Grace is help not to sin.

[Ghada]

those already purchased and believing in the blood of Christ -

This is a good example of key words to look up for unconditionally secured salvation. 'Believing in the blood'. Many say this is the case, while also disobeying the Lamb.

to address that same post-conversion experience.

Double heartedness certainly can be post-conversion, but not in-conversion.

By repenting of sinning for Jesus' sake, we become post-unconverted. By returning to sinning for lust's sake, we make ourselves post-converted.

Only those walking after the Spirit, and not after the flesh, are in-conversion in Christ Jesus.

Paul had already rhetorically asked, "Shall we not then sin more so that grace might all the more abound?" and then argued an unequivocal "No!" (Romans 6).

True. While many unrepented sinners preach grace only as a cover for sinning without condemnation, some run-amok and even preach sinning more and more for greater covering of grace.

Even Christians sin.

Sure. Scripture shows that certainly is possible. It's common for Christians preaching a grace covering only, to also declare all Christians sin like themselves.

I believe they think there is safety in numbers, as though "everyone is doing it..."

They tell themselves that, because they think it justifies themselves doing it.

If they did not then there would be no need for further confession, repentance, forgiveness, or reconciliation among the saints.

True. If a Christian does sin, then we must also come to the advocate for the world in renewed repentance and reconciliation with God. All is not lost if a born son of God bastardizes the faith of Jesus, and sins with the devil.

And if we have sinned against a brother or sister, then we must be reconciled to them as well as with God. That also includes our neighbors.

 

[Ghada]

When Christians sin there is no condemnation.

Well, I was trying to go along with you with an open heart.

However, you don't really need to see anyone else teaching unconditionally secured salvation.

You do it good enough. I pretty much knew that, when you began preaching Romans 7 for life.

So, your demands to see others preach what you preach, was why? I knew by your increasingly accusative tone, that something else was afoot.


Josheb said:
Let's be clear: if no one actually teaches such a thing and you cannot provide evidence of anyone actually doing so then all the posts about people believing man's grace means "help in time of sinning not to be condemned for it," and eternal salvation is unconditional

So, let's look at your apparent contradiction. First you question the audacity of any Christian speaking of grace as help in time of sinning not to be condemned. And then you teach unconditional salvation of Christians are no more being condemned while sinning.

Do you just object to the use of grace to not be condemned while sinning. Does God have another means of not condemned Christians while sinning? Would that be by 'faith'?

God does not condemn Christians while sinning with the world, because He has respect to their faith? But He does condemn the world, because of their 'unbelief'?

There are consequences to sin (both temporal

True. The same for all them that sin. The 'morning after' is usually common. So is possible jail time.

and eternal, natural and divine) but condemnation is not one of those consequences.

Condemnation for disobeying God is first spiritual death, then natural corruption, and finally eternal damnation if not repented of.

Your doctrine of not being condemned with the world, while trespassing like the world, is of course at the very heart of unconditionally secured salvation, which is by man's grace to cover sinning without condemnation.

It's the standard unrepented sinners' gospel of being saved and justified by faith alone. Such unconditionally secured salvation, is 'doctrinally' set apart from how they are living at the time.


No such doctrinal exemption card from condemnation, stops God from judging everyone of us by our works.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man is sowing, that shall he also reap. For he that is sowing to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that is sowing to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

I am not sure how one man can help another man not be condemned when he sinned,

I believe it's called honor among thieves. Thieves don't condemn thieves, unless of course they thieve from one another.

but I do know it is well within God's ability to do so.

Which applies also the god of this world, that never condemns anyone for sinning against the true God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In fact, the only ones the devil condemns are those sinning against himself, by doing righteousness with God instead.

That's why he hates it so much, when for Jesus' sake any of his past sinners repent of lusting and sinning with him.

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Once we repent of dead works for Jesus' sake, Satan and his lust is cast out of our hearts and lives. And since our lives are but a puff of smoke on earth, then he knows he only has a short time in this life to tempt us back to his kingdom of darkness.

One of his most useful tools is the doctrine of unconditional eternal salvation, for those who want to believe they are no more condemned when sinning.

I mean, why daily resist the devil and fight against lusting and sinning, if we're no more condemned for it by being already secured with resurrection unto life?

Eat, drink, and be merry more or less, for tomorrow we die and go to heaven...

 

[Ghada]

You're referring to "easy believism", which, although I have come across it, is quite rare.

Never heard it. Must be the same as greasy grace.

Genuine faith in Jesus Christ results in good works.

