Dear Fred,<br><br>IRT:<br>"4:1. How exactly does Hebrews 4:1 demonstrate that Jesus is faithful to not fail, but men could possibly fall short? I sort of miss that. As I read Hebrews 4, it looks like to me that these people who may fall short did not have real faith, (see verse 2), and those who do believe will most certainly enter God's rest (see verse 3). You need to re-consider your 'pet verses' you believe support conditional security in their contexts."<br><br>It does not indicate that Christ can fail, but that man can. Paul is speaking not to those who have not true faith, but who have truly believed (vs 3), and warning them not to fall short of entering His rest just as those in the wilderness did, vs 11 also restates this warning.<br><br>IRT:<br>"First off, you approach my specific question about this text (as well as this entire debate) with the the theological presupposition that men must act in cooperation with God in order to be saved, or they will loose their salvation. It is a deplorable presupposition, but a presupposition none the less."<br><br>I invite you to disprove it Biblically.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Next, you have an improper reading of scripture. What on earth does a discussion about salvation to the mass of people who thronged Jesus in Capernaum as recorded in John 6, have to do with an intimate conversation between Jesus and his 11 remaining apostles as recorded in John 15?"<br><br>It is the same truth about the same subject spoken by the same Man. Romans 11 also confirms this teaching.<br><br>IRT:<br>"The text of John 6 emphatically states that those individuals given by the father to Christ will not be lost, and they will be raised up on the last day. There are no conditions mentioned any where in the whole dialogue of John 6. Any conditions you want it to promote are brought there to the text by your theological presupposition."<br><br>There is also no mention of election or predestination in John 3:16, am I to assume that such a doctrine is not taught in the Bible? A verse that does not state a condition does not negate a verse that does.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Well Josh, this may shock you to no end, but it exactly does mean they will not be cast out. There is no way any honest evaluation of the grammar and context could yeild any other conclusion. You are basically saying the passage is not saying what it is saying! John means to record these direct statements by Christ like he did, because he wants to tell his readers that those given to Christ by the Father will never, no never, be cast out; even for not abiding (which is an impossibility as well) as you so claim."<br><br>No, you are reading more into it than is written. John 15 and Romans 11 clearly state that those who do not abide will be cast out. If not abiding is an impossibility, then why are there so many warnings in the scripture against it, or warnings like Revelation 22:19?<br><br>IRT:<br>"(then Josh adds)<br>But as I pointed out above, John 15, as well as Romans 11 prove that one can be cast out for not abiding in Christ<br>(Fred responds) Yes, Josh, you did point those passages out, but you fail to realize those passages do not prove what you want them to prove."<br><br>Show me how they do not prove it.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Josh, all of these passages, as well as the many other 'so-called' problem passages you keep raising are easily answered if you would read the text properly. Now reading the text involves more than reading the Bible with your conditional security glass in place."<br><br>Then answer them conclusively.<br><br>IRT:<br>"You need to consider context, grammar in the original language, the point of the book and so on if you wish to handle properly the word of God, or as Paul told Timothy 'rightly dividing' the word of God."<br><br>I do, thank you.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Regarding Rev. 22:19, perhaps you can explain to me why you think this is a reference to loosing salvation? Is it because of John using the phrase 'book of life?' How exactly does the addition of plagues mentioned in verse 18 play into your understanding of one loosing his salvation? If I am looking at this passage the way you do, it seems like only plagues are added to the person who adds to the things in the book. Nothing is taken away. So, could the person who only adds to the book of prophecy still maintain his salvation, yet with the addition of plagues?"<br><br>I would think that taking away is a worse transgression than adding, but to answer your question, possibly, but I don't think I would like to find out the hard way.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Moreover, perhaps you can explain what it means to add or take away from the book of this prophecy?"<br><br>Adding to or taking from the book or Revelation specifically (which has been done by some scholars before).<br><br>IRT:<br>"If doing either of these things is possible for a genuine Christian to do so that they loose their salvation, it would be important to know with certainty what it means exactly to add to, or take from, the book of life. Enlighten us please."<br><br>Anyone not found written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). The meaning should be obvious. If it is not possible for a true Christian to do this, then why is God giving us a warning?<br><br>IRT:<br>"Regarding Galatians 5:4. How exactly does this teach us that we can loose our salvation? Do you know that the word translated as "fallen" literally means "to lose one's grasp on something?" It is not the word for apostasy, or turning from the truth. Considering the context of Paul's polemical letter to counteract the heresies of the Judiazers, why is it wrong to understand that Paul is telling the Galatians that by them embracing the Judiazing heresy they are placing themselves under a salvation theology that teaches works, rather than the biblical theology that teaches salvation by grace? Why is that not valid to see this verse as Paul telling the Galatians that they have slid into theological ignorance and are in need of simply being rebuked for their lack of discernment and corrected in their doctrine, rather than telling them lost their salvation? Why is it incorrect to undestand what Paul is saying to mean, "you Galatians have lost your grip on the doctrines of grace and have slid away from the truth of salvation by grace; let me help you regain your grip on the truth"?"<br><br>"Christ will profit you nothing" (vs 2) "You have become a stranger to Christ" (vs 4). Consider this, the scripture says that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, it also says that if any man has not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His; so it follows that all who are Christ's have His Holy Spirit and are free. How then can you think that those who turn again and put themselves in bondage are Christ's? And besides, if one has let go of grace, how can he be under it any longer?<br><br>IRT:<br>"Then regarding 2 Peter 2:20. What makes you believe that these individuals addressed by Peter were saved to begin with? It seems like to me that Peter is condemning men who were false prophets and teachers to begin with, not genuine believers who turned from Christ. Their character, as describe in chapter 2 by Peter, demonstrates that they never had any foundational change in their spiritual life. They only wanted to hook up with the Christians and the churches to gain from them for their own selfish interests. Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong with my understanding of this passage."<br><br>Certainly: Several quotes show that they are not only false teachers, but apostates from the Christian faith. Vs 1 indicates that they will deny the Lord that bought them, and vs 14 calls them accursed children. The character they are shown to have does not prove that they never had any change in their lives, but that they have fallen away from what is right "forsaken the right way and gone astray." And my original argument, one cannot escape the pollutions of the world unless one has partaken of the divine nature of Christ (2 Peter 1:4)<br><br><br>In Christ,<br>Josh