₦airaland Forum

paxonel: don't misunderstand me, read it again. i didn't ask you to continue in sin, rather i quoted scritures explaining why you shouldn't commit sin, and also we are under grace, that we should take advantage of the grace because everybody commit sin, nobody is perfect
i didn't say everybody will make heaven o, heaven is for only christians, not everybody.
not everybody are in christianity do u know that?

but christ died for all. why wont everyone make heaven despite their sins?

rinrin23: Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for these men.

To be able to do what they do on such a large scale and remain unquestioned, and their follower base keeps increasing; its incredible really.

I admire their work, -from the pastors hustling on buses to the ones flying multimillion dollar jets.

they cant be questioned cos they did not force d money out of their customer's pocket. just allow them to be.

false prophets in sheep clothing all over d place. God help us to expose them.

rinrin23: This is why Nigerian pastors get away with all kinds of atrocities!

but they did nt steal from u na? did they come to your house to steal ur money?

should pastors be begging before? should pastors be poor?

pls do u believe dat someone who is obedient can turn and become rebellious and disobedience like satan when he rebelled against God and he was cast out?

paxonel: you commited a lot of fallacies in all the bible quotion you quoted which black men can never see because most of them lark quality education, by the way, do you know what fallacies are?

my friend u were d one who lacked quality education because u don't understand scriptures. i sympathize with u on dat.

paxonel: no it is not satan, when Paul was saying that the gift of salvation is free people thought it was too good to be true, so they thought he was saying people should go and comit sin and they begin to slander him
Romans 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
please don't slander me by saying it is satan. the free gift of salvation is not asking you to go and comit sin. Now that you know you are free it is expected that you avoid sin using your conscience, if you don't, you will suffer the consequence here on earth.
Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God..
Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
what if you sin (because you can not know it all to avoid sin all the time ) does it mean you have loose your salvation? God forbid!
yet you will be purnished here on earth, you will just die for nothing, ignorance is not an excuse.
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, o man...
(that is why education is very important on earth, and christians in Nigeria underate education a lot, look at the terrible standard of universities we have in Nigeria )
but on the other hand, when it come to salvation,(we are talking about spiritual things now, not on earth ) your sin has nothing to do with your salvation .sin is simply breaking the law (the 10 commandments ). for instance, thou shall not steal. if you steal. it is sin, thou shall not lie. if you lie, it is sin.
but when it comes to salvation we are justified by. faith without these laws
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
so, whether you sin or not (ofcourse you must sin because you are human? ) you are righteous through faith. It is God that judge, God don't see your sin anymore . when he looks down at you what he sees is Jesus Christ but in your mind you don't know (this is a spiritual thing, only spiritually minded people will understand )
if God choses not to see peoples sin by his mercies you can't force him to see their sin
your position is to be happy that God is merciful
it takes educated mind to understand these thing and because majority of nigerians are not educated they find it difficult to think and understand so we suffer a lot in Africa. no love, no mercy for the poor in Africa, no grace. because they still think God dont have grace for people so why should i be gracious to people ? they still think if you sin you will go to hell fire,
even most people who went to school, they are still irrational in this Africa, because our universities are faulty
that is why nigerians are still saying once saved is not always saved
but in developed countries white people don't think like that. majority of them are educated,they know the truth from the bible so things are better for them
i want to say all the churches in Africa (Nigeria especially ) has failed us
it is how to put fear in peoples mind they know and to collect money from them
they are afraid to preach the truth in the bible

u are only dragging us backward. so i can continue in sin after all when God look at me he will not see my sin but d blood of Jesus. is dat not what u are saying if i hear u correctly? whether we sin or not we would make heaven i.e everyone on earth will make heaven. is dis not what u are saying now? yes or no?

@vest.

In summary, there is not a shred of evidence in
the Bible to support the idea that Mary remained
a virgin and never had other children after giving
birth to Jesus. In fact, as we have seen, there is
much evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the
notion that had Mary remained a virgin even
though she was married to Joseph carries with it
the idea that it was somehow noble and beautiful
for this married woman to refrain from sexual
intercourse with her husband, that sex would
somehow have tainted her. This directly
contradicts the Bible's teaching that sex in
marriage is right and good and ought to be done.
Scripture only indicates that Mary and Joseph
refrained from sex until Jesus was born so as not
to put His paternity in question and so that the
Scripture would be fulfilled (Isaiah 7:14). But after
that, they conducted themselves as a normal
husband and wife, and Mary gave birth to the
brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the
Scriptures.

