Loss of salvation???

  • 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.
You said it means permanence. Can you show us why?
I think so. In our passage, john 5:24 Jesus says that "he who hears my message and believes in the one who sent me has ζωὴν αἰώνιον (life eternal),

The Greek word is an Adjective, Accusative, Female, singular, of αἰώνιος, which indicates something that lasts for an age, as distinguished from ἀίδιος (everlasting), Jude 1:6, which indicates something that never ends. While the term αἰώνιος doesn't necessarily indicate something that is everlasting, it speaks about something that is permanent. Outside of a religious context, it might be said that a "Supreme Court Justice holds his office perpetually and permanently for the rest of his life." God tells Israel that an adopted son remains a son in the household, perpetually, for his entire life.

In our text, Jesus combines both ideas, speaking of life that lasts for an age, while at the same time, speaking of the resurrection of the dead. From his examples, we know which age Jesus has in view. In this instance, the age in view is the coming age. He who hears his message and believes in the one who sent him, has life in the coming age. He has the eternal age permanently,

Your instincts here are good IMO. Scripture would be helpful, so I offer you this:

NKJ 1John2:3-6 Now by this we know that we know Him, if (3rd-class) we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought (obligation) himself also to walk just as He walked.​

In one respect John is qualifying the depth of meaning of what Jesus proclaimed per GJohn.

Yes, he's explaining what true association with Christ who is eternal life looks like and how to self-assess and also to assess as necessary when others who may be false (false teachers/ones who departed) or be in trouble (those who need prayer and assistance) should be recognized. The shift from we to a singular he seems pretty simple in that he's isolating the ones who don't get it.

He's providing a lot of qualifying language for who and what a Christian is and he's not pulling a lot of punches calling the disobedient 'liars'.

Again, so not to lose sight of what we're doing here, the verb tenses back in John5:24 and in 1John3:14 fit with all of this and the commonality in all of these verses and topics seems very clear to me.

What I'm fascinated by is how difficult it is for some to see the thread that ties it all together.
Early in my Bible study I tended to see and evaluate the conditional statements in isolation, but now I try to see how Jesus and the apostles use conditional statements in a larger context to support a larger issue.

Regarding 1 John 2:3-4, I should expect this statement to be part of a larger argument and evaluate it accordingly.

Perhaps you might have noticed that the apostle narrows his focus down to "my little children." After a closer examination of his letter and his use of that phrase, it seems that John has addressed his letter to a second generation of believers, who might be the kids of the early believers and as such, were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' original teaching. They are getting it secondhand from others, perhaps their parents. John is writing to them in particular to clear things up.
He sets out to contrast himself, an eyewitness to what Jesus actually taught, 1 John 1:1-2, with those who claim to have "known" him. 1 John 2:3-6 To that end, John's statements are not necessarily about believers who have fallen away; some of them might be, but John's statements are about interlopers who claim to have known Jesus, but speak falsely about what Jesus taught.

John's conditional statements act as "givens," establishing certain ideas as facts. Paraphrasing 1 John 2:3-6, John seems to be saying something like this: Given that those who know Him keep His commandments, what can we conclude? "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." New believers should not trust those who claim to have known Jesus but do not teach what Jesus taught. Trust John, who was an eyewitness to Jesus' teachings and speaks truthfully about them.

The same can be said to new believers today, don't listen to voices claiming to know what Jesus taught, who don't live or believe what Jesus taught.
 
I think he was being facetious.

Some here are implying that they are sheep and they can prove it by injecting themselves into the pronouns of the passages. No evidence of being a sheep, just because.

And because they claim to be sheep they now know their fate before the Book of Life is even opened.

I think you are one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roger316
believed or are believing or both? I recall some posts ago dealing with choosing to believe and choosing to continue to believe.
I once had a discussion with my Bible study group about this subject. At the time I was reading Thomas Reid and he argued that belief is not something we infer, construct, or choose. It is something the mind does automatically.

Reid’s view of testimony is one of his most original contributions.

He argued:
  • Humans are constituted to speak truthfully.
  • Humans are constituted to trust what others say.
  • This trust is innate, not learned.
  • Distrust is what must be learned through experience.
I think Thomas Reid is right. We don't choose to believe. If he is right, then how do we evaluate the many statements in the New Testament about faith? I observed that Jesus was the most critical of those who "disbelieved." Jesus was most critical of disbelief, not ignorance. When Jesus rebukes people in the Gospels, it is almost never because they lack information. It is because they refuse what is plainly before them.

Think of His sharpest words:

  • “You refuse to come to me that you may have life.”
  • “You have seen and yet do not believe.”
  • “Why do you not understand my speech? Because you cannot bear to hear my word.”
  • “If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin.”
In every case, the issue is not intellectual deficiency but willful resistance.

