Paul: "Lest I be reprobated."

[Nazaroo]

I stand by Paul's defense in Romans 9. If you have a problem with that, it is with a higher authority than I.

The problem is that Paul's defense in Romans 9 is not defending your doctrinal position.
Just quoting Romans 9:15 isn't going to cut it.

Once in Christ, we still sin, but once in Christ as born again new creations, our faith and devotion to Christ is protected so that we are kept by the power of God for an inheritance of eternal life. This is the doctrine of Peter - see 1 Peter 1:3-5. So in the born again from above condition, nothing can snatch us out of God's hand, and because our faith is protected, we will never wish to leave His hand. If we do not continue to have complete faith in Christ, then we were never born again.

Once again, you have got it backwards:

It is not our faith (loyalty) that is protected,
it is our faith (loyalty) that protects our salvation.

This Lutheran/Calvinist nonsense is no assurance of salvation.
Lets look at what Peter really says this time:

1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he gave us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, that is, into an inheritance imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. It is reserved in heaven for you, who by God’s power are protected through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)

Notice how you have reversed the statement of Peter.
He says:
We are empowered by God
and our Salvation is protected through our faith (loyalty).
Our faith is our own to exercise through free will.
If we are disloyal, our salvation is no longer protected,
and God's power is not available.
Our faith is not protected supernaturally at all.
It is WE who are protected, that is our salvation, by our faith.
It is OUR part of the bargain.
The Lord will not interfere.

 

[Van]

Nazaroo, you have got to be kidding. Your view makes the verse to no effect, our all powerful God is keeping us for an inheritance as a new creature in Christ, and you think our faith is not protected. Without our faith being protected, we are not protected. I stand pat, my view is the only view that makes any sense.

Lets add it up shall we.

We are born again. You say scripture does not teach we are born again.
We are a new creation. You say if we choose to walk away become an old creation.
We are converted. You say this only applies to changing our mind, not God changing our nature.
God has mercy on some and passes over the rest. You say this is unjust, but I did not catch your alternative view.
God protects us by protecting out faith. You say God protects us without protecting our faith, which is Old Covenant thinking.
Judas was chosen to betray Jesus and was not allowed to come to Jesus. You deny this scriptural teaching. Instead you attempt to use Judas to show loss of salvation.

As I said, we are far apart, and it seems nothing I am say will alter you view.

 

[Nazaroo]

Nazaroo, you have got to be kidding. Your view makes the verse to no effect, our all powerful God is keeping us for an inheritance as a new creature in Christ, and you think our faith is not protected. Without our faith being protected, we are not protected. I stand pat, my view is the only view that makes any sense.

Thank you for continuing this discussion, and continuing to use reason.
Here however, you have ignored my correction of your reversal of Peter,
and simply re-assert your doctrine, this time without scriptural support.

Lets us indeed go over your new list of points, and I will clarify my position:

We are born again. You say scripture does not teach we are born again.

Correct. 'born again' is a modern catch phrase coined from a misunderstanding of Jesus interaction with Nicodemus.
It attempts to include Paul's idea of a 'new creature' but goes too far.

We are a new creation. You say if we choose to walk away become an old creation.

Not exactly. Paul says we are a 'new creation' because with the Spirit indwelling,
we now have TWO natures, not one entirely new nature.
We and Paul continue to fight the old nature, and the flesh.
If we by free act of will fall away and become disloyal,
the Holy Spirit will abandon us to our choice.
If the 'new' is subtracted again, we certainly return to the old nature alone.

We are converted. You say this only applies to changing our mind, not God changing our nature.

Again, too simple. We are indeed renewed in heart, soul and mind.
But like a rudder steering a ship and the tongue the body,
once saved, and partaking in the spiritual food and drink of Christ,
our mind steers our loyalty, the condition upon which our salvation is based.
As Paul insists, it is OUR job to control our own minds and hearts.
If we remain loyal, the Lord will protect our salvation with unstoppable power.

God has mercy on some and passes over the rest. You say this is unjust, but I did not catch your alternative view.

My view is simple. God's mercy is imparitally applied,
based upon our loyalty.
Results may vary, because of our freewill response,
not because of God's favouritism or partiality.

"Your faithfulness (pistos) has saved you. Go in peace." (Luke 8:48 etc)

God saves some and loses others BECAUSE of His impartiality,
NOT because of (your perceived) favouritism, or God's free caprise.

