Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, UR promises salvation to everyone whether they want it or not, so there is no one left out behind the door, and there is no one who leaves. Losing or not losing existing faith has nothing to do with UR.
The denial that scripture \ Jesus warns about losing faith (which if a person does), God holds accountable that person..which is no different than a UR'er denying that God holds the unbeliever accountable. You both have unbelievers going to heaven... just UR is more liberal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Abandoning faith does not result in loss of eternal salvation, it results in grieving of the spirit and interruption in fellowship with the Lord.
I truly do not understand how hard it must be for a person to work so hard to make scripture fit the theology. If you take the theology away and just read scripture independently and let it speak for itself, it is quite plain.
It is not Biblical truth Mike555, and it is only supported by your theology, a POV. Whether you see it or not.
We all see that you ignore the Bible and the specific message and replace it with your interpretations and philosophies of men. For some that is acceptable and they think it sounds intellectual and profound (like you think of yourself). For most of us we know those theological musings for what they are and would rather rely than the inspired word of God.
When the words of the scriptures conflict with what you want them to say, in order to agree with your theology, you just insert elaborate rationalization for why they mean something completely different from the explicit message. You do this so often you are desensitized to the absurdity of that behavior. None of the words you use or concepts you present are even in the scripture you are talking about. You boldly redefine words, proclaim attributes and expound upon concepts that are only in your musings, not in the Koine Greek of the scripture.
Severed just means diminished relationship: I will remember that farce for a long time! You could write a book of theology and that assertion would never make sense. LOL The inspired writer was articulate and clear, directed by the holy spirit to write "you are severed from Christ" (κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ) and to think you suggest it just means "you hit a rough spot in your relationship with Christ"...LOL Do you expect us to think that was the most articulate Koine Greek that Paul and the holy spirit could come up to express ""you hit a rough spot in your relationship with Christ"? Even those that accept your theology cannot believe they could find a definition for severed in a Koine Greek lexicon to support your assertion. They are just gullible enough to completely dismiss the meaning of the written words in the Bible and believe that grandiose sounding theology you present.
Well it is true there are millions and millions of people that put their faith in Christ, but they will never accept your theology. My, or their, "attitude" is unimportant because we do put our faith in Jesus, not your theology. Your methods of contorting the meaning of the scriptures to fit your doctrine will always be detestable to them. You will never be believed, but their salvation is secured.
Another good thing is that all those JWs out there can know that even though you do not like their "attitude", the theology that you promote ensures they are all saved too. Whether they are converts or not, they all put their faith in Jesus and are saved, no matter what other people might say.
Thank you for the dialog instead of posted links. You are a funny man! Still LOL!
Eternal Security can be defined as the believer's unbreakable relationship with the integrity of God. It remains unbreakable because of who and what God is, not who and what we are. It is what God does for us in salvation that makes this relationship permanent. Salvation is a gift of God and at the moment of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, God gave us at least forty grace gifts that are irrevocable. He cannot and will not ever take these gifts away, ROM 11:29. We cannot negate them; no other creature can negate them; even God Himself cannot negate them, ROM 8:38-39. We are kept and guarded by the power of God, 1PE 1:5.
If you are an unbeliever, the issue is faith in Christ. You must be born again. ACT 16:31b "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved" JOH 3:17-18 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
It is only through faith in the One who took your place on the Cross, and paid the price for your sins, that you can become born again and saved. Therefore, if you have never become born again and saved, take this opportunity to tell God the Father, in the privacy of your own soul, that you believe in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, as your personal Savior.
Mike,
I did look at it (Ankerberg Theological Research).... and I attempted to understand it.
The simple answer is that Mr Ankerberg just starts from a incorrect theological foundation and then proceeds to fit scripture to the incorrect ideology.
It is well documented that a person who endorses Millennialism also believes:
OSAS
decision theology
(usually) reject that baptism saves
(usually) rejects that baptism offers forgivens of sins
(usually) claims baptism is just a dedication
(usually) claims Lord's supper represents his body and blood
(usually) rejects that the L.S. offers forgiveness of sins
(usually) is of Reformed, Anabaptist\Baptist background
and also one who is Amillennialism
denys OSAS (but still realizes that God does indeed has eternally secured the elect)
accepts that baptism saves
accepts that baptism offers forgiveness of sins
accepts that baptism is a means of grace
accepts that the L.S. "is" means "is"
accepts that the L.S. offers forgiveness of sins
(usually) is of Lutheran background
As most know ... I firmly am convinced that Amillennialismis what scripture teaches.
