Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Thursday, November 14, 2019

Double jeopardy

Double jeopardy
By Shawn Cahill
11/14/19

Those who reject that that Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:6) have developed an argument referred to as "double jeopardy".
The argument is described as this:
"a double jeopardy, a duplication of indebtedness, is indeed involved if the non-elect are to be punished for sins which the Lord Jesus Christ has already endured punishment."
A quick internet search shows that double jeopardy is:
"the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense".
This is very different than the former in the following ways:
The former is about punishment, while the latter is about prosecution.
The former is about to two individuals, while the latter is about one.
Perhaps the person who named the theological argument was ignorant of the legal defense.
At this point some agree, and others say the jeopardy is the penalty, so the phrase was purposely used in a different way. Most want to simply ignore where the name came from, and instead talk about the subject instead.

So let's get into the subject, and explore the objections and explanations of said objections.
One objection is that Jesus paid for sin, so it's either illogical or unjust for sinners to then pay the debt for their sin, as the sin would be paid for twice.
This is based on the false idea that the wicked pay the debt for their own sin.
I have asked people for scripture that says the wicked pay the debt for their sins?
Below is so far what I have received:
Matthew 18:34-35 "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."
Verse 34 is the end of a parable that begins in verse 23, and is a teaching about the importance of forgiveness.
The argument is that "all that was owed him" (verse 34) represents the sin of the wicked. The only person who should be arguing such is an annhiliationst, because the verse in full says "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him". The word "until" shows something marking a limit, while some of the wicked are said to undergo torment "forever and ever; they have no rest day and night..." (Revelation 14:11).
Aside from this the text says they "repay all" so it's not like making a payment on a mortgage, but describes finishing the debt all together, hence the word "all".
Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
I agree that the wages of sin is death, but the question is who pays them; Christ or the wicked? The verse goes on to explain how eternal life comes through Christ, so for those who have life life, Christ paid the wages. If Christ died to save the lost (Luke 19:10) then he also paid the wages for them. So this scripture must be interpreted from the greater context of scripture as a whole.
I have yet to receive any other scriptures said to show the wicked paying the debt for their sins.

One problem with this view (unless one wants to argue for annhilationism), is if one can pay their debt, than why would they face "everlasting destruction" (2 Thessalonians 1:9)?
One explanation is that since they are continually sinning, they will continually be paying for that sin. While this is a fine explanation, it simply lacks scriptural support.
Others suggest that sin has an infinite debt, but this is not true as Jesus paid the wages of sin, and he was only on the cross about six hours, and in the tomb for three days and night.

One thing I find very convincing is that I have yet to find the same words being used for what Jesus underwent, and what the wicked will undergo.
Here's some examples:
Ephesians 5:6 "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience."
The word translated as "wrath" [G3709] is never used regarding Christ.
2 Thessalonians 1:8 "dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus."
The word translated as "retribution" [G1557] is never used regarding Christ.
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,"
The word translated as "suffered" [G3958] is never used regarding the eternal state of the wicked.
2 Peter 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves."The word translated as "destruction" [G684] is never used regarding Christ.
2 Peter 2:9 "then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,"The word translated as "judgement" [G2920] is never used regarding Christ.
Also in the same verse the word translated as "punishment" [G2849] is never used regarding Christ.
I'm sure there are more words in other scriptures to look up, and I invite seeing any I h\do not have listed.

So what Jesus did on the cross is not what the wicked will do in the lake of fire.
The wicked are not tried for their sin more than once, and the wages of sin are not paid more than once.
So Jesus paid the wages of sin upon the cross, gave himself as a ransom for all, and bought the wicked. Since the wicked deny the Master who bought them, God has chosen to pour out his wrath and vengeance upon them. The wages of their sin cannot be paid for twice as Jesus already paid for them. Jesus did not suffer the wrath and vengeance of God for the sin of the world, as he did not commit them.

In conclusion the Double Jeopardy argument is based upon a misunderstanding that should not be granted in light of what scripture explicitly says.
Though I invite input from anyone who may disagree with my conclusions.

Thursday, November 7, 2019

Why I don't believe the Catholic Church is the body of Christ

Why I don't believe the Catholic Church is the body of Christ
By Shawn Cahill
11/7/19

