The problem of the statement of “never saved to begin with”
- Thread starter Believer08
- 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.
Missed this, but thought I had glanced by the "Katergazomai" so went back and found it.
I've asked you to provide reference, even just the title, when you define words. If and when you do, I'll come back to you.
FWIW, IMO "work out" is not a great translation and is somewhat ambiguous. But we can start there if you think it necessary. If you do, then would you use any of the 3 definitions you posted before it gets into the mining example? IOW, do we "bring about our salvation" or produce the results of our salvation, or "bring out to prepare to make our salvation"? Would any of these require us to work on our salvation? Would you prefer this to say "our sanctification" (I ask because I've had others tell me it does not mean salvation)?
You really needn't be stuck on earning and meriting salvation. You may think or allege this to be the issue, but it's really not, no matter how many times you repeat it.
BTW, I underlined part of your statement for you to look at again. Do you think salvation is giving us power according to 2:13?
Well, I have read enough of your posts to question what you said above. You obviously have done your homework and still can't see the difference between eternal security and the systematic/theology interpretation of OSAS?
Eternal security is biblical. Never perish. No condemnation. Never forsaken. Sealed. Eternal life. PRESERVED by The Lord Jesus Christ.
OSAS is a systematic/theology based on the premise of PERSEVERANCE of the believer.....The Arminian and the calvies base their beliefs off of this system.
Calvies~~not really saved.
Armins~~Lost salvation.
Eternal security is biblical. Never perish. No condemnation. Never forsaken. Sealed. Eternal life. PRESERVED by The Lord Jesus Christ.
OSAS is a systematic/theology based on the premise of PERSEVERANCE of the believer.....The Arminian and the calvies base their beliefs off of this system.
Calvies~~not really saved.
Armins~~Lost salvation.
You are projecting your own blindness to the fact that saying "There is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living (EPH 2:8-10, 2CR 5:7), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime" means
" John 3:16 then Acts 16:31. = Salvation...PERIOD."
Disagreeing with that manifests ignorance of English.
" John 3:16 then Acts 16:31. = Salvation...PERIOD."
Disagreeing with that manifests ignorance of English.
No work is needed "to be adopted by God. Be justified, redeemed. Given eternal life. Be given the spirit of life."
AND no faithless work is needed afterward either, because there is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living (EPH 2:8-10, 2CR 5:7), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime"
(That is a bonus :^)
AND no faithless work is needed afterward either, because there is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living (EPH 2:8-10, 2CR 5:7), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime"
(That is a bonus :^)
Glad you asked:
A crisis that threatened a Philippian jailer with death prompted him to ask Paul and Silas the most important question in life: “What must I do to be saved?” (ACTS 16:30) The reply of Paul and Silas was this: “Believe in the Lord Jesus.” (ACTS 16:31) This is God's requirement for salvation in a nutshell. Jesus Himself expressed GRFS even more succinctly using three, four and five letter words: “Ask… seek… knock…” (MT 7:7). As Hebrews 11:6 states: “he [God] rewards those who earnestly seek him” (cf. IS 45:19). Seeking God is the beginning of saving faith, and not seeking God or rejecting His salvation in Christ is the essence of evil atheism or faith in I-dolatry (RM 3:11, 1:18-23).
I like to denote GRFS by the use of the Greek word kerygma, meaning proclamation or preaching, referring to the good news (Gospel) concerning salvation to heaven and from a just hell (the DOD, cf. RM 1:16, GL 1:6-12, CL 1:21-23). This Gospel was preached by Peter (in ACTS 2:22-24) and summarized by Paul (in 1CR 15:1-8). The salient points include: Jesus was a man, accredited by God (to be Messiah), who died on a cross, but who was raised or resurrected from the dead. Messiah is the Way to heaven.
The normative way of stating the kerygma/GRFS in the NT is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as in 2CR 4:5 & CL 2:6). The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in this statement can be explained or elaborated as follows:
1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (DT 6:4, JN 3:16, 2THS 1:6), who is both able (2TM 1:12) and willing (1TM 2:3-4) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (RM 3:23, 2TM 3:2-4, CL 3:5), miserable (GL 5:19-21), and hopeless (EPH 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (MT 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (JN 3:18, RM 2:5-11).
3. Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (JN 3:16, ACTS 16:30-31, PHP 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (RM 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1CR 15:14-28).
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (LK 2:11, JN 14:6, ACTS 16:31), which means trying to obey His commandment to love one another (MT 22:37-40, JN 13:35, RM 13:9)—forever (MT 10:22, PS 113:2).
5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (RV 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (JN 14:6, 17&26, RM 8:6-17, GL 6:7-9, EPH 1:13-14, HB 10:36, 12:1, JM 1:2-4).
The kerygma or GRFS can be stated in various ways, which may cause confusion. Some statements (e.g. ACTS 16:31, quoted previously, & EPH 2:8-9) are in terms of believing right, and others (e.g. MT 7:21, “only he who does the will of my Father will enter heaven”, cf. GL 6:7-9 & EPH 2:10) are in terms of behaving right. This prompts the question: Is salvation obtained by believing God’s words or by doing God’s works? The answer is indicated by John 6:29: “The work of God is to believe in the one [Messiah/Christ] He has sent.” This implies that believing and willing are essentially synonymous.
A crisis that threatened a Philippian jailer with death prompted him to ask Paul and Silas the most important question in life: “What must I do to be saved?” (ACTS 16:30) The reply of Paul and Silas was this: “Believe in the Lord Jesus.” (ACTS 16:31) This is God's requirement for salvation in a nutshell. Jesus Himself expressed GRFS even more succinctly using three, four and five letter words: “Ask… seek… knock…” (MT 7:7). As Hebrews 11:6 states: “he [God] rewards those who earnestly seek him” (cf. IS 45:19). Seeking God is the beginning of saving faith, and not seeking God or rejecting His salvation in Christ is the essence of evil atheism or faith in I-dolatry (RM 3:11, 1:18-23).
I like to denote GRFS by the use of the Greek word kerygma, meaning proclamation or preaching, referring to the good news (Gospel) concerning salvation to heaven and from a just hell (the DOD, cf. RM 1:16, GL 1:6-12, CL 1:21-23). This Gospel was preached by Peter (in ACTS 2:22-24) and summarized by Paul (in 1CR 15:1-8). The salient points include: Jesus was a man, accredited by God (to be Messiah), who died on a cross, but who was raised or resurrected from the dead. Messiah is the Way to heaven.
The normative way of stating the kerygma/GRFS in the NT is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as in 2CR 4:5 & CL 2:6). The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in this statement can be explained or elaborated as follows:
1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (DT 6:4, JN 3:16, 2THS 1:6), who is both able (2TM 1:12) and willing (1TM 2:3-4) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (RM 3:23, 2TM 3:2-4, CL 3:5), miserable (GL 5:19-21), and hopeless (EPH 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (MT 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (JN 3:18, RM 2:5-11).
3. Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (JN 3:16, ACTS 16:30-31, PHP 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (RM 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1CR 15:14-28).
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (LK 2:11, JN 14:6, ACTS 16:31), which means trying to obey His commandment to love one another (MT 22:37-40, JN 13:35, RM 13:9)—forever (MT 10:22, PS 113:2).
5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (RV 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (JN 14:6, 17&26, RM 8:6-17, GL 6:7-9, EPH 1:13-14, HB 10:36, 12:1, JM 1:2-4).
The kerygma or GRFS can be stated in various ways, which may cause confusion. Some statements (e.g. ACTS 16:31, quoted previously, & EPH 2:8-9) are in terms of believing right, and others (e.g. MT 7:21, “only he who does the will of my Father will enter heaven”, cf. GL 6:7-9 & EPH 2:10) are in terms of behaving right. This prompts the question: Is salvation obtained by believing God’s words or by doing God’s works? The answer is indicated by John 6:29: “The work of God is to believe in the one [Messiah/Christ] He has sent.” This implies that believing and willing are essentially synonymous.
I actually can answer or try to answer any question that may be asked, and I have answered several questions but apparently not in a way that satisfies the asker. See post #605. Unfortunately, there is a process to go through here.
