Can a christian loose his salvation?

[razzelflabben]

I'm sure you believe that people go to hell because of sin. You just deny that it's God punishing them for it.

interesting that you use the word punishING since I said that hell was punishING just not punishMENT...so please show specifically where you get the idea that I don't think hell is punishing...given that that is exactly the opposite of what I really did say.

Or are you referring to an idea that you don't think I believe God is the judge who hands out the sentence, cause I also remember talking about God being the judge who hands out the sentence of death on all who are not in the Lambs Book of Life...

so confused as to what you think I said, especially given I was actively making sure to be clear in my understanding...help me learn to be clearer, specify where you are getting these ideas.

 

[seekingsolace]

the quote was made from these passages I am referring to, but no matter, you have made your beliefs about discussing it from scripture clear. No worries. For anyone interested, they stand, for those not...whatever

You didn't provide any passages? Sorry what are my views; have I not said atleast three times I'm more than happy to discuss all passages you are concerned about. Once again you are overlooking my whole message, why are you being petty? I said I want no grievance.

that you are seeking to know His will and I am blessing you that you might accomplish that...you act as if the HS is not working in my life to not be vengeful and aggressive or to desire peace rather than quarreling...yet from day one, I have called for peace. What would make you think I am living in the power of the world and not in the power of the living God? Isn't that an accusation of character that requires assumptions rather than taking a post at face value? Oh well...enough is enough...moving on.

No you are reading too much into that, the way the original blessing was worded and where it was placed is how I also perceived you implying that. So you see it's easy to read into it both ways, I addressed this in another post.

 

[razzelflabben]

You didn't provide any passages? Sorry what are my views; have I not said atleast three times I'm more than happy to discuss all passages you are concerned about. Once again you are overlooking my whole message, why are you being petty? I said I want no grievance.

look, you already said that the passages that tell us that those who endure will inherit the crown of life are irrelevant in your opinion, what is going to PM going to change. You don't think that enduring to inherit the crown of life is important to our discussion...end of story...going to PM or any other private chat isn't going to change your position and since I do believe they are relevant, it won't change my position to do so either. End of story...why do you seem so obsessed with this? Seriously, you made your stand, I made mine...now we move on.

No you are reading too much into that, the way the original blessing was worded and where it was placed is how I also perceived you implying that. So you see it's easy to read into it both ways, I addressed this in another post.

maybe it could be read two different ways, but you didn't ask me what my heart said when I wrote it, so you made assumptions. Yet according to those here, I am the only one making assumptions, so it is done. I am trying to conform to your criticisms and you just keep going on and on about it. Makes me wonder how accurate your criticisms are that you can't just let them stand, but alas that is not my call. It is not mine to judge your intent, only to learn from it.

So far we know from your criticisms that blessing are out....passages that support a claim are out...assuming what a poster means is out, which causes problems with the one issue I am trying to get cleared up, but hey, it was a criticism taken to heart.

Did I miss any? Oh being petty...I don't yet know how to change that one being that I am not the one keeping this going and have ignored many posts to avoid being petty, but give me time, I'll figure it out.

 

[seekingsolace]

look, you already said that the passages that tell us that those who endure will inherit the crown of life are irrelevant in your opinion, what is going to PM going to change. You don't think that enduring to inherit the crown of life is important to our discussion...end of story...going to PM or any other private chat isn't going to change your position and since I do believe they are relevant, it won't change my position to do so either. End of story...why do you seem so obsessed with this? Seriously, you made your stand, I made mine...now we move on.

I have not said that at all, please don't twist words. If I mean to say that I'll say it directly. Now if it's a discussion that is focusing on a certain point and irrelevant passages are posted (at that time) I'll say so, not irrelevant full stop. What is all this talk of making a stand? Sorry but I've not tried to make a stand, nor has it even entered my head. This is a little confusing, I don't want this to be confrontational, this is why certain things were addressed to move on. But clearly you do not want to debate the passages in question now. Would I offer my time if I thought you weren't worth it???

maybe it could be read two different ways, but you didn't ask me what my heart said when I wrote it, so you made assumptions. Yet according to those here, I am the only one making assumptions, so it is done. I am trying to conform to your criticisms and you just keep going on and on about it. Makes me wonder how accurate your criticisms are that you can't just let them stand, but alas that is not my call. It is not mine to judge your intent, only to learn from it.

