I will make this short and to the point. No you can't lose your Salvation once you are truly saved. Because if you could then Christ died in vain. We can't retain our Salvation by being good. We retain our Salvation because Jesus shed His blood to save us from our sins. It has nothing to do with what we can or can't do, It has everything to do with what Jesus did for us.
Loss of salvation???
- Thread starter gratefuloneson
- 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.
If you save yourself?
You can lose your salvation.
If omniscient God saves you, dealing with all things that was required for salvation?
You can not undo it.
Can you lose it because God did not foresee something you will do when He purchased you?
You can lose your salvation.
If omniscient God saves you, dealing with all things that was required for salvation?
You can not undo it.
Can you lose it because God did not foresee something you will do when He purchased you?
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you,
whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price.
Therefore honor God with your bodies.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
What's that exactly - ask that believers explain how and why each word and verse of Scripture means what they think it means - or to prove their 'doctrines' with Scripture?
Be honest, when you asked me the verb tense in Eph2:8, what did you think it proved - eternal security?
Do you truly think that anyone who thinks choosing to believe and continuing to choose to believe, and who sees conditional clauses and warnings in Scripture have certain meanings, thinks they save themselves? Do you truly think that's even a logical argument? If you do, then you should be able to work through it, explain it, and prove it FROM Scripture using proper reasoning.
I apologize for being a bit brash.(it's my sin unto death.) I am one of those that like "in your face" teachings. Firm and no holds barred.
@studier you are correct that the perfect tense CAN mean just to the present point. But it also can mean "with forever results." And context clues us in.
"Christ has been raised." It is forever. It is true at this present time and it will remain true. No Christian will argue this.
We have been raised with Christ. It is forever. It is true At this present time and it will remain true..........Why do Christians argue this?
Rom 6:5~~For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
Sin does not change our relationship with God. Believers are not born again one minute and unsaved the next. However, sin does break fellowship with God. Restoration is simple. The believer needs to confess their sin.
People who love sin and are not interested in changing are not born again. Sadly, a whole lot of people who attend church are Christian in name only. Anyone can say that they are Christian. God knows the truth.
This is a straw man argument. The argument against OSAS is not that we save ourselves, but that a gift freely given by God can be forfeited - walked away from.
Assuming God’s omniscience, does His foresight of a future choice logically equate to Him preventing that choice, or does human volition still allow a person to walk away from a gift that God knew they would eventually reject?
Are there only two options - OSAS or God is surprised?
In the context of the discussion we've been having, does the aorist verb tense tell us the purchase must last forever? Does being 'bought at a price' logically guarantee an outcome, or does it simply establish God's ownership and the believer's obligation to obey Him? Is the believer obligated to continue to choose to believe in and obey God as his master?
In the context of the temple analogy - where the original readers knew God occupied and then departed from a defiled temple - is Paul saying God is trapped in His temple no matter what? Or is the condition of the temple the reason for the command to honor God? Does being 'bought' guarantee an outcome, or does it establish a binding obligation to continue to choose to believe and obey the Master and not defile the temple?
It guarantees ownership unless you want to admit that God sells you off if you don't obey. We are bought and sealed for the day of redemption.
It's an odd day of redemption if one is not actually redeemed.
You reiterated my post. But your additions exposed your " personal curve" salvation.
Someone who uses a "personal curve" and says someone is not born again is in a tighter spot than the one they are judging.
Thanks. We share the appreciation for firm teachings. The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit.
You're correct that context can tell us more. This is why I'm pushing first the meaning of the verb itself - which does not tell is more - and then the contents of the verse - and then close context. It's very easy to start horizontal proof-texting but that's not the first-steps in dealing with the actual verse and it's words in context.
It would be helpful if you would post verses. I can typically follow you, but certainty is better.
NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised (perfect passive indicative) from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
Since we've been also discussing conditional clauses - Paul is putting forth a simple logical argument - if A then B:
- "IF - and let's assume for sake of argument that this is true - Christ is [being] proclaimed that He has been raised from dead [men]
- Paul has already established in this letter that Christ was resurrected and was seen by many and that this is part of the Gospel that was believed.
- His simple point is that Christ was and is resurrected (both senses of the perfect tense) and was witnessed by many - so you shouldn't be saying there is no resurrection - to do so just fails simple logic. He'll continue to build his logical case. And it should be noted that translating 'IF' as 'since' could be done according to all the surrounding facts Paul has stated, IMO it's not necessary and not a good practice because many first-class conditions cannot be translated as 'since' and it's not really necessary.
- So, the conditional clause here does not establish Christ's resurrection - surrounding context does.
Perfect tense:
- Of course, knowing what we know, we can make this perfect tense mean more than the perfect tense states, but we should realize we're doing just that, because in itself it does not tell us that. Paul will go on to explain more about the meaning of resurrection and from that someone who may not understand Christ's resurrection, that it's eternal, will begin to understand this.
- Paul clarifies elsewhere that resurrection is final: NKJ Rom6:9 knowing that Christ, having been raised (aorist passive participle) from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.
- This aorist participle in itself does not provide the eternality, so Paul clarifies that the resurrection of Christ is forever - Christ no longer dies.
