examples, how about Ham the son of Noah? Was he not "saved" from the flood? Did he not become lost after his sin against his father (Genesis 9:21-27)?
What about the people of Israel at the foot of Mt Sinai after their Exodus from Egypt? Were they not "saved" after crossing the Red sea (Exodus 14-15)? Did they not lose their salvation after making the golden calf and worshipping it (Exodus 32)? Did not all but two individuals (Joshua, and I forget the other) from that incident die in the wilderness because of that sin?
These are buit just a few of the many examples of people losing their salvation in the Bible, there are over TWO THOUSAND more examples. I'm sorry Richard, but it is your doctrine, the doctrine of once-saved-always-saved that is false. The Bible makes that quite clear.
Jeff B. says
P.S. Acts 2:27 in the second paragraph of my previous post should be Acts 2:47.
Richard Gagnon says
Thank you for your good post. As for the questions you asked, I am very acquainted with them since they are almost always the same people have in mind to refute the security of believers.
Now, to begin with, we have to clear up one thing. Those who refuse to believe in the security of the believer, once saved, use the acronym OSAS (Once Saved, Always Saved). I would invite people to reject this notion for the very purpose that the doctrine of the security of the saints has greatly been ill-treated using this acronym. The reason is quite simple. Once saved, always saved is often interpreted as meaning that once a person is saved he/she is free to live the way he/she wants whereas this is not true. To be frank, this cannot be farther from the truth! However, having said that, it does not mean that salvation is loosable, once justified by God. Now, your questions.
You said: What about Ananias and Sapphira?
Some people think that these two fellows of the early Church were not really saved. Although there seems to be some debates about that, I would think that they were both actually real Christians. However, to say that they have been lost after their death is to see in the text what is simply no there. Here is what it really says:
"But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him. Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter answered her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?" She said, "Yes, for so much." Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things." (Acts 5:1-11)
Now, let us look at it in two possible perspectives. First, as you can see, this text does not say that Ananias and his wife were already real born-again Christians. Granted, they were among the community of believers, but that does not guarantee the salvation of anybody to be among other believers. We well know that people may hang around us without being saved at all. As a matter of fact, has Jesus not said that it was possible to be among the believers while being the tares among the wheat? (Mat. 13:24-30). Having said that, it just proves that we cannot say for sure that these two people were really saved to begin with. This is a possible interpretation of the text. To say that they were Christians just because
This argument is a very shaky ground to say the least! I would dare to label it as an argument of despair at best! A person does not prove his salvation because he is ready to participate in an offering of any kind. Churches are full of people who are not truly saved, yet giving their money when the offering plates pass before them. It would be hard to be farther from the truth to say that those who give are saved.
Second, the other option is to consider that Ananias and his wife were both truly saved. How should we handle the matter in such a case? By the way, I do believe that they were both saved. But, do I believe that they lost their salvation because they died after their common lies? Not at all. Here is how we should see the matter. We know that the Lord chastises all those he recognizes as his children (Heb. 12:6). More than that, the same text says that if anyone is exempted from the chastisement it is rather a proof that he is not saved (Heb. 12:8). Again, to be chastised does not necessarily mean that we must die, but there are some for whom it was the case, though (1 Cor. 11:30). Therefore, it is more than likely that Ananias and his wife were chastised by God as a proof that they were saved and God sent a powerful message to the rest of the community that it was not the time to play with the Lord, trying to cover some things. Rather than proving that they were not saved or that they lost their salvation it is more than likely a proof that they were saved and as a result of their sinful behaviour, they were punished on the spot by God to produce the fear of the Lord on the rest of the community, a thing that really happened immediately after (Acts 5:5, 11). Now, the case of Demas.
Demas was not necessarily a real born-again Christian just because he was a fellow-worker with Paul for a time. Now, he may have been truly saved as well. We do not simply know. Jeff B. gave the arguments that because he forsake Paul to go back into the world was a clear mark of his apostasy. Interestingly, Jeff admitted that we do not know if Demas repented afterwards. This is a very important point to keep in mind. The fact that the Bible does not tell us if he came back to the Lord is not a 100% proof that he never did. It would be, at best, an argument from silence; a thing we must always avoid to do in interpreting a text. But if we look elsewhere in the Bible, another passage from Jesus, it is very possible that he was a believer, but only for a season. The parabole of the sower tells us such a possibility. The second and third field represent those who believe, but for whatever reason they left down the road. As such, the second field shows us a person who left because of the high requirement of the Word (persecution or other things like that). The third field shows us a person who left for the pleasure of this world, the very thing for which Demas is described. But we must be clear that Jesus wanted to tell his disciples that out of the four fields, only the last represented the truly saved person. So, Demas might have been one case or another. Either he was a real Christian who repented later (a thing we cannot know for sure) or he was not a real Christian to begin with; and this, even though he served with Paul for a time. Do not forget that Jesus said that a truly born again Christian perseveres to the end. Salvation is not by works, but it must show works of faith as said James.
