“How many of you believe you were saved before you had assurance of eternal life?” That is such a genius question to ask! Immediately reminded me of the song..”he’s making a list, checking it twice, he’s gonna find out who’s naughty or nice…’because Jesus has saved you IF YOU BE GOOD’… So many “christian’s” trying to earn the free gift of God.
I Had a born again experience at an assembly of God church and then I lived as a prodigal for about 20 years. Then came back to the church and it was almost like a born again again experience. I was taught before that I more or less had to maintain my salvation or remain in a state of grace I think I heard mentioned. what does that mean exactly? I study and read The Bible as much as I can but I also know that I am saved by faith; by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. In a way some of what I've heard almost feels like semantics to me. Please share what you think from this perspective that is taught. I truly want to not Struggle with thoughts of What I have heard about maintaining salvation. Thank you.
"Maintain a state of grace" ? The very concept is an oxymoron (contradiction) . The doubtless Guarantee of Everlasting Life alone sets the anchor in the water , forever : John 3:16 & Ephesians 2:8-9 . Or , Jesus lied to the little ones...which is as absurd as it is impossible .
3 things you have to understand are true. 1. The true definition of Believe/Belief. “To be fully convinced/fully persuaded that something is true.” This is the true definition of believe. Use it in reality when you ask a person if they believe you or not.. What you’d be asking them is “are you convinced that I’m telling you the truth or are you not convinced.” If they reply “Yes”..then they believe you. If they reply “No” then they don’t believe you. Sounds simple but most people think believe means something much more than just simply being convinced something is true and they think they have to add something to it like a strong emotion or desire or a better behavior. But believe is just being convinced that something is true. So settle that in your mind. 2. You must believe Jesus. That He is who He says He is. And to receive eternal life you must believe He is the giver of eternal life. 3. You must believe What eternal life is. The gift of God. Eternal life IS the Gift of God! Eternal Life IS the FREE Gift of God. It’s FREE. It CANNOT be earned. And it last ETERNAL. And you receive it the very split second moment you believe in Jesus for it. How do I know this? John 3:18 and 6:47 and 11:25-26 makes this all absolutely clear. Believe in Jesus for eternal life and you HAVE..RIGHT NOW AND FOREVER..Life Eternally.
Thank you for taking the time to simplify this subject! I have struggled with having assurance of my salvation much of my life primarily due to early teaching at my first church after a radical born-again experience at 18. I experienced a traumatically abusive childhood and the enemy has used those formative predispositions to wreak havoc in my mind. I also have a tendency to complicate things relating to a good experience or rewarding for myself. An expectation that anything good or enjoyable must necessarily come with conditions and be earned. Acceptance and praise as well as commendation have always been things that were conditional and had to be earned with work and approved sacrifice or suffering. Well that's enough psychoanalysis I think. I appreciate your contribution to my comment. And BTW, I have from my earliest memories never doubted who Jesus Christ was, the inerrancy of Scripture or the reality and identity of the God of the Bible; I just often struggled with assigning to myself, without condition such a beautiful, pure and inconceivable Truth that is The Gospel of Jesus Christ. May the Lord bless you and keep you...
Still trying to rap my head around this message. Questions: Why would he say only focus on the words of Jesus? When ALL of scripture is inspired by God.
Bob is talking about the context/subject matter of the passage. Specially the context is what Jesus..who is the giver of eternal life..is specifically saying about receiving eternal life and what exactly is required to receive eternal life. So it’s very important to look at the words Jesus specifically spoke about receiving eternal life. Once you understand how important you understand the recorded words of Jesus about receiving eternal life.. then all the other passages throughout the Bible will begin the fit.
