Loss of salvation???

[mailmandan]

Where is these verses does it provide personal knowledge of our individual fate?

IOW, how do you know the "spirit" in Romans 8:16 is your "spirit"?

You are either saved or not. Proclaiming one or the other without some kind of empirical evidence is rather bias.

Romans 8:16 provides individual assurance regarding a believers status. It affirms that the Holy Spirit testifies to an individual's spirit that they are a child of God, creating internal conviction.

Do you lack this assurance and conviction?

 

[rogerg]

IOW, how do you know the "spirit" in Romans 8:16 is your "spirit"?

[1Co 12:3 KJV] 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Lamar]

[1Co 12:3 KJV] 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Luke 4:41

And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

You are taking a generality and attempting to make it all-inclusive.

 

[studier]

It is not a presupposition.
Where does the grammar affirm that justification is revocable?

Aren't you just asking where does the Text teach loss?

 

[rogerg]

Luke 4:41

And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

You are taking a generality and attempting to make it all-inclusive.

No, salvation was never offered to nor a possibility for demons. They have no Savior and no possibility of being saved, so it doesn't apply to them only to man

 

[TruthDefender]

Titus 2:11-12
Paul's call to action is based on what God had previously done. He argues that in light of the grace that God has granted to all men, we ought to respect that grace and act accordingly. In other words, we have an opportunity to treat others with grace, as God has treated us. Paul isn't talking about salvation here.

Actually, the word salvation is in the verse so yes, he is talking about it.

 

[studier]

I noticed your reference to the BDAG. Perhaps you didn't realize that the process is at least two steps removed from "what is explicitly stated in the text." Before we can determine what John "explicitly" said, we first need to consult a Greek lexicon and choose the meaning that best matches the context. Second, the lexicon itself is an interpretation—a collection of hundreds of judgments made when gathering the information.

I don't disagree with your approach. I do it all the time. But I am also aware of confirmation bias. Those who use Lexical tools should avoid the occupational hazard of searching for a definition that confirms our bias.

Apart from lexical tools we don't have much definition to go by, correct?

I'm aware of theological bias in lexicons. I have 10 different lexicons on my system, TDNT on another, a version of Strong's that a guy put together that shows the dictionary, the root words, how words are combined to form new words. Then we have the Text to do word studies to see if it all makes sense. I also link to Perseus at times and I read various journal articles when I can find good ones to see what else writers are coming up with.

As best I know, I'm up to date with the process. Since you know BDAG, I assume you know it's the favored lexical tool of many.

The question is whether this is the best interpretation of the text. To start, we want to understand why John mentions birth at this point in his presentation. John contrasts those who were Jesus' relatives who did not receive him with those who did. The key difference between those who accepted him and those who didn't is their previous status: born of God's will.

I don't see relatives. I see his own 'things' and then his own 'men' and some/as many 'men' did receive him.

Aorist verbs are timeless and pick up time mainly from other verbs and/or context - 'were born' past tense here is translation which some including myself disagree with and see the aorist getting it's sense from the just mentioned exousia to become - IOW looking forward to the becoming:

NET John 1:13 – children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God.

Given that John brings up a comparison between natural birth and supernatural birth, we expect that his comparison bears weight on our understanding of "ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι". Although "freedom to choose to become children of God" is a plausible interpretation, it isn't likely, since the statement resides in a contrast between two groups: those who receive him and those who don't. This interpretation has John saying that the freedom to choose is granted only to those who receive him, which is unlikely. All men have the freedom to choose Jesus Christ.

I'm fine with other definitions of exousia - the point is Jesus gave those who received Him - who believed into His name - the exousia to become God's children, born from God.

I agree that men choose to receive and believe in Jesus, but that does not preclude Jesus from giving them specific freedom to choose to become God's children, if we determine that's what exousia may mean. But, as I just said, it's just a possible meaning per BDAG and I'm not tied to it.

 

[sawdust]

Unlike you, I believe I can be wrong. I believe that my understanding of scripture can be wrong.

I believe that I cannot know my own heart. (Jeremiah 17:9)

I assume the above does not apply to you.

What you are missing is that we are human and are easily misinformed or led astray.

Except you, of course.

I know what I believe but am aware that I can be wrong. Can you say the same?

Does the term "high horse" mean anything to you.

Like the other poster, you chimed in on a discussion from the wrong angle and completely missed the point I made.

Can you really sit there and say you could be wrong about "God's salvation is a gift given by grace through faith"? That's what I asked you. I didn't ask are you sure you are saved but that is what you keep answering.