True. And faith in Jesus Christ is nowhere in sinful works.

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

 

[Ghada]

How is that relevant to this supposed "unconditional eternal salvation" no one believes in, and you have not shown exists?

You can call it something else if you want.

It's what I call your doctrine of Christians not being condemned while sinning. It means being saved and justified by Christ, is not conditioned on walking uprightly with Christ.

 

[Ghada]

I did. I provided a link explaining UE and you're now pretending that did not happen and further pretending you don't know what was stated in that link.

Typical. When you claimed I had not explained something, I accepted you may have overlooked it, and so repeated it. Now you give me no such 'grace'.

But, I looked at it just now. Calvin's predetermination.

Resulting in unconditional election before ever born, and so unconditional salvation so long as believing it is so.

Which is why you say you are no more condemned while continuing to sin, because you believe it is not so.

OSAS does not teach "unconditional eternal salvation."

I normally label things as they are, not as others want them to appear to be.

Eternally secured salvation by faith alone, that is not conditioned on works we do, is unconditional eternal salvation. (By faith alone)

the misunderstanding are abusive to those who know the doctrine(s) correctly.

I know why you resort to talk of abuse, when it's just about your doctrine and nothing personal.

Because your conscience depends entirely upon your doctrine not condemning you, while sinning with the world.

If that is shaken, then you have no more doctrinal cover against being condemned with the world, while sinning with the world.

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Baseless criticism, red herrings, straw men, and feigned ignorance are ALL disrespectful.

You're telling me. Here I was trying to keep an open heart with your persistent demands. Just to see that were only smokescreens.

You know you don't need to see anyone else teaching your stuff. You do it fine all by your lonesome.

I haven't heard of it and you have yet to prove it exists.

First is using Romans 7 as an excuse to live double hearted for life, without condemnation.

And then sealed with claiming not to be condemned with the world, while sinning as the world.

So far what the posts show is that you have wrongly mixed-up UE and OSAS with "unconditional eternal salvation AND refused to heed the information provided showing they are not identical.

After learning UE is just a euphemism for Calvin's predertermination who will be saved or not, I could allow for some way to not have that translated into uncdiotionally saved forever.

However, since you preach being no more condemned forever while sinning with the condemned world, then that's not possible with you.

• 
  
• Unconditional Election is not identical to unconditional eternal salvation.

Inb your case it is. You can try calling it something else if you like.

However, why are you so enraged about a teaching, that you say does not exist? Because it applies to Christians who say they are not condemned for sinning the same as the world, while the world is condemned for sinning like you?

• The doctrine colloquially called "Once Saved Always Saved" is also not identical to unconditional eternal salvation.

It's what I call it. If it doesn't fit, show how. Just say OSAS is not about being unconditionally saved forever, once saved by faith, but is conditioned on walking justly and uprightly by faith...

• People who criticize others based on red herrings and straw men and repeatedly refuse to evidence their claims are self-evidently prima facie disrespectful, and when they do so knowingly that qualifies as deceit.

Disrespectful does not always equal deceit. Someone can be most honestly disrespectful. Like me. I completely disrespect not only your doctrine, but also your manner.

Scholarly words do not hide childish judgment.

Stop being lazy and prove someone actually believes in a thing called "unconditional eternal salvation."

You don't believe my name for it, but you certainly spotted the meaning of it right off. Which is why you deceitfully played games about it, rather than just say so.

ecause I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you that grace is power not to sin, help in times of temptation NOT to sin.

I understand. Which is why you must have another means for God to not condemn you like the world, when you are sinning with the world.

In any case, the results are the same: Unrepented man's grace is help to cover sinning from condemnation. God's grace is help to not sin with no condemnation.

That half of the op is correct. The rest is red herrings and straw men and you do not appear to understand that.

I can help you understand better so these mistakes do not recur and, if you'll let me, I'd like to try.


1 John 3:6
No one who remains in him sins continually; no one who sins continually has seen him or knows him.

It's time to stop the red herrings, straw men, conflation, and baseless claims.

It's just Bible. Take it up with the Lord God.

Do NOT repeat the above mistakes again.

NOT at all? NOT even once?

I'll continue to repeat the Bible as it rightly applies.

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Obey God.

Or what? Be condemned?

I thought Christians are not condemned for disobeying God?

I've seen this before among such Christians. They can hardly be taken seriously in their furious rebukes, since sinning and disobeying God isn't condemned by God.

I mean, it sort of lacks proper shassaz. It's more like little puff in sky, rather than storm warnings.