All scripture is inspired by God, indeed. And it is equally valid to go to for example Paul's writings to see how he communicates the Gospel too. This idea that only Jesus' words in John (the book written that one might have eternal life) are valid for a Gospel presentation is false in my view. First, we are getting a Spirit inspired account of the Gospel in both John's writings and Paul's. So why would Paul's inspired description of the Gospel be any less valid? Second, Christ was speaking to an audience with a strong Old Testament understanding as a foundation to understand his statement about offering eternal life. John also primarily served this same group. But Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, who largely did not have this foundation of understanding. Therefore, he had to teach more so that accurate understanding of the Gospel could take place. (For example, I live in the jungle with an indigenous people. Before teaching through the Old Testament they would have only understood eternal life to be physical life forever. They also had/have corrupt beliefs in power words that have power to manipulate nature simply by speaking them. Without extensive foundational teaching similar to Paul's in the Areopagus in Acts 17 they would understand "Jesus gives eternal life" to be a power word (not a person) that would make them never die physically.) Finally, the Great Commission is not just to evangelize the world, but to make disciples. Justification/Being born again is the necessary beginning step on that journey. (To clarify, I'm saying discipleship/sanctification is the journey. But salvation/justification is the point in time event that begins this journey.) As such our goal should never be to communicate as little biblical truth as possible. For certain don't add antibiblical concepts like works to earn justification. But our goal is to clearly communicate biblical truth leading to one's salvation but also with a mind to their sanctification. So why are we trying to be minimalistic with the Gospel in the first place? Finally, it's above our pay grade to determine who has believed what and if it was enough. That's God's job. Our's is to as clearly and accurately communicate the truth and let the Spirit do the work in the lost person's heart/mind. For each person there is likely varying amounts of biblical truth that must be communicated for them to accurately understand the Gospel and be saved...such as my example of the folks I work with. How much exactly is needed (no more, no less) only God knows for certain. As such I err on the side of asking lots of questions to get an idea of the person's pre-understanding, asking God for wisdom in the moment, and filling in the gaps from the beginning so they have a greater likelihood of understanding who Jesus is, what eternal life is, why they don't already have it, etc.
@Alvin Fen But you seem to have failed to understand my point. I agree there is great stuff in John. But Jesus spoke to people with the entire Old Testament for their pre-understanding. As such, when He presented the Gospel He didn't need to teach about who God was, what sin was, the promised coming Savior etc. Paul persuaded Jews as well, but his primary ministry was to Gentiles with little to no Old Testament pre-understanding. So his presentation started at the beginning with who God was and His judgment for men as the foundation so they could even understand who Jesus was and what eternal life was. When God told Cornelius to send for Peter who would, "speak words to you by which you will be saved" Peter's message built on their limited knowledge of Christ by including, among other things, Christ's crucifixion and resurection. And his message ended with, "through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." And as Peter was speaking these words the Spirit fell upon the listeners. Why are we trying to boil down the Gospel to the simplest statement we can that presupposes the most pre-understanding of biblical truth (which includes a very small part of humanity), while disparaging a more detailed and BIBLICALLY TRUE Gospel presentation that assumes less biblical pre-understanding (which would include the majority of humanity)? An additional thought I have is this... If salvation is by grace through faith in the promise of God throughout the dispensations. And the promise changes/gains clarity as the dispensations progress. Why are we only allowing quotes of Jesus speaking during the Law Age before His offer of the Messianic Kingdom is finally rejected, and excluding the words of His disciples proclaiming the Gospel, including sin, Christ's crucufixion and resurrection, during the Church Age after the rejection of His Kingdom as a valid salvation message, especially when we have examples of that message actually leading to folks' salvation? To be clear, I agree that an acurate Gospel message naturally assumes eternal security, even if the new believer can't name or codify the doctrine (and may even come to doubt it later on because of exposure to false teaching). It would be better still if that security were explicitly stated to bring about more clarity for the eternal part of eternal life. My gripe is with disparaging Gospel presentations that include more biblical truth than just "Jesus offers eternal life", and being so narrow focused as to say that the words of Christ in the book of John are to be elevated to the exclusion of the rest of the New Testament. It is foolish to say, "John was the only book witten to unbelievers so they would believe." as justification to exclude the rest of Scripture. Other NT books contain a person's personal account of their evangelical ministry, or quote a beliver's words as they are literally evangelizing, in some cases those very words actually resulting in folks getting saved.