At the outset it is necessary to say something Catholics will disagree with, and that is that the Catholic Church (as it is known today) is a sect.
"Sect" being defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "a dissenting or schismatic religious body", "a religious denomination", and "a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader".
I believe the Catholic Church is a schism of what the apostle Paul referred to as "the body of Christ".
"And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" - Ephesians 4:11-12.
Earlier I said the Catholic Church (as it is known today) as the title itself is true, but has been hijacked from it's original meaning.
This is why many people refer to this sect as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), as I will for the remainder of this article. In fact the Catholic Church refers to itself as the "Roman Catholic Church" in the "Ravenna Document" that I read on the Vatican website.
One thing that is distinct in the RCC from the first 200+ years of Christianity was an individual claiming to be a bishop of bishops who requires them to obey him. This individual was  pope Stephen I in the late third century, and is spoken of by Cyprian the bishop of Carthage, who was contemporary to Stephen:
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there."
The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics (AD 256).
Stephen set himself up as a bishop of bishops in Rome, hence the earliest record I can find of a bishop claiming to be the earthly head of the body of Christ. This is a tradition that other bishops of Rome chose to follow up to today.
Even Peter who is said to be the first pope identified himself as a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1). In fact from AD 30 to Peter's death at around AD 68, no one in scripture appeals to Peter as the head of the body of Christ.
Much earlier Israel rejected Yahweh as their king, and sought a man as their head (1 Samuel 8:6-7). Likewise have many people rejected Jesus as the sole king of the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18), and have accepted various popes throughout time as the "earthly head" of the body of Christ.
This has led to the RCC creating lot's of other positions never mentioned by Jesus or the apostles, such as cardinals and archbishops. The closest thing to an archbishop is the Lord Jesus in 1 Peter 5:4.
"And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory."
Bishops, priests, and deacons were mentioned by Jesus or the apostles, although the RCC carried over a concept of a priest from the Old Testament which they claim to employ.
The RCC also created a title for all the rest of the saints under them that they refer to as the "laity", which again is a title we see never used by Jesus or the apostles.
This is something that Paul warned the bishops about:
"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them."
Acts 20:28-30
So bishops would seek to make others followers of them, asserting their authority.
In closing I will compare the RCC with the body of Christ in scripture, to see how different they are.
The body of Christ has one head, being Jesus (Colossians 1:18).
The RCC claims two heads, Jesus and the pope.
The body of Christ appeals to "the whole church" (Acts 15:22) to reach judgments on doctrinal issues.
The RCC appeals to only the pope and bishops in communion with him.
The body of Christ wants people to look to Christ (Acts 4:10-12).
The RCC wants people to look to Rome.
The body of Christ acknowledges the Bible came from God (2 Timothy 3:16).
The RCC claims the Bible came from them.
The body of Christ recognizes scripture has authority over overseers (Acts 17:10-11).
The RCC claims authority over scripture by saying only they can interpret it.
The body of Christ is known as Christians (1 Peter 4:16).
The RCC is known as Catholics.
The body of Christ acknowledges it's divisions (1 Corinthians 1:12-13).
The RCC claims to have no divisions.
The body of Christ identifies itself through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:26).
The RCC identifies itself though a claim of apostolic succession.
The body of Christ recognizes it's overseer's as part of the "Church" (Acts 20:28).
The RCC recognizes it's overseer's as "the Church".
The body of Christ  recognizes that justification comes through faith without works (Romans 4:5).
The RCC claims justification comes through faith and works (obedience).

I'm sure the comparisons could go on for a while, but I think this article has expressed why I don't believe the RCC is the body of Christ.

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Patristic consensus defined

Patristic consensus defined
By Shawn Cahill
10/24/19

Let's start out by going into the two words to get a sense of this phrase.
Patristic comes from the Latin word "patri" meaning "father of the paternal line", and the suffix "istic" meaning "of, relating to, or characteristic of". Since this term describes multiple "fathers" is it referred to as Patristics or patrology, which is the study of the early Christian writers who are designated Church Fathers.

Consensus comes from the Latin word "con" meaning "together, with", and "sentire" meaning "to feel" (or sense). Hence the English word is defined as "general agreement" or "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned".

An Eastern Orthodox priest by the name of George Maximov agrees where he wrote: "From here ensues what is called the consensus of the fathers (Latin: consensus patrum)—a concept which signifies the doctrinal truth of Tradition, which we know from the common witness of all, or at least the majority of the saints who wrote about it."
-The principle of Consensus Patrum and modern attacks against it.

Later in the same article George wrote:
"It’s worth it to add that the concept of consensus patrum concerns precisely those dogmatic questions that are of importance for our salvation."

A Roman Catholic priest by the name of Yves Congar agrees with the above and adds some interesting points where he wrote:
"From the time when the patristic argument first began to be used in dogmatic controversies-it first appeared in the second century and gained general currency in the fourth-, theologians have tried to establish agreement among qualified witnesses of the faith, and have tried to prove from this agreement that such was in fact the Church’s belief."
-Tradition and Traditions: An historical and a theological essay.

Later in the book Yves wrote:
"In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare. In fact, a complete consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts."

While Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics can agree on what the patristic consensus is, they disagree on who is considered a father, and also on what the consensus is even within fathers they agree with.

For example Roman Catholics claim the patristic consensus shows that the bishop of Rome is to lead the universal "Church", but Eastern orthodox disagree and claim the patristic consensus shows that the bishop of Rome is only to oversee church matters in Rome.

So while the patristic consensus is appealed to show the true interpretation of scripture, it still comes down to the interpretation of individuals who disagree.
The patristic consensus is also said to show who is, and who is not considered a "Church father", and yet again both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics disagree on who is a "Church father" while appealing to the patristic consensus. This of course affects the outcome of the patristic consensus as some fathers are consulted while others are ignored.

