SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : losing your salvation?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 Next Page )
PosterThread
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1330


 Re:

Re 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

 2008/10/11 11:06Profile
bonni
Member



Joined: 2005/8/9
Posts: 100
montana usa

 Re:



TAKE HEED "BRETHREN", LEST THERE BE IN ANY OF YOU, AN EVIL HEART OF UNBELIEF, IN DEPARTING FROM THE LIVING GOD.




But exhort one another daily, while it is called To-Day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end.
HEBREWS 3;12-14

Blessings, bonni


_________________
Bonni

 2008/10/11 14:27Profile









 Re: 1 Woe

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.


Luke 13:34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

First, we must ask, what is meant by “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem?” Without taking into account the rest of the context of Matthew 23 or Luke 13, it looks as though Christ is addressing every person in Jerusalem. However, the context does not bare witness to this. Note that this “Jerusalem” is said to, ‘kill the prophets and stone those who are sent.’ Who are these that have done these atrocious crimes?

This is akin to the parable of Christ in Matthew 21:33-46. Here there is a landowner who is God (v. 33). The vineyard is the Kingdom of God (v. 43). The servants are the prophets which were beat, stoned, and killed (v. 35-36) by the tenants. The son of course is Jesus (v. 37-39). The tenants are the Jews opposed to the prophets and Jesus (v. 34-40). They murder the son as they mistreated the prophets of the past. The tenants have done these atrocious crimes.

The context of our text parallels this. Jesus begins with his own explanation, “The teachers of the law [scribes] and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” (Matt. 23:2 — the tenants). Then in verse 13 and following, Christ begins with the “woes” of the leaders of Jerusalem and ends with, “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matt. 23:33). Thus, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” refers to the leaders of Jerusalem (i.e. the tenants of Matt. 21).

Also, note in our two texts above that Jesus states he desires to have gathered the “children,” not the “Jerusalem.” It is not God’s elect resisting, rather it is the seed of the serpent (the leaders of Jerusalem, the tenants) waging war with God’s servants (Gen. 3; Rev. 12), whom Christ is gathering. Thus, this “Jerusalem” was preventing the children from being gathered at this time. It is these unregenerate ones that are resisting the proclamation of the Gospel because it is in their nature to do so (John 12:40; Romans 9:18; 11:7; Acts 7:51). How were they doing the preventing? By killing the prophets and stoning them, etc.! They even crucify the very Son of God!

In this passage, Jesus is wrapping up his final rebuke of judgment against the leaders (seed of the serpent) who opposed him (the seed of the woman). They were trying to keep the children of Jerusalem (chicks) from coming to salvation; but, as Matthew 23:38 states, their house will be left to them “desolate.” In other words, as much as the leaders of Jerusalem desire to prevent the elect of Israel from being gathered to Christ, he will gather them despite their resistance.

Thus, these verses prove the irresistibility of God’s grace and sovereignty rather than in any way challenging it.


Joe Nally

 2008/10/11 22:04









 Re: 2 Woe

Matthew 23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those that are sent unto her, how often would I have gathered thy children as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

John Gill Commentary: It is to be observed, that the persons whom Christ would have gathered, are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should, and be made proselytes to him, and come under his wings. It is not said, "how often would I have gathered you, and you would not!" nor, "I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not"; nor, "I would have gathered thy children, and they would not"; but, "how often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!" Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favour of free will. Had Christ expressed his desire to have gathered the heads of the people to him, the members of the Jewish sanhedrim, the civil and ecclesiastical rulers of the Jews: or had he signified how much he wished, and earnestly sought after, and attempted to gather Jerusalem, the children, the inhabitants of it in common, and neither of them would not; it would have carried some appearance of the doctrine of free will, and have seemed to have countenanced it, and have imputed the non-gathering of them to their own will: though had it been said, "they would not", instead of, "ye would not", it would only have furnished out a most sad instance of the perverseness of the will of man, which often opposes his temporal, as well as his spiritual good; and would rather show it to be a slave to that which is evil, than free to that which is good; and would be a proof of this, not in a single person only, but in a body of men.

The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend his ministry, as appears from the vast crowds, which, at different times and places, followed him; but the chief priests, and rulers, did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him, and their belief in him as the Messiah; by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by menacing the people with curses, and excommunications, making a law, that whoever confessed him should be turned out of the synagogue. So that the plain meaning of the text is the same with that of Matt. 23:13 and consequently is no proof of men's resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God; but only shows what obstructions and discouragements were thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word.

In order to set aside, and overthrow the doctrine of grace, in election, and particular redemption, and effectual calling, it should be proved that Christ, as God, would have gathered, not Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of it only, but all mankind, even such as are not eventually saved, and that in a spiritual, saving way and manner, to himself; of which there is not the least intimation in this text: and in order to establish the resistibility of the grace of God, by the perverse will of man, so as to become of no effect; it should be shown that Christ would have savingly converted persons, and they would not be converted; and that he bestowed the same grace upon them, he does bestow on others, who are converted: whereas the sum of this passage lies in these few words, that Christ, as man, out of a compassionate regard for the people of the Jews, to whom, he was sent as the minister of the circumcision, would have gathered them together under his ministry, and have instructed them in the knowledge of himself, as the Messiah; which if they had only notionally received, would have secured them, as chickens under the hen, from impending judgments, which afterwards fell upon them; but their governors, and not they, would not; that is, would not suffer them to receive him, and embrace him as the Messiah. So that from the whole it appears, that this passage of Scripture, so much talked of by the Arminians, and so often cited by them, has nothing to do with the controversy about the doctrines of election and reprobation, particular redemption, efficacious grace in conversion, and the power of man's free will. This observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage, in favour of free will.