Turn this op into something useful so the lurkers might benefit.

Ok. Just for you.

Teaching grace to help not be condemned while sinning, is one of many supporting doctrines for unconditionally secured salvation.

If I had known that clarification was so important (since it's pretty much understood), then I suppose I would have included it in the first place.

In any case, the the object at this time is simply to show the main difference between the true God's grace of the Bible, and unrighteous man's grace of their own religion.

 

[Ghada]

Prove such a thing exists.
.

Only in the hearts and minds of unrepented sinful Christians, who declare themselves uncondemned, while sinning with the devil.

Now, you can prove you don't agree, by saying you are not converted, saved, nor justified in Christ Jesus, while you are sinning with the devil.

 

[Josheb]

Only in the hearts and minds of unrepented sinful Christians, who declare themselves uncondemned, while sinning with the devil.

Now, you can prove you don't agree, by saying you are not converted, saved, nor justified in Christ Jesus, while you are sinning with the devil.

I left the forum for a few hours. I returned to find six responses from you and, upon reading each of them, I find not a single one of them proves "unconditional eternal salvation is taught by anyone," and no acknowledgment it is something you invented without any evidence or proof.

You can call it something else if you want.

It's what I call your doctrine of Christians not being condemned while sinning. It means being saved and justified by Christ, is not conditioned on walking uprightly with Christ.

You can call it what you like but it is a myth, an invention of your own doing and one that is absolutely baseless in accusation and non-existent in reality. A simple Google search of the place of works in Calvinist or monergist soteriology will readily show Calvinists expect works to conform to one's profession of faith. Put simply, faith begets faithfulness. The notion works are not salient is wrong.

I asked you to either prove the claim or acknowledge the lack of proof. I asked you to turn this op into something useful.

Ok. Just for you. Teaching grace to help not be condemned while sinning, is one of many supporting doctrines for unconditionally secured salvation. If I had known that clarification was so important (since it's pretty much understood), then I suppose I would have included it in the first place. In any case, the the object at this time is simply to show the main difference between the true God's grace of the Bible, and unrighteous man's grace of their own religion.

You failed.

You did not prove someone actually teaches unconditional eternal salvation. Nor did you acknowledge the lack of proof. The entire op is a godless work of willful falsehood that could have easily been corrected in these two pages were there a will to do so. I leave you to the dross that is this op.

 

[Mr GLee]

It's what I call it. If it doesn't fit, show how. Just say OSAS is not about being unconditionally saved forever, once saved by faith, but is conditioned on walking justly and uprightly by faith...

Love has conditions Love is patient, Love is Kind, Love does not take into account etc . His love is unfailing not without conditions .

 

[Ghada]

I left the forum for a few hours. I returned to find six responses from you

I get to things when I have time. And when I'm on a roll with someone, I try to stick with it. I also break it up into parts to keep things focused point by point.

and, upon reading each of them, I find not a single one of them proves "unconditional eternal salvation is taught by anyone,"

Now, you can prove you don't agree, by saying you are not converted, saved, nor justified in Christ Jesus, while you are sinning with the devil.

I do try to accommodate. You say unconditional eternal salvation is not what you believe and teach. And so, I further clarify what it means. You can either agree or disagree with it. Or ask for more clarification.

 

[Ghada]

the place of works in Calvinist or monergist soteriology will readily show Calvinists expect works to conform to one's profession of faith.

I am fully aware of Calvin as a preacher of righteousness. But many have willfully used his false predeterminism as justification for continued unrighteous living, that they say is with no more condemnation.

Many today that claim His doctrine, would be banished by him for their continued sinful living. But, I believe that is the natural generational and degenerative result of teaching man's vain imaginations for doctrine of God.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

After all, if we are already chosen to be saved before the world began, then it's only natural to believe we are also already chosen for resurrection unto life as well.

How we live becomes an incidental glitch in between the two, but certainly nothing to upset the predetermined apple cart of God. I mean, what man has power to overturn God's predetermined will for their lives and resurrection?

This is why predeterminators also likely insert no free will of man. I'm not sure if Calvin also taught that one, but I am quite sure he never ever taught Christians sinning openly and not being condemned for it. Calvin would have whipped out of town any false teacher even suggesting such an ungodly thing.

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Put simply, faith begets faithfulness. The notion works are not salient is wrong.

True. Obedience begets obedience. This is why the newborn babes in Christ Jesus only grow by obedience, rather than bastardizing their sonship by disobedience.