A Distorted View of Marriage
Something I want to point out here is that the
Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity
leads to a distorted view of sex in marriage.
Catholics maintain—without any biblical evidence
—that Mary herself was immaculately conceived
and remained without sin all her life. The idea
that she never had sex is a part of this doctrine.
However, the Bible shows that this view backfires
on itself. While sex outside of marriage is a sin,
within marriage, sexual relations are clearly
sanctified (Hebrews 13:4). Yet, the doctrine of
Mary's perpetual virginity intimates that sexual
intercourse with her husband would somehow
have defiled her, and that she is to be revered
because she remained a virgin. This makes a
mockery of God's institution of marriage. The sin
would have been in Mary's remaining a virgin (1
Corinthians 7:3-5).
By the way, the Bible never so much as hints at
other Catholic doctrines that Mary was born from
an immaculate conception, that she was sinless
at birth, or that she remained sinless. The Bible
tells us, "For all have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The only one
born of a woman who knew no sin was Jesus
Christ: "For he hath made him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin; that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21).
The truth is that Mary was a human being and
sinner like any other. To say otherwise is a denial
of the Bible's teaching of the total depravity of all
humans

Jesus' Brothers and Sisters
Toward the end of Matthew 13, we read that
Jesus went to Nazareth, where He was brought
up, and spoke in the synagogue. The townspeople,
who all knew Him and His family well, said, "Is
not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses,
and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they
not all with us? Whence then hath this man all
these things?" (Matthew 13:55-56; see also Mark
6:3).
This seems clear enough. But the Roman Catholic
Church has this response: "Against this doctrine
the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible
mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The
Church has always understood these passages as
not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary.
In fact James and Joseph, 'brothers of Jesus',
are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ,
whom St. Matthew significantly calls 'the other
Mary'. They are close relations of Jesus,
according to an Old Testament
expression" (paragraph 500, Catechism of the
Catholic Church ).
John Gill also insists, " And his brethren ; not
strictly so, but either the sons of Joseph by a
former wife; or Mary's, or Joseph's brothers or
sisters sons, and so cousins to Christ; it being
usual with the Jews to call such, and even more
distant relations, brethren." Gill, following the
Catholic theologians on this matter, seems willing
to accept any other scenario but the most
obvious. Do these people name Jesus' uncles and
aunts? No. Why, then, should they name His
cousins? Are they not referring to Joseph, the
man they think of as Jesus' father (although
Jesus was really the Son of God), when they say,
"Is not this the carpenter's son?" Of course. Do
they not directly name Mary as Jesus' mother?
Yes. If they do this, even using the label "mother"
for Mary, it would be completely inconsistent to
use "brethren" to refer to Jesus' cousins. It is
plain that they are naming the members of his
immediate family. This is very strong evidence
against the Catholic position.
A Messianic Prophecy
Apparently John Gill and the Catholics have
forgotten or want to ignore the obvious wording
of the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:8-9: "I am
become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien
unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine
house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of
them that reproached thee are fallen upon me." In
his commentary on verse 8, Gill takes "brethren"
to mean the Jews in general and "also to such
who were still nearer akin to him, according to
the flesh." In commenting on "an alien unto my
mother's children," Gill points out that "alien" can
be taken as "Gentile" or "heathen," but completely
ignores "my mother's children." For this prophecy
to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, He had to have had
brethren, and His mother had to have had other
children. In fact, the Psalmist was simply using
the Hebraism of repeating something two different
ways when he said, "I am become a stranger
unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's
children," for, of course, these two phrases mean
exactly the same thing. Jesus' brethren were His
mother's children. This prophecy is devastating
evidence against the Catholic assertion that Mary
had no other children.
By the way, this also puts to rest Gill's
suggestion that the brothers of Jesus might be
the sons of Joseph by a former wife. They cannot
be so if they are, as the Psalm says, His
"mother's children."
Other Scriptures that refer directly to Jesus'
siblings are Matthew 12:46-49; Mark 3:31-34;
Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14;
1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19. Never once, in
all the references to these people, are they
referred to with the Greek word suggenēs , which
has the general meaning of "cousin" or
"kinsman." The word used is always adelphos,
"brother."

