Loss of salvation???

[Genez]

You believe you can lose the race but still be saved???

Here is the verse:

ERV
You know that in a race all the runners run, but only one runner gets the prize. So run like that. Run to win!

The context is win or lose, not do your best. There is no participation trophy in this race.
Remember according to the verse "only one" gets the prize. The rest lose.

In the context of the verse there is no try. It's win or lose.

Salvation is not a prize we must compete for!
Jesus secured our salvation on the Cross.

The following passage is what that prize is about!

And, at the end of that passage?
It tells us that those who fail to gain the prize?
.... Are yet saved!!!

Read it!

​

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. ​

​

If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, ​

their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be ​

revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. ​

​

If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. (prize!) ​

If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss (no prize!) but yet will be saved​

—even though only as one escaping through the flames.​

​

​

1 Corinthians 3:11-15​

​

grace and peace ............

 

[Genez]

Actually, they were “Christians” since they were “followers of Christ.”

They were disciples of rabbi Jesus.

He had to remain as a man until after the Cross.

 

[Chaps]

They were disciples of rabbi Jesus.

He had to remain as a man until after the Cross.

Wait, what? So he wasn’t divine before the cross?

So…. Im a disciple of rabbi Jesus too.

 

[Genez]

Jesus walking on water did not mean he was being God!
He was still being as a man in his own power.
Moses presenting the parting sea waters did not mean he was being God!

God produces miracle for faithful men as God wills...
Jesus did not return to being as God until He ascended and was GLORIFIED!

...........

 

[Genez]

Wait, what? So he wasn’t divine before the cross?

So…. Im a disciple of rabbi Jesus too.

He was not being as God before the Cross!

If he was being as God?
You would have to be God for Him to die in your place!

...... come on! THINK!

,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Chaps]

He was not being as God before the Cross!

If he was being as God?
You would have to be God for Him to die in your place!

...... come on! THINK!

,,,,,,,,,,,,

So are you saying before the cross he was not, in his being, God?

This is a heresy that mirrors something called Adoptionism that the Church has denounced for centuries. Jesus was God in the flesh…in his very being. This didnt begin after the resurrection or at his baptism. He was the Word made flesh before he was crucified and his being or essence didn’t change as a result of his baptism or being crucified.

 

[Genez]

Who (Christ), though He eternally existed in the essence of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be seized to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!






Philippians 2:6-8

 

[Genez]

So are you saying before the cross he was not, in his being, God?.

Not functioning in the power of God.
Only functioning in the power of a (sinless) man.
Read post #547

 

[Chaps]

Who (Christ), though He eternally existed in the essence of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be seized to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!






Philippians 2:6-8

Yeah, so if you’re saying that Jesus humbled himself and didn’t use his divine authority or power, then I can agree with that. You need to write a little more carefully as many of your posts have very poorly worded phrases that are improperly punctuated. It can make someone read something very different than, perhaps, what you intend. These things tend to matter a lot when it comes to theology as heresy often tries to only slightly divert from the truth.

In any event, I dont know what your point is here. Yes, Jesus was a Jewish peasant who was God in the flesh and lived under the Law and most often spoke to those under the Law. However, I dont know why this somehow makes his teaching not have practical implication to Christians or Gentiles. His teaching wasn’t about obedience to the Old Covenant or how to be a faithful Jew. His message was about the coming Kingdom of God and the New Covenant that he would establish for all nations. This didn’t just begin at his resurrection. He came to bring new wine to new wine skins. He didn’t bring old wine to new wine skins. The idea that the Gospels do not apply to Christian or Gentiles is absurd. It is not only discounted by the fact that the NT writers often quote the teachings of Jesus when speaking to Gentile believers, but also several Gospels themselves were written to Christians and 1st century churches!

You still havent responded to ANY of the arguments I made in my lengthy post…
You claim I am a Gentile who just doesnt know very much, but you dont respond to any of my arguments on why your view of the NT context is illegitimate. Why is that?

 

[Genez]

Yeah, so if you’re saying that Jesus humbled himself and didn’t use his divine authority or power, then I can agree with that. You need to write a little more carefully as many of your posts have very poorly worded phrases that are improperly punctuated. It can make someone read something very different than, perhaps, what you intend. These things tend to matter a lot when it comes to theology as heresy often tries to only slightly divert from the truth.

I can not punctuate just for you (a few others).... For I do not know how you think.
But, I do take note of the thinking of those who have a hard time.

There are others who can understand what I write.

So.. If you need clarification? Just ask...

 

[Genez]

Yeah, so if you’re saying that Jesus humbled himself and didn’t use his divine authority or power, then I can agree with that. You need to write a little more carefully as many of your posts have very poorly worded phrases that are improperly punctuated. It can make someone read something very different than, perhaps, what you intend. These things tend to matter a lot when it comes to theology as heresy often tries to only slightly divert from the truth.

