Why I now believe that salvation can be lost.

[PaulThomson]

All God's elect are his children-- even the "little" children; for Jesus said earlier:

Matt 11:20-26
20 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children . 26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
NIV

It is not a good hermeneutics to take the use of a term in one place and transpose it onto every place it occurs. In one case the context is about literal "little children"
In the other Jesus is using the term "little children" as a term of endearment referring to adults who are His disciples.

 

[Magenta]

We are talking about Adam and Eve before the fall.. Not after. So I am honestly not sure what your asking sis

Before the fall, sure. And after too, since they were still of the natural world. That had not changed.
If they were perfect, would they have sinned? Jesus is perfect. He did not sin. We are perfected in Him.

 

[Rufus]

It is not a good hermeneutics to take the use of a term in one place and transpose it onto every place it occurs. In one case the context is about literal "little children"
In the other Jesus is using the term "little children" as a term of endearment referring to adults who are His disciples.

All God's children are his "little children". What else could we possibly be when compared to an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, good, righteous, holy being? How would you characterize mere mortals next to him? Are the clay pots right up there next to the Potter?

And, yes, it is good hermeneutics to see how key terms or phrases are used in scripture. And in this case, especially, since Matthew used the identical phrase in a different context.

 

[posthuman]

It is not a good hermeneutics to take the use of a term in one place and transpose it onto every place it occurs. In one case the context is about literal "little children"
In the other Jesus is using the term "little children" as a term of endearment referring to adults who are His disciples.

And, yes, it is good hermeneutics to see how key terms or phrases are used in scripture. And in this case, especially, since Matthew used the identical phrase in a different context.

i think the right way to study a word or phrase is go collect all the uses of it, put them all beside each other, and look for a pattern in them.
it may or may not be the same meaning in every use - but all the usage together are like a puzzle that fit together into one picture.

Numbers 31:9-11​

And the children of Israel took the women of Midian captive, with their little ones, and took as spoil all their cattle, all their flocks, and all their goods. They also burned with fire all the cities where they dwelt, and all their forts. And they took all the spoil and all the booty—of man and beast.​

 

[Musicmaster]

MM wrote:
I really don't understand what your point in all this really is in relation to what I said. The instrument of Law was and is a good thing, but like you said, it could not and cannot save anyone. Yes. We all agree with that, so can we get past that? The Law, as a "schoolmaster" is a good thing in that regard, and in many others, such as us knowing what sin is by the Law, so please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, as the proverbial saying goes. The good news (gospel) within the Law, and that characterizes the Law, is that it the means by which sin is identified and known.

If you're going nit-pic every statement and nuance, then we will get nowhere.

But you forget that the Law actually aroused and stirred up sinful passions due to the weakness of the flesh, which is why the Law could only condemn. Sin actually increased under the law! The Law can and never will save anyone. All the law could do is put people in bondage to it. All this is hardly good news!

Also, in this NC dispensation, one of the ministries of the Holy Spirit is to convict people of sin. One does not need the written code of Mosaic Law to know they are sinners, since all men intuitively know God's law, for God wrote the works of the law upon all men's hearts.

Well, as an Israeli, I can honestly say that we never needed the Law to stir up sinful passions in us. Human nature is sufficient in concocting its own plethora of sinful passions. My people are obstinate, hard headed and stiff-necked, just as scripture says, and if you knew anything about historic writings from the ancient cultures that ever had any dealings with Israel, even with Israelis as their captives, you would know how difficult we are as a people.

So, trying to direct a choir of which you know nothing about only leads to disharmony in the cantata...

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Read Dan 9 and Mat 24 someday. A great deal of Mat 24 was pertinent to Jesus' generation, i.e. "this generation"will certainly not pass away until ALL these things have happened (Mat 24:34). And...the phrase "this generation" is used multiple times in Matthew's gospel and in every single case it means the the people who were alive when Jesus spoke his words.

Yes, but the problem with your Preterist claims is that they are based upon grossly inconsistent claims and lack harmonious consistency with history and the Bible. You are failing to rightly divide the word of truth, so your confusion is therefore understandable.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I did. I was a christian, but I drifted away, and spent years without him, but rrecently re-discovered him, and I can tell you that I am saved, because now, somethings diffrent. I used to live in fear of dying and having done it wrong, but now I know I am saved and I can tell that the devil knows, because he has stopped giving me that, and now try's to get me to do other things.

IF you were truly saved before that episode, then you did not lose your salvation by "drifting away" from God. If you believe you were truly saved, then you had to possess power greater than that of God Himself to lose your salvation.

MM

 

[Magenta]

Well, as an Israeli, I can honestly say that we never needed the Law to stir up sinful passions in us. Human nature is sufficient in concocting its own plethora of sinful passions. My people are obstinate, hard headed and stiff-necked, just as scripture says, and if you knew anything about historic writings from the ancient cultures that ever had any dealings with Israel, even with Israelis as their captives, you would know how difficult we are as a people.

So, trying to direct a choir of which you know nothing about only leads to disharmony in the cantata...

MM

Scripture says in Romans 5:20a ~ The law came in so that the trespass would increase;

 

[PaulThomson]

If you believe you were truly saved, then you had to possess power greater than that of God Himself to lose your salvation.

There is no rational argument behind that assertion. If God chose to create a world where beings could freely choose to have a loving relationship with Him or choose not to, it would not take greater power than God to turn away from Him and prefer friendship with the world.

 

[PaulThomson]

hmmm...
is God expressing His omniscience here or His ignorance?

