Either that user deleted the post or I have that one on ignore because of ad hominem posts in the past, so if you wouldn't mind offering your own thoughts...?
MM
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.
Either that user deleted the post or I have that one on ignore because of ad hominem posts in the past, so if you wouldn't mind offering your own thoughts...?
MM
We have been through several generations on this issue. First is was the "predestination" theology that said God has predestined who will be saved and if you are one of them, nothing you can do can prevent your salvation. BUT if you turned out to be a reprobate, you were never one of the elect to start with because no member of the elect will be a reprobate.
Then, after Luther, the theology changed. You are saved by grace alone by faith....BUT if you become a reprobate, you never had saving faith to begin with because you did not have the "right" kind saving faith.
So, where does that leave us on "salvation?" Previous dogmas involved salvation at no cost. Like Luke in the movie "Cool Hand Luke" "You just got to get your mind right." So salvation became a mental exercise experience combined with adherence to your church's creed or theology.
Jesus had some word of comfort that may have been obscured. "If you love me, you will obey what I command," and "Whoever has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me". These verses emphasize that loving Jesus is demonstrated through active obedience to his teachings and commands. Few of which can be successfully executed sitting in pews.
As to silence, no. The scriptures are not silent on that topic. The problem is that works-based salvation embraced by some keeps them from seeing the glaring errors in their beliefs to say that one can lose it.
MM
Predestination, yes, but not in relation to salvation. They force that into the contexts where that term arises.
Luther did indeed have his own set of problems...
When some corrupt the simplicity in salvation, the clutter only confuses those who don't read scripture for what it says.
Those who want to live the Law, they are outside of grace, which alone is the basis for salvation through faith in this dispensation.
MM
Your 1st 3 paragraphs embody elements of Valentinian gnosticism. "You just got to get your mind right" with gnosis.
Pertinent part of your post:
Response from ChristRoseFromTheDead who you have on ignore:
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
My point was that both sides of the debate can tend to use Argument from Silence with certain verses.
Now, additionally, both sides of the debate can say what you say re: glaring errors.
The debate is not settled by Arguments from Silence nor from a generalized theological assertion re: works-based salvation.
I'm not sure why you would give merit to his claim about Christ's denial. If you would, please show to us all where scripture states that confession or denial before the Father and the angels is the basis for salvation. What I CAN show to you is that the names blotted out from the Book of Life is the test for the absence of salvation.
Studier, when someone comes along and inserts meaning into the scriptures, all with gleeful indifference to context and systematic parallels that actually have connections that fit, we all should write them off as aberrant professors of Christ.
Now, for the sake of conversation, I will admit that there APPEARS to be some distant ring of consistency to Christ's denial of a believer before the Father and the Angels, but we can also understand that there is shame in Heaven, even for saved believers, and that being denied by Jesus before the Father and all the Heavenly host, no, the context does not at all betray salvation as the object of determination as a result of that denial. Peter denied Christ three times, but that doesn't mean he will be cast into the blazes of Hell for it.
Let's consider this:
1 Corinthians 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
There will be those in Heaven who have nothing for treasure., which will be a shame to them. With no reward, they will forever be seen in that state because of that which they built with was hay, wood and stubble that burned in the fires of testing of their works. THAT is not injection of anything into what's actually stated, for if they suffer from it, then shame is the only descriptor, and perhaps is even a far lower cry in relation to the reality of what those people will endure as members of the body of Christ.
So all the jolly and jovial nonsense eisegetically crammed into the text the many things that simply aren't there...except in the imaginations of false teachers, who, like us, have no first-hand experience in the Heavenlies and the realities of that place and all the particulars that govern the mindset, economy and culture of those who dwell there, I tend to write the nay-sayers and their false injections off as nothing but musings from silly antagonists. I love them, but I don't keep company with them and their foolishness.
Thank you, Studier, for the conversation. I appreciate your not being as they.
