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.
FlyingDove said:
Parallel descriptions don't erase the author's logic. Hebs 3 uses multiple terms rebellion, sin, hardness, disobedience, to describe Israel's departure, but the writer still distinguishes the root from the expressions. That's why he ends with 2 different summary words: apeitheia (disobedience) in Vs.18 & apistia (unbelief) in Vs.19. If he meant definitional identity, he wouldn't use 2 different terms & Heb 3:12 explicitly gives the sequence you're denying: an evil heart of UNBELIEF leads to departing from the living God. The departure is the result, not the definition. The warning is aimed at UNBELIEF, not performance.

Jesus says UNBELIEF is what dooms a person: if you DO NOT BELIEVE that I am He, you will die in your sins (Jn 8:24) & the Holy Spirit sealed believer can never return to UNBELIEF, because God Himself keeps them, indwells them & guarantees their final redemption. (Ehp 4:30)

If Jesus accepts the sinner, the Father seals the sinner & the Holy Spirit indwells the sinner, then the only way that sinner could be lost or walk away is if the Trinity fails & the Trinity does not fail.
Click to expand...
You're asserting things I'm comfortable you cannot prove. Maybe you'll surprise me. But it'll require some work to even get at the issue.

The argument in Heb3:12 is really a grammatical one. I've looked at the major grammars for this infinitive construction and they do not support a cause-effect interpretation, which you're freely inserting wherever you please.

The commentaries are all over the place as usual. I've never relied upon them or used them much. The English translations about the same and I only look at them for reference.

I'm probably going to stop paying attention to most of what you say. It's just too much eisegesis in support of an errant system of theology.

If you want to discuss why I don't think Heb3:12 says what you assert, I may join you, but I won't move all around with what I view as eisegesis. We'll need to dig in at one place before we move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toknow
FlyingDove said:
Parallel descriptions don't erase the author's logic. Hebs 3 uses multiple terms rebellion, sin, hardness, disobedience, to describe Israel's departure, but the writer still distinguishes the root from the expressions. That's why he ends with 2 different summary words: apeitheia (disobedience) in Vs.18 & apistia (unbelief) in Vs.19. If he meant definitional identity, he wouldn't use 2 different terms & Heb 3:12 explicitly gives the sequence you're denying: an evil heart of UNBELIEF leads to departing from the living God. The departure is the result, not the definition. The warning is aimed at UNBELIEF, not performance.

Jesus says UNBELIEF is what dooms a person: if you DO NOT BELIEVE that I am He, you will die in your sins (Jn 8:24) & the Holy Spirit sealed believer can never return to UNBELIEF, because God Himself keeps them, indwells them & guarantees their final redemption. (Ehp 4:30)

If Jesus accepts the sinner, the Father seals the sinner & the Holy Spirit indwells the sinner, then the only way that sinner could be lost or walk away is if the Trinity fails & the Trinity does not fail.
Click to expand...
You never replied to my post regarding this.
I posted Strongs for both words and asked you to explain the difference.
You never did.
Out now and cannot post more.
 
FlyingDove said:
Parallel descriptions don't erase the author's logic. Hebs 3 uses multiple terms rebellion, sin, hardness, disobedience, to describe Israel's departure, but the writer still distinguishes the root from the expressions. That's why he ends with 2 different summary words: apeitheia (disobedience) in Vs.18 & apistia (unbelief) in Vs.19. If he meant definitional identity, he wouldn't use 2 different terms & Heb 3:12 explicitly gives the sequence you're denying: an evil heart of UNBELIEF leads to departing from the living God. The departure is the result, not the definition. The warning is aimed at UNBELIEF, not performance.

Jesus says UNBELIEF is what dooms a person: if you DO NOT BELIEVE that I am He, you will die in your sins (Jn 8:24) & the Holy Spirit sealed believer can never return to UNBELIEF, because God Himself keeps them, indwells them & guarantees their final redemption. (Ehp 4:30)

If Jesus accepts the sinner, the Father seals the sinner & the Holy Spirit indwells the sinner, then the only way that sinner could be lost or walk away is if the Trinity fails & the Trinity does not fail.
Click to expand...
See my post no. 10,500 re the words in Heb 3.