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith of obedience, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

 

[Ghada]

Love has conditions Love is patient, Love is Kind, Love does not take into account etc . His love is unfailing not without conditions .

True. Definition of God's love is patience, kindness, etc...

It's the natural result of the one condition of love: to do good and not evil.

Repentance from dead works is the one condition of having saving faith toward God. The fruit of the Spirit is God's defined produce of grace to obey Him.

Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

Trying to produce spiritual fruit without first repenting of sinning, is the religious man's version of loving from an old heart of lust.

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

 

[Josheb]

I do try to accommodate.

Every single post in this thread proves otherwise.

I have repeatedly asked you to prove someone, anyone actually teaches something called "unconditional eternal salvation," and you have yet to "accommodate" that request.

You say unconditional eternal salvation is not what you believe and teach.

I did say that. I said it to evidence and prove Calvinists do not believe in unconditional eternal salvation, but that fact has not been accommodated.

And so, I further clarify what it means.

And I have further clarified to it to show many elements of Calvinist soteriology are incorrectly being confused and conflated with unconditional eternal salvation but not a word of it is being accommodated.

You can either agree or disagree with it.

I disagree with it.

Or ask for more clarification.

Prove to me someone actually teaches something called unconditional eternal salvation because no one in the entire history of Christianity has ever taught salvation was entirely unconditional. Not even John Calvin!

"........in my opinion the Apostle has employed the word hupopiazein here, to mean treating in a servile manner For he declares that he does not indulge self, but restrains his inclinations... take no concern for our flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. (Romans 13:14.) ...For what he says elsewhere (1 Timothy 4:8) always holds good -- that bodily exercise profiteth little. Let us, however, treat the body so as to make a slave of it, [519] that it may not, by its wantonness, keep us back from the duties of piety; and farther, that we may not indulge it, so as to occasion injury, or offense, to others. That, when I have preached to others Some explain these words in this way -- "Lest, after having taught others with propriety and faithfulness, I should incur the judgment of condemnation in the sight of God by a wicked life." But it will suit better to view this expression as referring to men, in this way -- "My life ought to be a kind of rule to others. Accordingly, I strive to conduct myself in such a manner, that my character and conduct may not be inconsistent with my doctrine, and that thus I may not, with great disgrace to myself, and a grievous occasion of offense to my brethren, neglect those things which I require from others." It may also be taken in connection with a preceding statement, (1 Corinthians 9:23,) in this way -- "Lest I should be defrauded of the gospel, of which others are partakers through means of my labors." (Calvin's commentary on 1 Corinthians 9)​

"For when we have learned, that the promises would be fruitless and unavailing, did not God accept us of His free goodness, without view to our works, and when having so learned, we, by faith, embrace the goodness thus offered in the gospel, the promises, with all their annexed conditions are fully accomplished. "​

"For absolution is conditional, allowing the sinner to trust that God is propitious to him, provided he sincerely seek expiation in the sacrifice of Christ, and accept of the grace offered to him."​

Calvin spoke of conditions more than 180 times in His "Institutes..." and he did so prodigiously throughout his commentaries. He wrote of them diversely in affirmation of them in some circumstances and repudiation of them in others. There is not a single word from you in this thread about Calvinist soteriology that is correct. Calvinism has been grossly misrepresented and false witness born. It's not okay. An effort has been made by me to correct those mistakes (and I assume they are mistakes and not lies posted with enmity intended to deceive). None of it has been accommodated.

Or ask for more clarification.

You can easily prove me wrong by simply proving someone actually teaches a thing called unconditional eternal salvation.

Do it now, please.

 

[Josheb]

True. Obedience begets obedience.

Then your entire op is refuted as far as Calvinism goes. Calvinism teaches that faith necessarily begets faithfulness, and it does so as a matter of condition. Calvinism is NOT an unconditional eternal salvation perspective. NOTHING in this op applies to Calvinism. Calvinism teaches the grace of God is help in time of temptation not to sin.

"Now God helps us in two ways, that we may not be overcome by the temptation; for he supplies us with strength, and he sets limits to the temptation. It is of the second of these ways that the Apostle here chiefly speaks. At the same time, he does not exclude the former -- that God alleviates temptations, that they may not overpower us by their weight. For he knows the measure of our power, which he has himself conferred. According to that, he regulates our temptations. The term temptation I take here as denoting, in a general way, everything that allures us." (Calvin's commentary on 1 Corinthians 10)​

Calvinism does NOT teach the grace of man is help in time of sinning not to be condemned for it. I do not know anyone who teaches that nonsense. I linked you to correct doctrine. I quoted Calvin speaking diversely about conditional aspects of salvation. I have asked for proof of some of the most base and basic claims made in this thread only to have those inquiries ignored. So, I ask you again to please....




