Loss of salvation???

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

First off, there is no atonement; only reconciliation/justification. Atonement means to cover, which is what ancient Israel's sins were until the time of regeneration. Sins under the new covenant are removed completely. There is no sin in Christ, and those in Christ have no sin in God's eyes. Reconciliation is for all mankind if they wish to partake.

Sanctification and glorification are only for those in Christ.

This view of atonement is based on it's use in the OT for the Hebrew word that means to cover. However, the English word atonement actually doesn't mean that. It means at-one-ment, or reconciliation. So in that sense atonement, reconciliation and justification are describing the same thing

 

[Caveman]

This view of atonement is based on it's use in the OT for the Hebrew word that means to cover. However, the English word atonement actually doesn't mean that. It means at-one-ment, or reconciliation. So in that sense atonement, reconciliation and justification are describing the same thing

I am proud of you...you have established (I think...let me know if I am wrong here) that in your Greek view of Salivation is, Christ crucified = (Atonement = Reconciliation = Justification??) You are saying they are all the same thing, right?

Now for the million-dollar question that you didn't answer. Who is the "for some" people for who then was Christ Crucified, make Atonement and Justify??

Please go the next step and answer...

Who are those "Some People"??

How did they get to be those "some People"?

When Christ was Crucified, He Made Atonement and Justified every ungodly man ever born; Because God so loved He gave His Son! Free Gift!

The Sanctification and Glorification part is only for those Justified souls who accept Gods gracious offer to enter into a relationship in order to be Reborn and Transformed by the Spirit of God will be Glorified.

 

[Caveman]

You're a man of many words that clutter the mind, but don't speak to the heart, therefore it's impossible for me to follow your disjointed reasoning. Covenant theology has nothing to do with Hebraic vs Greek mindsets. Absolutely nothing.

I think covenants are the proper way to view God's dealings with mankind, but every covenant made with Israel was conditioned upon obedience. Under the covenant of circumcision the condition was circumcision; under the covenant of law made at Sinai and the covenant of blessings and curses made in Moab it was obedience to the law; under the new covenant it is obedience to Jesus' words. Scripture witnesses that conditional covenants can be broken. If you think the new covenant relationship can't be broken through disobedience, then you're just kidding yourself. Vain faith just "believes", whereas unhypocritical faith acts on what Christ says.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Romans 11:19-21​

The relationship can be damaged and strained but never completely destroyed because God is the one who secures it for His Name's sake.

• Jeremiah 31:31–34: God promises to establish a new covenant, writing His law on hearts and forgiving sins. This is entirely His initiative.
• Hebrews 8:6–13: The New Covenant is “better” because it is founded on God’s promises, not human performance.
• 2 Timothy 2:13: “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.”
• Romans 3:3–4: Even if some are unfaithful, God remains true.
• Romans 11:29: “The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”
• • God’s faithfulness outweighs our weakness: If He acted when we were enemies, He surely won’t abandon us now that we are His children.
  • Security in Christ: Salvation rests on God’s power and promise, not our ability to hold on.
  • Unbreakable covenant: The New Covenant is sealed by Christ’s blood, making it unshakable even when we falter.

You do pay a price in relationship distancing and loss of reward in the future...but no one can take a child of God from His Hand.

 

[Musicmaster]

Some of best teaching I have encountered over the years was from Messianic Jews. One was once a Rabbi. I thoroughly enjoy the background and idioms for context.

As an Israeli, I was taken in by the modern Messianic Jews, but deep down I knew something wasn't right. We talked much about Tenakh and very little in the four gospels, and almost never in the rest of what Gentiles referred to as the rest of t B e "Nes Testament." Passing from Judaism into Messianic Judaism was quite a transition, but what's sad is they are still lost while relying upon adherence to select portions of the Law for their works as a supplement to their sense of mmsalvation.

For example, they experienced episodes of uncertainty that they spoke of only among fellow Messianic Jews, never in mixed company. The lack of assurance as to if they have done enough obedience to Torah to truly have tapped into the good graces of Christ for their salvation. They have no trust for Paul, considering him to be a renegade who was not a true apostle for teaching salvation by grace through faith alone. They refuse to believe in that hope Paul taught, which is OSAS.