@Alvin Fen Saying I'm making this more difficult than it needs to be is not a rebuttal, it's evasion. Abraham (previous to the Law Age) was declared righteous after believing God's promise that he would have a child and offspring as numerous as the stars. So far as Scripture reveals, this promise did not include, "Jesus offers eternal life". Jesus (preaching during the Law Age and offering His Kingdom) could not include his crucifixion and resurrection as part of God's promise to believe for justification, while at the same time making a legitimate offer of His kingdom. In the Church Age, the apostles' Gospel message includes the crucifixion and resurrection. Even John's purpose statement for His Gospel, "...these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." comes only just after he has told of Christ's crucifixion and given proof of his resurrection. Why then would one contend that the core of the Gospel in the church age is not found in the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter & Paul as they proclaim Christ's crucifixion and resurrection in the Church Age, but rather only in the words of Christ, from the Gospel of John, during the Law Age? According to Church Age apostolic preaching of the Gospel the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ must be included. You must look at more than just the words of Christ under Law Age in the Gospel of John for a clear Church Age Gospel message. It seems we will not see eye to eye on this point so I will not argue further since that was not the purpose of my post. The point was that @Jo looks to the stars is asking a very valid and basic question. @Jo, you are right to desire to look at the entire revealed Word and question views that are developed with a narrow scope to the exclusion or deprecation of the rest of Scripture. I think the overall gist of his message is good in that a correct understanding of the Gospel results in at least an implicit understanding of eternal security. If not, then one's faith must be based in some part on man's work or faithfulness,which is not the Gospel. Where I wonder if the discussion got off the rails a little is in the question, "Who got saved before they believed in eternal security?" To declare that all who raised their hand were not saved when they thought they were is presumptuous. It could be that the Gospel message they believed did implicitly include eternal security. But at some later point not long after that they were influenced by bad doctrine that made them question their salvation and think it was conditional. This would not negate their justification but would impede their sanctification. Some may have believed as Bob characterized for sure. But many may have been answering that they were saved before they were confident in the codified doctrine of eternal security, i.e. settled in their heart and able to defend it against false teacher via the Word. Peace
Question #2: ok isn't it enough for a person to believe they are saved? Isn't that linked to eternally secure? It feels like we are creating more Christians baggage than a simple gospel. Help🙏😇
"Help" is indeed what His word gives in clarification of the message of Everlasting Life : John 1:12-13,3:1-18,4:10-14,5:24,6:28-47,11:23-27,20:31 ; Acts 16:31 ; 1 Timothy 1:16 . Apart from all behavioral performance (works) : Ephesians 2:8-9 ; Romans 3:20-5:11,11:6 ; Titus 3:5 ; Phillipians 3:9 ; book of Galatians . Doubtless assurance of Everlasting Life is of the essence of saving faith , being undeniably the content and object of belief that the Christ (Jesus) affirms . Not to have certainty of endless Life at the moment of belief in Him FOR it , is frankly impossible . It is to remain an unbeliever , by definition .
Salvation is 100% God. We add nothing to it. It's not 90% God and 10% humanity doing their 'part.' We are simply to 'receive' it. The Lord is 'salvation.' Examine the following verses to show the numerical amount of those who will ultimately 'receive' salvation. Jn.12:32; Rom.5:18,19;11:32,36; Col.1:20; 1Tim.4:10; 1 Cor.15:28
“Saved” from what? Salvation has at least 3 specific meanings throughout scripture and you have to understand the context and audience the salvation is for. 1.Salvation from the penalty of sin. 2.Salvation from the power of sin. 3.Salvation from the presence of sin. 1. By belief in Jesus for eternal life. 2. By abiding fellowship with Jesus. 3. By finally being in the actual presence of the Lord.
