Loss of salvation???

[Genez]

One reason would be because the epistles were letters written to Christian’s who had already been baptized..
Romans 1:7-to all the “SAINTS”in Rome. Written to Christian’s.

1 & 2 Corinthians 1:2- to the CHURCH of God at Corinth.

Galations 1:2- to the CHURCHES of Galatia.

Ephesians 1:1 to the SAINTS in Ephesus

Philippians 1:1- to all the SAINTS in Philippi.

Colossians 1:2- to the SAINTS AND FAITHFUL BRETHERN in CHRIST who are in Colosse.

1 &2 Thessalonians 1:1- to the CHURCH of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
And even James, Peter and Jude, Hebrews and Revelation are all written to Christian’s who have already obeyed the gospel in baptism and are saved. So you would not expect the writers to try to persuade these churches and saints to be baptized! That would make no sense at all.

However, there are some passages on Baptism in the epistles that you would do well to read. For instance in Roman’s ,6, Paul tells those Christian’s who had already been baptized, “…AS MANY of US WHO WERE BAPTIZED INTO CHRUST JESUS WERE BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH. THEREFORE WE WERE BURIED WITH HIM THROUGH BAPTISM INTO DEATH, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE.” Proving that these Christian’s to whom he was writing had already been baptized. Read on through verse 11. It explains a lot of what happens in baptism. Christ shed His blood in His death. We are baptized into His death where we come into contact with His blood which then washes away our sins. No where in the scriptures does it ever say, hint, or imply that the blood of Christ washes away our sins when we “believe” or “repent” or “confess.” We come into contact with the blood of Jesus when we are baptized into His death, where His blood was shed. This is why baptism is so impirtant and why there was such urgency in the New Testament for people to be baptized.
In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul is rebuking men who call themselves after other men. He said some were calling themselves after Barnabas, and Apollos. He then makes the point that you should not call yourselves by the names of men— kinda like the LUTHERANS today call themselves after Martian Luther. Paul says there are two things that must be true before you can call yourself after someone: 1) the person needs to have been CRUCIFIED For you and 2) you would have to be BAPTIZED into that person’s name. SO, Christ has been CRUCIFIED for us and we have been BAPTIZED into the name of Christ just as Jesus said to do in the Great commission in Matthew 28:18-19, “… baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”and also Peter in Acts 2 when he said, “ let everyone of you’be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ…” so we are now qualified to call ourselves “CHRISTIAN after the name of Christ. But what about those who don’t think Baptism is necessary and so are not baptized? Can they call themselves a Christian when they have never “put on Christ” or been baptized inHis nane. Paul would say “No.” That was His whole argument in 1 Corinthians 1. There is more about baptism in Galations and Colossians and Peter (it SAVES us) that tell us how important it is; so I don’t know why you would complain that the epistles don’t command it. I think “you do err not knowing the scriptures.” Matthew 22:29.

Here is when Peter finally caught on to the new life in Christ that separated the days of living as a Jew under the Law...

Peter finally realized that water baptism was discontinued...

For prior to that moment he had been mistakenly commanding water baptisms for many new converts.
Acts 11. He finally connected with the new way of baptism for the Church age.

Keep in mind. Up to this time for Peter, he had been continuing with the old way of water baptisms!

Acts 11:15-16

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. ​

Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized ​

with the Holy Spirit.’​

We do not find Peter commanding any more water baptisms after that point was reached.
He finally remembered what Jesus had told him in Acts 1:5!




Acts 1:4-5

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ​

“Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you ​

have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you ​

will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”​

Things changed drastically for the Church age and took time to sink in.......

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you ​

will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”​

But, the common error with many in the Church continues till today!


Grace and peace .............

 

[Beckworth]

Hosea 6:7 establishes that there was a covenant between God and Adam. But you were the one who defined a covenant as an agreement. And it's easy enough to establish from the early chapters of Genesis that such an agreement was made.

I
I think you need to read Hosea 6 again. That passage is clearly talking about the old law of Moses that God had made with the children Israel. Yes, it was a covenant but not with Adam —with the children of Israel in the days ofvMoses. In fact, Moses says in Deuteronomy 5:3 that God did not make this covenant with their fathers ( Adam, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc) but He made the covenant with those who were ALIVE THAT DAY!!! He says that covenant was made in Horeb which is Mount Sinai where God gave Moses the 10 commandments and the law.

