Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can Salvation be lost?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by CadyandZoe View Post
    The Bible draws a distinction between "elect" and "partiality." The difference between these two concepts is twofold: 1) the person chosen, 2) and the reason for choosing him or her.

    The person:
    election - The person whom God chooses is no different than any other person.
    partiality - The biased elector chooses a person based on some quality, state or distinction found in the person elected.

    Peter argues that God is not biased or partial, and in that context, he means to say that the basis of God's election is not inherent in the person. That is, God is not saving Jews alone, or men alone or rich people alone. He is saving people from wall walks of life, every family line, every station, every nation, and every age of history. In God, there is no partiality.

    The reason - (the purpose it serves)

    But to say that God is impartial is not to suggest that God is not an elector of persons. (Isaiah 42:1) God sets aside various people to serve special purposes. The Biblical term for that choice is "holy"; to be consecrated for a special purpose is to be "sanctified". (From the Latin: sanctus = holy) Holy bread, for instance, is no different than regular bread. There is no chemical or physical difference between holy bread and regular bread. One is set aside for a holy purpose, and the other is eaten for lunch. What makes it "holy" is the purpose it serves.

    For instance, God chose the people of Israel to be his holy people. Was Israel taken by preference based on some unique quality she possessed? Not according to God. According to him, his choice was not predicated on her unique qualities. (Deuteronomy 7:7, Isaiah 43:25, Ezekiel 36:22, 32)

    We are not being saved because of some special quality we possess. We are being saved in order to serve his purpose and plans.
    Brother, your argument is still along the same lines, that God saves some people and leaves others to perish. I am not ignorant of the doctrine of election and sanctification. However, scripture is clear that God wants all men to be saved (2 Tim 2:4), not preferring one over another. He loves us too much in that he sent his Son to die for our sins. But every individual has the choice to exercise their free will to make that all-important decision whether to believe the gospel and be saved or not.

    As Sovereign, God reserves the right to appoint some to a special position. That's not in dispute. But we are talking about saving sinners generally. What I deduced from your argument is that God is still partial. Thus, those he won't save have been programmed not to believe even if they receive the gospel.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by watchinginawe View Post
      Hmm. Please consider Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

      Is the "us" in the above the Elect? Is love toward the Elect alone not showing partiality? Yes, all are sinners, but does God only love some of them? The quality of the elector choosing would be that of "loving them". I'm sorry, but if God does not love all, then this would show some kind of partiality. If I were to tell my wife that I selected her from among all women and saw her as no different than any one of them, I might experience a colder winter. Of course we are partial, but is God? John 3:16 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. We have the same thing in John 3:16 where Jesus says that because God so loved the world, the purpose of His begotten Son is stated. Love is the motive. Does God love all, or is God partial? Was Jesus given to all because God loved us all and all His creation? Or was Jesus given to just those God loved?
      I agree because every saved believer is an "elect" before.

      Comment


      • If only one of you who believe in election could show me legitimate scripture that clearly states all the saved are elect I would deeply appreciate it. For me to believe such a doctrine the scripture proving it has to be clear and to the point. The truth of it must be said by the scripture it self not an interpretation of man. I've read the Bible all the way through many times and I have never seen anything that says the saved are in fact elect.
        If I'm wrong you will have settled a very long battle I've had with those who believe in this election of the saved.
        Sawyer

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sawyer View Post
          If only one of you who believe in election could show me legitimate scripture that clearly states all the saved are elect I would deeply appreciate it. For me to believe such a doctrine the scripture proving it has to be clear and to the point. The truth of it must be said by the scripture it self not an interpretation of man. I've read the Bible all the way through many times and I have never seen anything that says the saved are in fact elect. If I'm wrong you will have settled a very long battle I've had with those who believe in this election of the saved.
          Sawyer
          The Bible is not a novel or another book written by a man. So it's OK to read it back to back and still not understand a lot of things. Only God's discernment gives one the ability to understand it.