@Alvin Fen Always go to the last 'address.' All scripture is 'for' us but not all is 'to' us. The furthest in 'time' that the bible brings us is not Rev.22 but 1 Cor.15:28 where God will be All in all. I am not a 'Universalist' but a believer in the 'reconciliation of all'(Col.1:20; Phil.2 8-11.)A position I've held for 25 years and counting.Our great apostle Paul never in his 30 yrs of ministry ever taught 'eternal conscience torment' but just the opposite; 1 Tim 4:10. Show me one verse that does.
Me: "What do I need to do to be saved?" OSAS cheerleader: "You just need to believe in Christ and you will be saved once and for all." Me: "Great. I do believe in Christ. Am I saved?" OSAS cheerleader: "Well, it depends if you believe in OSAS." Your salvation does not depend on Christ alone anymore. It depends on your belief in OSAS. Glad that no Christian in the history of Christianity ever believed in any of this nonsense.
@alvinfen4511 I’m glad you recognize that “believing” in Jesus does not mean much unless you specify what exactly you need to believe about Jesus and about what Jesus said. This is a good starting point. To answer your question: Jesus promised eternal life to whoever believes in him. But again, this statement is vary vague if you don’t know what “believing in him” exactly means. Now osas cheerleaders claim that believing in him means that once you believe that Jesus can give you eternal life without you having to do anything, right there on the spot, you get eternal life, and there is nothing you can possibly do, not even the most hideous sin, to lose it: you will enter the kingdom of heaven for sure. This is of course a cheap, false gospel that contradicts entire books of the New Testament and that luckily enough no Christian ever professed in the past 2000 years (osas is a recent invention of North American evangelicals). Do you realize that according to this logic all Christians that lived in the past 2000 years would be damned because none of them believed in osas? Let me ask you a simple question: would you say that someone who believes in osas but does not obey Jesus’ commandment of loving your neighbor, has eternal life?
@alvinfen4511 you probably did not understand what I’m trying to say. Let me give another chance: does someone that hates his brother but believes in osas have eternal life? Yes or no?
@alvinfen4511 I asked an elementary question and you went off tangent. Let me try one last time: does somebody that hates his brother and believes in osas have eternal life? Yes or no?
@alvinfen4511 not sure why it is so hard to get a straight answer to such an elementary question. I honestly tried to understand what you were trying to say but at the end I found myself more confused than I was before and I still don’t understand if your answer is yes or no. Let me try to follow your thoughts. Let’s take a person that, as you say, is “born again” or a “believer”, whatever these terms may mean. This person, according to you, has eternal life. Now, my simple question is: is it possible for this person to spend his life hating his neighbor? I would appreciate a simple yes/no response. Then you can elaborate as much as you want.
Is Jesus "pedantic" about entering His endless Kingdom ? "Pedantic" is defined : "giving details and rules too much importance" (Macmillan Thesaurus). So , the answer - Biblically - is Yes ...and No . They got it half right ! Who exactly decides the "too much" part of that definition ? Jesus is undeniably clear , precise , and utterly specific that the only way to enter His Kingdom is to believe in Him for what He actually Guarantees - never ending Life as a free & unmerited gift : John 1:12-13,3:16,4:10-14,5:24,6:47,11:23-27) . "The way is narrow that leads to Life , and few there be who find it" (Matthew 7:13-14) . Apart from all attempts at Law/Rule Keeping (behavioral performance/works) : Ephesians 2:8-9 ; Romans 3:20-5:11,11:6 ; Titus 3:5 ; Phillipians 3:9 ; book of Galatians . Therefore , if anyone ever throws the little understood term "Pedantic" at you , consider it at least a half of a compliment !
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
“How many of you believe you were saved before you had assurance of eternal life?”
That is such a genius question to ask!