I am familiar with the verses you referenced: A few different translations to begin with:
If there is more to learn and understand about Biblical Faith, might Acts16:31 become elaborated in some way? What do you think Acts16:32 adds?
I am familiar with the verses you referenced: A few different translations to begin with:
NKJ John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
NET John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
YLT John 3:16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.
How would you translate this verse?
- Do you see any functional differences in any of the underlined language?
- Do you have any preferences for how any of these clauses are translated?
- Do you see any uncertainty or potentiality in any of the underlined?
- Do you see anything that suggests this may speak of the purpose something was done?
- Since there has been discussion re: 3:14-15 and whether or not just belief, or trust was required of people during that event or whether or not there was some action required with the belief or trust, and since 3:16 begins with a conjunction tying it back to those verses, do they combined help us to understand anything about belief or anything else of significance?
I think salvation is by grace through faith just as I've said a few times. I've also been very clear that I think Jesus commanded unbelievers to work to hear and learn from God so they can believe so they can be given eternal life. And I've essentially said that I don't think Jesus and Paul are at odds.
To begin, I need an answer of what the entire scope of Salvation is and also whether or not you or @Everlasting-Grace think there is more to Biblical Faith than a definition from a dictionary or a lexicon.
To begin, I need an answer of what the entire scope of Salvation is and also whether or not you or @Everlasting-Grace think there is more to Biblical Faith than a definition from a dictionary or a lexicon.
Three responses to me, and not one answer.
Am I to consider that you have no answer to my question? Because I am not seeing anything that would lead me to understand you have any truth. I mean if you say we must work. But can;t name them. You can not even back your own theology. Then attack mine?
lol
Again, I refuse to answer any more of your questions until you answer my one simple question
Am I to consider that you have no answer to my question? Because I am not seeing anything that would lead me to understand you have any truth. I mean if you say we must work. But can;t name them. You can not even back your own theology. Then attack mine?
lol
Again, I refuse to answer any more of your questions until you answer my one simple question
-
1
- Show all
I know OSAS is a mess and not just of the "Calvies" but also of the Free Grace ("FG") camp that is opposed to them and to the "Armins."
I know that OSAS is also nomenclature used by parts of FG or to describe their systematic theology.
None of this is simple and apart from admixture.
I didn't refer to ES in that terminology because I wanted to remain at least a bit closer to the Text. I actually wondered if someone would bring it up. I'm not surprised that you did.
You know at least some of the Textual issues I have with TULIP and I know and actually appreciate your bottom lining them with words like "insidious". I've mostly just left such posts to you and to others who have done similarly.
My track in all of this, actually all of Theology now, is to forget all the systematics (which I was either aggressively taught and/or exposed to for years) and just to be looking at Scripture which ultimately is there to bring all of us into line with the mind of Christ in Christ in Spirit.
It's my experience both in my own thinking and in teaching and discussing with others that there is a lot of erroneous systematic tradition out there that has shaped people's thinking to where they read right over and past the Scripture let alone eisegete it. I've also stated many times, maybe and maybe not here, that in studies and discussions, both face-to-face and on forums, I've come to see "works salvation" as a point <> counterpoint so impassioned that both sides make errors.
I know that OSAS is also nomenclature used by parts of FG or to describe their systematic theology.
None of this is simple and apart from admixture.
I didn't refer to ES in that terminology because I wanted to remain at least a bit closer to the Text. I actually wondered if someone would bring it up. I'm not surprised that you did.
You know at least some of the Textual issues I have with TULIP and I know and actually appreciate your bottom lining them with words like "insidious". I've mostly just left such posts to you and to others who have done similarly.
My track in all of this, actually all of Theology now, is to forget all the systematics (which I was either aggressively taught and/or exposed to for years) and just to be looking at Scripture which ultimately is there to bring all of us into line with the mind of Christ in Christ in Spirit.
It's my experience both in my own thinking and in teaching and discussing with others that there is a lot of erroneous systematic tradition out there that has shaped people's thinking to where they read right over and past the Scripture let alone eisegete it. I've also stated many times, maybe and maybe not here, that in studies and discussions, both face-to-face and on forums, I've come to see "works salvation" as a point <> counterpoint so impassioned that both sides make errors.
-
1
- Show all