Now look at Hosea 6. Verse 1 he is writing to the JEWS to RETURN TO THE LORD. Not writing to or about Adam. In verse 4 he is addressing EPHRAIM. That was one of the 12 tribes of the Jews. Eph rain did not exist in the days of Adam. He also speaks to Judah. Also non existent in the day of Adam.He talks about “sacrifices” and offerings and prophets all part of the covenant made with the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai. And in verse 7 he says they, the Jews had transgressed THEir covenant/-the one they made with God on Mt Sinai . In the next verse he mentions Gilead a Jewish city. In verse 9 he talks about a group of priests on their way to Shechem! In verse 10 he specifically says he is talking about the “house of Israel.” In the last two verses he mentiobs Ephraim and Judah again.

I can’t understand how you could think this was talking about a covenant with ADAM when he is not even mentioned in this chapter and EVERYTHING in this chapter points to the Jews of Israel. Where is Adam in this chapter. Read the CONTEXT!

You still have not one scripture that proves what you are saying is from God and not from men and men’s ideas.

 

[Beckworth]

Here is when Peter finally caught on to the new life in Christ that separated the days of living as a Jew under the Law...

Peter finally realized that water baptism was discontinued...

For prior to that moment he had been mistakenly commanding water baptisms for many new converts.
Acts 11. He finally connected with the new way of baptism for the Church age.

Keep in mind. Up to this time for Peter, he had been continuing with the old way of water baptisms!

Acts 11:15-16

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. ​

Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized ​

with the Holy Spirit.’​

We do not find Peter commanding any more water baptisms after that point was reached.
He finally remembered what Jesus had told him in Acts 1:5!




Acts 1:4-5

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ​

“Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you ​

have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you ​

will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”​

Things changed drastically for the Church age and took time to sink in.......

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you ​

will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”​

But, the common error with many in the Church continues till today!


Grace and peace .............

This is wrong on so many levels. For one thing, Peter is remembering what happened to the apostles ( including himself) in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was MIRACULOUSLY poured out only 2 times in the New Testament—once on the JEWS in Acts 2 and then in Acts 10 on the gentiles. Peter says he remembers how it was poured out on them “ iIN THE BEGINNING.. He is simply seeing prophecy being fulfilled. He is not changing his mind about anything. He understands now what John was talking about. It was poured out on them, , the apostles, the Jews and it was poured out on the gentiles. There is absolutely nothing in this chapter that suggests it implies that Peter was mistaken about water baptism. In Acts 2, after the Holy Spirit had fallen on the apostles, Peter still told them to be baptized and 3000 were baptized in water.I know verse 38 was water baptism because they had already been baptized with the Holy Spirit. Same thing in Acts 10 when the gentiles were baptized with the Holy Spirit, Peter then COMMANDS them to be water baptized in verse 47,48. This makes your statement that “Peter did not command any more water baptisms after he remembered what the prophet Joel had prophesied, totally false! He remembered that when the Spirit fell on Cornelius and after that he COMMANED the gentiles to be water baptized. it doesn’t sound like Peter changed his mind about baptism. Also, It is estimated that Peter wrote his epistles around AD 64; that’s 30 years after he told the Jews at Pentecost to be baptised; and he is still talking about water baptism in Chapter 3 and still says it saves us. Peter has not changed his mind.

 

[Genez]

This is wrong on so many levels. For one thing, Peter is remembering what happened to the apostles ( including himself) in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was MIRACULOUSLY poured out only 2 times in the New Testament—once on the JEWS in Acts 2 and then in Acts 10 on the gentiles. Peter says he remembers how it was poured out on them “ iIN THE BEGINNING.. He is simply seeing prophecy being fulfilled. He is not changing his mind about anything. He understands now what John was talking about. It was poured out on them, , the apostles, the Jews and it was poured out on the gentiles. There is absolutely nothing in this chapter that suggests it implies that Peter was mistaken about water baptism. In Acts 2, after the Holy Spirit had fallen on the apostles, Peter still told them to be baptized and 3000 were baptized in water.I know verse 38 was water baptism because they had already been baptized with the Holy Spirit. Same thing in Acts 10 when the gentiles were baptized with the Holy Spirit, Peter then COMMANDS them to be water baptized in verse 47,48. This makes your statement that “Peter did not command any more water baptisms after he remembered what the prophet Joel had prophesied, totally false! He remembered that when the Spirit fell on Cornelius and after that he COMMANED the gentiles to be water baptized. it doesn’t sound like Peter changed his mind about baptism. Also, It is estimated that Peter wrote his epistles around AD 64; that’s 30 years after he told the Jews at Pentecost to be baptised; and he is still talking about water baptism in Chapter 3 and still says it saves us. Peter has not changed his mind.