"
This meaning is seen in many Scriptures. For
example, in Matthew 2:13, 15, and 19-20, we
read, "And when they were departed, behold, the
angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream,
saying, Arise, and take the young child and his
mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there
until [heōs ] I bring thee word: for Herod will seek
the young child to destroy him…. And was there
until [heōs ] the death of Herod: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the
prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my
son…. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel
of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in
Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and
his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they
are dead which sought the young child's life."
Clearly, heōs in these verses means to do
something (flee to and stay in Egypt) up to a
given point (the reappearance of the angel upon
the death of Herod) and then stop doing that
(leave Egypt and go to Israel).
This meaning is found in dozens of Scriptures
referring to both time and place. I'll give a verse
where heōs is used of place: "And he [Jesus] led
them out as far as [ heōs ] to Bethany, and he
lifted up his hands, and blessed them" (Luke
24:50). Did Jesus lead them farther than
Bethany? No. The action of leading stopped at
Bethany.

@vest.

All of us are probably aware that the Catholic and
Orthodox churches believe and teach that Jesus
was the only child born to Mary. In 411,
Augustine wrote that Mary, "remained a virgin in
conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him,
a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at
her breast, always a virgin" ( Sermons 186, 1: PL
38, 999 as quoted in paragraph 510 of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church ). We might also
know that many Anglicans believe this. But we
might be surprised that some Protestants believe
this. In fact, Martin Luther, Huldrych (or Ulrich)
Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Calvin all
believed it. In his Commentary on Matthew ,
Calvin even called anyone who disagreed
"pigheaded and fatuous." Perhaps even more
surprising is that the eminent Baptist theologian,
John Gill, regularly waffled on this subject,
seeming to believe it by comments he made, but
never, as far as I know, making a clear statement
committing himself to it. Is there clear, biblical
proof one way or the other?
Jesus' Birth
The first Scriptural evidence is in Matthew 1:18:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child of the Holy Ghost." The Greek word
translated "before" is prin . It means "prior" or
"before." "Came together" is translated from
sunelthein, which means to convene. But it was
also used to mean to come together in marital
relations. So, in other words, before Joseph and
Mary had consummated their marriage, Mary was
found to be pregnant with a child from the Holy
Spirit.
Verses 24 and 25 are often cited by Catholics as
evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity: "Then
Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of
the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his
wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth
her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
The word "knew" is from the Greek word,
eginōskin . As Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament explains, this normal Greek
word for "knew" was used by Jews as an "idiom
for sexual intercourse between a man and a
woman." "Till" serves a very great purpose in this
verse. The Catholic argument is that the word
"till" or "until" ( heōs in the Greek) does not
necessarily mean that the action prior to the
point indicated (in this case, sexual abstinence)
does not continue afterward. In other words,
Joseph and Mary may not have ended their
sexual abstinence after Jesus' birth. They may
have continued to refrain from sexual intercourse
for the rest of their lives. Catholics say that this
is, in fact, what happened. John Gill takes a
similar position regarding the word "till": "Joseph
knew her not till she had brought forth, the
meaning is certain that he knew her not before.
But whether he afterwards did or not, is not so
manifest, nor is it a matter of any great
importance." Oh, but it is important when millions
of people who believe in Mary's perpetual
virginity venerate her and pray to her. Yes, it is
important that we find the truth of this matter.
As I said above, "till" is translated from heōs . It
is a conjunction that means "till" or "until."
According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary , eleventh edition, the conjunction
"until" means, "up to the time that: up to such
time as."

FringeWizard: I agree with the general sentiment here that one who is "saved" can be corrupted again and led to destruction but I don't buy into all the endless Christian nonsense.

if u dnt buy it, then stay in ur corner.

paxonel: i know, but you have not said anything

i have said a lot if u read my post.

paxonel: lol, I'll rather read Romans 6:10 which says
For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
and know that my salvation is just once and for all than to waste my time reading that rubbish up there
knowing that i am righteous, even though i am not perfect. because i am made righteous through Christ. not by my works
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
ahahaaha ahahh, I have overcomed satan by the word

so i'm now free to continue in sin. isn't it? satan is really using u to deceive people.

