Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree that believers can and do fall into apostasy. And neither "things present, nor things future" (like falling into apostasy) will separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.and nothing that indicates otherwise. I did offer Heb 6 and 10 for your perusal, where they clearly show we can and do fall into apostasy.
Good, cuz I'm not selling. I am, otoh, explaining how sozo is used.Yea - I'm not buying this - sorry.
Relevance?? Context determines the meaning of a word. Not relevance.Deliverance and rescue have the same relevance as salvation. Sorry - you are reaching here.
I agree that believers can and do fall into apostasy. And neither "things present, nor things future" (like falling into apostasy) will separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
Good, cuz I'm not selling. I am, otoh, explaining how sozo is used.
Relevance?? Context determines the meaning of a word. Not relevance.
Sozo occurs twice in Acts 27, and obviously refers to physical or temporal deliverance or rescue. Which is the basic meaning of the word anyway. When heaven is in view, THEN sozo refers to eternal salvation.
But you don't have to buy it, because I'm not selling it.
I agree that believers can and do fall into apostasy. And neither "things present, nor things future" (like falling into apostasy) will separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
First, 8:1 only states that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Nothing about any "forces" that want to separate us from God's love.Again, NOT in the context. Paul is referring to exterior forces to us. Forces that are bound and determined to separate us from God's love. The same forces that want to condemn us as verse 1 would indicate. This is the context here in Romans 8.
Interesting that you cite these 2 verses. In Gal 5:4, it was the people themselves who were alienated from Christ by trying to be justified by law, and had fallen from grace. Maybe we understand the phrase "fallen from grace" differently. I view it as personal choices that result in loss of fellowship, and under God's hand of discipline, not loss of salvation.Paul also deals with others things that can take us away from Jesus in other scriptures.
Gal 5:4 and 1 Tim 1:6 as examples. In both cases these people had 'fallen away' from Jesus.
Sorry. Heb 6 deals with believers who have returned to sacrifice in order to avoid being persecuted by Jews. But I don't find anything there about loss of salvation.I see you had no comment for Heb 6:4-6 or 10:38-39 either.
In addition, Calvinism completely removes the very meaning of apostasy. My dictionary says apostasy is when one no longer believes what they used to believe. If a true believer cannot apostatize, then the word has no meaning.The New Testament is replete with scriptures attesting to the possibility of apostasy. In 1 Cor. 10: 12, Paul said, Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. In verses 1-11, Paul had been using the history of apostatizing Israel to warn the Christians not to do likewise. This Corinthian letter was addressed to the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints. (I Cor. 1:2) Calvinism denies that these Corinthians would not and could not fall", yet Paul warns them, to take precautions against falling! Calvinism would make Paul as foolish as I would be if I were to say, Dont drive a car, lest ye become seasick.
The same apostle Paul said, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith. (I Tim. 4: 1) One cannot depart from any place, unless he was once there. To affirm that some departed from the faith necessarily implies they were once in the faith. Calvinism, however, denies the possibility of apostasy.
James in NO WAY meant what you think he did.Okay - your not selling it. Got it. Good thing because it's a stretch to say the least. Clearly James 2 is describing saving faith - which is accompanied by fruit. Faith without fruit doesn't save. Period.
I added nothing, but gave an example. What do you suppose is meant by "things future"?There is no scripture that would substantiate this statement. You have added to Romans 8 with you parenthetical comment. The statement was made to genuine believers - not apostates.
First, 8:1 only states that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Nothing about any "forces" that want to separate us from God's love.
Second, I understand your view about outside forces. However, just as Jn 10:28 also includes ourselves as to who cannot snatch us from God's hand, I believe there is no reason in Rom 8 to exclude anything that occurs either in the present or in the future regarding what can separate us from God's love.
Interesting that you cite these 2 verses. In Gal 5:4, it was the people themselves who were alienated from Christ by trying to be justified by law, and had fallen from grace. Maybe we understand the phrase "fallen from grace" differently. I view it as personal choices that result in loss of fellowship, and under God's hand of discipline, not loss of salvation.
And 1 Tim is full of examples of people who have turned away, yet nothing from Paul as to their loss of salvation.
I think this is the bottom line: where are there any clear verses that plainly tell us that one's salvation can be lost, forfeited, etc? Just as I cannot find any clear verses that Christ didn't die for everyone, or that He died only for the elect, I cannot find any clear verses that one can lose salvation.
otoh, there are plenty of verses that clearly indicate that Christ died for everyone, just as there are clear verses that one's salvation is secure.
Sorry. Heb 6 deals with believers who have returned to sacrifice in order to avoid being persecuted by Jews. But I don't find anything there about loss of salvation.