I'm not trying to criticize you, I just wanted to bring issue to light so they could be addressed and we can move on. Like I said there, and you have agreed, it works both ways. I am not claiming what I have said could not be misconstrued, anymore than what you have can. Now you have said your intent was good, so was mine; why won't you accept that and move on?

So far we know from your criticisms that blessing are out....passages that support a claim are out...assuming what a poster means is out, which causes problems with the one issue I am trying to get cleared up, but hey, it was a criticism taken to heart.

Did I miss any? Oh being petty...I don't yet know how to change that one being that I am not the one keeping this going and have ignored many posts to avoid being petty, but give me time, I'll figure it out.

You are letting your feelings get the better of you, a number of times now I have tried to sort this out. The last lines of what you said is what I am referring to as petty.

 

[lori milne]

But what does that have to do with loss of salvation. Neither of those contexts is about regaining salvation. Seems to me that when speaing about "balanced look", all that is being done is trying to pit what one thinks is about loss of salvation with other passages that teach clearly eternal security. That isn't balanced in any way. It's just trying to pit Scripture against Scripture. And your response to my comments about John 10:28,29 ignored what those verses mean. So, you've still made no point. God holds the believer, so we CANNOT remove ourselves from His hand. If that were possible, then John 10:28,29 is a lie and we are more powerful than God. But Jesus made very clear that "no one" is. Meaning, no person. If you count yourself as a person, then not even yourself can remove yourself from God's grip. He holds you, not the other way around. Because He holds us, we are eternally secure.

Originally Posted by lori milne
Balancing it out was said because jesus speaks of sheep in many passages and one of the passages was being used that was luke 15 and the implication / context was the Shepard rejoices and the old lady rejoices and the man rejoices 4-10 the Angels rejoice when 1 lost is found'
I said >But what does that have to do with loss of salvation. Neither of those contexts is about regaining salvation.

It doesn't have anything to do with loss of salvation I was speaking to hammster about it not meaning the good Shepard not losing sheep bit rejoicing when he finds 1

 

[lori milne]

But what does that have to do with loss of salvation. Neither of those contexts is about regaining salvation. Seems to me that when speaing about "balanced look", all that is being done is trying to pit what one thinks is about loss of salvation with other passages that teach clearly eternal security. That isn't balanced in any way. It's just trying to pit Scripture against Scripture. And your response to my comments about John 10:28,29 ignored what those verses mean. So, you've still made no point. God holds the believer, so we CANNOT remove ourselves from His hand. If that were possible, then John 10:28,29 is a lie and we are more powerful than God. But Jesus made very clear that "no one" is. Meaning, no person. If you count yourself as a person, then not even yourself can remove yourself from God's grip. He holds you, not the other way around. Because He holds us, we are eternally secure.

He wasn't looking at the others and just saying the passage in luke 15 was about no sheep getting lost.
A balanced look at the other passages was what I suggested and he refused so OSAS was the only thing he was taking out of it and seeing no other meaning.
You said >Seems to me that when speaing about "balanced look", all that is being done is trying to pit what one thinks is about loss of salvation with other passages that teach clearly eternal security.


Balanced look was bringing in other passages speaking of the same parable by the same speaker in this one it was Luke in and it was jesus speaking and the parable was a good Shepard
If one parable makes you feel you can't lose your salvation , bringing in other passages pertaining to the same words or phrases To confirm that was the true meaning. This is a healthy very healthy thing to do when faced with a contradiction and is considered balancing it out.

God bless

 

[razzelflabben]

I have not said that at all, please don't twist words.

wow...you quoted my post that had those passages in it and said that the passages were irrelevant....how could I read into that that they were irrelevant? I really don't know how to win here...I'm dam n ed if I do and dam n ed if I don't with you it would seem.