 2008/10/11 22:11
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1330


 Re:

I don’t know you wisevirgin but assuming that you’re born again.

Do you believe that you were at one time unregenerate?

Do you believe that you at one time had a dominate unregenerate nature that crucified Jesus?

 2008/10/11 22:21Profile









 Re: His Bride Eternally

The subject of this thread being 'losing your salvation', thus far the verses cited do nothing of the sort in their application as proof to that end.

This one taken from Rev. 2:5 is a very poor prooftext to attempt to divorce Christ and His Bride.

Will remove thy candlestick
"Thy" refers to the Angel of the church through whom the address is made. To remove the candlestick would be to suffer the church to cease to exist. How signally this has been fulfilled in the case of Ephesus is seen in the fact that not one vestige of the church remains, and of the city itself naught but mouldering ruins. What concerns us, however, is that this warning is addressed to every church which has lost its first love. Unless it repents, and does its first works, its candlestick will finally be removed from its place. (Vincent's Word Studies)

Will remove thy candlestick
“Its candlestick has been for centuries removed out of his place; the squalid Mohammedan village which is nearest to its site does not count one Christian in its insignificant population; its temple is a mass of shapeless ruins; its harbor is a reedy pool; the bittern booms amid its pestilent and stagnant marshes; and malaria and oblivion reign supreme over the place where the wealth of ancient civilization gathered around the scenes of its grossest superstitions and its most degraded sins” (Farrar, “Life and Work of Paul,” ii., 43, 44).

remove thy candlestick out of his place —
I will take away the Church from Ephesus and remove it elsewhere. “It is removal of the candlestick, not extinction of the candle, which is threatened here; judgment for some, but that very judgment the occasion of mercy for others. So it has been. The seat of the Church has been changed, but the Church itself survives. What the East has lost, the West has gained. One who lately visited Ephesus found only three Christians there, and these so ignorant as scarcely to have heard the names of St. Paul or St. John” [Trench].

 2008/10/11 22:39
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1330


 Re:

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Thought I would use one of your commentators this time.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
2 Thessalonians 2:10
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved; by the "truth" is meant either Christ the truth of types, the sum of promises, in whom the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are, and by whom grace and truth came; or the Gospel, often called truth, and the word of truth, it coming from the God of truth, has for its subject Christ the truth, is dictated and directed into by the spirit of truth, and contains nothing but truth: and by "the love" of it is meant, either the loveliness of it, for truth is an amiable, lovely thing, in its nature and use; or an affection for it, which there is, where true faith in it is, for faith works by love: there may be a flashy affection for the truths of the Gospel, where there is no true faith in Christ, or the root of the matter is not, as in the stony ground hearers; and there may be an historical faith in the doctrines of the Gospel, where the power of them is denied, and there is no true hearty love for them; and in these persons there is neither faith nor love; the truths of the Gospel are neither believed by them, nor are they affected with them, that so, they might be saved; for where there is true faith in the Gospel of Christ, and in Christ the substance of it, there is salvation; the reason therefore of these men's perishing is not the decree of God, nor even want of the means of grace, the revelation of the Gospel, but their rejection and contempt of it.


Notice even John Gill said here that it was their rejection of it.

 2008/10/11 22:59Profile









 Re: perishable or Imperishable

Note 'in them that perish' in this verse(2Th.2:10)you have placed before us.

Them that perish are distinguished from His sheep who are given eternal life and shall never perish.

Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt?If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. (John 10:24-29)

There is no dispute over whether or no men reject Christ. We know from Christ's own words that none can come to Him unless it were given them of His Father. And that all that were shall come to Him.

Men have none to blame but themselves if they perish and none to thank but God if they do not.

Again,the subject of this thread is 'losing your salvation'. The verse in 2 Thes. 2:10 has absolutely nothing to say regarding this subject.

I thoroughly enjoyed Gill's comments.

 2008/10/12 0:02
timewaster17
Member



Joined: 2011/1/22
Posts: 1


 Re:

I think he's saved.

I'm 100% sure I'm saved. I love God and really do want to live a life for Him but I regularly fall into temptation and give in to lust and masterbation and sometimes porn. I haven't lost my salvation by giving in to sin. If that were the case there would be hope for NO ONE. God does not make a list of which sins are worse and say if you do these sins, I won't accept you, but these others are forgivable. No he forgives ALL sin-all of your past, present, and future sins. My porn is no worse than someone else acting selfish in a different way. Both are in opposition to God. Both are sin. Both are forgiven. However one has a much higher consequence and cost. Porn destroys my closeness to God. It destroys my ability to look at a woman with Christ's love. It destroys my relationships with women and can even destroy marriages, etc. Consequences are higher for certain sins. Sounds like this guy definitely paid a higher consequence. But as hard as it is for us men to look and say oh he died drunk with a prostitute but God still accepts him, that's the truth. David was favored by God and made king. He lusted after Bathseba and had sex with her then killed her husband. God still loved him and still used him. But he paid a heavy price-his son absolam and that whole fiasco. So I don't think sins take away salvation. But they can have huge consequences and regardless of the sin, they all move us away from close intimate relationship from God which is not what we want.

 2011/1/22 18:01Profile









 Re:

I think one should ask themselves whether sin still bothers them? We all can say we struggled with sin, temptations and even bondage. But what do we do during those times? Do we give up or persevere? Do we desire to please the Lord? Especially after the fail! We rely to much on our emotions and feelings, if we let that rule our thoughts, we all will think we are unsaved or lost it.

 2011/1/22 20:49





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy