Can you lose your salvation?

[Wordkeeper]

What's the connection between revolutionaries saying "believe in him" and Paul telling a jailer to believe in Jesus?

You are imposing your modern understanding of the term "believe" on a 1st century text. How many times must I repeat this? Believing in a person is obeying him.

Seems someone here isn't paying close attention. How many times must I cite John 5:24 and the FACT that those who believe in Christ HAVE eternal life. In the present tense. Eternal life is available to everyone. But only those who believe in Him HAVE it.

Sigh, believing in a person is obeying that person, Yada yada yada...

How many times must i cite Eph 1:13 regarding HOW one is placed IN CHRIST? The Holy Spirit does it. The requirement is to believe in Him. Your claims have no support from Scripture.

Yada yada yada...

Apparently Eph 1:13,14 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5 don't mean much to some. Your view is ignorant of "positional truth", in which ALL believers ARE in Christ.

Yada yada yada...

This is what Jesus says after instructing the disciples to confess their sins to one another: John 13:34“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”So it isn't as you claim, that eternal life is given to those who depend on Christ

First, where in these 2 verses does the phrase "eternal life" appear? I'm not seeing them. Jesus gave His disciples a command, but it was NOT for eternal life. It was so that "all men will know that they were His disciples". The text is clear. Your understanding is not.

1 If A equals B


2 And C equals B


3 Then A equals C.


Or to slow it down for you (Boy! you really have a bad reading comprehension problem, I don't know if this conversation can progress... it may just be beyond your paygrade, milkfood seems to be your level of comprehension).


1 If loving one another is a sign of being a disciple of Christ


2 And if loving one another is evidence that you have eternal life


2 Then being recognised as a disciple of Christ is evidence you have eternal life.



Oops, I let out the answer to the question you've been carefully avoiding:


What is the evidence of having eternal life?


So does anyone recognise you as a disciple of Christ? Or are you no different from Joe Public? Living a futile life?

Once again, I cite Eph 1:13 as proof that we are IN Christ WHEN we believe in Him.

Yada yada yada...

Being "in Christ" and "abiding in Christ" are 2 different things. But I guess that's just not very well known to some. The word "abiding" differentiates the phrases, which should be clear to all. Abiding has to do with fellowship. Being IN CHRIST has to do with relationship.Please explain the difference between relationship and fellowship.

There's no difference. Since you claim a difference exists, if there is a difference, please enlighten us. As far as I know, in the Biblical context, there were situations where you could not even eat with a fellow believer, a treatment reserved for Gentiles, but you had to treat him worse than a Gentile.


Matthew 16:17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector


1 Corinthians 5:11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.

2 Thessalonians 3:6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:14Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed


I don't know which world you live in. In your universe, a person could believe in Jesus for eternal life (as in fire insurance) be "an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler" and still be IN Christ. Go figure...

Please quote whatever verse you think says that.

Let me help your poor memory, your own words, backatcha,


"Those who do not have eternal life are not in the "book of life" and at the Great White Throne judgment in Rom 20:11-15 will be cast into the lake of fire, also called the second death, for eternity."

btw, I've already proved HOW one receives eternal life by quoting Jesus directly. But go ahead and try to refute His words, if possible.

Yada yada yada...



Your comprehension may be faulty, but with prayerefforhelp from our Father, I will try again.



The evidence of eternal life is love for one another. This isn't the warm, wuzzy, fuzzy lurve you hear about in that insult to intelligence we call television, but the love that is great, and there is no greater love than this, than one lay down one's life for his brother.


Jesus says we should pick up or crosses every day and follow Him. How can you die every day?


Dying every day happens when we do the things God asks us to do and speak the words He asks us to speak. Like Jesus did:


John 12:49"For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.


I offer a view which I have been given a revelation, interpretation, expansion of. It's an unusual but insightful interpretation. It's risky to run with it, because being cornered with a rebuttal that disproves the view is damaging to a person's credibility. In the ANE, losing credibility was considered as bad, as serious, as losing your life. The situation today is almost as bad. If a person tries to teach that we have to obey the entire law even after the atonement made by Christ, he would be laughed off the forum, it's so deadly to one's credibility, literally intellectual suicide.


Anyhow, Jesus made several statements that seemed to be totally unbelievable. His Father asked Him to do it. To lay down His life. Miraculously, He would follow it up with proof that the view was right. God had raised Him up, resurrected Him. Finally, to show that it really was the Way, that unless a seed died, it could not become a tree, He did what God asked Him to do, the eponymous work on the Cross: He layed down His physical life! And God confirmed that it was true, unless a man died to himself, He could not live the eternal life, the fruitful life, the life that resulted in heavenly treasure, by raisning Christ up as a life giving Spirit.


So the evidence that a person has eternal life is if he loves his brother enough to lay down His life, risk intellectual suicide. And the confirmation that he does have eternal life is if he is proved right again and again.



Does it mean that when Jesus proved his enemies wrong, when they found themselves proved wrong, they repented.

No! They claimed that He had spoken lies! They claimed He had done His work with the help of Satan!


