Loss of salvation???

[GWH]

4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and shave shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Do you not see a grammatical and semantic difference between "It is impossible... to restore them again to repentance", (what the Bible actually says vs. "it is impossible...to be brought back to repentance" (What you have doctored it to say) . Clue: passive infinitive vs, active infinitive.

No, I see no meaningful difference between saying "it is impossible to restore them again to repentance"
and the Scripture you surgically removed ("not be forgiven" Matt. 12:31-32).

 

[Musicmaster]

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

 

[PaulThomson]

No, I see no meaningful difference between saying "it is impossible to restore them again to repentance"
and the Scripture you surgically removed ("not be forgiven" Matt. 12:31-32).

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?

 

[Genez]

This is a prime example for the failure to rightly divide the word of truth.

MM

You are a prime example of not showing how.

Give it a shot...

Musicmaster said:

This is why I carefully study what Peter said to those to whom he was a minister among the eleven, steering clear of those many things that he taught Israel that do not apply to us today.

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.​

​

.

 

[GWH]

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

Good point!
It is amazing to think that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Biden, etal. might have been saved had they truly repented.
It is also amazing to realize that we have the potential to be a worse sinner than these!

 

[GWH]

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?

Whether T or F, I see no meaningful/significant/crucial difference in the statements.

 

[PaulThomson]

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?

Whether T or F, I see no meaningful/significant/crucial difference in the statements.

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.

 

[PaulThomson]

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.

That should read - 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. No one in the class, including the teacher could swallow whole a one metre long fish.

 

[Genez]

The unanswered question.
And, the question never asked?

Was it good for God's plan for man to fall?

What is going on with God providing the Cross before man was created? (Revelation 13:8)

God created man knowing he would fall.
And, His plan has been to glorify His name before all!

Did God plan for man to fall to prove something to Satan and his angels?

Again...

Did God plan for man to fall to prove something to Satan and his angels?​

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