Immediately reminded me of the song..”he’s making a list, checking it twice, he’s gonna find out who’s naughty or nice…’because Jesus has saved you IF YOU BE GOOD’…
So many “christian’s” trying to earn the free gift of God.
I Had a born again experience at an assembly of God church and then I lived as a prodigal for about 20 years. Then came back to the church and it was almost like a born again again experience. I was taught before that I more or less had to maintain my salvation or remain in a state of grace I think I heard mentioned. what does that mean exactly? I study and read The Bible as much as I can but I also know that I am saved by faith; by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. In a way some of what I've heard almost feels like semantics to me. Please share what you think from this perspective that is taught. I truly want to not Struggle with thoughts of What I have heard about maintaining salvation. Thank you.
"Maintain a state of grace" ?
The very concept is an oxymoron (contradiction) .
The doubtless Guarantee of Everlasting Life alone sets the anchor in the water , forever : John 3:16 & Ephesians 2:8-9 .
Or , Jesus lied to the little ones...which is as absurd as it is impossible .
3 things you have to understand are true.
1. The true definition of Believe/Belief.
“To be fully convinced/fully persuaded that something is true.”
This is the true definition of believe.
Use it in reality when you ask a person if they believe you or not.. What you’d be asking them is “are you convinced that I’m telling you the truth or are you not convinced.” If they reply “Yes”..then they believe you. If they reply “No” then they don’t believe you.
Sounds simple but most people think believe means something much more than just simply being convinced something is true and they think they have to add something to it like a strong emotion or desire or a better behavior.
But believe is just being convinced that something is true. So settle that in your mind.
2. You must believe Jesus. That He is who He says He is. And to receive eternal life you must believe He is the giver of eternal life.
3. You must believe What eternal life is.
The gift of God. Eternal life IS the Gift of God! Eternal Life IS the FREE Gift of God. It’s FREE. It CANNOT be earned. And it last ETERNAL. And you receive it the very split second moment you believe in Jesus for it.
How do I know this?
John 3:18 and 6:47 and 11:25-26 makes this all absolutely clear.
Believe in Jesus for eternal life and you HAVE..RIGHT NOW AND FOREVER..Life Eternally.
Thank you for taking the time to simplify this subject! I have struggled with having assurance of my salvation much of my life primarily due to early teaching at my first church after a radical born-again experience at 18. I experienced a traumatically abusive childhood and the enemy has used those formative predispositions to wreak havoc in my mind. I also have a tendency to complicate things relating to a good experience or rewarding for myself. An expectation that anything good or enjoyable must necessarily come with conditions and be earned. Acceptance and praise as well as commendation have always been things that were conditional and had to be earned with work and approved sacrifice or suffering. Well that's enough psychoanalysis I think. I appreciate your contribution to my comment. And BTW, I have from my earliest memories never doubted who Jesus Christ was, the inerrancy of Scripture or the reality and identity of the God of the Bible; I just often struggled with assigning to myself, without condition such a beautiful, pure and inconceivable Truth that is The Gospel of Jesus Christ. May the Lord bless you and keep you...
Still trying to rap my head around this message.
Questions: Why would he say only focus on the words of Jesus? When ALL of scripture is inspired by God.
Bob is talking about the context/subject matter of the passage. Specially the context is what Jesus..who is the giver of eternal life..is specifically saying about receiving eternal life and what exactly is required to receive eternal life.
So it’s very important to look at the words Jesus specifically spoke about receiving eternal life.
Once you understand how important you understand the recorded words of Jesus about receiving eternal life.. then all the other passages throughout the Bible will begin the fit.
All scripture is inspired by God, indeed. And it is equally valid to go to for example Paul's writings to see how he communicates the Gospel too. This idea that only Jesus' words in John (the book written that one might have eternal life) are valid for a Gospel presentation is false in my view.
First, we are getting a Spirit inspired account of the Gospel in both John's writings and Paul's. So why would Paul's inspired description of the Gospel be any less valid?