What were they doing? They were attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to other sources! They were saying it was not the Holy Spirit at work! They were sinning against the Holy Spirit. Even Pharaoh's sorcerer admitted that the revelations of God made by Moses were the result of the spirit of God at work. The work and the words of Jesus, that were like streams of living water, words of eternal life, words that made dead bones alive, words that warmed the hearts of the travellers at Emmaus, words that made deserts into fertille fields, these words were being denounced, were being attributed to a source other than the Holy Spirit!


God swore Israel would never enter His rest. Even when many Jews repented after being convicted of the truth of the fact that the person they had crucified was indeed their promised Messiah, the temple was destroyed, Judaism changed from a temple faith to a works of kindness faith... All because the leaders, who sat in the seat of Moses, continued in the disbelief of the wanderers in the wilderness, assumed responsibility for rejecting that Messiah. Even after tasting of the Holy Spirit:


Hebrew 6:4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

BTW, this is a serious discussion. Please lose the smileys.

 

[Marvin Knox]

That must have been when you sere childishly babbling and using circular logic.

I’ve asked you how my statement that the people in Matt. were never known by Christ and were therefore not proper examples to use for a loss of salvation. That was our first contact and you have never answered.

Well, everybody has an opinion. Some of them are actually worth reading. (yawn)

What you do is refuse to answer when I ask you on what basis you made those snarky statements about me. You then move on to listing numerous passages and concepts that you believe teach loss of salvation. You expect me to follow along and get embroiled. I have wanted to not do that because you refuse to answer the basic question before us first.

I’ve asked you how what I said about Matt. 7:23 was childish babble and circular reasoning (the statement you made in your original post to me).

Totally agree. And nobody does that when they call their male parent "father" or when a Catholic priest is addressed as "father."

Nonsense! Of course they do. To claim the ordained ability to change the wine and bread into the blood and body of Christ and claim to be the only ones who can rightly administer that blood and body to people for salvation is doing exactly that.

1. I'm not a Roman Catholic and you don't have a grasp of my theology.

My apologies. Your avid responses to questions about Roman Catholic teaching (as in number 2 below) seems to have lead me to miss that. And – no – I don’t have a very good grasp of your theology. I have entered into discussion with a couple of other more loving than yourself Eastern Orthodox people here because I am not averse to trying to understand their belief (and be converted if appropriate).

2. They don't "stand in the place of God" any differently than does any Protestant pastor or than you do when you pray for someone.

Here again you comment on Roman Catholic theology as if it were your own and you understand it. I won’t make the mistake of thinking you Roman Catholic again because of it. My apologies again for doing so before.

You are completely wrong about the difference between the activities of Catholic priests and Protestant pastors or Protestant laymen praying for others. You are obviously lacking in your knowledge about Catholicism. That’s a lot like my lack of knowledge concerning your system. The difference is that I don’t make statements about Eastern Orthodoxy like the one you just made about Catholicism and Protestantism when I don’t know what I’m talking about enough to comment.

3. You'll have to identify exactly what "activities" you imagine they "minister" which "rightfully belong only to God." (See? When you don't get around to saying what you're talking about, that's "babbling.")

I just gave you an example with the Eucharist. Another would be the infallible word of the church in interpretation of scripture.

So you're not a member of the holy priesthood of believers or an ambassador of Christ? I had just assumed you were a Christian.

Of course I am. You should know that the “priesthood” of every believer is far different from the priesthood in Catholicism. And the substitute for Christ that is the Pontiff is completely different in Catholicism than any concept they hold of the laymen as “vicars”.

Ok, so you have absolutely no idea what the Eucharist is about but are delighted to babble your memorized bumper-sticker hate memes from your copy of The KAATH-lick-Basher's Religious Bigotry Handbook of Really Dumb Things to Say.

I have a very good idea about what the Eucharist is about in Catholicism. I have much less knowledge about Eastern Orthodoxy. Please tell me the difference between the Catholic Eucharist and that of the Eastern Orthodox. I am willing to learn. Is eventual access to Heaven dependent in any way on taking the Eucharist in a particular form or manner? Must it be administered by a priest to be effective in such? If so - taking the Eucharist is not just a celebration or remembrance of Christ's finished work but a means to salvation itself.

Ah, another opinion! The Church is not an "earthly organization"; it is the presence of the Kingdom of God on earth. A Kingdom is an organization. There aren't any "lone ranger" Christians.

Of course there aren’t any lone ranger Christians. But the Roman Catholic church or any other local assembly is an organization. Some claim necessary association with the Roman organization in order to have salvation. They pronounce curses on such as me who claim salvation by a personal faith in Christ alone.

Can you cite a verse that says something about that "faith on a personal level"?

“That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.” Romans 10:9

Who told you that? It's 100% baloney. You really shouldn't repeat lies no matter how much joy it gives you to do so.

Again – I have been talking about Catholicism. They do indeed curse me as lost because I claim such personal salvation outside of their organization.

Must I have association with the Eastern Orthodox church to be saved according to your teaching?

