Actually @Kroogz is right.
The verse DOES say NO ONE will be lost
It says NOTHING will be lost.
What does NOTHING refer to??
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.
The verse DOES say NO ONE will be lost
It says NOTHING will be lost.
What does NOTHING refer to??
BTW,,,,
How far down do I have to scroll??
I hope you don't mean that you like number 3 !
The issue is not that it requires more studying. The issue is what we actually have available to study. We have the same scriptures that Christians had hundreds and even a thousand years ago. There is no new evidence that suddenly settles the question.
This debate has existed since the early centuries of the church. Throughout that time there have been many scholars and theologians who spent their entire lives studying the Bible and still came to different conclusions.
You say there is a definitive answer but those on the other side of the debate say the exact same thing. Both sides believe their interpretation is the definitive one. Since two opposing views cannot both be definitively correct, that is why the issue ultimately comes down to interpretation and personal theological conviction.
I believe you’re on the side of No 2. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The one I like isn’t discussed and really doesn’t matter.
You mention the early church.
The early church did NOT believe in OSAS.
It taught that persons could fall away by both apostacy and a sinful life.
Martin Luther did not believe in OSAS.
He believed that we are saved by grace alone and this is why he wanted to reform the CC.
He believed in repentence and a changed life.
It's easy to find this information on the net.
From Gemini:
No, Martin Luther did not believe in the modern doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS) or eternal security. While he emphasized salvation by grace through faith alone, Luther taught that a believer could fall from faith and lose their salvation.
The Puritan Board +2
- Possibility of Falling Away: Lutherans believe the Bible warns against falling from faith, meaning salvation is not guaranteed regardless of future actions or belief (1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 1:19).
- Repentance: Luther emphasized daily repentance rather than a one-time, irrevocable event.
- Assurance vs. Security: While rejecting OSAS, Luther and Lutheranism still teach that a believer can have full, confident assurance of their salvation in Christ at any given moment.
Reddit +4
OSAS was never taught in the church until Calvinism.
Calvinism teaches the perseverance of the saints.
About 200 years ago some theologians began to teach the idea of OSAS to mainline churches and this idea did catch on although most denominations do not adhere to this teaching to this day.
OSAS is a heretical (meaning non-orthodox) idea which is very recent.
Recent ideas are never in line with orthodox christianity.
This is also from Gemini....
- John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren (19th Century): Darby (1800–1882) played a crucial role in developing dispensationalism, which popularized a form of eternal security that became widespread in American evangelicalism and, later, Baptist theology.
- James Robinson Graves (19th Century): An influential figure in Southern Baptist history, Graves helped move this branch of Christianity toward a strong belief in the "security of the believer".
It is important to note that what Calvin taught was "Perseverance of the Saints"—the idea that God causes the true believer to endure to the end. The modern, popular form of "Once Saved, Always Saved" (sometimes called "Free Grace" theology) often diverges from Calvin by asserting that a person can have assurance of salvation even if they totally fall away from the faith, which differs from Calvin’s original emphasis on a persevering life.
Oh.
But you did say THE ONE I LIKED,,,,,,meaning YOU. (maybe I misunderstood).
You're right.
I have come to believe in no. 2 for many, many years now.
It was cemented when I did some study on the early church quite some years ago.
I like to know what the Apostles taught others before they died.
I tend to trust the Apostles and those they taught.
This time restriction may be a little too short, although I do understand why it's necessary.
I quote the passage, knowing that if you hover your cursor over it, it will appear on your screen. It looks like you want to discuss the opening of Romans 9, which I am happy to do.
I would agree, Paul loves his people. Nonetheless, his words should be interpreted from within the larger context. In chapters six, seven and eight, he defends his gospel against his Jewish opponents who have legitimate concerns about the veracity of his claims. He voices their concerns through a series of rhetorical questions, such as "shall we continue in sin that grace might increase?"
Here, in chapter nine, Paul is answering another objection to his gospel. But instead of asking a rhetorical question, he spends an entire paragraph setting up his argument, describing for his readers what is at stake.
Let me focus on a statement that will become crucial in his presentation. He says that "the adoption as sons" belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. From his letter to the Galatians, we understand Paul's usage of that term. In Paul's thinking, "the adoption as sons" refers to the moment when God decides to save a person. In a sense, God adopts someone into his household and thereafter treats them as a son.