You also never replied to
FOMANS 11 and COLOSSIANS 1.
 
studier said:
You're asserting things I'm comfortable you cannot prove. Maybe you'll surprise me. But it'll require some work to even get at the issue.

The argument in Heb3:12 is really a grammatical one. I've looked at the major grammars for this infinitive construction and they do not support a cause-effect interpretation, which you're freely inserting wherever you please.

The commentaries are all over the place as usual. I've never relied upon them or used them much. The English translations about the same and I only look at them for reference.

I'm probably going to stop paying attention to most of what you say. It's just too much eisegesis in support of an errant system of theology.

If you want to discuss why I don't think Heb3:12 says what you assert, I may join you, but I won't move all around with what I view as eisegesis. We'll need to dig in at one place before we move on.
Click to expand...
Let me help anyone following. When you can’t answer the argument, you shrink the battlefield. You're trying to isolate Heb 3:12 because you know if you have to deal with the full picture - Heb 3:18–19 (2 different nouns), Rom 4:5 (faith vs. works), Jn 8:24 (unbelief dooms), Eph 1:13–14 (sealed by God), Eph 4:30 (sealed until redemption), Heb 13:5 (God never leaves) - your ""faith‑obedience"" fusion collapses instantly.

So you're trying to force everything into a single infinitive construction as if the entire NT hangs on one participle. It doesn't!

The issue isn't whether an infinitive can express purpose, result, or consequence. The issue is that the author of Heb himself distinguishes unbelief from disobedience by using 2 different nouns in 2 different verses (apeitheia in Vs.18 & apistia in Vs.19). If he intended definitional identity, he would not have used 2 different summary terms. That's not commentary - that's the inspired author's own lexical choice.

If you don't want to engage that, that's fine. Best wishes, JJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
FlyingDove said:
Well, appealing to translator footnotes doesn't overturn Paul's grammar or his argument. A genitive construction with 2 different nouns-hypakoē (obedience) & pistis (faith)-cannot mean definitional identity.
Click to expand...
You posted the NIV as proof of your position, not me. I just showed you that it is not firm on the position it too.

You also have a tendency to say things that are incorrect and when I counter you you go silent about them and move on without ever acknowledging they're not true.

As I just posted to you - you make too many off the wall assertions.

Actually, where are you getting your information? You haven't answered me about having any training in language and I can see you are relying on something(s) for your comments - maybe AI - maybe some systematic theology polemics.

It's really about time you disclose your source(s). There are way too many people writing things that are not true in order to support their erroneous systems. You seem to be drawing from such things. What you say above is once again not correct.
 
Cameron143 said:
In the estate of unbelief, there is no belief. So no unbeliever believes. Only believers believe. The real question is how one goes from being an unbeliever to becoming a believer.
Click to expand...
If a believer cannot also have unbelief, and an unbeliever cannot also have belief, explain these texts.

Mark 9:14 And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them.

15And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.

16And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?

17And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;

18And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.

19He answereth him, and saith, O faithless (apistos = unbelieving) generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.

20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.

21And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.

22And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.

23Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

24And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe (piseuO); help thou mine unbelief (apistia)

25When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

26And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.

27But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.

28And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out?

29And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
 
FlyingDove said:
Let me help anyone following. When you can’t answer the argument, you shrink the battlefield.
Click to expand...
The error begins somewhere. I work to find it rather than proceeding with garbage in > garbage out theology riddled with proof-texting.

My first career was working globally on room sized computer systems chasing data throughout them isolating that one small spot in a large system that was causing problems - inserting garbage into the stream so everything thereafter was garbage out.

You're correct, I shrink the battlefield to find that problem and find that very few can work at that level. I've worked with people who can. I can see you clearly and find your unwillingness to reveal your sources and actual training to be clearly strategic. You're not the source of what you're posting.