          Israel is special to God as a race because of his 'promise' to the Patriarchs. It is on this basis that Paul argued in Rom 11 that God has not forgotten his people. Unfortunately many misunderstand the import of God's answer when Elijah made a petition against Israel. God assured Elijah that even though Israel had given itself wholly to idolatry, yet he has reserved for himself, 7000 men that had not bowed to Baal.

          In this context, we understand that that elect is invariably associated with belief and faithfulness in God. As God told Elijah that the elect is those that faithfully believe in him, we should also apply it to the NT. Therefore, the "elect" in the NT denotes all that believe in Jesus Christ, whether Jew and Gentile. The common denominator between the OT and NT elect, is that God himself testify that they are faithful.

          In Rom 2:28-29, Paul argued that a Jew before God is not one with only the outward attributes, e.g. circumcision, etc. but one that embraces both the outward and inward circumcision, i.e. that of the heart. With this in mind, it makes zero sense to assume that a Christ-rejecting Jew is an elect. Many erroneously believe that Jesus was referring to Israel when he said that the great tribulation will be cut short for the sake of the elect in Matt 24:22. But this is not the case because the elect in the context means the true believers, the Church. Naturally, it comprises of Jews and Gentiles.

          Here is a couple of citations where Paul used the word "elect".

          Col 3:12 Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
          Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;


          In both cases, Paul was addressing a Gentile church and not the Jews. There are many more similar verses, but I'm not one to copy and paste the whole Bible when one or two verse will suffice. Hopefully, this helps clarify the matter for you.

          Comment


          • In my humbled opinion this is why I do not believe it is possible for Gentiles to be elect. No where does scripture come right out and say it plainly so that all men can understand it. In col 3:12 It says "put on as the elect"this is what we are to put on"holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering";
            As the elect do is what this verse is saying to me.It's not saying to become the elect I do my best to live out these qualities in myself. Just as the elect do

            In Titus1:1 Paul is explaining his authority to preach the gospel according to the elect. Neither of these verses are speaking about Gentiles being elect. Nor can they be made to.
            To imply that. Myself just does not understand is really a cop out that maybe you don't know why you believe in election for your self.

            Most likely is that you adhere to doctrines preached by man. The Calvinist do this as well. They value what Preachers of old said, rather than what the scripture actually says. Understanding is in your court. Why would you use verses that do not say what you claim they do?
            Sawyer

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sawyer View Post
              In my humbled opinion this is why I do not believe it is possible for Gentiles to be elect. No where does scripture come right out and say it plainly so that all men can understand it. In col 3:12 It says "put on as the elect"this is what we are to put on"holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering";
              As the elect do is what this verse is saying to me.It's not saying to become the elect I do my best to live out these qualities in myself. Just as the elect do

              In Titus1:1 Paul is explaining his authority to preach the gospel according to the elect. Neither of these verses are speaking about Gentiles being elect. Nor can they be made to.
              To imply that. Myself just does not understand is really a cop out that maybe you don't know why you believe in election for your self.

              Most likely is that you adhere to doctrines preached by man. The Calvinist do this as well. They value what Preachers of old said, rather than what the scripture actually says. Understanding is in your court. Why would you use verses that do not say what you claim they do?
              Sawyer
              Paul wrote to the Colossian church, primarily made up of Gentile converts. In the first verse in chapter 3, he started by encouraging them to focus on things above:

              Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.

              Col 3:10And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

              11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

              12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;


              For clarity, you can read the chapter from verse 1-12 to understand that Paul was address the Colossians, who are not Jews. Yet he called them "the elect". For reasons best known to you, you ignored who Paul addressed, but focused rather on the virtues he encouraged them to put on. You take a horse to the water; forcing it to drink is another matter...You are free to believe what makes you happy.

              Blessings

              Comment


              • Now I know that the Lord saves His anointed; He will answer him from His holy heaven With the saving strength of His right hand. Psalm 20:6

                Originally posted by Sawyer View Post
                If only one of you who believe in election could show me legitimate scripture that clearly states all the saved are elect I would deeply appreciate it.
                Who will bring charges against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, but rather, was raised, who is at the right hand of God, Rom 8

                Knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God. 5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, 1 Thess 1

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trivalee View Post

                  Brother, your argument is still along the same lines, that God saves some people and leaves others to perish. I am not ignorant of the doctrine of election and sanctification. However, scripture is clear that God wants all men to be saved (2 Tim 2:4), not preferring one over another. He loves us too much in that he sent his Son to die for our sins. But every individual has the choice to exercise their free will to make that all-important decision whether to believe the gospel and be saved or not.

