09 Nov 08
Originally posted by whodeyi think that he was like king Saul, in that he started out to be good, but ended up bad, because clearly he was chosen by Christ and held a measure of responsibility, being entrusted with looking after money, i think that the scriptures state that he LATER betrayed Christ and TURNED traitor, Matthew 10;4, Luke 6;16, although the scriptures do indicate that Christ knew from the beginning the one that would betray him, John 6;64, but whether this means the actual person or in a general sense that someone would betray him as was evidenced in the Hebrew scriptures and the prophesies regarding his betrayal i cannot say, the latter seems more probable because of the initial texts above in that he turned bad and later betrayed Christ and was initially given responsibility.
Better yet, what of the disciple Judas? He walked with Jesus and seemed to do all "the right things" yet he fell. Do you think he truly believed or never did to begin with?
10 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell of course he went bad, but don't we all from time to time? What makes ones "badness" cause them to lose their salvation?
i think that he was like king Saul, in that he started out to be good, but ended up bad, because clearly he was chosen by Christ and held a measure of responsibility, being entrusted with looking after money, i think that the scriptures state that he LATER betrayed Christ and TURNED traitor, Matthew 10;4, Luke 6;16, although the scriptures do indica ...[text shortened]... ts above in that he turned bad and later betrayed Christ and was initially given responsibility.
As for myself, I view Judas like Saul in that they both had their own agenda. They then used God or anyone or anything else in their path to further this agenda and if God did not seem to go along with their agenda then they will do things without him.
As for Judas, I think perhaps he was one of the religious zealots who longed for Israel to be free from Roman occupation and bondage. It sounds noble, no? He then hooked up with Christ in the hopes that this charismatic figure who might bring about this independence. However, Christ began to teach a troubling message in which one should love their enemies and never seemed to talk about independence from Roman rule. Then to force the hand of Christ in an attempt to create a confrontation between Jesus and Roman rulers to help cause the followers of Jesus to want to rebel, Judas makes a deal in which he turns Jesus over to them. I don't think Judas ever dreamed that his betrayal would have led to the execution of Jesus. In fact, this is very evident since he killed himself shortly afterwards.
Having said all that, it appears that Judas had feeling for his former Master and followed him for a brief time, however, I don't think he believed in all that Christ stood for. In fact, I think Judas was disappointed in him in many ways because he was about his Fathers business instead of his own agenda.
Assuming this account is true, was Judas ever "good"?
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by whodeyactually i do not think that you are getting the point, which is, that God withdrew his spirit, especially in the case of Saul, whether they had a different agenda is neither here nor there, nor can be inferred from the scriptures. actually Judas was 'chosen', by Christ, not 'hooked up', and while your scenario is imaginative it elements can hardly be substantiated scripturally, and yes he was very well aware of the consequences for Christ. i do not mean to be rude, but have you actually read the account?
Well of course he went bad, but don't we all from time to time? What makes ones "badness" cause them to lose their salvation?
As for myself, I view Judas like Saul in that they both had their own agenda. They then used God or anyone or anything else in their path to further this agenda and if God did not seem to go along with their agenda then they will ...[text shortened]... ness instead of his own agenda.
Assuming this account is true, was Judas ever "good"?
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe idea is based on the thought of being born again in john3. Jesus taught that a man is born once already and to enter into heaven he must be born again to be in Gods family. this was not understood but a person can not be unborn either fleshly or spirituallly. its really aborn again Christian birthright to go to heaven because they are a member of Gods family.
please can any of the 'Christians state where this idea is in scripture, for i myself have searched for it, yet it remains elusive, furthermore it seems like a license for every type of debauchery and immorality imaginable, for if we are once saved and always saved, we can do what we like, right? regards Robbie.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by drdetroithow can this be because there were many members of gods family who renegaded and left the family, for example Satan and the demon hordes, they were sons of god who left the heavenly family! the Nephelim, pre flood angels who took on human form, also left gods family! perhaps its only 'born again', 'Christians', who cannot leave and who are once saved always saved, if so its pretty elitist, don't you think!
the idea is based on the thought of being born again in john3. Jesus taught that a man is born once already and to enter into heaven he must be born again to be in Gods family. this was not understood but a person can not be unborn either fleshly or spirituallly. its really aborn again Christian birthright to go to heaven because they are a member of Gods family.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHey Robbie? I read back over this thread again, and I'm curious.
how can this be because there were many members of gods family who renegaded and left the family, for example Satan and the demon hordes, they were sons of god who left the heavenly family! the Nephelim, pre flood angels who took on human form, also left gods family! perhaps its only 'born again', 'Christians', who cannot leave and who are once saved always saved, if so its pretty elitist, don't you think!
Did you see my reply on the first page to your initial post?
If you don't mind I'd like to hear your reply.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think it is possible for someone sealed in the Spirit to fall away and not be saved. St Paul pretty much said so. However, it's not something that is done easily. Judas for example must have made a conscious decision to betray who he knew to be the Son of God. I'm guessing he realised what he had done because he killed himself.
yes and god withdrew his spirit and in the case of the former, he became a son of destruction, so i would say therefore that it must be possible to be a recipient of holy spirit and for god to withdraw his spirit giving credence to that fact that once saved, not always saved!
God will stick by a believer through thick and thin once he has named them as his son. The Bible states that he adopts us as sons and that means his attitude towards us is like that of the forgiving Father towards the Prodigal Son.
So whilst it's true that we cannot say 100% that "once saved always saved" it's still a definite truth because salvation cannot be lost by accident or through misadventure , mistakes or taking wrong turns. It can only be lost by turning back and completely rejecting God all over again.