God protects us by protecting out faith.
You say God protects us without protecting our faith,
which is Old Covenant thinking.

No again.
God may 'protect our faith' indirectly,
by never tempting us more than we can handle, or as naturally occurs.
Indeed, we entreat Him to offer us this kind of protection:
"Do not lead us into hard tests" (Lord's prayer)
But this does not equal 'un-loseable' salvation.

God promises never to over-test our faith, beyond our ability to resist.
And that makes it all the more plain that if we don't resist,
He will hold us accountable, and we will lose our salvation.

God DOES promise to supply divine power to us
through our faithfulness, that is on the basis of our loyalty.
As long as we are faithful and loyal,
God's hedge of divine protection is secured.
I would even venture as far as to say,
that if on occasion we stumble in a minor offence,
God's grace offers somewhat of a cushion.
But to pretend God's patience is unlimited,
is a mockery of His gracious offer of Salvation.

Judas was chosen to betray Jesus and was not allowed to come to Jesus. You deny this scriptural teaching. Instead you attempt to use Judas to show loss of salvation.

Correct, except I don't think this is a denial of scriptural teaching.
Instead, I think condemning Judas without a cause is the real denial of scriptural teaching.

As I said, we are far apart, and it seems nothing I am say will alter you view.

Nothing is impossible with God.
You have certainly helped me sharpen my views and doctrine.
But since it is almost entirely New Testament based,
I fail to see how my thinking is 'Old Covenant'.

 

[Ben johnson]

During the second part of salvation, when we are progressively being conformed to the image of Christ, we face two problems. Our service to our Lord can be hindered by sin, because of a lack of self control, and our service to our Lord can be ineffective, because we are sidetracked by false teachings. But if we are actually "in Christ" and indwelt, we will strive to pick up our cross and follow Him, and although we might not bring any rewards, we will escape as one through a fire.

"Hindered by sin"? Paul says, "How shall we who have DIED to sin, still live IN it?" If sin hinders us, then we have not died to sin, and we are not alive in Christ.

If we are "sidetracked by false teachings", or if we are "rendered ineffective", how can we still be saved?

Warnings concerning (2) losing the blessings of salvation, the blessings that apply to born again Christians, are not tongue in Cheek. We are to be ambassadors for Christ and we are carry out the ministry of reconciliation, and if we are ineffective, either by not fleeing sin as we should, stumbling more than we should, or by being sidetracked by false teachings where we build on the foundation with straw, we lose those blessings of salvation, or so to speak we lose salvation, because we lose a part of it. We are to press on toward the higher calling.

What's the difference between "not-fleeing-sin", and "stumbling more than we should", and "sidetracked by false teachings" --- what's the difference between those things, and GOATS?

lets actually look at Hebrews 6:4-6. What does it say, are we talking about folks who have been born again? Nope. Enlightened? Yep. So we are talking about folks who have heard the true gospel and rejected it. There is no other gospel whereby we can be saved so it is impossible to bring them to repentance so long as they reject the gospel.

They have "tasted the heavenly gift and its powers". If Jesus TASTED (geuomai) death, really means He DIED (Heb2:9), then how can "tasted (geuomai) heavenly gift" not mean "saved"?

If "PARTNERED in a heavenly calling" means saved in Heb3:1, if "partnered in Christ" really means saved in Heb3:14, how can "partners in the Holy Spirit" not mean saved in 6:4? All three passages use "metochos-partakers/partners"...

To repeat, there is no scripture that indicates a born again believer can be transformed back into an old creation.

Romans11 does.
1Tim6 does, twice.
James 5 does, last two verses; and 2:14-16.
2Pet2:20-22 does. (So does 2Pet1:5-9!)
Rev3:5 does.
Gal4:9 (and 5:4) most certainly (and plainly) does.
Acts20:29-30 clearly shows both the FLOCK, and disciples are in danger.
1Tim4:1 does.
2Jn1:7-9 does.

Virtually all of Hebrews does. 3:12-14, 4:1 & 9, 6:4-6, 11-12, most of ch10, 12:8-9 & 15 & 25.

Then there's Col2:8, 2Pet3:17.

And there is "ruined/destroyed" in Rom14:15 & 1Cor8:11-13. Ruined means ruined. Or destroyed...

There are lots more, too....

