Can a Christian lose their salvation

[Hoping]

You seem to have forgotten to what I was replying to.

Here is what was said:





You said, "God offered mankind repentance from sin."

But that's not what He offered.

He offered "repentance unto life." That is, in fact, "salvation"!

It's the "from sin" part I was correcting you on.

God has put before you LIFE and DEATH, therefore CHOOSE LIFE (repent), and live!

Repent means "change of mind."

God offered a change of mind, from living without God (death) to living with God (life, because He IS Life).



I was never in disagreement with the verse to begin with.



Your "hope" is vain, because your hope is not in God, it's in your good works.

Not mine, but in the Lord's through me.
Paul writes..."I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." (Gal 2:20)

Repent, turn and live!
Now, would you please retract your claim?

If you can't see that repentance is "from sin" I can't help it.

Unless you really want to say Paul and Barnabas were unregenerated...
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,

Bible Gateway passage: Acts 14:14-15 - New King James Version

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living...

www.biblegateway.com

Paul and Barnabas had the same nature as those who had not yet turned to the living God.

Is that a joke ?
Paul's words were an attempt to make the folks at Lystra, (who were treating them like Gods), see that they were mere men like them.
It wasn't a comment of their new nature by God.

That right there should make you stop and think about your position.

 

[Hoping]

I'm pretty sure the point @7djengo7 is trying to make is that you're refusing to recognize that something you said regarding your position was in error, because your position is self-contradictory, and that you should humble yourself and recognize that, and then make an effort to retract the incorrect thing you said.

If he would clean up his English I wouldn't have to keep correcting his posts.
He keeps trying to subtly change the course of the discussion with trickery, but I won't have it.
I will reword his posts so they are comprehendable.

 

[7djengo7]

I agree with what you wrote,

Here is what I wrote, and what you have once again told me you agree with:

According to your vicious heresy, a new creature has been a sinner.

but used better English to do so.

You "used better English" to do what, exactly?

 

[7djengo7]

If he would clean up his English I wouldn't have to keep correcting his posts.
He keeps trying to subtly change the course of the discussion with trickery, but I won't have it.
I will reword his posts so they are comprehendable.

Do what you will in the whitespace body of your posts, but remember that if I see you continuing your use of the function to misquote what I have written, I'll not hesitate to flag your fouls, to bring them to the attention of the TOL moderators.

 

[7djengo7]

I will reword his posts so they are comprehendable.

LOL @ the stupidity of saying you will reword that which you say you are unable to comprehend. Can you comprehend this: "aehf huh tfghhioojgf"? Please reword "aehf huh tfghhioojgf" so it is comprehendable!

 

[7djengo7]

I agree with what you wrote

VS​

I will reword his posts so they are comprehendable.

1) Do you agree with what I wrote, or 2) Is what I wrote not comprehendable to you? Which is it? It ain't both.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not mine, but in the Lord's through me.

Something you don't have.

Paul writes..."I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." (Gal 2:20)

Yes, that's for people who have put their faith in Him, rather than in their works.

You have not.

Your faith is in your doing of good works, that you might be saved on the last day, rather than trusting in Christ's completed work on the cross, that you WILL BE sealed until the day of redemption.

If you can't see that repentance is "from sin" I can't help it.

I cannot "see" something that is false.

Or do you think that God repented from sin?

Is that a joke ?

You're the one who said:

Only the "nature" of the unregenerated is mired in sin.

Paul's words were an attempt to make the folks at Lystra, (who were treating them like Gods), see that they were mere men like them.
It wasn't a comment of their new nature by God.

So now there's two different kinds of "nature" now?

You who claims to have been made a new creature, that you have a new nature, one that does not sin, are now claiming that your nature is not that of being sinless, as one of a "god" would be?

What about Elijah, whom you have still not answered me on?

Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, . . .

Bible Gateway passage: James 5:17 - New King James Version

Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months.

www.biblegateway.com

If he would clean up his English

His English is just fine. Maybe you need to read more slowly, so that you can comprehend what he's saying?

I wouldn't have to keep correcting his posts.

There you go, doubling down on your error.

