No Eternal Security = No Salvation?
- Thread starter PennEd
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
1. In vs 22 He tells them to hold fast to faith, Having full assurance. Not wavering. For God is faithfull
2. In vs 32, he says they were illuminated with the truth. (notice it NEVER said they came to faith in the truth, which is why he told them in the earlier verses to hold fast and not waver, to recieve it with full assurace (which s what faith is)
3. In the last verse, he said we are not of those who fall back to perdition. But those who believe to the saving of the soul (true faith, True faith does not waver, it is faith in a hope based on confidence and assurance that what God said is true he will accomplish and he will keep his promise)
4. In the first verses of this chapter he spoke of the law and how the sacrifices were insufficient, He then Quotes King Davids understanding that sacrifice and burnt offering was insufficient (sac and burnt offering you did not desire), and how Christ death was fully sufficient, and how it did what the animal sacrifices could not do. How God took away the law, so he could establish the second (faith in Christ) and by the second, how we have been SANCTIFIED COMPLETELY BY THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ONCE AND FOR ALL (if this is true, sanctification could never be lost, under any circumstance, The author is arguing that the law and its sacrifices are insuficient, But Christ death not only was sufficient, but it took the penalty once nd for all thus nullifying all animal sacrifices, making them
5. Then he tells how by one offering he has PERFECTED FOREVER, those who are being sanctified. By the one death of Christ. And explans how the priests who keep offeringn sacrifice which could never take away sin, keep doing it..
6. The just live by faith not law. According to the law. If we keep on sinning, we just sacrifice and it will be redeemed, yet those sacrifices could never take away sin, So going back to law (perdition) is fruitless. And is actually dangerous,, For in doing so you show you never had faith to begin with, And because of this, there is no more sacrifice. (You have placed yourself under law. And are thus bound by the law which can never save you.
If it is like you said, and he is talking about loss of salvation, He contradicted himself. Many times over.
2. In vs 32, he says they were illuminated with the truth. (notice it NEVER said they came to faith in the truth, which is why he told them in the earlier verses to hold fast and not waver, to recieve it with full assurace (which s what faith is)
3. In the last verse, he said we are not of those who fall back to perdition. But those who believe to the saving of the soul (true faith, True faith does not waver, it is faith in a hope based on confidence and assurance that what God said is true he will accomplish and he will keep his promise)
4. In the first verses of this chapter he spoke of the law and how the sacrifices were insufficient, He then Quotes King Davids understanding that sacrifice and burnt offering was insufficient (sac and burnt offering you did not desire), and how Christ death was fully sufficient, and how it did what the animal sacrifices could not do. How God took away the law, so he could establish the second (faith in Christ) and by the second, how we have been SANCTIFIED COMPLETELY BY THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ONCE AND FOR ALL (if this is true, sanctification could never be lost, under any circumstance, The author is arguing that the law and its sacrifices are insuficient, But Christ death not only was sufficient, but it took the penalty once nd for all thus nullifying all animal sacrifices, making them
5. Then he tells how by one offering he has PERFECTED FOREVER, those who are being sanctified. By the one death of Christ. And explans how the priests who keep offeringn sacrifice which could never take away sin, keep doing it..
6. The just live by faith not law. According to the law. If we keep on sinning, we just sacrifice and it will be redeemed, yet those sacrifices could never take away sin, So going back to law (perdition) is fruitless. And is actually dangerous,, For in doing so you show you never had faith to begin with, And because of this, there is no more sacrifice. (You have placed yourself under law. And are thus bound by the law which can never save you.
If it is like you said, and he is talking about loss of salvation, He contradicted himself. Many times over.
E
Roman Catholics will argue that the early Church practiced infant baptism; and no Christian objections to this practice were ever voiced until the Reformation." Do you believe that INFANT baptism is scriptural? The Roman Catholic church even quotes the church Fathers to back up their claim:
120-205 AD IRENAEUS "As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Irenaeus, "Fragments From Lost Writings", no. 34, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 574).
*Question: Do NEWBORN INFANTS repent and believe the gospel? Are they candidates for water baptism? Answer: NO and NO. Do you agree or disagree?
Origen - "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
*Do you agree with Origen about infant baptism?
John Chrysostom - "You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine - "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
*Does that sound apostolic to you or does that sound Roman Catholic?
"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412].
Council of Mileum II - "Whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
*Fresh infants from their mothers' wombs should be baptized? Yeah right! Do you believe this nonsense? *So much for these fallible writings of fallible men!
I was reading an article in "The Ex-Catholic Journal" that says some of the writings attributed to the church Fathers have been found to be forgeries, while others have been taken out of context. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the papacy, infant baptism, purgatory and transubstantiation are alleged to be supported in these early writings. I hear Roman Catholics quote the church Fathers a lot to support their doctrines. The article went on to say that most of the copies of copies of copies of the church Fathers that we possess today were copied during the time that the Roman Catholic church controlled the flow of literature in Europe. That would explain a lot! We do not have any original copies of their writings, only copies of copies of copies. God promised to preserve HIS WORD, the Bible, but not the fallible writings of these fallible men.