However, what unites us is the Protestant doctrines of the five Sola's
Sola Scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
Sola Fide (" by faith alone" )
Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")
That is why I try to not activly press the differences between us.
You persist in relating falling away from what you had once believed with falling away from salvation. The believer does not lose his salvation just because he loses his faith.
I am not saying that at all! I am quoting scripture.
(Galatains 5:4) 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Neither I nor the scripture say "fallen away from what you once believed" as YOU suggest.
We not say fallen away from faith as you also imply.
I am saying the scripture clearly states "you have fallen from grace"
It is YOU that is suggesting fallen away does not mean, to lose. You now say it is “diminished”. You have already confirmed that grace and salvation are synonymous. However you now recant your previous definition and try to impose a unique definition of “relationship”
Thus you say “fallen from grace” means “diminished relationship”.
It appears you feel you have editing rights over Paul and the holy spirit's work.
I persist that the scriptures say and mean FALLEN FROM GRACE just as it was written.
We should discuss how this occured AFTER the Koine Greek translation issues are settled instead of the typical theological penchant of creating the Bible Greek lexicon around their belief regardless of the Koine Greek definition.
LOL Mike555 I think we all know there are others that share this belief. Theologians have been busy for centuries developing their doctrines. How do you think it become a profession? If they could not convince people they would not eat (or have million dollar ministries).
This old chestnut has been tickling the ears of “believers” since the reformation, There are 1000s of treatises on this topic available. There is very little difference between any of them nowadays. They all use the same scriptures and reasoning, and they all ignore the scriptures that directly contradict it. When you can get anyone to engage in a meaningful discussion you can quickly see that it is NON-Biblical. I have read so many in my life there is really nothing new on this you can present.
I am only interested in listening to your defense when confronted with the scriptures that disprove the belief. That is the only thing I have not heard much of before because it is, of course, ignored in the treatises. However, the defense tactics are often the same. Restate the belief and ignore the scripture, or use the belief to demonstrate an alternate meaning of the scripture. You have employed both stratagems.
I have respect for your knowledge and intellect; however your arguments consist mainly of non-biblical concepts and interpretations that are inconsistent with accurate translation of the original Koine Greek. You tend to utilize the Bible Greek lexicons that theologians developed (Vines, Strongs, etc).
I will also acknowledge that I do not disagree with ALL you say, it is just that it is often misapplied to support the theological rhetoric rather than being consistent with Bible principles. You often digress into the faith vs. works rhetoric which has been the bread and butter for theologians for centuries. It remionds me of the adage:
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
However, that debate is mainly pertinent to the people’s politics of religion and is rarely pivital to understang Bible principles.
However, we do see its effects in theoology are substatial, such as the development of "once saved, always saved" belief where faith has been elevated to be so powerful that if you have one instant of unconditional belief in Christ's sacrifice, you are a saved Christian. Mahatma Gandhi is probably a saved Christian. So once and for all they Can prove faith is everything (for an instant) and works are nothing, and then faith is nothing too.
Back to some meat again, Mike, you still have not answered any questions on Hebrews 6:1-8. You just keep restating that standard faith vs works interpretation in isolation. (I hate to ask this but it is in your interpretation)Where in those verses does it talk about “works”? Where in those verses does it talk about sacrifices? Of course you know where i am going with this. We should actually see the words and concepts of your interpretation IN the verses or surrounding passages. Can you do it? I mean post the verses and your interpretation in a format so they are easily compared. Copy, paste, do some tweaking, it should not be too hard. I would do it but i do not want to be accused of doing it wrong. Thanks
LOL Mike555 I think we all know there are others that share this belief. Theologians have been busy for centuries developing their doctrines. How do you think it become a profession? If they could not convince people they would not eat (or have million dollar ministries).
This old chestnut has been tickling the ears of “believers” since the reformation, There are 1000s of treatises on this topic available. There is very little difference between any of them nowadays. They all use the same scriptures and reasoning, and they all ignore the scriptures that directly contradict it. When you can get anyone to engage in a meaningful discussion you can quickly see that it is NON-Biblical. I have read so many in my life there is really nothing new on this you can present.
I am only interested in listening to your defense when confronted with the scriptures that disprove the belief. That is the only thing I have not heard much of before because it is, of course, ignored in the treatises. However, the defense tactics are often the same. Restate the belief and ignore the scripture, or use the belief to demonstrate an alternate meaning of the scripture. You have employed both stratagems.