If I mean to say that I'll say it directly.

except that you did say it directly...so how what? You directly say that the passages don't apply and I accept that you don't think they are relevant to the discussion and that is reading into your post what is not there....but, if I assume you were talking about something else, that is assuming and I should only deal with what is directly said...but when I deal with what you directly said, I am also assuming...dude...get ahold of yourself, I'm not upset, you don't think they are relevant and you said you read them (see I thought it was cause you didn't know what they said cause there were quite a few of them and you said you didn't have time to review them...my bad for assuming you didn't read them) but you said you did read them, so that doesn't leave a lot of options on the table. Either you don't think they are relevant as you said you don't believe them to be, or you lied about reading them and are not wanting to confess that lie. I'm willing to go with no relevant...yet personally, I find them very relevant.

Now if it's a discussion that is focusing on a certain point and irrelevant passages are posted (at that time) I'll say so, not irrelevant full stop. What is all this talk of making a stand? Sorry but I've not tried to make a stand, nor has it even entered my head. This is a little confusing, I don't want this to be confrontational, this is why certain things were addressed to move on. But clearly you do not want to debate the passages in question now. Would I offer my time if I thought you weren't worth it???

I don't know why you would offer your time, but I don't care enough to ask you why, I could assume, but since I was told that I assume too much, I'll bypass that step. You said they were irrelevant to the discussion at hand, now you say they aren't...which are you going with so that I can keep up? We were talking about HEb. 6 where it talks about the branches that are cut off are thrown into the fire. The claim was made and agreed that those who lack fruit are those who do not remain in Christ, that left the question, what does the fire mean...I offered up passages that show that those who endure are the ones that receive eternal life/crown of life/ etc. You claimed the passages I offered were irrelevant to showing the totality of scripture that would lead us to the conclusion that endurance is a necessary part of our salvation. In fact, that particular day, I was studying endurance and it's importance to our salvation, so it made the passage list easy to post. I remember the day well and my shock at you thinking those passages are irrelevant to our discussion.

I'm not trying to criticize you, I just wanted to bring issue to light so they could be addressed and we can move on. Like I said there, and you have agreed, it works both ways. I am not claiming what I have said could not be misconstrued, anymore than what you have can. Now you have said your intent was good, so was mine; why won't you accept that and move on?

criticize all you want...I am willing to adjust if only to learn more about my Lord and King.

You are letting your feelings get the better of you, a number of times now I have tried to sort this out. The last lines of what you said is what I am referring to as petty.

again, I will figure out your idea of petty in time, I can adjust anything in my behavior if only to learn more about my God...not sure why that bothers you so, reminds me of Paul when He said, I am all things to all people that I might win some...I can be all things to everyone here if only to know my God more and more. That shouldn't offend you, why does it?

 

[lori milne]

I asked this: "Because the Bible never teaches that. How about this: please define as clearly as possible what "repent" means, just so's we know where your view is coming from. Thanks." Go tell "what" to him? I'm disappointed that my simple question was completely dodged. I must understand what is meant by "repent" in order to follow your posts. Refusal to clarify your own words only leads to these repetitious posts with no progress in discussion. Please define "repent" so that I can better understand your view.

Why can't any one remember what they said last lol shhmm
I was talking to nobodysfool and you jumped in and responded to me saying that hell is not the consequence to sin for or saved brethren in the faith OSAS
I said go tell nobodysfool that because he said no one said this OSAS believed that
Mo don't know what your assuming is to be talking about unless I forgot
Oppsy if I did

 

[Hammster]

interesting that you use the word punishING since I said that hell was punishING just not punishMENT...so please show specifically where you get the idea that I don't think hell is punishing...given that that is exactly the opposite of what I really did say.

Or are you referring to an idea that you don't think I believe God is the judge who hands out the sentence, cause I also remember talking about God being the judge who hands out the sentence of death on all who are not in the Lambs Book of Life...

so confused as to what you think I said, especially given I was actively making sure to be clear in my understanding...help me learn to be clearer, specify where you are getting these ideas.

Let's go with what you've said here. God hands out the sentence of death. This He does on those whom, if they were once saved, He loved with an supposed everlasting love. The end result is eternal torment/punishment or whatever satisfied your view.

You are still left with God sending His beloved children to Hell.

That is not unconditional love. That's a love that says I'll love you if you love me back. Otherwise, you are screwed.

 

[lori milne]

I asked this: "Because the Bible never teaches that. How about this: please define as clearly as possible what "repent" means, just so's we know where your view is coming from. Thanks." Go tell "what" to him? I'm disappointed that my simple question was completely dodged. I must understand what is meant by "repent" in order to follow your posts. Refusal to clarify your own words only leads to these repetitious posts with no progress in discussion. Please define "repent" so that I can better understand your view.