I have not claimed I cannot be wrong. What I have claimed is that God is true and that his word remains true eternally. That the perfect tense in the verses that were under discussion revolve around God's working, not ours and therefore whether we believe or not, He will continue to do what He says He does. While the tense may declare a present state based on a past action, it remains true for every future present state because what we do will not alter what God does. If you have no faith, the verses do not apply to you but it most definitely will not stop God saving by grace through faith. He remains faithful to His word even when you and I are faithless.

Now, it is time to apply some of that humility you claim to have and realise you have not understood the discussion correctly and are looking at it from the wrong angle. This is not about us and what is required from us, but about God and how He works.

Look up and see your salvation! God will continue to save by grace through faith in spite of all the faithless people in the world. He will not change His modus operandi because you or I throw our faith away as some claim can be done.

grace and peace.

 

[Lamar]

No, salvation was never offered to nor a possibility for demons. They have no Savior and no possibility of being saved, so it doesn't apply to them only to man

That's not what the passage states.

 

[Roger316]

Actually, the word salvation is in the verse so yes, he is talking about it.

Oops. Good catch. Thanks.

 

[studier]

You and your crew want something to boast over others with.
Others, whom you feel Jesus was stupid to die for them.
Your kind wants to frighten and torment weak believers who are not secure in their salvation.

Besides having a self-righteous cruel streak that was never dealt with?
(which is being revealed here).
The thought that a believer can lose his salvation?
Is a powerful tool in the hands of self-righteous bastards who want to browbeat weak souls into submission.

To think we can undo what God has proclaimed as "finished" is arrogance that competes even with the devil.
Those who claim God the Father does not save completely those whom He gives to the Son?
Refuse to see the thoroughness of God's omniscience in making sure those whom He gives the Son,
will not be taken away from Him later on .

In essence... those who tell us we can lose our salvation?
Are telling us that there is a new doctrine out there that they want to tell us about.

It is called?
The "Doctrine of the Incompetence of God to save Completely those whom He saves."

That when God saved you?
He already knew that you were really greater than He.
For you could do something that would undo what He did for you on the Cross.

John 6:37-39​

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me, I will by no means cast out. ​

Someone's desire to leave God's will after salvation?
Will not cause God to be angry and drive you away. (cast out)
For? He is omnipresent!
How can He remove you from God wherever you may choose to go?
Even if you make your bed in Sheol He is there with you!
If a believer stubbornly persists in denying God's right to tell Him how to live?
He will break his legs (like a good shepherd does with a wayward sheep) and carry you over his shoulders over finish line (resurrection)

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing,
but should raise it up at the last day.

He will lose none of all the Father gives Him.

But, those who hate OSAS?
They don't care!

For they say.... "we are BETTER THAN THEM!"
PRIDE!
SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS!

So humble are those who believe we can lose our salvation and able to keep it.

And?

What about the young man in Corinth?
The one that was sleeping with his father's wife?
Paul neglected to teach about how we can lose our salvation!??
He would have plastered us with passages telling us he could lose his salvation!

So!

Those who think we can lose our salvation?
Enjoy your self-righteousness while you are keeping yourselves saved!

The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector." Luke 18:11​

The Pharisees wanted Jesus crucified.

And, so will self-righteous believers whose self-esteem is based upon their own arrogance and pride.

Go ahead Mr. Exegete. Show us your stuff!
Make a way for the arrogant to stand secure in their self righteousness.
(and do it in a so reasonably sounding argument)

G'Day!

Good boy - you got back to some Scripture.

Still a lot of rhetoric (so just a little of the same back to you) but it's now extremely clear that this is just you.

Re: John6, see here and let me know what part you'd like to discuss.

 

[studier]

I did already proved it with scripture.
Paul asks, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?"
Romans 8:33

You see OSAS in this verse where exactly - where does it say someone cannot walk away or that justification is forever?

Please explain.

Unbroken Chain
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Romans 8:29–30

Same question.

Plus, since I know you're not Reformed, are you going to now explain foreknowledge and predestination?

Will you also explain how and why we're now glorified in light of verses like Rom8:17 and in light of Rom8:28 that puts this into the context of God's prothesis - God's advance plan / divine purpose?

I could go on and on.
But one thing you will never find a scripture which states God removes the legal status of justified.

And I can go on asking you questions and requesting you explain Scripture apart from simply asserting they substantiate your presupposition.

Can you provide and explain Scripture that proves without a doubt that He doesn't?

