Doesn't Living Like the Devil After Being Saved Disprove Once Saved Always Saved?

[PastMyPrime]

How does one reconcile “once saved, always saved” with cases where, for example, a pastor, religious leader of some sort or even a layman acquaintance of yours lives in open sin and even claims God sanctioned their ungodly relationship.

None of us, as humans, can definitively know another person’s salvation status. Salvation isn't evidenced by roles like pastor or seminary graduate but solely by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Even saved individuals, including the Apostle Paul, struggle with sin due to the sin nature; a malady that not one of us can claim to have overcome. See Romans 7:15, 17, and 24. See also 1 Corinthians 5:1–5, which shows to us that a brother can commit grievous sin and should be disciplined (put out of the assembly) rather than presumed lost, as is the devilish practice of some.

In other words, the practical response to seeing someone err is not to conclude they lost salvation, but that we should all pursue restoration and ensure they hear the gospel truth, erring on the side of sharing gospel truth with everyone, without offense, confirming they understand and believe the gospel of grace and the necessity for living a holy life in Christ Jesus.

The sole means of salvation is faith in what the Lord Jesus Christ did. Self-righteousness and reliance on religious status are insufficient and can leave even prominent religious figures unsaved.

MM

None are without sin, even the saved. The Bible teaches us that God treats us as His children and will chastise the disobedient. If a person can live in sin without the Lord's chastisement, then he is not a son but a bastard according to the Bible. Churches are filled with such people, even pulpits.

 

[Drich]

Every thought I've ever seen come across that even hints at the idea for loss of salvation, and I say again, every time, it equates to works-based salvation. I haven't seen anyone escape that at any point in all my years. Every equivocation, nuance, every sinew, inkling and iota always points to works-based salvation.

Is there anything else out there nobody has thought of? Solberg points to salvation having verses that point in both directions, but when looking at the areas of scripture to which he points, there's the failure to rightly divide the word of truth when there are seemingly contradictory statements made throughout.

Thoughts?

MM

Our discussion had nothing to do with works based salvation If you remember. I simply point out that because salvation is not a work, (that means we can not initiate the salvation process. ) we are not saved in this life. That salvation is determined by Christ on the day of our judgement.

The implication being You can not loose your salvation once saved, however salvation does not take place till this life is over (Generally speaking there are a few exceptions through out the gospels where Jesus judges someone while they are still alive.) Meaning one can find himself in a situation like judas, when he was once a disciple of Christ, but before his race was over fell away from Christ before his salvation was ever formally pronounced..

He wasn't saved and then lost his salvation.. because again salvation is not something we can initiate. Christ determine when we are saved, not us.

 

[Musicmaster]

None are without sin, even the saved.

True.

The Bible teaches us that God treats us as His children and will chastise the disobedient.

Agreed, but why do some always equate that to an alleged loss of salvation for anyone who was ever truly saved. That's the question.

If a person can live in sin without the Lord's chastisement, then he is not a son but a bastard according to the Bible.

Where is that taught? Please provide reference, quotes in context and discussion about what you see in it.

Thanks

Churches are filled with such people, even pulpits.

No doubt.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Our discussion had nothing to do with works based salvation If you remember. I simply point out that because salvation is not a work, (that means we can not initiate the salvation process. ) we are not saved in this life. That salvation is determined by Christ on the day of our judgement.

Thanks for the reminder. No, I disagree given that the body of Christ will not be judged on the day of judgement.

The implication being You can not loose your salvation once saved, however salvation does not take place till this life is over (Generally speaking there are a few exceptions through out the gospels where Jesus judges someone while they are still alive.) Meaning one can find himself in a situation like judas, when he was once a disciple of Christ, but before his race was over fell away from Christ before his salvation was ever formally pronounced..

He wasn't saved and then lost his salvation.. because again salvation is not something we can initiate. Christ determine when we are saved, not us.

