Replies

They were never saved to begin with seems mighty judgemental when there are so many instances in Scripture of folks starting off RIGHT and then going astray into UNBELIEF.

Of course, that is of a judgmental character. But it is not myself doing the judgment. The judgment and the sentence for it is found in the voice of the Spirit telling this of what "glasses" He wants us to put on. Either the instant permanence and graciousness and mercy and power is found in His salvation or it is not.

If it is Jesus that saves, and the regenerated child of God finds His ownership is quite satisfactory and unable to supersede, or somehow he has more power than God to overcome it. Or, as one would take from the view that my screed put forth, the person was not entirely convinced, and The Judge saw it, thus did not give the partially convinced but yet somewhat dubious, who thought that the salvation was not really a gift, but required the recipient to contribute to its cost, and thus was a cooperative effort, not really a gift at all.

BUT is absolutely clear that John MacArthur looked on this matter the same way that the Holy Scriptures have without a doubt convinced me to view the proposition. I did, as Adam's progeny, have done all the sinning, but in the shedding of His Blood to wash away all my sins, Jesus did ALL the saving of my person, upon whom He has showered all His sovereign preference for me and others like me, above His own self, and the remainder of His created world.

Either He did this, and the reward to me for a completely changed attitude is an everlasting life, one which any other fully persuaded human may have, or He failed.

That is, if a human thinks he/she "believes" but still can change one's mind back to the old way, then that person, like Agrippa, is just a hair's breadth away from placing complete trust in Jesus, but just as far away from a heavenly destination as the Devil himself. Paul challenged Agrippa, whom Paul (and the Spirit moving Paul) said was a "believer," and here is Agrippa's response:

Acts 26:27-29 (AV; quotes added)):
"King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest."
Then Agrippa said unto Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."

Almost, Elsie, almost. What did Paul say about those professers who changed their minds, lapsing back into ways detrimental to the gospel?

1 Timothy 1:5-7,18-20 (AV; bolding added for emphasis)
⁵Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: ⁶From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; ⁷Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

¹⁸This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; ¹⁹Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: ²⁰Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

2 Timothy 2:17-19 (AV; bolding added for emphasis):
¹⁷And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; ¹⁸Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. ¹⁹Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

It seems pretty clear that if these professers, although previously working as evangelical coworkers, were eventually seen by Paul to be regenerated believers, he would have turned them over to the Lord, not to Satan. That indicates that Paul saw from their actions that they were not saved, and thus counted them as having the Devil as their torturer.

If you would read through Dr. Wittman's paper on the KOH and the KOG, some of your reserve would be even more particularly addressed by a careful hermeneutic regarding who is truly Christ-servingand whose profession might be questioned.

But right now, it doesn't feel right to me to continue in this vein of making the devotional theme of metmom's intentions more of a debate and a controversy than she wanted. In my initial posting, it was an extension of my agreement with MacArthur's thesis, still of a devotional support of his theme and answers to his questions put to his readers. So let's allow it to stay in that mode, if we may.