Show me someone who teaches man's grace is help in time of sinning not to be condemned and prove to me anyone teaches something called unconditional eternal salvation.

 

[Josheb]

I am fully aware of Calvin as a preacher of righteousness.

That has yet to be evidenced.

But many have willfully used his false predeterminism as justification for continued unrighteous living, that they say is with no more condemnation.

Prove it.

Prove it now, please. Stop posting baseless claims. Show me one leading Calvinist teaching something called "unconditional eternal salvation." Show me any leading Calvinist teaching man's grace is relevant. Show me someone teaching man's grace is help not to be condemned when sinning. Show me someone using Calvinism to justify continued unrighteous living with no more condemnation. Show me any authoritative Calvinist document stating such things.


Do it now, please.

 

[Mr GLee]

Every single post in this thread proves otherwise.

I have repeatedly asked you to prove someone, anyone actually teaches something called "unconditional eternal salvation," and you have yet to "accommodate" that request

It's not unconditional salvation. The condition is they are elected from the foundation of the world.

It's the natural result of the one condition of love: to do good and not evil.

It's the supernatural (without beginning or end) work of the unseen Holy Father working in dying mankind.

The fruit of the Spirit is God's defined produce of grace to obey Him.

The fruit of the Holy Spirit produces a desire to do the will of God .God turns us to repent we do not turn the un-turnable .He is of one mind and always does what soever His soul pleases. "Let there be" and "it was the good" testimony God has spoken.

Job 23:13-16 But he is in one mind, and who can turn (cause to repent) him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him. For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me:

Ask yourself who makes your own heart soft?

 

[Josheb]

It's not unconditional salvation.

Take it up with the other poster; he's the one who says it is unconditional. He has stated that plainly and repeatedly, and it's been repetitiously posted in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

The condition is they are elected from the foundation of the world.

That is certainly one of many conditions upon which salvation is predicated but this op is about grace being help in times of sin versus some unsubstantiated notion man's grace avoids condemnation while sinning and the equally unsupported notion eternal salvation is unconditional. Various soteriologies place the conditions in various places in the ordo salutis, but I do not know of any pov that teaches salvation is wholly unconditional, and it does not look like any evidence or proof of such a belief will be posted.

 

[Mr GLee]

Take it up with the other poster; he's the one who says it is unconditional. He has stated that plainly and repeatedly, and it's been repetitiously posted in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

The one condition having been elected from the foundation of the world .

The word grace cannot be separated from salvation. Man has no grace as salvation to offer . He could offer mercy. Grace is the whole cost of salvation not a remnant .

 

[Josheb]

It's not unconditional salvation. The condition is they are elected from the foundation of the world.

The one condition having been elected from the foundation of the world.

Which is it? Is it unconditional, conditional, or only one condition?

If there is only one condition and that one single, solitary, lone condition existed before any of us was born then there is truth in the op: an elected person can live an unchanged life and sin MORE and more and more, worse and worse, and will still be saved.

Romans 6:1-2, 5-7
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? ....For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

No, we do not sin more so that more grace will come, and there are many conditions upon which salvation from sin and wrath are predicated. Most of them occur (as I believe you are trying to observe) on the divine end of salvation prior to conversion and that is where the op and I (along with you if I understand your posts correctly) part ways. He appears to hold to volitionalism and thinks salvation is predicated on the will and work of the still-sinfully dead and enslaved flesh, and upon that basis imagines he has sufficient reason to criticize and rag on monergists with red herrings and straw men.

He does not.

Election is certainly a condition of salvation and one that is wholly monergistic, wholly divine in origin, power, and result. But there are others. No one can be saved without first being justified. No one can be saved without also being regenerated or born anew from above (as John 3 puts it). There are many conditions upon which the finished outcome of salvation is predicated. Monergism does NOT teach humans do not have to do anything. I had this debate in regard to sanctification with @Carbon many threads ago and he posted a very commendable survey of Reform theologians proving the point: prior to conversion sanctification is monergistic and afterwards it is synergistic. Justification and other aspects of salvation have similar attributes. We are justified first by Jesus and monergistically so. Only after being converted does our faith justify anything. James was not writing to atheists, and he was not writing about atheists. Neither was Paul.