Again, I disagree because you failed to establish any of that from scripture from what I have seen from you thus far.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Water Baptism Under the Kingdom Program​

• Scriptural Basis: Baptism Required for Remission of Sins
  
  • Mark 1:4: “John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
  • Luke 3:3: “He came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
  • Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized every one of you…for the remission of sins…ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Spoken by Peter post-crucifixion/resurrection.
  • Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Also post-crucifixion/resurrection; belief and baptism presented as salvation conditions under the Kingdom program.
  • Acts 22:16: Ananias tells Saul, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins…”—describing water baptism as the means of sin-washing under the Kingdom gospel.
  • Conclusion: under the Kingdom program, water baptism was required for remission of sins.

• Baptism as an External Indicator of Faith
  
  • Luke 7:29-30 shows water baptism functioned as a visible indicator of belief or unbelief under the Kingdom program.
  • Luke 7:29: Believers “justified God” by being baptized with John’s baptism.
  • Luke 7:30: Pharisees and lawyers rejected God’s counsel by refusing baptism—an act of unbelief.
  • When the Kingdom gospel is preached and believed, the natural response is water baptism; refusal signals rejection.

The True Nature and Function of Water Baptism​

• What Baptism Does and Does Not Do
  
  • Water cannot solve the sin problem; it cleans the body, not the soul. If water could remove sin, animal sacrifices would have been unnecessary.
  • 1 Peter 3:21: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God…”
  • “Like figure” underscores baptism’s symbolic nature.
  • Noah’s ark (1 Peter 3:20): eight souls “saved by water,” yet the ark kept them dry—the salvation was through the water by being in the ark—illustrating baptism’s figurative nature.
  • Sin is actually resolved by Christ’s blood: Revelation 1:5—He “washed us from our sins in his own blood.”

• Baptism as Outward Expression of Faith
  
  • Under the Kingdom program, baptism was an outward, required act of obedience and an expression of faith.
  • Believers submitted to baptism; the water did nothing to the soul, but the act manifested faith.
  • Works (baptism) add no independent merit. Getting wet does not increase righteousness.
  • James 2:22: “Faith wrought with his works…by works was faith made perfect.” Works perfect faith by demonstrating genuineness, not by adding merit.
  • Pharisees’ refusal to be baptized evidenced lack of faith; works visibly demonstrate faith’s invisible reality.

• Works and Faith Across the Timeline
  
  • Salvation across Scripture: by Christ’s blood, by grace (unearned), and by faith (Hebrews 11:6).
  • Dispensational differences lie in the content of faith and its required expression.
  • Kingdom program: faith manifested through works (including baptism)—to demonstrate reality, not to add merit.
  • Dispensation of Grace: faith alone—no required works.
  • Examples: Noah’s ark-building and OT sacrifices—human imperfections in works did not save; the faith motivating the act mattered.

Salvation in the Dispensation of Grace​

• Faith Alone, Apart from Works
  
  • Romans 4:5: “To him that worketh not, but believeth…his faith is counted for righteousness.”
  • Under Grace, no works are required: no membership, tithing, baptism, or pre-salvation self-reform.
  • Romans 3:21-22: “The righteousness of God without the law…by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.”
  • Romans 3:24-25: Justified freely by grace…propitiation “through faith in his blood.”
  • Romans 3:27-28: Boasting excluded by the law of faith; justification “without the deeds of the law.”
  • The instant one believes in Christ’s blood, God’s wrath is satisfied on their behalf.

• Gospel of Grace vs. Kingdom Gospel
  
  • Paul’s gospel is distinct from the Kingdom gospel. 1 Corinthians 1:17: “Christ sent me not to baptize,” in contrast to John the Baptist’s and the twelve's mission to baptize.
  • John’s ministry centered on administering water baptism to Kingdom believers; Paul’s gospel does not require baptism.
  • Claims of one unchanging gospel for all time are labeled spiritual clichés and incorrect; God progressively revealed different truths.

• Pride and Boasting: Barrier to Grace
  
  • God saves the vilest sinners; Christ bore all humanity’s sin (2 Corinthians 5), paying for even those who will never believe.
  • Atonement is not limited; Christ willingly paid for the vast weight of all sin.
  • God will not save people in self-righteous boasting. Adding works (baptism, tithing, reform) to grace is boasting and a denial of pure grace.
  • Romans 3:27: Boasting is excluded by faith; where boasting persists, true faith is absent.
  • Believer’s conviction: pride is the fundamental reason people are not saved—wanting to contribute something to brag about.
  • Anything added to faith alone corrupts and denies God’s grace.