Again, @7djengo7 has pointed out the error in your position, and rather than admitting your error, you try to pass the blame onto him.

How about, instead, you recognize the error in your position, and correct it?

He keeps trying to subtly change the course of the discussion with trickery, but I won't have it.

He's not. He has been completely on point.

I will reword his posts so they are comprehend{i}ble.

They are entirely comprehendible to someone who has their mind grounded in logic and reason.

 

[JudgeRightly]

 

[Hoping]

Something you don't have.
Yes, that's for people who have put their faith in Him, rather than in their works.
You have not.

Your faith is in your doing of good works, that you might be saved on the last day, rather than trusting in Christ's completed work on the cross, that you WILL BE sealed until the day of redemption.

My faith is in, among other things, the fact that God remade me so I could obey Him perfectly.
Isn't yours ?

I cannot "see" something that is false.

OK...?

Or do you think that God repented from sin?

No. as it didn't say He repented of sin.
He turned from one form of action to another.

So now there's two different kinds of "nature" now?

No, only one.
As a new creature old things have passed away and all things are made new. (2 Cor 5:17)

You who claims to have been made a new creature, that you have a new nature, one that does not sin, are now claiming that your nature is not that of being sinless, as one of a "god" would be?

I don't know what you are writing about ???

What about Elijah, whom you have still not answered me on?

I must have missed the question, as I usually skip over most of your writings.

Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, . . .

Bible Gateway passage: James 5:17 - New King James Version

Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months.

www.biblegateway.com

"Like ours" before or after rebirth ?

His English is just fine. Maybe you need to read more slowly, so that you can comprehend what he's saying?

Our opinions differ.

There you go, doubling down on your error.
Again, @7djengo7 has pointed out the error in your position, and rather than admitting your error, you try to pass the blame onto him.

I had to reword his post so I could reply to what I thought he had meant.

How about, instead, you recognize the error in your position, and correct it?

I will whenever I recognize error.

He's not. He has been completely on point.

Our opinions differ.

They are entirely comprehendible to someone who has their mind grounded in logic and reason.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Hoping]

Here is what I wrote, and what you have once again told me you agree with:

What does "has been a sinner" mean to you ?
Does it men the same as "had been a sinner" ?

 

[Hoping]

VS​

1) Do you agree with what I wrote, or 2) Is what I wrote not comprehendible to you? Which is it? It ain't both.

I agreed with what I thought you meant to write.

 

[7djengo7]

What does "has been a sinner" mean to you ?
Does it men the same as "had been a sinner" ?

• Every thing and every person that has been X, had been X.
• Every thing and every person that had been X, has been X.

You gain absolutely nothing by your bizarre, futile ploy of begging "had" for help against "has". It does not help you at all; it does not make your anti-logic proceedings disappear. Rather, it just further magnifies how much of a loon you are in your dedication to lying for your father Satan.

 

[7djengo7]

I agreed with what I thought you meant to write.

If you did not agree with what I wrote, then you did not agree with what I meant to write, since what I wrote is what I meant to write. Duh.

 

[JudgeRightly]

My faith is in, among other things, the fact that God remade me so I could obey Him perfectly.
Isn't yours ?

Your faith should be in what Christ has already done for you, rather than on what you do or do not do.

We in the body of Christ are sealed unto the Day of Redemption and our standing before God is not predicated upon what we do or don't do but on what Christ has done for us. (@Clete, I borrowed this from your post in the "The Plot" thread, hope you don't mind!)

You, Hoping, are not in the Body of Christ. You need to repent.

OK...?

That means that what you said is false.

No. as it didn't say He repented of sin.

Neither does Acts 11:18 say anything about repentance of sin.

It says "repentance to life." Nothing in the entire chapter of Acts 11 says ANYTHING about "repentance from sin." Just "repentance."

He turned from one form of action to another.

That's literally what "repentance" means, Hoping!

A change of mind.

Jeremiah 18 tells us that God will not do what He said He would do should circumstances change.

That's a change of mind, from "I will do this," to "I will not do this," or vice versa.

No, only one.