Rich4god: You of all people shld knw where I belong, jst dat I dont like peeps like you going abt bashing oda pples faith... You still didnt prove to me how you concluded that yours is the true spirit... Paxonel has quoted from the bible to bck up his claim... So whats your say...

if he read the post, he will not ignorantly quote those scriptures.

Rich4god: lol... @lazy christians... Me thinks its a foolish christian that will waste his time reading that trash you wrote up there... @paxonel... Dont even bother reading cos its a waste of time...

it is rather a foolish christian that will not read it.

paxonel: lol, I'll rather read Romans 6:10 which says
For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
and know that my salvation is just once and for all than to waste my time reading that rubbish up there
knowing that i am righteous, even though i am not perfect. because i am made righteous through Christ. not by my works
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
ahahaaha ahahh, I have overcomed satan by the word

my people perish for lack of knowledge. Hosea 4:6. read to avert the danger of being ignorant.

paxonel: lol, I'll rather read Romans 6:10 which says
For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
and know that my salvation is just once and for all than to waste my time reading that rubbish up there
knowing that i am righteous, even though i am not perfect. because i am made righteous through Christ. not by my works
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
ahahaaha ahahh, I have overcomed satan by the word

my people perish for lack of knowledge. Hosea 4:6.

Rich4god: Keep spewing trash... Prove to me how your spirit is the true spirit and how theirs is the lying spirit. Just one proof is all I need. Mind you, if you quote from the bible, they too will quote from the same bible to show that yours is a lying spirit. So am waiting.

pls dnt tell me u believe d crap of once saved always saved. i hv proved it from d post that it is a lie and nt consistent with d wholesome word of God. do u hv any contrary view?

@paxonel. pls devote tym 2 read all through. it will help to clear every doubt. d bible said u shud study to show urself approved unto God. dnt be a lazy christian.

Rich4god: And you think they dont have the spirit in them. How are you sure yours is the true spirit. Have you ever thought for ones if theirs is the true spirit and yours the false. They quote from same bible and virtually do everything that you do...

some dnt have d spirit of God in them. what they have is a lying spirit. mine is d truth because i have the spirit of God and he reveal d truth to me. once saved is always saved is a doctrine from d pit of hell.

Rich4god: How are you sure yours is the true faith... Considering the fact that they have biblical backing to this teaching...

the spirit of God in us will always confirm d truth. he always reveals the truth. did u know that Satan's agents have their own gospel which is false. and they also have scripture to back it up. they can tell u dat adultery is nt a sin and they will quote scriptures to back it up. we must be vigilant.

dragunov: another false teachings from these folks is the assumption that peter was the first pope. There was nothing like pope in jerusalem after the gospel started to spread. The favourite scripture these dudes use to confirm the popeship of peter is that in which jesus said: 'niether flesh or blood has revealed this......you are simon peter which means rock....... And upon this rock I will build my church....... Jesus was not refering to peter as the foundation of his church, but he was referring to the revelation that peter saw and uttered in reponse to jesus' question:who do you say I am. It is upon the revelation of christ that the church is built, not on any man or institution. Jesus was not endorsing the institutionalization of peter. He was basically referring to himself, the eternal rock. Rcc is false.

100% correct. those guys are so hardhearted and stubborn.

Rich4god: Ukutsgp... Allow peeps to practice their faith as it pleases them... Why do you have to bash them...

allow them to practise what is false that will take them to hell? i cant. christ embassy should stop preaching this evil doctrine.