In Galatians 4:4-5, Paul argues that God sent forth a son, Jesus Christ, to his people under the law so that he and his kinsmen might receive the "adoption as sons" which refers to a person's inheritance. If a man has been adopted as a "son," he will have all the rights and privileges associated with that status.
For this reason, I believe the topic of Romans 9 is individual salvation, with a focus on inheritance.
In a sense, I agree. We might disagree on Baptism, but we agree in general.
What you say is true, but Paul doesn't make that point in Romans 9. Here, Paul is focused on God's word about "the adoption as sons" and who will stand to inherit eternal life.
I can see why you might think this since, for the first part of the chapter, Paul is focused on the land promise. Abram asks God for a son, so that his son might inherit Abram's legacy. Here, Paul argues that with regard to Abraham's offspring, only Isaac is to inherit what Abram leaves behind. The point is, God chose Isaac, and he ratified his choice through a miraculous birth.
Both Jacob and Esau were offspring of Abraham and both should have inherited Abraham's legacy, but the land inheritance went to Jacob and not to Esau.
So far, as you would agree, Paul is not talking about salvation at all. He is talking about the land promise God made to Abraham. The land promise fell to Isaac, then to Jacob and then to Jacob's people.
So what has this got to do with "the adoption as sons", which is salvation? His point is simple. Although the adoption of sons belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh according to a promise, it is not granted to every son and daughter of Jacob because although God intends to keep his promises to Israel, as a whole, he reserves to have mercy on whom he will have mercy.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. That was not my intent. However, when you say God knew what Freewill choices Jacob and Esau would make before he decided which of the boys he would bless, this sounds like Middle knowledge to me. If that is not what you meant, then please forgive my mistake.
Agreed, however, in the book of Isaiah, God tells Israel that he tells them what will happen in advance so that they will know that it was HE, not their idols, who made it happen. In other words, God knows the future because he knows what he intends to do and to bring about.
Some people imagine that God knows the future because he can look down through the timeline and see what will happen. But although this line of thinking is attempting to preserve Man's freedom, it actually results in a form of determinism, which is contrary to man's freedom.
I can explain if you like.
On the one hand I understand you - on the other hand a little challenge to what you say:
- Some more study with an open mind unclouded by previous conclusions may indeed provide resolution.
Some of us don't believe differing personal theological convictions is the end-game (Eph4:13-16). Maybe it will remain so in our lifetime, but it's not the teleios man in Eph4:13, nor is it the mind of Christ's Apostle (Rom12:16; 1Cor1:10; Phil2:2; Phil3:16; Phil4:2).
One of the things these forums have shown me is how our reasoning abilities are not well-developed. There is a fairly extensive use of fallacious argumentation. One repetitive fallacy is False Dichotomy - it's either either/or but not both, or even another.
To apply this to the topic at hand:
- It's either OSAS or Loss or Never Saved
- Maybe it's OSAS and Loss and Never Saved
- Maybe it's...
In the case of Satan's employment of the if clause, seeing that he offered it in challenge to Jesus' reality as Son of God was contingent on the honor of God to keep His promise of angels lifting Jesus up so that He would not strike His foot upon a stone. Jesus' answer referred Satan to God's commandment at Deuteronomy 6:16 with reference to the Israelites' transgression at Exodus 17:7 which defines the testing as saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?" which is the summary example of their denial of entering into His rest, for unbelief. The synopsis of that passage is that Satan challenged Jesus' faith in asserting that, if He had faith, then He'd show it, and Jesus' successful opposition to him in maintaining the law of faith, that it is believing that God IS, ever-present, in any circumstance, always with us.
Teaching? Me? I clearly told you way back that you're free to believe whatever you want. I simply highlight and bolden biblical texts that show the errors in your claims. I have told you that I don't give a rat's petoot what you believe because you're a free moral agent like all the rest here. Please don't play the victim card here. It's pathetic. The heat in this kitchen is high, and if you can't take it, then leave.
