The problem of the statement of “never saved to begin with”
- Thread starter Believer08
- 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.
That’s what I was looking for when God revealed himself to me. It was one of the most ecstatic moments in my life when I was filled with the spirit. It’s not a mild thing. It’s an astounding thing. The first question you got correct it’s also in one of the three Johns, but it’s a direct reflection of the truth in the word of God that is why you should love God if you know the truth in the Bible.
Not at all.
When you don't understand what is being stated,why not simply request they reword their post? And admit,because you don't understand?
There's no shame in this. It is how we learn.
When you don't understand what is being stated,why not simply request they reword their post? And admit,because you don't understand?
There's no shame in this. It is how we learn.
"Baloney Sandwich" is his response.
And that's what we learned.
-
1
- Show all
???
so following deceiving spirits and things taught by demons is, in essence, following suit.
???
in essence, following suit. That is, they possess the requirement that qualifies as belief but abandon any attempt to reach that requirement which qualifies for faith.
???
Who is "they"?
What are you attempting to say?
Can you be any less clear?
so following deceiving spirits and things taught by demons is, in essence, following suit.
???
in essence, following suit. That is, they possess the requirement that qualifies as belief but abandon any attempt to reach that requirement which qualifies for faith.
???
Who is "they"?
What are you attempting to say?
Can you be any less clear?
Faith is not just intellectually accepting abstract truth propositions. As Jesus taught it FAITH was act of the mind and heart. More than it is something must act upon. This is why we are commanded to respond to the truth by REPENTING of sin and BELIEVING the gospel. This command which was issued to all men and commands must be acted upon
"30 Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)
The Kerygma demands a response from our minds hearts and wills. Our response must be to submit ourselves to Him which is both an expression as well as an decisive act of faith. Recalling how the Romans came to believe, Paul wrote: 17....ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
(Romans 6:17)
When they heard the gospel they "obeyed it from the heart" and were saved. Is it possible to hear and not obey? Certainly, but then that would be a case where the "fowls of the air" snatch the seed away. Doctrinal descendants of Martin Luther often see this as bondage but that would be to confuse the yoke of the law with the yoke of Christ which brings rest to the soul
Even when I was very young in the Lord I sensed Christ demanded my whole self. It was not about anything I could do, for after I went through repentance I knew that I had nothing of value to offer Him that would earn me His favor. Nevertheless, the Master wanted all of me:
34Then Jesus called the crowd to Him along with His disciples, and He told them, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and for the gospel will save it. 36What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?…(Mark 8:34-36)
The call to FOLLOW him meant follow Him as one of His sheep. It called me to submit my whole self to Him.
"30 Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)
The Kerygma demands a response from our minds hearts and wills. Our response must be to submit ourselves to Him which is both an expression as well as an decisive act of faith. Recalling how the Romans came to believe, Paul wrote: 17....ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
(Romans 6:17)
When they heard the gospel they "obeyed it from the heart" and were saved. Is it possible to hear and not obey? Certainly, but then that would be a case where the "fowls of the air" snatch the seed away. Doctrinal descendants of Martin Luther often see this as bondage but that would be to confuse the yoke of the law with the yoke of Christ which brings rest to the soul
Even when I was very young in the Lord I sensed Christ demanded my whole self. It was not about anything I could do, for after I went through repentance I knew that I had nothing of value to offer Him that would earn me His favor. Nevertheless, the Master wanted all of me:
34Then Jesus called the crowd to Him along with His disciples, and He told them, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and for the gospel will save it. 36What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?…(Mark 8:34-36)
The call to FOLLOW him meant follow Him as one of His sheep. It called me to submit my whole self to Him.
There you go. You just did the very thing I said you do, you mentions something WE NEED TO DO.. not only did you say we need to do it, You said we need to continue to do it.
No the Bible says we must not only believe but CONTINUE to believe.
…22 But now He has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy, unblemished, and blameless in His presence— 23 if indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant (Colossians 1:22-23).
