This is viewed as a false doctrine in many churches,but some passages in d bible seem to support dis.for instance,in john 10:28,jesus said no man can pluck any of his sheep 4rm his hand n they'll never perish.dis kinda implies dat they can never b lost once saved,dat they are eternally preserved by god.my denominatn opposes dis doctrine a lot but funny enuf,many xtian heroes dey admire were propagators of dis doctrine e.g C.H. Spurgeon.I'm beginning to accept calvinism myself;it appears to b supported by scripture.so,wat do y'all think?is eternal security true

Beretta92:

This is viewed as a false doctrine in many churches,but some passages in d bible seem to support dis.for instance,in john 10:28,jesus said no man can pluck any of his sheep 4rm his hand n they'll never perish.dis kinda implies dat they can never b lost once saved,dat they are eternally preserved by god.my denominatn opposes dis doctrine a lot but funny enuf,many xtian heroes dey admire were propagators of dis doctrine e.g C.H. Spurgeon.I'm beginning to accept calvinism myself;it appears to b supported by scripture.so,wat do y'all think?is eternal security true

Please embrace it, it is supported by scripture, however you view it. It is the old time religion.

@5solas,i really am beginning 2 embrace dis doctrine.it's so amazing hw i would have debated dis hotly a few yrs bck.i'v realizd dat d doctrine of eternal security isn't as black as it's been painted by many mainstream churches.surprisingly,my frwnd had already acceptd dis doctrine as scriptural b4 i ever told him i'd accepted it.my church fellas wud b flabbergastd by dis n mad at me,but i don't rily care what dey think.i think dat's d scriptural stance.by d way,frosbel,i'd rily luv 2 hear 4rm u on dis topic.

Beretta92:

@5solas,i really am beginning 2 embrace dis doctrine.it's so amazing hw i would have debated dis hotly a few yrs bck.i'v realizd dat d doctrine of eternal security isn't as black as it's been painted by many mainstream churches.surprisingly,my frwnd had already acceptd dis doctrine as scriptural b4 i ever told him i'd accepted it.my church fellas wud b flabbergastd by dis n mad at me,but i don't rily care what dey think.i think dat's d scriptural stance.by d way,frosbel,i'd rily luv 2 hear 4rm u on dis topic.

They are many good articles on the subject on the net, read them to get a better understanding of it. You can get some on these sites for starters-http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/hall.htm and http://sovereignpotter.com/.

Leave Frosbel alone, he can not help you on the subject, he is totally opposed to it.

What then happened with Judas, for example. Was he saved in or not?

Italo, have you come here? .

I am not happy with your spiritual family,they are the main probem of christiandom. They wont come in nor let others in.

italo:

What then happened with Judas, for example. Was he saved in or not?

Of course, he wasn't.

5solas:

Italo, have you come here?

I am not happy with your spiritual family,they are the main probem of christiandom. They wont come in nor let others in.

How do you know we are not getting into heaven? What do you mean by 'we are not letting others in'?. And how are we the main problem of Christendom? All your comments about us are simply driven by hate without reason. You don't have to be happy with us. There are about 35,000 christian 'shops' and millions of so-called 'non-denominational Christians' that you can be happy with.

And how could Judas not have been saved? He was an APOSTLE of Jesus for crying out loud.

@5solas,thank you!

italo:

How do you know we are not getting into heaven? What do you mean by 'we are not letting others in'?. And how are we the main problem of Christendom? All your comments about us are simply driven by hate without reason. You don't have to be happy with us. There are about 35,000 christian 'shops' and millions of so-called 'non-denominational Christians' that you can be happy with.

And how could Judas not have been saved? He was an APOSTLE of Jesus for crying out loud.

Hate, lie, liar; these are favourite words of yours, to be used reasonably or otherwise.

Beretta92:

@5solas,thank you!

My pleasure; waitng for testimonies .

Your penultimate post got me re-checking the dictionary, but I met no surprises. To 'hate' still means 'to dislike something intensely', to 'lie' still means 'to say something that is false' while a 'liar' is someone who does it. So these are not favourite words of mine; they appear, rather, to be 'favourite' attributes of yours.

How could Judas - an APOSTLE of Jesus - not have been saved? Who then is saved if an apostle isn't?

@italo,but he was said 2 b a thief even b4 he betrayd jesus n if am not mistaken, jesus called him d son of perditn in john 17.hw then could he have been genuinely saved since jesus said none of his sheep could b pluckd 4rm his hand or perish as seen in john 10??

No please! Don't start the usual muddling up of issues. What do you mean by 'genuinely saved' now? Is there anything like fake salvation? Salvation is salvation. Right?

My point is, Judas was saved by virtue of being an Apostle of Jesus, but he lost his salvation due to his own deeds. There's no "eternal security" for anyone.

Jesus called Judas "son of perdition" but he called Peter "satan". Does that mean that Peter was not saved too, but was damned because of Jesus' pronouncement? It was their deeds that determined what happened to them.