Second, Christ was speaking to an audience with a strong Old Testament understanding as a foundation to understand his statement about offering eternal life. John also primarily served this same group. But Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, who largely did not have this foundation of understanding. Therefore, he had to teach more so that accurate understanding of the Gospel could take place. (For example, I live in the jungle with an indigenous people. Before teaching through the Old Testament they would have only understood eternal life to be physical life forever. They also had/have corrupt beliefs in power words that have power to manipulate nature simply by speaking them. Without extensive foundational teaching similar to Paul's in the Areopagus in Acts 17 they would understand "Jesus gives eternal life" to be a power word (not a person) that would make them never die physically.)
Finally, the Great Commission is not just to evangelize the world, but to make disciples. Justification/Being born again is the necessary beginning step on that journey. (To clarify, I'm saying discipleship/sanctification is the journey. But salvation/justification is the point in time event that begins this journey.) As such our goal should never be to communicate as little biblical truth as possible. For certain don't add antibiblical concepts like works to earn justification. But our goal is to clearly communicate biblical truth leading to one's salvation but also with a mind to their sanctification. So why are we trying to be minimalistic with the Gospel in the first place?
Finally, it's above our pay grade to determine who has believed what and if it was enough. That's God's job. Our's is to as clearly and accurately communicate the truth and let the Spirit do the work in the lost person's heart/mind. For each person there is likely varying amounts of biblical truth that must be communicated for them to accurately understand the Gospel and be saved...such as my example of the folks I work with. How much exactly is needed (no more, no less) only God knows for certain. As such I err on the side of asking lots of questions to get an idea of the person's pre-understanding, asking God for wisdom in the moment, and filling in the gaps from the beginning so they have a greater likelihood of understanding who Jesus is, what eternal life is, why they don't already have it, etc.
@Alvin Fen But you seem to have failed to understand my point. I agree there is great stuff in John. But Jesus spoke to people with the entire Old Testament for their pre-understanding. As such, when He presented the Gospel He didn't need to teach about who God was, what sin was, the promised coming Savior etc. Paul persuaded Jews as well, but his primary ministry was to Gentiles with little to no Old Testament pre-understanding. So his presentation started at the beginning with who God was and His judgment for men as the foundation so they could even understand who Jesus was and what eternal life was. When God told Cornelius to send for Peter who would, "speak words to you by which you will be saved" Peter's message built on their limited knowledge of Christ by including, among other things, Christ's crucifixion and resurection. And his message ended with, "through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." And as Peter was speaking these words the Spirit fell upon the listeners.
Why are we trying to boil down the Gospel to the simplest statement we can that presupposes the most pre-understanding of biblical truth (which includes a very small part of humanity), while disparaging a more detailed and BIBLICALLY TRUE Gospel presentation that assumes less biblical pre-understanding (which would include the majority of humanity)?
An additional thought I have is this... If salvation is by grace through faith in the promise of God throughout the dispensations. And the promise changes/gains clarity as the dispensations progress. Why are we only allowing quotes of Jesus speaking during the Law Age before His offer of the Messianic Kingdom is finally rejected, and excluding the words of His disciples proclaiming the Gospel, including sin, Christ's crucufixion and resurrection, during the Church Age after the rejection of His Kingdom as a valid salvation message, especially when we have examples of that message actually leading to folks' salvation?
To be clear, I agree that an acurate Gospel message naturally assumes eternal security, even if the new believer can't name or codify the doctrine (and may even come to doubt it later on because of exposure to false teaching). It would be better still if that security were explicitly stated to bring about more clarity for the eternal part of eternal life. My gripe is with disparaging Gospel presentations that include more biblical truth than just "Jesus offers eternal life", and being so narrow focused as to say that the words of Christ in the book of John are to be elevated to the exclusion of the rest of the New Testament. It is foolish to say, "John was the only book witten to unbelievers so they would believe." as justification to exclude the rest of Scripture. Other NT books contain a person's personal account of their evangelical ministry, or quote a beliver's words as they are literally evangelizing, in some cases those very words actually resulting in folks getting saved.