Yes, we had no doubts Paul taught that once a person was saved, their salvation is everlasting. Many modern Evangelicals may doubt Paul taught that, which he clearly did as we knew by way of our Hebrew and Greek (Septuagent) as well as Coine Greek literacy, but our culture grated against that truth because of Torah having been so deeply ingrained within us.

We do have insights quite removed from the Western mindset and way of thinking, with vastly differing idioms, but that doesn't make us superior to anyone, even though many in the ranks of Messianic Judaism think otherwise. Paul became my tutor in that regard. His way of thinking and his reasoning was and is so vastly humble and yet superior to what was before and what will be...even though it wasn't just him speaking. Therein is the reason I marvel at all the loss of salvation gang members out there who beat themselves and others up over that patiently false doctrine, teaching Messianic Judaism style trash to others. That pleases the enemy of our souls greatly.

Our brothers, the twelve, preached truth, but not all their truths were meant for us today. Israel is fallen, and that alone shows the difference.

MM

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I am proud of you...you have established (I think...let me know if I am wrong here) that in your Greek view of Salivation is, Christ crucified = (Atonement = Reconciliation = Justification??) You are saying they are all the same thing, right?

Now for the million-dollar question that you didn't answer. Who is the "for some" people for who then was Christ Crucified, make Atonement and Justify??

You should not be so condescending.

I did answer. Reconciliation is for all mankind. Any who thirst can come and drink of the water of life, but they have to come of their own free will to partake.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

2 Timothy 2:13: “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.”

You left off the last part of that verse that says if we deny him, he will deny us. So it's not an unconditional covenantal relationship

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Yes, we had no doubts Paul taught that once a person was saved, their salvation is everlasting. Many modern Evangelicals may doubt Paul taught that, which he clearly did as we knew by way of our Hebrew and Greek (Septuagent) as well as Coine Greek literacy, but our culture grated against that truth because of Torah having been so deeply ingrained within us.

Salvation is everlasting if we hold onto what we have been given. Paul didn't teach OSAS; that's a gnostic idea that entered Christian theology via Augustine and Calvin.

 

[sawdust]

You left off the last part of that verse that says if we deny him, he will deny us. So it's not an unconditional covenantal relationship

But aren't you ignoring the first part? Even if we are faithless Christ remains true to His word that He would never forsake us, cast us out or lose us.

Salvation is everlasting if we hold onto what we have been given. Paul didn't teach OSAS; that's a gnostic idea that entered Christian theology via Augustine and Calvin.

It is not us holding onto salvation, it is Christ who won it and holds it on our behalf and then, with him holding onto us and His promise to never let go, how can we break the bond He has wrought? You do not belong to yourself anymore (if you are indeed in Christ), you were bought and paid for and you cannot go your own way no matter how much you may try. Christ refuses to let go of those whom the Father has given Him.

John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

How many will lose the salvation they have in Christ? None!

There is much we can lose in this life and the next, but eternal life is not one of those things.

 

[Sipsey]

As an Israeli, I was taken in by the modern Messianic Jews, but deep down I knew something wasn't right. We talked much about Tenakh and very little in the four gospels, and almost never in the rest of what Gentiles referred to as the rest of t B e "Nes Testament." Passing from Judaism into Messianic Judaism was quite a transition, but what's sad is they are still lost while relying upon adherence to select portions of the Law for their works as a supplement to their sense of mmsalvation.

For example, they experienced episodes of uncertainty that they spoke of only among fellow Messianic Jews, never in mixed company. The lack of assurance as to if they have done enough obedience to Torah to truly have tapped into the good graces of Christ for their salvation. They have no trust for Paul, considering him to be a renegade who was not a true apostle for teaching salvation by grace through faith alone. They refuse to believe in that hope Paul taught, which is OSAS.

Yes, we had no doubts Paul taught that once a person was saved, their salvation is everlasting. Many modern Evangelicals may doubt Paul taught that, which he clearly did as we knew by way of our Hebrew and Greek (Septuagent) as well as Coine Greek literacy, but our culture grated against that truth because of Torah having been so deeply ingrained within us.