120-205 AD IRENAEUS "As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Irenaeus, "Fragments From Lost Writings", no. 34, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 574).
*Question: Do NEWBORN INFANTS repent and believe the gospel? Are they candidates for water baptism? Answer: NO and NO. Do you agree or disagree?
Origen - "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
*Do you agree with Origen about infant baptism?
John Chrysostom - "You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine - "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
*Does that sound apostolic to you or does that sound Roman Catholic?
"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412].
Council of Mileum II - "Whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
*Fresh infants from their mothers' wombs should be baptized? Yeah right! Do you believe this nonsense? *So much for these fallible writings of fallible men!
I was reading an article in "The Ex-Catholic Journal" that says some of the writings attributed to the church Fathers have been found to be forgeries, while others have been taken out of context. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the papacy, infant baptism, purgatory and transubstantiation are alleged to be supported in these early writings. I hear Roman Catholics quote the church Fathers a lot to support their doctrines. The article went on to say that most of the copies of copies of copies of the church Fathers that we possess today were copied during the time that the Roman Catholic church controlled the flow of literature in Europe. That would explain a lot! We do not have any original copies of their writings, only copies of copies of copies. God promised to preserve HIS WORD, the Bible, but not the fallible writings of these fallible men.
-
1
- Show all
Here is a statement below made by a SDA who I was previously in a discussion with on Christian Chat. It's obvious what he is trusting in for salvation and it's not Christ alone.
"There is another Gospel out there. What is the other Gospel? It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's Law (10 commandments) from the Cross. The counterfeit Gospel is out there. It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's 10 commandments from the plan of salvation. God’s Law has always been part of the true Gospel of Christ. The counterfeit Gospel does not have it. God's forever Law (the 10 commandments) is the foundation of both the Old and the New Covenant and the very foundation and basis of the true Gospel of Christ."
"There is another Gospel out there. What is the other Gospel? It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's Law (10 commandments) from the Cross. The counterfeit Gospel is out there. It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's 10 commandments from the plan of salvation. God’s Law has always been part of the true Gospel of Christ. The counterfeit Gospel does not have it. God's forever Law (the 10 commandments) is the foundation of both the Old and the New Covenant and the very foundation and basis of the true Gospel of Christ."
E
Fall back. When you get out of the water, and fall back in. Or as I believed as used in this case.
You get out of the fire which can kill you, only to fall back in.
The whole book of hebrews is a letter for Hebrew christians to encourage them to continue in the faith, and not fall back to the fire they were in before (law)
You get out of the fire which can kill you, only to fall back in.
The whole book of hebrews is a letter for Hebrew christians to encourage them to continue in the faith, and not fall back to the fire they were in before (law)
You wrong friend. To me Your definition of deliberate sin is out of context.
To me deliberate sin is
If a person job is murder, after accept Jesus, never think about change to better job, that is deliberate sin.
If a person job is murder, and after accept Jesus, he try to stop murder and Find a better job, he is repent and forgiven. 10 years Down the road, he lost his job, out of his frustation, he fall back to murde, but he regret and ask forgiveness, he is forgiven, to me, It is not consider deliberate sin
To me deliberate sin is
If a person job is murder, after accept Jesus, never think about change to better job, that is deliberate sin.
If a person job is murder, and after accept Jesus, he try to stop murder and Find a better job, he is repent and forgiven. 10 years Down the road, he lost his job, out of his frustation, he fall back to murde, but he regret and ask forgiveness, he is forgiven, to me, It is not consider deliberate sin
E
The passage does not say that, Your adding to the word. We do not get to interpret the wor any way we want. And sin is not even the context of the passge, I have established in one of my posts the context of the passage, and the context is the difference between law and anial sacrifice and the one sufficient sacrifice of christ.
The passage says deliberate sin Thats all it says, Interpret what it says, Not what you want or think it says, you will not be led astray.
The passage says deliberate sin Thats all it says, Interpret what it says, Not what you want or think it says, you will not be led astray.
E
No
Thats not the context.
The context is following law and animal sacrifice, vs folloiwng grace and christs one sacrifice.
Vs 14 it says by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
If one can fall out of salvation, Jesus did not perfect them forever. Thus the author contradicted himself.
Your not looking at context man. Why are you refusing to look at the passage and just focusing on one or two verses?
Thats not the context.
The context is following law and animal sacrifice, vs folloiwng grace and christs one sacrifice.
Vs 14 it says by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
If one can fall out of salvation, Jesus did not perfect them forever. Thus the author contradicted himself.
Your not looking at context man. Why are you refusing to look at the passage and just focusing on one or two verses?