@Alvin Fen Saying I'm making this more difficult than it needs to be is not a rebuttal, it's evasion. Abraham (previous to the Law Age) was declared righteous after believing God's promise that he would have a child and offspring as numerous as the stars. So far as Scripture reveals, this promise did not include, "Jesus offers eternal life". Jesus (preaching during the Law Age and offering His Kingdom) could not include his crucifixion and resurrection as part of God's promise to believe for justification, while at the same time making a legitimate offer of His kingdom. In the Church Age, the apostles' Gospel message includes the crucifixion and resurrection. Even John's purpose statement for His Gospel, "...these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." comes only just after he has told of Christ's crucifixion and given proof of his resurrection. Why then would one contend that the core of the Gospel in the church age is not found in the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter & Paul as they proclaim Christ's crucifixion and resurrection in the Church Age, but rather only in the words of Christ, from the Gospel of John, during the Law Age?
According to Church Age apostolic preaching of the Gospel the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ must be included. You must look at more than just the words of Christ under Law Age in the Gospel of John for a clear Church Age Gospel message.
It seems we will not see eye to eye on this point so I will not argue further since that was not the purpose of my post. The point was that @Jo looks to the stars is asking a very valid and basic question. @Jo, you are right to desire to look at the entire revealed Word and question views that are developed with a narrow scope to the exclusion or deprecation of the rest of Scripture.
I think the overall gist of his message is good in that a correct understanding of the Gospel results in at least an implicit understanding of eternal security. If not, then one's faith must be based in some part on man's work or faithfulness,which is not the Gospel. Where I wonder if the discussion got off the rails a little is in the question, "Who got saved before they believed in eternal security?" To declare that all who raised their hand were not saved when they thought they were is presumptuous. It could be that the Gospel message they believed did implicitly include eternal security. But at some later point not long after that they were influenced by bad doctrine that made them question their salvation and think it was conditional. This would not negate their justification but would impede their sanctification. Some may have believed as Bob characterized for sure. But many may have been answering that they were saved before they were confident in the codified doctrine of eternal security, i.e. settled in their heart and able to defend it against false teacher via the Word.
Peace
Question #2: ok isn't it enough for a person to believe they are saved? Isn't that linked to eternally secure? It feels like we are creating more Christians baggage than a simple gospel. Help🙏😇
"Help" is indeed what His word gives in clarification of the message of Everlasting Life :
John 1:12-13,3:1-18,4:10-14,5:24,6:28-47,11:23-27,20:31 ; Acts 16:31 ; 1 Timothy 1:16 .
Apart from all behavioral performance (works) :
Ephesians 2:8-9 ; Romans 3:20-5:11,11:6 ; Titus 3:5 ; Phillipians 3:9 ; book of Galatians .
Doubtless assurance of Everlasting Life is of the essence of saving faith , being undeniably the content and object of belief that the Christ (Jesus) affirms .
Not to have certainty of endless Life at the moment of belief in Him FOR it , is frankly impossible .
It is to remain an unbeliever , by definition .
Salvation is 100% God. We add nothing to it. It's not 90% God and 10% humanity doing their 'part.' We are simply to 'receive' it. The Lord is 'salvation.' Examine the following verses to show the numerical amount of those who will ultimately 'receive' salvation. Jn.12:32; Rom.5:18,19;11:32,36; Col.1:20; 1Tim.4:10; 1 Cor.15:28
“Saved” from what?
Salvation has at least 3 specific meanings throughout scripture and you have to understand the context and audience the salvation is for.
1.Salvation from the penalty of sin.
2.Salvation from the power of sin.
3.Salvation from the presence of sin.
