Replace "you" with us all (even our Teachers).
Look up Bayes Theorem when you get a chance, if you so choose to. Even Bayesian Hermeneutics.
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.
Replace "you" with us all (even our Teachers).
Look up Bayes Theorem when you get a chance, if you so choose to. Even Bayesian Hermeneutics.
Here is Bayes Theorem....
at least the very TIP of the ice-berg:
Bayes' theorem (alternatively Bayes' law or Bayes' rule), named after Thomas Bayes (/beɪz/), gives a mathematical rule for inverting conditional probabilities, allowing the probability of a cause to be found given its effect. For example, with Bayes' theorem, the probability that a patient has a disease given that they tested positive for that disease can be found using the probability that the test yields a positive result when the disease is present. The theorem was developed in the 18th century by Bayes and independently by Pierre-Simon Laplace.
One of Bayes' theorem's many applications is Bayesian inference, an approach to statistical inference, where it is used to invert the probability of observations given a model configuration (i.e., the likelihood function) to obtain the probability of the model configuration given the observations (i.e., the posterior probability).
at least the very TIP of the ice-berg:
Bayes' theorem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBayes' theorem (alternatively Bayes' law or Bayes' rule), named after Thomas Bayes (/beɪz/), gives a mathematical rule for inverting conditional probabilities, allowing the probability of a cause to be found given its effect. For example, with Bayes' theorem, the probability that a patient has a disease given that they tested positive for that disease can be found using the probability that the test yields a positive result when the disease is present. The theorem was developed in the 18th century by Bayes and independently by Pierre-Simon Laplace.
One of Bayes' theorem's many applications is Bayesian inference, an approach to statistical inference, where it is used to invert the probability of observations given a model configuration (i.e., the likelihood function) to obtain the probability of the model configuration given the observations (i.e., the posterior probability).
@studier
Re Bayesian Hermeneutics....of which I've read two paragraphs ONLY:
A question:
Do you believe we can have new revelation?
My belief is that we should look back to the early church and accept what the Apostles taught
and those whom they taught.
(whenever there is some conflict in understanding the NT)
For example:
The ECFs did not accept OSAS...it was just unheard of.
They did believe in doing good works/deeds.
They did believe that we are to be baptized.
Do we need even more that this??
or not.
Re Bayesian Hermeneutics....of which I've read two paragraphs ONLY:
A question:
Do you believe we can have new revelation?
My belief is that we should look back to the early church and accept what the Apostles taught
and those whom they taught.
(whenever there is some conflict in understanding the NT)
For example:
The ECFs did not accept OSAS...it was just unheard of.
They did believe in doing good works/deeds.
They did believe that we are to be baptized.
Do we need even more that this??
or not.
These Warnings Don't Threaten Salvation - They Expose Who Never Had It
Every warning passage listed collapse once you keep the New Testament's categories straight: the writers warn people who have been exposed to the gospel, not people who have been regenerated by it. Hebrews never calls these individuals justified, born again, sealed, adopted, or perfected. Instead it uses proximity language like ""tasted,"" ""enlightened,"" & ""knowledge,"" the same categories Jesus uses for temporary faith in the parable of the soils. Revelation's threats are corporate (lampstands = churches) & its promises define believers, not conditions for staying saved (1 Jn 5:4–5). The regenerate endure because God preserves them (Jn 10:29-29 & 6:39); the unregenerate fall away because their nature never changed. The warnings are not about losing salvation, they're the sieve that reveals who never had it. Endurance is the evidence of salvation, not the condition of it. The warnings sift the false from the true. They don't un-save the saved.
If ""tasting,"" ""enlightened,"" & ""knowledge"" mean salvation, then why does Hebrews 10:14 say ""Christ has perfected forever those who are sanctified""? Is the writer contradicting himself in the same book?
Heb 6:4–8, ""Tasting"" = Regeneration? hese verses don't say they were saved, justified, born again, sealed, or perfected. ""Tasted"" = experienced externally (same verb used for Jesus ""tasting"" death yet not consumed by it).
The land analogy interprets the passage: same rain, different soil. The issue is not losing eternallife but never having it. Hebrews 6 warns against walking away from the calling/drawing (Jn 12:32) of the gospel, not losing salvation you never had.
Heb 10:26–31, Knowledge = New Birth? ""Receiving the knowledge of the truth"" is not regeneration. The context is Jews tempted to return to temple sacrifices. If they reject Christ, there is no other sacrifice & that's not loss of salvation, that’s refusal of salvation. Hebrews 10 warns that rejecting Christ leaves no alternative sacrifice, not that salvation can be undone.
Gal 4:8–11 , Paul's Fear Is Pastoral, Not Ontological. Paul uses ""I fear for you"" to warn, not declare loss of salvation. They are drifting toward law‑keeping, which cannot save. Paul is saying: ""You're abandoning the doctrine of grace offer,"" not ""You were saved & now you're not."" Paul fears their doctrine, not their loss of salvation.
