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.
English words under discussion may not reveal the true meaning.
For example.
Titus 2:11-12
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age.
The Greek word translated "teaching us" does not reveal its real intent.
It is not about a typical teacher/classroom/student situation.
For example.
Titus 2:11-12
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age.
The Greek word translated "teaching us" does not reveal its real intent.
It is not about a typical teacher/classroom/student situation.
OT believers could be anointed by the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus said that out of the innermost being, rivers of living water would flow. This was referring to the Holy Spirit, who was not then given, because Jesus had not been glorified (John 7:38 & 39). God's promise to Israel was for a new heart and that He would put His Spirit within us. (Ezekiel 36:26 & 27).
All this was achieved when Lord Jesus died, rose again, ascended and was glorified. That is why John the Baptist was the greatest prophet but the least in God's kingdom was greater. (Matthew 11:11) Unless we are born again, we cannot even see the Kingdom of God. (John 3:3).
The word "dispensation" is found in the KJV. Modern translations use the word "administration".
"The word "dispensation" originates from the Latin word "dispensatio," meaning "distribution, management," which in turn comes from the verb "dispensare," meaning "to distribute, administer". (Dictionary definition)
The Greek word also gives rise to modern English "economy".
Dispensationalism was formulated by J N Darby of the Plymouth Brethren. It attempts to define various periods in history, especially the history of Israel and the church. I'm not sure why you would say that it applies only to the age we are born in. It also applies to the future as well as the past.
All this was achieved when Lord Jesus died, rose again, ascended and was glorified. That is why John the Baptist was the greatest prophet but the least in God's kingdom was greater. (Matthew 11:11) Unless we are born again, we cannot even see the Kingdom of God. (John 3:3).
The word "dispensation" is found in the KJV. Modern translations use the word "administration".
"The word "dispensation" originates from the Latin word "dispensatio," meaning "distribution, management," which in turn comes from the verb "dispensare," meaning "to distribute, administer". (Dictionary definition)
The Greek word also gives rise to modern English "economy".
Dispensationalism was formulated by J N Darby of the Plymouth Brethren. It attempts to define various periods in history, especially the history of Israel and the church. I'm not sure why you would say that it applies only to the age we are born in. It also applies to the future as well as the past.
-
1
- Show all
We in Christ in Spirit can review the presented Scriptures and point being made. As was said, it's a compilation of information that has been put forth through teachings.
It supports loss of salvation so I'm not surprised some will just condemn it without reviewing it and explaining why and where it's right or wrong. So, the new excuse for not explaining Scripture is that it's AI. Same practice different nemesis.
It supports loss of salvation so I'm not surprised some will just condemn it without reviewing it and explaining why and where it's right or wrong. So, the new excuse for not explaining Scripture is that it's AI. Same practice different nemesis.
I'd like to be absolutely clear about what you're saying. So, a few questions:
- Who's teaching you this or are you reading it yourself?
- You're saying this salvation of soul is received during this lifetime - pre-resurrection - correct?
- So, as I asked you before, you're saying there are [at least] 2 salvations, correct?
-
1
- Show all
But as it is, Christ has acquired a [priestly] ministry which is more excellent [than the old Levitical priestly ministry], for He is the Mediator (Arbiter) of a better covenant [uniting God and man], which has been enacted and rests on better promises.
Amplified Bible
Hebrews 8:6
Justified, declared innocent the debt cannot be reclaimed.
Show me in scripture where it teaches the debt can be reclaimed?
That's an interesting twist. I had not ever seen it that way.
The problem with it, however, is that the two parallels you have drawn are not at all comparable between the two.
The quote about baptism includes the conjunctive requirement for baptism, therefore not at all leaving it open to preference. This is why I also study doctrines from a systematic vantagepoint:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Nobody could possibly and up saved if their sins were not remitted, washed away, or whatever relevant word one may choose that aligns with the original meaning.
That conjunctive "and" in there doesn't allow for preferentially choosing as to if one wants to adhere to the following element.
Moving your example more closely to reality, if I'm directed to make a cake with flour and sugar, and subjectively choose to leave out the sugar, it's no longer cake, but rather a more bland tasting bread thingy, and therefore not anywhere nearly as palatable to the taste as bring something that would serve as a desert.
Where did you hear that the text item joined with the conjunctive can be left to preferential choice in the biblical texts? Was it some pastor you follow who stated that to you? Is that what she teaches?
Paul, THE apostle to the Gentiles, said this:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
There is not one mention for the requirement of water baptism here nor anywhere else in Paul's epistles, and yet there are those out there who have been taught to believe that Paul taught the same Gospel as did the eleven to Israel, which is not at all true. Intellectual honesty demands that they read the texts for what they say AND for what they DON'T say, and to refrain from injecting into the text any measure of subjective assumptions.