• Path to Salvation Today
  
  • Acknowledge personal guilt as a sinner.
  • Recognize God’s wrath abides on you.
  • Understand Christ died for your sins as your only hope.
  • Trust in His finished work—faith in Christ’s blood instantly saves.
  • Do not trust in works, actions, or self-improvement; such trust is boasting and a false hope.
  • True faith rests entirely on Christ’s accomplishment, with nothing to add.
  • Romans 7 affirms believers’ ongoing failures—even Paul—showing sanctified living is the goal but not the basis of justification.

• 1. Study the key Scripture passages in full context: Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Luke 7:29-30; Acts 22:12-16; Luke 23:39-43; 1 Peter 3:18-21; Revelation 1:5; Hebrews 11:6; James 2:17-22; Romans 3:21-28; Romans 4:5; 1 Corinthians 1:17.
• 2. Review Biblical dispensations and identify how the Kingdom dispensation and the dispensation of grace differ in gospel content and requirements.
• 3. Reflect personally on saving faith under Grace—evaluate whether any works, rituals, or personal contributions are being consciously or unconsciously added to faith as a basis for assurance.
• 4. Assess the role of water baptism in your current church context in light of these dispensational distinctions (requirement for salvation vs. ordinance/expression).

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Our discussion had nothing to do with works based salvation If you remember. I simply point out that because salvation is not a work, (that means we can not initiate the salvation process. ) we are not saved in this life. That salvation is determined by Christ on the day of our judgement.

The implication being You can not loose your salvation once saved, however salvation does not take place till this life is over (Generally speaking there are a few exceptions through out the gospels where Jesus judges someone while they are still alive.) Meaning one can find himself in a situation like judas, when he was once a disciple of Christ, but before his race was over fell away from Christ before his salvation was ever formally pronounced..

He wasn't saved and then lost his salvation.. because again salvation is not something we can initiate. Christ determine when we are saved, not us.

Additionally, the “judgment” language most often refers to these earthly groups:

• The nations / Gentiles (e.g., Joel 3:2; Matthew 25:32 uses “all nations”)
• The people of Israel (e.g., Ezekiel 20:33–38; Amos 9:9–10)

The body of Christ, which will stand before Christ to be judged for their reward:

• Individuals within the church / believers (not “earthly group” as a nation, but still a group of people already raptured into Heaven)—the judgment seat of Christ is for believers (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10)

Now, if you don't believe in the rapture, then that is what it is; in that you'll find out one way or the other, because the lack of a rapture renders much of Paul's statements meaningless, so I'll stick with the rapture, which will itself be a divide between believers and unbelievers, inclusive of those who believe they are saved by supplementing the shed Blood of Christ with their "good works," which is to say that they believe in the lack of sufficiency in what Christ accomplished by His own obedience and faithfulness and suffering...then there's the crowd that believes they will suffer in some man-made place of torment to allegedly pay for the "remainder" of their sins not covered by the faithfulness of Christ on that cross. They even believe and teach that they will be on this earth during the tribulation, which, to my thinking, is a sick and pathetic faith in a non-existent god that cannot save anyone. Their appeals to antiquity as the alleged authenticity of that cultic system of belief, they are meaningless tripes and quips.

MM

MM

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

None are without sin, even the saved. The Bible teaches us that God treats us as His children and will chastise the disobedient. If a person can live in sin without the Lord's chastisement, then he is not a son but a bastard according to the Bible. Churches are filled with such people, even pulpits.

Where is that taught? Please provide reference, quotes in context and discussion about what you see in it.

Thanks

Hebrews 12:8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.

Since you don't know and are asking, does that mean God hasn't disciplined you at all?

 

[Drich]

Additionally, the “judgment” language most often refers to these earthly groups:

• The nations / Gentiles (e.g., Joel 3:2; Matthew 25:32 uses “all nations”)
• The people of Israel (e.g., Ezekiel 20:33–38; Amos 9:9–10

Indeed, as what is being judged is whether or not you being a member of one of those many nations, is whether or not you are saved.