                  As Sovereign, God reserves the right to appoint some to a special position. That's not in dispute. But we are talking about saving sinners generally. What I deduced from your argument is that God is still partial. Thus, those he won't save have been programmed not to believe even if they receive the gospel.
                  I am glad you are familiar with the doctrine of election. I was not arguing, however, in favor of the doctrine. My argument was an attempt to demonstrate why God's election is fundamentally different than "selection", which is the basis of your charge that the doctrine logically implies partiality.




                  Partiality

                  Comment


                  • The locus of our discussion is Peter's assertion that God is without partiality. We both agree that, with regard to justice, God is free of bias or favoritism. He is fair and equitable, his judgments are true and without prejudice. To Peter's point, God is not playing favorites. With regard to salvation, the Jews are not being treated any differently than the Gentiles. He does not favor one group over another group.

                    To this I want to make two points: 1) Divine election is fundamentally different than human selection, and 2) Justice is not the same as mercy; these are also fundamentally different.

                    The question of impartiality is understood within the context of justice, whether someone is guilty or innocent and whether a person should be rewarded or punished. An impartial judge looks only at the facts and the law, and with a kind of "Olympian detachment" renders his or her judgment. In other words, a person's age, gender, race, nationality, or economic status did not enter into the calculus of his decision. The only question is whether or not an individual violated the law.

                    According to the New Testament, though, we all stand condemned before God's moral goodness. We are all sinners. We are all guilty. With regard to those who sinned, there is no distinction because we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In other words, salvation is NOT a matter of justice, since all stand condemned.

                    Mercy, on the other hand, is fundamentally different. The logic and expectations concerning mercy are different than the logic and expectations of justice. Good and righteous judges are impartial, dispassionate, and fair, not playing favorites. Not so with the benefactor. A benefactor is free to have mercy on whomever he wishes. He is free to give aid, comfort and help to whomever he chooses. Human benefactors select out certain individuals to bless based on personal preferences and goals.

                    Scholarships, for instance, are typically awarded based on merit, but not always. Sometimes they go to the sons and daughters of well-respected men. Sometimes they are awarded to good students, but other times they are awarded to good athletes or even those who are beautiful in appearance. The point is, favor is granted preferentially based on criteria established by the benefactor.

                    So then, if God decides to grant salvation to those who believe and follow his son, he is not being partial or unfair to those who don't, because salvation isn't a matter of equity, fairness, or justice. God's preferential treatment of Jesus believers is not an act of justice but an act of mercy. Rather than acting as "God the judge" he is acting as "God the beneficient."

                    Nonetheless, Divine Election is not the same as human selection. These two are fundamentally different in this respect. Human selection is a process of selecting or picking one person over another person based on personal preference. The chosen one is deemed to be more valuable or excellent than other people.

                    Divine Election, according to Paul the apostle, is not the act of choosing. Divine election is an act of creation. Paul illustrates divine election by analogy with a potter. The potter, using the same clay, makes one pot to use as a chamber pot, while he makes another pot for flowers. Unlike the woman who needs a pot for her flowers, choosing one pot from among all the store offers, God is like the potter who makes a pot suitable for the purpose it serves. The woman selects pots she prefers; the potter makes pots he prefers.

                    Salvation is an act of God's creation. We are among God's elect, not because he chose us, but because he created us for that purpose. We can not lose our salvation because we can not thwart the creative power of God.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by CadyandZoe View Post
                      I am glad you are familiar with the doctrine of election. I was not arguing, however, in favor of the doctrine. My argument was an attempt to demonstrate why God's election is fundamentally different than "selection", which is the basis of your charge that the doctrine logically implies partiality.
                      Partiality
                      Are you sure you are referring to my post because there's nothing in my position that alludes to the theory that God is partial in his saving grace?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trivalee View Post

                        Are you sure you are referring to my post because there's nothing in my position that alludes to the theory that God is partial in his saving grace?
                        No. I wasn't responding to a position you hold. I was responding to your argument against a position that I hold.

