Once a Sheep Always a Sheep, or Salvation Deficit Disorder?

[BlessedinHim]

http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/are-the-deceived-responsible-for-their-deception

Are The Deceived Responsible For Their Own Deception?
Ask a Bible Teacher

Q. My question is: Are the deceived responsible for their having been deceived? Even the church is constantly warned in the Bible to beware of false prophets and false Christs, but it seems like there are an awful lot of Christians who have fallen for the tricks of cults and false messiahs. Some people might say that these deceived folks "must never have been real believers in the first place to be so misled" but that's a pretty irresponsible cop-out if you ask me.

I'm a firm believer of the "OSAS" doctrine so I can't believe these people are losing their salvation by believing the lies they're fed, but I'm having a bit of trouble justifying that to myself or anyone else who asks.

A. In Romans 1:20 Paul wrote that the evidence for a Creator is so pervasive that it's impossible to miss, leaving mankind without excuse. This is why one of the Greek words for unbeliever also means disobedient.

In the Kingdom Parables of Matt. 13, the Lord described four kinds of recipients of His Word. The first hears the word and doesn't comprehend it. The second hears the word but it doesn't take root. The third hears the word but is too preoccupied by the things of this world to pay attention, and the fourth hears and understands. In these parables the field represents the world and the seed is His Word, and there is no group who doesn't hear the word , there are only groups who don't accept it. In order for God to be just, everyone who stands before Him will have had to experience at least one legitimate offer of salvation.
He also said that the enemy tries to steal the word out of our hearts. Paul confirmed that the enemy blinds the eyes of unbelievers. (2 cor. 4:3-4) The word unbeliever there also means faithless and untrustworthy.

In 2 Thes. 2:9-10 Paul talks about people being deceived. There, he says that they're deceived because they refused to believe the truth and be saved.

God gave us His word as a standard against which to compare all doctrine. His word says that the time would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires, they will gather around themselves teachers who say what their itching ears want to hear.(2 Tim. 4:3-4) The implication here is that false doctrine gains traction when rebellious men desire to hear it.

From all this I conclude that we really can't be deceived unless on some level we're complicit. Therefore we're responsible.

Many believers have zeal without knowledge because they don't make God's word the foundation of their faith. They can be led off the track when what they hear suits their own earthly desires. This is why the so-called Prosperity Gospel is always so popular. But if we've truly accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, then God has accepted responsibility for keeping us until the day of redemption, regardless of the whacky notions we come up with. (2 Cor. 1:21-22)

[Tron4JC]

Savedbygrace: esus said, "I lay down my life for the sheep." Did he lay down his life for people who arent sheep? Read Hebrews 2:9-18 and see that Jesus died for everyone. Who does the "everyone" ential? According to Hebrews 2:9-18, they are his sheep, his brothers, his people whom the father has given him out of the whole world.

Me: Here is why citing passages where Christ died for the sheep is not proof Christ died for the sheep alone.

2 Peter 2:1 speaks of those who denied the Lord who bought them. So does that mean than only those who are condemned in the end are the only ones who Christ bought? Of course not!

But if we take texts that like you did where Christ died for the sheep as proof He died only for them, then we can take texts that say Christ died for the reprobate and use that as proof Christ died only for them.

[Tron4JC]

Savedbygrace: When speaking about "God's will," we must make clear of what we are speaking of, whether "what God would like to see occur" or "what he actually allows to happen." Both are spoken of as "God's will" in scripture. So that said, I agree that God would like to see all men saved in one sense. This however, in no way contradicts God's unconditional election because in another sense, God does everything he desires (Job 23:13). If you hold that God wants all to save and does not save all, there are problems that occure, from scripture contradiction, to charging God with being disingenous and mean.

Me: Paradox does not necessarily mean contradiction. There are passages that states God wants all men to be saved. And before you claim it refers to all classes of people, rather than every person as Paul used it in 1 Tim 2, Paul also in 1 Tim 4 said God is saviour of all men, especially those who believe. In other words, all men does not have just those who are saved alone.