God is no respecter of persons.
Romans 2:6-11 - God distinguishes the
saved from the lost "without respect of
persons" or partiality. If Jesus' death was
all there was to it, then He must save
everybody or else be a respecter of
person. Instead, there is a distinction on
the basis of our conduct - whether we
work evil or continue in doing good.
Acts 10:34,35 - God is no respecter of
persons, but those who fear Him and
work righteousness are accepted. True,
we cannot earn salvation. But there is a
way God distinguishes between those
who will be saved by His son's blood
from those who will not - our faith and
works.
When people claim that Jesus' death is all
there is to it and people do not need to
do anything to be saved, they
unknowingly make God a respecter of
persons.
If Jesus' blood saves by itself with no
conditions to be met, then why is faith
necessary?
In practice, everyone admits there are
some conditions necessary to be saved by
Jesus' blood. Most people admit we must
believe. Many agree we must repent and
confess Christ. (See John 3:16; 8:24; 2
Pet. 3:9; Rom. 10:9,10; 6:3,4; Acts 2:38;
22:16; Mark. 16:16; etc.) But these are
simply conditions we must meet to
receive the benefit of Jesus' death. To
admit this is to admit Jesus' death alone,
without conditions people must meet,
will not save.
But if we agree there are conditions
people must meet to be saved, then why
object when we point out from the
Scriptures that these necessary
conditions include baptism and a
faithful life? These no more deny the
power of Jesus' death than do faith,
repentance, etc.
If you can recognize faith, etc., as
necessary to salvation without denying
the importance of Jesus' death, then in
the same way we believe baptism and a
faithful life are also necessary without
denying the importance of Jesus' death.
The Bible expressly shows that there are
conditions children of God must meet to be
cleansed by Jesus' blood.
1 John 1:7-9 - Children of God do sin
(v8,10). To be cleansed by Jesus' blood,
we must "walk in the light" and "confess
our sins." To deny this is to deny the
clear teaching of Scripture.
Acts 8:22 - A child of God (v12,13) who
sinned was clearly told that, to be
cleansed of his sin, he must repent and
pray. It is Jesus' blood that forgives. But
just as there are conditions we must
meet to be cleansed and become a child
of God, so there are conditions we must
meet to be cleansed after we are
children of God.

The fact life is "eternal" does not prove
we cannot lose it. "Eternal" describes the
nature of the life. It has nothing to do
with whether it can or cannot be lost.
Example: Suppose someone offers me a
watch guaranteed to work for 50 years,
but I must do some task in order to
receive it. It is still a "50-year watch"
regardless of whether or not I do the job
and receive it.
These passages discuss the reward
believers will receive as a result of their
current state. But they are not discussing
what would happen if they change their
state.
The passages are not intended to discuss
everything about what can happen to a
child of God. They are written to help us
appreciate the blessings we have, or to
encourage people to become children of
God. But God does not put all His will in
a single verse or passage. We are
expected to study other Scripture. When
we do, we learn that we ultimately
receive the reward only if faithful. It is
misusing these verses to teach from them
something they do not necessarily mean
and which contradicts other passages.
Consider the consequences if we used
this reasoning on passages that describe
the lost . John 3:36 says unbelievers shall
not see life . Shall we conclude this too
cannot change (like people argue on the
first part of the verse)? If a person is
lost, does this prove he can never change
and be saved? "Once lost, always lost"?
[Cf. John 5:24; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26ff]
If we can see how unsaved people can
change their state and become saved,
despite such verses as this, then in the
same way we can understand how saved
people can change their state and
become lost.
This same approach works with most
other arguments for "once saved always
saved." Consistently applied to passages
about lost people, the same arguments
would prove "once lost, always lost."
Jesus' Blood Sacrifice Is Sufficient.
Some folks say that Jesus' death is all we
need to be saved. If we argue that there
are things we need to do to be saved,
including living a faithful life, they say
we are denying the power of Jesus'
death.
We agree Jesus' blood has the power to
cleanse all sin. But the question is
whether it cleanses conditionally or
unconditionally. We cannot earn
salvation, but are there conditions we
must meet to receive the forgiveness?
Jesus died for all people. If His death is all
we need, and people need do nothing at all,
then all would be saved.
1 Timothy 2:6 - Jesus gave His life a
ransom for all.
Hebrews 2:9 - By the grace of God, Jesus
tasted death for all men (the extent of
this is shown in v15).
John 3:16 - God gave His Son for the
world because of His love.
1 John 2:2 - Jesus is propitiation for the
sins, not just of Christians, but for the
whole world. [cf. I John 4:14]
Romans 5:18,19 - By Jesus' act of
righteousness (His death - v8,9),
justification came to all men.
If Jesus' death is "sufficient" and "all we
need," then why aren't all men saved,
since He died for all? But we know that
not all will be saved (Matt. 7:13,14; etc.).
So there must be something that
distinguishes the saved from the
unsaved. There are conditions we must
meet.