                        BTW, I am having trouble with the functionality of this board. I didn't mean for my previous post to be split into two parts.

                        So let me ask you this. If God desires to save all men, then why doesn't he?
                        Before you answer, pretend like I have already heard all the arguments based on freedom of the will.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by CadyandZoe View Post
                          The locus of our discussion is Peter's assertion that God is without partiality. We both agree that, with regard to justice, God is free of bias or favoritism. He is fair and equitable, his judgments are true and without prejudice. To Peter's point, God is not playing favorites. With regard to salvation, the Jews are not being treated any differently than the Gentiles. He does not favor one group over another group.

                          To this I want to make two points: 1) Divine election is fundamentally different than human selection, and 2) Justice is not the same as mercy; these are also fundamentally different.

                          The question of impartiality is understood within the context of justice, whether someone is guilty or innocent and whether a person should be rewarded or punished. An impartial judge looks only at the facts and the law, and with a kind of "Olympian detachment" renders his or her judgment. In other words, a person's age, gender, race, nationality, or economic status did not enter into the calculus of his decision. The only question is whether or not an individual violated the law.

                          According to the New Testament, though, we all stand condemned before God's moral goodness. We are all sinners. We are all guilty. With regard to those who sinned, there is no distinction because we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In other words, salvation is NOT a matter of justice, since all stand condemned.

                          Mercy, on the other hand, is fundamentally different. The logic and expectations concerning mercy are different than the logic and expectations of justice. Good and righteous judges are impartial, dispassionate, and fair, not playing favorites. Not so with the benefactor. A benefactor is free to have mercy on whomever he wishes. He is free to give aid, comfort and help to whomever he chooses. Human benefactors select out certain individuals to bless based on personal preferences and goals.

                          Scholarships, for instance, are typically awarded based on merit, but not always. Sometimes they go to the sons and daughters of well-respected men. Sometimes they are awarded to good students, but other times they are awarded to good athletes or even those who are beautiful in appearance. The point is, favor is granted preferentially based on criteria established by the benefactor.

                          So then, if God decides to grant salvation to those who believe and follow his son, he is not being partial or unfair to those who don't, because salvation isn't a matter of equity, fairness, or justice. God's preferential treatment of Jesus believers is not an act of justice but an act of mercy. Rather than acting as "God the judge" he is acting as "God the beneficient."

                          Nonetheless, Divine Election is not the same as human selection. These two are fundamentally different in this respect. Human selection is a process of selecting or picking one person over another person based on personal preference. The chosen one is deemed to be more valuable or excellent than other people.

                          Divine Election, according to Paul the apostle, is not the act of choosing. Divine election is an act of creation. Paul illustrates divine election by analogy with a potter. The potter, using the same clay, makes one pot to use as a chamber pot, while he makes another pot for flowers. Unlike the woman who needs a pot for her flowers, choosing one pot from among all the store offers, God is like the potter who makes a pot suitable for the purpose it serves. The woman selects pots she prefers; the potter makes pots he prefers.

                          Salvation is an act of God's creation. We are among God's elect, not because he chose us, but because he created us for that purpose. We can not lose our salvation because we can not thwart the creative power of God.
                          I like how you highlighted the various virtues like Justice, election, salvation, human selection, mercy, etc. and pointed out how they differ from one to the other. And I agree with your exposition on how some of them may appear to be similar, yet with differing application and interpretation.

                          I am however disappointed that you still fail to understand God's expressed position on salvation through his word. Have you wondered why believers are exhorted to remain in faith to the end? Surely, such advice would have been unnecessary if an individual is incapable of losing his salvation?