 

[nobdysfool]

Thank you for continuing this discussion, and continuing to use reason.
Here however, you have ignored my correction of your reversal of Peter,
and simply re-assert your doctrine, this time without scriptural support.

Lets us indeed go over your new list of points, and I will clarify my position:

[/b]Correct. 'born again' is a modern catch phrase coined from a misunderstanding of Jesus interaction with Nicodemus.
It attempts to include Paul's idea of a 'new creature' but goes too far.


Not exactly. Paul says we are a 'new creation' because with the Spirit indwelling,
we now have TWO natures, not one entirely new nature.
We and Paul continue to fight the old nature, and the flesh.
If we by free act of will fall away and become disloyal,
the Holy Spirit will abandon us to our choice.
If the 'new' is subtracted again, we certainly return to the old nature alone.


Again, too simple. We are indeed renewed in heart, soul and mind.
But like a rudder steering a ship and the tongue the body,
once saved, and partaking in the spiritual food and drink of Christ,
our mind steers our loyalty, the condition upon which our salvation is based.
As Paul insists, it is OUR job to control our own minds and hearts.
If we remain loyal, the Lord will protect our salvation with unstoppable power.


My view is simple. God's mercy is imparitally applied,
based upon our loyalty.
Results may vary, because of our freewill response,
not because of God's favouritism or partiality.

"Your faithfulness (pistos) has saved you. Go in peace." (Luke 8:48 etc)

God saves some and loses others BECAUSE of His impartiality,
NOT because of (your perceived) favouritism, or God's free caprise.


No again.
God may 'protect our faith' indirectly,
by never tempting us more than we can handle, or as naturally occurs.
Indeed, we entreat Him to offer us this kind of protection:
"Do not lead us into hard tests" (Lord's prayer)
But this does not equal 'un-loseable' salvation.

God promises never to over-test our faith, beyond our ability to resist.
And that makes it all the more plain that if we don't resist,
He will hold us accountable, and we will lose our salvation.

God DOES promise to supply divine power to us
through our faithfulness, that is on the basis of our loyalty.
As long as we are faithful and loyal,
God's hedge of divine protection is secured.
I would even venture as far as to say,
that if on occasion we stumble in a minor offence,
God's grace offers somewhat of a cushion.
But to pretend God's patience is unlimited,
is a mockery of His gracious offer of Salvation.



Correct, except I don't think this is a denial of scriptural teaching.
Instead, I think condemning Judas without a cause is the real denial of scriptural teaching.


Nothing is impossible with God.
You have certainly helped me sharpen my views and doctrine.
But since it is almost entirely New Testament based,
I fail to see how my thinking is 'Old Covenant'.

The over-riding theme of your post is how what we do determines our salvation, or lack of it. You make God dependent on our choices, our actions, our loyalty (which you equate as faithfulness). And in one place you give the core reason: free will. You actually make man's supposed free will sovereign over even a Sovereign God.

Thus ever is the cry of the Arminian, that their precious free will must be preserved.

 

[Nazaroo]

The over-riding theme of your post is how what we do determines our salvation, or lack of it. You make God dependent on our choices, our actions, our loyalty (which you equate as faithfulness). And in one place you give the core reason: free will. You actually make man's supposed free will sovereign over even a Sovereign God.

Thus ever is the cry of the Arminian, that their precious free will must be preserved.

Rather than 'cry Arminian', lets just stick to the subject itself,
and an acceptable means by which differences can be resolved:

"And those who were more fair-minded searched the scriptures daily,
to see if those things were so" (Acts)

Is it wrong to believe God's gift of salvation is dependant upon our choices?
Lets have a look:

"The Father judges no man, but has placed all judgement
in the hands of the Son"

"The Son does nothing of His own, but what He sees the Father doing."

"He who would be greatest, must serve all." (hmmmm...Like Father, like Son!)

"A bending reed He will not break!"
"God receives the humble, but resists the proud."
"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked: What you sow, you reap."

But have we got that right?

How does Jesus deal with the Rich Young Ruler?
He tells the man what he must do to be saved, BUT,
He lets him exercise his free will, and walk away.

He KNOWS Judas let greed enter his heart, to betray them:
BUT, He lets Judas walk away and follow through.
He let Judas fill the cup of his own iniquity, into destruction.

See a pattern here?
What does God say about forcing salvation upon men and making them keep it?

"Let he who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in Me drink!"
"If the Son makes you free, you are free indeed!"
"Ask for anything in My name, I will do it!"