Then why did you say:

It wasn't a comment of their new nature by God.

... if there's only one "nature" being talked about in both circumstances, your claim that Christians are new creatures, and Paul saying "we are men with the same nature as [those who had not yet turned to the living God]"?

If Paul and Barnabas had the same nature as those who had not yet turned to the living God, then they, being "new creatures" themselves, have the same nature as "those who had not yet turned to the living God."

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts14:14-15&version=NKJV

In other words, Paul and Barnabas, having been made new creatures, have the same nature as men who have not turned to God. Meaning 1) they are men, yes, but more importantly 2) they being new creatures does not change their nature from "sinner" to "sinless."

As a new creature old things have passed away and all things are made new. (2 Cor 5:17)

AMEN!

I don't know what you are writing about???

Try reading what I say, then.

I must have missed the question, as I usually skip over most of your writings.

Doing so while conversing with me is intellectually dishonest.

"Like ours" before or after rebirth?

Does the Bible make a distinction between the two?

Our opinions differ.

Opinions have nothing to do with this.

I'm stating facts.

I had to reword his post so I could reply to what I thought he had meant.

And in doing so, you did not reply to what he actually meant.

Try responding to what he wrote, rather than what you wanted to respond to.

I will whenever I recognize error.

More intellectual dishonesty.

That's not what I said.

What I said was:

There you go, doubling down on your error.

Again, @7djengo7 has pointed out the error in your position, and rather than admitting your error, you try to pass the blame onto him.

How about, instead, you recognize the error in your position, and correct it?

The error in your position has been demonstrated to you. Thus, you should attempt to recognize it, or show how it is not an error.

Our opinions differ.

Once again, our opinions have nothing to do with this.

I was stating a fact.

Thanks for your opinion.

Once again, our opinions have nothing to do with this.

I was stating a fact.

 

[Hoping]

• Every thing and every person that has been X, had been X.
• Every thing and every person that had been X, has been X.

You gain absolutely nothing by your bizarre, futile ploy of begging "had" for help against "has". It does not help you at all; it does not make your anti-logic proceedings disappear. Rather, it just further magnifies how much of a loon you are in your dedication to lying for your father Satan.

OK, thanks for your clarification.
So, all those who repent of sin were once sinners.
If they were not sinners, they would have no reason to repent of sin.

 

[Hoping]

Your faith should be in what Christ has already done for you, rather than on what you do or do not do.

As I wrote..."among other things".

We in the body of Christ are sealed unto the Day of Redemption and our standing before God is not predicated upon what we do or don't do but on what Christ has done for us. (@Clete, I borrowed this from your post in the "The Plot" thread, hope you don't mind!)

As a no murderer, adulterer, or thief, is one of the sealed, what they do will not impact their salvation.

You, Hoping, are not in the Body of Christ. You need to repent.

I already have, and am one of God's ex-sinners.

That means that what you said is false.

Not sure of what you write of.

Neither does Acts 11:18 say anything about repentance of sin.
It says "repentance to life." Nothing in the entire chapter of Acts 11 says ANYTHING about "repentance from sin." Just "repentance."

Why refuse to believe that a turn from sin is essential to "life" ?

What's literally what "repentance" means, Hoping!

Yes, among other things.

A change of mind.

Or, a "turn from" something...in most biblical cases...sin.

Jeremiah 18 tells us that God will not do what He said He would do should circumstances change.
That's a change of mind, from "I will do this," to "I will not do this," or vice versa.

That's right.
His repentance was from something other than sin.
The context makes that clear.

Then why did you say:

Context, baby, context.

... if there's only one "nature" being talked about in both circumstances, your claim that Christians are new creatures, and Paul saying "we are men with the same nature as [those who had not yet turned to the living God]"?

Had their conversation been religiously/doctrinally oriented, Paul would have said something else.
He just wanted the folks not to treat them like gods.

Doing so while conversing with me is intellectually dishonest.

Thanks for your opinion.

Does the Bible make a distinction between the two?

Yes.

Maybe I will get back to this later...

Opinions have nothing to do with this.

I'm stating facts.



And in doing so, you did not reply to what he actually meant.