In conclusion it's an error to look to a few overseers and authors as the pillar and support of the truth, when scripture says "the household of God, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth". It's the entire body of Christ that is the pillar and support of the truth, not just the "clergy" that the "laity" is supposed to obey.
Aside from this the body of Christ is not the truth, so us saints should look to the truth, and what is that?
Jesus: "I am the way, and the truth..." - John 14:6
The word of God: "Your word is truth." - John 17:17

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Accusing God of evil

Accusing God of evil
By Shawn Cahill
10/23/19
I want to share an interesting observation I made of two somewhat unrelated topics.
Some TULIP believers [TB's] claim that Yahweh chose for people to be born sinners by nature, through Adam.
I asked, how is such a thing not evil?
I received answers such as:
"Was God unjust to curse the creation?"
"By what standard are you judging good and evil, and by what right do you claim to be able to judge the actions and motives of God?"
"Romans 9:14-23"
"Evil for man, but not for God."
"There is no standard above him to judge him."

The other topic is regarding the below question I asked to the same group of TB's:
"From what standard would it be evil for the Lord to suffer for the sins of the non-elect, and then have them face the wrath of God for their sins?"
I received answers such as:
"It would be the evil of God expecting double payment"
"Unjust"
"It would be lying to condemn those who are considered righteous as God has already promised that the righteous will inherit the kingdom."
There were also two other answers that I will share later.

What's important regarding these answers in to be consistent in applying them both ways. I'm going to go through these answers one by one and consider them in regards to both questions.
1) "Was God unjust to curse the creation?"
This individual believed that people being born sinners by nature, through Adam was part of the curse. Thus it's not evil to curse people.
Having people face the wrath of God when Jesus suffered for their sins is also a curse.
2) "By what standard are you judging good and evil, and by what right do you claim to be able to judge the actions and motives of God?"
It is valid to ask by what standard we judge something as evil, hence why I asked "From what standard would it be evil for the Lord to suffer...". If by asking "by what right do you claim to be able to judge the actions and motives of God?" they meant to imply one cannot judge the actions of God, then one cannot say it would be evil for God to have people face the wrath of God when Jesus suffered for their sins.
3) "Romans 9:14-23"
This scripture can be summed up with two short quotes from it: "There is no injustice with God" & "who are you, O man, who answers back to God?". This simply assumes that the action being questioned is true, which if applied the other way it is not unjust (or evil) for God to have people face the wrath of God when Jesus suffered for their sins, and to the person who would suggest it is, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?
4) "Evil for man, but not for God."
Now this statement is absolutely true, but it also assumes the action is something that God did, so it is not evil for God to have people face the wrath of God when Jesus suffered for their sins.
5) "There is no standard above him to judge him."
This is a true statement, but again assumes the action is something that God did, and thus should be consistently applied the other way.

Now let's go on to the answers from the second question.
1) "It would be the evil of God expecting double payment"
To apply this to the other would be to say: it would be the evil of God to chose for people to be born sinners by nature, through Adam.
2) "Unjust"
Again to apply this to the other; it would be unjust for God to chose for people to be born sinners by nature, through Adam.
3) "It would be lying to condemn those who are considered righteous as God has already promised that the righteous will inherit the kingdom."
This individual specifically addressed what I was asking, although their explanation is based on a misunderstanding. That being that Christ suffering for one's sins makes them righteous.
Nevertheless, it would be lying to say people are born sinners by nature, through Adam, when he already said in his word "God made men upright".

Now on to the two answers I wanted to save until the end.
The first answer is:
"I don’t think it would be evil. If Christ suffered for the sins (ie he paid their debt) of the non-elect, it would mean he gets to either forgive those sins or judge them and if he judges them then there is no evil in them also suffering for their own sins. The choice is his, he is their master. Kiss the Son lest he be angry."
This individual correctly pointed out that the Lord dictates what is good and evil in every circumstance, so if he did such a thing it would not be evil.
The other answer is:
"It's pointless to deal with a dilemma that Scripture flat out denies in the first place."
This answer is partly correct. The correct part is that instead of focusing on calling something evil we don't believe occurred, we should focus on demonstrating how scripture does not teach such a thing.
Though the part that is incorrect is that doing such a thought experiment can get us to be more consistent with our criticisms of others beliefs, in light of those beliefs we do hold to.

Friday, October 11, 2019

Sin nature or flesh

Sin nature or flesh
By Shawn Cahill
10/11/19

Sometimes I hear saints use the phrase "sin nature". I did not recall reading the phrase in scripture so I searched for it and found nothing. I did find the phrase "sinful nature" in versions like the New International Version, New Living Translation, and the Berean Study Bible.
When I checked the Greek behind such a translation choice I found the word 'sarx' [G4561], which is the majority of other translations appears as "flesh". So the phrase "sinful nature" is not a literal translation but more of dynamic equivalence.