Hmmm....salvation freely offered, and freely retained by those who possess it.
No one is making them keep it, certainly not God!

And about a Christian walking in the Spirit having sovereignty over his own salvation?
Seems Open and shut.

Does God offer salvation impartially to everyone?

"God commands men everywhere to repent, and believe in the gospel."

Do all men react the same way?

"The crowd was divided concerning Him."

Is salvation in the hands of man, based upon his faithfulness to God?

"Your faithfulness has saved you. Go in peace."

 

[Van]

And the beat goes on. Ben, I have addressed all or nearly all of your references and shown they do not indicate loss of salvation. You did not respond. Now you post the same references again. I dealt with partake, remember? Lets leave it we disagree.

Your faith has saved you indicates it is a done deal. The verse does not say your faith has saved you thus far, but if you do not continue to remain loyal to me by your own efforts, you will lose your salvation.

Paul does not say we are a new creation because we have the holy spirit, we do not have the holy Spirit when we arise in Christ a new creation. After we are a new creation, then we are indwelt. Two separate transactions. So this whole, if the spirit leaves then you are left as an old creation is bogus and unbiblical. Only after we are made firm "in Christ" are we indwelt.

 

[Nazaroo]

Your faith has saved you indicates it is a done deal. The verse does not say your faith has saved you thus far, but if you do continue to remain loyal to me by your own efforts, you will lose your salvation.

Yet what about the following?

"Then neither to I condemn you:
Go onward, and sin no more." (John 8:11)

This indicates NOT a done deal. You have escaped judgement...and if you continue to remain loyal to me by your own efforts, you will keep your salvation.

Are you going to say to all your fellow Christians that the girl taken in adultery (not 'committing adultery' like the Pharisees falsely accused - see Greek) and at least forgiven was not really saved, or born again?

Perhaps like Judas, she was chosen to be a perpetual example of sitting on the fence.

Paul does not say we are a new creation because we have the holy spirit, we do not have the holy Spirit when we arise in Christ a new creation. After we are a new creation, then we are indwelt. Two separate transactions. So this whole, if the spirit leaves then you are left as an old creation is bogus and unbiblical. Only after we are made firm "in Christ" are we indwelt.

Here it seems you are indicating a TWO STAGE process for Christians,
or else an 'intermittant' TWO RESULT process, that only works for some Christians.

(1) Either I partake in the spiritual food and drink of Christ,
and then LATER become born again, when the 'indwelling' occurs,

(2) or else I partake inthe spiritual food and drink of Christ,
but in some people this fails to achieve 'born-againness'.

The only way to tell if someone has the '2nd stage' special,
is that they don't fall away after a long life of running the race.
This sounds a lot like Roman Catholic Canonization of 'saints'....

 

[Van]

Nazaroo, for a guy who likes textual criticism, it is strange for you to support your views with a bracketed passage.

Here it seems you are indicating a TWO STAGE process for Christians,
or else an 'intermittant' TWO RESULT process, that only works for some Christians.

Please do not distort my position, I did indicate a two stage process, but not a two result process. When we are placed in Christ we are in Christ and we arise from our spiritual baptism into Christ's death a new creation, then we are indwelt such that Christ is in us. Everyone born again is subsequently indwelt without delay. But even if you postulate our indwelt helper leaving us, which scripture says will not happen, you still have to deal with undoing the new creation part. You view does not mesh with my understanding of scripture.

 

[Nazaroo]

Nazaroo, for a guy who likes textual criticism, it is strange for you to support your views with a bracketed passage.

'bracketed'? Perhaps you should read my book on the authenticity and interpretation of John 7:53-8:11! I may upload an abridged version here.

Bracketed by the Nestle-Aland / UBS Greek Text no doubt, based upon the dubious work of professors Westcott and Antony Hort,the notorious heretic who overstepped his mandate from the Church of England to update the English of the KJV in 1886. The distastrous result of reliance by the commitee upon the infamous mutilated and heavily abridged text on theologically biased lines was of course the original Revised Version, a bible that was burned in the street when the faithful saw what he had done.

While subsequent scholarship has 'backed off' slightly on Hort's heavy handed mutilation, the modern 'critical' texts are substantially similar to Hort's. Where he simply removed over 200 whole and half-verses from the New Testament, the UBS texts use 'brackets'.

