Loss of salvation???

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Adam means 'man.' = Humankind.

On the other hand...

Iysh = a man.
Iyshah= a woman.

Adam named the woman when she was presented to him.
He named her Iyshah / (eeshah)

Adam had learned and knew that he was specifically a man. Iysh (masuline gender)
He instantly named the woman in the feminine gender - Iyshah!

And Adam said:​

​

“This is now bone of my bones​

And flesh of my flesh;​

She shall be called Woman, (Iyshah) -feminine gender.​

Because she was taken out of Man.” (Iysh) -masculine gender.​

​

Genesis 2:23​

Why not?
After all, Adam was accustomed to naming thousands of all the created animals he was presented.
It is no wonder he simply named her quickly when he saw what she was!

grace and peace .............

I wanted to understand @Beckworth and @studier, for their point of view about Hosea 6:7. That's all. Their point of view is valid.


💒

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

At this juncture, AI is stringing together Scriptures based upon how men have strung together Scriptures. To disagree with AI as I read those verses is simply to disagree with men who use the same verses to say the same things.

Get used to it. Not too long ago I heard some say a cassette player was the God of some, then CD's, then...

It seems more productive to discuss the content - the Scriptures - and how they're being interpreted and why the conclusions are right or wrong.

I totally agree! I stopped using what AI has compiled when I do a search pretty quickly because the Holy Spirit was laying on my heart that He wants me to depend on HIM and what HE points out from the data and HIS interpretation of the data rather than what the AI has. Otherwise, the AI can mislead because it has no real spiritual discernment like the Holy Spirit has.


💒

 

[studier]

Adam means 'man.' = Humankind.

And it like most Hebrew words has an interesting derivation:

 

[PaulThomson]

That's an interesting twist. I had not ever seen it that way.

The problem with it, however, is that the two parallels you have drawn are not at all comparable between the two.

The quote about baptism includes the conjunctive requirement for baptism, therefore not at all leaving it open to preference. This is why I also study doctrines from a systematic vantagepoint:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Nobody could possibly and up saved if their sins were not remitted, washed away, or whatever relevant word one may choose that aligns with the original meaning.

That conjunctive "and" in there doesn't allow for preferentially choosing as to if one wants to adhere to the following element.

Moving your example more closely to reality, if I'm directed to make a cake with flour and sugar, and subjectively choose to leave out the sugar, it's no longer cake, but rather a more bland tasting bread thingy, and therefore not anywhere nearly as palatable to the taste as bring something that would serve as a desert.

Where did you hear that the text item joined with the conjunctive can be left to preferential choice in the biblical texts? Was it some pastor you follow who stated that to you? Is that what she teaches?

Paul, THE apostle to the Gentiles, said this:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

There is not one mention for the requirement of water baptism here nor anywhere else in Paul's epistles, and yet there are those out there who have been taught to believe that Paul taught the same Gospel as did the eleven to Israel, which is not at all true. Intellectual honesty demands that they read the texts for what they say AND for what they DON'T say, and to refrain from injecting into the text any measure of subjective assumptions.

Additionally, there are those who would say that the absence of mention for water baptism was left to the reader's understanding that it was still there, although invisible by way of the knowledge of the reader, and therefore didn't need to be restated.

Satan very much loves that kind of reasoning. It lays down at the feet of Paul in eternity his having led many billions of Gentiles astray. After all, if water baptism had still been a required element for salvation as a show of faith, as a work for justification, then Paul would indeed be guilty under the sin of omission. Just think about the impact in leaving out just one element for salvation. Do you see the problem in that claim?

So, yes, Israel was required to engage water baptism as a show of their faith since water itself cannot remit sins. It is the WORK, the ACT, that was required of them, but not us today. Why?

Simply stated: Grace. The very definition of grace being UNMERRITED FAVOR, that should suffice in understanding the omission of the requirement to be water baptized. Attempts at coupling ANY work to grace, and one nullifies the grace. Paul made that abundantly clear:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Do you see the problem with your assumptions?