With this established let's see what scripture describes as the flesh.
This word is used in multiple ways often depicting the physical covering of our bodies (Luke 24:39), people (Matthew 24:22), physical work performed (Romans 4:1), and serving sin/the ways of the world.
This article is discussing serving sin/the ways of the world.
Let's explore some of the scriptures that describe this, and I'll approach these is a chronological manner.

In 1 Corinthians 1:26 Paul said "For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble".
This seems to indicate the flesh as being the ways of the world.
In 2 Corinthians 10:2 Paul said "I ask that when I am present I need not be bold with the confidence with which I propose to be courageous against some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh."
Here the flesh is something opposed to holiness.
See also Romans 8:1, 4, & Colossians 2:23.
In Romans 7:5 Paul said "For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death."
Here the flesh is to have sinful passions.
See also Romans 13:14 & 2 Peter 2:10.
In Romans 8:3 Paul said "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,"
The law brought death according to disobedience, so here the flesh seems to indicate serving sin.
See also Romans 8:8 & Galatians 5:13.
In Romans 8:5 Paul said "For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit."
Here the flesh is something people set their mind upon.
See also Romans 8:6-7 & Colossians 2:18.
In Romans 8:9 Paul said "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."
Here we see that the flesh is something the saints are not in.
See also Galatians 5:24.
In Romans 8:12-13 Paul said "So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
Here it shows us that living according to the flesh results in death for those who lack the Spirit of God.
See also Galatians 6:8.
In Galatians 5:16-17 Paul said "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please."
This seems to indicate that the saints can carry out the desire of the flesh.
In verse 19 it goes on to say "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,"
Here the flesh is described as various sinful deeds.
And finally in Jude 23 Jude said "save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh."
Here the flesh is something the pollutes.

So in summation the flesh is something that the saints have already crucified and are no longer in. Nevertheless they can carry out the desire of the flesh, and thus must walk in the Spirit to avoid sinning.
Some claim that people are born in the flesh, but I see no evidence of that from scripture when verses are understood from their context.

Saturday, September 28, 2019

Eternal life - Stop believing in Jesus

Eternal life - Stop believing in Jesus
By Shawn Cahill
9/28/19

Many people believe that after a person places their faith in Jesus Christ, they may stop believing in him.
I had asked for scriptures that teach that a person who places their faith in Jesus, may stop believing in him, and was provided with the below.
This will be a lengthy article, so feel free to read it in it's entirety, or skip to the particular scriptures you are interested in.

The scriptures:
Exodus 32:33 "Yahweh said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book."
I think the idea is that the "book" is referring to the Lamb's book of life, and Yahweh would only blot them out for unbelief, perhaps implied by Israel having sinned against him. This argument is based on the assumption that the book is referring to the Lamb's book of life, despite scripture mentioning different kinds of books. One of these books is "the book of the generations of Adam" (Genesis 5:1) being an account of those who lived.
In Exodus 32 verses 33-35 go on to say "Yahweh said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. “But go now, lead the people where I told you. Behold, My angel shall go before you; nevertheless in the day when I punish, I will punish them for their sin.” Then Yahweh smote the people, because of what they did with the calf which Aaron had made."
How did God blot them out? By killing them and thus removing them from the account of those who lived. For those who disagree my challenge is first demonstrate this is referring to the Lamb's book of life.

Deuteronomy 13:5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against Yahweh your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which Yahweh your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you."
I think the argument is that if a false prophet tries to seduce Israel from the way Yahweh commanded them to walk, this means they can stop believing in God. This argument assumes that the way God commanded them to walk includes having faith in Christ, however "walk" indicates physical works, and not believing in the Lord.
Verses 6-7 say "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (which neither you nor your fathers have known, the gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the earth to the other)".
The way they were to walk was to not worship idols, so nothing about believing in Jesus here.

Deuteronomy 19:16 "If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,"
This must be a typo, as I don't see what it has to do with a person who stops believing in Christ.

Isaiah 1:5 "Where will you be stricken again, As you continue in your rebellion? The whole head is sick And the whole heart is faint."
I think the argument is that "rebellion" means no longer believing in Christ.
Verses 9-11 say "Unless Yahweh of hosts Had left to us a very small remnant, We would have become like Sodom, We would have been made like Gomorrah. Hear the word of Yahweh, You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the instruction of our God, You people of Gomorrah. "What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says Yahweh. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats".
They clearly acknowledged Yahweh in offering him burnt offerings, so "rebellion" is more likely to be regarding their disobedience to him. Beyond this, Israel was full of both believers and unbelievers, and the context does not make it clear who specifically it is referring to, as the entire nation was not in rebellion.

Isaiah 31:6 "Turn to him from whom people have deeply revolted, O children of Israel."
I think the argument is that "revolted" means they stopped believing in Jesus.
Verse 7 goes on to say "For in that day every man will cast away his silver idols and his gold idols, which your sinful hands have made for you as a sin".
The revolt according to the context seems to be regarding a revolt by making idols, not a ceasing of believing in Jesus.
Beyond this the context does not make it clear who specifically it is referring to, as the entire nation was not in revolt.