MM
Also, that reference in Revelation is not talking about we who are of the body of Christ already in Heaven and in possession of their glorified bodies and are like Christ. Revelation passages are direct references to those who are within and will come from the tribulation period, which is a dispensation within which they will have to "endure unto the end" so that they SHALL (future tense) be saved as Jesus stated in Matthew 24. We are saved now, not at some point in the future on the basis of our endurance unto the end of our lives or the end of the tribulation. That is works-based salvation, which is contradictory to the Gospel that is valid for us today.
Yes, I realize there are those who take issue with there being different dispensations with differing sets of truth for those within those dispensations, but it is what it is no matter how much they may object, scream and holler about it all not being in accordance with their own assumptions about how things should be.
MM
lol Scripture says that God will wipe away every tear from our eyes and the former things won't be remembered, but this guy who can't address me directly because his doctrine is wood, hay and stubble, says there will be shame in heaven. What ludicrous idea of paradise
rev 22¹⁹ and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
You can not be taken out of a book you were never in and you cannot be in that book unless you are saved. All mighty God who put you in there can take you out. He even gives an example why.
IMO it's quite normal for both sides to practice eisegetics, which was my initial response to your comment re: Arguments from Silence.
It's also common for sides to attach a Scripture to different Scriptures to resolve some ambiguity or Argument from Silence.
Such is theology. One says loss of reward. Another says loss of Salvation.
Where do you see "loss" or "reward" or "shame" for that matter (other than in Paul's commands to Timothy to handle the truth accurately so he won't be an ashamed worker) within the context of 2Tim2:13?
I'm going to be the intermediary for now and you can choose to ignore me if you choose. Maybe you can ignore the direct rhetoric and answer the point.
Here's the ChristRoseFromTheDead response to your above quoted:
lol Scripture says that God will wipe away every tear from our eyes and the former things won't be remembered, but this guy who can't address me directly because his doctrine is wood, hay and stubble, says there will be shame in heaven. What ludicrous idea of paradise
IOW, you disregard those who don't agree with dispensationalism as you see it?
Every name was written in that book before time was. There is not one place where scripture ever talks about names being added, but only the blotting out of names, so your conclusion is faulty on the basis of faulty premise.
MM
As I stated somewhere in here...I only apply arguments from silence as a tool to highlight the injections into scripture that are perpetrated by others.
To some extent, yes. We in the circles where I move about call that Systematic Theology.
And yet the differences are massive within topical conversations. They are not necessary synonymous in every context.
1 Corinthians 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
That there is a measure of suffering loss for the saved in Heaven whose works were constructed of materials that will burn up in the fires of testing, that implies, in our way of thinking in this life where we are right now, a degree of shame for anyone to reside within the Heavenly culture when we consider that suffering of such a loss. Granted, I'm not saying that's a gospel truth of a place we have not yet experienced to know all the realities, but it is food for thought.
Additionally, it's still a legitimate question to ask how anyone can insinuate "salvation" as the object of loss in the denial on the level of a hardline doctrine. I wasn't doing any manic laughing about any of this. To me, this is serious food for thought, and when someone injects what clearly is not at all a part of the context, I will call it into question just as I would for Mormons and JW's who use the same tactics to try and lend credibility to their false beliefs, and they do so at a level of far greater absolute than what I was doing for shame in relation to the suffering of loss.
See the difference?
MM
I showed, in the previous post, quoting directly from scripture, Paul's words concerning the suffering of loss. I said nothing about tears nor was our conversation about things done by our sins in this life prior to our lives in Heaven in relation to shame and suffering of loss. Context is king. That context was squarely rooted in Heaven for what happens in Heaven, not something done here on earth. It's cause and effect, both of which are realities in these contexts.
MM
Please read what I said...I clearly stated that he/she had perpetrated ad hominem against me personally in the past rather than to stick strictly to the topic. Do you know what ad hominem is by definition? If not, please look it up. It's most telling.
MM
You showed loss in 1Cor3 and attached that to 2Tim2:13 pursuant to your systematic theology.
Most everyone thinks their systematic theology is rooted in heaven.