Now you have to resort to speaking to the audience. It's just another fallacious method to divert from dealing with the focal point of the error I see you committing. It's fascinating to me that people would even suggest we should not isolate a problem in order to fix it.

As I said, prove me wrong. Maybe you'll find that grammatical resource that makes me reconsider, but I've looked at a few already and they don't support you.
 
Roger316 said:

A Moral Imperative Must Be Universal, Timeless, and Rooted in Creation​

Moral laws (like “do not murder”) apply:
  • to all people
  • in all places
  • at all times
  • because they reflect God’s unchanging character
Click to expand...
This is clearly not true. Old testament laws were not universally moral to all people, places, times. They were improvements on the bronze age cultural norms of Ancient Near East of the time, but were inferior to later laws of the Sermon on the Mount and Christianity influenc Moral laws are subjective. Clearly, to love one's neighbour as oneself uses a subjective measure.
 
PaulThomson said:
If a believer cannot also have unbelief, and an unbeliever cannot also have belief, explain these texts.

Mark 9:14 And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them.

15And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.

16And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?

17And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;

18And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.

19He answereth him, and saith, O faithless (apistos = unbelieving) generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.

20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.

21And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.

22And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.

23Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

24And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe (piseuO); help thou mine unbelief (apistia)

25When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

26And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.

27But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.

28And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out?

29And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
Click to expand...
Believers have faith, but don't always exercise it.
 
ChocolateSheep said:
I'm going to answer this in the simplest way I can think of. Yes, it IS possible to lose salvation.


KJV Galatians 5:19-22
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


Revelations also shines a similar light on the subject.

KJV Revelations 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


So correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like losing salvation IS possible, if you fall under any of these categories. And yes, repenting and asking for forgiveness is ALWAYS a good idea.
Click to expand...
If you were really saved, no you can't.
 
The works of the flesh are Done, while your IN the flesh. When you are born again, the flesh is dead and your spirit is alive. "Therefore now, there is NO commendation, to those who love God and are called according to His purpose. WHO WALK NOT IN THE FLESH but in the Sprit. JUst because you get saved doesnt mean you wont sin anymore, you will be fighting the old nature untill Jesus comes. YOu wont LIVE for the flesh anymore
 
Inspiredsaint said:
Romans 10 verses 9 and 10. Cofession hs to happen . You have to ask Jesus into your heart and life, out loud, to be your Lord and savior.
Click to expand...
Heres A good example. The thief on the right side of Jesus was born again in the few minutes he spoke to Jesus. Why? One He admitted he was a sinner and deserved to die (The wages of sin is death) Two..He Knew and professed Jesus Is Lord, (The messiah) Three...He asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into His kingdom. (He didnt have time for HIm into His life. that was about to end) And Jesus replied...Truly you will be with me in Paradise. (The heaven side of hades)
 
PaulThomson said:
This is clearly not true. Old testament laws were not universally moral to all people, places, times. They were improvements on the bronze age cultural norms of Ancient Near East of the time, but were inferior to later laws of the Sermon on the Mount and Christianity influenc Moral laws are subjective. Clearly, to love one's neighbour as oneself uses a subjective measure.
Click to expand...
You are talking about legal requirements, which are different from moral imperatives. The distinction between a legal and a moral imperative underpins Paul's assertion that death reigned before Moses. Before Moses, there was no court or legal system to enforce morality.
 
Roger316 said:
You are talking about legal requirements, which are different from moral imperatives. The distinction between a legal and a moral imperative underpins Paul's assertion that death reigned before Moses. Before Moses, there was no court or legal system to enforce morality.
Click to expand...
Horse hocky
 
Roger316 said:
You are talking about legal requirements, which are different from moral imperatives. The distinction between a legal and a moral imperative underpins Paul's assertion that death reigned before Moses. Before Moses, there was no court or legal system to enforce morality.
Click to expand...
We arent talking legalism here. What you said is nonsense
 
Death reined before the Law from Adam, because sin started with Eve eating the fruit. And the wages of sin is Death. So death reined. All that Moses did was show the Isrealites just how deprived they were in thier rebellion and complaining
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back