In the footnotes of modern English versions we then read such absurdities as:

"* The oldest and best manuscripts omit the verse(s).

When the usual suspects are the abberant 5th century codexes, B (vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus), standing almost alone against the entire remaining tradition. The 'oldest and best' phraseology is particularly deceitful and disturbing, since these two old liars between them mutilate some 5000 verses of Net Testament scripture alone, and contradict one another as often as they agree. As for 'age', since ALL readings are old (most significant variants can be dated at least two centuries earlier) the age of these late copies is irrelevant.

We are supposed to believe that for nearly two thousand years, Christians used an inferior and conflated text, while the 'real' NT text lay rotting in a wastebasket in the monastery at Sinai, and sitting on the shelf in the Vatican, to be 'rediscovered' by a couple of xenophobic Cambridge heretics who believed in spiritism.

I think I'll keep the traditional Byzantine text, used by 99.9% of Christians for 2000 years. If you want to know the true extent of the volumnous evidence in favour of the Pericope de Adultera, I would suggest you first consult Scrivener in English, and then perhaps Von Soden's massive work in the German.

Glad you asked about the 'brackets'....

 

[Ben johnson]

And the beat goes on. Ben, I have addressed all or nearly all of your references and shown they do not indicate loss of salvation. You did not respond. Now you post the same references again. I dealt with partake, remember? Lets leave it we disagree.

I responded.

I don't remember what you said about "partake" --- will you remind me? It ("metochos") is clearly addressing the saved in Heb3:1, and in 3:14; why isn't it in 6:4? Thanx in advance...

Your faith has saved you indicates it is a done deal. The verse does not say your faith has saved you thus far, but if you do not continue to remain loyal to me by your own efforts, you will lose your salvation.

Faith is addressed two ways; we are "saved", and we are "being saved". See 1Cor1:18. See also 1Tim4:16, where our own perseverance is worded, "as you PERSEVERE you will SAVE yourself..."

Paul does not say we are a new creation because we have the holy spirit, we do not have the holy Spirit when we arise in Christ a new creation. After we are a new creation, then we are indwelt. Two separate transactions. So this whole, if the spirit leaves then you are left as an old creation is bogus and unbiblical. Only after we are made firm "in Christ" are we indwelt.

He says, "whoever is IN CHRIST is a new creation". But in 2Cor13:5 he says "TEST yourselves to see if you are (still!) in Christ!"

We absolutely can "fail the test"; exactly as Paul says he HIMSELF can "fail the test". Adokimos, 1Cor9:27.

If Paul can "fail the test", how could Paul have believed "OSAS"?

Thanx for your patience, Van...

 

[Van]

I don't remember what you said about "partake" --- will you remind me? It ("metochos") is clearly addressing the saved in Heb3:1, and in 3:14; why isn't it in 6:4? Thanx in advance...

The greek term translated partake simply means to share in something. It could refer to sharing in salvation or sharing in damnation or sharing in nachos. Thus the use of the term in one verse does not suggest in the slightest that the same thing is being shared in another verse. So your argument is without merit.

But lets look at each verse and see if we can discern from context, just what it is that is being shared?

Hebrews 3:1, NASB "Therefore holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." So holy brethren refers to born again believers, folks who have been saved and will remain saved forever. What do they share? Among other things a heavenly calling. This is not the exhortation to believe in Christ, but the calling to conformed to the image of Christ after we have been placed in Christ. We know that we are of Christ's house if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end. In other words, our faithfulness is not in view, but our faith, our innermost belief, that Jesus is our saviour and will raise us up on that day...
Some read this as a challenge, we must by our own effort, hold firm to our faith. Others like myself, read this as a statement of fact, those born again will hold firm to their faith because their faith is protected. Either reading is possible, given the text and context.

In summary, Hebrews 3:1 does not suggest to be a partaker means to be saved. It only says saved folks are partakers in our holy calling.

Turning now to Hebrews 3:14, the NASB says, "For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end." So again, if our faith is unwavering, if we love Jesus more than life itself, then we know that we have become partakers of Christ, that we share in Christ's redemption as a born again believer. If our faith ever fails, we can be sure we were never saved. Note please, it does not say we lost our share of Christ if our faith does not last till the end. No, it says we have become partakers if our faith lasts. So again, this verse does not in the slightest support the idea of loss of salvation after being born again, by lack of human effort.