John 6:68-70​

But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?"​

Was this episode happening before the twelve were called? How long after they were called do you think this episode was happening. "Is" is present tense. Because Judas "is" at this time a devil, does not mean he was always a devil. Jesus is expressing His present knowledge here.

 

[PaulThomson]

But faith is a work of God, for it is a gift that he gives to his elect. God even purifies the human heart by his faith (Act 15:9).

By that definition, everything good is a gift of God. Our ability to hear, see, taste, smell, feel, think, reason, do art, do math, read, speak etc. are all things we do that are gifts of/from God. Do you assert that whenever we seem to be doing any of these things, it is God's hearing, sight, taste, touch, smell, reason, artistic skill, etc. that is doing these things ? That God uses our faith to purify our hearts, does not mean that God is doing the believing that purifies our hearts. When I transfer my chattels from one house to another by truck, it is not necessarily my truck I am using. When I give hope to some depressed soul, it is not me putting my own hope into them.

 

[PaulThomson]

Huh? What are you trying to say. So what...that there are 150 classes of false disciples: Are any of them going to be saved? What is your point?

The point is that it is the fallacy of negative inference to argue that because some people who end up lost never had a relationship with Christ, then the only ones who end up lost are those who never had a relationship with Christ.

 

[PaulThomson]

You would maybe have a point’’

But he said they will never die

if you will never perish or die. Then you will live forever.

so your point is destroyed.

Whoever wears this fireproof suit will never get burned. Does this mean that once I have put on the suit I can never be burned, even if I have taken it off later?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Before the fall, sure. And after too, since they were still of the natural world. That had not changed.
If they were perfect, would they have sinned? Jesus is perfect. He did not sin. We are perfected in Him.

I think you reading to much into it sis when I say perfect I mean without sin. God gave them free will. If that is imperfection then I do not know what to think Jesus had free will to yet he did not sin

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

There is no rational argument behind that assertion. If God chose to create a world where beings could freely choose to have a loving relationship with Him or choose not to, it would not take greater power than God to turn away from Him and prefer friendship with the world.

There is no rational argument that says a God who is all knowing will save a person he knows will willingly walk away In the future. Left alone give them eternal life. And tghe promise they will never die..

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

There is no rational argument behind that assertion. If God chose to create a world where beings could freely choose to have a loving relationship with Him or choose not to, it would not take greater power than God to turn away from Him and prefer friendship with the world.

Actually there is

we trust someone who has given us an assurance, or a reason to trust them

we only lose faith when the person fails us or become untrustworthy.

so unless you think God is untrustworthy to lose faith in him to save your eternal soul.. there is no reasonable argument to say one would ever lose faith

 

[PaulThomson]

There is no rational argument that says a God who is all knowing will save a person he knows will willingly walk away In the future. Left alone give them eternal life. And tghe promise they will never die..[/QUtTE]
I don't believe God knows whether someone will willingly walk away or not in the future. I believe God knows all truth, but most of the future has not yet been determined, so is not yet true, and so is not part of the "all truth" that God knows. So for me it is perfectly rational to say that God is all knowing and can save a person who could knowingly walk away in the future. Nowhere in scripture are we told that God knows all of the future.

 

[PaulThomson]

Actually there is

we trust someone who has given us an assurance, or a reason to trust them

we only lose faith when the person fails us or become untrustworthy.

so unless you think God is untrustworthy to lose faith in him to save your eternal soul.. there is no reasonable argument to say one would ever lose faith[/QU

Adam and Eve did not lose faith when God failed them or became untrustworthy. They lost faith when they were seduced into believing that God was untrustworthy. Nevertheless God was not untrustworthy, nor had he failed them.

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
There is no rational argument behind that assertion. If God chose to create a world where beings could freely choose to have a loving relationship with Him or choose not to, it would not take greater power than God to turn away from Him and prefer friendship with the world.

Actually there is

we trust someone who has given us an assurance, or a reason to trust them

we only lose faith when the person fails us or become untrustworthy.

so unless you think God is untrustworthy to lose faith in him to save your eternal soul.. there is no reasonable argument to say one would ever lose faith

Adam and Eve did not lose faith when God failed them or became untrustworthy. They lost faith when they were seduced into believing that God was untrustworthy. Nevertheless God was not untrustworthy, nor had he failed them.

 

[Musicmaster]

Scripture says in Romans 5:20a ~ The law came in so that the trespass would increase;

As an Israeli, I can say that the simplistic interpretation of that verse is absolutely erroneous.

The Greek meaning in that passage, coupled with our history, points to the fact that, by the coming of the Law, we knew what sin was, which shined a spotlight (so to speak) upon the things that were/are sin that not even we knew about, so the pot of sin definitions was greatly enlarged as many of our lifestyle choices and practices suddenly became sinful, and sin therefore increased as we continued to practice what was sin by habit.

Being so stuff-necked, we didn't like giving up on our habits, just like many other peoples, and so yes, the commission of sin did increase because of the things that were brought into the mix of what became defined as sin. The claim that we started sinning more, only at face value...that's the fallacy in the weaknesses of our English translations. They are translations only rather than expository translations that explain the proper understanding of words that have multiple definitions.

Far too many people out there think that they can pick whatever definition meets with their personal agendas or misunderstandings, and argue those points as if they knew what they were talking about. There are commentaries out there that also get this so very wrong. No wonder so many more people are beginning to hate us Jews as they paint us as being worse than they. That's a level of group-think that any culture can do without.

MM