Now, as for the cases of the OT people, the situation does not apply at all. We must never forget that they lived under another economy. They were before the cross. The modality of salvation has always been by faith (just see Abraham), but the question of being stable in the walk is quite different since the death of Christ since from that moment on, the Holy Spirit is now living on the inside of the believer forever, a thing that was not in force within the OT saints.
The rest of Jeff's argument should be read through the lens of what is written above. This is 100% sure that the possibility of loosing one's salvation is a false doctrine. I pray God to convince people of that. This is a serious threat against the very person of God and the work of Christ to teach that salvation might be lost.
Those who use the acronym OSAS (Once Saved, Always Saved), should find another tactic to rebuke the doctrine of the security of salvation. And by the way, OSAS should never be used by any Christian because if biases the debate rather than to enlighten it.
You proved Norm's point with your argument by saying that the Scripture does not say Ananias and Sapphira were some how not as you put it, "real born again Christians." Then as Norm said those of the OSAS movement would do you did it again with Demas. He said that is what those would say and by golly you just proved him right, to your own scriptural demise. Of course Ananias and Sapphira were really born again Christians, how can you lie to the Holy Spirit if you do not possess it? Of course they lost their salvation did not Peter say they lied? Does the bible say, "ALL LIARS SHALL HAVE THEIR PART IN THE LAKE WHICH BURNETH WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE REV 21:7-9. Did they Ananias and Sapphira lie? Now the point of Demas of course he too was a real born again Christian. Why do you think Paul call him a fellow laborer in Phil 1:24? Now whether he lost his salvation is in question I know Paul says he forsook him Paul having loved this present world 2 Tim 4:10, but we don't have quite enough info to say that he never repented. Remember Paul at one point had problems with Mark. Although I won't go beyond what we have in the bible. I can with all security in the scriptures and belief in Christ say that OSAS is a total falsity.
Richard, give us another acronym and we will use that instead. Of course we can use the OT as an example does not the bible say that it was written for our learning Rom 15:4. That is why Heb 8:6 says we have a better covenant with better promises. Because the OT had faults, God made a NT. Heb 9:11-15, And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. So you see it is proper to go to the OT and by doing so we can there to determine that the OSAS doctrine is false. The transgressions under the the OT does not mean that those who did not follow God's law will be saved. On the contrary it means that those who obeyed him will be saved. Why because under the OT there was NO forgiveness of sin, the priest had to make atonement year after year. Their sins just rolled forward, because the blood of bulls and goat could not take away sin. But the blood of Christ can. Those who died in disobedience under the OT will not be saints under the new. That is part of Paul's argument in Rom 2:11-29-3:1,2; and he is not just talking about the NT but both. If you cannot lose you salvation what is the wages of sin? Paul says it is death in Rom 6:20-23, and here he is talking the the saved. He is saying if you are saved and practice sin you will receive death as your wages. He says you WERE the servants of sin, having been freed from sin if you and you can continue therein death is the wages and he continues into chapter 7. He says Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. That is why he says in the next chapter Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. As long as you walk as he states your salvation is secure. Does that then not require that if you are a Christian and you stop this faithful walk you will be eternally lost? I think we should all note that if an ANGEL CAN FALL SO CAN WE. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. I don't know how many cursed things/angels will be in heaven. I know of one and his angels that were kicked out.
While a appreciate Mr. Gagnon’s additions to the various discussions found here, I stand in awe at the way in which men will discount the clear words of God, and artistically rearrange them in such as way that they appear to teach something totally different. The artistry is amazing, and if the Scriptures were subject to subjectivism, as is the interpretation of a painting, then we could all just paint with a broad brush any number of ideas concerning the Scriptures.
However it is not the case that we have carte blanche to add to, or subtract from God’s Word, nor to twist them into some excruciating mass of inaccuracies. Let it be known, that this is NOT a personal attack upon Mr. Gagnon himself, but on the doctrine, or should I stress – false doctrine that he holds so firmly to.
The subject is the false doctrine of “Once-saved-Always-saved” or “Eternal Security.” It matters not which is used, for they both lead to the same unsubstantiated conclusion. That once a person is purportedly saved, that they can NEVER lose their salvation. They can always depend upon a home in heaven, no matter what they may do while on earth. While we both agree that the “soul” of the individual is what is saved, proponents of the “Eternal Security” swindle believe and teach that the soul is unable to sin, once it is saved – ONLY the flesh sins. Please correct me if I misunderstand this point.