In summary, the term partake only means to share in something and therefore because it is used to indicate sharing in Christ's redemption in one verse does not suggest in the slightest it always means to share in salvation. The term only means to share in something.

In Hebrews 6, the idea is that some share in being enlightened by the gospel. Thats it.

 

[nobdysfool]

Rather than 'cry Arminian', lets just stick to the subject itself,

Sorry, but what you teach is properly called Arminianism, and I have ever right to label it as such.

Is it wrong to believe God's gift of salvation is dependant upon our choices?

Actually, yes it is. if we are able to choose salvation by ourselves, then we have no need of Grace, or of Christ.

How does Jesus deal with the Rich Young Ruler?
He tells the man what he must do to be saved, BUT,
He lets him exercise his free will, and walk away.

Jesus exposed his secret sin: he loved his riches. The man outwardly conformed to the law, but held covetousness and greed in his heart. Jesus exposed the sin, and the man walked away.

aHe KNOWS Judas let greed enter his heart, to betray them:
BUT, He lets Judas walk away and follow through.
He let Judas fill the cup of his own iniquity, into destruction.

Judas was fore-ordained to do what he did. Jesus chose Judas KNOWING that it was Judas who would betray Him. Jesus chose Judas so that scripture would be fulfilled. Judas freely chose to do what he did, but his choice was fore-ordained by God.

See a pattern here?

All I see is you completely mis-stating what these verses teach.

What does God say about forcing salvation upon men and making them keep it?

"Let he who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in Me drink!"
"If the Son makes you free, you are free indeed!"
"Ask for anything in My name, I will do it!"

Hmmm....salvation freely offered, and freely retained by those who possess it.
No one is making them keep it, certainly not God!

And no one has ever said such a thing. This is one of many straw men you have erected and made a show of destroying. You're fighting against boogeymen of your own making.

And about a Christian walking in the Spirit having sovereignty over his own salvation?
Seems Open and shut.

Again, wrongly dividing the Word brings forth doctrinal errors such as these.

Does God offer salvation impartially to everyone?

"God commands men everywhere to repent, and believe in the gospel."

That is the requirement and command of God to all men; for some, a commandment unto damnation, and for others a commandment unto Life.

Do all men react the same way?

"The crowd was divided concerning Him."

Crowd phsychology is a poor measuring rod.

Is salvation in the hands of man, based upon his faithfulness to God?

"Your faithfulness has saved you. Go in peace."

Does not establish what you want it to. Ken Copeland and Ken Hagin preach the same thing, that your own faith saves you. What does any man have that was not given him? The preaching of free will is rebellion against God's Sovereignty, and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

As I said, what you preach is an Arminian, self-actualizing gospel which places man at the center, in the driver's seat, and removes God frlom His rightful place in all things. Sinners do not have a truly free will, for how can someone who is in bondage to sin, and spiritually dead in sin, be said to have a free will? Their will is just as bound as their whole person. A slave to sin is not free to -not- sin.

 

[Van]

Nazaroo, I saw a flurry of verbage but no acknowledgement that the passage appears to be an uninspired addition. When a passage is under a cloud, most students of the bible do not base doctrine upon the passage. I rely on the NASB and not on the KJV so our bibles differ greatly.

 

[Miriam49]

RE; Predestination:
Nazaroo you DO meant that women also are to repent as the text you quoted stated that MEN need to!
As well. I have to agree that Salvation is NOT in stone if we cross the line that God has determined to be a NO GO area. An sin which is beyond repentance. A sin unto death.
If one really believes in Pre-Destination then they must believe that God himself has chosen to Pre-destine the choices that people will make. He can also choose to let someone loose their salvation. (Since he is allpresent and knowing and powerful)
We agree that there is a covenant but it does not wipe out the old as Jesus himself said I come not to abolish but to fullfill.

 

[Miriam49]

Nobdysfool:

Judas was not a guinea pig having not given the chance to be saved,predestined for Hell.He was offered the gift of Salvation as everyone else. He rejected it.
As well, Nazaroo DID say that God enables us to seek salvation so he DOES agree in Grace. I have been following some threads and I believe you are not fully reading what he is saying. Free will is not the Sin of Witchcraft.He would also agree that we don't have free will completely since God IS God.Slaves CAN be free as Paul was set free from his chains and Blindness. YOu have some good points but they are not in stone. Also, I doubt Nazaroo is at ALL like Kenneth Copeland!!