Additionally, there are those who would say that the absence of mention for water baptism was left to the reader's understanding that it was still there, although invisible by way of the knowledge of the reader, and therefore didn't need to be restated.
Satan very much loves that kind of reasoning. It lays down at the feet of Paul in eternity his having led many billions of Gentiles astray. After all, if water baptism had still been a required element for salvation as a show of faith, as a work for justification, then Paul would indeed be guilty under the sin of omission. Just think about the impact in leaving out just one element for salvation. Do you see the problem in that claim?
So, yes, Israel was required to engage water baptism as a show of their faith since water itself cannot remit sins. It is the WORK, the ACT, that was required of them, but not us today. Why?
Simply stated: Grace. The very definition of grace being UNMERRITED FAVOR, that should suffice in understanding the omission of the requirement to be water baptized. Attempts at coupling ANY work to grace, and one nullifies the grace. Paul made that abundantly clear:
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Do you see the problem with your assumptions?
I hope you would not mind my saying that I would never set foot on a bridge an engineer told you to build from the parts he gives to you, and to be sure you use the special steel bolts provided, and you subjectively decide to put rubber bands through the bolt holes in the place of the special steel bolts. I would rather do the back-stroke across the river than to set foot onto something that will not hold up.
Good luck with that, because you're going to need it.
MM
The problem with it, however, is that the two parallels you have drawn are not at all comparable between the two.
The quote about baptism includes the conjunctive requirement for baptism, therefore not at all leaving it open to preference. This is why I also study doctrines from a systematic vantagepoint:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Nobody could possibly and up saved if their sins were not remitted, washed away, or whatever relevant word one may choose that aligns with the original meaning.
That conjunctive "and" in there doesn't allow for preferentially choosing as to if one wants to adhere to the following element.
Moving your example more closely to reality, if I'm directed to make a cake with flour and sugar, and subjectively choose to leave out the sugar, it's no longer cake, but rather a more bland tasting bread thingy, and therefore not anywhere nearly as palatable to the taste as bring something that would serve as a desert.
Where did you hear that the text item joined with the conjunctive can be left to preferential choice in the biblical texts? Was it some pastor you follow who stated that to you? Is that what she teaches?
Paul, THE apostle to the Gentiles, said this:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
There is not one mention for the requirement of water baptism here nor anywhere else in Paul's epistles, and yet there are those out there who have been taught to believe that Paul taught the same Gospel as did the eleven to Israel, which is not at all true. Intellectual honesty demands that they read the texts for what they say AND for what they DON'T say, and to refrain from injecting into the text any measure of subjective assumptions.
Additionally, there are those who would say that the absence of mention for water baptism was left to the reader's understanding that it was still there, although invisible by way of the knowledge of the reader, and therefore didn't need to be restated.
Satan very much loves that kind of reasoning. It lays down at the feet of Paul in eternity his having led many billions of Gentiles astray. After all, if water baptism had still been a required element for salvation as a show of faith, as a work for justification, then Paul would indeed be guilty under the sin of omission. Just think about the impact in leaving out just one element for salvation. Do you see the problem in that claim?
So, yes, Israel was required to engage water baptism as a show of their faith since water itself cannot remit sins. It is the WORK, the ACT, that was required of them, but not us today. Why?
Simply stated: Grace. The very definition of grace being UNMERRITED FAVOR, that should suffice in understanding the omission of the requirement to be water baptized. Attempts at coupling ANY work to grace, and one nullifies the grace. Paul made that abundantly clear:
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Do you see the problem with your assumptions?
I hope you would not mind my saying that I would never set foot on a bridge an engineer told you to build from the parts he gives to you, and to be sure you use the special steel bolts provided, and you subjectively decide to put rubber bands through the bolt holes in the place of the special steel bolts. I would rather do the back-stroke across the river than to set foot onto something that will not hold up.
Good luck with that, because you're going to need it.
MM
AI is neither good nor bad. It's a tool, period. Fed information from various, often contrary, sources. It has no reasoning.
There are a multitude, only one is right. (Not going to debate that as it's been debated to death) And, despite the broadstroke.... I personally am not indoctrinated. I have a brain and I read the Bible myself.
There are a multitude, only one is right. (Not going to debate that as it's been debated to death) And, despite the broadstroke.... I personally am not indoctrinated. I have a brain and I read the Bible myself.
Which means?
Some will go to their grave never knowing what the Word of God actually says.
They've been duped.
They'll cherry-pick a few verses to make a point, and throw the rest out.
I have no time for them, either.
I was just alerting others to what we are dealing with some here.