Isaiah 59:13 "Transgressing and denying Yahweh, And turning away from our God, Speaking oppression and revolt, Conceiving in and uttering from the heart lying words."
I think the argument is that by some of Israel denying and turning away from Yahweh, this means they stopped believing in Christ.
The context reveals how Israel denied and turned away from God. Verse 12 says "For our transgressions are multiplied before you,and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and we know our iniquities", and the second half of verse 13 says the same kind of thing "Speaking oppression and revolt, Conceiving in and uttering from the heart lying words". This shows what is being spoken of is their disobedience, not their trust in Yahweh. Beyond this, Israel was full of both believers and unbelievers, and the context does not make it clear who specifically it is referring to.

Jeremiah 2:19 "Your own wickedness will correct you, And your apostasies will reprove you; Know therefore and see that it is evil and bitter For you to forsake Yahweh your God, And the dread of Me is not in you," declares the Lord Yahweh of hosts."
I think the argument is that by some of Israel having apostasies and forsaking Yahweh, this means they stopped believing in Jesus.
The context reveals what apostasies and forsaking Yahweh was. Verse 18 says "But now what are you doing on the road to Egypt, To drink the waters of the Nile? Or what are you doing on the road to Assyria, To drink the waters of the Euphrates?", and verse 20 says "But you said, 'I will not serve!' For on every high hill And under every green tree You have lain down as a harlot." Both scriptures are referring to idolatry, thus disobedience, not Israel's trust in Yahweh. Beyond this, Israel was full of both believers and unbelievers, and the context does not make it clear who specifically it is referring to.

Jeremiah 8:5 "Why then has this people, Jerusalem, Turned away in continual apostasy? They hold fast to deceit, They refuse to return."
I think the argument is that by some of Israel turning away in apostasy, this means they stopped believing in Jesus.
Verse 6 tells us what this apostasy consisted of:
"I have listened and heard, They have spoken what is not right; No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, 'What have I done?' Everyone turned to his course, Like a horse charging into the battle."
So the apostasy was turning away from the "ordinances" (verse 7) of God, not belief in Jesus. Beyond this, Israel was full of both believers and unbelievers, and the context does not make it clear who specifically it is referring to.

Jeremiah 28:16 "Therefore thus says Yahweh, 'Behold, I am about to remove you from the face of the earth. This year you are going to die, because you have counseled rebellion against Yahweh."
I think the argument is that "rebellion" means they stopped believing in Christ.
Here Jeremiah is addressing a false prophet named Hananiah (verse 15). Counseling rebellion is not ceasing to believe in Christ. Aside from this we do not know if Hananiah believed in Christ.

Jeremiah 29:32 "therefore thus says Yahweh, "Behold, I am about to punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite and his descendants; he will not have anyone living among this people, and he will not see the good that I am about to do to My people," declares Yahweh, "because he has preached rebellion against Yahweh."
I think the argument is that "preached rebellion" means he stopped believing in Christ.
Preaching rebellion is not ceasing to believe in Christ. Aside from this we do not know if Shemaiah believed in Christ.

Hosea 5:2 "The revolters have gone deep in depravity, But I will chastise all of them."
I think the argument is that "revolters" means people who stopped believing in Christ.
To revolt is not to stop believing in Christ. Beyond this, Israel was full of both believers and unbelievers, and the context does not make it clear who specifically it is referring to.

Hosea 14:4 "I will heal their apostasy, I will love them freely, For My anger has turned away from them."
I think the argument is that "apostasy" means to stop believing in Christ.
Verse 1 tells us what this apostasy consisted of:
"Return, O Israel, to Yahweh your God, for you have stumbled by your iniquity."
So the apostasy was them abandoning their obedience to Yahweh, not ceasing to believe in Christ. Aside from this, Israel was full of both believers and unbelievers, and the context does not make it clear who specifically it is referring to.

Matthew 10:22 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved."
I think the argument is that this implies there are disciples of Jesus who will not endure to the end, and this means to stop believing in Christ.
The context does not define what the endurance is regarding. It also makes the assumption that there are disciples of Jesus who will not endure to the end, which is a belief read into this scripture, and not out of it.

John 15:6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned."
I think the argument is that failing to abide in Jesus means to stop believing in Christ.
Verse 4 says "Abide in Me, and I in you". To abide does not mean to believe in, as Christ does not believe in his disciples. Rather "aide" means to be at work, or as the context says seven times about bearing fruit.

Acts 21:21 "and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs."
I think the argument is that to "forsake Moses" means to stop believing in Christ.
Here the elders (verse 18) told Paul a rumor that was circulating about himself, that was in fact false. This account is not even describing people who forsook Moses.

Romans 8:13 "for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
I think the argument is that to "living according to the flesh" means to stop believing in Christ.
The context reveals who those are who live according to the flesh, in verse 9:
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him".
So those who live according to the flesh are not people who stopped believing in Christ, but rather those who do not have the Spirit dwelling within them. Once the Spirit indwells someone they have the spirit forever (John 14:16 & Ephesians 1:13).