The Body Sins, but the Spirit Does Not
We are told that we may physically do
things that violate God's word, but He
does not hold our spirit accountable for
what the body does.
Those who teach this doctrine are obligated
to produce Scripture to prove it.
It is not enough to make the claim. They
must give Scripture.
Is the spirit responsible for the good
deeds of the body? If so, why not also for
the bad deeds?
If they cite Rom. 7:25 & 8:1, note 7:23
and 8:6-17 which show the man is
condemned for the sins of the body.
Many Scriptures show that God holds the
spirit (inner man) accountable for the sins
of the outer man.
1 Corinthians 6:9,10,13,15,18-20 -
Fornicators will not inherit the kingdom
of God. But this is a sin of the body. The
body is a member of Christ, a temple of
the Spirit, and belongs to God so it
should be used for His glory (this shows
the people addressed are children of
God, bought with a price, etc.). [cf.
3:16,17]
Mark 7:20-23 - Evil (done by the body)
proceeds from the heart and defiles a
man. [Prov. 23:7; 4:23]
2 Corinthians 5:10 - We will be judged
for deeds done in the body . Our spirits
will be held accountable for what the
body does.
Romans 6:12,16,23 - People who have
been baptized into Christ (v3,4) and
made free from sin (v18), must not let
sin reign in their mortal bodies. If we
do, we are servants of sin and must die
(v16,23).
1 Corinthians 9:27 - Paul buffeted his
body to bring it in subjection, let he be a
castaway.
Romans 8:13 - We must put to death the
deeds of the body in order to live.
Otherwise, we will die.
[2 Cor. 7:1; Rom. 12:1,2; Gal. 5:19-24;
Acts 8:20-22]
Passages that Say We Have Eternal Life
Numerous passages are cited which say
we have eternal life: John 10:28; 17:3;
5:24; 3:36; 6:47; 3:16; I John 5:12,13.
Some argue that, if we have it, and if it is
eternal, then we cannot lose it. If we do,
it wasn't eternal.
We have eternal life now only as a promise
or hope.
1 John 2:25 - This is the promise He has
promised us, even life eternal.
James 1:12 - The crown of life which the
Lord promised to those who love Him.
Titus 1:2; 3:7 - The hope of eternal life,
which God promised .
We receive eternal life, in the sense of a
present possession, only after earthly life is
over and then only if we endure faithfully
till life is over.
Luke 18:30 - We receive eternal life "in
the world to come."
Romans 2:5-7 - Eternal life will be given
at the judgment IF we continue patiently
in well doing. [This is the same time that
the wicked will receive eternal
punishment - Matt. 25:46. Does this
happen in this life?]
Revelation 2:10 - Be faithful until death
and receive the crown of life.
In this life, we "have" eternal life in the
sense of a promise or a hope based on
faith. But we actually enter eternal life
at the judgment if and only if we
continue living faithfully till life is over.
This is a conditional promise. We will be
lost if we fail to meet the conditions.
The proof texts, used to defend "present
possession" of eternal life, themselves state
conditions to be met.
John 5:24 - He who hears and believes .
But we have shown that one can cease
doing these.
John 6:47; 3:16,36 - He that believes . But
one can cease believing.
1 John 5:13 - V11,12 speak of those who
believe on the Son, and life is IN the Son.
But we can cease believing and fail to
abide in Him (John 15:1-.
John 10:27,28 - Hear Jesus' voice and
follow Him.
John 17:3 - Know God. But one can forget
God, turn from Him, and cease to know
Him (I John 2:3-6; Jer. 3:21,22; Psa.
9:17; 106;12,21,24).
Note also that saving faith requires
obedience, and to cease to obey is to
cease to have a saving faith - James
2:14-26; Heb. 10:39; chap. 11; Gal. 5:6;
etc.

