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.
We cannot become sharks, so we cannot swallow a one metre long fish. And we cannot become God with the wisdom and reach to manoeuvre the willful reprobate into a set of circumstances where the true state of his heart is plain to him and he falls upon the Rock for mercy.
But just because we in the Hebrews authors classroom cannot bring a wilful reprobate among us to repentance does not mean that no one can. And therefore, "It is impossible (for us) to bring that one to repentance", does not mean "It is impossible for that one to be brought to repentance (by God).
I do like to think that there will always be hope as long as God lives, even for the 'worst' of us. If I think through the implications of each position, it seems the 'able to lose' has more hope if, indeed, they're never really 'lost' (that is, God always knows where we are even if He asks, "Mem, where are you?" On the other hand, what hope is there for the 'never saved to begin with' position? Just none, even as God lives.
No, it is because your reply in this post/reply does not explain how there is a meaningful difference.
With either wording, the apostate will burn.
The flawed reasoning in that statement is rooted in a failure to rightly divide the word of truth. You spoke nothing for me to demonstrate anything against. Israel is not Gentiles and Gentiles are not Israel. Trying to harmonize the two gospels always ends up in this confusion of yours.
MM
Maybe I missed it?
What do you mean by the two gospels? I see ONE Gospel, but two distinct future realities for Israel and the Church.
Because it sure seems that you are preaching different ways to salvation and not differing ROLES after salvation.
Probably. A person can be saved from any other danger and end up back in the same danger again.
If one imagines "saved/salvation" as being a permanent stamp place upon someone that grants them permanent immunity from loss, then by definition, you cannot lose your salvation, otherwise there would be no immunity.
However, does the Bible describe salvation/saved in terms of immunity from loss? it does not appear to do so IMO. So I would be reluctant to assume salvation/saved implies permanent immunity from loss. The Holy Spirit is given as a downpayment on the eventual redemption of the body "until the day of redemption.
So, that downpayment seems to have an expiry date, and not to be universally permanent. We have the Holy Spirit, and we have His assistance to prepare ourselves as a bride for the wedding day, but if we do not cooperate with the Holy Spirit in His efforts to prepare us for the first resurrection, He may just move out on the wedding day before the wedding, and we may find ourselves standing alone at the altar of our idol, while others are meeting the Bridegroom in the air.
Oh, sorry. It's not easy to understand some things this far into the discussion with others.
What I mean by that is that there are indeed two different gospels in the NT. One for Israel requiring works and the other to Gentiles not requiring works. There are indeed similar elements, the most important being Christ and His shed Blood. The difference that makes them not the same gospel is a work(s).
If you read Acts 2 where Peter answers the question as to what the Israelites must do to be saved, he tells them that they must repent and be baptized unto the remission of their sins. Paul, in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 on the other hand, said to the Gentiles only that they must believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ on the third day for salvation, with not one mention for the requirement to be baptized, and peter not saying one word about believing in the death, burial and resurrections on the third day.
Some believe that Paul is guilty of the sin of omission by merely "summarizing" his gospel; as if it was just too much for his poor, stiff fingers to repeat the alleged requirement for water baptism, which is a serious charge given that his writings were for posterity toward generations of believers to come. Leaving something out of such great importance to people who were not carrying around copies of Peter's or James' epistles, well, that goes far beyond reckless. It's downright lascivious, making Paul out to be some bumbling fool. In English, that's only sixteen more letters to say "...ye must be baptized...," but he said nothing for such a requirement in all his epistles. The temptation toward eisegetical hermeneutics for some in order to make scripture say what they want it to say is just too great a lure. Reading scripture for what it says AND for what it DOESN'T say is of such great importance.
Some folks are being taught that Gentiles have been graft into Israel, but Paul painted no such imagery for Gentiles. As an Israeli, I number myself with Gentiles since we are ALL saved by the same Gospel in the midst of the fall of Israel. It's astounding how replacement theology followers have no compunctions about creating lies for pet doctrines. Many pulpits are filled with lying connivers with such a hatred of Jews that they will invent beliefs that eradicate us not only off the planet, but completely out of the importance for existence from even history, which makes them just as bad as those who deny the holocaust and its importance.
Hope that helps.
MM
Excellent point, and well said.