And, besides?
Interesting part?
Some parts of the KJV are better.
That is... if someone is making a case for abortion not being murder.
Little do they know.
Some will go to their grave never knowing what the Word of God actually says.
They've been duped.
They'll cherry-pick a few verses to make a point, and throw the rest out.
I have no time for them, either.
I was just alerting others to what we are dealing with some here.
And, besides?
Interesting part?
Some parts of the KJV are better.
That is... if someone is making a case for abortion not being murder.
Little do they know.
I looked up the verse in the original language it was written (Hebrew) with it's original translation and now I understand why neither of you don't see Adam in that verse:
Hosea 6:7 (Westminster Leningrad Codex)
וְהֵ֕מָּה כְּאָדָ֖ם עָבְר֣וּ בְרִ֑ית שָׁ֖ם בָּ֥גְדוּ בִֽי׃ = But they like men transgressed the covenant there they dealt treacherously with Me.
וְהֵ֕מָּה (wə-hêm-māh) = But they
כְּאָדָ֖ם (kə-’ā-ḏām) = like men
עָבְר֣וּ (‘ā-ḇə-rū) = transgressed
בְרִ֑ית (ḇə-rîṯ
= the covenantשָׁ֖ם (šām) = there
בָּ֥גְדוּ (bā-ḡə-ḏū) = they dealt treacherously
בִֽי׃ (ḇî.) = with Me
The earlier Bibles did not have "Adam" in that verse, but used the exact translation "men". It was the later Bible translations that have "Adam" instead.
💒
-
1
- Show all
I looked up the verse in the original language it was written (Hebrew) with it's original translation and now I understand why neither of you don't see Adam in that verse:
Hosea 6:7 (Westminster Leningrad Codex)
וְהֵ֕מָּה כְּאָדָ֖ם עָבְר֣וּ בְרִ֑ית שָׁ֖ם בָּ֥גְדוּ בִֽי׃ = But they like men transgressed the covenant there they dealt treacherously with Me.
וְהֵ֕מָּה (wə-hêm-māh) = But they
כְּאָדָ֖ם (kə-’ā-ḏām) = like men
עָבְר֣וּ (‘ā-ḇə-rū) = transgressed
בְרִ֑ית (ḇə-rîṯ = the covenant
שָׁ֖ם (šām) = there
בָּ֥גְדוּ (bā-ḡə-ḏū) = they dealt treacherously
בִֽי׃ (ḇî.) = with Me
The earlier Bibles did not have "Adam" in that verse, but used the exact translation "men". It was the later Bible translations that have "Adam" instead.
💒
Hosea 6:7 (Westminster Leningrad Codex)
וְהֵ֕מָּה כְּאָדָ֖ם עָבְר֣וּ בְרִ֑ית שָׁ֖ם בָּ֥גְדוּ בִֽי׃ = But they like men transgressed the covenant there they dealt treacherously with Me.
וְהֵ֕מָּה (wə-hêm-māh) = But they
כְּאָדָ֖ם (kə-’ā-ḏām) = like men
עָבְר֣וּ (‘ā-ḇə-rū) = transgressed
בְרִ֑ית (ḇə-rîṯ
= the covenantשָׁ֖ם (šām) = there
בָּ֥גְדוּ (bā-ḡə-ḏū) = they dealt treacherously
בִֽי׃ (ḇî.) = with Me
The earlier Bibles did not have "Adam" in that verse, but used the exact translation "men". It was the later Bible translations that have "Adam" instead.
💒
On the other hand...
Iysh = a man.
Iyshah= a woman.
Adam named the woman when she was presented to him.
He named her Iyshah / (eeshah)
Adam had learned and knew that he was specifically a man. Iysh (masuline gender)
He instantly named the woman in the feminine gender - Iyshah!
And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman, (Iyshah) -feminine gender.
Because she was taken out of Man.” (Iysh) -masculine gender.
Genesis 2:23
Why not?
After all, Adam was accustomed to naming thousands of all the created animals he was presented.
It is no wonder he simply named her quickly when he saw what she was!
grace and peace .............
-
1
- Show all
At this juncture, AI is stringing together Scriptures based upon how men have strung together Scriptures. To disagree with AI as I read those verses is simply to disagree with men who use the same verses to say the same things.
Get used to it. Not too long ago I heard some say a cassette player was the God of some, then CD's, then...
It seems more productive to discuss the content - the Scriptures - and how they're being interpreted and why the conclusions are right or wrong.
Get used to it. Not too long ago I heard some say a cassette player was the God of some, then CD's, then...
It seems more productive to discuss the content - the Scriptures - and how they're being interpreted and why the conclusions are right or wrong.
-
1
- Show all