We must take all the Bible says on any
subject (Matt. 4:6,7; Acts 3:22,23).
We have already shown many passages
showing that it is possible for a child of
God to sin. Many more verses, even in 1
John and addressed to these same people,
show this is true:
1 John 1:8,10 - If we say we don't sin,
we lie and truth is not in us. This is
exactly the condition of some folks who
argue for "once saved, always saved"!
1 John 2:1,2 - John wrote so we would
avoid sin. Jesus is our propitiation if we
do sin. If sin is impossible, why write,
and why would we need propitiation?
1 John 2:15-17 - Love not the world. If
we do, we don't love the Father (cf. I
Cor. 16:22). Why warn us, if it is
impossible to be guilty?
1 John 5:21 - Guard yourself from idols.
Why, if it is impossible to be guilty of
sin?
2 Peter 2:14 - Some children of God
(v1,15) " cannot cease from sin"! If I John
3:9 means children of God cannot
possibly commit sin, then this passage
means these children of God cannot
possibly quit sinning!
Clearly 1 John 3:9 does not mean sin is
impossible, else we have contradictions
in the Bible. In fact, many people who
believe "once saved, always saved," will
admit sin is possible (see quotes in
introduction).
"Does not sin" refers to persisting in the
practice of sin (see NASB).
A true child of God may occasionally
commit acts of sin, but he must repent,
confess, and be forgiven by Jesus' blood
(1:9; 2:2). He must not continue in the
practice of sin. Why not?
"God's seed abides" in the child of God.
The seed that begets us, so we become
children of God, is the word of God:
1 Peter 1:23-25 - We are begotten again
by the incorruptible seed which is the
Word of God.
James 1:18 - We are begotten by the
word of truth.
1 John 2:14,24 - The word of God, which
we heard, abides in us. [Luke 8:11ff; I
Cor. 4:15; I John 1:10; 2:5,7]
How does the this seed abide in us? Can
it cease abiding in us?
1 John 1:10 - If we say we do not sin, His
word is not in us . We may still know
what it says, but we have rejected it.
John 5:38 - If we do not believe Jesus,
God's word does not abide in us.
Acts 2:41 - Those who gladly received the
word were baptized. Receiving the word
requires believing and obeying it.
Otherwise we are rejecting it. (I Thess.
2:13)
To have the word abiding in us means to
have a receptive attitude toward it,
believing and obeying it, applying it in
our lives. If this is our attitude, 1 John
3:9 says we will not continue in the
practice of sin. Of course not, because to
do so would be to reject the word so it no
longer abides in us!
Note Psalms 119:11 - Your word I have
hidden in my heart, That I might not sin
against You! This is exactly what 1 John
3:9 says.
But can we cease believing the word,
studying it, and striving to live by it? We
have shown that we can. If we do, the
seed no longer abides in us, so we
practice sin.
"He cannot sin"
Does this mean it is humanly impossible
under any circumstances to transgress?
"Can" (Gk DUNAMAI) means: "to be able,
have power, whether by virtue of one's
own ability and resources, or of state of
mind, or through favorable
circumstances, or by permission of law
and custom" (Thayer).
Examples elsewhere show it does not
necessarily mean physical or human
impossibility, but rather that law, state
of mind, or circumstances do not allow
it:
1 Corinthians 10:21 - You cannot drink
the cup of the Lord and the cup of
demons (it is not lawful).
Acts 4:20 - We cannot but speak the
things we have seen and heard (law and
state of mind do not permit it).
Mark 2:19 - Sons of the bridechamber
cannot fast while the bridegroom is with
them (circumstances make it such that no
one would do it).
Hence 1 John 3:9 means that, when one
has accepted God's word into his heart
and so becomes a child of God, his
attitude and the principles of the word
will not allow him to continue practicing
sin. God's word (the seed) has become
the guiding principle of his heart, and it
would be inconsistent with this to
continue practicing sin.
For example, suppose an employer asks
a Christian employee to tell a lie. The
Christian replies, "I can't do a thing like
that." Is it physically impossible? No, but
it is completely contrary to his nature as
a child of God. As long as his attitude
toward God's word is right, he will not
do it.