So you should never ask anyone to pray for you and you should never pray for anyone who asks for prayer. If you did, you'd be a "mediatrix."

If people prayed to me to intercede for them it would be wrong just as it is with Mary. There is a world of difference between my praying for others and people praying to the Queen of Heaven or to departed Christians to intercede for them.

Great! Any grammar-school dropout with an abridged King James Bible, written in Jacobean English, (and he isn't even fluent in modern English) can come up with his own theology. Wonderful! Maybe that's why there are tens of thousands of "Protestant" sects, denominations, and schisms all reading from the same inspired, inerrant, Sola Scriptura and all coming up with different conclusions and, according to you, they're all correct!

I didn’t say they were all correct. There must be difference between us according to the scriptures in order that those who are approved will be shown so by God.

And you know the scriptures that talk about the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit as well as I do – even if you choose to ignore them because of your theology.

If you don't like what the RCC did then don't read that Bible thingy. The KJV is based on the work of the ROMAN CATHOLIC scholar, Erasmus.

No one said there have been no great scholars in the Roman church over the centuries any more than they said that Roman Catholics can’t be save.

Here's some of the "Sola Scripture" you insist on ignoring in order to imagine you know what you're talking about.

Those are scriptures worthy of discussion - of course. But I will not cast my pearls before swine as it were. You have shown that you will not admit error as with our discussion of Matt. 7:23. Until then I would be wasting my time. You can correct that easily if you want to. Then we can discuss any of those other scriptures. But you likely will not.

Please! That's what every crackpot and ignoramus spouts whenever he's embarrassed by his abject ignorance. "The Holy Ghost TOLD me!"

If all we need for a teacher is the Holy Ghost then why do the denominations establish Bible Colleges and Seminaries to train their ministers? Why don't they just say, "Ask the Holy Spirit whenever you have a question."? Why would anyone go through all that work to be trained is all that is needed is the Holy Spirit?

What a nasty attitude you are exhibiting.

You know the scriptures as well as I do concerning the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit. His establishment of gifted teachers in His true Church as a means to an end is quite beside the point.

Ok. End of discussion. We'll just ignore every verse of God's word that refutes your personal opinion. We'll get a black Sharpie and black out every one of the very many verses that refute your nonsense and pretend that the apostles never wrote them FOR YOUR INFORMATION.

No – we can discuss them after you show yourself an honest man by addressing our discussion of Matt. 7:23. That's where you began your attacks on me.

But I will say that the fact that He is the author and finisher of our faith makes the end result pretty clear doesn’t it? He began the work in me and He will complete it. I have His promise that I will be saved in the end. I am eternally secure. Any discussion of the meaning of a certain verse must include that fact since it is crystal clear in the Word of God.

Nice back-peddle. Calling them swine and dishonest is exactly what you did to anyone who did not agree with your personal opinion.

No – I did not use Christ’s metaphor to describe everyone who disagrees with me. I used it to describe people who obviously are not willing to admit error. The scripture debate concerning Matt. 7 has shown those people for what they are IMO. I would be foolish to continue with discussing other scriptures under those circumstances.

Yes you lumped me in with all the people you call lying swine because they quote the SCRIPTURES to you which contradict your personal opinion.

No – I did not lump you with the others because you quoted scriptures which contradict my personal opinion. I lumped you with them because you are using the same tactic. You will not admit error. You wish to change the subject instead. You are doing all you can to do so. That’s a dishonest discussion as I see it.

One last time - You originally addressed me with the accusation that my position concerning the inappropriateness of using Matt. 7 to show loss of salvation was childish babble and an attempt to ignore scripture in favor of my own theology. I asked you "how so?". You have refused to answer. You have simply floated other scriptures out for discussion and changed the subject. You have continued to insult and generally behave as a child.

We can return and start over. Or we can say goodby. Your choice.

This lengthy post will be my last to you unless you return to square one and show me my circular reasoning and childish babble concerning Matt.7:23.

That’s where it all started with your snarky first contact with me. You can correct that if you wish or you can post one last mean spirited post and leave it at that.

If you choose to have a civil discussion - let's make each post short and limited as to content.

You can start with telling me how I illogically used Matt. 7:23 - your original charge.

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Folks knock it off with the flaming/goading. If you disagree with someone address the post not the poster.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[FreeGrace2]

You are imposing your modern understanding of the term "believe" on a 1st century text. How many times must I repeat this? Believing in a person is obeying him.

Wrong. I gain my understanding of words from Greek lexicons. How is that different that from 1st Century understanding?

Or to slow it down for you (Boy! you really have a bad reading comprehension problem, I don't know if this conversation can progress... it may just be beyond your paygrade, milkfood seems to be your level of comprehension).

There is no reason for such snarkiness.

1 If loving one another is a sign of being a disciple of Christ

2 And if loving one another is evidence that you have eternal life

2 Then being recognised as a disciple of Christ is evidence you have eternal life.

I've never said otherwise about evidence. I'm talking about HAVING eternal life, not the evidence of having eternal life.

What is the evidence of having eternal life?