There are passages that speak of people resisting the Holy Spirit and Christ wanting to save people but they are unwilling.

The fact they are unwiling btw IMO does not prove freewill. Resistance to God's grace is no proof of freewill to believe, but if anything illustrates how bent to sin our freewill is apart from grace. The fact a person resists grace only shows the person is still in bondage to sin and thus far has still no freewill to turn.

Why do God's grace saves some and not others? I agree with Luther with these principles: 1) the fault is in the will that does not receive God Incarnate, 2) why grace saves some and not others, though God Incarnate comes to all by word of salvation, it is unlawful to ask. Scriptures don't tell us why grace does not save all. It does not say grace inwardly only for the elect.

We can say the cause ultimately of some believing and persevering is indeed God's divine choice of the elect. The elect has nothing to do with their own salvation, since as pointed out, none of us are capable in of ourselves of choosing Christ. God gives us that faith. It is not from within ourselves. We contribute nothing to salvation, not even conversion. Conversion is result of God changing our hearts to turn to Christ for salvation.

How do I reconcile all these paradoxes? I don't. I let Scriptures speak as Scriptures speak and let it all be resolved when I go to heaven.

[BlessedinHim]

[/quote]Modern Arminianism’s Perversion of the Gospel
http://www.reformed.com/pub/just.htm

Modern evangelicalism is plagued not only by antinomianism, but also by Arminianism. Modern Arminianism teaches that as a consequence of Adam’s sin, all men are born with an inherent hereditary corruption. But the Arminian does not believe that fallen man is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1) and totally unable to respond to divine truth (Ezek. 16:4-6; Jer. 13:23; Jn. 6:44, 65; Acts 26:17-18; 1 Cor. 2:14). He believes that man is not spiritually dead but merely sick;[/quote]

We are definitely spiritually dead until we repent and believe.

[/quote] that he has a free will, that is, a will that is capable of discerning spiritual truth without a prior work of sovereign grace (i.e., regeneration).[/quote]

I dont believe that way. When we are presented with the gospel, God pulls at us to choose Him back.

[/quote]The Arminian’s unbiblical understanding of the fall has led to the exaltation of the human will in the process of salvation. As a rock thrown into a pond causes ripples to radiate outward until the whole pond is affected, the heresy of free will has fatally influenced several important Christian doctrines (e.g., the atonement, the sovereignty of God, regeneration, faith, perseverance of the saints, etc.). Modern evangelistic techniques that are based on free will instead of divine revelation implicitly place God under the thumb of sinful man. [/quote]


I think freewill is misunderstood. The law points out our sins, God made us a conscience, We do have to make a choice, but without Gods intervention we would not be able to choose Him.

[Saved by Grace_06]

blessedinhim

My question is: Are the deceived responsible for their having been deceived?

In a word: Yes! The reason this is so is because everyone knows that God exists through creation alone, and through the testimony of the conscience alone, man knows that he has offended his marker.

Even the church is constantly warned in the Bible to beware of false prophets and false Christs, but it seems like there are an awful lot of Christians who have fallen for the tricks of cults and false messiahs. Some people might say that these deceived folks "must never have been real believers in the first place to be so misled" but that's a pretty irresponsible cop-out if you ask me.

It is true that if someone who leaves the faith and goes into cults, etc., they have never truely been born agian. In fact, they leave in order that they may show that they were never really of the faith (1John 2:19). Being born again is a supernatural even with which God makes a dead man live. It is on the same level with Lazarus' resurrection in that God makes us alive first, in order that we might perform that which we could not do before.

I'm a firm believer of the "OSAS" doctrine so I can't believe these people are losing their salvation by believing the lies they're fed, but I'm having a bit of trouble justifying that to myself or anyone else who asks.

I think I understand your problem? I think you're having problem harmonizing the scriptures? If this is the case, maybe I can help? Exactly what are you having trouble understanding?