The prodigal son DID return , he made a complete mess of things and was in the wilderness , however, he still had the knowledge that he was his Father's son and returned repentant and with some vague knowledge that his Father would accept him and love him still.
I think this tells us something about what being sealed in the Spirit is in reality. It means that God will not withdraw his salvation lightly. It's only when the person renounces His love that he is in danger of being lost.
Robbie , I don't understand why you seem to want to undermine the idea of an assuring loving Father God who adopts his children and loves them unconditionally? What kind of god exactly do you revere?
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by knightmeister"sealed in the Spirit " - never heard that expression before. I'll bet that alone will draw the crowds and boost the bank account 🙂
I think it is possible for someone sealed in the Spirit to fall away and not be saved. St Paul pretty much said so. However, it's not something that is done easily. Judas for example must have made a conscious decision to betray who he knew to be the Son of God. I'm guessing he realised what he had done because he killed himself.
God will stick by ...[text shortened]... ts his children and loves them unconditionally? What kind of god exactly do you revere?
"we cannot say 100% that "once saved always saved" it's still a definite truth " - Now this one had me laughing.
I love these expressions KM. Are you a salesman or insurance agent by profession? Maybe a polititian.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by josephwactually i do no see how you can infer from the aforementioned text your assertion, for the following reasons, because the context clearly shows that paul was refering to certain dangers facing the collosian congregation, in that Jesus Christ’s perfect example and teachings do not have to be supplemented by human philosophies and traditions, for example in his letter to the Colossians, Paul developed this aspect when he wrote: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And, so you are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.”—Col. 2:8-10.
Colossians 2:10
"And ye are complete in Him,..."
The study of the doctrine concerning eternal security, in my opinion, can be sumed up in this verse.
The salvation that is now made available to us by what Chriat did on the cross on our behalf is a complete salvation. There's nothing more to be added to it or taken away from it.
When one has this ...[text shortened]... tally saved. Forever saved.
How else then would one be "complete" if one could lose it?
so quite clearly back in the first century, Christians were in danger of being led astray by the “elementary things of the world,” that is, the primary or fundamental principles of the world alienated from God. these elementary things included the unscriptural concepts of the Greeks,m (no offense here, business is business) and other non-Jewish peoples as well as the non-biblical traditional jewish teachings.(again no offense intended) on the surface, some of the philosophies and teachings may have seemed very plausible. They may have been accompanied by reasoning and argument that had a certain appeal to human thinking, however they lacked a solid foundation. These baseless teachings whether on doctrine, on human conduct, or as to how things should be done in the congregation were really as Paul described an 'empty deception.' so, there was good reason for christians to be on guard against becoming the prey of some false teacher and being turned aside from the way of the truth, this being the case it rather contradicts the idea of once saved always saved, because quite clearly the context of these words show that it was quite possible to lose ones standing, despite any modern pretensions to being once saved, always saved.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by knightmeister''Robbie , I don't understand why you seem to want to undermine the idea of an assuring loving Father God who adopts his children and loves them unconditionally? What kind of god exactly do you revere?[/b]''
I think it is possible for someone sealed in the Spirit to fall away and not be saved. St Paul pretty much said so. However, it's not something that is done easily. Judas for example must have made a conscious decision to betray who he knew to be the Son of God. I'm guessing he realised what he had done because he killed himself.
God will stick by ...[text shortened]... ts his children and loves them unconditionally? What kind of god exactly do you revere?
these are your words not mine, when did i say god was unloving?, when did i state that he loves us conditionally? if you want to believe what you believe then who am i to say otherwise, but it is not i who have to defend my stance in portraying god in a bad light, but you and others like you who will have us believe that a loving, merciful and kind heavenly father would keep someone alive eternally for the sole purpose of tormenting him in burning fire because they were born imperfect and made mistakes, so enough of your slander before i get serious, if you have anything to contribute to the argument then let it be heard but please desist from you're personal attacks, you might want to start by considering the concept of free will!
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm confused. Do you not believe in God then?
''Robbie , I don't understand why you seem to want to undermine the idea of an assuring loving Father God who adopts his children and loves them unconditionally? What kind of god exactly do you revere?''
these are your words not mine, when did i say god was unloving?, when did i state that he loves us conditionally? if you want to believe wha ...[text shortened]... you're personal attacks, you might want to start by considering the concept of free will![/b]
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by Rajk999Have you anything of substance to contribute to the debate? You have a go at this , have a go at that , anything but engage with the arguments.
"sealed in the Spirit " - never heard that expression before. I'll bet that alone will draw the crowds and boost the bank account 🙂
"we cannot say 100% that "once saved always saved" it's still a definite truth " - Now this one had me laughing.
I love these expressions KM. Are you a salesman or insurance agent by profession? Maybe a polititian.
Rather than pick apart the terminolgy I am using you would do better to have a good think about how you are making yourself look to others.
If your unconscious intention is to try and wind me up and thus distract from the truth then I'm on to you.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou are well aware of my take on 'OSAS' doctrine. which I have already discussed at length with several of your 'friends' on this site.
Have you anything of substance to contribute to the debate? You have a go at this , have a go at that , anything but engage with the arguments.
Rather than pick apart the terminolgy I am using you would do better to have a good think about how you are making yourself look to others.
If your unconscious intention is to try and wind me up and thus distract from the truth then I'm on to you.
Its the same story. You start off saying that its true and that NOBODY can loose their salvation and eventually change your minds.. ie its not 100%. In fact, if questioned properly youall will recant totally and agree that its ONLY CHRIST WHO KNOWS WHO ARE SAVED.
Youall are like a weak-minded false witnesses on the witness stand. Any decent laywer will make mince-meat of youall.