Loss of salvation???

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

To them it's the same thing. You see, if they can't enslave one another under works of effort of any sort, they see it is loose living. They hear things in their ears that weren't said, and we know who that whisperer is...

MM

No, grace is not a licence to sin, but lawless grace is. God's grace teaches us to put the old man to death and behave in a godly manner in the world. Satan's version of grace teaches you don't have to do anything and are saved simply for having an incorruptible spiritual nature, or a new birth that can't be unborn, or being sealed by the holy spirit that can't be unsealed, etc..

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:11-13​

 

[Gideon300]

The Greek Gospel skews the New Covenant into a foreign, man‑centered construct. The evidence lies in who is seen as the determiner of salvation: in the Greek view, it is man; in the Hebraic view, it is the covenantal Father.

God also speaks through a kids picture Bible but it's heavily redacted; can you still hear His voice, sure but there's a lot of missing information too.

You must know most Christians are conflicted and confused about their Salvation because the Greek western Gospel view is dependent on my faith, my belief, my enduring loyalty ect that is the message!

I make the point that the Hebraic view is a totally different message because it is totally dependent on our Savior; that is the message (not my faith, my loyalty ect).

Atonement for all ungodly men = Justification = Sanctification = Glorification Romans 8:30

Salvation is His doing alone.


Jeff Benner is a great resource that and Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum is a great teacher with Hebraic insights as well

Lord help me .............. "Man centred" Of course it is. Man was the centre of God's creation in the first place. God could have wiped Adam and Eve and started again. He chose not to. Why? Because He loves us. God knew what would happen in Eden. He knew what it would cost Him to save us. Jesus knew that He would have to take on the likeness of sinful flesh. He knew that He would have to die to redeem us back to God. If that's not man-centric, I don't know what is. (Psalm 8)

I don't know why anyone would believe that salvation depends on us. The New Testament is crystal clear that salvation is of God. I'm not Greek so perhaps my view is different. I'm not a Hebrew either. I simply take God at his word.

It seems to me that you are making something out of nothing.

 

[studier]

One doesn’t “lose” their salvation as in God won’t take it away because they’ve sinned too much. However, it is possible to depart from the faith.

Is departing from the faith the same as departing from salvation, meaning losing salvation?

 

[studier]

Conditionally, yes...if they WANT to be saved.

MM

Thanks for answering more simply. Please clarify what you mean.

IOW, I read the verse as saying God has commanded men to believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ. There are no conditions in this command - it's a simple believe or don't believe - believe or disobey God's command.

 

[studier]

Who among the truly saved goes out and lives in whatever way your asking about?

Who has successfully resisted the sanctifying power of God in their lives to go out and live loosely...if that's what you're asking?

I'm assuming that your asking this is a matter of you having witnessed such.

Assuming you have seen someone who was truly saved go out and live in the depths of sinful pleasures, and given that we ALL continue to sin, do you suppose there's some threshold they can step over into losing salvation?

I'm asking because I know of no such an example whereby anyone could prove loss of salvation in another or even themselves. That should illegitamize the question itself. Do you agree?

MM

FWIW, I knew of a man who was known among the Christian community to be a very dedicated Christian. Some time later I heard he had renounced Christianity.

One evening at a restaurant, I saw him by himself. My wife and I asked if we could join him. We had a lengthy conversation. He had been a "believer" for many years, was very active in service at the church he attended, and as I said, he was well known for this. He explained to me how he had come to the decision that it was all nonsense and had walked away from it all.

For a few hours, we discussed Scripture about Christ, faith, security and many such matters of the Faith. He was very knowledgeable about the Scriptures, about security issues, etc., and I could not find any place to even remotely bring a challenge to his thinking or decision. He had concluded and that was that. The discussion was very respectful and he was resolved.