I hope you would not mind my saying that I would never set foot on a bridge an engineer told you to build from the parts he gives to you, and to be sure you use the special steel bolts provided, and you subjectively decide to put rubber bands through the bolt holes in the place of the special steel bolts. I would rather do the back-stroke across the river than to set foot onto something that will not hold up.

Good luck with that, because you're going to need it.

MM

I am not claiming that baptism is required to be saved.

And I gave an example where "and" is not introducing a mandatory condition one must fulfil in order to be included in the consequence. I only need to show that this is possible in this case. I do not need to prove it is the case in every case, not in this case.

No, I don't see the problem in my assumption.

 

[studier]

I totally agree! I stopped using what AI has compiled when I do a search pretty quickly because the Holy Spirit was laying on my heart that He wants me to depend on HIM and what HE points out from the data and HIS interpretation of the data rather than what the AI has. Otherwise, the AI can mislead because it has no real spiritual discernment like the Holy Spirit has.

Remaining in the Text in Christ in Spirit is part of the Abiding and Enduring Walk. And following His lead and guidance is absoluteky a part of this.

I think an interesting thing that even the example of its use on this thread is how it does compile seemingly pretty accurately some of the arguments and interpretations of what it was tasked to do. Asked another way it should compile the opposing answers. For some of the foreseeable future it seems it's going to take some properly structured requests to try to make certain it's providing precisely what one is looking for.

I just used MS Copilot to ask a generalized question

can a christian lose his salvation​

​

The question of whether a Christian can lose their salvation is one that has sparked theological debates for centuries. Different Christian denominations and theologians interpret this differently, drawing from scripture and tradition to support their views.​

For instance:​

• Eternal Security (Once Saved, Always Saved): Some believe that once someone truly accepts Christ, their salvation is secure and cannot be lost, citing verses such as John 10:28-29 where Jesus speaks of His followers never being snatched away.
• Conditional Security: Others hold that salvation requires ongoing faith and obedience, and can be forfeited if someone turns away from their faith. Passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 are often referenced for this perspective.
• Catholic View: In Catholicism, salvation is seen as a journey involving grace, faith, and good works. Mortal sin without repentance can lead to separation from God, but reconciliation is always possible through confession and repentance.

Ultimately, this topic taps into deep theological concepts like God's sovereignty, human free will, grace, and perseverance. If you're interested in exploring it further, I can share more insights or dive into related scriptures. Let me know!​

​

Honestly, at this point I'd rather have that response than to be sitting in a pew being taught just one of them without being informed there were others. And this is why I've been asking some about their history of learning. Being taught how to read the Text is different than being told what the Text means and that's all there is to it.

 

[Genez]

At this juncture, AI is stringing together Scriptures based upon how men have strung together Scriptures. To disagree with AI as I read those verses is simply to disagree with men who use the same verses to say the same things.

Get used to it. Not too long ago I heard some say a cassette player was the God of some, then CD's, then...

It seems more productive to discuss the content - the Scriptures - and how they're being interpreted and why the conclusions are right or wrong.

NO!!!! That is mechanical!

God may not want you to know every verse that contains a word you are looking for.
He may have you recall just enough to do the job, knowing full well you would exhaust another
if everything possible were given.
And, AI provides NO WISDOM.
NO INSIGHT!

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, ​

He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things ​

that I said to you." John 14:26​

With AI, the way you are seeming to think it should be used?
Would be like ending up with a robot nursing a baby!

​

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, ​

and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."​

As far as teaching us!
AI is NOTHING!


..................but do not have love, I am nothing."

.......
scary

 

[Musicmaster]

I am not claiming that baptism is required to be saved.

And I gave an example where "and" is not introducing a mandatory condition one must fulfil in order to be included in the consequence. I only need to show that this is possible in this case. I do not need to prove it is the case in every case, not in this case.

No, I don't see the problem in my assumption.

That you would even suggest, in this context, the possibility that the conjunctive "and" in the biblical texts not being a conjunctive but rather a potential choice, no. We're not talking about a mere human who would make use of the "and" in relation to a subjective choice for acceptance or rejection, no. That's a rudiment of Agnosticism you're injecting into the biblical context here rather than a recognition of a sold, doctrinal mandate for those who were under the Kingdom Gospel. Do you see the problem here? God is not like a man to make allowances for His commands to be obeyed on the basis of personal whim.