In any event, I dont know what your point is here. Yes, Jesus was a Jewish peasant who was God in the flesh and lived under the Law and most often spoke to those under the Law. However, I dont know why this somehow makes his teaching not have practical implication to Christians or Gentiles. His teaching wasn’t about obedience to the Old Covenant or how to be a faithful Jew. His message was about the coming Kingdom of God and the New Covenant that he would establish for all nations. This didn’t just begin at his resurrection. He came to bring new wine to new wine skins. He didn’t bring old wine to new wine skins. The idea that the Gospels do not apply to Christian or Gentiles is absurd. It is not only discounted by the fact that the NT writers often quote the teachings of Jesus when speaking to Gentile believers, but also several Gospels themselves were written to Christians and 1st century churches!

You still havent responded to ANY of the arguments I made in my lengthy post…
You claim I am a Gentile who just doesnt know very much, but you dont respond to any of my arguments on why your view of the NT context is illegitimate. Why is that?

He was as a prophet. Not as God.

We are to heed the words of a prophet.

But, that prophet was not being God as he spoke.

Yet, Jesus speaking truth as a prophet could say things to indicate He is God.
But, without being as God in power when he declared those words.
That is why his enemies felt free to mock him...

 

[Chaps]

I can not punctuate just for you (a few others).... For I do not know how you think.
But, I do take note of the thinking of those who have a hard time.

There are others who can understand what I write.

So.. If you need clarification? Just ask...

This isn’t how grammar works, friend. You don‘t punctuate for specific people. You follow the rules of grammar so your message can be properly understood. I mean, I’m not asking you for a personal favor here. I’m just letting you know that if you dont punctuate properly and use fragmented sentences as you are prone to do, you will likely be misunderstood. It’s not my job, as a reader, to try to understand your intent independant of what your actual sentences say.

I am more than happy to ask for clarification and give you the benefit of the doubt, as I did on the comments that appeared to be Adoptionism. However, I’m just recommending, out of kindness toward you, to encourage you to consider your grammar before replying so people know what you truly mean rather than what your sentences may inaccurately state.

 

[Chaps]

He was as a prophet. Not as God.

We are to heed the words of a prophet.

But, that prophet was not being God as he spoke.

Yet, Jesus speaking truth as a prophet could say things to indicate He is God.
But, without being as God in power when he declared those words.
That is why his enemies felt free to mock him...

What is your point? Jesus was God in the flesh and spoke as a prophet (and a prophet speaks God’s words).

So what are you driving at? Who cares if Jesus was speaking the words of his Father or speaking as God? His words are the words of God, regardless…right? So what is your point???

 

[Genez]

This isn’t how grammar works, friend. You don‘t punctuate for specific people. .

OK ... next time present to me how something should have been written after I clarify for you.

Fair enough? I'm serious.

 

[sawdust]

I didn’t equate it this way, Paul did. He is the one who said, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me a crown of righteousness,

ROFL

He said a "crown of righteousness" was in store for him, not salvation from death. He already had the latter.

He also said:

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Besides, why is it so wrong to consider Paul is arguing we should persist in faith to receive the prize of salvation

Because salvation from death is a GIFT, not a prize.

Honestly, I have to think you have little idea what the doctrine of eternal security actually teaches if you want to continue treating salvation as a prize to be earned.

 

[sawdust]

No, the race is still on. I don't make the rules, I just follow them.

So what do you think the singular prize that we are running for?

Are you saying you're not saved? How can you be in the race if you are not saved?

 

[Genez]

What is your point? Jesus was God in the flesh and spoke as a prophet (and a prophet speaks God’s words).

So what are you driving at? Who cares if Jesus was speaking the words of his Father or speaking as God? His words are the words of God, regardless…right? So what is your point???

What you are failing to see, is that Jesus was required to remain as a man in order to qualify to die in the place of all men.

Satan knew who Jesus really was. So did demons...

Then what was the point of Satan tempting Jesus to turn stones into bread when Satan knew the true identity of Jesus?

A first class condition in the Greek means something is so...
And, its what Satan used in Matthew 4:3.


The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the
Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”


The Greek uses a first class condition, and should be rendered more as follows...

The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of
God [and you are], tell these stones to become bread.”

What was Satan hoping to accomplish with his challenge to Jesus?
Reading the English translation renders a wrong impression.
Satan was not seeking for Jesus to prove he was God.

Knowing the Greek grammar and syntax , it would let the Greek reader know that Satan was not challenging Jesus to prove he was the God the Son. For Satan was acknowledging that He knew Jesus was the Son. Satan had known Jesus prior.
But, Satan's challenge had to mean something different than what many English Bible readers could not know.