Romans 11:20 "Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;"
I think the argument is that "their unbelief" means they stopped believing in Jesus.
An assumption is made that these unbelievers from Israel were broken off from Jesus, but verse 24 shows what they were broken off from:
"... how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?"
So they were not broken of from the root Jesus, but from the tree which is Israel (Jer 11:16-17).
There is no evidence in the context that these unbelievers of Israel ever believed in Christ, or were part of the remnant (verse 5).

1 Corinthians 15:2 "by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain."
I think the argument is that "believed in vain" means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
Notice those who are saved are those who hold fast the word Paul preached to them. This may suggest that those who do not hold fast the word Paul preached to them, are not saved, but had a surface level faith where they claimed to trust in Jesus, all the while trusting in something else.
If the belief spoken of was not surface level it would not "in vain", but to salvation. Aside from this Paul is writing to a congregation that contained both believers and unbelievers as is still the case today.

2 Corinthians 6:1 "And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain--"
I think the argument is that receiving "the grace of God in vain" means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
First off all this is a warning, not an example of something who stopped believing in Christ. Aside from this Paul is writing to a congregation that contained both believers and unbelievers, so he obviously appealed to any possible unbelievers present.

Galatians 1:6 "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;"
I think the argument is that "deserting Him who called you" means to stop believing in Jesus.
How are they deserting him who called them? They started believing another gospel. Another gospel is one where instead of trusting in the Lord, the trust is put in something else like one's obedience, or even their faith. The gospel Paul goes on to expose a gospel that added works with belief in Jesus, and the addition of works did not remove the saints belief in Jesus.

Galatians 3:23 "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed."
I think this may be a typo as I don't see how this could be understood as anything having to with someone who stopped believing in Jesus.

Galatians 5:4 "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."
I think the argument is that "severed from Christ" and/or "fallen from grace" means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
This is an assumption read into the text, as the text does not mention believing in Jesus. One may rightly say belief in Jesus is implied as one was in Christ and grace, but the scripture says their being severed from Christ and fallen from grace is because of their "seeking to be justified by law". This does removes the saints belief in Jesus. There is more that could be said on this scripture but it goes beyond the subject.

Ephesians 1:15 "For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints,"
I think this may be a typo, as I don't see how this could be understood as someone who stops believing in Jesus.

Ephesians 4:13 "until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,"
I think this may be a typo, as I don't see how this could be understood as someone who stops believing in Jesus.

Colossians 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister."
I think the argument is that "if indeed you continue in the faith" means one may stop believing in Jesus.
Paul was writing to the saints (Col 1:2), and the place they would have received his letter was at their gathering. Verses 21-22 say "And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach".
Just like today not everyone at those meetings was saved, and Paul did not want to give false assurance, so he gives the people some identifiers on how they can know if they have been reconciled. If they continue in the faith they have been reconciled, and if they do not the have not been reconciled, meaning they never believed in Jesus.

Colossians 2:12 "Buried with him in baptism, in which also you are risen with him through the faith of the working of God, who has raised him from the dead."
I think this may be a typo, as I don't see how this could be understood as someone who stops believing in Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:2 "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."
I think this may be a typo, as I don't see how this could be understood as someone who stops believing in Jesus.

1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,"
I think the argument is that "depart from the faith" means one may stop believing in Jesus.
The verse goes on to explain what "depart from the faith" means here as "devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons". I fully admit that believers in Jesus can be deceived in such ways, but this is not referring to people who stop believing in Jesus.

1 Timothy 6:12 "Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses."
I think the argument is that "take hold of the eternal life" implies that one may stop believing in Jesus.
Verses 10-11 say "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness."
Notice that the focus is on pursuing righteousness rather than harmful desires such as being rich. When one focuses on something they will pursue such a thing, so Paul encourages Timothy to take hold (or focus upon) eternal life. Doing so will cause one to think on and pursue righteousness. The context does not or imply an individual will stop believing in Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:18 "who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some."
I think the argument is that "swerved from the truth" means that one has stopped believing in Jesus.
The scripture says how Hymenaeus and Philetus (verse 17) swerved from the truth when it continues with "saying that the resurrection has already happened". It's not referring to believing in Jesus, but rather the timing of his resurrection.

2 Timothy 4:7 "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."
I think the argument is that "I have kept the faith" means that one has not stopped believing in Jesus. So the implication is that a saint may stop believing in Jesus.
The phrase "the faith" can mean different things depending on the context. In this case verse 8 goes on to say "in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing".
Rewards are given for works, and not for believing in Jesus, and in this case "the faith" is in regards to the commands of God, not merely believing in Jesus. Aside from that, this scripture is not even referring to a person who stopped believing in Jesus.

Titus 1:1 "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,"
I think this may be a typo, as I don't see how this could be understood as someone who stops believing in Jesus.

Titus 1:4 "To: Titus, a genuine child in the faith that we share. May grace and peace from God the Father and the Messiah, Jesus our Savior, be yours!"
I think this may be a typo, as I don't see how this could be understood as someone who stops believing in Jesus.