In the final analysis, we're not under that Gospel, but they were in the time that James and Peter wrote and spoke those things to Israel, never the Gentiles, and therefore my problem with what you introduced into this on the basis of personal preference. The scriptural texts did not at all leave it open to those believers under the Kingdom Gospel as to if they wanted to get water baptized or not, just like following the mandates of the Law. The Israelites picked and chose which of the Laws they wanted to obey, and it got them so deep into the proverbial hot water that the Lord killed many of them and scattered the rest many times over throughout history.

I hope you can appreciate the problem in trying to introduce a liberal twist into what clearly is not at all a good fit to the language of the scriptural texts.

MM

 

[GWH]

Remaining in the Text in Christ in Spirit is part of the Abiding and Enduring Walk. And following His lead and guidance is absoluteky a part of this.

I think an interesting thing that even the example of its use on this thread is how it does compile seemingly pretty accurately some of the arguments and interpretations of what it was tasked to do. Asked another way it should compile the opposing answers. For some of the foreseeable future it seems it's going to take some properly structured requests to try to make certain it's providing precisely what one is looking for.

I just used MS Copilot to ask a generalized question

can a christian lose his salvation​

​

The question of whether a Christian can lose their salvation is one that has sparked theological debates for centuries. Different Christian denominations and theologians interpret this differently, drawing from scripture and tradition to support their views.​

For instance:​

• Eternal Security (Once Saved, Always Saved): Some believe that once someone truly accepts Christ, their salvation is secure and cannot be lost, citing verses such as John 10:28-29 where Jesus speaks of His followers never being snatched away.
• Conditional Security: Others hold that salvation requires ongoing faith and obedience, and can be forfeited if someone turns away from their faith. Passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 are often referenced for this perspective.
• Catholic View: In Catholicism, salvation is seen as a journey involving grace, faith, and good works. Mortal sin without repentance can lead to separation from God, but reconciliation is always possible through confession and repentance.

Ultimately, this topic taps into deep theological concepts like God's sovereignty, human free will, grace, and perseverance. If you're interested in exploring it further, I can share more insights or dive into related scriptures. Let me know!​

​

Honestly, at this point I'd rather have that response than to be sitting in a pew being taught just one of them without being informed there were others. And this is why I've been asking some about their history of learning. Being taught how to read the Text is different than being told what the Text means and that's all there is to it.

So, where does MS Copilot land on this question?

 

[Genez]

It's no wonder these guys do not like R.B. Thieme Jr.
He was straight.

God does not change.
Only excuses do.

 

[studier]

So, where does MS Copilot land on this question?

It lands on being informative without conclusion.

The same query to the basic search engine (whatever it was I used) came back and said, NO, the Christian can't lose salvation.

I suppose we'll be applying 1Cor1 & 3 soon - well, my search engine (or AI or robot) says....

 

[Inquisitor]

We in Christ in Spirit can review the presented Scriptures and point being made. As was said, it's a compilation of information that has been put forth through teachings.

It supports loss of salvation so I'm not surprised some will just condemn it without reviewing it and explaining why and where it's right or wrong. So, the new excuse for not explaining Scripture is that it's AI. Same practice different nemesis.

An interesting phenomenon that reluctance to throw in the towel.

To admit that an understanding of the scripture may not be accurate.

This misunderstanding of certain viewpoints is widespread in the world of Christianity.

That is why so many topics are constantly debated.

 

[Inquisitor]

It lands on being informative without conclusion.

The same query to the basic search engine (whatever it was I used) came back and said, NO, the Christian can't lose salvation.

I suppose we'll be applying 1Cor1 & 3 soon - well, my search engine (or AI or robot) says....

I will have to check the Microsoft AI.

 

[Inquisitor]

It lands on being informative without conclusion.

The same query to the basic search engine (whatever it was I used) came back and said, NO, the Christian can't lose salvation.