With that said, I have no clue what ever happened to him, so I do not know the conclusion to the matter. We can think we know we will see him in eternity because we think that's what the Word says re: his security, or we can think he probably repented later; or we can think he was never really a Christian, or we can think he did ultimately deny Christ and walk away. All of these interpretations of Scripture exist no matter what any of us argue here.

This word "deny" can mean (per (BDAG): to refuse consent - to deny, disdain; to state something is not true - to deny; to disclaim association with a person or event - deny, repudiate, disown; to refuse to pay any attention to - to disregard, renounce.

No matter what any of us think we know, I can tell you that his resolve was strong. I saw zero chinks in his armor, near zero emotion in the matter, just a man with a lot of knowledge of the Text who had made up his mind that he was done with it all and wanted nothing to do with it. He seemed to fit virtually every meaning of "deny".

 

[studier]

No, grace is not a licence to sin, but lawless grace is.

IMO this is one of the issues we're contending with - the lack of understanding of the comprehensive meaning and application of a few major words.

Your quote of Titus2:11-13 provides more insight into "grace" than many seem to want to recognize about it.

And in Titus2:12 the word "denying" is the participle form of the same word we've been dealing in 2Tim2:12-13,

So we're seeing the grace that appeared "teaching" = (BDAG) providing instruction for informed and responsible living - educating / assisting in the development of a person’s ability to make appropriate choices - giving guidance, about denying ungodliness and living righteously (Titus2) vs. denying Jesus Christ (2Tim2) = the grace that appeared educating / assisting us.

Good post!

 

[Musicmaster]

Thanks for answering more simply. Please clarify what you mean.

IOW, I read the verse as saying God has commanded men to believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ. There are no conditions in this command - it's a simple believe or don't believe - believe or disobey God's command.

It appears we need to clarify this. God commanding belief in Christ Jesus is indeed effective in setting foundational rule by which anyone is saved. That ensures that there is no other side-path for salvation; keeping it through Christ alone.

Israel was under this:

James 2:14, 17
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ...
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Contrast what is taught to the body of Christ:

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The contrast is so strikingly obvious, with more examples that can be shown that there is indeed a contrast.

Israel was called to a priesthood over this earth that Gentiles were not called to fulfill. Israel fell, to be raised back up once the blindness is lifted from us as a nation, with Gentiles not ever referred to as a priesthood in any of Paul's epistles as we see in places like this:

1 Peter 2:5, 9
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. ...
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Replacement theology has many claiming this refers to Gentiles, even though Peter was NOT the apostles to the Gentiles, and Paul nevr once referring to Gentiles as a nation nor a priesthood.

So, I will agree that the same foundational pathway is defined for both Jews and Gentiles, in that Christ is the ONLY way unto salvation. What's different between what is required of those who are of the body of Christ and those who are of the Kingdom Gospel, it's works requirement upon the Kingdom peoples versus no works requirement upon all non-Kingdom peoples.

Granted, we will likely not agree on this, which is what it is. The gospel OF the Circumcision is not the same as the gospel OF the Uncircumcision. The weak and beggarly claim that's only a difference in groupings, the lack of intellectual honesty in that is, as stated, striking. The text does not state the gospel of the circumcision and uncircumcision, as if they were one and the same. They are broken apart with no hint of the specificity being focused upon mere groupings only, but rather there being a difference in the gospels OF those two groupings.

Again, you may not agree, and we will simply agree to disagree. I don't have to answer for any works-based salvation retentionists out there, just as they will not have to answer for me if I were the one in the wrong for reading scripture for what it says and recognizing the differences where they are obvious.

MM

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

FWIW, I knew of a man who was known among the Christian community to be a very dedicated Christian. Some time later I heard he had renounced Christianity.

One evening at a restaurant, I saw him by himself. My wife and I asked if we could join him. We had a lengthy conversation. He had been a "believer" for many years, was very active in service at the church he attended, and as I said, he was well known for this. He explained to me how he had come to the decision that it was all nonsense and had walked away from it all.