Jesus treats unbelief as a moral posture, not a cognitive accident.
 
I think he was being facetious.

Some here are implying that they are sheep and they can prove it by injecting themselves into the pronouns of the passages. No evidence of being a sheep, just because.

And because they claim to be sheep they now know their fate before the Book of Life is even opened.

I think you are one of them.
I maintain that we can know our fate before the Book of Life is opened. But I reject the notion that someone is a "Sheep" simply because they claim to be a sheep.

The argument “we must wait until the Book of Life is opened to know if we’re saved, because we might fall away” rests on a philosophical premise, not a biblical one. The premise is false.

Everything in that argument depends on this assumption:

Even if you presently believe, obey, love Christ, and walk in the Spirit, none of that tells you anything about your actual standing with God.
This is the hidden engine driving the whole view.

But biblically, that premise is flatly contradicted.
 
In every case, the issue is not intellectual deficiency but willful resistance.
(Matt. 11:14 NKJ) "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.

(Matt. 22:3 NKJ) "and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.

(Jn. 5:40 NKJ) "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Some of us think this is the dividing line.

For example, in taking what you're saying, in John6:44-47 Jesus says the Father must draw men to come to Jesus. He draws on Isaiah that speaks of God's learned men - He uses that to say those who hear & learn from the Father come to Him - He reiterates that He is the only one who has seen the Father and is from Him - He assures that men who are believing into Him are having eternal life (I'm using continuous present tenses for a purpose - which purpose you responded to hopefully knowingly).

Point being - God draws by teaching - and Jesus was on earth doing His teaching.

Jesus later says He will draw all men to Himself. He also says He would send the Holy Spirit to convict/convince and He commissioned men to take His message to the nations and assured them He was right there with them.

Point being - God is still drawing by teaching and His men and He and His Spirit is making the issue clear to people.

The dividing line is mainly still in men in your bold words above for whatever their reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roger316
(Matt. 11:14 NKJ) "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.

(Matt. 22:3 NKJ) "and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.

(Jn. 5:40 NKJ) "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Some of us think this is the dividing line.

For example, in taking what you're saying, in John6:44-47 Jesus says the Father must draw men to come to Jesus. He draws on Isaiah that speaks of God's learned men - He uses that to say those who hear & learn from the Father come to Him - He reiterates that He is the only one who has seen the Father and is from Him - He assures that men who are believing into Him are having eternal life (I'm using continuous present tenses for a purpose - which purpose you responded to hopefully knowingly).

Point being - God draws by teaching - and Jesus was on earth doing His teaching.

Jesus later says He will draw all men to Himself. He also says He would send the Holy Spirit to convict/convince and He commissioned men to take His message to the nations and assured them He was right there with them.

Point being - God is still drawing by teaching and His men and He and His Spirit is making the issue clear to people.

The dividing line is mainly still in men in your bold words above for whatever their reasons.
I like it, you have given me something to think about.

(just wondering aloud)
In the context of his statement about all men being drawn to him, he seems focused on the cross. He likens it to the time when Moses raised the fiery serpent on a pole. Any thoughts on a possible correlation?
 
I like it, you have given me something to think about.

(just wondering aloud)
In the context of his statement about all men being drawn to him, he seems focused on the cross. He likens it to the time when Moses raised the fiery serpent on a pole. Any thoughts on a possible correlation?
NKJ John3:14 "And as Moses lifted up (hupsoō) the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up (hupsoō).

NKJ John8:28 Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up (hupsoō) the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.

NKJ John12:32-33 "And I, if I am lifted up (hupsoō) from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

Note His language - If I'm put to death (interesting 'if"), then I will draw (future)...

It seems His focus is the cross, but the cross apart from the resurrection and ascension and session was never the full picture (nor do I think it was in His mind).

NKJ Acts 2:33 "Therefore being exalted (hupsoō) to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.​
NKJ Acts 5:31 "Him God has exalted (hupsoō) to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.​
 
NKJ John3:14 "And as Moses lifted up (hupsoō) the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up (hupsoō).

NKJ John8:28 Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up (hupsoō) the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.

NKJ John12:32-33 "And I, if I am lifted up (hupsoō) from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

Note His language - If I'm put to death (interesting 'if"), then I will draw (future)...

It seems His focus is the cross, but the cross apart from the resurrection and ascension and session was never the full picture (nor do I think it was in His mind).

NKJ Acts 2:33 "Therefore being exalted (hupsoō) to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.​
NKJ Acts 5:31 "Him God has exalted (hupsoō) to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.​
Is all peoples every person or people out of every nation, kindred, tribe, and tongue?
 
I'm asking for the definition of a word. Is it a biblical limitation or not?
You tell me and I'll agree or disagree.

If it'll help, the parsing of the word "all" is masculine plural = "all men" and the discussion for many years is whether or not to include the feminine, so some do and it becomes "all people".
 