In the early church, speaking in tongues was a sign accompanying those who were being given the temporary gift of tongues.
But all other gifts were also being given by the Spirit as well.

1 Corinthians 12:8-11. Tongues were meant to be overt, because Jews were witnessing to a sign to show them the new way was coming about before their very eyes. For a Jew required a sign -1 Corinthians 1:22.

Again. Peter said he first recalled the words of Jesus only after he went through all the things he was taught to do in the old dispensation of water baptizing. Peter was making a mistake.

Peter was told...

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:5​

Even John the Baptist said that his water baptism was to be replaced by Spirit baptism.

​

I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Mark 1:8​

You need to come to grips with the Truth.

Maybe you will. Maybe you won't.

 

[Inquisitor]

Losing our salvation has nothing to do with the power of God. Jesus wanted to save the people in Jerusalem. He said He would have gathered them under His arms like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, BUT THEY WERE UNWILLING. Does that mean God did not have the POWER to make them come to Him? To save them? Ridiculous! He was WILLING, but they were UNWILLING. That shows that they had free will to choose. Could Jesus have FORCED them to come to Him? Yes, He had the power to force them, but He did not. Why would God go to all the trouble to create a bunch of robots? That’s not what God wants. He wants us to love Him enough to “choose”. To want to come to Him. Would you want to marry a person who was “FORCED” to marry you? They really didn’t want to marry you, but they had no choice. They were “made” to do it. I guess you would be alright with that. We are the “bride” of Christ. He is our “bridegroom”. No groom that I ever heard of wants a bride who is forced to marry Him. And neither does Christ! God gives us plenty of evidence in the Bible that man has free will and He wants us to serve Him WILLINGLY.

I agree completely.

 

[studier]

Does it seem obvious that we can be poisoned with no ill effects?

Why do none of the epistles command water baptism if it is of salvific importance?

Mark16:16 on its own is my only comment in this baptism battle so far. Here's how I read it:

• 1 + 2 = 3
• 0 + 0 ≠ 3
• 0 + 2 ≠ 3

Without belief baptism is irrelevant. Baptism does not need to be stated in the second clause.

 

[studier]

Hosea 6:7 establishes that there was a covenant between God and Adam. But you were the one who defined a covenant as an agreement. And it's easy enough to establish from the early chapters of Genesis that such an agreement was made.

I
I think you need to read Hosea 6 again. That passage is clearly talking about the old law of Moses that God had made with the children Israel. Yes, it was a covenant but not with Adam —with the children of Israel in the days ofvMoses. In fact, Moses says in Deuteronomy 5:3 that God did not make this covenant with their fathers ( Adam, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc) but He made the covenant with those who were ALIVE THAT DAY!!! He says that covenant was made in Horeb which is Mount Sinai where God gave Moses the 10 commandments and the law.

Now look at Hosea 6. Verse 1 he is writing to the JEWS to RETURN TO THE LORD. Not writing to or about Adam. In verse 4 he is addressing EPHRAIM. That was one of the 12 tribes of the Jews. Eph rain did not exist in the days of Adam. He also speaks to Judah. Also non existent in the day of Adam.He talks about “sacrifices” and offerings and prophets all part of the covenant made with the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai. And in verse 7 he says they, the Jews had transgressed THEir covenant/-the one they made with God on Mt Sinai . In the next verse he mentions Gilead a Jewish city. In verse 9 he talks about a group of priests on their way to Shechem! In verse 10 he specifically says he is talking about the “house of Israel.” In the last two verses he mentiobs Ephraim and Judah again.

I can’t understand how you could think this was talking about a covenant with ADAM when he is not even mentioned in this chapter and EVERYTHING in this chapter points to the Jews of Israel. Where is Adam in this chapter. Read the CONTEXT!

You still have not one scripture that proves what you are saying is from God and not from men and men’s ideas.

The word adam does not always mean Adam. The KJV and the NKJ and others translate the verse as:

NKJ Hosea 6:7 "But like men they transgressed the covenant; There they dealt treacherously with Me.​

​

The LXX translated 'adam' with the Greek word for "man" as this translation shows

​

LXA Hosea 6:7 But they are as a man transgressing a covenant:​

​

The NET Bible has a fairly extensive note about this.