Rev 2–3, Corporate Warnings, Not Individual Loss. The lampstand is the church's witness, not an individual's salvation. ""To the one who conquers"" is defined by Jn in 1 Jn 5:4–5 as everyone born of God. The promises describe believers; they don't threaten believers. Revelation warns churches about losing their witness, not believers about losing salvation.
Rev 3:5, ""Blotting Out" Is a Promise, Not a Threat. The grammar is assurance, not warning: ""I will never blot out his name."" If this were a threat, it would contradict Jn 10:28–29 & Eph 1:13–14. The overcomer is the believer (1 Jn 5:4–5). Rev 3:5 is a promise of security, not a threat of insecurity.
Rev 3:15–22, Lukewarm = Useless, Not Unsaved. ""Lukewarm"" is about usefulness, not salvation status. Jesus disciplines those He loves (v. 19), discipline is for children, not the lost. The invitation is relational fellowship, not initial salvation. Laodicea is rebuked as God's children, not threatened with loss of salvation.
If a regenerate/born again/saved & sealed person could be lost. Someone or something would have to be stronger than the Son's hand & the Father gift to Him, which Jesus says is impossible. (Jn 10:28-29) & Paul assures (Rom 8:37-39)
When our Great God & Savior baptized someone with His FOREVER indwelling (Jn 14:16) salvation sealing (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5) ""eternal life giving Holy Spirit"". It's a done deal!
Excellent post, but don't expect positive reception from all the theological subjectivists.
MM
Have you not read anything I’ve said?? Please find a breech in the wall you’ve built.
Blessings, Shalom
Very, very simply put from an article at BibleHub: Bayesian reasoning derives from a formula that updates the probability of a hypothesis when new, relevant evidence is considered. This method requires an initial “prior probability,” which is then adjusted in light of additional data to yield a “posterior probability.
This is basically humility in the form of continuous study and being willing to change our thinking as we get more data that shows our thinking needs adjustment.
When you say "new revelation" I'm assuming you mean beyond what we have in the Text. I operate that we have a closed Text unless and until IF and when we might discover more. I also think revelation from God is one of the factors that Bayes' - a Presbyterian Minister and mathematician as I recall - had to include in his work and arguments.
From there, I read all men critically, and know I am one, so back to the humility loop. I agree with some ECF thinking but not all of it and they didn't always agree with each other. Please don't ask me for examples - you're probably more well-read in them than I. If you disagree you'd have to show me why and I think that would be a big project requiring too much effort on both our parts.
As for OSAS, I'm no fan of Calvin as he's considered today & I enjoyed your comments about what basically is the Free-Grace version of Faith-Alone and its Eternal Security in the end not being all that different from Calvinistic OSAS Perseverance, while Calvin seems the arch-enemy of FG. Go figure.
The baptism issue IMO is largely a FG matter also. As Faith-Alone progressed it became a concept of stripping absolutely everything - every definitional or responsive point - from "faith" so it could be "alone" and in essence setting aside the "faith is never alone" counter or clarification statement. Then much of the biblical instruction re: faith became in this mindset = 'works'. It's basic reduction absurdum as some might say and even what God requires in cooperative response is labeled a work.
So, our growth in understanding is a process and is cumulative and periodically we will face the fact that we need to circle back and undo some premise and rebuild so we can continue to build with proper materials (essentially Bayes'). I find most seem afraid they have something wrong and stuck in various systems having been told what the Text means apart from their own critical reasoning. For me, it's 'show me the Text and let's look at it as deeply as may be necessary and as we can do.'
It's always the Text with the Spirit for me. I don't trust men and I am one.
BTW, I'd like to state things as simply and succinctly as you do and I'm enjoying reading you and agree with much that you say. But the above is me it seems. Please ask anything you'd like.
Eventually the conversation typically devolves.
This need to defend a "losable" salvation day and night all over the various christian message boards... it is a little strange.
They were saved, but no they cannot lose their salvation.
The writer of Hebrews has a very different style of writing and so we need to allow for that.
Sin is destructive and God hates is, but I see no where where is causes a person to loose their status of JUSTFIED!
You are basically asserting that the cross/resurrection did not settle the sin problem.
The people God the Father sends to Jesus obey God though. The Father actually has a criteria for who He chooses to send to His Son :
John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
So it is only those who hear God (accept all of what He teaches, not just the parts they like) and learn from Him (applying what they learned from Him to their own lives).
God the Father doesn't send people who just agree with what He says, but doesn't obey Him. They just think they are.
🕊
Well, to answer your question directly, why do we find such variation of the gospel among good and honest Christians? It's like this: when we first come to belief, someone hands us a box full of puzzle pieces and says, put this puzzle together. The problem is simple, but the effort is daunting. First of all, the puzzle box doesn't have a picture, so we can't see what it's supposed to look like. Secondly, the box contains puzzle pieces from other puzzles, so we are never sure if the piece we are holding actually goes with this puzzle. This causes us to spend a great amount of study time and discussion with other Christians of goodwill, sorting through the puzzle pieces - tossing out the pieces that don't belong.
