Loss of salvation???

[studier]

The teacher should be a good example and personify the Christian faith.

To which all of us including the teacher are accountable to.

 

[Roger316]

My question was simple - Do we choose to believe?"

Your answer seems to say yes and no.

So, please just simplify all of this;

- Does God require us to choose to believe His Gospel?

- Does God require us to continue to choose to believe His Gospel?

You might recall that Jesus was very critical of those who had little faith or wouldn't believe, but did he ever assign them to darkness because of that? I don't think so. Maybe.

Think about this. Paul says that God's wrath is poured out on those who know the truth but suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God pours out his wrath, not on those who don't know the truth, or don't believe the truth, but on those who suppress the truth that they already know and believe.

If we choose to believe in Jesus, it then depends on what we do with our belief. Do we act accordingly or do we act as if it isn't true?

I wonder if any of us "choose" to believe? Hasn't God prewired us to believe those whom we trust? Parents? Teachers? Ministers? This allows learning to take place. if I am right, then we are choosing whom to trust, and we accept what they say until they prove themselves untrustworthy.

what do you think?

 

[Mem]

I see a command made to our volition that we choose to obey or not to obey and I see disobedience linked to grieving Him which I do see as making Him sad.

Even though no one wants to upset anyone that they love, it happens. The degree of the upset which is 'allowable' or 'tolerated is, of course, debatable. I'll humor you in regarding it as a command of which, if one fail to observe, would result in grieving the Holy Spirit. But contained within the command, a good reason is offered, because (my word inserted) we are sealed in Him unto the day of redemption (and so we/He 'can't' take leave and return at a better time like in a typical earthly relationship). That is, He suffers the grief that you've incurred on Him and you, also, must endure the 'biochemical' reaction.

 

[studier]

You might recall that Jesus was very critical of those who had little faith or wouldn't believe, but did he ever assign them to darkness because of that? I don't think so. Maybe.

Think about this. Paul says that God's wrath is poured out on those who know the truth but suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God pours out his wrath, not on those who don't know the truth, or don't believe the truth, but on those who suppress the truth that they already know and believe.

If we choose to believe in Jesus, it then depends on what we do with our belief. Do we act accordingly or do we act as if it isn't true?

I wonder if any of us "choose" to believe? Hasn't God prewired us to believe those whom we trust? Parents? Teachers? Ministers? This allows learning to take place. if I am right, then we are choosing whom to trust, and we accept what they say until they prove themselves untrustworthy.

what do you think?

I think more than I can type, but I'll take it a ways.

Yes, Jesus called them ogilopistoi - "little faiths" - and correlated it to doubt and lack of understanding. At times he seemed frustrated, and of course he didn't assign them to darkness - he was sent to pull us all out of darkness and develop us in light.

Those who did not will to come to Him so they could have life - those who remained in darkness by their own choosing for whatever reasons they so choose (see near the bottom here) - He didn't have to assign to darkness because they were already there.

Jesus commended great faith on a few occasions. Simply put, one was the woman who exhibited great humility in the presence of authority (Jesus) and the other was a soldier who understood subordination to rank and authority and the power of that [great] authority - again another angle on humility.

I agree with the point I think you're making about Rom1 which very clearly tells us all men know Him and some do not value having Him knowledge. This IMO reflects the choice to reject knowledge we have.

I also agree with your point about believing in Jesus and living accordingly. I don't see genuine faith in God apart from obedience to God.

Yes, I do think we choose to believe. I don't think our volition is ever removed from the equation and I think it is at root what God is dealing with in men since the Garden.

Maybe there is some truth to the hardwiring function you speak of but if we choose who to trust, then we choose who to believe. But we can trust someone and not believe all they say. The one denominator that keeps popping up is choice and it may be what's the actual hard-wiring.