The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of
God [and you are], tell these stones to become bread.”

Satan was tempting Jesus to cease being as a man, and to be as God.
If Jesus gave in? And returned to functioning as God?
In the moment Jesus did that? Jesus would have been disqualified to die as a man for all men!

The following was taken from notes of a lecture/Bible lesson given my Pastor who always taught us from the Greek text.

3~~ And when the tempter {Satan/Lucifer/the devil} came to Him, he said, "If You are always {in the absolute status of being} the Son of God - and you are - SPEAK that these stones may become bread."

{Note: The Greek syntax of a 1st class conditional clause requires 'and you are'. This indicates that Satan recognized the deity of Christ even if we do not! Doesn't imply though Satan was saved by this belief, his salvation test was different and his judgement already declared.}

{Note: This is a true and unique temptation for Christ - he could do it! You and I could not! Tempting the humanity of Christ to obtain a lawful thing (food) in an unlawful way (using a Miracle to relieve intense hunger - hunger peaks in a human body in the 40th day) instead of relying on his Unique Prototype Spiritual Life). This would be a sin -- Arrogance -- similar to Lucifer's first sin 'I will be like the most high'}.

 

[sawdust]

If you are reading that statement as insulting then that’s on you. So, if I said to you, “Put your hand out and hold it there for one minute and I will put a billion dollars in your palm” did you “earn” the money? Did the ”reward” and the “Prize” I give you for obeying my instruction something you “earned?”

Let's use this analogy. You say "hold out your hand I will give you a thousand dollars". Equivalent to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will receive eternal life". It is a gift. I did nothing to produce the money, and no labour on my part earned it.

Now I have $1,000 I need to invest it. You have given me instructions on how to invest it wisely, I follow those instructions to the letter and double, treble maybe quadruple the investment. I earned that investment and am rewarded accordingly. Equivalent to a faithful walk that wins the prize, a crown of righteousness.

But let's say I ignore the instructions and waste the investment. I gain nothing and therefore have earned nothing. No prize for me at the end of the race but the capital (eternal life, the initial gift) remains because it is a secured capital. It is guaranteed by the word of God who gave it. God does not take back His gift. He is not fickle like men.

 

[Chaps]

ROFL

He said a "crown of righteousness" was in store for him, not salvation from death. He already had the latter.

He also said:

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,



Because salvation from death is a GIFT, not a prize.

Honestly, I have to think you have little idea what the doctrine of eternal security actually teaches if you want to continue treating salvation as a prize to be earned.

The word for “crown” in 2 Tim. 4:8 is “stephanos“. This is not a kingly crown but a crown of victory in games, which is a similar word used in 1 Cor 9:24 “brabeion” which was a crown wreath or garland bestowed on victors in the Greek games.

So, these are not two different ideas. Yes, he did say salvation is a gift of God. I agree with that. I dont think the reward/prize we accept for remaining faithful to Jesus is “earning” salvation. You taking far too much out of this illustration Paul is using. The point is simple. People in the Greek games give everything to strive to receive a temporary crown and glory that does not last. Christians, should endure and persist in their faith because they are longing for a crown and glory that endures forever. This has nothing to do with working for or earning anything. It has to do with endurance and the glory we seek in Christ that far outweighs any wreath a Greek athlete would train for. I assure you Paul wasn’t even thinking about Calvinistic ideas of “works based salvation” when he was using this illustraiton. He was talking about proper Christian focus and motivation to remain faithful

 

[Chaps]

Let's use this analogy. You say "hold out your hand I will give you a thousand dollars". Equivalent to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will receive eternal life". It is a gift. I did nothing to produce the money, and no labour on my part earned it.

Now I have $1,000 I need to invest it. You have given me instructions on how to invest it wisely, I follow those instructions to the letter and double, treble maybe quadruple the investment. I earned that investment and am rewarded accordingly. Equivalent to a faithful walk that wins the prize, a crown of righteousness.

But let's say I ignore the instructions and waste the investment. I gain nothing and therefore have earned nothing. No prize for me at the end of the race but the capital (eternal life, the initial gift) remains because it is a secured capital. It is guaranteed by the word of God who gave it. God does not take back His gift. He is not fickle like men.

Okay, thats a fine illustration and I am fine with it. I dont see either the reception of the gift or the investing of it for a profit as “earning” anything. It’s all a gift. However, from your perspective, it would seem that the investing of the $1000 is, by your argument, “works.” So, my question to you is, “Why do you think it’s okay to receive salvation by grace alone, but heavenly rewards can be earned by our works?” Isn’t EVERYTHING we receive from God an act of grace? So, it seems to me that your argument is that eternal life is only by God’s grace, but the 15 mansions you get in heaven were a result of your own labor? How is that not a contradiction? That was the point i was trying to make.