Here's the point: There is at times substantial instruction involved in making sure we know the full teaching on the matter. Resurrection is vital to our Faith (1Cor15), so it is explained extensively.
A lot of the proof-texting that takes place just does not provide the proof and explanation many think it does. I agree that the we can get more instruction from Scripture, but even then, it's that instruction that explains everything - but it doesn't change the verb - and that additional instruction needs to be just as clear in itself as the clarity we get from the original verse.
They argue it because you're inserting assumptions here that you're not proving.
Romans has plenty to say in commanding us to do our part. The verse that you're asserting proves your case is once again a conditional statement putting forth a logical argument. It begins with 'gar' (for) and is explaining the previous statement about the need for us to walk in newness of life.
As Paul proceeds to and past Rom6:9 which I used above re: resurrection, he issues commands re: not sinning, which thus gets us back to my earlier questions about continuing to choose to believe-obey. In fact, Paul begins the so-called chapter dealing with how absurd it is for a believer to live in sin. And realize he has to explain this because it was an issue (and still is).
NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised (perfect passive indicative) from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
Why would I be inserting assumptions in this verse? Is not Christ raised from the dead? Is the completed action true today and forever?
Why do some say there is no resurrection of the dead? Christ being raised is just as true as the dead being raised.........True as we speak, and will be true tomorrow.
This is a false dichotomy that tries to reduce the argument to an absurdity - either God guarantees a good outcome for a disobedient slave, or He 'sells them off.'It guarantees ownership unless you want to admit that God sells you off if you don't obey. We are bought and sealed for the day of redemption.
It's an odd day of redemption if one is not actually redeemed.
What about a scriptural third option: that a slave is obligated to remain faithfully obedient until the day of redemption, and retains the volition to walk away - a choice the Master allows at some point?
Didn't you earlier agree that continuing to choose to believe was necessary?
I covered the day of redemption in part earlier.
Your statement was about the new birth. Thus my response.
I agree in the sequence irrespective of some of the translations of "born" in John1:13.
The verse says our birth is God's will. Prior to that John says our receiving Jesus / believing in His name precedes the birth. Our choosing to receive and believe precedes God's will to birth us again.
Simply stated: God wills to save > we will to believe > God will's to birth us.
It's a combination of wills that leads to our rebirth or we have to go back and revisit your agreement that we chose to believe and we choose to continue to believe.
Depends what you mean by perfected. Though I know what you mean by the rest of what you say, for one thing we're commanded to be perfect as our Father is, so we either need to change English translations, or we need to change our discussions about being perfect.
We may well see faith differently, but I don't think it's in the way you're suggesting.
As you said in the first of these 2 quotes, we all believe, which is part of our functional design.
I think this get's into semantics and rightly dividing; we don't produce faith, but we do believe - in fact we choose to believe.
The gift is not believing - the gift is the content we believe and Him as the content.
This content is called 'the faith' - in the end of analysis 'the faith' is the Gospel - the faith is what we believe - apart from choosing to believe it, we do not have 'the faith' - so we do not have faith.
So, we have the capacity to believe and the choice to believe - God gives the faith to men to choose to believe or to choose to reject.
In this sense faith is a gift.
I'm aware of verses that speak of faith and gift(s) in the same context and as usual we need to look at them closely. But in general He and only He gives the Truth He requires men to believe. This is grace and is without doubt a gift. He also makes this content clear to men so they can understand it and believe it, which is more grace.
Which is what I pointed out above re: the new birth.As far as interaction between our will and God's will? I would say we receive God's will as we align our will with His. Some might call it obedience, others submission, I like to call it my joy and my delight.
I'd use those 2 words and couple them with faith and with love as our Text does, probably add faithfulness and maybe a few others, and then agree with your last clause and smiley face, which is part of why I enjoy much of our discussions - I know in the end we have that smiley face in common about our relationship with Him.
Brashness is not a good way to witness.
Your verse....
Romans 6.5
5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
I'd like to bring up verses 8, 10 and 12, but we'll stay with verse 5.
Notice the wording:
IF we have become unified in Him
in the likeness of His death
certainly
we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection.
Some questions:
1. Are we unified IN HIM?
Do we reflect love as Jesus taught?
Are we abiding, living in Jesus?
Where is the evidence?
2. Are we united in His death?
Have we died to sin?
Are we now living for God?
Do we understand that sin is not compatible with God's nature?
IF the above is true in our life....
then we will be like Him at resurrection.
(verses 8, 10 and 12 will confirm the above)
As usual.
No fruit to offer.
Your inability to respond to any post should be a warning for those reading along
that might be enticed by your easy believism.
God's initial judgement is this: are you alive or are you dead? If God has made you alive, He gives eternal life. This is the new life, resurrection life that we gain by included in the resurrection of Christ. In order to take my eternal life from me, someone would have to go back in time and stop Jesus rising from the dead. Of course, that is impossible.
People are not made alive spiritually one moment and dead spiritually the next if they sin. Sin breaks fellowship, not relationship.
Those who are born again have a new nature that is inclined towards God. They may struggle with sin, fail to overcome and even backslide. But the new life within them will be unchanged. Some will miss out on God's rewards and placement in God's kingdom because they were unwilling to let go of their own self will. But they will not be found in hell.