God gave us His word as a standard against which to compare all doctrine. His word says that the time would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires, they will gather around themselves teachers who say what their itching ears want to hear.(2 Tim. 4:3-4) The implication here is that false doctrine gains traction when rebellious men desire to hear it. From all this I conclude that we really can't be deceived unless on some level we're complicit. Therefore we're responsible.

I agree with all you said here. Man is always responsible for his sin and hardness of heart. Always. There are none who desire holiness and Christ and the freedom from sin that will not get that most precious desire.

Many believers have zeal without knowledge because they don't make God's word the foundation of their faith. They can be led off the track when what they hear suits their own earthly desires. This is why the so-called Prosperity Gospel is always so popular. But if we've truly accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, then God has accepted responsibility for keeping us until the day of redemption, regardless of the whacky notions we come up with. (2 Cor. 1:21-22)

I agree with you here too. I would just subsitute the word "accept" Jesus for "recieve" Jesus. I think people get the wrong imipression when they hear "you must accept Jesus." The truth is, Jesus is King of kings, Lord of lords, and Soverign uncreated creator God, he does the accept - not us. And, he will accept all those who repents of their sins and places their trust in Christ. Repentance and Faith are the two wings that will fly us to the savior.

[Saved by Grace_06]

Savedbygrace: esus said, "I lay down my life for the sheep." Did he lay down his life for people who arent sheep? Read Hebrews 2:9-18 and see that Jesus died for everyone. Who does the "everyone" ential? According to Hebrews 2:9-18, they are his sheep, his brothers, his people whom the father has given him out of the whole world.

Me: Here is why citing passages where Christ died for the sheep is not proof Christ died for the sheep alone.

2 Peter 2:1 speaks of those who denied the Lord who bought them. So does that mean than only those who are condemned in the end are the only ones who Christ bought? Of course not!

But if we take texts that like you did where Christ died for the sheep as proof He died only for them, then we can take texts that say Christ died for the reprobate and use that as proof Christ died only for them.

You have a point, I think? But still, if you were to do a systematized study on all the verses that deal with "for whom did Christ die?" you'd have way more that deal with the reality that he died for "his sheep," "elect" "church" etc. Still however, that doesnt answer the question that seem to teach that Christ died for everyone, i.e. every man indivisually. You mentioned 2Pet 2:1. I think thats a great scripture to explain the atonement and its nature. In one real sense, Christ did buy all men - even the reprobates. He didnt purchase their salvation, but he did buy certain things for them. For example, Christ purchased the common graces that everyone, whether saved or unsaved, enjoy. Apart from the cross of Christ (slain before the foundations of the world), ALL people everywhere would have NOTHING but the just wrath of God as their and our judgement. Christ bought for all people everywhere, the common graces of God. Yet notwithstanding, his death served as a subsitionary ransom for many. Finally, one other thing that Christ bough with his blood sacrifice is the right to everything. There is not one thing anywhere in this world that the risen and everlasting reigning Christ will not say "I own it" when it returns.

[Saved by Grace_06]

Tron4JC;39974

Me: Paradox does not necessarily mean contradiction. There are passages that states God wants all men to be saved. And before you claim it refers to all classes of people, rather than every person as Paul used it in 1 Tim 2, Paul also in 1 Tim 4 said God is saviour of all men, especially those who believe. In other words, all men does not have just those who are saved alone.