There was a lot of work going on in a Faith-Alone camp I was in some time ago. Some in this group were working very hard in Scripture to prove that initial belief was absolutely passive. In one effort they were approaching it through peitho from which comes pisteuo. So, the theory was that God convinces us = we believe - thus we do absolutely nothing, which I know sounds great to some Free-Grace folks and certainly to some or many Reformed, even though Free-Grace Faith-Alone are adamantly opposed to Reformed Faith-Alone.

IMO, when we begin looking at believe through convinced, we need to step back and view volition at the convinced part, which effectively, logically means volition in believing. Being convinced or not can be influenced by many personal wants and don't wants, while others stand and scream 'can't you see this!?' It's going on in these threads with all sides screaming at other sides constantly, but from what actual internal characteristics?

If we want to get to the Truth we have to set ourselves aside which is very difficult to actually and completely do. It's one of the reasons I went to learn the languages - there has to be a way to be closer to objectivity where each word says what it says no matter what our desires, and common Greek is supposed to be one of the most specific languages there is.

So, bottom line, yes I do think we choose to believe. I also think we choose to be convinced or to suppress and reject. I think Rom1 at minimum takes us there. God makes Himself known - you'd think this would convince everyone - but some choose instead to be convinced by alternative information - to believe alternate information - to submit to the authority of alternate information. Which is one of the next discussions in regard to choosing to believe.

And, before leaving Rom1, when Paul uses 'dokimazo' in regard to not having God is [experiential knowledge, and 'adokimos' as a description of the minds of those who so choose to reject God, at it's base this speaks of value, which gives us an insight into the ones who choose to reject God and suppress truth - their rejection is based in what they value - what they want and don't want based upon what they value - and this takes us all over the place sorting out the psychologies of men.

 

[Toknow]

Certain conditions are simply a confirmation. Our absolute assurance of salvation is found only in Jesus Christ. (1 John 5:11-13)

Your verse:

1 John 5:11-13
11And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.


Where do you read about absolue assurance of salvation in the above?

Here are the conditions the above is teaching:

1. The life is in His Son. verse 11

2. He who HAS THE SON has life,,,,,
He who DOES NOT HAVE THE SON does not have life. Verse 12

3. The verse is written to those that BELIEVE in the Son so that they may have eternal life. Verse 13


Note that we have eternal life ONLY IN THE SON.

This is why Jesus taught that we are to ABIDE IN HIM...
otherwise we will be throw away just as He stated in the following:

John 15:5-6
5“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

6“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.


IF creates a condition that must be followed for the rest of the statement to come to pass.

IF we DO NOT ABIDE in Jesus....we will be thrown away as a branch.

Yes,,,we can be assured of salvation
IF
we abide in Christ.

 

[Toknow]

I think more than I can type, but I'll take it a ways.

Yes, Jesus called them ogilopistoi - "little faiths" - and correlated it to doubt and lack of understanding. At times he seemed frustrated, and of course he didn't assign them to darkness - he was sent to pull us all out of darkness and develop us in light.

Those who did not will to come to Him so they could have life - those who remained in darkness by their own choosing for whatever reasons they so choose (see near the bottom here) - He didn't have to assign to darkness because they were already there.

Jesus commended great faith on a few occasions. Simply put, one was the woman who exhibited great humility in the presence of authority (Jesus) and the other was a soldier who understood subordination to rank and authority and the power of that [great] authority - again another angle on humility.

I agree with the point I think you're making about Rom1 which very clearly tells us all men know Him and some do not value having Him knowledge. This IMO reflects the choice to reject knowledge we have.

I also agree with your point about believing in Jesus and living accordingly. I don't see genuine faith in God apart from obedience to God.

Yes, I do think we choose to believe. I don't think our volition is ever removed from the equation and I think it is at root what God is dealing with in men since the Garden.

Maybe there is some truth to the hardwiring function you speak of but if we choose who to trust, then we choose who to believe. But we can trust someone and not believe all they say. The one denominator that keeps popping up is choice and it may be what's the actual hard-wiring.