 

[Miriam49]

Nobdysfool:

Judas was not a guinea pig having not given the chance to be saved,predestined for Hell.He was offered the gift of Salvation as everyone else. He rejected it.
As well, Nazaroo DID say that God enables us to seek salvation so he DOES agree in Grace. I have been following some threads and I believe you are not fully reading what he is saying. Free will is not the Sin of Witchcraft.He would also agree that we don't have free will completely since God IS God.Slaves CAN be free as Paul was set free from his chains and Blindness. YOu have some good points but they are not in stone. Also, I doubt Nazaroo is at ALL like Kenneth Copeland!!

 

[Nazaroo]

Nazaroo, I saw a flurry of verbage but no acknowledgement that the passage appears to be an uninspired addition. When a passage is under a cloud, most students of the bible do not base doctrine upon the passage. I rely on the NASB and not on the KJV so our bibles differ greatly.

Well, this explains much.
Instead of using the traditional New Testament text used by Christians for 2000 years, you are using a text translated from a 'critical' Greek text, the Nestle/Aland/UBS edition of the New Testament.

What can I tell you about this version of the Greek text?
Does it reflect the text as used by Christians all over the world for the last 20 centuries? No. It reflects a text that has never existed anywhere at any time previously, until it was conceived by Bishop Westcott and Antony Hort of Cambridge in the 1880s.

No existing manuscript or version in any language of any antiquity has a text like the eclectic mess that 'modern scholarship' has produced, following the erroneous ideas of Westcott and Hort.

The two main manuscripts used to 'reconstruct' this Neopolitan flavour document are two of the most notoriously corrupt and quirky handcopies from the 5th century ever seen.

And although these two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are used over and over again to remove or place doubt over key verses in the New Testament, what scholars and supporters are NOT telling you is the actual quality of these two manuscripts themselves.

Let me show you why Codex B and Codex Aleph are two pieces of unreliable garbage:

"And their witnesses did not agree among themselves.." (Mark 14:56)

A simple scan of Nestle's Critical apparatus (24thed) shows:

Aleph and B agreeing: 3,007 times where there are significant variants.

Of these, about 1,100 stand against the traditional/Byzantine text.

Aleph and B disagreeing: well over 3,100 times against each other!.

Try to understand what these figures mean:
Aleph disagrees with B three times as often as it disagrees with the Traditional Majority Text!

Only a handful of manuscripts, such as Codex D (Bezae) have this many sheer errors and deliberate, singular and obvious falsifications of the New Testament text.

Yet, in your margin they are described as 'oldest and best' manuscripts!

If you want a 'modern' easy to read text, get a New King James, or even a NIV, which at least retains a few of the correct traditional readings used by Christians for the last 2000 years.

The NASV is a dog:

Man who wrote preface for NASV repudiates it.

 

[Van]

Repeating a flurry of verbage does not get the thread back on track. I said it is unwise to base doctrine on passages that our under a cloud, and you have posted a smokescreen. Either the passage is not under a cloud in your view, or it is. Why not just state you view, instead of all this misdirection. I think my bible is the best English translation, I think yours has more flaws. So rather than name call, why not leave it they differ.

Returning to topic, can you support your position from another passage? Jesus said your faith - not faithfulness - has saved you - a completed act. All saved Christians endeavor to avoid sin, but we all sin. So the idea that we lose or salvation if we sin is a mistaken view. That is Old Covenant thinking.

 

[Nazaroo]

Either the passage is not under a cloud in your view, or it is. Why not just state you view, instead of all this misdirection.

Its not misdirection, its evidence.

The Pericope De Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) is utterly authentic.

But textual 'evidence' is moot if you can't recognise the plain word of God in a passage like this! The footnotes and 'critical apparatus' of Cambridge scholars who don't believe in ANY Christian doctrines, is NOT the word of God.

Is that clear enough for you?

Jesus said your faith - not faithfulness - has saved you - a completed act.

no, - a mistranslation.

There is only one word, not two, 'pistos', which means "faithfulness" or "loyalty" :

but never "faith" (= 'belief') in the modern Evangelical and foolishly false definition.
There is no such support in the original language of the New Testament.

The modern word 'faith' has been so loaded with Augustinian/Calvinist yeast,
that it can no longer function as a proper translation equivalent anywhere in the bible.
(except in the mouth of Satan in a hypothetical dialogue, but even he avoids it as too fluffy and cute.)