God's highest will for us in verse 22 has a conditional IF attached to it in verse 23. Here is what Paul said realizing the promise requires of us. Notice that he said nothing about our keeping the law or achieving perfection. What he did say is that to inherit the promise the Colossians must CONTINUE in the faith. This means that should we completely abandon, or depart from the faith we will not realize the promise. The Great Reward He has planned for us is thus CONDITIONED upon our CONTINUING to believe in Him.
The word CONTINUE is epimenete, which being a present tense verb indicates the ongoing action of remaining, continuing, to persisting, of in the faith. I know you reject the idea that we do not have to stay in Him but it is not about working but about continuing to believe the gospel in being faithful to Jesus Christ. Which certainly has NOTHING to do with THE LAW of Moses.
No the Bible says we must not only believe but CONTINUE to believe.
…22 But now He has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy, unblemished, and blameless in His presence— 23 if indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant (Colossians 1:22-23).
God's highest will for us in verse 22 has a conditional IF attached to it in verse 23. Here is what Paul said realizing the promise requires of us. Notice that he said nothing about our keeping the law or achieving perfection. What he did say is that to inherit the promise the Colossians must CONTINUE in the faith. This means that should we completely abandon, or depart from the faith we will not realize the promise. The Great Reward He has planned for us is thus CONDITIONED upon our CONTINUING to believe in Him.
The word CONTINUE is epimenete, which being a present tense verb indicates the ongoing action of remaining, continuing, to persisting, of in the faith. I know you reject the idea that we do not have to stay in Him but it is not about working but about continuing to believe the gospel in being faithful to Jesus Christ. Which certainly has NOTHING to do with THE LAW of Moses.
-
1
- Show all
The Bible speaks of that point in time when a person begins to believe in Jesus and is saved. First we must be persuaded by the Spirit that we are hopeless sinners. This process is what the Bible labels CONVICTION which is from the Greek word
8And when He comes, He will CONVICT the world in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because they do not believe in Me;… (John 16:8)
He may focus on any sin to show us how bad we are but ultimately He will come to focus on our unbelief. This is an excruciating process
because until we believe it seems to be hopeless to reform us...and it is. God does not want to rehabilitate us because we cannot be. The flesh and all that is built on it has to die. When we come through this we are brought to the only sensible decision: BELIEVE in Christ, give your life to Him.
Romans 5At least this is the path I has led down but it seemed to be supported by scriptures.
Since Greek is a highly INFLECTED language, many properties of words are contained in the spelling of the word. However, I did not say the present made a statement about the FUTURE. What I meant to say was that while the present CAN express something happening right now more often it describes HOW the action is unfolds. Let us look at what grammarians say:
In English, we know that the present tense describes something happening right now. It informs us of the time when an action takes place. In Greek, however, the present tense primarily tells us the type of action. The Greek present tense indicates continued action, something that happens continually or repeatedly, or something that is in the process of happening. If you say, for instance, “The sun is rising,” you are talking about a process happening over a period of time, not an instantaneous event. The Greeks use the present tense to express this kind of continued action. In contrast, Greek uses the aorist tense to show simple action. An aorist verb simply tells you that something happened, with no indication of how long it took. Aorist is like a snapshot; present is like a video.
https://ezraproject.com/greek-tenses-explained/
8And when He comes, He will CONVICT the world in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because they do not believe in Me;… (John 16:8)
He may focus on any sin to show us how bad we are but ultimately He will come to focus on our unbelief. This is an excruciating process
because until we believe it seems to be hopeless to reform us...and it is. God does not want to rehabilitate us because we cannot be. The flesh and all that is built on it has to die. When we come through this we are brought to the only sensible decision: BELIEVE in Christ, give your life to Him.
Romans 5At least this is the path I has led down but it seemed to be supported by scriptures.