There was a lot of work going on in a Faith-Alone camp I was in some time ago. Some in this group were working very hard in Scripture to prove that initial belief was absolutely passive. In one effort they were approaching it through peitho from which comes pisteuo. So, the theory was that God convinces us = we believe - thus we do absolutely nothing, which I know sounds great to some Free-Grace folks and certainly to some or many Reformed, even though Free-Grace Faith-Alone are adamantly opposed to Reformed Faith-Alone.

IMO, when we begin looking at believe through convinced, we need to step back and view volition at the convinced part, which effectively, logically means volition in believing. Being convinced or not can be influenced by many personal wants and don't wants, while others stand and scream 'can't you see this!?' It's going on in these threads with all sides screaming at other sides constantly, but from what actual internal characteristics?

If we want to get to the Truth we have to set ourselves aside which is very difficult to actually and completely do. It's one of the reasons I went to learn the languages - there has to be a way to be closer to objectivity where each word says what it says no matter what our desires, and common Greek is supposed to be one of the most specific languages there is.

So, bottom line, yes I do think we choose to believe. I also think we choose to be convinced or to suppress and reject. I think Rom1 at minimum takes us there. God makes Himself known - you'd think this would convince everyone - but some choose instead to be convinced by alternative information - to believe alternate information - to submit to the authority of alternate information. Which is one of the next discussions in regard to choosing to believe.

And, before leaving Rom1, when Paul uses 'dokimazo' in regard to not having God is [experiential knowledge, and 'adokimos' as a description of the minds of those who so choose to reject God, at it's base this speaks of value, which gives us an insight into the ones who choose to reject God and suppress truth - their rejection is based in what they value - what they want and don't want based upon what they value - and this takes us all over the place sorting out the psychologies of men.

Great post !

 

[Toknow]

I don't hate IF's. Hebrews 3:6 - but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are IF we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end. So, IF is a confirmation that we are His house.

Hebrews 3:14 - For we have become partakers of Christ IF we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end. Again, IF is a confirmation that we have become partakers of Christ. I don't hate the word REMAIN and BTW the word REMAIN is not found here. You are applying your own personal eisegesis to the text.

IF can be used to confirm something, as you've stated.

For instance...in the temptaion of jesus in the desert.
Matthew 4

Satan tells Jeus IF you are the Son of God.....
satan knew He was the Son.

But in your verses:
Hebrews 3:6 and 3:14 it is not a confirmation.

It is stating a condition.


Hebr 3:14 WE HAVE BECOME PARTAKERS OF CHIRST IF WE HOLD OUR CONFIDENCE STEADFAST TILL THE END.


Hebrews 3.14 is clearly giving a condition.

IF we hold our confidence,,,,we have become (in the future) partakers of Christ....
it confirms the conditon by saying when the action will happen....TILL THE END.

We must hold our confirmation TILL THE END....
in order to become partakers of Christ.

 

[Toknow]

I love it. I ask you a question and you avoid it with another question

This is what you stated in post 8332:

"My comments have to do with those who think they follow the whole LAW as I believe you think you do and others here."

It sounds like you think I'm following The Law.
The Law was abolished 2 thousand years ago.

So perhaps we don't understand The law in the same way.
My question is legitimate....
words/expressions must be defined in order to continue a conversation.

It's necessary to be sure that both parties understand the word in the same way.

 

[Toknow]

Your right nice talking to you I learned so much!!! I would bow down but my knees don't do that well .

Like I said....
you sure do give up easily.

 

[Toknow]

It is free with regard to other men, but not with regard to God. I go back to Deuteronomy, where Moses draws a comparison between Israel before God circumcises her heart and afterward. Before God circumcises her heart, she is disobedient, rebellious, and suffers the curses. After he circumcises her heart, she will become obedient and receive the blessings.

God chooses whom to save and he gives them a faith that will persevere.

There are no scriptures that speak about man's freedom because man's freedom is understood to be a fact. But there are scriptures that speak about the privation of man's will, what you call "sin nature". In that condition, it is impossible to please God. That being the case, it is impossible to be saved through faith. Left to himself, a man will always fall away from the faith. By contrast, those whom God is saving are blessed with a transformed will, a circumcised heart, a heart indwelt by the Holy Spirit. According to the Apostles, these will never fall away.