 

[GWH]

One reason would be because the epistles were letters written to Christian’s who had already been baptized..
Romans 1:7-to all the “SAINTS”in Rome. Written to Christian’s.

1 & 2 Corinthians 1:2- to the CHURCH of God at Corinth.

Galations 1:2- to the CHURCHES of Galatia.

Ephesians 1:1 to the SAINTS in Ephesus

Philippians 1:1- to all the SAINTS in Philippi.

Colossians 1:2- to the SAINTS AND FAITHFUL BRETHERN in CHRIST who are in Colosse.

1 &2 Thessalonians 1:1- to the CHURCH of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
And even James, Peter and Jude, Hebrews and Revelation are all written to Christian’s who have already obeyed the gospel in baptism and are saved. So you would not expect the writers to try to persuade these churches and saints to be baptized! That would make no sense at all.

However, there are some passages on Baptism in the epistles that you would do well to read. For instance in Roman’s ,6, Paul tells those Christian’s who had already been baptized, “…AS MANY of US WHO WERE BAPTIZED INTO CHRUST JESUS WERE BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH. THEREFORE WE WERE BURIED WITH HIM THROUGH BAPTISM INTO DEATH, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE.” Proving that these Christian’s to whom he was writing had already been baptized. Read on through verse 11. It explains a lot of what happens in baptism. Christ shed His blood in His death. We are baptized into His death where we come into contact with His blood which then washes away our sins. No where in the scriptures does it ever say, hint, or imply that the blood of Christ washes away our sins when we “believe” or “repent” or “confess.” We come into contact with the blood of Jesus when we are baptized into His death, where His blood was shed. This is why baptism is so impirtant and why there was such urgency in the New Testament for people to be baptized.
In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul is rebuking men who call themselves after other men. He said some were calling themselves after Barnabas, and Apollos. He then makes the point that you should not call yourselves by the names of men— kinda like the LUTHERANS today call themselves after Martian Luther. Paul says there are two things that must be true before you can call yourself after someone: 1) the person needs to have been CRUCIFIED For you and 2) you would have to be BAPTIZED into that person’s name. SO, Christ has been CRUCIFIED for us and we have been BAPTIZED into the name of Christ just as Jesus said to do in the Great commission in Matthew 28:18-19, “… baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”and also Peter in Acts 2 when he said, “ let everyone of you’be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ…” so we are now qualified to call ourselves “CHRISTIAN after the name of Christ. But what about those who don’t think Baptism is necessary and so are not baptized? Can they call themselves a Christian when they have never “put on Christ” or been baptized inHis nane. Paul would say “No.” That was His whole argument in 1 Corinthians 1. There is more about baptism in Galations and Colossians and Peter (it SAVES us) that tell us how important it is; so I don’t know why you would complain that the epistles don’t command it. I think “you do err not knowing the scriptures.” Matthew 22:29.

I complain because the NT clearly teaches that salvation is via grace through faith except for the few problematic places you focus on so I agree with the Baptism rather than the Catholic interpretation of those.

 

[GWH]

Mark16:16 on its own is my only comment in this baptism battle so far. Here's how I read it:

• 1 + 2 = 3
• 0 + 0 ≠ 3
• 0 + 2 ≠ 3

Without belief baptism is irrelevant. Baptism does not need to be stated in the second clause.

Mark 16:9-20 is a problematic passage requiring discernment between what agrees or disagrees with the rest of the NT context. I think WB as necessary rather than as optional and recommended disagrees as I just posted to Rufus.
(Baptist vice Baptism)

 

[studier]

Mark 16:9-20 is a problematic passage requiring discernment between what agrees or disagrees with the rest of the NT context. I think WB as necessary rather than as optional and recommended disagrees as I just posted to Rufus.

Yet Mark16:16 says what it says, and IMO works as I stated, which is my only point.

 

[GWH]

Yet Mark16:16 says what it says, and IMO works as I stated, which is my only point.

I am surprised that you give any credence to a poorly attested passage that contradicts the NT context.

 

[studier]

I am surprised that you give any credence to a poorly attested passage that contradicts the NT context.

Once again, my point is simple. It says what it says, and some try to make it say something different.