                          1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

                          Do you agree that it is impossible for one to depart from a faith he never had to begin with? Therefore, those Paul said will depart from faith in the end times (now) are saved believers, yet either the lure of the world, persecution or some inexplicable reasons will make them turn back from God. Again, if there is zero possibility of it happening, Paul who spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit would not have said it. Believers that hold your view are standing on slippery ground because of their unfounded belief that their salvation is irrevocable irrespective of whether they turned back from God.

                          After pointing out how Israel was broken off like a branch from the olive tree because of sin and Gentiles grafted in, Paul warned Gentiles that unless they abide in Christ, they too will also be cut off.

                          Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
                          • Hopefully, you agree that to be grafted into the olive tree is to be saved, receive salvation?
                          • And that only those that believe in Christ are grafted in?.
                          • It is also noteworthy that Paul was addressing saved believers here since unbelievers cannot be grafted in.
                          • Yet, Paul revealed that there is a proviso to salvation - to remain in Christ to the end of mortal life.
                          • Or, what do you think Paul meant by "otherwise thou shall be cut off", perhaps a clip in the ear to say, hey, behave?
                          There are zillions of similar passages throughout the bible, unfortunately, many read them without really taken in what they mean because their minds are already made up to the contrary.

                          Comment


                          • Those who hold that salvation cannot be lost should consider the following.
                            • Why did scripture exhort believers to persevere to the end?
                            • Why did Paul say that in the latter times (presently), some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits (1 Tim 4:1)?
                            • Why did Paul warn saved Gentile believers to continue in goodness (abide in Christ), otherwise they will be cut off from the olive tree (Christ) Rom 11:22?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                              Do you agree that it is impossible for one to depart from a faith he never had to begin with?
                              No, my argument isn't that it is impossible for one to depart from the faith. I maintain that if God is saving someone, it is impossible for him to fail. The loss of salvation is NOT a Biblical question. Rather, the salient question is whether or not God is saving a particular individual. One would do well to study 2 Peter chapter one, where Peter speaks about the power of God to save, "seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness." He speaks about those who have obtained a "divine nature", listing qualities and markers of the one whom God is saving. Then he promises that those who practice such things "will never stumble." He advises his readers to "be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you", presumably because the promise is certain for those whom God is saving. And the evidence that God is saving any particular individual is "if these qualities are yours and are increasing."

                              Therefore, those Paul said will depart from faith in the end times (now) are saved believers, yet either the lure of the world, persecution or some inexplicable reasons will make them turn back from God. Again, if there is zero possibility of it happening, Paul who spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit would not have said it. Believers that hold your view are standing on slippery ground because of their unfounded belief that their salvation is irrevocable irrespective of whether they turned back from God.
                              My argument is with those who assume that believers are "saved", which is not a Biblical idea. Some believers are being saved, while others are not. In order to know the difference, Peter says, one must assess whether "these qualities are yours and are increasing." Those who have become partakers of the divine nature will increase in the following:
                              " . . . also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love."

                              If these qualities are not mine and increasing, then Peter says that I should question whether God is saving me or not.

                              After pointing out how Israel was broken off like a branch from the olive tree because of sin and Gentiles grafted in, Paul warned Gentiles that unless they abide in Christ, they too will also be cut off.
                              That's right. I agree with that. Nevertheless, based on what Peter wrote, we can now understand that any Gentile who does not abide in Christ is not a Gentile that God was saving. I disagree, though, with those who say that being grafted onto the tree represents salvation. Rather, being grafted onto the tree represents holiness.

                              Hopefully, you agree that to be grafted into the olive tree is to be saved, receive salvation?
                              No, the tree represents holiness, not salvation. "[I]f the root is holy, the branches are too." Romans 11:16

                              And that only those that believe in Christ are grafted in?
                              Paul isn't speaking about individual people in this passage. He is speaking about nations. Israel, as a nation, was considered a holy nation. For the time being, all the nations (Gentiles) have access to the promise of Abraham and are considered holy. "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” Acts 10:15

                              It is also noteworthy that Paul was addressing saved believers here since unbelievers cannot be grafted in.
                              I wouldn't make that assumption.