We do have insights quite removed from the Western mindset and way of thinking, with vastly differing idioms, but that doesn't make us superior to anyone, even though many in the ranks of Messianic Judaism think otherwise. Paul became my tutor in that regard. His way of thinking and his reasoning was and is so vastly humble and yet superior to what was before and what will be...even though it wasn't just him speaking. Therein is the reason I marvel at all the loss of salvation gang members out there who beat themselves and others up over that patiently false doctrine, teaching Messianic Judaism style trash to others. That pleases the enemy of our souls greatly.

Our brothers, the twelve, preached truth, but not all their truths were meant for us today. Israel is fallen, and that alone shows the difference.

MM

All great points. Sometimes my writing is clear as mud. I feel I am somewhat better ( don’t ask my wife) at expressing my ideas during a normal conversation.

Occasional doubts seem quite normal, however we should each reach a point in our understanding that God is bigger than any of our shortcomings. I have seen the unflinching faith of a child soften the hearts of doubters, and I have learned much more in suffering than I could ever learn from a class. I listened to an old preacher recently. He had his degrees from seminary and such and lived a fruitful life. When asked what two things he would do if he were just beginning his journey. He said, “I would avoid seminary, and I would pray more and know my Bible. Seems simple, too simple for many.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

But aren't you ignoring the first part? Even if we are faithless Christ remains true to His word that He would never forsake us, cast us out or lose us.

Having weak faith that can falter is not the same thing as forsaking Christ. He will never forsake us as long as we continue in the faith. But he will forsake us if we forsake him. It says in Revelation that he will confess before his father the names of overcomers, ie those who confess his name before men, and will not blot their names out of the book of life.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

It is not us holding onto salvation, it is Christ who won it and holds it on our behalf and then, with him holding onto us and His promise to never let go, how can we break the bond He has wrought? You do not belong to yourself anymore (if you are indeed in Christ), you were bought and paid for and you cannot go your own way no matter how much you may try. Christ refuses to let go of those whom the Father has given Him.

The bible clearly says that we stand by faith. You're delusional to think you can't go your own way.

 

[studier]

Haven’t you just shown that salvation or covenant participation is conditional when you say it’s about fidelity and that, after breaking the covenant, restoration requires turning back to Christ No...Justification is Gifted and Sanctification is an invitation that includes our cooperative participation; Glorification is all God's doing- since this presumes the person previously accepted Christ and must endure - even though you earlier insisted that faith, loyalty, and endurance aren’t conditions for salvation? Aren’t good relationships cooperative?

If you'd do me a favor, I've already fairly respectfully rejected your system, so could we keep any discussion briefer and more pointed? It would be preferable to stick with Scripture.

The way I read your 2 posts I asked you about, they were contradictory, and IMO remain so. Also, it looks like the 2nd post I quoted was AI generated. Maybe your AI query wasn't up to speed with your Paleo-Hebrew foundation.

Here's your original comment containing what I understand to be your view of a supposed Greek Gospel:

• "Please show me I am mistaken and where I have a "wrong" understanding of YOUR Gospel; a Gospel where Salvation is dependent on my faith, my loyalty and my endurance."

Now, comparing that to your blue insertion above:

• Does the Gospel - whether Hebrew or Greek - require a person to believe it?

• When you say "Salvation" in your original post just above, what exactly are you referring to since you refer in the blue insertion to the fairly typical; Justification, Sanctification, Glorification phases of Salvation.?

 

[studier]

Maybe you have read the wrong Greek expositors.

When he refers to Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Arnold fit quite well into the Free Grace Dispensational system of Faith-Alone theology some time ago and simply brought a Jewish perspective into the understanding of Scripture. He certainly never even remotely led us to think there was anything wrong with the Greek texts or that there was some issue with a supposed Greek vs. Hebrew Gospel.

I'd have to see some specific references from Arnold to show he'd support any of the things we're being told here.

cc: @Caveman

 

[studier]

The relationship can be damaged and strained but never completely destroyed because God is the one who secures it for His Name's sake.

• Jeremiah 31:31–34: God promises to establish a new covenant, writing His law on hearts and forgiving sins. This is entirely His initiative.
• Hebrews 8:6–13: The New Covenant is “better” because it is founded on God’s promises, not human performance.
• 2 Timothy 2:13: “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.”
• Romans 3:3–4: Even if some are unfaithful, God remains true.
• Romans 11:29: “The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”
• • God’s faithfulness outweighs our weakness: If He acted when we were enemies, He surely won’t abandon us now that we are His children.
  • Security in Christ: Salvation rests on God’s power and promise, not our ability to hold on.
  • Unbreakable covenant: The New Covenant is sealed by Christ’s blood, making it unshakable even when we falter.