Since the bible is crystal clear about believers who DON't show evidence, AND the Bible is clear about the FACT that eternal life is an irrevocable gift, the best evidence of HAVING eternal life is having believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for it.

So does anyone recognise you as a disciple of Christ? Or are you no different from Joe Public? Living a futile life?

I am recognized as a disciple of Christ.

Yada yada yada…

snark city

I said this:
"Being "in Christ" and "abiding in Christ" are 2 different things. But I guess that's just not very well known to some. The word "abiding" differentiates the phrases, which should be clear to all. Abiding has to do with fellowship. Being IN CHRIST has to do with relationship.Please explain the difference between relationship and fellowship."

There's no difference.

This explains a lot. Frankly, I'm not sure we're ever going to be able to have a real conversation about spiritual things, given your level of understanding.

Since you claim a difference exists, if there is a difference, please enlighten us.

Jesus made the point about the need for abiding in Him in order to produce fruit. Jn 15 He was speaking to the 11 remaining disciples, since Judas had left in Jn 13. And during the foot washing event, Jesus made clear that they were "all clean", and didn't need a bath (euphemism for being saved). Except Judas by the phrase, "but not all of you". iow, Judas wasn't saved. So, in Jn 15, in speaking to saved disciples, His point was about fruit, not getting saved.

We know from Eph 1:13 that those who believe are placed "in Christ" by the Holy Spirit.


So the difference between being "in Christ" and "abiding in Christ" are obvious. Being "in Christ" means one has believed and is saved, while "abiding in Christ is about fellowship, when one is then able to produce fruit for Christ.

Matthew 16:17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector

1 Corinthians 5:11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.

2 Thessalonians 3:6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:14Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed

I suppose there is a point for quoting these verses, but since you've not explained it, I won't bother a guess.

I don't know which world you live in. In your universe, a person could believe in Jesus for eternal life (as in fire insurance) be "an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler" and still be IN Christ. Go figure.

This seems to be the biggest bugaboo for those who would deny OSAS. As if those "get away" with something. Such people simply fail to understand the meaning of GRACE.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I offer a view which I have been given a revelation, interpretation, expansion of.

Who gave it to you?

It's an unusual but insightful interpretation. It's risky to run with it, because being cornered with a rebuttal that disproves the view is damaging to a person's credibility.

Sounds as if there is some uncertainty as to whether this "unusual but insightful" interpretation cannot be defended.

In the ANE, losing credibility was considered as bad, as serious, as losing your life. The situation today is almost as bad. If a person tries to teach that we have to obey the entire law even after the atonement made by Christ, he would be laughed off the forum, it's so deadly to one's credibility, literally intellectual suicide.

Of course one would be laughed off the forum for such a claim, since Christ came to fulfill the Law. I suggest reading Hebrews for proper orientation regarding the Law and what Christ did.

God swore Israel would never enter His rest.

Please explain what you think "rest" means in Hebrews.

BTW, this is a serious discussion. Please lose the smileys.

btw, the numerous snide and snarky remarks from your post tend to reduce any sense of seriousness in having a discussion.

For example:

"Sigh, believing in a person is obeying that person, Yada yada yada…"

"Yada yada yada…"

(Apparently Eph 1:13,14 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5 don't mean much to some. Your view is ignorant of "positional truth", in which ALL believers ARE in Christ.) my comments, followed by a rude response to Scripture.
"Yada yada yada…"

"Or to slow it down for you (Boy! you really have a bad reading comprehension problem, I don't know if this conversation can progress... it may just be beyond your paygrade, milkfood seems to be your level of comprehension)."

"Yada yada yada…"

 

[EmSw]

You can start with telling me how I illogically used Matt. 7:23 - your original charge.

Matthew 7 -
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

1 Corinthians 12:3 -
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

How did these 'unsaved' people call Jesus Lord? Was it by the Spirit?

 

[Wordkeeper]

Wrong. I gain my understanding of words from Greek lexicons. How is that different that from 1st Century understanding?

Most of the Christian lexicons are theologically biased. You need to use secular lexicon. Here is a bible translation based on secular historical texts:


http://theogeek.blogspot.in/2008/02/proper-bible-translation.html?m=1


Quote

Dave Warnock introduced me to very recent NT translation by a scholar of Classics who is an expert in ancient Greek Lexigraphy. A Lexigrapher is a person who studies of the meanings of words and writes dictionaries. In my opinion, that is exactly the sort of person who should be writing Bible translations! The translation is (somewhat strangely) titled The Source by Ann Nyland. There is an interesting interview with her here from which I will quote the most interesting parts:

In the late 1880s and again in the mid 1970s, large amounts of papyri and inscriptions were discovered. These impacted our knowledge of word meaning in the New Testament dramatically. Why? Well, the papyri and inscriptions were written at the time of the New Testament. They were non-literary sources, that is, they touched upon all aspects of life - everyday private letters from ordinary people, contracts of marriage and divorce, tax papers, official decrees, birth and death notices, tombstones, and business documents.

I am recognized as a disciple of Christ.

No confusion with a Buddhist? I mean it has to be really unique, distinctive.