Now, regarding warnings, I advise caution. Does Jesus warn us? Yes Do his apostles warn us? Yes. But not all conditional statements are meant to convey contingency.
Somewhere, Jesus says, "If you obey me, you will prove to be my disciples." Here, our Lord makes a bold, conditional statement. But his statement can be heard at least one of two ways: 1.) If you obey me, and I know you will, then you will prove to be my disciples. or 2) If you obey me, and some of you might not, then time will tell whether you were my disciple or not." Did Jesus mean to say the first or the second? One is a puzzle piece that belongs in our puzzle box, the other is a piece that someone handed to me. Which one? I'll let you decide.
Love the metaphor. Even when we feel our puzzle is complete, without the picture on the box we can only compare it to our neighbors’, and theirs will never look exactly the same.Well, to answer your question directly, why do we find such variation of the gospel among good and honest Christians? It's like this: when we first come to belief, someone hands us a box full of puzzle pieces and says, put this puzzle together. The problem is simple, but the effort is daunting. First of all, the puzzle box doesn't have a picture, so we can't see what it's supposed to look like. Secondly, the box contains puzzle pieces from other puzzles, so we are never sure if the piece we are holding actually goes with this puzzle. This causes us to spend a great amount of study time and discussion with other Christians of goodwill, sorting through the puzzle pieces - tossing out the pieces that don't belong.
Now, regarding warnings, I advise caution. Does Jesus warn us? Yes Do his apostles warn us? Yes. But not all conditional statements are meant to convey contingency.
Somewhere, Jesus says, "If you obey me, you will prove to be my disciples." Here, our Lord makes a bold, conditional statement. But his statement can be heard at least one of two ways: 1.) If you obey me, and I know you will, then you will prove to be my disciples. or 2) If you obey me, and some of you might not, then time will tell whether you were my disciple or not." Did Jesus mean to say the first or the second? One is a puzzle piece that belongs in our puzzle box, the other is a piece that someone handed to me. Which one? I'll let you decide.
Here is another puzzle piece to consider. In the slogan OSAS (once saved always saved) when is a person "saved"? How we answer this question will color our understanding. Are we saved when we respond to an altar call? Maybe we are saved at our Baptism instead? Or maybe we are saved after the Lord returns? What does the Bible say?
Maybe we are saved the moment we confess with our mouth and believe in our heart? That sounds Biblical. But Paul also says we are BEING saved by grace through faith. That sounds like salvation is a future hope. What do you think?
Bayesian reasoning is useful when dealing with uncertain data, but Scripture doesn't present the gospel as a probability distribution.
Jude says the faith was ""once for all delivered,"" Paul says we are to ""hold fast the pattern of sound words,"" & Peter says Scripture is not open to private interpretation.
The Early Church Fathers are valuable historically, but they are not the standard. The apostolic writings are & redefining faith to include obedience collapses the very distinction Paul makes when he says God justifies ""the one who does not work but believes.""
Humility is good, but humility doesn't mean perpetual theological instability; it means submitting our categories to the Text, not reshaping the Text to fit our categories.
Isn't guarding love a guarding of feelings. For example, there is a check on our conscience if we find ourselves tending toward hate, fear, what have you, more as a reminder that love has not escaped as much as it isn't being remember as it should.
Do you not see that abiding in His love is abiding in His commandments? I mean, do you see Jesus keeping God's commandment to "go die for the world" or could you see it as "Go love the world as I love it, even so as it inevitably results in Your death." The chain of instruction you referenced 'natural' works out from beginning to end as is fitting in the definition of abiding.
As to the remainder of you post, and I do appreciate the logic you've offered. However, even as you've continually maintained that love and obedience is inseparable, I can't help but leave with the sense that you insist on a special distinction, that your perception of love/obey is distinct from my perception of love/obey.
Viewing it in terms of law and grace. Obedience to the law requires one not kill, and that is regarded as a showing of love in OC terms, while obedience to grace requires that one nurtures one's enemies, although whether that manifests in the form of clothing or forgiveness is left to the Spirit's leading, it is done as an obedience to the law of love in accordance to the NC.
First of all two different audiences at two different time points in the process of the revelation of the Gospel.
Note - the work is a ‘work’ that God does - not man. This is not something you do. But Jesus does tell them to believe.
Jesus was speaking in the language they understood but providing a different focus.
Paul is not overriding and we need to understand what Christ Jesus was saying to His audience because He is taking His audience into account always.
Paul is teaching in his letters over and over again that we do not earn God's grace by doing good things or good works and thus earn righteousness.
Righteousness of God is credited to us as a free gift. Full Stop!
So first start with the big picture and then do the word study which will always affirm the big picture when correctly understood in context.
- Gal 3:21 - Is the law, then, opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come from the law.
- Rom 3:20, 4:6 – atonement cannot be achieved by man by the works of the law
- Eph 2:5, 8-10 – atonement is a free gift of God, out of His love and grace to do good works and glorify God
- Gal 2:16 – we are justified not by works but by Jesus’ faithfulness because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified.
- Titus 3:5 – we cannot atone for our own sin by deeds of the law