You do pay a price in relationship distancing and loss of reward in the future...but no one can take a child of God from His Hand.

Can you show - from the actual wording and context of the verses you listed - how any of them teach that a believer cannot fall away or forfeit salvation? Which of those passages actually state that a believer cannot depart from Christ?

BTW, your closing line is standard eternal security and/or OSAS theology most have derived from the Greek Text and from translations of it.

 

[sawdust]

Having weak faith that can falter is not the same thing as forsaking Christ. He will never forsake us as long as we continue in the faith. But he will forsake us if we forsake him. It says in Revelation that he will confess before his father the names of overcomers, ie those who confess his name before men, and will not blot their names out of the book of life.

It doesn't say weak in faith it says faithless, that means to be without faith and the scripture does not say Christ remains faithful as long as we are. It specifically says He remains faithful even when we exhibit no faith.

And who are the overcomers?

1 John 4:4
You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
1 John 5:4
for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.
1 John 5:5
Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

The bible clearly says that we stand by faith. You're delusional to think you can't go your own way.

So you think after you have been made alive in Christ and been born of God you're strong enough to undo that? Or do you think the Father doesn't know what He is doing by giving His Son those who believe in the first place and must take back His gifts from His own dearly beloved Son?

I think you are delusional in not knowing what happens to a believer who tries to go their own way. Better (in the short term) that person had never believed.

 

[Musicmaster]

Can you show - from the actual wording and context of the verses you listed - how any of them teach that a believer cannot fall away or forfeit salvation? Which of those passages actually state that a believer cannot depart from Christ?

BTW, your closing line is standard eternal security and/or OSAS theology most have derived from the Greek Text and from translations of it.

Standing upon argument from silence is never a solid basis for establishing a doctrine.

2 Timothy 2:13 — If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Unbelief is about as bad as anything into which a believer could ever sink, and yet the Lord remains faithful to that individual. If we deny Him, He denies us, and yet remains faithful to that individual given that each individual who is saved is the contextual object of that passage. Those who translate denial as to referring to salvation is dabbling in eisegetical interpretations.

Additionally, for Christ to remove salvation from anyone would be the forfeiting of Holy Spirit, and we have no reason to believe He would ever do such a thing. The other idea that we can allegedly give away our salvation, or walk away from it, that is rooted squarely in the arena of works-based salvation to think that we must retain it by our own strength.

Those who believe that they have any virtuous measure of righteousness in and of themselves to retain their salvation, they're only fooling themselves.

Can you or anyone here show to us that imaginary line over which one must step to have lost or given away his salvation? Can anyone here define it for us? I can define the line for salvation, but have yet to meet one person who can define the antithesis without going astray into injections of things into the text what simply isn't there.

MM

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

If we deny Him, He denies us, and yet remains faithful to that individual given that each individual who is saved is the contextual object of that passage. Those who translate denial as to referring to salvation is dabbling in eisegetical interpretations.

lol Christ's denial means denying someone belongs to him before the father and his angels. It means eternal shame and ejection from God's presence. It means being blotted out of the book of life

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. Revelation 3:5​

​

 

[studier]

Standing upon argument from silence is never a solid basis for establishing a doctrine.

Agreed. If either security or loss is not clearly addressed in passages, then silence remains silence. Eisegesis works both ways.

Looks like @ChristRoseFromTheDead addressed 2Tim2 in response to you, so I'll leave it to you two unless I decide otherwise.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Agreed. If either security or loss is not clearly addressed in passages, then silence remains silence. Eisegesis works both ways.

Looks like @ChristRoseFromTheDead addressed 2Tim2 in response to you, so I'll leave it to you two unless I decide otherwise.

He threw in the towel long ago an put me on ignore

 

[studier]

lol Christ's denial means denying someone belongs to him before the father and his angels. It means eternal shame and ejection from God's presence. It means being blotted out of the book of life

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. Revelation 3:5

Interesting response to @Musicmaster from ChristRoseFromTheDead.