There is no reason for such snarkiness.

I suggest you answer all my points and acknowledge my explanations if you want the discussion to continue. You avoided answering the question regarding providing evidence of eternal life and you ignored my explanation that belief meant being an obedient follower.

I've never said otherwise about evidence. I'm talking about HAVING eternal life, not the evidence of having eternal life.

I know, I know. I asked you for evidence and you refused to say anything about your proof that you had eternal life. Now that's clear, can you tell me how you know you have eternal life?

Since the bible is crystal clear about believers who DON't show evidence, AND the Bible is clear about the FACT that eternal life is an irrevocable gift, the best evidence of HAVING eternal life is having believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for it.

That's not proof. Proof requires a premise. The light I bought can illuminate my entire garden. Her the premise is that the light really works and the proof is that I can see all the dark areas of the garden lit up. In the premise under discussion, belief less to eternal life.


If belief is a dependence on Jesus, then eternal life must be available.


If belief is obedience to Jesus's commands, then eternal life must be available.


How do we know which is the right interpretation of belief. Obviously eternal life will only be available with the right way of believing.



I proved that having love for one another was the evidence that believing in Jesus through obedience worked, loving being interpreted as laying down one's life for each other, leading to the Holy Spirit raising us up.


You were not able to show any evidence that belief as interpreted as dependence on Christ worked, led to having eternal life. Now don't avoid answering the point. Either admit you have no proof or provide proof.

snark city

You ignored my explanation that belief is obedience. It's boring to repeat an explanation that demolishes your argument when you keep bringing up the disproved argument.

This explains a lot. Frankly, I'm not sure we're ever going to be able to have a real conversation about spiritual things, given your level of understanding.

Vague statements, without pointing out the weakness of your opponents views, without supported rebuttal. Pretty desperate. Please make substantive points that add to the discussion.

Jesus made the point about the need for abiding in Him in order to produce fruit. Jn 15 He was speaking to the 11 remaining disciples, since Judas had left in Jn 13. And during the foot washing event, Jesus made clear that they were "all clean", and didn't need a bath (euphemism for being saved). Except Judas by the phrase, "but not all of you". iow, Judas wasn't saved. So, in Jn 15, in speaking to saved disciples, His point was about fruit, not getting saved. We know from Eph 1:13 that those who believe are placed "in Christ" by the Holy Spirit.So the difference between being "in Christ" and "abiding in Christ" are obvious. Being "in Christ" means one has believed and is saved, while "abiding in Christ is about fellowship, when one is then able to produce fruit for Christ.

Judas, Simon the sorcerer, Ananias and sapphira all believed and were baptised. You are positing that carnal Christians were placed in Christ. You must be delusional. Please read every instance of IN CHRIST in the NT text and tell me what you think.

I suppose there is a point for quoting these verses, but since you've not explained it, I won't bother a guess.

You were unclear about fellowship with Christ. I assumed you were talking about fellowship with believers. How are we going to advance if you can't frame your questions properly?

This seems to be the biggest bugaboo for those who would deny OSAS. As if those "get away" with something. Such people simply fail to understand the meaning of GRACE.

Thousands of pages have been written about grace, with no conclusion, and you think it's is a simple concept? No wonder you are happy with simple answers.[/QUOTE]

 

[Wordkeeper]

Who gave it to you?

The Holy Spirit. Before you ask how I'm certain it is the Holy Spirit, let me tell you I'm very certain because


1. the answers removed doubts on points I used to have, doubts no commentary could answer,


and


2. The revelation was not refutable, it was so coherent!

Sounds as if there is some uncertainty as to whether this "unusual but insightful" interpretation cannot be defended.

Go ahead and try, just don't sin against the Holy Spirit.

Of course one would be laughed off the forum for such a claim, since Christ came to fulfill the Law. I suggest reading Hebrews for proper orientation regarding the Law and what Christ did.

Exactly. The answers the Holy Spirit revealed are definitely not in that category.

Please explain what you think "rest" means in Hebrews.

The arc of the narrative begins in the garden. Adam was in union with God and could submit the earth, even his impulsive body. Because of his disobedience men are saddled with a body that cannot be tamed, however they try. Romans 7 is a good text explaining the human condition. The book of Hebrews tells us not to disobey when God calls us to enter his rest, the rest that even Joshua could not lead Israel into, of which the promised Land was a type, reunion with God. Available NOW, because Christ created a new humanity, a new man, which you must enter, to have rest, by being IN God's favour, by being obedient.

btw, the numerous snide and snarky remarks from your post tend to reduce any sense of seriousness in having a discussion.

BORED reactions to your ignoring my repetitious explaination that believing means obeying. You must refute my view, or agree it's true. Ignoring it is obfuscation, misdirection. If this was a formal debate, it would be noted that you had no answer to the explanation that in the first century in Jerusalem, believing meant following orders. In the army, in the kitchen, in the revolution, in the household...Instead you appealed to special pleading, bleating that in the Bible, believing meant depending.

