Loss of salvation???
- Thread starter gratefuloneson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
For those who believe in the idea that one can lose his salvation (which I don't understand why it's such a big deal, unless YOU are worried about losing YOURS), you have a problem on your hands.
Think through this with me, if you will:
Let's say a man killed six million people in his past, and then confesses Christ Jesus and believes upon His death, burial and resurrection on the third day. He knows his past and future sins are forgiven, otherwise he's no more saved than you are right now given that he and we all will continue to sin in life. Any of you who don't think you will, well, you're on your own...
So, the Blood of Christ was/is MORE than sufficient to cleanse that man from six million murders in his past, but some seem to think that when it comes to future sins, all of a sudden the Blood of Christ loses its sufficiency...that it has limits that it did not, does not, have in relation to past sins.
Do you see the problem here? Nobody here or anywhere else has yet provided a definition for that line that somehow marks the limit for the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ for sin, the crossing over of which allegedly negates one's salvation. No graph has yet been provided whereby anyone can show to us that line that they believe exists.
That's a problem. Who in his right mind thinks that he can rightfully define some contrived limit to the sufficiency in the Blood of Christ Jesus merely on the basis of the direction from the point of salvation?
MM
Think through this with me, if you will:
Let's say a man killed six million people in his past, and then confesses Christ Jesus and believes upon His death, burial and resurrection on the third day. He knows his past and future sins are forgiven, otherwise he's no more saved than you are right now given that he and we all will continue to sin in life. Any of you who don't think you will, well, you're on your own...
So, the Blood of Christ was/is MORE than sufficient to cleanse that man from six million murders in his past, but some seem to think that when it comes to future sins, all of a sudden the Blood of Christ loses its sufficiency...that it has limits that it did not, does not, have in relation to past sins.
Do you see the problem here? Nobody here or anywhere else has yet provided a definition for that line that somehow marks the limit for the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ for sin, the crossing over of which allegedly negates one's salvation. No graph has yet been provided whereby anyone can show to us that line that they believe exists.
That's a problem. Who in his right mind thinks that he can rightfully define some contrived limit to the sufficiency in the Blood of Christ Jesus merely on the basis of the direction from the point of salvation?
MM
Let's take the two following statements that a teacher says to his class of students -
1. "It is impossible for a one-metre long fish to be swallowed whole." (Passive infinitive)
2. It is impossible to swallow a one metre long fish whole." (Active infinitive)
Are both of these statements to the class true?
Or are both false?
Or is one true and one false?
1. "It is impossible for a one-metre long fish to be swallowed whole." (Passive infinitive)
2. It is impossible to swallow a one metre long fish whole." (Active infinitive)
Are both of these statements to the class true?
Or are both false?
Or is one true and one false?
You are a prime example of not showing how.
Give it a shot...
Show us how that is so?
Instead of just saying it is so.
Rightly divide it.
How does what you claimed apply to 1 Peter 1:6-9?
Give it a shot...
Show us how that is so?
Instead of just saying it is so.
Rightly divide it.
How does what you claimed apply to 1 Peter 1:6-9?
In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved
by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold
that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and
honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Though you have not seen him, you love him.
Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible
and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
.PaulThomson said:
Let's take the two following statements that a teacher says to his class of students -
1. "It is impossible for a one-metre long fish to be swallowed whole." (Passive infinitive)
2. It is impossible to swallow a one metre long fish whole." (Active infinitive)
Are both of these statements to the class true?
Or are both false?
Or is one true and one false?
In the context of teacher speaking to a class of students.
1 is false. A lone metre long fish could be swallowed whole by a large shark.
2 is true. A one metre long fish could not be swallowed whole by anyone in the class, nor by the teacher.
Let's take the two following statements that a teacher says to his class of students -
1. "It is impossible for a one-metre long fish to be swallowed whole." (Passive infinitive)
2. It is impossible to swallow a one metre long fish whole." (Active infinitive)
Are both of these statements to the class true?
Or are both false?
Or is one true and one false?
In the context of teacher speaking to a class of students.
1 is false. A lone metre long fish could be swallowed whole by a large shark.
2 is true. A one metre long fish could not be swallowed whole by anyone in the class, nor by the teacher.