It's obvious the consensus is it for it to be included and as long as it's in Bibles we frequently use; it should simply be interpreted correctly.

 

[GWH]

Once again, my point is simple. It says what it says, and some try to make it say something different.

It's obvious the consensus is it for it to be included and as long as it's in Bibles we frequently use; it should simply be interpreted correctly.

Well then you give too much credence to the consensus and not enough to the footnotes in those Bibles. And the verse can only be interpreted correctly in context with the rest of NT teaching.

 

[studier]

Well then you give too much credence to the consensus and not enough to the footnotes in those Bibles. And the verse can only be interpreted correctly in context with the rest of NT teaching.

Honestly, I'm not discussing textual criticism issues. Those well aware of the issues have determined to include the verses for various reasons and some of them provide notes about the issue and notifications that 16:8 may be the final verse in Mark. Again, as long as it's included, the verses should be interpreted correctly. The language and logic of it are quite simple.

I'm enjoying reading how @Beckworth values what the Text specifically says and doesn't say.

 

[GWH]

Honestly, I'm not discussing textual criticism issues. Those well aware of the issues have determined to include the verses for various reasons and some of them provide notes about the issue and notifications that 16:8 may be the final verse in Mark. Again, as long as it's included, the verses should be interpreted correctly. The language and logic of it are quite simple.

I'm enjoying reading how @Beckworth values what the Text specifically says and doesn't say.

I appreciate both you and Beckworth, but I think it is problematic to attempt a correct interpretation of a passage with such textual criticism issues, so I am content with sharing this opinion and will ttyl. HAND

 

[Cameron143]

I
I think you need to read Hosea 6 again. That passage is clearly talking about the old law of Moses that God had made with the children Israel. Yes, it was a covenant but not with Adam —with the children of Israel in the days ofvMoses. In fact, Moses says in Deuteronomy 5:3 that God did not make this covenant with their fathers ( Adam, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc) but He made the covenant with those who were ALIVE THAT DAY!!! He says that covenant was made in Horeb which is Mount Sinai where God gave Moses the 10 commandments and the law.

Now look at Hosea 6. Verse 1 he is writing to the JEWS to RETURN TO THE LORD. Not writing to or about Adam. In verse 4 he is addressing EPHRAIM. That was one of the 12 tribes of the Jews. Eph rain did not exist in the days of Adam. He also speaks to Judah. Also non existent in the day of Adam.He talks about “sacrifices” and offerings and prophets all part of the covenant made with the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai. And in verse 7 he says they, the Jews had transgressed THEir covenant/-the one they made with God on Mt Sinai . In the next verse he mentions Gilead a Jewish city. In verse 9 he talks about a group of priests on their way to Shechem! In verse 10 he specifically says he is talking about the “house of Israel.” In the last two verses he mentiobs Ephraim and Judah again.

I can’t understand how you could think this was talking about a covenant with ADAM when he is not even mentioned in this chapter and EVERYTHING in this chapter points to the Jews of Israel. Where is Adam in this chapter. Read the CONTEXT!

You still have not one scripture that proves what you are saying is from God and not from men and men’s ideas.

You rightly address the context, but it literally says those in view transgressed the covenant just as Adam had done. Adam couldn't transgress a covenant he wasn't a part of.

Not sure why you won't accept what scripture declares with clarity.

 

[Cameron143]

The word adam does not always mean Adam. The KJV and the NKJ and others translate the verse as:

NKJ Hosea 6:7 "But like men they transgressed the covenant; There they dealt treacherously with Me.​

​

The LXX translated 'adam' with the Greek word for "man" as this translation shows

​

LXA Hosea 6:7 But they are as a man transgressing a covenant:​

​

The NET Bible has a fairly extensive note about this.

How would you characterize the agreement between Adam and God?

 

[Beckworth]

What difference?

They are not saved for being baptized.

Were you commanded to be baptized by the Spirit?
I did not even know it was happening to me!

There is no mention of babies being baptized in the New Testament. All evidence is contrary to that. Men and women were baptized-Acts 8. Babies are never mentioned as being baptized. Why should they? Jesus said the little children were already in the kingdom of heaven and holds them up as an example of how we should be if we want to go to heaven.