                              Yet, Paul revealed that there is a proviso to salvation - to remain in Christ to the end of mortal life.
                              I take us back to the passage in 2 Peter, though we could visit the epistle of James and the epistles of Paul. What are the qualities and conditions present in those who persevere to the end? Primarily, as Peter says, those who make it to the end are those in whom God has placed a divine nature. In Paul's words, those who persevere to the end are those in whom God has poured out his Holy Spirit. These are the ones who are supplying moral excellence, and etc.

                              Or, what do you think Paul meant by "otherwise thou shall be cut off", perhaps a clip in the ear to say, hey, behave?
                              I believe, based on 2Thessalonians chapter 2, that Paul is hinting that God will indeed cut off the Gentile nations. Knowing this, we do well not to remain arrogant.

                              I am glad this board has allowed me to discuss this issue with you and I hope it stays open long enough for you to see that I did not ignore your post. I hope this post finds you well and prosperous.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CadyandZoe View Post
                                No, my argument isn't that it is impossible for one to depart from the faith. I maintain that if God is saving someone, it is impossible for him to fail. The loss of salvation is NOT a Biblical question. Rather, the salient question is whether or not God is saving a particular individual. One would do well to study 2 Peter chapter one, where Peter speaks about the power of God to save, "seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness." He speaks about those who have obtained a "divine nature", listing qualities and markers of the one whom God is saving. Then he promises that those who practice such things "will never stumble." He advises his readers to "be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you", presumably because the promise is certain for those whom God is saving. And the evidence that God is saving any particular individual is "if these qualities are yours and are increasing."
                                Above you used the adjective "saving" four times instead of the verb save. This highlights your misunderstanding of salvation. Your position is predicated on the erroneous assumption that it takes God a man's lifetime to save him, contrary to scripture. We are told repeatedly that we are saved immediately we believe, ie. instantly saved - not a lifetime of being saved as if God is incapable of doing the job in an instant. Unfortunately, poor understanding of God's expressed position is the bane of sound doctrine. The under listed passages should help you understand that we are SAVED when we believe.

                                Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
                                Rom 10:9 If thou shall confess with thou mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shall be saved.
                                2 Tim 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,


                                Notice that the three passages are consistent with the word "saved"? I am not one to copy and paste the whole Bible when one or two passages suffice. Therefore, I challenge you to provide just one scripture where scripture says that God is saving us? The correct scriptural position is that we are saved the minute we come to faith and then charged to continue in faith throughout our mortal life. In contrast, sanctification is a continuous process. So I hope you are not confusing sanctification with salvation?

                                On this basis, the one who fails to abide continually in Christ will lose their salvation - this is what the Lord Jesus and the apostles warned believers. So your doctrine that God is saving us, thus we can not lose our salvation is unscriptural and man-made.

                                Originally posted by CadyandZoe View Post
                                My argument is with those who assume that believers are "saved", which is not a Biblical idea. Some believers are being saved, while others are not. In order to know the difference, Peter says, one must assess whether "these qualities are yours and are increasing." Those who have become partakers of the divine nature will increase in the following:
                                " . . . also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love."

                                If these qualities are not mine and increasing, then Peter says that I should question whether God is saving me or not.
                                Again, until you get the basic concept right, your doctrine will remain skewed. You inexplicably deny a Biblical fact that those who believe are saved. Instead, you claimed without foundation that it is not a biblical idea. Where you got this idea beats me because the Bible says the opposite - see my citations above. Once again, you claimed that some believers are 'being saved' and others, not. This assumption has no place in scripture. Feel free to debunk my view by citing a passage in support of your position.

                                There is a distinction between a 'believer' and a 'Christian' because one can be a Christian and still be unsaved because of unbelief. On the contrary, it is impossible to be a believer and be unsaved because the connotation "believer", implies one with absolute faith and trust in Christ. However, only God who knows the heart of men knows those who are believers. So the idea that some believers are unsaved, is wrong and unscriptural.

                                Your wrong application of Peter's remarks to support your position unsurprisingly is the mistake of people who misinterpret a passage and then base their doctrine on that premise.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X