10:3839 clearly indicates that a believer may "shrink back", meaning not living by faith, and that God will not be pleased with him. But again, nothing that indicates loss of salvation.
God is always displeased when His children sin or disobey. And Heb 12 deals with that issue clearly; discipline which can be quite severe. And 10:30-31 also deals with God's hand of discipline clearly.
What all these verses indicate is that when a believer gets into sin, or even fails to live by faith, they come under God's hand of discipline. But none of the warning passages indicate loss of salvation.
If OSAS were wrong, what specifically causes loss of salvation for the believer?
In addition, Calvinism completely removes the very meaning of apostasy. My dictionary says apostasy is when one no longer believes what they used to believe. If a true believer cannot apostatize, then the word has no meaning.
Jesus spoke of apostatizing in Luke 8:13 regarding the second soil, who "believed for a while, but in time of testing, fell away". It couldn't be any more clear. Their faith ceased due to testing.
James in NO WAY meant what you think he did.
And your period is about as valid as when our president promised that those who liked their health insurance and doctors could keep their health insurance and doctors, period.
I added nothing, but gave an example. What do you suppose is meant by "things future"?
No, there is nothing in 8:1 about "forces". Only One can condemn, and that is God. And 8:1 promises that God will not condemn those who are in Christ.Who would be condemning? Obviously forces.
The beauty of God's promises is that even we can't screw up our salvation. That is the point. But you seem to have a different opinion on that.Sadly, you read that into the text. I understand your 'belief', but it does not stand up to exegetical scrutiny. John 10 also refers to outside forces, NOT the sheep themselves. "No one will snatch them". Security always has to do with outside forces. You don't secure something against your own intervention. That is an oxymoronic assertion.
What verse informed you of that?You may view it this way but it is NOT what is being conveyed. If we are saved because of God's grace then falling AWAY or leaving that grace is rejecting Christ. If we reject Christ we are no longer saved.
Huh? Of course Christ died for all.This is a doctrinal assertion for which you supply no scripture. It is opining in it's truest form, but we are here to accept God's word about this issue, not men's opinion. I have supplied scripture about Christ dying for all.
Yep. He died for all.2 Cor 5:13-14
For Christs love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
1 Pet 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
I agree, and have no idea why you say what you do.Heb 6 is about moving on to a more mature walk with Christ. I have no idea where you get your POV.
Let's not involve Luke in what the author of Hebrews wrote. And v.38 clearly indicates that the "righteous one" who shrinks back displeases the Lord. Nothing about loss of salvation. And shrinking back is not equated with loss of salvation. That would be an opinion.Then you are ignoring verse 39 which clearly states;
But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved.Shrinking back clearly equates to no longer being saved. In fact Luke says DESTROYED.
Nothing there that says loss of salvation. It is a warning about God's severe hand of discipline in the here and now.We're not dealing with Heb 12 here so please focus on the issue at hand. V30-31 is about those who knowingly reject the Son's sacrifice as v29 shows;
How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?This is about those that reject their confession of Christ. Sadly you are eisegeting instead of exegeting. Please look carefully at the scripture itself, without your dogmatic filters.
First, I'm neither a Calvinist, nor an Arminian. Second, yes, real believers can fall away, and that refers specifically to loss of faith, as Jesus clearly noted in Luke 8:13. Yet, He never said or even insinuated that loss of faith results in loss of salvation.Again you are ONLY arriving at this through your Calvinistic POV and not proper hermeneutical exegesis of the scripture. Clearly as the scripture in Heb 6 and 10 IS dealing with saved people, then falling away is falling away from salvation.
Why would God need to warn a mature and committed Christian who hasn't fallen away?The warning is not about being a lazy Christian, it's about being a mature and committed Christina who does NOT fall away.
Agreed. And there is NO verse that teaches loss of salvation.Many things can contribute or lead up to apostasy, and the NT warns us in many places about it and avoiding it.
Why in the world do you think that I don't believe that true believers can walk or fall away?? Of course they can. But, where is the support for the notion that they lose salvation?
and yet the word does have meaning and is used MANY times in the NT. Are you asserting God was wasting His time in warning us about it if Christian's can't walk or fall away from their salvation?
The problem is that you equate "fall away" with loss of salvation. Which is wrong.Yes Luke 8:13 shows they were saved and then they fell away.
James 2:18.You haven't proven your assertion.
James 2:18.
One cannot demonstrate their faith apart from deeds. It has nothing to do with a "real saving faith" vs a false non-saving faith.
OK, so what does 2:18 mean in light of 2:14 then?I'm not comfortable with that interpretation in light of vs 14 which indicates otherwise.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?