I have respect for your knowledge and intellect; however your arguments consist mainly of non-biblical concepts and interpretations that are inconsistent with accurate translation of the original Koine Greek. You tend to utilize the Bible Greek lexicons that theologians developed (Vines, Strongs, etc).
I will also acknowledge that I do not disagree with ALL you say, it is just that it is often misapplied to support the theological rhetoric rather than being consistent with Bible principles. You often digress into the faith vs. works rhetoric which has been the bread and butter for theologians for centuries. It remionds me of the adage:
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
However, that debate is mainly pertinent to the people’s politics of religion and is rarely pivital to understang Bible principles.
However, we do see its effects in theoology are substatial, such as the development of "once saved, always saved" belief where faith has been elevated to be so powerful that if you have one instant of unconditional belief in Christ's sacrifice, you are a saved Christian. Mahatma Gandhi is probably a saved Christian. So once and for all they Can prove faith is everything (for an instant) and works are nothing, and then faith is nothing too.
Back to some meat again, Mike, you still have not answered any questions on Hebrews 6:1-8. You just keep restating that standard faith vs works interpretation in isolation. (I hate to ask this but it is in your interpretation)Where in those verses does it talk about “works”? Where in those verses does it talk about sacrifices? Of course you know where i am going with this. We should actually see the words and concepts of your interpretation IN the verses or surrounding passages. Can you do it? I mean post the verses and your interpretation in a format so they are easily compared. Copy, paste, do some tweaking, it should not be too hard. I would do it but i do not want to be accused of doing it wrong. Thanks
Your questions have been answered over and over again. You simply resist what you have been told. Proverbs 26:4 says 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.' Since you have no desire to learn, I have given you enough of my time.
I truly do not understand how hard it must be for a person to work so hard to make scripture fit the theology. If you take the theology away and just read scripture independently and let it speak for itself, it is quite plain.
Let's read then. See below. You are correct, it is plain. Eternal life would not be eternal if it can be taken away. If you are right, Jesus was a liar promising eternal life to those who believe in Him. If you fall today, and your eternal life is taken away, then it was a very short "eternity", because it already ended.
When Christ makes you a new person, do you really believe He would later make you back to what you were before? Of course not. There are 200 verses in the Bible which promose eternal life to those who believe, and they all contradict your view.
John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one
John 6:40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son andbelieves in himshall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
Romans 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
For those who believe that once a person has accepted Christ and their salvation is secure, but dies in an unrepentant state, yet they are still saved, what after death process takes place to bring these people back to being worthy of being with God in heaven.
Are they already worthy, will they be in heaven just as they were when they died since they are still saved or must they be made ready after their death from earth?
Your questions have been answered over and over again. You simply resist what you have been told. Proverbs 26:4 says 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.' Since you have no desire to learn, I have given you enough of my time.
Thank you for your time. I know cutting and pasting and attaching links must put a heavy burden on your schedule.
What is most interesting about this comment is you consider yourself a teacher. LOL As you have readily demonstrated you are not adding anything to the information that is already available on the topic. And your stonewalling on answering follow up-questions makes you as useful as reading ANOTHER redundant treatise on "once saved, always saved"
To say you have answered my questions already on Hebrews 6:1-8 is a not true. All you have done is re-posted the same dissociated interpretation. My repeated unanswered questions are for you to demonstrate the correlation of your interpretation the actual text of the scriptures. I have read your presented interpretation many times and the questions are still unanswered. You say Hebrews 6:1-8 is about sacrifices, and "works". Those elements are NOT present in the verses or surrounding text, and yet you claim they are but refuse to demonstrate your claim.
We both know you will not be able to do so, but you will not acknowledge the interpretation you have is not present in the scripture. Instead of quoting a scripture and suggesting I am a fool, you should tell the truth and admit you are worried about looking like a fool again in providing answers regarding Hebrews 6:1-8
I am 100% certain we will see the same inconsistencies of your interpretation of Hebrews 6:1-8 as we did with Galatians 5:4 such as severed does not mean cut-off, fallen does not mean lost, and grace does not mean salvation.
Theology has woven a nice story together to explain there "once saved, always saved" belief, however what we see is that it is really indefensible once the scriptures outside their treatise have to be addressed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I rambled a bit, sorry