You tell me and I'll agree or disagree.

If it'll help, the parsing of the word "all" is masculine plural = "all men" and the discussion for many years is whether or not to include the feminine, so some do and it becomes "all people".
The authors of the NKJ thought it was all peoples; not all people. I agree.

BTW...I'm not a Calvinist. Your presumption that Calvinists are trying to restrict other than according to what the Bible actually means is incorrect. Not that it doesn't happen sometimes, but it is not the norm. Most Calvinists are seeking truth just as you are. That's why it's often very unconducive to an honest discussion to label.
 
The authors of the NKJ thought it was all peoples; not all people. I agree.

BTW...I'm not a Calvinist. Your presumption that Calvinists are trying to restrict other than according to what the Bible actually means is incorrect. Not that it doesn't happen sometimes, but it is not the norm. Most Calvinists are seeking truth just as you are. That's why it's often very unconducive to an honest discussion to label.
And 'all men' or 'all people' - the actual wording - turned into 'all peoples' is just another way to sneak in 'all kinds'. The grammatical problem is that a neuter gender would be suitable for groups.

Some of the less sensitive to gender issues just let the Text speak for itself and inform us that the masculine gender quite often does include the feminine of the race of man and thus would translate it "all mankind" and not "all mankinds" which would be neuter if re: groups.

No matter your custom interpretations - they often align with Reformed Theology - which pushes this kinds and peoples concept, which is not in the grammar.
 
And 'all men' or 'all people' - the actual wording - turned into 'all peoples' is just another way to sneak in 'all kinds'. The grammatical problem is that a neuter gender would be suitable for groups.

Some of the less sensitive to gender issues just let the Text speak for itself and inform us that the masculine gender quite often does include the feminine of the race of man and thus would translate it "all mankind" and not "all mankinds" which would be neuter if re: groups.

No matter your custom interpretations - they often align with Reformed Theology - which pushes this kinds and peoples concept, which is not in the grammar.
I am reformed theologically. I've never denied this. But Calvinism is hardly the scope of reformed theology.

And you were the one who chose to employ that particular translation; not me. Why choose a translation you find to be in error?
 
You must have missed the warnings the Lord gives in the New Testament about those that lose their salvation.

Are you one of those that believes Christians can live in sin and still be saved?

Those who keep on desiring to live in their old ways of sin will lose the grace giving process
of being sanctified in the day-to-day experience = being transformed more and more into the image of Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:18

Are you able to read and comprehend what this tells us?

And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory,
are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory,
which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

This grace benefit, offered by God in our salvation, will be lost if someone keeps trying to save their old way of life.

Matthew 16:25

Here is how it will be lost.
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me
will find it.


Your problem?

You keep trying to save your old life of not having to think correctly with God's Word when it is presented as not to insult people around you that you grew up with.


A wise son heeds his father’s instruction,
but a mocker does not respond to rebukes.

Proverbs 13:1
 
And 'all men' or 'all people' - the actual wording - turned into 'all peoples' is just another way to sneak in 'all kinds'. The grammatical problem is that a neuter gender would be suitable for groups.

Some of the less sensitive to gender issues just let the Text speak for itself and inform us that the masculine gender quite often does include the feminine of the race of man and thus would translate it "all mankind" and not "all mankinds" which would be neuter if re: groups.

No matter your custom interpretations - they often align with Reformed Theology - which pushes this kinds and peoples concept, which is not in the grammar.


Studier... we already know that.


In the meanwhile.
You have somewhat correct rhetoric.
But the fruit does not match your concept.
Nothing you contributed edifies -builds up.

God's Word is alive and powerful.
 
I am reformed theologically. I've never denied this. But Calvinism is hardly the scope of reformed theology.

And you were the one who chose to employ that particular translation; not me. Why choose a translation you find to be in error?
I know you're reformed - as is the "all kinds" view shared by Calvinism advocates.

Nice try on twisting what I said. Poor try on twisting what the Word says. And "Nice" was rhetorical.
 
You assume I've placed myself and when I say I've been placed we both know where the next immature counter will go.

Not immature, sir.
I already know who my spiritual father is.
And, you keep trying to take over that household.

Go start your own church with young believers where they lack the knowledge you offer.
 
Studier... we already know that.


In the meanwhile.
You have somewhat correct rhetoric.
But the fruit does not match your concept.
Nothing you contributed edifies -builds up.

God's Word is alive and powerful.
Who's we? Are you speaking for the one I'm speaking to? Do you think they agree that Jesus draws all men as He said?

As I alluded to before, your structure needs to come down to the point where you replace some error-straw, so you cease carrying that weakness in your structure.

Some of us have had to do exactly that.

Until if and when you choose to do this, you're simply not a good judge of what is edifying in this topic.