Those who fall away are still saved?

[tdidymas]

The problem with this, of course, is that you're placing yourself as God's spokesperson, relying on your private interpretations as it were, which means that anyone who disagrees is ipso facto not as in tune with Him as you are .

The burden of proof is on you to show that my interpretations are not correct. You haven't even attempted to do so.
TD

 

[fhansen]

The burden of proof is on you to show that my interpretations are not correct. You haven't even attempted to do so.
TD

Already done that here and elsewhere. Not at all hard to do. And in the end it just proves the doctrine of Sola Scriptura wrong, because all you or anyone else does is to put forth their personal opinion of what any passage means, which may be a quite plausible opinion, while another interpreter may put forth an equally plausible, while contradictory, understanding. At least I can admit to such inconvenient truths while you must defend your particular positions as being virtually infallible, for all practical purposes.

 

[tdidymas]

Already done that here and elsewhere. Not at all hard to do. And in the end it just proves the doctrine of Sola Scriptura wrong, because all you or anyone else does is to put forth their personal opinion of what any passage means, which may be a quite plausible opinion, while another interpreter may put forth an equally plausible, while contradictory, understanding. At least I can admit to such inconvenient truths while you must defend your particular positions as being virtually infallible, for all practical purposes.

everyone has an opinion
TD

 

[justbyfaith]

I disagree with you in this case. There are 2 kinds of faith spoken of in the scripture, using the same Greek word, but having completely different dimensions, which is determined by the usage in the context of the passage.
TD

Yes, I can see your point. Based on the whole of what the Bible teaches, it can only be referring to two different types of faith; although it uses the same Greek word.

However, it is the same way in English. Words in English usually have more than one definition; and the fixed connotation that we apply to the word arises from the context. For example; I love hamburgers, or, I love my wife, or, I love my brother...different Greek words might be used in each case, but it is the same English word, and the connotation that we might give to it comes from the surrounding words, as to what word we might translate it into if we were translating from English back to Greek.

 

[justbyfaith]

Already done that here and elsewhere. Not at all hard to do. And in the end it just proves the doctrine of Sola Scriptura wrong, because all you or anyone else does is to put forth their personal opinion of what any passage means, which may be a quite plausible opinion, while another interpreter may put forth an equally plausible, while contradictory, understanding. At least I can admit to such inconvenient truths while you must defend your particular positions as being virtually infallible, for all practical purposes.

It is indeed Sola Scriptura, that it, the Bible is the final authority on any given subject. And also, the Holy Spirit will help to give the correct interpretation; and if somebody contends that it is incorrect, there will be other scripture that makes the case uncontradictable. It is the whole of what scripture teaches that matters; and it is also clear to anyone with a thinking mind that some interpretations are bogus: such as the idea that condemnation and/or perdition don't mean hell, which I have run across most recently. The person had that interpretation because they had an unbalanced view of a single scripture in the Bible, that they were clinging to like it was Jesus Himself; in fact I believe they were trusting in that single verse over and above Jesus Himself, in an idolatrous fashion.

 

[fhansen]

everyone has an opinion
TD

Exactly-and everyone generally speaking assumes their's is right. In the case of Scripture this presents a myriad of problems. Just saying. But if we look openly and honestly, debate often, and are willing to check and recheck the truth of our beliefs as we go along teaching or testifying to them, eventually we'll see through the fallacy of the doctrine of SS.

 

[fhansen]

It is indeed Sola Scriptura, that it, the Bible is the final authority on any given subject.

The problem is that in real life it doesn't work that way. The reader/interpreter of the Bible becomes the final authority.

 

[justbyfaith]

@fhansen wrote:

The problem is that in real life it doesn't work that way. The reader/interpreter of the Bible becomes the final authority.

Nope. See Hebrews 4:12. Interpretations may vary, and what we may believe in based on our understanding of the Bible may change over time, but scripture also says that God has magnified His word above all His name. Psalms 138:2. So it is indeed the final authority.

 

[fhansen]

@fhansen wrote:



Nope. See Hebrews 4:12. Interpretations may vary, and what we may believe in based on our understanding of the Bible may change over time, but scripture also says that God has magnified His word above all His name. Psalms 138:2. So it is indeed the final authority.

Well, I agree that His Word is right, but whose understanding of His Word do we adhere to or believe in? Some biblical messages are quite clear, while others aren't so, and become quite controversial.

 

[tdidymas]

Yes, I can see your point. Based on the whole of what the Bible teaches, it can only be referring to two different types of faith; although it uses the same Greek word.

However, it is the same way in English. Words in English usually have more than one definition; and the fixed connotation that we apply to the word arises from the context. For example; I love hamburgers, or, I love my wife, or, I love my brother...different Greek words might be used in each case, but it is the same English word, and the connotation that we might give to it comes from the surrounding words, as to what word we might translate it into if we were translating from English back to Greek.

Ok, but I don't get your "however," since you're just proving my point.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Exactly-and everyone generally speaking assumes their's is right. In the case of Scripture this presents a myriad of problems. Just saying. But if we look openly and honestly, debate often, and are willing to check and recheck the truth of our beliefs as we go along teaching or testifying to them, eventually we'll see through the fallacy of the doctrine of SS.