I suppose we'll be applying 1Cor1 & 3 soon - well, my search engine (or AI or robot) says....

Here is the question I asked Microsoft Copilot.

So a Christian must apply themselves to the faith to be saved. Therefore, OSAS cannot be true.
You cannot one day become a Christian and then forget about Jesus.
And live your own life to the full; a life devoid of love, a life of continuous denial and sin.
Please state whether OSAS is true or not.

The doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS) is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, and many passages challenge its validity. Scripture emphasizes the necessity of perseverance, obedience, and active faith for salvation.
Scriptural Evidence Against OSAS

1. Matthew 24:13: "But the one who endures to the end will be saved." This implies that salvation is contingent upon enduring in faith and obedience.
2. Hebrews 6:4-6: Warns of the impossibility of repentance for those who have fallen away after being enlightened.
3. James 2:17: "Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." Faith must be active and lived out through obedience.
4. Revelation 3:5: "The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life." This suggests that names can be removed from the book of life if one does not remain faithful.

The Call to Obedience
Jesus and the apostles repeatedly stress the importance of obeying God's commandments:

• John 14:15: "If you love me, keep my commandments."
• 1 John 2:3-6: "We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands."

Conclusion
Based on the New Testament, salvation requires ongoing faith, obedience, and perseverance. The idea that one can become a Christian and then live a life devoid of love and obedience contradicts the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Therefore, OSAS does not align with the scriptural emphasis on enduring faith and active obedience

 

[Genez]

An interesting phenomenon that reluctance to throw in the towel.

To admit that an understanding of the scripture may not be accurate.

This misunderstanding of certain viewpoints is widespread in the world of Christianity.

That is why so many topics are constantly debated.

Debated.... And, those having answers are often times refused and ignored.
(and, they all think they have the answer!)....

And, that is why Jesus said the road to destruction (of the spiritual walk) is broad and wide.
That when we get to heaven, we are going to discover only a few were able to fulfill God's plan for their lives.

Only few find it. Many are saved!

In Christ.....

 

[Genez]

I wanted to understand @Beckworth and @studier, for their point of view about Hosea 6:7. That's all. Their point of view is valid.


💒

The Covenant of Adam was simple....

"Don't eat of the tree, and you shall live."

Very simple in concept.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

The Covenant of Adam was simple....

"Don't eat of the tree, and you shall live."

Very simple in concept.

I know, but I wanted to see what they were talking about. I respect their point of view as well.


🫖

 

[Genez]

I know, but I wanted to see what they were talking about. I respect their point of view as well.


🫖

And, I was just trying to cut to the chase concerning Adam.

IMHO. A covenant back then may be seen as a "contract" today.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

And, I was just trying to cut to the chase concerning Adam.

IMHO. A covenant back then may be seen as a "contract" today.

Yeah, I know what a covenant means.


🫖

 

[Inquisitor]

NO!!!! That is mechanical!

God may not want you to know every verse that contains a word you are looking for.
He may have you recall just enough to do the job, knowing full well you would exhaust another
if everything possible were given.
And, AI provides NO WISDOM.
NO INSIGHT!

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, ​

He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things ​

that I said to you." John 14:26​

With AI, the way you are seeming to think it should be used?
Would be like ending up with a robot nursing a baby!

​

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, ​

and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."​

As far as teaching us!
AI is NOTHING!


..................but do not have love, I am nothing."

.......
scary

So your saying Genez; talking the talk is insufficient one must also walk the walk.

If the tree does not bear fruit?

If one does not forgive are they forgiven?

Real faith must generate fruit and works?

Is perseverance and endurance necessary?

 

[Inquisitor]

Debated.... And, those having answers are often times refused and ignored.
(and, they all think they have the answer!)....

And, that is why Jesus said the road to destruction (of the spiritual walk) is broad and wide.
That when we get to heaven, we are going to discover only a few were able to fulfill God's plan for their lives.

Only few find it. Many are saved!

In Christ.....

Correct Genez, to hold a certain viewpoint usually means ignoring verses, that contradict that viewpoint.