Repent
In the bible
From begging to end means to feel remorse and have a change of direction with sin
It also has been used to means regret or sorrow for once actions

In a completed balanced definition it means to feel bad when you sin and then stop !

And I mean lament or tare your clothes morn
Ashamed to whale out crying.
When the bible speaks of repentance this is the sorrow expressed.

Not the catholic version to confess and do a push up or something lol"

 

[razzelflabben]

Let's go with what you've said here. God hands out the sentence of death. This He does on those whom, if they were once saved, He loved with an supposed everlasting love. The end result is eternal torment/punishment or whatever satisfied your view.

You are still left with God sending His beloved children to Hell.

Please show specifically where anyone on this thread, most interested in my, but hey, Ill take anyone at this point, said that God sends His children to hell....and don't go down the lost salvation road because as shown, they remove themselves from His gifts, that means they are the ones who are making the call not Him. Please be specific here, in that I have no clue where you are getting this claim and I need to learn how to NOT assume what others are saying.

That is not unconditional love. That's a love that says I'll love you if you love me back. Otherwise, you are screwed.

Hum...again, not sure where you are getting this from but since I am the one who is supposedly assuming and you are not, I need you to show me specifically what was said that leads you to the conclusion that God withdraws His love from those who remove themselves from His care and favor....I though I said just the opposite not long ago...but anxious to see the post I apparently forgot I made. thanks for teaching me how to not assume by showing me all these claims you are making about what I said that I don't remember saying....I must be responding in my sleep since I don't do drugs or drink.

 

[seekingsolace]

wow...you quoted my post that had those passages in it and said that the passages were irrelevant....how could I read into that that they were irrelevant? I really don't know how to win here...I'm dam n ed if I do and dam n ed if I don't with you it would seem.

if they were irrelevant to what we were focusing on at the time I would have said so yes. You do the exact same thing, I'm sorry but you can't have double standards.

except that you did say it directly...so how what? You directly say that the passages don't apply and I accept that you don't think they are relevant to the discussion and that is reading into your post what is not there....but, if I assume you were talking about something else, that is assuming and I should only deal with what is directly said...but when I deal with what you directly said, I am also assuming...dude...get ahold of yourself, I'm not upset, you don't think they are relevant and you said you read them (see I thought it was cause you didn't know what they said cause there were quite a few of them and you said you didn't have time to review them...my bad for assuming you didn't read them) but you said you did read them, so that doesn't leave a lot of options on the table. Either you don't think they are relevant as you said you don't believe them to be, or you lied about reading them and are not wanting to confess that lie. I'm willing to go with no relevant...yet personally, I find them very relevant.

What on earth are you talking about, this is all over the place. Now what I was referring to are the two original replies to my original post, I'm not even sure what you are referring to anymore. I did not say I have read every single reference you have replied to in future posts, I did tell you I was short on time. Once again, I have no reason to lie.

I don't know why you would offer your time, but I don't care enough to ask you why, I could assume, but since I was told that I assume too much, I'll bypass that step.

Now you are just being childish... I say something nice to you and yet you make it into a negative.

You said they were irrelevant to the discussion at hand, now you say they aren't...which are you going with so that I can keep up? We were talking about HEb. 6 where it talks about the branches that are cut off are thrown into the fire.

Yes if you remember I made a few comments next to the passages you cited, since they referred to the vine and tree, not branches or fruit which was in the prior discussion. This was all outlined ages back, why is this being readdressed?

The claim was made and agreed that those who lack fruit are those who do not remain in Christ

That wasn't agreed, that was your view not mine. What I said is if a person consistently refusing to progress that they can come under temporal judgment, which I explained to you, based on prior discussions.

that left the question, what does the fire mean...I offered up passages that show that those who endure are the ones that receive eternal life/crown of life/ etc.

After this I did tell you I was short of time.

You claimed the passages I offered were irrelevant to showing the totality of scripture that would lead us to the conclusion that endurance is a necessary part of our salvation. In fact, that particular day, I was studying endurance and it's importance to our salvation, so it made the passage list easy to post. I remember the day well and my shock at you thinking those passages are irrelevant to our discussion.