Generally speaking, maybe it's the fault of Marvel and their series on POWER wielded by worthless acting models in Hollywood who are not at all productive as citizens...the idea of having control over nature all around them, that the Lord did not give to them, the lure is just too great in their shallow thinking. In other words, they resent not having those powers, such as razor sharp blades extruding from between their knuckles in order to slice other people to pieces...so the next best thing is to imaginary act of slicing into pieces something that cannot actively defend itself against their machinations, with their vain thoughts and belief being subject to their every whim as they ignore scripture for what it says AND for what is does NOT say.
It's so much easier to slaughter what they refuse to accept from the mere words of scripture when the field is rife with the freedom to invent (or go along with) theological dogmas that they will never allow to be put into proper order with the actual texts of scripture. Allegory is also a formidable weapon in their hands to make scriptures say what they want them to say.
Additionally, interpretation has always been a favorite go-to weapon in the mean-spirited beating hearts of those who refuse to accept textual authority over their desired beliefs and invented allegory. Many a false teaching preacher uses loss of salvation as an effective tool to instill and stoke the fires of fear in the hearts of their followers. Never mind those flunky preacher hirelings who don't have the courage to draw a graph of any kind that shows the line of demarcation between salvation and loss of salvation, delineating the divide between the sins that allegedly negate salvation and the ones that don't. They care not at all that by inventing the retention of salvation, which is a work, while at the same time reciting the fact that the gaining of salvation is by grace through faith alone, they remain clueless as to the dichotomy they are teaching others, possibly rendering others not at all saved by trusting in their works.
Oh, we can't forget the invention of all those hypothetical people out there they cannot name who have allegedly lost their salvation, or the brave soul who dares to claim that they know for a fact that they had lost theirs in the past, and that their proof for such is always steeped in external or emotional foundations, as if saved people have a different look from the unsaved. That would render unsaved, for example, all those professional panhandlers who smear some dirt on their faces, wear ragged clothing, stand or sit in wheelchairs under overpasses around every shopping and heavy traffic area with their hands held out for tax free income. Gotta stay out of the sun, ya know... They LOOK unsaved, right? (eyes rolling to the ceiling)
That's the caliber of defense for the belief in loss of salvation that they are able to contrive at the root of their arguments. The lack of substance in that false doctrine is telling in and of itself.
MM
The way I see it if the scriptures say it is a gift then the only way to lose ones salvation is to willingnly give it back unless you somehow misplaced your salvation how does one lose what doesn't even belong to you to begin with? the blood of Christ is what gives us the gift and by his blood is it kept those who teach you can lose it must consider what salvation is after all salvation is by definition not done by you not given by you and certainly not kept by you otherwise it wouldn't be by a savior it would be by your own works. not to speak ill of anyone who teaches or believes it as it may be their own ignroance or perhaps just their own perception of it that makes them believe it but eveyr scripture they use to provide their belief is always out of context without even looking at the whole chapter the verses are pulled from how can you know what that verse is meaning?
Those are good questions. Also, scripture doesn't say anything about our ability to give it back...not that I recall have ever seen.
Yes indeed.
Yes, that is the connection I had made in other posts that was flatly rejected by the works-based salvationists who identify as evangelical. Amazing, huh? They align themselves with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Roman Catholics in that regard, all without realizing how diabolically opposed to scripture that dogma truly is when read in context, AND they see no problem utilizing the same warped and twisted reasoning as the cults when defending the idea of salvation lost.
You sometimes have to wake them up from their textual and mental stupor in order to get through to them.
MM
This!
If(And Its not) loss of salvation were true. God Himself would have given us an exact graph to follow. We are talking about eternal life or eternal condemnation. This is the most important issue that a human being faces in their life. God would NOT make us "walk on eggshells" concerning our eternal life or eternal death.
These " preacher hirelings" treat it as if its equivalent to Losing a lollipop. They actually do not have a CLUE what salvation really is and all the wonderful components that come with salvation........If they did, they would never say we could lose it.
Isn't it wonderful that our salvation is more secure than them wetting their lollipop so that it's good and sticky, putting it into the pocket so that it sticks while they swing around upside-down on the monkey bars, thus the lollipop being secured in their pockets, firmly stuck to the material of their shirt for their momma to have to deal with...?
Sorry. I'm a graphic and cinematic thinker. I would imagine that we all are sometimes comical from the perspective of Deity...
MM
Not to rehash and rehash, I still have not seen one post that provided proof for loss of salvation.
MM
MM
4 For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance
This is interesting no matter how people choose to interpret it. But we believe that Paul is the author of the Book of Hebrews and this would be something incredible for him to have added.