For example:"Sigh, believing in a person is obeying that person, Yada yada yada…""Yada yada yada…"(Apparently Eph 1:13,14 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5 don't mean much to some. Your view is ignorant of "positional truth", in which ALL believers ARE in Christ.) my comments, followed by a rude response to Scripture."Yada yada yada…""Or to slow it down for you (Boy! you really have a bad reading comprehension problem, I don't know if this conversation can progress... it may just be beyond your paygrade, milkfood seems to be your level of comprehension).""Yada yada yada…"

All the Scripture you quoted are not immune from the meaning of belief in the first century in Jerusalem.


If I have to repeat this once again, I WILL probably die of boredom.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Most of the Christian lexicons are theologically biased.

This opinion is based on just Nyland's opinion??

You need to use secular lexicon. Here is a bible translation based on secular historical texts:


http://theogeek.blogspot.in/2008/02/proper-bible-translation.html?m=1

This is an opinion of lexicons, but not a lexicon. Where does one go for a "secular lexicon"?

Quote

Dave Warnock introduced me to very recent NT translation by a scholar of Classics who is an expert in ancient Greek Lexigraphy. A Lexigrapher is a person who studies of the meanings of words and writes dictionaries. In my opinion, that is exactly the sort of person who should be writing Bible translations! The translation is (somewhat strangely) titled The Source by Ann Nyland. There is an interesting interview with her here from which I will quote the most interesting parts:

In the late 1880s and again in the mid 1970s, large amounts of papyri and inscriptions were discovered. These impacted our knowledge of word meaning in the New Testament dramatically. Why? Well, the papyri and inscriptions were written at the time of the New Testament. They were non-literary sources, that is, they touched upon all aspects of life - everyday private letters from ordinary people, contracts of marriage and divorce, tax papers, official decrees, birth and death notices, tombstones, and business documents.

No confusion with a Buddhist? I mean it has to be really unique, distinctive.

I guess the responses to that blog weren't read, or at least, not in detail. I didn't get the impression that Nyland's opinions were all that consistent with her claims.

I suggest you answer all my points and acknowledge my explanations if you want the discussion to continue. You avoided answering the question regarding providing evidence of eternal life and you ignored my explanation that belief meant being an obedient follower.

I DID answer your question about eternal life. Please go back and review it.

I know, I know. I asked you for evidence and you refused to say anything about your proof that you had eternal life. Now that's clear, can you tell me how you know you have eternal life?

So I refused, huh? That is utter rubbish. But, I'll give you a direct Scriptural answer: These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 Jn 5:13

If this doesn't answer your question, please HOW it doesn't.

That's not proof. Proof requires a premise.

Says who? Proof requires evidence, not a premise.

If belief is a dependence on Jesus, then eternal life must be available.

If belief is obedience to Jesus's commands, then eternal life must be available.

I have no idea what the point is here. Of course eternal life is avaiable. Please explain yourself.

How do we know which is the right interpretation of belief. Obviously eternal life will only be available with the right way of believing.

How about just providing what you think the right interpretation of "believe" is?

You ignored my explanation that belief is obedience.

No, I rejected it. The Greek word "pietho" connotes obedience, not "pistis".

It's boring to repeat an explanation that demolishes your argument when you keep bringing up the disproved argument.

It's been boring to keep reading your opinions that have no evidence to back them up. Just claims is all I've seen. Like the one to use only secular lexicons.

Vague statements, without pointing out the weakness of your opponents views, without supported rebuttal. Pretty desperate. Please make substantive points that add to the discussion.

Pretty much my sentiments regarding most of your posts.

Judas, Simon the sorcerer, Ananias and sapphira all believed and were baptised. You are positing that carnal Christians were placed in Christ.

I proved it from Scripture, something your posts have NEVER even come close to doing. Eph 1:13 once again: In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

I've even bolded the phrase that should explain the truth. Those who believe are sealed IN HIM.

You must be delusional.

My sentiments towards your posts.

Please read every instance of IN CHRIST in the NT text and tell me what you think.

In every case, those who are IN CHRIST are believers.

[QUOET]You were unclear about fellowship with Christ. I assumed you were talking about fellowship with believers. How are we going to advance if you can't frame your questions properly?[/QUOTE]
Sorry if my posts aren't understandable. But they were clear. It's the reception that has the problem. It's also clear that the concept of fellowship hasn't ever been taught in your circles, so I understand why my posts aren't clear.

Read 1 John 1 and count the # of times the word 'fellowship' occurs. Then find a secular lexicon, and learn what the word means.

Thousands of pages have been written about grace, with no conclusion, and you think it's is a simple concept?

What is meant by "no conclusion"? Is that just your own opinion, or what? I am truly sorry that grace is so difficult a concept for you, but it isn't for me. It's a very simple and easy concept to grasp. It's just that some don't like the concept, which is that God's salvation cannot be earned or deserved.

No wonder you are happy with simple answers.

When is your snarkiness going to cease?

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Holy Spirit. Before you ask how I'm certain it is the Holy Spirit, let me tell you I'm very certain because

1. the answers removed doubts on points I used to have, doubts no commentary could answer,
and
2. The revelation was not refutable, it was so coherent!
Go ahead and try, just don't sin against the Holy Spirit.

i've already refuted your points, all without sinning against the Holy Spirit.