Phillip the evangelist makes “belief” a prerequisite for baptusm in Acts 8:36-37. You may be baptized “IF YOU BELIEVE.” Babies can’t believe. Jesus says it takes faith and baptism for salvation. Mark 16:16. Babies can’t believe. Just ask any Calvinist and they will give you dozens of scriptures that prove faith is necessary for salvation; and babies can’t believe. Yes, babies are baptized by the commandments of men—but not God’s commandment. You need to know that Jesus said “In vain they do worship me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.” Vain means useless, producing no results, . Baptizing babies is useless, produces no results, empty; you are wasting your time and probably stressing out the baby. It accomplishes nothing. That’s what it means to practice the doctrines of men. And baptizing babies is a tradition, doctrine of man.

 

[Jimbone]

Yes!
Worth repeating!

I have proved from scripture in John 10:27-28 that Jesus gives His sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish or be snatched from His hand, but you simply refuse to see it. The words "lose or lost salvation" are found nowhere in scripture.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, ​

and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. ​

​

​

It is really stubbornness for those who want to believe we can lose their salvation after reading that verse.
Looks like they must be bored with their life and must create a frightening challenge for themselves
to gain a sense of achievement.

All along... Jesus said that He came to give us abundant life if we would only stop playing games and humbly submit
to growing by grace in knowledge of His Word.

Yet, there will always be those kids who sit in their highchair, throwing their food because they can not get their way.
They throw around the Word of God likewise...

grace and peace .................

Look, I agree with you 100% . I want to start with that so there is no misunderstanding about what I'm saying here. I do not believe we can lose the gift God gives us, it's not by our will or power we gain our salvation, it's the same with keeping it or losing it too.
This said I can see how people can believe we can lose salvation and believe that we have to actively work to stay saved. I know there are scriptures that do seem to plainly teach that we can lose salvation. The question is how do all these scriptures and all the eternal security verses harmonize? One answer, by the Spirit.

It's only in truth that all these things can be seen to come together as they truly are in truth. I just think it's very necessary to address these other scriptures that do say we are to strive and obey, and even the danger of tasting the gift, coming so close you're "right there", and then turning away.

I have to say that as a born-again believer I also believed that we could lose salvation if we "wanted to". I more believed we had the freedom to choose to walk away, more than we could have it stripped away because we didn't obey well enough, but it all stemmed from the same misunderstanding. I could not understand how we choose Jesus with our free will, are then saved, but are now stuck as slaves of Christ? That just made no sense at all to me. A God that I choose to let into my heart will have to vacate if I choose for Him to, Right?

He brought me to see that the idea of "free will" is not biblical. It says we are slaves of sin, or we are slaves of obedience, which leads to righteousness. It never says we are just "free" to make any choice good or bad, as a matter of fact it says that we cannot do good outside His power and being born-again. It is impossible to please God or even seek God unless He draws you. These are Jesus words not mine, and I can and do testify that ANYTHING "good" that anyone can point to and say I did I have to point the credit directly back to God and His Son Jesus, because I would have never done any of these things if He hadn't changed my heart and rewired all my priorities supernaturally overnight then empowered me to continue doing these things for almost 13 years and counting. This is how and why He gets ALL glory, and also how the weight of salvation is not on my shoulders dependent on how well I obey. That would only be Holy probation ultimately dependent on my ability to obey. No, I do obey, but only by His power for His glory.

I know people will debate this night and day for 1000's of years, but it's not an either/or thing, it's a both/and thing, and can only be understood in truth by those whose eyes have been open to them in truth. Again, wanting to highlight I have believed both sides of this debate since I was saved, so I KNOW that you can be saved and believe either side of this debate from firsthand exsperiance.

 

[Beckworth]

You rightly address the context, but it literally says those in view transgressed the covenant just as Adam had done. Adam couldn't transgress a covenant he wasn't a part of.

Not sure why you won't accept what scripture declares with clarity.

And I don’t know why you keep talking about a covenant with Adam that is literally not there. Again, verse by verse; start with verse 4 and you will see he is talking about Judah, not Adam. Verse 6 says, “…I desire mercy, not SACRIFICE; and the knowledge of God more than BURNT OFFERINGS.” Verse 6- “they transgressed the covenant. Who transgressed the covenant? Ephraim and Judah in verse 4 is who he is addressing. Ephraim was a name often used for the northern tribes of Israel. Judah represented the southern kingdom of Israel’. They are the “house of Israel” stated in verse 10. This covenant was about burnt offerings and sacrifices that God gave to Moses and the Jews at Mt. Sinai. How and where do you see “ADAM” in these verses?? What translation are you reading?