Is it possible to renounce salvation?

[John81]

Hebrews 11 is a good read for this.

[2Tim215]

I am not denying that grace was part of it. But do you believe that the OT saints had eternal security? Were they eternally saved once off and unable to lose it? Or was it a works based salvation that needed continual sanctification by obeying the law and doing the sacrifices?

[trell]

I refuse to use the term "eternal security". It is not found in the Bible. I use eternal life, everlasting life. I think eternal security is a degradation of God's Word. The common thread in eternal life and everlasting life is life, not security.

Their being in the resurrection of the just is definitely based on their believing, and their works following suit.

[2Tim215]

I refuse to use the term "eternal security". It is not found in the Bible. I use eternal life, everlasting life. I think eternal security is a degradation of God's Word. The common thread in eternal life and everlasting life is life, not security.

Their being in the resurrection of the just is definitely based on their believing, and their works following suit.

I did a exact word search and looked up "Jesus loves you" and "Jesus saves" and would you guess it - it's not found in the bible but we use it all the time. Would you call these a degradation of God's Word and refuse to say them? Or is this a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water? Typical of most IFB's to find something and stick to it like a tick on a dog. The term "eternal security" means just that - secure in the eternal grace of God who has given us eternal life through the blood of His son Jesus Christ. Rapture is another term not found in the bible - do you refuse that too?

[heartstrings]

I refuse to use the term "eternal security". It is not found in the Bible. I use eternal life, everlasting life. I think eternal security is a degradation of God's Word. The common thread in eternal life and everlasting life is life, not security.

Their being in the resurrection of the just is definitely based on their believing, and their works following suit.

^{John 5:24} Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

The moment I first "believeth'ed" some twenty six years ago, according to Jesus, at that time I had the promise of "shall not come into condemnation".
So, my salvation does not depend on MY faithfulness to keep believing; it depends on the faithfulness and trustworthiness of the One who made the promise.

²⁵ Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

....and I, who was dead in trespasses abd sins, heard he voice of God through the power of His Holy Ghost and His Word and was QUICKENED......."quickened" means "made alive". Look at that verse 5:24 again now...it says I passed from death unto life. Salvation depends on the power of God, not us. Then look at that phrase in 5;24 which says "hath eternal life", that means I "hath" it right now......it means I posses it....today, even 26 years later. Edited May 5, 2012 by heartstrings

[JerryNumbers]

I refuse to use the term "eternal security". It is not found in the Bible. I use eternal life, everlasting life. I think eternal security is a degradation of God's Word. The common thread in eternal life and everlasting life is life, not security.

Their being in the resurrection of the just is definitely based on their believing, and their works following suit.

Playing with words, some get too caught up it that. Or maybe they don't understand.


Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

My friend, those verses, along with those that teach the Holy Spirit seals, teaches the security of the believer, or eternal security.

The world rapture is not in the bible either.


1Th 4:13 ¶ But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Th 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

But it can be called the rapture, & it will not change the meaning of theses verse.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

"Trinity" is not found in the Bible either. Does Trell also think 'trinity' is degrading?

[byhisstrength]

Neither is the word Bible, but I know it does not degrade God's Word.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

"Grandfather" is not found in God's Word either. What should I call my dad's dad?

[trell]

I didn't realize that my taking a stand on what God's Word actually says would be so contentious.

I believe God would actually use the words He wanted used in His Word. It is the same problem Roman Catholics have, as well as Pentecostals, and others. It is why new 'versions' are sought after. Not content with God's doctrine (or non-doctrine, as the case may be), some seek to add to, subtract from, alter, change, and otherwise assume their thoughts are better than Gods.

These remarks are not meant to incite or offend. They are, however, written so other brothers and sisters may consider whether or not to go by the words of God as put down in scripture, or words of man.

Heartstrings:
I have no problem with eternal life. Those are the words God used. God's words are good enough for me.

2Tim215:
No, I don't use rapture either. I use terms like coming and gathering together.



If, and I repeat IF, someone is going to support KJV (or any other version) ONLY, it would appear logical that the ONLY words and terms they would use would be in that version. If words and terms are used which are not found in the version they use, are they not, in fact, using a different version, whether written or verbal?

[trell]

Let us say I am an unbeliever (which some of you may well believe now), and someone is witnessing to me...

They tell me about eternal security. I say 'Show me'. They show me all those wonderful verses in God's word that Jerry shared. I say, 'But I don't see eternal security. Where is that? Can you show me those words?' They can't.

The same can be said for rapture. And trinity. And many others.

I am not quibbling over small things. This is not playing with words, or semantics. When we are talking about God's words, giving doctrine to people, should not we use God's words?

As for your Grandfather, Standing Firm...I am not suggesting in our speech we only use words found in the scriptures. I think I would just call him Grandfather.

[John81]

If the verses are shown and explained properly the fact that a believer is eternally secure in their salvation will be clear. If eternal life didn't mean ones salvation was secure then it wouldn't be eternal.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Ephesians 1:13-14 clearly shows eternal security. We are sealed UNTIL the day of redemption.

If we are not eternally secure, then Ephesians 1:13-14 is a lie.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

So, while the exact phrase "eternal security" is not found in the Bible, the doctrine most certainly is.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Standing Firm In Christ

[JerryNumbers]

"Grandfather" is not found in God's Word either. What should I call my dad's dad?

Right, plus, God will never have no grand children, only children, but Jesus has brothers & sisters, & its wonderful to have Him for your Brother.

[JerryNumbers]

I didn't realize that my taking a stand on what God's Word actually says would be so contentious.

I believe God would actually use the words He wanted used in His Word. It is the same problem Roman Catholics have, as well as Pentecostals, and others. It is why new 'versions' are sought after. Not content with God's doctrine (or non-doctrine, as the case may be), some seek to add to, subtract from, alter, change, and otherwise assume their thoughts are better than Gods.

These remarks are not meant to incite or offend. They are, however, written so other brothers and sisters may consider whether or not to go by the words of God as put down in scripture, or words of man.

Heartstrings:
I have no problem with eternal life. Those are the words God used. God's words are good enough for me.

2Tim215:
No, I don't use rapture either. I use terms like coming and gathering together.



If, and I repeat IF, someone is going to support KJV (or any other version) ONLY, it would appear logical that the ONLY words and terms they would use would be in that version. If words and terms are used which are not found in the version they use, are they not, in fact, using a different version, whether written or verbal?

These terms were used way before the MV's were written, so it has nothing to do with MV's.