And that failure to correctly discriminate between "to" and "about" is one of the foundational and fundamental mistakes made in this op and the ensuing thread. No one actually teaches a man's grace can absolve anyone of condemnation and no one actually teaches anything that could remotely be called "unconditional eternal salvation." Those are both red herring for which the op has evidenced an inability and unwillingness to prove. Misunderstanding Unconditional Election so as to conflate it with unconditional eternal salvation results in a meaningless straw man. Perverting Once-Saved-Always-Saved to say it means unconditional eternal salvation is just as bad in method, just as failing in content, and just as much a straw man. Worst of all is the abject failure to address Romans 8:1.

Romans 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

I posted that four days ago (Post #13). That scripture is directly related to this op, and it's been sitting ignored by this op for four days.

There is NOW no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. All the epistles were written to those in Christ Jesus. None of them were written to anyone outside of those in Christ Jesus. Very little in those letters pertains to those outside of Christ Jesus. It is not man's grace that provides no more condemnation. It is God and God alone. Upon what is the "Therefore...." of Romans 8:1 predicated? Romans 7:25 = serving the law of God and not the law of sin. That is a condition. There are only two options: slave of sin or slave of righteousness. There is no third option of unfettered autonomy.

Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.

Pinning salvation on the strength of the still-sin-enslaved human flesh is turning away from God. The two are wholly irreconcilable. That man is cursed. Volitionalism is a wretched soteriology.

That all changes once a person is converted from death to life, regenerated, and indwelt with the Separate and Sacred Spirit of the Most High God. That person can, should, and will do things the unregenerate can never do because that person has God at work in him.

Philippians 2:12-13
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

That passage was written to the saints about the saints. Does God work in the atheist when God saves the atheist from the sin the atheist denies and the wrath of God the atheist denies? ABSOLUTELY! But that is not what that Philippians 2 text is about. The "you" is the saints. Itis the saint who believes. It is the saint who can, does, and will collaborate (synergistically) with God, being transformed by Word and Spirit. Does that mean ALL forms of condemnation are negated? No!

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Anyone not building on Jesus as their foundation is not saved. That person will be torturously destroyed. Anyone building on Christ, however, has the ability to build with many things and many ways but it will all be tested and there is the very real possibility everything that person has built will be destroyed. All those works..... condemned. That person will emerge charred and covered in soot but still saved.

And there are a lot of poseurs.

Matthew 7:15-23
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.



No such thing as unconditional eternal salvation and if there were such a thing then four days, two pages of posts and multiple requests to do so is plenty sufficient.

Bad op.

Moving on to others.

 

[Ghada]

Who teaches unconditional eternal salvation?



Prove such a thing exists.
.

You teach it just fine.

However, It only exists in the corrupted minds of them that think they are no more condemned, while still sinning with the world.

 

[Ghada]

I did say that. I said it to evidence and prove Calvinists do not believe in unconditional eternal salvation,

Calvin didn't teach it. Only some claiming his faulty predeterminism do so.

Calvin would have horsewhipped anyone daring to say Christians still sin like the world. And worse yet, that the righteous Lord and God doesn't condemn it.

However, It's an example of the natural degeneration of false doctrine, no matter how well intentioned.

And I have further clarified to it to show many elements of Calvinist soteriology are incorrectly being confused and conflated with unconditional eternal salvation

I never believed Calvin ever taught it. I only see some of his latter day followers like you have degenerated into it.

I disagree with it.

And so, we see how basic comprehension must be cast aside, in order to cling to one's own self-justifying doctrine.

Any salvation not conditioned on how we live, is an unconditional salvation.

Calvin spoke of conditions more than 180 times in His "Institutes..." and he did so prodigiously throughout his commentaries. He wrote of them diversely in affirmation of them in some circumstances and repudiation of them in others.

Impressive. I see where you've learned your scholarly speak.

There is not a single word from you in this thread about Calvinist soteriology that is correct.

He didn't teach God predetermining who would and would not be saved?

He did preach continued Christian sinning? And the sinful Christian not being condemned while sinning?

Calvinism has been grossly misrepresented and false witness born. It's not okay.

You need a different Christ. It's not ok to grossly err on the doctrine of Christ.

But the doctrines of man may or may not be true of Christ in the Bible.

Do it now, please.

Done it enough. If you want to pretend a salvation not conditioned on how we live, is not an unconditional salvation, then that's fine by me.

I'll not argue about it anymore. All such endless arguments get old in due time.