I like that - "paradox does not necessarlily mean contradiction." Very well said! Please keep this in mind as you read through my points. First, God's desire to see all men saved and God's decision in an "unconditional election" are not mutually exclussive. In fact, they go into what theologians call "the two wills of God." The difference is in what God would like to see happen (will of God) and what he actually allows to occur (will of God). Again, we must differentiate between the two "wills" when considering certian scriptures. Let me know explain really quickly that you too see that God has Two Wills. If asked, "does God want all men everywhere to be saved?" you will reply "yes." If I then ask, "why arent all men saved?" you would assert that God desires the free and uncoerce loved of his people's choice of him, over his first will - namely, that he desires all men to be saved. There's your second will in God. In short: You believe God values more the free will decisions of his creatures more than his desires to see all saved. That explained, I'll move on to point number two:

Christ Jesus is the Savior of all men. In one real sense, he died to be a ransom for many. What this entials is that he became the propitiation for their sins by appeasing God's wrath and justifying wicked sinners before God, thus making it possible for God to be just in justifying the ungodly. However, and in another real sense, Christ is the savior of all men in gerneral because he preserves them in the daily providences of life. Moreover, apart from the cross of Christ (which was prepared before the world), there would be nothing but justice on God's part to us, and that would mean nothing but wrath for us. So in short, that is why Christ is the savior of all men, but "especially" to those who believe. Those who believe recieve eternal life because Christ' death bought their freedom.

There are passages that speak of people resisting the Holy Spirit and Christ wanting to save people but they are unwilling.

That is true of all us. The only reason why some are saved is because God makes us willing in the day of his power (Psa 110:3). All love sin. None love God. None seek God. All harded their heart and supress the truth in unrighteousness. But God, because of the love with which he loved us, made us alive together with Christ. It is by grace we are saved Eph 2:2-4). God free some people from their self-imposed slavery to sin and makes gives them a new nature where which they will love him and desire to do that which pleases God. Apart from this, NONE desire to do the will of God. This is why we must be made "born agian" before we can even "seek" God and his kingdom.

The fact they are unwiling btw IMO does not prove freewill. Resistance to God's grace is no proof of freewill to believe, but if anything illustrates how bent to sin our freewill is apart from grace. The fact a person resists grace only shows the person is still in bondage to sin and thus far has still no freewill to turn.

Thats very true.

[Saved by Grace_06]

I think freewill is misunderstood. The law points out our sins, God made us a conscience, We do have to make a choice, but without Gods intervention we would not be able to choose Him.

Thats very well said! Thanks!!

[Tron4JC]

You have a point, I think? But still, if you were to do a systematized study on all the verses that deal with "for whom did Christ die?" you'd have way more that deal with the reality that he died for "his sheep," "elect" "church" etc. Still however, that doesnt answer the question that seem to teach that Christ died for everyone, i.e. every man indivisually. You mentioned 2Pet 2:1. I think thats a great scripture to explain the atonement and its nature. In one real sense, Christ did buy all men - even the reprobates. He didnt purchase their salvation, but he did buy certain things for them. For example, Christ purchased the common graces that everyone, whether saved or unsaved, enjoy. Apart from the cross of Christ (slain before the foundations of the world), ALL people everywhere would have NOTHING but the just wrath of God as their and our judgement. Christ bought for all people everywhere, the common graces of God. Yet notwithstanding, his death served as a subsitionary ransom for many. Finally, one other thing that Christ bough with his blood sacrifice is the right to everything. There is not one thing anywhere in this world that the risen and everlasting reigning Christ will not say "I own it" when it returns.


Calvin would disagree with there on 2 Peter 2:1. :)

He wrote on that passage saying indeed the passage does refer to bought in sense of redemption by Christ:

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol45/htm/vii.iii.htm

Even denying the Lord that bought them. Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness ,and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that he may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to him and to die to him. He then says, that their swift destruction was at hand, lest others should be ensnared by them. 2

[Saved by Grace_06]

Calvin would disagree with there on 2 Peter 2:1. :)

He wrote on that passage saying indeed the passage does refer to bought in sense of redemption by Christ:

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol45/htm/vii.iii.htm

Even denying the Lord that bought them. Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness ,and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that he may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to him and to die to him. He then says, that their swift destruction was at hand, lest others should be ensnared by them. 2

I'm not sure Calvin would disagree, friend. I have yet to see from any of his works where he believed that Christ died for all. From what is this information form?