1. By belief in Jesus for eternal life.
2. By abiding fellowship with Jesus.
3. By finally being in the actual presence of the Lord.
@Alvin Fen And who's doing the 'Cherry picking' now Alvin ? Lol
Shame on you.
@Alvin Fen Always go to the last 'address.' All scripture is 'for' us but not all is 'to' us. The furthest in 'time' that the bible brings us is not Rev.22 but 1 Cor.15:28 where God will be All in all. I am not a 'Universalist' but a believer in the 'reconciliation of all'(Col.1:20; Phil.2 8-11.)A position I've held for 25 years and counting.Our great apostle Paul never in his 30 yrs of ministry ever taught 'eternal conscience torment' but just the opposite; 1 Tim 4:10.
Show me one verse that does.
Me: "What do I need to do to be saved?"
OSAS cheerleader: "You just need to believe in Christ and you will be saved once and for all."
Me: "Great. I do believe in Christ. Am I saved?"
OSAS cheerleader: "Well, it depends if you believe in OSAS."
Your salvation does not depend on Christ alone anymore. It depends on your belief in OSAS.
Glad that no Christian in the history of Christianity ever believed in any of this nonsense.
@alvinfen4511 I’m glad you recognize that “believing” in Jesus does not mean much unless you specify what exactly you need to believe about Jesus and about what Jesus said. This is a good starting point.
To answer your question: Jesus promised eternal life to whoever believes in him. But again, this statement is vary vague if you don’t know what “believing in him” exactly means.
Now osas cheerleaders claim that believing in him means that once you believe that Jesus can give you eternal life without you having to do anything, right there on the spot, you get eternal life, and there is nothing you can possibly do, not even the most hideous sin, to lose it: you will enter the kingdom of heaven for sure.
This is of course a cheap, false gospel that contradicts entire books of the New Testament and that luckily enough no Christian ever professed in the past 2000 years (osas is a recent invention of North American evangelicals). Do you realize that according to this logic all Christians that lived in the past 2000 years would be damned because none of them believed in osas?
Let me ask you a simple question: would you say that someone who believes in osas but does not obey Jesus’ commandment of loving your neighbor, has eternal life?
@alvinfen4511 you probably did not understand what I’m trying to say.
Let me give another chance: does someone that hates his brother but believes in osas have eternal life?
Yes or no?
@alvinfen4511 I asked an elementary question and you went off tangent.
Let me try one last time: does somebody that hates his brother and believes in osas have eternal life?
Yes or no?
@alvinfen4511 not sure why it is so hard to get a straight answer to such an elementary question.
I honestly tried to understand what you were trying to say but at the end I found myself more confused than I was before and I still don’t understand if your answer is yes or no.
Let me try to follow your thoughts. Let’s take a person that, as you say, is “born again” or a “believer”, whatever these terms may mean. This person, according to you, has eternal life.
Now, my simple question is: is it possible for this person to spend his life hating his neighbor?
I would appreciate a simple yes/no response. Then you can elaborate as much as you want.
Is Jesus "pedantic" about entering His endless Kingdom ?
"Pedantic" is defined :
"giving details and rules too much importance" (Macmillan Thesaurus).
So , the answer - Biblically - is Yes ...and No .
They got it half right ! Who exactly decides the "too much" part of that definition ?
Jesus is undeniably clear , precise , and utterly specific that the only way to enter His Kingdom is to believe in Him for what He actually Guarantees - never ending Life as a free & unmerited gift : John 1:12-13,3:16,4:10-14,5:24,6:47,11:23-27) .
"The way is narrow that leads to Life , and few there be who find it" (Matthew 7:13-14) .
Apart from all attempts at Law/Rule Keeping (behavioral performance/works) : Ephesians 2:8-9 ; Romans 3:20-5:11,11:6 ; Titus 3:5 ; Phillipians 3:9 ; book of Galatians .
Therefore , if anyone ever throws the little understood term "Pedantic" at you , consider it at least a half of a compliment !