You are generalising what I have said about a few select passages.

criticize all you want...I am willing to adjust if only to learn more about my Lord and King.

Why are you making it into a negative? - "I'm not trying to criticize you, I just wanted to bring issue to light so they could be addressed and we can move on."

again, I will figure out your idea of petty in time, I can adjust anything in my behavior if only to learn more about my God...not sure why that bothers you so, reminds me of Paul when He said, I am all things to all people that I might win some...I can be all things to everyone here if only to know my God more and more. That shouldn't offend you, why does it?

Sorry what is offending me? Can a problem be resolved if left in the dark? Please read the whole of my messages, you are viewing it as 'taking a stand' which I don't understand.

 

[seekingsolace]

Repent
In the bible
From begging to end means to feel remorse and have a change of direction with sin
It also has been used to means regret or sorrow for once actions

In a completed balanced definition it means to feel bad when you sin and then stop !

Repent at it's core is to change one's mind or purpose, sorrow is a byproduct of that change of mind.

 

[Hammster]

Please show specifically where anyone on this thread, most interested in my, but hey, Ill take anyone at this point, said that God sends His children to hell....and don't go down the lost salvation road because as shown, they remove themselves from His gifts, that means they are the ones who are making the call not Him. Please be specific here, in that I have no clue where you are getting this claim and I need to learn how to NOT assume what others are saying.
Hum...again, not sure where you are getting this from but since I am the one who is supposedly assuming and you are not, I need you to show me specifically what was said that leads you to the conclusion that God withdraws His love from those who remove themselves from His care and favor....I though I said just the opposite not long ago...but anxious to see the post I apparently forgot I made. thanks for teaching me how to not assume by showing me all these claims you are making about what I said that I don't remember saying....I must be responding in my sleep since I don't do drugs or drink.

Let me walk you through it.

Bob gets saved.
Bob is now a child of God.
God loves Bob with an everlasting love.
Bob stops loving God and walks away.
God stops loving Bob with an everlasting love.
God judges Bob and sends Him to Hell.

This is how you've committed your view in a nutshell. If it isn't accurate, feel free to clarify so it will be clear to all.

 

[stevenfrancis]

According to scripture yes
According to man no

Who shall I believe

‬

It is as you say. Jesus, the Christ of God says that it can happen, and to beware of this very thing. His Apostles say this in documents outside the Gospels. The Fathers say this taking up the mantle from the Apostles. All were inspired by God. Jesus IS God, that is, the 2nd person of the Trinitarian Godhead.

Believe God

 

[razzelflabben]

if they were irrelevant to what we were focusing on at the time I would have said so yes. You do the exact same thing, I'm sorry but you can't have double standards.

sigh...I just told you the context, I remember it well because it happened to fall on a day in which I was studying enduring in the faith.

What on earth are you talking about, this is all over the place. Now what I was referring to are the two original replies to my original post, I'm not even sure what you are referring to anymore. I did not say I have read every single reference you have replied to in future posts, I did tell you I was short on time. Once again, I have no reason to lie.

which is exactly why I assumed that when you said you read them and found them irrelevant that I accepted you at your word rather than accuse you of things that were not true or an attack of your character. If only everyone would do the same a lot of things on this thread would not be said, but then again, I am trying to learn how not to assume things, because apparently thinking the best of you is assuming somehow...it's a learning process.

Yes if you remember I made a few comments next to the passages you cited, since they referred to the vine and tree, not branches or fruit which was in the prior discussion. This was all outlined ages back, why is this being readdressed?

like I said, this is the passages in question...we were talking about what was meant by fire in this passage and I presented passages that talked about those who endure being the ones that were saved from hell...You claimed they were irrelevant to the discussion. I asked for anyone willing to discuss the topic to finish discussing it because we hadn't finalized the intent of the passage. You got upset and went off and blamed me for a handful of things. And tada, here we are. I think they are relevant...I believe that the passage is not finished until we understand what the intent of those that fall away is, and no one wants to finish the hermeneutical discussion because the passages I presented were supposedly "irrelevant". LIke I said, you made yourself clear that you are done with that discussion and that you think those passages are irrelevant, you stated your case, why keep trying to make it into something it isn't....I accepted your position long ago, maybe it is time for you to accept your position on the matter rather than try to make me out to be the bad guy. After all, I'm not harassing you about it, but you are harassing me about it.