Philemon 1:5-6 "because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints, and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ."
I think the argument is that "your faith may become effective" means to continue to believe in Jesus. So the implication is that the Philemon (verse 1) could have stop believing in Jesus.
Notice it mentions the faith Philemon had for all the saints. This is not referring to him trusting the saints, but rather his faith in action through works, otherwise known as his love that Paul heard of. Paul desires Philemon's good works to be accompanied by evangelism that is effective, and bears fruit.

1 Peter 5:9 "Resist him and be firm in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are being experienced by your fellow believers throughout the world."
I think the argument is that "be firm in the faith" means to keep believing in Jesus.
Here Paul encourages Peter to be firm in the faith by resisting the devil (verse 8), not by continuing to believe in Jesus. Someone who believes in Jesus may not resist the devil, hence Paul's encouragement.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,"
I think the argument is that "apostasy" means to stop believing in Jesus.
The word "apostasy" means to fall away from something, but where in the context is belief in Jesus shown to be the topic? Nowhere. The following verse go on to explain "the man of lawlessness", so the apostasy is probably in reference to from the law. Nevertheless what the apostasy is from the context does not make clear as that is not the focus of Paul.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 "and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved."
I think this may be a typo, as I don't see how this could be understood as someone who stops believing in Jesus. It only mentions people failed to be saved, and does identify such people as those who had believed in Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:19 "keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith."
I think the argument is that "rejected" means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
Notice the thing to be kept is "faith and a good conscience" which are coupled together and not two separate things. A good conscience is about how one lives, and faith is coupled with this because faith without works is dead. So if one rejects "faith and a good conscience" they obviously have destroyed their witness, but this says nothing about their believing in Jesus as the savior.

1 Timothy 4:1 "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,"
I think the argument is that "fall away from the faith" means to stop believing in Jesus.
The verse explains how they fall away from the faith when it says "paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons", so nothing about believing in Jesus.

1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
I think the argument is that "wandered away from the faith" means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
The verse explains some wandered away from the faith by saying "the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it", so nothing about believing in Jesus.

1 Timothy 6:21 "which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you."
I think the argument is that "gone astray from the faith" means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
Verse 20 shows what it means to have gone astray from the faith where Paul encourages Timothy to avoid " worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge". So nothing about believing in Jesus.

Hebrews 2:1 "For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it."
I think the argument is that "drift away from it" means to have stop believing in Jesus.
The verse reveals what "it" is when it says "what we have heard". To find out what they have heard read Hebrews 1:5-13 and see that it is referring to scripture about the Son of God to reign over his enemies. In verse 3 it goes on to mention salvation, but that cannot be read back into verse 1.

Hebrews 3:8 "do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,"
I think the argument is that "harden your hearts" means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
This verse is an illusion to Psalms 95:8 which references an account in Exodus 17:1-7. Exodus 17:7 says "He named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested Yahweh, saying, “Is Yahweh among us, or not?", so the hardening of the hearts was the people testing God. To bring this back to Hebrews in verse 10 it says "Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways". So the saints should not harden their hearts in going astray from the ways of the Lord. Just as the Old Testament saints did not stop believing in Yahweh, this scripture is not warning people against ceasing to believe in Jesus.

Hebrews 3:12-14 "Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,"
The argument is that "fall away from the living God" means to stop believing in Jesus.
In verse 13 it says "so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin", so this is what it means to fall away from the living God, as sin is doing the opposite of what God desires. Since the author is addressing Hebrews, and some of them were partakers of Christ, he gives them an indicator to know if they are partakers based on holding their assurance until the end. If they do not, that shows they were never a partaker of Christ.

Hebrews 6:4-6 "For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame."
The argument is that "fallen away" in verse 6 means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
This understanding is said to comes from verses 1-3 and probably from the phrase "faith toward God" in verse 1. Perhaps implying that one has fallen away from faith toward God.
This may seem reasonable, but I think if one continues in the text they will see how this is not consistent. Hebrews 6:9 says "But in your case, dear friends, even though we speak like this, we are convinced of better things relating to salvation."
Notice after describing judgement (verse 8) it mentions better things relating to salvation, not salvation. Rewards are better things relating to salvation. In fact the text goes on to say in verse 10 "For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name, in having served and continuing to serve the saints". Rewards follow the faithful works of the saints, not salvation.
Verses 11-12 go on to say "But we passionately want each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of your hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and perseverance inherit the promises."
Were they to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of their hope until the end, so that they may be saved? No, but rather "so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and perseverance inherit the promises."
One can read Hebrews chapter 5 and see that it and chapter six are not focusing on salvation, but rather on obedience. So "fallen away" in Hebrews 6:6 is referring to falling away from obedience to producing "thorns and thistles" (verse 8).

Hebrews 10:26 "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,"
I think the argument is that "go on sinning willfully" means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
Verses 29-30 shed some light as they say "How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people."
So those who go on sinning willfully against God are "his people". I don't see how someone can stop believing in Jesus and yet be his people. I'm going to suggest that "go on sinning willfully" means to continue in sin for a time, which is certainly something the people of God can do as verse 28 shows when it says "Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses...".