Let's talk about Romans 8

Roger,,,,
I can't spend time trying to figure out if your reformed.
From your above post I'd say that you are.

Man has free will and this is shown throughout scripture.

Joshua said that he and his household CHOSE to serve God.
Joshua 24:15

Deuteronomy 30:19
.19“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,


God does not choose whom to save.
Please provide scripture if you believe He does.

The "privation of man's will" is what I call the sin nature?
The sin nature does not keep us from seeking God....

which is what total depravation teaches.
Please post a verse that states that we are totally depraved.

And you wish to discuss Romans 8?
Yes. You're reformed.

Happy to discuss the golden chain of redemption with you,,,,
as soon as you confirm you theological belief.

 

[Toknow]

This slogan is too confusing to answer concisely. In your view, a person is saved the moment he or she confesses faith. If that is true, then obviously OSAS is not true. But if Salvation is granted to those whom God chooses, then ONCE Chosen Always Chosen.

You'll have to post some scripture that states that God chooses WHO will be saved.

Yes, I agree.

Yes, most certainly

We would need to review the context. God tells Israel not to harden her heart, but it wasn't as if she had a choice. Right? She was still in Adam, with a sin nature. How would it make sense to say that our will is enforced independently of our nature?

Man always has a choice.
I just posted two verse and there are more.

Please post some that state that we do not have a choice.

 

[studier]

Even though no one wants to upset anyone that they love, it happens. The degree of the upset which is 'allowable' or 'tolerated is, of course, debatable. I'll humor you in regarding it as a command of which, if one fail to observe, would result in grieving the Holy Spirit. But contained within the command, a good reason is offered, because (my word inserted) we are sealed in Him unto the day of redemption (and so we/He 'can't' take leave and return at a better time like in a typical earthly relationship). That is, He suffers the grief that you've incurred on Him and you, also, must endure the 'biochemical' reaction.

Humoring me seems disrespectful - a command is a command and minimizing it in any way minimizes His authority to command and our responsibility to obey Him, which is to believe in Him, which is to love Him, which is....

As I said, apart from a real and comprehensive definition and explanation of "sealing" of which the aorist tense does not make forever, and with the "for/unto redemption" language only specifying the targeted time, saying the seal can or cannot be broken is argument from silence and combined with the aorist leaves open the eternal security issue.

I don't think either side of the debate thinks God will not honor His promise that nothing external can separate us from Him. But that takes us right back to the discussion of willful apostasy.

Also, the Text tends to warn at earlier levels so to speak and then escalate. As Jesus taught, sin at the thought level is the real issue, so we start there. I showed you language that goes from command not to grieve the Spirit, which already can carry the sense of outrage, to similar language that does speak of outrage of the Spirit in a section of Scripture that speaks of withdrawing into destruction, to similar language that says that men disobeyed and grieved/provoked/caused a state of inward arousal of the Holy Spirit so He turned Himself into an enemy and fought them.

So, back to Eph and the verb that does not provide eternal security. Then to where you wanted to go re: sealing and not grieving, I'm seeing no substantiation of what sealing means other than the thought that it has to do with a concealment which is only a secondary and figurative sense of the word, and I see no security in the verb tense, no actual statement of ability of the seal to be broken stated in the verse aside from argument from silence, and a minimizing of a command and other surrounding commands made to the volition of believers, and virtual silence about other potential Scriptures tied to grieving/outraging the Holy Spirit and causing Him to turn into an enemy and fight those who outrage Him.

 

[Toknow]

It has been a few decades since I was taught a bit of the Greek. Was my teacher incorrect, or does my memory fail me concerning the ‘Ifs” in Scripture. It seems that I recall there were 3 primary if’s;
1- If, and “it may or not be true.”
2- If, and “it is true.”
3- If, and “it is not true.”