I agree with your premise, but I disagree with your conclusion.

I have quoted a load of scripture proving that what I am saying is true. All you have done is spout your opinion about it in negative language. How about exegeting scripture if you want to prove your interpretation?
TD

 

[justbyfaith]

Well, I agree that His Word is right, but whose understanding of His Word do we adhere to or believe in? Some biblical messages are quite clear, while others aren't so, and become quite controversial.

I think that you just have to be a Berean and keep studying for yourself to show yourself approved. Acts of the Apostles 17:11, 2 Timothy 2:15.

We should also take into account in our interpretation process what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3:12.

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

 

[BobRyan]

The reasoning that has developed in the thread Salvation is COMPLETE and IRREVOCABLE, or something like that, in the Soteriology section of these boards, primarily argued by @FreeGrace2, is along the following lines:

In the parable of the sower, there are those who BELIEVE FOR A WHILE and then fall away. Luke 8:13.

But in John 5:24, John 6:47, and John 10:28 it is given that those who believe POSSESS everlasting life, and shall NEVER PERISH.

So then, if I believe for a while and then fall away, did I possess everlasting life while I believed?

And if, when I fell away, I died spiritually, was it NOT everlasting life in the first place?

Because it seems to me that if life is everlasting, it will never end.

So the argument is, that if I believe for a while I have everlasting life; therefore if I fall away I continue to have everlasting life.

I call it "believe-for-a-moment" theology, and I consider it to be false doctrine, a doctrine of devils, in fact (see 1 Timothy 4:1).

But I don't have an answer.

Maybe we can put our noggins together and figure out an answer for this dilemna in the scripture.

Common sense would tell you that if you fall away from the faith, you no longer have salvation. .

You "are alive" is not the same as "you will never die"
You "have everlasting life" is not the same as 'and you can never lose it'.

It is not at all clear that God told Lucifer in his sinless state "you do not have everlasting life because one day in the future you will fall"

Calvinism relies on denying the text by infusing "extreme inference" into tiny snips then wrenching them to purge out whole chapters to the contrary of all that inference.

 

[fhansen]

I think that you just have to be a Berean and keep studying for yourself to show yourself approved. Acts of the Apostles 17:11, 2 Timothy 2:15.

We should also take into account in our interpretation process what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3:12.

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

The Bereans weren't lone ducks-just they and their bible alone. They received information from another source-the teachers who themselves had received the gospel, the one faith. Had they relied on the bible by itself, without that external input/information, they couldn't have ascertained what they did. And even then false teachers were arising and spreading confusion. And I'm sure Paul strove to use simple speech. But that doesn't mean that the written word, read centuries later, proves to be always clear and consistent. I'm seriously amazed at just how easy it is for myself and friends to get the meanings of texts mixed up. Then voice calls are often required to get the message straight, from the source as it were.

 

[EmSw]

The New Birth (John 1:12,13)

Only God knows.

Not sure what you mean by this. It appears to be self-contradictory.

Their lives are totally transformed. Study the conversion of Saul the enemy of Christ to Paul the apostle of Christ.

Mental assent means that one knows all the Gospel facts and does not even deny their truth, but they have not affected the person in his heart. Which means there has been no repentance and inner transformation, expressed through outward behavior.

It seems to me it is not faith alone.

 

[justbyfaith]

Actually, Paul was the only teacher there with the Bereans at the time of Acts 17:11; and the point is that they checked the word to find out if Paul was actually on the up-and-up in what he said. So if someone comes to you and says, "I have the gift of teaching, you had better listen to me..." the proper response is to be a Berean and check everything they say by the word of God. It doesn't hurt to have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins to fulfill the condition for the promise that God gives of the Holy Ghost (Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39). If you know the author of the Book and can ask Him any question as to what He meant, you can't go wrong if you accept His words according to their intent. re #174.

 

[justbyfaith]

It seems to me it is not faith alone.

We enter into grace by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 5:1-2); but when grace is in your life, it causes you to labour more than they all (1 Corinthians 15:10).

 

[EmSw]

We enter into grace by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 5:1-2); but when grace is in your life, it causes you to labour more than they all (1 Corinthians 15:10).

The way you say it, without works, a man is missing grace, and without grace salvation is missing. Do you see the link?

 

[justbyfaith]

The Bereans weren't lone ducks-just they and their bible alone. They received information from another source-the teachers who themselves had received the gospel, the one faith. Had they relied on the bible by itself, without that external input/information, they couldn't have ascertained what they did. And even then false teachers were arising and spreading confusion. And I'm sure Paul strove to use simple speech. But that doesn't mean that the written word, read centuries later, proves to be always clear and consistent. I'm seriously amazed at just how easy it is for myself and friends to get the meanings of texts mixed up. Then voice calls are often required to get the message straight, from the source as it were.

What source are you speaking of?

 

[justbyfaith]

The way you say it, without works, a man is missing grace, and without grace salvation is missing. Do you see the link?

Ah, but what is the entry point? Is it grace or is it works? See Romans 11:5-6 (kjv).