The body of Christ, which will stand before Christ to be judged for their reward:

• Individuals within the church / believers (not “earthly group” as a nation, but still a group of people already raptured into Heaven)—the judgment seat of Christ is for believers (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10)

Not in dispute. But at some point a judgement was made to determine who is and who is not in the body of Christ. That day of judgement is described by Christ Himself. as many who believe are saved are in fact not. In mat 7:21 Christ tells us there will be many who will come to Him claiming to know Him, be He will say He never knew them.

Now, if you don't believe in the rapture,

I believe in the rapture. How ever before the rapture takes place the church of the gentiles will have been martyred. The 144K are those who will be raptured.

then that is what it is; in that you'll find out one way or the other, because the lack of a rapture renders much of Paul's statements meaningless, so I'll stick with the rapture, which will itself be a divide between believers and unbelievers, inclusive of those who believe they are saved by supplementing the shed Blood of Christ with their "good works," which is to say that they believe in the lack of sufficiency in what Christ accomplished by His own obedience and faithfulness and suffering...then there's the crowd that believes they will suffer in some man-made place of torment to allegedly pay for the "remainder" of their sins not covered by the faithfulness of Christ on that cross. They even believe and teach that they will be on this earth during the tribulation, which, to my thinking, is a sick and pathetic faith in a non-existent god that cannot save anyone. Their appeals to antiquity as the alleged authenticity of that cultic system of belief, they are meaningless tripes and quips.

MM

MM

I believe in the rapture which makes your point moot.

 

[rewriter]

Additionally, the “judgment” language most often refers to these earthly groups:

• The nations / Gentiles (e.g., Joel 3:2; Matthew 25:32 uses “all nations”)
• The people of Israel (e.g., Ezekiel 20:33–38; Amos 9:9–10)

The body of Christ, which will stand before Christ to be judged for their reward:

• Individuals within the church / believers (not “earthly group” as a nation, but still a group of people already raptured into Heaven)—the judgment seat of Christ is for believers (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10)

Now, if you don't believe in the rapture, then that is what it is; in that you'll find out one way or the other, because the lack of a rapture renders much of Paul's statements meaningless, so I'll stick with the rapture, which will itself be a divide between believers and unbelievers, inclusive of those who believe they are saved by supplementing the shed Blood of Christ with their "good works," which is to say that they believe in the lack of sufficiency in what Christ accomplished by His own obedience and faithfulness and suffering...then there's the crowd that believes they will suffer in some man-made place of torment to allegedly pay for the "remainder" of their sins not covered by the faithfulness of Christ on that cross. They even believe and teach that they will be on this earth during the tribulation, which, to my thinking, is a sick and pathetic faith in a non-existent god that cannot save anyone. Their appeals to antiquity as the alleged authenticity of that cultic system of belief, they are meaningless tripes and quips.

MM

MM

This might be a valid argument, but one might also wish to remember that Paul is using imperial Roman imagery here and applying it to Christ. One might wish to consider just how much emphasis to place on imperial Roman imagery.

 

[Musicmaster]

Indeed, as what is being judged is whether or not you being a member of one of those many nations, is whether or not you are saved.

If I'm understanding you correctly, the text doesn't bear that out for ALL of mankind who has ever lived on the earth will be standing before the Throne. That has to be injected into the text for what you're implying/saying to make sense.

Not in dispute. But at some point a judgement was made to determine who is and who is not in the body of Christ.

So, are you implying here a measure of Calvinism, or something else? Each individual chooses as to if they accept the true gospel or not. The "another" gospel is the Kingdom Gospel of works, which is no longer active today. The promises made are always based upon every individual's faith in the true gospel, not something chosen by someone else other than each individual. When the body of Christ stands before Him for reward, that will not ever be a judgement for salvation, for only those standing before Him will be the saved. There is not one mention of that Book and Books at tht time when the body of Christ is before Him to be judged for Heavenly rewards. Some will suffer loss and yet still be saved. Scripture makes that clear.

That day of judgement is described by Christ Himself. as many who believe are saved are in fact not.

Yes, and that is after the Millennial Kingdom, not immediately after the rapture before th3e tribulation. Are we on the same page on that one?