Hebrews 12:16 "that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal."
I think the argument is that "unholy" means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
Notice it mentions Esau being unholy and goes on to say how he sold his birthright for something much less. Verses 14-16 says this:
"Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled".
So what is being encouraged is living a righteous life through the grace of God, not encouraging people to keep believing in Jesus.

James 5:20 "let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins."
The argument is that "wandering" is to stop believing in Jesus.
Verse 19 says "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back,".
So this wandering is from the truth, but what truth? Notice in verse 20 that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering from the truth, they will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. If this is speaking about eternal life you have people who are saviors, and covering sins, when Jesus alone is one saving people and taking away their sins. Rather the death spoken of is what's known as physical death, and covering sins by bringing the wanderer back to the truth, which will cover the sins since the individual who did them will be doing the opposite.

2 Peter 1:9-10 "For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;"
I think the argument is that "stumble" means to stop believing in Jesus.
The "things" in verse 10 are defined in verses 5-7 as "Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love."
Obviously the saints will stumble in their walk if they do not practice there things, but nothing here about believing in Jesus.

2 Peter 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves."
I think the argument is that "denying the Master" means to stop believing in Jesus.
The verse says who this is speaking of, that being "false prophets" and "false teachers", not believers in Jesus. Maybe the idea is that the false teachers used to believe in Jesus because they were among the saints, but the gatherings of the saints have always had unbelievers in their midst, so one cannot be dogmatic on if they formerly believed in Jesus.

2 Peter 2:19 "promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved."
I think the argument is that "promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves" means to have stopped believing in Jesus.
If one goes back to verse 9 it identifies who "they" are where it says "...and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment". I see nothing in the context to suggest that these unrighteous people formerly believed in Jesus, so arguing otherwise is an argument from silence.

2 Peter 3:16 "As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."
I think the argument is that "to their own destruction" implies that one has stopped believing in Jesus.
This scripture refers to those being mentioned as "unlearned", and yet John 6:45 says how everyone who comes to Jesus "has learned of the Father". I see no reason to believe these people are those who used to believe in Jesus.

1 John 2:4 "The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;"
I think this may be a typo as I don't see how this could be understood as anything having to with someone who stopped believing in Jesus. It says the one who says they have come to know Jesus "is a liar".

1 John 2:28 "And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming."
I think the argument is that "abide in Him" means to keep believing in Jesus. So this implies that some may stop believing in Jesus.
In verse 12 it identifies the children as those who are forgiven through the name of Jesus.
In verse 10 it identifies what it means to abide where it says "He who loves his brother abides in the light...". Seeing as though Jesus is "the light" (John 1:4-9) I think it's fair to equate this with abiding in Jesus.
In verse 3 it says "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." Commandments such as loving God and one's neighbor.
I see nothing in the context to suggest that abiding in Jesus means to believe in him, but rather to obey him. Children of the Lord already believe in Jesus, but always need to be encouraged to obey him.

1 John 5:16 "If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this."
I think the argument is that "a sin leading to death" means to stop believing in Jesus.
The context does not appear to indicate what this sin leading to death is, but notice that it mentions sin leading to death, and sin not leading to death. Unbelief in Jesus cannot be what this is referring to as it is lumped in with many other sins in Revelation 21:8 where it says:
"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

2 John 1:9 "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."
I think the argument is that "does not abide in the teaching of Christ" means to stop believing in Jesus.
Not only does the scripture say they are not abiding in "the teaching", but it verse 8 it says "Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward". Eternal life through believing in Jesus is a gift (Romans 6:23), not a reward as those who abide in the teaching of Christ receive (Romans 4:4).

I see no scripture teaching that one who has believed in Jesus may or will stop believing in Jesus.
I do see scripture that describes those who go out from the body of Christ.
In 1 John 2:19 John tells his fellow believers (verse 12) about people who deny the Father and the Son (verse 22):
"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Eternal life - re-saved

Eternal life - re-saved
By Shawn Cahill
9/17/19

The below words and phrases are things God has done for the saints, having brought them from death to eternal life. One reason I do not believe a saved person can become unsaved, is because I have never seen in scripture of any of the below things happening to an individual more than once.

"baptized" 1 Corinthians 12:13
"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit."

"born of God" 1 John 3:9
"No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God."

"circumcised" Colossians 2:11
"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,"

"justified" Titus 3:7
"so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

"made us alive" Ephesians 2:5
"even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved"

"perfected" Hebrews 10:14
"For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."

"purchased" Revelation 5:9
"And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation."

"redeemed" Galatians 3:13
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

"regenerated" 1 Peter 1:3
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy hath regenerated us unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

"sanctified" Hebrews 10:10
"And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

"saved" Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,"

"transferred us to the kingdom" Colossians 1:13
"He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,"

"washed" 1 Corinthians 6:11
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

I asked various people who believe a saved person can become unsaved, and as of yet I have no scripture presented for what I asked about.