Part 2: Evidence Offered to Show
that a Child of God Cannot So Sin
as to Be Lost
Folks are sometimes confused by
passages that are used to defend "once
saved, always saved." We need to
understand the arguments and how to
answer them. Some of these passages do
offer hope and security to believers, but
they are conditional passages, and these
conditions are often overlooked. If we
study the verses in light of what we have
already learned we will see that, while
they do give security to those who are
faithful, they do not teach unconditional
"once saved, always saved."
John 10:28,29 - "They shall never perish …
no one shall snatch them out of my hand"
This is a wonderful promise. But is it, as
the preacher said, so unconditional that
a person's soul cannot be lost no matter
how he lives?
The context gives conditions - v27,28.
Note the word "and " repeated. Receiving
life and never perishing are tied to
hearing Jesus and following him . These are
conditions, exactly like we have been
teaching.
As the Good Shepherd, Jesus protects His
sheep so no one can destroy them, as
long as the sheep hear Jesus and follow
Him. But what if they cease to hear and
follow, as we have learned elsewhere
they can do?
"Pluck" refers to an outside force.
"Pluck" (KJV) or "snatch" (NKJV, ASV)
means "to seize, carry off by
force" (Thayer), like the thief might do
(v10,12). Neither Satan nor any outside
force can steal you from the Lord, as
long as you meet the conditions.
But we must "resist the devil," and then
we have assurance he will flee from us
(James 4:7). What happens if, through
negligence or willful rebellion, we
wander away from the protection of
Jesus' fold?
Sheep can stray from the shepherd's
protection.
Luke 15:3-7 - 100 sheep belonged to the
shepherd (v4,6), but one became lost .
Acts 20:28-30 - Wolves may enter among
the flock, speak perverse things, and
draw away the disciples. They cannot
compel us to follow them and be lost. We
may still choose to follow the Lord's
voice. But false teachers can lure us,
attract us, and tempt us.
I Peter 5:8,9 - Satan is a roaring lion
seeking to devour us. If we do not
withstand him, he can capture and
destroy us. But we can withstand him if
we have faith and vigilance . This is what
Jesus promised in John 10. (John 17;
6:37-40; I Pet. 2:25).
If sheep cannot possibly stray, even of
their own free will, then this would deny
our free moral power to choose. We
could not become lost even if we wanted
to!
1 John 3:9 - One begotten of God "does not
sin … he cannot sin"

Acts 8:12-24 - Simon the Sorcerer
Simon believed and was baptized (v13).
This is what Jesus said one must do to be
saved (Mark 16:16). This is what the
other Samaritans did (v12). Simon did
"ALSO" the same things the others did. If
they were saved, he was saved. If he was
not saved, then none of the others were
saved.
But Simon later sinned. His heart was
not right (v21), he was guilty of
wickedness (v22), and was in the gall of
bitterness and the bond of iniquity
(v23). As a result, he would perish (v20)
if he did not repent and pray (v22).
Galatians 5:1-4 - The Judaizers
These people were children of God (3:26;
cf. 1:2-4; 4:6), who had been set free by
Christ (5:1). They had to be in grace if
they fell from it (5:4).
They sinned in that they desired to go
back to the Old Testament yoke of
bondage (5:1) and bound circumcision.
As a result, Christ profited them nothing
(v2), they were severed from Christ (v4),
fallen from grace (v4). They were not
obeying truth (v7).
These were children of God who were in
God's grace but then fell from that grace
so that Christ profited them nothing and
they were severed from Christ. Can one
receive eternal life if he is severed from
Christ (Eph. 1:3-7) and fallen from the
grace that saves (Eph. 2:?
"Once saved, always saved" is a tempting
doctrine because it is comforting.
It tells people what they would like to
hear. We would all like to think that,
even if we or our loved ones fall into sin,
they will still receive eternal life.
But it is a false doctrine because it
clearly contradicts Scriptures in nearly
every book of the Bible.
It is also a dangerous doctrine because it
leads people to think they are safe even
if they don't examine their lives, don't
study the Bible, and don't repent of sin.
Furthermore, it leads preachers to not
warn sinners that they need to repent.
I have personally known people who told
me of terrible sins they deliberately and
knowingly committed, justifying
themselves because they believed it
would not affect their salvation. I have
known teachers who justified those very
people saying that they would not have
lost their salvation even when committed
those sins.
Suppose a child is about to cross a busy
street. Shouldn't the parent warn the
child to look carefully for traffic before
they cross the street? People who
advocate "once saved, always saved" are
like a parent who not only does not warn
the child, but worse yet tells him there is
nothing to worry about because he can't
get hit, and if he does get hit, he won't
die!
Why should the child be warned?
Because there is a very real danger. And
the situation is most dangerous if the
child is not on guard. The worst thing
anyone can do to the child is to tell him
there is no danger. Yet that is exactly
what preachers do when they teach
"once saved, always saved." And this has
eternal consequences, because souls are
at stake.
Nevertheless, if the child is careful, he
can cross the street safely despite the
danger. So the best favor anyone can do
for the child is to warn him of the
danger, so he can avoid it. That is
exactly what we do when we preach the
Bible passages that warn Christians to
avoid sin. It is not that we believe
Christians have no security, but we know
people are only secure when they are
aware of the dangers, so they can be on
guard.