In mat 7:21 Christ tells us there will be many who will come to Him claiming to know Him, be He will say He never knew them.

Yes, and that will be at the very end of time and the old creation.

I believe in the rapture. How ever before the rapture takes place the church of the gentiles will have been martyred. The 144K are those who will be raptured.

Wrong. That smacks of a couple of spurious groups, one of which is a splinter Adventist group and another that comes to mind is a splinter grouping of the Church of Christ. It fails to rightly and properly exegete the texts.

I believe in the rapture which makes your point moot.

In what way, may I ask?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

This might be a valid argument, but one might also wish to remember that Paul is using imperial Roman imagery here and applying it to Christ. One might wish to consider just how much emphasis to place on imperial Roman imagery.

If I'm understanding rightly, you're making an accusative statement that calls into question the inspiration of Paul's writing in this instance. Is that correct?

MM

 

[rewriter]

If I'm understanding rightly, you're making an accusative statement that calls into question the inspiration of Paul's writing in this instance. Is that correct?

MM

Given that Paul himself will deny that all his writings were divinely inspired, I see no problem with noting that a given passage seems to be citing then current customs.

The claim that scripture is inspired itself in based on a questionable interpretation of a word of vague meaning. It combines the words for God and breath, wind or spirit, but exactly what was meant is unclear, nor why Paul felt the need to create such a term rather than using the existent word that was often associated with the divine source for scripture, unless it was to avoid certain connotations associated with the previously used term.

 

[Drich]

If I'm understanding you correctly, the text doesn't bear that out for ALL of mankind who has ever lived on the earth will be standing before the Throne. That has to be injected into the text for what you're implying/saying to make sense.

IDK it kinda literally says that. mat 25 literally says: , Jesus "The Son of Man" will literally judged all nations (The Whole World) and separate them into two groups. His desired sheep, and un desired goats.

Welcoming the sheep into His kingdom and to the Goats He says: 41 “Then the king will say to the evil people on his left, ‘Get away from me. God has already decided that you will be punished. Go into the fire that burns forever—the fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.

Again This literally shows Jesus the Son of Man judging the whole wold (All nations) and seperating the Saved (Sheep) and UnSaved (Goats.)

Meaning Jesus decides on who is saved at our judgement.

So, are you implying here a measure of Calvinism, or something else?

I'm implying Jesus will decide who is saved and who is not saved at judgement.

Each individual chooses as to if they accept the true gospel or not.

agree. But in the end it is Jesus who decides whether or not if the gospel was accepted or if the 'believer' was just going through the motions, checking religious items off of a salvation check list.

The "another" gospel is the Kingdom Gospel of works, which is no longer active today. The promises made are always based upon every individual's faith in the true gospel, not something chosen by someone else other than each individual. When the body of Christ stands before Him for reward, that will not ever be a judgement for salvation, for only those standing before Him will be the saved. There is not one mention of that Book and Books at tht time when the body of Christ is before Him to be judged for Heavenly rewards. Some will suffer loss and yet still be saved. Scripture makes that clear.

This is what you did last time. you ignored the points I was making in leu of trying to force my argument into a some form of calvinism or works based theology.

Again everything you believe I believe. the only difference is I believe that Jesus per mat 25 (and other places) that we are not saved till the moment of judgement when you find out if you are a sheep or goat..

In what way, may I ask?
MM

You seem to be having a difficult time following all of the ins and outs in the main discussion. maybe we should resolve that debate before we open a new one.

 

[Musicmaster]

Given that Paul himself will deny that all his writings were divinely inspired, I see no problem with noting that a given passage seems to be citing then current customs.

Really. Do you have a quote of him saying that? Here's what I found to the contrary:

1 Corihthians 14:37
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

The claim that scripture is inspired itself in based on a questionable interpretation of a word of vague meaning. It combines the words for God and breath, wind or spirit, but exactly what was meant is unclear, nor why Paul felt the need to create such a term rather than using the existent word that was often associated with the divine source for scripture, unless it was to avoid certain connotations associated with the previously used term.