 

[Roger316]

Apart from lexical tools we don't have much definition to go by, correct?

Right.

As best I know, I'm up to date with the process. Since you know BDAG, I assume you know it's the favored lexical tool of many.

Yes.

I don't see relatives. I see his own 'things' and then his own 'men' and some/as many 'men' did receive him.

If you have the time, you might explain why "own things" makes better sense of the text than "own people." Given the larger context of John's gospel, which has many inclusive statements to bring the Gentiles under Christ, it seems reasonable that John was comparing Jesus' people to others.

Aorist verbs are timeless and pick up time mainly from other verbs and/or context - 'were born' past tense here is translation which some including myself disagree with and see the aorist getting it's sense from the just mentioned exousia to become - IOW looking forward to the becoming:

I understand. The aorist would be paraphrased, "whenever they were born, they were born . . . of God"

I am aware that it is hard to understand English written in the passive voice. If we were to parse the sentence, what or who is the subject and what is the main verb?

I'm fine with other definitions of exousia - the point is Jesus gave those who received Him - who believed into His name - the exousia to become God's children, born from God.

Same question. Who is doing the giving, Jesus or God?

I agree that men choose to receive and believe in Jesus, but that does not preclude Jesus from giving them specific freedom to choose to become God's children, if we determine that's what exousia may mean. But, as I just said, it's just a possible meaning per BDAG and I'm not tied to it.

Okay, But I can't wrap my mind around the idea that I am given the freedom to birth myself? Did I misunderstand?

 

[studier]

Using grammar alone to state your view is like using a microscope to see the big picture.

Who's using only grammar?

Sounds like someone who's concerned the microscope shows the problems in the their big picture. There is no big picture apart from the details that it consists of.

 

[studier]

Romans 8:30 - Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. ALL of them.

If we claim to have been justified but don't end up glorified then we have been deceived and were never justified. I did a Bible search on "no longer" justified but did not find it.

"All of them" is eisegesis - we can see your addition.

The finished group does not mean every individual has remained part of it.

So, you're saying anyone who claims to be justified must be glorified. This in itself seems like you are deceived.

Dare I bring up the age-old rhetoric about not find the word "trinity" in the Text?

Your logic is terrible, but I've spoken to you about this many times.

 

[studier]

The methodology I was taught is referred to as the ICE method of study. They stand for Isagogics, Categorical, and Exegetical. It’s an approach that uses several angles in order to get a fuller view of a particular topic.

Another one downstream from Thieme?

You do realize that they go together and that E includes grammar being crucial, and that C cannot overrule E, correct?

 

[Genez]

Yes, through faith in Him we were justified, and we access through faith.

What happens if we no longer have faith? We are no longer justified, since it takes faith to be justified, and we no longer have access.

Faith is what to you?

A magic wand to make God appear?

Faith the be saved is as simple as this....

faith comes by hearing the Word

I did already proved it with scripture.
Paul asks, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?"
Romans 8:33

Unbroken Chain
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Romans 8:29–30

I could go on and on.
But one thing you will never find a scripture which states God removes the legal status of justified.

There are those who deny the Deity of Christ.
They present Scripture to prove their point.

How long should one want to keep arguing with them?

 

[Sipsey]

Another one downstream from Thieme?

You do realize that they go together and that E includes grammar being crucial, and that C cannot overrule E, correct?

It’s a synergy of facts to form a consensus, not a doctrine. I suppose one can catch coo-dies from any acquaintance. Life itself has been my greatest teacher.

 

[TruthDefender]

Faith is what to you?

A magic wand to make God appear?

Faith the be saved is as simple as this....

faith comes by hearing the Word


There are those who deny the Deity of Christ.
They present Scripture to prove their point.

How long should one want to keep arguing with them?

Aah, so you don’t believe in Him? You’re very confusing!
Is English not your mother tongue?

 

[Genez]

Another one downstream from Thieme?

You do realize that they go together and that E includes grammar being crucial, and that C cannot overrule E, correct?

Do you realize one can play games with exegesis when others have not developed the needed skill to check you?

Of course you do....
Which makes you shameful.

You tell us that it is " a more recent development?"
I say, it is a ploy implemented by the devil when he knows qualified men to refute you have all died
or do not frequent such forums.

For almost 2000 years of scholars exegeting Scripture?
And, along comes you?
With no name to verify that you are even a real person as you claim you are?

I can see why you are jealous of R,B. Thieme, jr.
I have seen it before.

You want to be believed?

Give us your real name, so we can verify your credentials.