Several Baptist preachers have told me that they so believe in this doctrine, that they believe that they may with God’s approval, go out to a local bar, consume enough intoxicating alcohol to cause them to pass out, then upon waking up, they may walk across the street, pay for the services of a prostitute, then once leaving that prostitute, get hit by a car and killed, as still receive eternal life in heaven! Please, Please, show us by the Scriptures where such activity is allowed. I’m sure that those who teach this, will be able to take out of context, as well as leave out various passages in order to prove their case.
Mr. Gagnon focused his answer to Jeff B. on a very interesting twisting of the event revolving around Ananias and Sapphira.
It is HIS belief that their death does not prove the loss of salvation. In fact, he goes on to make the argument, and I quote: “….it is more than likely that Ananias and his wife were chastised by God as a PROOF that they were saved and God sent a powerful message to the rest of the community that it was not the time to play with the Lord, trying to cover some things.” (emp. Mine). If we are going to apply Mr. Gagnon’s logic here, that God will only chastise the saved as proof of their salvation, then what are we to believe about 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 or 1 Timothy 1:9-10 or Galatians 5:19-21? Please, Mr. Gagnon, show us the “EXCEPTION” in those passages! Paul clearly says that a person BOTH the saved and unsaved will be excluded from eternal life in heaven should they be found taking part in these activities as well as any that are similar!
Mr. Gagnon admitted that Ananias and his wife were BOTH saved – therefore, based on what the Bible teaches, they were BOTH lost!
It is sad, that men will fight God, twisting His word into every sort of abominable doctrines that are right in their own eyes, rather than obeying the simple and pure gospel that saves all.
We can exclude the OSAS (once saved always saved) acronym if that insults you, and only use the “Eternal Security” acronym, but in the end they are one and same thing. I don’t understand how one can bias a debate, and the other one not – when neither can be proved by God’s Word.
The problem with all the previous posts is this. People are so stuck to defend a false doctrine (the possibility of loosing one's salvation) that they are very quick to shoot on all that is contrary to their viewpoint. Now, I have a question for you. Show me crystal clear how the death of both Ananias and Sapphira is a 100% proof of their perdition?
I have noticed in my christian walk that alot of religions and doctrines do not fully utilize
the Finished work of Jesus Christ.
To me it is funny how they can except the idea of Adam's Disobedience bring the curse
of Sin and Death into the world, making everyone sinners,
18)Therefore as by the offence(Dsobedience)of one (ADAM) judgment came upon all men to condemnation,
They are not so willing to except the finished work of the Cross,
2 Corinthians 5: 21 For he (God) has made him(Jesus Christ) sin for us, (Jesus) who knew
no sin: that we might be made the righteousnes of God in Him (Jesus)
This is the second half of Romans 5:18, Even so by the righteousnes of one(Jesus) The Free Gift (GRACE) and Free Gift of Righteouness came upon all men unto justification of life.
19) For as by one man's (ADAM'S) disobedience, all were made sinners, so by the obedience of one(Jesus Christ) shall many be made righteouss.
Because of Adam we were born into a prision of sin, we can not do anything to get out..
Does not matter what Denomination you are, how many days you attend church, how many
times you have read the bible. It is not what we do that saves us, it is what Jesus did on
God is offering anyone that unmerited, unearned, undeserved Free Gift of GRACE, and Righteousness, Through Jesus Christ….
For it is by Grace we are saved through faith; and not of yourself,it is THE GIFT OF GOD..
Now I am in the prision of rigteousness, there was nothing on my own I could do to get,
in, now there is nothing I can do to get out,
Jesus paid for All Sin, I don't think he missed one.. Past, present and future sin,
He is my High Priest,, God does not look at me to see if my sins are forgiven, he looks at the High Priest.. The Sin offering was good, The priest is alive at the right hand of God,
and I am still made righteous..
Hebrews 10:10 By the which (GOD's) will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jeus Christ ONCE AND FOR ALL..
God does not examine us to forgive our sins, Jesus became our sin, an paid for them on the Cross..
If you are saying If I sin I lose my salvation, You are making sin more powerful than God's
Galatians 5:4 Christ is of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are judged by the law, YE ARE FALLEN FROM GRACE..
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the Grace ofGod: for if righteouness comes by the law,
Then Christ died in vain…
You are not saved by works, and if you think you are, and you are under the LAW,
and Jesus is of no effect to you. you are fallen from grace,
richard gourd says
John 3:16 For god so love the WHOLE world he gave his one and only son that whoever Believes in him shall be saved and have EVERLASTING LIFE. DOES NOT EVERLASTING MEAN LASTINF FOREVER?????