The arc of the narrative begins in the garden. Adam was in union with God and could submit the earth, even his impulsive body. Because of his disobedience men are saddled with a body that cannot be tamed, however they try.

Please use Scripture to defend your opinion about a "body that cannot be tamed". Because of Adam's disobedience, he died spiritually and was unable to save himself from that spiritual death.

Romans 7 is a good text explaining the human condition. The book of Hebrews tells us not to disobey when God calls us to enter his rest, the rest that even Joshua could not lead Israel into, of which the promised Land was a type, reunion with God.

This is quite confused. Actually, Joshua and Caleb were the ONLY 2 from the first generation that DID lead Israel into the land. Not even Moses was permitted.

Available NOW, because Christ created a new humanity, a new man, which you must enter, to have rest, by being IN God's favour, by being obedient.

More confusion. Please provide Scriptural support for the claim that "Christ ceated a new man which one must enter to have rest". That doesn't even make sense. But please try.

BORED reactions to your ignoring my repetitious explaination that believing means obeying.

I'm bored with your unbiblical claims. I've seen only opinions, but no evidence or support for the claims.

You must refute my view, or agree it's true.

I did refute it, but someone seems not to be paying attention.

Ignoring it is obfuscation, misdirection. If this was a formal debate, it would be noted that you had no answer to the explanation that in the first century in Jerusalem, believing meant following orders.

Where did you prove that claim? All I've seen are claims; no proof or evidence.

In the army, in the kitchen, in the revolution, in the household...Instead you appealed to special pleading, bleating that in the Bible, believing meant depending.

let's get something clear here. I've NEVER appealed to "special pleading", that's rubbish. As to "bleating", just more snarkiness. And the ONLY way I used "depending" is that belief is a dependence upon Christ to save me. I cannot depend upon myself, because man cannot save himself. But it seems your view is that man, through obedience can save himself.

All the Scripture you quoted are not immune from the meaning of belief in the first century in Jerusalem.

More opinion, no evidence. I'm far more comfortable with any lexicon than someone's opinion on the internet.

If I have to repeat this once again, I WILL probably die of boredom.

Your choice.

 

[Wordkeeper]

This opinion is based on just Nyland's opinion??


This is an opinion of lexicons, but not a lexicon. Where does one go for a "secular lexicon"?


I guess the responses to that blog weren't read, or at least, not in detail. I didn't get the impression that Nyland's opinions were all that consistent with her claims.


I DID answer your question about eternal life. Please go back and review it.


So I refused, huh? That is utter rubbish. But, I'll give you a direct Scriptural answer: These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 Jn 5:13

If this doesn't answer your question, please HOW it doesn't.


Says who? Proof requires evidence, not a premise.


I have no idea what the point is here. Of course eternal life is avaiable. Please explain yourself.


How about just providing what you think the right interpretation of "believe" is?


No, I rejected it. The Greek word "pietho" connotes obedience, not "pistis".


It's been boring to keep reading your opinions that have no evidence to back them up. Just claims is all I've seen. Like the one to use only secular lexicons.


Pretty much my sentiments regarding most of your posts.


I proved it from Scripture, something your posts have NEVER even come close to doing. Eph 1:13 once again: In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

I've even bolded the phrase that should explain the truth. Those who believe are sealed IN HIM.


My sentiments towards your posts.


In every case, those who are IN CHRIST are believers.

You were unclear about fellowship with Christ. I assumed you were talking about fellowship with believers. How are we going to advance if you can't frame your questions properly?

Sorry if my posts aren't understandable. But they were clear. It's the reception that has the problem. It's also clear that the concept of fellowship hasn't ever been taught in your circles, so I understand why my posts aren't clear.

Read 1 John 1 and count the # of times the word 'fellowship' occurs. Then find a secular lexicon, and learn what the word means.


What is meant by "no conclusion"? Is that just your own opinion, or what? I am truly sorry that grace is so difficult a concept for you, but it isn't for me. It's a very simple and easy concept to grasp. It's just that some don't like the concept, which is that God's salvation cannot be earned or deserved.


When is your snarkiness going to cease?

Fail for reading comprehension. End of conversation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Fail for reading comprehension. End of conversation.

I wasn't expecting a real response to my last post. Nyland's opinion is just her own. And, of course, no answer to my question of where to find a "secular lexicon".

 

[Marvin Knox]

Matthew 7 -
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

1 Corinthians 12:3 -
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

How did these 'unsaved' people call Jesus Lord? Was it by the Spirit?

The 1 Corinthian passage clearly is directed from the very beginning toward making it clear who is and who is not flowing in the gifts of the Spirit. Vs. 3 may well have to do with judging those who are involved in the practice of glossolalia.

But be that as it may - do you really think that verse 3 means that no one can say the words "Jesus is Lord" unless they have been born again and saved? Come now. There are parrots that can say the words. Clearly it isn't all that simple.