You're failure to deal honestly with the statements made by others is well documented here and elsewhere. Identifying that you're a sectarian of some sort is not an insult. I didn't paint you with any label other than generally. Sectarian groupings are all across this world with everyone here being a part of one of more of them. There's no insult in recognizing the reality.
So, you can divert onto the path of feigned insult to keep from having to answer the tough questions posed to you. That's a historic, tactical ploy many have and still use throughout these forums and the world over in conversations. The only reason I take the time to write is because I care about people and the scriptures. There are those here who read quietly, go to the scriptures and learn on their own from what's written and what is given them by indwelling Holy Spirit.
An earlier post shows various verses that seem to support each viewpoint about salvation. That's great. We need more of that because people can THEN see the basis of some defenses, read the critical counter to the interpretations and uses of those verses, hear from educated members the ancient understanding of those phrases and words to then be able to see why it's so easy to find in English translations what seems to support the views and beliefs that are in error.
I'm here to serve, not teach. If what I state is in error and another thinks they have rational reason and backing for the assumed error on my part, then they are free to post it and change my mind if, and only if, there is credible substance behind their post.
So, do as you wish. I don't care one way or the other. Your snideness drips from your words like venom in things you say. The victim card play is old and worn out, so do as you will...for I know you'll do that no matter what anyone else says. You have no interest in discussion. I've had my mind changed and/or clarified on a number of topics shared by others here. I'm not ashamed to admit that.
So, do indeed pretend as if you're right on everything. Those willing to engage that level of hubris on your part are showing an amazing level of patience with your nonsense, and that's admirable, although not well advised. Many of my scriptural quotes have gone unchallenged many times...not because I'm right, but because the scriptures are right in the light of their ancient language, meaning, gender, tone and contextual constraints, if any.
So, thank you for not wanting to engage me. Your petulance precedes you most of the time throughout your posts, and there are far better conversations to be had with others of far greater caliber (not stated with anger but with plain indifference).
MM
I recently heard a pastor recently make the interesting observation of Jesus saying this to Peter shortly after having commended Peter at Matthew 16:17.
Didn't read every single word,
but:
1. I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE.
WILL BE HERE FOR QUITE A WHILE....
2. YOU'RE QUESTIONS ARE JUST TOO TOUGHT.
IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER SUCH TOUGH QUESTIONS.
YEAH.
Just caught the last sentence when clicking on REPLY.
Wow. MM....
you don't even know what you do !
you're not even aware of it !
Do you have a girlfriend?
She must be pretty darn tough-skinned if she can stay with you !
No.
That wasn't an insult.
You just think it is.
Generally speaking, some may have noticed that I don't appeal to the inferiorities of Commentaries. They were all written to express the views of the writers, some with far more university training than mine and with more letters attached to their names than mine, which is all fine.
However, the vast departures they ALL have from the arena of harmonious agreement, comparatively speaking, clearly shows to us all the need for critical thinking when appealing to any one of them and the opinions they express throughout.
So, quoting some Commentary, no matter how credible the name in the minds of the general populace, it's unimpressive and quite meaningless given that the poster simply found a commentator who happens to agree with them on that topical point. Appeals to popularity, like many other fallacies, is still a fallacy, even when it comes to names of writers who have wide, general acceptance within the larger groupings.
All groupings harbor members, the majority of which remain ignorant on many fronts because of laziness and/or lack of a drive to seek after Truth in everything. Most just settle with what they feel comfortable, remain in that rut for as long as it's comfortable, and die in that rut. Far too few ever venture out into that vast and exciting journey of discovery.
MM
However, the vast departures they ALL have from the arena of harmonious agreement, comparatively speaking, clearly shows to us all the need for critical thinking when appealing to any one of them and the opinions they express throughout.
So, quoting some Commentary, no matter how credible the name in the minds of the general populace, it's unimpressive and quite meaningless given that the poster simply found a commentator who happens to agree with them on that topical point. Appeals to popularity, like many other fallacies, is still a fallacy, even when it comes to names of writers who have wide, general acceptance within the larger groupings.
All groupings harbor members, the majority of which remain ignorant on many fronts because of laziness and/or lack of a drive to seek after Truth in everything. Most just settle with what they feel comfortable, remain in that rut for as long as it's comfortable, and die in that rut. Far too few ever venture out into that vast and exciting journey of discovery.
MM