You stand among the minority in that thinking from what I've seen through the years. The liberal faction of biblical scholarship endeavors stand with you on that, but I absolutely do not.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

IDK it kinda literally says that. mat 25 literally says: , Jesus "The Son of Man" will literally judged all nations (The Whole World) and separate them into two groups. His desired sheep, and un desired goats.

One must to a more panoramic view of scripture to realize that those at that time, before that throne, will not be any in the body of Christ. Separating the sheep from the goats is what will happen to keep the lost from entering the Millennial Kingdom with the lost whose names are not written int he book of life cast into the fires of Hell after the Millennial Kingdom is ended.

Welcoming the sheep into His kingdom and to the Goats He says: 41 “Then the king will say to the evil people on his left, ‘Get away from me. God has already decided that you will be punished. Go into the fire that burns forever—the fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.

Again This literally shows Jesus the Son of Man judging the whole wold (All nations) and seperating the Saved (Sheep) and UnSaved (Goats.)

Meaning Jesus decides on who is saved at our judgement.

I'm implying Jesus will decide who is saved and who is not saved at judgement.

Perhaps in your theological framework, but that's not what scripture teaches holistically.

agree. But in the end it is Jesus who decides whether or not if the gospel was accepted or if the 'believer' was just going through the motions, checking religious items off of a salvation check list.

Based on what verse? Where do you get this stuff?

This is what you did last time. you ignored the points I was making in leu of trying to force my argument into a some form of calvinism or works based theology.

I asked questions that I'm still awaiting answers, that's all.

Again everything you believe I believe. the only difference is I believe that Jesus per mat 25 (and other places) that we are not saved till the moment of judgement when you find out if you are a sheep or goat..

You seem to be having a difficult time following all of the ins and outs in the main discussion. maybe we should resolve that debate before we open a new one.

I will have to see this more precisely rather than vague references such as Matt. 25.

MM

 

[rewriter]

Really. Do you have a quote of him saying that? Here's what I found to the contrary:

1 Corihthians 14:37
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.



You stand among the minority in that thinking from what I've seen through the years. The liberal faction of biblical scholarship endeavors stand with you on that, but I absolutely do not.

MM

You might want to look at 1 Corinthians 7:12.

I consult with scholars from the conservative, MOR and the liberal viewpoints. Those who have read my full logic side with me. I am definitely in the minority though, I stand outside everything you are familiar with, guaranteed. No scholar has seen anything like what I present. That you are only seeing fragments is why you cannot see that.

One key premise in my writing it that Rome won the 1st Jewish war which neither the Christians nor the Jews expected. After their loss they agree that some things must be protected from the Romans and wrote history accordingly. There are multiple lines of evidence that support this understanding, and it resolves multiple known problems in the NT. It just takes pages upon pages to reset one's views because so much is not taught by tradition. Looking at some points in history it certainly appears that the coverup almost came out, only to have new issues arise and things to be reburied. Nicaea was one example.

 

[Musicmaster]

You might want to look at 1 Corinthians 7:12.

I consult with scholars from the conservative, MOR and the liberal viewpoints. Those who have read my full logic side with me. I am definitely in the minority though, I stand outside everything you are familiar with, guaranteed. No scholar has seen anything like what I present. That you are only seeing fragments is why you cannot see that.

One key premise in my writing it that Rome won the 1st Jewish war which neither the Christians nor the Jews expected. After their loss they agree that some things must be protected from the Romans and wrote history accordingly. There are multiple lines of evidence that support this understanding, and it resolves multiple known problems in the NT. It just takes pages upon pages to reset one's views because so much is not taught by tradition. Looking at some points in history it certainly appears that the coverup almost came out, only to have new issues arise and things to be reburied. Nicaea was one example.

Given that you deny the Divine origins of the inspiration of the scriptures written by Paul, his writings can be made to say just about anything one so desires without an objective Source. That's my take on it.

MM

 

[rewriter]

Given that you deny the Divine origins of the inspiration of the scriptures written by Paul, his writings can be made to say just about anything one so desires without an objective Source. That's my take on it.

MM

So you are claiming that God directed Paul to claim that he was presenting his own words, not God's? That would make God a liar and I reject that. You may accept God as a liar but I will not.