I also understand that the nuance in any given verse depends on the Greek construction, not just the English word “if,”

So, how one understands those “If” statements does seem to be based on ones theology as well as the Greek.

Exactly ! IF has different meanings:

For example in Matthew 4:3 it means FORASMUCH AS.
Strong's 1487 ei

IF you are the son of God.
Satan knew jesus is the Son.




Instead in Hebrews 3:14 it means PROVIDED THAT
Strong's 1437 ean


it sets a condition.
Part one will not happen unless part 2 is followed.

example: You will be saved IF you abide in Christ.


(I had just posted this to @mailmandan he likes the Greek so he might be interested
in the Strong's definitions)

 

[Toknow]

Give us as much sound understanding as you give criticism you might turn out to be half good at teaching soundly.

Actions speak louder than wrods.

Matthew 15:18-20
18“But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
19“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
20“These are the things which defile the man;

 

[studier]

IF can be used to confirm something, as you've stated.

For instance...in the temptaion of jesus in the desert.
Matthew 4

Satan tells Jeus IF you are the Son of God.....
satan knew He was the Son.

But in your verses:
Hebrews 3:6 and 3:14 it is not a confirmation.

It is stating a condition.


Hebr 3:14 WE HAVE BECOME PARTAKERS OF CHIRST IF WE HOLD OUR CONFIDENCE STEADFAST TILL THE END.


Hebrews 3.14 is clearly giving a condition.

IF we hold our confidence,,,,we have become (in the future) partakers of Christ....
it confirms the conditon by saying when the action will happen....TILL THE END.

We must hold our confirmation TILL THE END....
in order to become partakers of Christ.

Just a bit of language info to add to what you've said - the "IF" here is written in an intensified form - the NET translation is picking this up with "if in fact" and the ESV is doing so with "if indeed". It looks like BDAG Lexicon is saying this is the strongest way to state this conditional - it is by no means casual.

 

[studier]

So, back to Eph and the verb that does not provide eternal security. Then to where you wanted to go re: sealing and not grieving, I'm seeing no substantiation of what sealing means other than the thought that it has to do with a concealment which is only a secondary and figurative sense of the word, and I see no security in the verb tense, no actual statement of ability of the seal to be broken or not stated in the verse aside from argument from silence, and a minimizing of a command and other surrounding commands made to the volition of believers, and virtual silence about other potential Scriptures tied to grieving/outraging the Holy Spirit and causing Him to turn into an enemy and fight those who outrage Him.

@Mem - another correction necessity timed out.

 

[Mem]

@Mem - another correction necessity timed out.

I would've like it if you'd have inserted [sic]

 

[Mem]

Paul addressed the question 'shall we then sin (all we want) so that grace would abound?' because he was fully aware of opportunity to assert that argument. Indeed, it's a predominant argument currently being employed in another thread.

 

[Toknow]

Just a bit of language info to add to what you've said - the "IF" here is written in an intensified form - the NET translation is picking this up with "if in fact" and the ESV is doing so with "if indeed". It looks like BDAG Lexicon is saying this is the strongest way to state this conditional - it is by no means casual.

Using the FORM of the IF used would be helpful in the translation process.

Some translations are literal and may not like to use this method.
Personally, I find it to be closer to the meaning of the original Greek, and have no problem with it.

I've never used the amplified version...wonder what they would do with the IF's....

I checked:

Matthew 4:3 They just translate IF

Hebrews 3:14 IF ONLY
Amplified Bible
For we [believers] have become partakers of Christ [sharing in all that the Messiah has for us], if only we hold firm our newborn confidence [which originally led us to Him] until the end,


The Amplified even added that we have to hold firm to what ORIGINALLY led us to Him.....until the end.

 

[studier]

I would've like it if you'd have inserted [sic]

Understood, but an aorist verb and an argument from silence used by either side to assert opinions apart from a comprehensive explanation of what sealing is and is not, doesn't convince me either way.