And no man plucked Judas out of Jesus' hands. It was Judas himself that threw away his priviledge.

italo:

No please! Don't start the usual muddling up of issues. What do you mean by 'genuinely saved' now? Is there anything like fake salvation? Salvation is salvation. Right?

If you consider the context, you will understand what he is trying to say.

italo:

My point is, Judas was saved by virtue of being an Apostle of Jesus, but he lost his salvation due to his own deeds. There's no "eternal security" for anyone.

You are a sucker for good works to be sure.
There’s eternal security for the believer, the elects, those given to Jesus and no man can pluck them out of His hands.

italo:

Jesus called Judas "son of perdition" but he called Peter "satan". Does that mean that Peter was not saved too, but was damned because of Jesus' pronouncement? It was their deeds that determined what happened to them.

The deed of Peter played no part in His justification.

italo:

And no man plucked Judas out of Jesus' hands. It was Judas himself that threw away his priviledge.

For a moment I thought you were going to add, ‘’It was Judas that plucked himself from Christ’ hands’’. Thankfully you did not, it would have been more ridiculous than yours above.

5solas:

There’s eternal security for the believer, the elects, those given to Jesus and no man can pluck them out of His hands.

So why did you say Judas - "the believer" - wasn't saved?

italo:

So why did you say Judas - "the believer" - wasn't saved?

Quite simply that Judas was not given to Jesus. He was not a believer.

Judas couldn't have been givn 2 jesus cos he perishd.jesus said none of his sheep can ever perish.in d case of judas n peter,i see a kinda predestinatn.jesus seemed 2 knw d fate of judas but didnt pray 4 him,he simply left him 2 his fate.in d case of peter,jesus both warned n prayd 4 him in order 2 avert eternal punishment 4 him.hence,he was preserved.

@italo,of course there's counterfeit salvatn.anything genuine has a fake.anybody who claims 2 b "born again" but stil lives in sin isn't truely saved,he only thinks he is.there's perseverance n continuance in true salvatn.again,hw could judas have been saved since he remained a thief?? Methinks he only had a form of godliness but denied its power.

5solas:

Quite simply that Judas was not given to Jesus. He was not a believer.

Beretta92:

Judas couldn't have been givn 2 jesus cos he perishd.jesus said none of his sheep can ever perish.in d case of judas n peter,i see a kinda predestinatn.jesus seemed 2 knw d fate of judas but didnt pray 4 him,he simply left him 2 his fate.in d case of peter,jesus both warned n prayd 4 him in order 2 avert eternal punishment 4 him.hence,he was preserved.

Here's proof that Judas was amongst those given to Jesus.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Matt 16:27 is yet another proof that every man will be judged by his works.

In Matt 10:22, Jesus is talking to the apostles (Judas inclusive). Why is he saying "he who endures to the end will be saved"? This means that it is possible for an apostle not to endure to the end - and that apostle will not be saved. . . Not because he was never a believer (a non-believer cannot be expected to endure), but because he didn't endure till the end.

If you think, because Jesus condemned Judas verbally, he couldn't do anything about his salvation, then look at Matt 10:32,33. Thats Peter being condemned and acknowledged at the same time. He denied Jesus and so should have been condemned, by your pattern of judgement; but he didn't despair, he picked up the pieces and moved on to a point where he was bold enough to confess Christ. Judas didn't do that. That's the difference.

In Matt 12:49,50, Jesus calls his disciples (including Judas) his mother and brothers. Those who do the will of the father. This is another proof that he was a believer (at least at first).

In Matt 18:8, Jesus is talking about believers (unbelievers cannot "enter life", right?), and he implies that the believer can be "cast into everlasting fire" if the sinful hands and feet are not cut off. This is proof that a believer can lose his salvation.

Even Thomas' disbelief shows that a believer can lose his salvation. If Jesus hadn't shown him the wounds, he most likely would have walked away an unbeliever.

Thank you.

@ italo,my attentn was also drawn 2 those passages after i made those posts above n i sincerely had no explanatn n i stil have none.but won't u agree with me dat some scriptural texts appear 2 support calvinism while some appear 2 support arminianism?Like i said earlier am only beginning 2 accept or consider calvinism.am not a calvinist yet but i could be.been arminian all my life but experiences in my live seem 2 affirm calvinism more.i really am in a dilemma.thanks all the same.merry xmas.

@ italo,my attentn was also drawn 2 those passages after i made those posts above n i sincerely had no explanatn n i stil have none.but won't u agree with me dat some scriptural texts appear 2 support calvinism while some appear 2 support arminianism?Like i said earlier am only beginning 2 accept or consider calvinism.am not a calvinist yet but i could be.been arminian all my life but experiences in my live seem 2 affirm calvinism more.i really am in a dilemma.thanks all the same.merry xmas.

@Beretta92,

Merry Christmas to you too. Wish you the peace, joy and love that only Christ can give.