Sorry what is offending me? Can a problem be resolved if left in the dark? Please read the whole of my messages, you are viewing it as 'taking a stand' which I don't understand.

taking a stand as in making a claim about what you think about a situation... if your stand wasn't that you didn't want to finish the discussion or that you didn't think the passages were relevant, why say that was the position you were taking?

 

[razzelflabben]

Let me walk you through it.

Bob gets saved.
Bob is now a child of God.
God loves Bob with an everlasting love.
Bob stops loving God and walks away.
God stops loving Bob with an everlasting love.
God judges Bob and sends Him to Hell.

first these aren't my words, but yours, so I still don't understand how not to assume unless you mean by that that we have to reword things to make the other person look like they are saying something they aren't...come on, help me learn how not to assume...where did I say anything about God removing His love?

In fact, I do remember saying that God never stops loving us, when we are enemies or children. That is an ever lasting Love. In fact, I see absolutely nothing at all in scripture that suggests that God stops loving anyone even if they are in the lake of fire.

Maybe you are confusing Love with hell? I don't know, you will have to tell me before I can follow what your intent is here. According to you, your intent is not to misrepresent and yet this is the opposite of what I actually did say...it is not your intent to assume, yet somehow this assumes things that are not true about what I said...you are not flaming and yet somehow your accusations of me and what I have said are offensive at best and could easily be construed as inflammatory....so help me out here...show me how to post like you are without being assumptive, inflammatory, and misrepresenting others...I for one want to be above reproach...

This is how you've committed your view in a nutshell. If it isn't accurate, feel free to clarify so it will be clear to all.

I have clarified many times over, how many times is necessary before I can call it a misrepresentation? 70 X 7 maybe?

SHow me where I said that God stops loving His children.

 

[seekingsolace]

like I said, this is the passages in question...we were talking about what was meant by fire in this passage and I presented passages that talked about those who endure being the ones that were saved from hell...You claimed they were irrelevant to the discussion. I asked for anyone willing to discuss the topic to finish discussing it because we hadn't finalized the intent of the passage. You got upset and went off and blamed me for a handful of things.

Just because that's your opinion doesn't make it fact. A number of times now I have said I didn't have time to look at them in depth, which I did say to message me so that my replies wouldn't be rushed. Did I not acknowledge this? But you keep ignoring that, and refocusing on negatives.

And tada, here we are. I think they are relevant...I believe that the passage is not finished until we understand what the intent of those that fall away is, and no one wants to finish the hermeneutical discussion because the passages I presented were supposedly "irrelevant".

Sorry if nobody wants to address them, then why have I repeatedly told you to message me them concerning all verses and passages. Are you ignoring that for a reason?

LIke I said, you made yourself clear that you are done with that discussion and that you think those passages are irrelevant, you stated your case, why keep trying to make it into something it isn't....I accepted your position long ago, maybe it is time for you to accept your position on the matter rather than try to make me out to be the bad guy.

Again, I made myself pretty clear that I am willing to discuss it in depth, not quite sure of the position you are claiming I have. if I accept your view of my position, it's not mine. Nobody is trying to make you out to be the 'bad guy'.

After all, I'm not harassing you about it, but you are harassing me about it. taking a stand as in making a claim about what you think about a situation... if your stand wasn't that you didn't want to finish the discussion or that you didn't think the passages were relevant, why say that was the position you were taking?

Sorry how am I harassing you? But this isn't about taking a stand, its not a confrontation, its a discussion. You are making it into something which it isn't, like I said. The offer is there for me to go in depth with any problem passages or verses you have, I've said this a number of times now. if you don't want to pursue that, then it's your decision.

 

[EmSw]

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Matthew 25:46

What Jesus is saying is that those who are not His sheep suffer eternal punishment. Strongs defines punishment as "penal infliction:--punishment, torment."

Let me know if anything clearer is needed.

Just as those who say they know Him, but do not keep His commandments are liars, and will find their fate with the goats.

 

[seekingsolace]

Just as those who say they know Him, but do not keep His commandments are liars, and will find their fate with the goats.

They can't know Him because they aren't His.