But I don't intend to do much give and take with you for reasons I have stated many, many time. Why don't you just lay out for everyone exactly what your theology is on this matter? Leave nothing to misunderstanding. Be real clear please.

For instance - Are people born again by the Holy Spirit, live their life, and then come before the Lord to see how they have done? Then they fail the test as to how obedient they have been and get unborn again and trudge off to Hell? Does the Spirit of Jesus depart from them after they say "Lord, Lord" but then are found wanting after examination - contrary to His promise to believers? Or does Christ's Spirit spend eternity in Hell with these people who were less than perfectly obedient - since Jesus promised that the Spirit would never abandon them?

You often talk about the need for people to "get themselves a new heart" through obedience. At what point did these folks manage to get themselves a new heart and at what point did they lose it?

Since you say that they were saved - did the Lord take this new heart from them at the time of this passage - or did they lose it and regain it at various times throughout their lives?

Did they begin by the Spirit to the extent that they were able to call Jesus Lord and then perfect themselves in the flesh to the extent that they were found worthy of getting a new heart as a reward from the Lord at the end?

You get the idea. Do tell us how you view these things. I'd like to understand your theology on this.

Since I will only be reading along - please spell these things out real clearly for us and leave no gaps for misunderstanding.

Thanks in advance.

 

[EmSw]

The 1 Corinthian passage clearly is directed from the very beginning toward making it clear who is and who is not flowing in the gifts of the Spirit. Vs. 3 may well have to do with judging those who are involved in the practice of glossolalia.

But be that as it may - do you really think that verse 3 means that no one can say the words "Jesus is Lord" unless they have been born again and saved? Come now. There are parrots that can say the words. Clearly it isn't all that simple.

Please explain your view on the unregenerate. Does the unregenerate relate to the Spirit's connection to the spiritual? Does the unregenerate love or hate the Lord? Does the unregenerate have any desire to follow Jesus and His teachings? Please explain your view on total depravity.

But I don't intend to do much give and take with you for reasons I have stated many, many time. Why don't you just lay out for everyone exactly what your theology is on this matter? Leave nothing to misunderstanding. Be real clear please.

According to your view, it is the theology with which I have been predestined. But yet, you want to fight against God's predestination for me. Realistically you are fighting against your own beliefs. Likewise, anything you don't accept is rejecting God's predestination for this world.

For instance - Are people born again by the Holy Spirit, live their life, and then come before the Lord to see how they have done?

I'm surprised you haven't noticed Jesus' words in John 3 -

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.

Then they fail the test as to how obedient they have been and get unborn again and trudge off to Hell? Does the Spirit of Jesus depart from them after they say "Lord, Lord" but then are found wanting after examination - contrary to His promise to believers? Or does Christ's Spirit spend eternity in Hell with these people who were less than perfectly obedient - since Jesus promised that the Spirit would never abandon them?

I will ask, do those who continue to practice sin inherit and enter the kingdom? What does Paul say?

Galatians 5 -
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

How is it you miss these passages? Want more?

Ephesians 5 -
3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;
4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

If any man tells me God's wrath does come upon those who practice such things, they are deceiving me with empty words.

So, let's get this straight - you are saying a person can be born again, practice the things mentioned above, and still enter the kingdom. If that is your view, then I say with Paul, you are deceiving those whom you are trying to teach with your empty words. But those who deceive will try anything to promote their earthly doctrines. We will see how you respond.

You often talk about the need for people to "get themselves a new heart" through obedience. At what point did these folks manage to get themselves a new heart and at what point did they lose it?

I have shown you many times in Ezekiel, but you do not dare to believe. For this would be a fatal blow to your doctrine. I will give it again for good measure.

Ezekiel 18:31 -
Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.

According to God's own word, a person gets a new heart when they cast away all their transgressions. Only a person with personal, earthly beliefs will not believe this, for their beliefs come before God's.

If a new heart has cast away all transgressions, then one can certainly bring filth and degradation back into their new heart if they once again practice the sins Paul listed above.

Since you say that they were saved - did the Lord take this new heart from them at the time of this passage - or did they lose it and regain it at various times throughout their lives?

Please notice what the passage says - depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness! Perhaps one needs to focus on why they were told to depart from Jesus - you who practice lawlessness!

Do you see the connection with all the passages I cited?

Did they begin by the Spirit to the extent that they were able to call Jesus Lord and then perfect themselves in the flesh to the extent that they were found worthy of getting a new heart as a reward from the Lord at the end?

Should I give the Ezekiel passage again? What's so hard to understand about 'cast away all your transgressions?'

You get the idea. Do tell us how you view these things. I'd like to understand your theology on this.

Since I will only be reading along - please spell these things out real clearly for us and leave no gaps for misunderstanding.

Thanks in advance.

Have you misunderstood any thing I have written? I believe it is perfectly clear to those who come to the Light to have their deeds clearly seen.

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Ok since you guys ignored my Mod Hat this thread is closed due to flaming/goading. If you guys can't play nice then this thread will be closed for good. In the future to avoid anymore thread closures if you disagree with someone address their post not them.

Mod Hat Off​