 

[Musicmaster]

So you are claiming that God directed Paul to claim that he was presenting his own words, not God's?

Please read this question carefully and compare to what I actually stated. This is not at all a rational question in that regard.

That would make God a liar and I reject that. You may accept God as a liar but I will not.

I'm not getting how you misread what I stated. I explicitly stated that Paul's writings are of Divine origin for inspiration. Do you not understand what that terminology means? Inspiration isn't at all a claim for direct, word for word transference. Most of what he wrote was by inspiration, with only one time his saying "...but I say, not the Lord..."

If you see that Paul was a liar, then that's on you and the scripture has no need for me to defend it's origins. The Lord has His own way of dealing with those who don't trust the integrity of His inspired, written word to us. He has given to us a written account and has filled us with His Spirit. If you have no witness within you of the integrity of His word to us, then I do as did Jesus...next?

That's the higher path to endless bantering and head-butting of wits when there's no agreed upon common ground upon which to meet. If I'm understanding you correctly, you have a Bible with large sections missing, comparatively speaking. Failure to rightly divide the word of truth is the cause of so many confusions. That's not speaking of dividing truth from falsehood, but rather truth from truth, for all of scripture is for us, but not all is TO us, contrary to the oddballs out there who mutter empty platitudes of the entire Bible allegedly being a love letter to us all. That emotional crap should be in the dung heap where it belongs.

When you're on the same grounding as am I for trust in the integrity of the text under discussion, then perhaps we could move forward.

MM

 

[Drich]

One must to a more panoramic view of scripture to realize that those at that time, before that throne, will not be any in the body of Christ. Separating the sheep from the goats is what will happen to keep the lost from entering the Millennial Kingdom with the lost whose names are not written int he book of life cast into the fires of Hell after the Millennial Kingdom is ended.

Great use of condescending supposition.. However it is not consistent with what Jesus says in mat 25. Perhaps in your own theological frame work the term "will be in the body of christ." Means something other than at that moment of being "saved" (Identified/judged as being a "sheep) you will be allowed to enter heaven. As This is exactly what Jesus promises here in mat 25:
32 All the people of the world will be gathered before him. Then he will separate everyone into two groups. It will be like a shepherd separating his sheep from his goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the king will say to the godly people on his right, ‘Come, my Father has great blessings for you. The kingdom he promised is now yours. It has been prepared for you since the world was made.

Perhaps in your theological framework, but that's not what scripture teaches holistically.

Actually of the two of us have you not noticed I am the one pairing everything I've claimed with scripture, and you've only been able to produce a "Nut-huh cause I said so," when ask?

Based on what verse? Where do you get this stuff?

Dude.. Are you telling me you F-I-N-A-L-L-Y got it? I have made this statment at least a dozen times and each time paired it with Mat 7. My whole argument from my opening post has repeated this idea several times. Why is it now, that you finally understand? Did you just not read what I said beyond the first two sentences, or did you not understand? I seriously need to know how to frame out my answers to you. As there seems to be an unwillingness or inability to process information from others out side of two sentences.

if you want a more detail explanation go back and reread posts 181 and 191.

I asked questions that I'm still awaiting answers, that's all.

No actually you do not. It seems you ask questions that you predetermine an answer to a loaded question, and await confirmation to what you presuppose my answer to be. Whether you get that answer or not you wait for your turn to speak, and just move on down your predetermine script to your final conclusion. post 220 is a perfect example of this. in that post you claim to have reviewed all of the other post/comments and no one has offered anything you had not already thought of. confirming your own confirmation bias. In this case happens to be that there are no new ideas concerning if one can loose their salvation or not.

However this is not the case, As I clearly offer you an alternative that you thought was a radically absurd. The idea that 'we do not decide when we are saved, but rather Jesus decides in mat 25 if we are saved or not. This idea seemed very offensive to you once you understood what I had been saying all along..

I will have to see this more precisely rather than vague references such as Matt. 25.

MM

again posts 181 and 191 has a much deeper explanation. maybe try and read what I said all the way through and take what I said at face value, rather than assuming I am taking a calvinist and you know what it is I am saying. I can promise you calvin is/was just as wrong as you are/I am not a calvinist.