Try responding to what he wrote, rather than what you wanted to respond to.



More intellectual dishonesty.

That's not what I said.

What I said was:



The error in your position has been demonstrated to you. Thus, you should attempt to recognize it, or show how it is not an error.



Once again, our opinions have nothing to do with this.

I was stating a fact.



Once again, our opinions have nothing to do with this.

I was stating a fact.

 

[7djengo7]

all those who repent of sin were once sinners.

Q. All those what who repent of sins were once sinners?
A. All those sinners who repent of sins were once sinners.

Since nobody but sinners repent of sin, here's what you've just admitted:

all [sinners] who repent of sin were once sinners.

Imagine that: all sinners were once sinners. No doy! And all sinners, even all sinners who repent of sin, are still sinners after repenting of sin.

 

[7djengo7]

I already have, and am one of God's ex-sinners

For you to say you are not a sinner is for you to say you have never repented from sin. Only sinners can/do repent from sin. Things that are not sinners cannot/do not repent from sin.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As I wrote..."among other things".

No, not "among other things."

Faith in what Christ had done is the ONLY thing that will get you to heaven. Adding stuff to that makes it not the gospel of Grace.

As a no murderer, adulterer, or thief, is one of the sealed, what they do will not impact their salvation.

Thank God that murderers, adulterers, and thieves can humble themselves and choose life, and God will forgive them of their sins, and save them.

I already have, and am one of God's ex-sinners.

No, you haven't, no you are not.

Not sure of what you write of.

Try figuring it out. The thread is still there for you to read.

Why are you even on here if you're not even going to bother to pay attention to the conversation that you're having?

Why refuse to believe that a turn from sin is essential to "life" ?

Because "repentance from sin" is ONE KIND of repentance.

You are committing an association fallacy.

"Repentance" means only "to change one's mind/position."

"From sin" is a qualifier, to add to the context to indicate what is being "repented" from.

Acts 11:18 DOES NOT HAVE "from sin."

Therefore, to insert "from sin" after "repentance" means you're eisegeting (placing meaning on a text which is not originally or inherently present in the text itself) your belief that "all repentance is from sin" into the verse.

God is said to repent at least three times in Scripture. He did not repent from sin.

Yes, among other things.

No.

You're confusing the modern definition of "repent" with the word used in the Bible. Their meanings are different.

METANOIA simply means: "a change of mind: as it appears in one who repents of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done" (Strong's G3341).

There is no other definition.

That's literally all it means.

Or, a "turn from" something

That's ALL that repentance is.

A "turning away from something."

That's it.

The word used in the Greek does not mean anything else.

...in most biblical cases...sin.

In which case, "from sin" is usually understood from the context.

In Acts 11:18, there is no "from sin" anywhere in the context, implied or otherwise.

It's just not there.

For you to then read "from sin" into the passage, when it does not exist, is wrong, Hoping.

That's right.
His repentance was from something other than sin.
The context makes that clear.

And the context of Acts 11:18 makes it clear that it's NOT "from sin."

Thus, for you to say Acts 11:18 is talking about turning from sin is wrong.

Context, baby, context.

Had their conversation been religiously/doctrinally oriented, Paul would have said something else.
He just wanted the folks not to treat them like gods.

And yet, they had the same nature as them.

Thanks for your opinion.

Opinions have nothing to do with this.

I'm stating facts.

Yes.

Cite, please.

And then explain how you determined which one James and Paul used in their respective contexts.

Maybe I will get back to this later...

You wont. You can't even be bothered to go back and read the conversation when you've forgotten what was being talked about.

 

[7djengo7]

As the wages of sin is death, and he didn't die, it stands to reason that Elijah didn't commit sin.

You're waiting to see whether or not you will die? And, when you die, you're going to say "Oops! It seems I have been wrong all this time I've been calling myself 'non-sinner' and 'ex-sinner'! It stands to reason I did commit sin, after all, since I did die, and since the wages of sin is death"?

If you are not a sinner, why are you eventually going to be paid the wages of sin? If you were self-consistent, you'd be telling us you shall never die.