For a few hours, we discussed Scripture about Christ, faith, security and many such matters of the Faith. He was very knowledgeable about the Scriptures, about security issues, etc., and I could not find any place to even remotely bring a challenge to his thinking or decision. He had concluded and that was that. The discussion was very respectful and he was resolved.

With that said, I have no clue what ever happened to him, so I do not know the conclusion to the matter. We can think we know we will see him in eternity because we think that's what the Word says re: his security, or we can think he probably repented later; or we can think he was never really a Christian, or we can think he did ultimately deny Christ and walk away. All of these interpretations of Scripture exist no matter what any of us argue here.

This word "deny" can mean (per (BDAG): to refuse consent - to deny, disdain; to state something is not true - to deny; to disclaim association with a person or event - deny, repudiate, disown; to refuse to pay any attention to - to disregard, renounce.

No matter what any of us think we know, I can tell you that his resolve was strong. I saw zero chinks in his armor, near zero emotion in the matter, just a man with a lot of knowledge of the Text who had made up his mind that he was done with it all and wanted nothing to do with it. He seemed to fit virtually every meaning of "deny".

Did he have a close walk with the Lord? Doesn't sound like it. It just sounds like he just had knowledge of Christian things but not an actual personal relationship with the Lord.

Because the Lord will sometimes bring you through situations where your faith is challenged. There was a time when I had a faith crisis and actually rebelled against the Father. I seriously don't recommend this because I'm still feeling the sting of His chastisement. But what helped me get through it even though it lasted for decades was that I have a real relationship with God. It wasn't just about the rules and regulations of Christianity. So I couldn't just walk away from God. I didn't want to because of my personal relationship with Him. He was and is still my Best Friend and I can't live without Him.

It just seems to me that that is what is lacking in the man you're talking about. And that was why he was able to walk away so resolutely.

 

[HeIsHere]

To them it's the same thing. You see, if they can't enslave one another under works of effort of any sort, they see it is loose living. They hear things in their ears that weren't said, and we know who that whisperer is...

MM

They deny themselves ultimately.
The blessings flow from agreeing with God, saved is saved.

 

[studier]

It appears we need to clarify this. God commanding belief in Christ Jesus is indeed effective in setting foundational rule by which anyone is saved. That ensures that there is no other side-path for salvation; keeping it through Christ alone.

Israel was under this:

James 2:14, 17
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ...
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Contrast what is taught to the body of Christ:

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The contrast is so strikingly obvious, with more examples that can be shown that there is indeed a contrast.

Israel was called to a priesthood over this earth that Gentiles were not called to fulfill. Israel fell, to be raised back up once the blindness is lifted from us as a nation, with Gentiles not ever referred to as a priesthood in any of Paul's epistles as we see in places like this:

1 Peter 2:5, 9
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. ...
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Replacement theology has many claiming this refers to Gentiles, even though Peter was NOT the apostles to the Gentiles, and Paul nevr once referring to Gentiles as a nation nor a priesthood.

So, I will agree that the same foundational pathway is defined for both Jews and Gentiles, in that Christ is the ONLY way unto salvation. What's different between what is required of those who are of the body of Christ and those who are of the Kingdom Gospel, it's works requirement upon the Kingdom peoples versus no works requirement upon all non-Kingdom peoples.

Granted, we will likely not agree on this, which is what it is. The gospel OF the Circumcision is not the same as the gospel OF the Uncircumcision. The weak and beggarly claim that's only a difference in groupings, the lack of intellectual honesty in that is, as stated, striking. The text does not state the gospel of the circumcision and uncircumcision, as if they were one and the same. They are broken apart with no hint of the specificity being focused upon mere groupings only, but rather there being a difference in the gospels OF those two groupings.

Again, you may not agree, and we will simply agree to disagree. I don't have to answer for any works-based salvation retentionists out there, just as they will not have to answer for me if I were the one in the wrong for reading scripture for what it says and recognizing the differences where they are obvious.