Since Greek is a highly INFLECTED language, many properties of words are contained in the spelling of the word. However, I did not say the present made a statement about the FUTURE. What I meant to say was that while the present CAN express something happening right now more often it describes HOW the action is unfolds. Let us look at what grammarians say:
In English, we know that the present tense describes something happening right now. It informs us of the time when an action takes place. In Greek, however, the present tense primarily tells us the type of action. The Greek present tense indicates continued action, something that happens continually or repeatedly, or something that is in the process of happening. If you say, for instance, “The sun is rising,” you are talking about a process happening over a period of time, not an instantaneous event. The Greeks use the present tense to express this kind of continued action. In contrast, Greek uses the aorist tense to show simple action. An aorist verb simply tells you that something happened, with no indication of how long it took. Aorist is like a snapshot; present is like a video.
https://ezraproject.com/greek-tenses-explained/
-
1
- Show all
Not at all.
When you don't understand what is being stated,why not simply request they reword their post? And admit,because you don't understand?
There's no shame in this. It is how we learn.
When you don't understand what is being stated,why not simply request they reword their post? And admit,because you don't understand?
There's no shame in this. It is how we learn.
I can only be as clear as long as you are willing to look in the direction from which I'm speaking.
They is any person, or spirit, and in the referred to case, demons, that don't worship God in spirit and in truth, giving the biblical example of demons believing... I'm trusting you are familiar with that passage speaking about demons believing.
But there is only one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism, and it is this one faith that I've asserted that demons have never been baptized into which is the 'foundational act of faith'. How is it possible that one could 'fall away' after having been unified with Christ and His Body as witnessed with the seal of the Holy Spirit?
Well, I think if something doesn't make sense it is incumbent on you,using your personal reference,to say that.
Because telling someone you don't understand something has a totally different meaning to that of something said not making sense to you.
Another thing I've found is, using myself as an example, I am not responsible for how someone understands or takes what I say. I'm only responsible for what I meant when I said it.
The idea it isn't how I meant it,it is how someone chooses to take it,is the old formula for political correctness.
If someone is already hostile toward someone who is addressing them,that person with those preconceived biases may take offense when none are intended.
That's their responsibility. Not the speakers.
Thanks for your time.
Because telling someone you don't understand something has a totally different meaning to that of something said not making sense to you.
Another thing I've found is, using myself as an example, I am not responsible for how someone understands or takes what I say. I'm only responsible for what I meant when I said it.
The idea it isn't how I meant it,it is how someone chooses to take it,is the old formula for political correctness.
If someone is already hostile toward someone who is addressing them,that person with those preconceived biases may take offense when none are intended.
That's their responsibility. Not the speakers.
Thanks for your time.
At university, students were advised that to use wikipedia as a scholarly source would be regarded as a discredit, nonetheless it was encouraged as a good starting point to get the general idea of all the possible opinions that could be a starting point of research for sources from which citation would be acceptable. So, if you consider all the possibly accepted definitions of apostasy, this might help clear up any confusion you are experiencing in understanding what I'm saying.
If I may suggest starting by searching "etymology of apostate"? The Online Etymology Dictionary offers the entry "apostasy" dated Oct 12, 2024 that says that it is a noun, also spelled with a "c" and and "ie" in the late 14c. and provides the definition, "renunciation, abandonment or neglect of established religion," from Late Latin apostasia, from later Greek apostasia for earlier...
but I didn't follow the link to read further because, inherently, I do understand what I'm saying.
Surely, you are, at the least, capable of thinking of what I might be saying?
If I may suggest starting by searching "etymology of apostate"? The Online Etymology Dictionary offers the entry "apostasy" dated Oct 12, 2024 that says that it is a noun, also spelled with a "c" and and "ie" in the late 14c. and provides the definition, "renunciation, abandonment or neglect of established religion," from Late Latin apostasia, from later Greek apostasia for earlier...
but I didn't follow the link to read further because, inherently, I do understand what I'm saying.
Surely, you are, at the least, capable of thinking of what I might be saying?
Why ask others to help you understand Greek, learn it yourself so you don't have to be a parrot and repeat what others say. It will take some time, but you will be able to become a serious Bible student and not be dependent on others to teach you. I have translated most of the epistle to the Ephesians, I would be glad to send you part of it to give you a feel for what paraphrasing/translation is all about.