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).
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.
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).
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?
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?
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.
.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!
Whether T or F, I see no meaningful/significant/crucial difference in the statements.
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.
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.
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...
grace and peace............
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............
Galatians 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
When we therefore study the two different gospels, we see that Peter's Gospel to Israel was still steeped in works in Acts 2. When we look at Paul's Gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, we see no work whatsoever stated by him as to how his Gentile audience was/is saved apart from works.
The claim that Paul merely "summarized" his Gospel, that falls flat by the very false construct that held it up in the imaginations of those who simply refuse to read scripture for what it says and to apply critical thinking against the trashy stuff they hear from their pastors and Sunday school teachers. It's an attempt at a weak escape from under the mountain of evidence that stands opposed.
So, with what are you having difficulty understanding in this? Do you try to homogenize the two Gospels into one on the basis of the similarities, but at the exclusion of the differences? Many do that without giving due consideration to the vast problems they are creating within their theological grounding.
The summarization claim is something I've mostly heard from the cults like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and the RCC system of commentaries.
MM
You're not thinking with the context. If Peter taught eternal security to Jews? It would not apply to Gentile believers as well?
#1 is also true: A lone metre long fish could not be swallowed whole by a large shark in a school.
Or, #2 is also false: A lone metre long fish could be swallowed whole by a large teacher.
But perhaps we should stick with Scripture rather than waste time discussing even more problematic hypotheticals,
so again, 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).
It is impossible for the author to bring to repentance (active infinitive) the person in the church who has turned from the Holy Spirit led life he once knew. However, it is not impossible for God to bring Him/her to repentance (active infinitive) .
The text does not say that it is impossible for that apostate to be brought to repentance (passive infinitive). They can possibly be brought back to repentance by God's ongoing discipline.
The Author of salvation is God, who inspired Paul to write the warning against committing the sin of apostasy or falling away, which is unpardonable because the apostate will never repent (both actively and passively):
“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”
I see no meaningful difference in the two translations.
Put em in the tank and they both burn.
(pun intended :^)
How does the difference apply to us? I mean, how do we become sharks in order to swallow a meter long fish?