MM

Not reading this. It was a simple question with a simple answer. I supplied the simplicity of what's stated. You agree or disagree. The rest is chaos.

 

[studier]

Did he have a close walk with the Lord? Doesn't sound like it. It just sounds like he just had knowledge of Christian things but not an actual personal relationship with the Lord.

Because the Lord will sometimes bring you through situations where your faith is challenged. There was a time when I had a faith crisis and actually rebelled against the Father. I seriously don't recommend this because I'm still feeling the sting of His chastisement. But what helped me get through it even though it lasted for decades was that I have a real relationship with God. It wasn't just about the rules and regulations of Christianity. So I couldn't just walk away from God. I didn't want to because of my personal relationship with Him. He was and is still my Best Friend and I can't live without Him.

It just seems to me that that is what is lacking in the man you're talking about. And that was why he was able to walk away so resolutely.

I didn't know him well. As I recall he was the brother of someone I knew. As I also recall and said, he was known and respected in the Christian community as someone who did know and live for the Lord. How do we truly evaluate anyone at some point? According to those I knew, he was living and manifesting the so-called "fruits".

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

I didn't know him well. As I recall he was the brother of someone I knew. As I also recall and said, he was known and respected in the Christian community as someone who did know and live for the Lord. How do we truly evaluate anyone at some point? According to those I knew, he was living and manifesting the so-called "fruits".

I can believe that. Wow, and he STILL walked away from God! So pre-occupied with his own wants and desires, that he didn't even give a thought that he broke the Lord's heart. (Yes, God DID care.)

 

[HeIsHere]

No matter what any of us think we know, I can tell you that his resolve was strong.

I wonder how someone resolves to unjustify themselves?

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

I wonder how someone resolves to unjustify themselves?

It isn't about justification. If someone really doesn't want God anymore, God isn't going to force them to stay.

Would you force someone to stay if they don't want to be with you anymore?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Israel was called to a priesthood over this earth that Gentiles were not called to fulfill. Israel fell, to be raised back up once the blindness is lifted from us as a nation, with Gentiles not ever referred to as a priesthood in any of Paul's epistles as we see in places like this:
1 Peter 2:5, 9
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. ...
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Replacement theology has many claiming this refers to Gentiles, even though Peter was NOT the apostles to the Gentiles, and Paul nevr once referring to Gentiles as a nation nor a priesthood.

But notice who Peter was speaking to in the next verse. Not my people, ie, gentiles.

Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. 1 Peter 2:10​

​

This is a direct reference to the the Hosea prophecy . Though the number of Israel was meant to be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved, and the fullness completed by the gentiles.

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Hosea 1:10​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

But notice who Peter was speaking to in the next verse. Not my people, ie, gentiles.

Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. 1 Peter 2:10​

​

This is a direct reference to the the Hosea prophecy . Though the number of Israel was meant to be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved, and the fullness completed by the gentiles.

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Hosea 1:10​

And Paul confirms God was speaking of the gentiles

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Romans 9:24-26​

 

[HeIsHere]

It isn't about justification.

Romans 3:24-26
And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Romans 3:24-26
And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

What does that have to do with someone who doesn't want to stay with God?

 

[Musicmaster]

I wonder how someone resolves to unjustify themselves?

It's a process of legalism. Some object to that identifier, but what else can works be called?

Another item of interest is the "departure from the faith." Yes, some have claimed to depart from the faith, but they can't get away from Christ and His faithfulness.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Not reading this. It was a simple question with a simple answer. I supplied the simplicity of what's stated. You agree or disagree. The rest is chaos.

You always avoid the obvious differences, which I understand. You don't want to admit the obvious errors in your system of belief.

That shows to us where you stand, and that's your choice. You fail to elaborate on what you think is error in the things I said. That too is a dead giveaway to your position of subjectivism.

Go for it, and good luck with it.

MM