genuineoriginal
New member
You are seriously lacking in knowledge of scripture.
toldailytopic: Once a person is saved can they reject that salvation should they chan
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
You are seriously lacking in knowledge of scripture.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Turning from unbelief to belief IS BEING SAVED FROM THE WRATH OF GOD.
Psalm 79:6
Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.
John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
glorydaz
Well-known member
She wasn't confusing anything. She was speaking of salvation, and I'm positive she knows the difference between physical birth and spiritual birth. :chuckle:
genuineoriginal
New member
Romans 11:22 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. |
glorydaz
Well-known member
If you read that chapter, you'll see Paul is talking about ISRAEL and the GENTILES. This is not about individual believers but peoples as a whole.
Romans 11:1-2
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
She misuses an analogy. Just because physical birth is irreversible does not mean spiritual rebirth is.
The words have a semantical range of meaning. You have arbitrarily limited them in a way that view Bible students do based on the evidence.
The Lord Jesus Christ said to stone sodomites. So there.
genuineoriginal
New member
The KJV uses language that shows the difference between speaking to an individual and to a group.
Thou is a person pronoun of the second person singular, which means it is talking to an individual. So is Thee. So, when you see those words used instead of the plural You, you know that Paul is talking to individual believers instead of peoples.
Romans 11:22 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. |
Goodness is towards individual believers if individual believers continue in His goodness. Otherwise individual believers also shall be cut off.
It is very plainly written, and easy to understand.
Verse?
Leviticus 20:13
13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
I suppose you are going to try and say that isn't the Lord Jesus Christ speaking through Moses.
Matthew 23
2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone
genuineoriginal
New member
In order to be saved, there must be something to be saved from.
Romans 5:9 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. |
James 5:20 20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. |
A synonym for saved is delivered
1 Thessalonians 1:10 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. |
Since the wrath has not come yet, we have not yet been saved from that wrath.
Jesus did not explicitly say what you claimed He said. Yes, YHWH (who is also Jesus) did speak through Moses, but using your logic, when Jesus said things on earth, it was OT Father or YHWH speaking them?
Jesus is YHWH, but that does not mean that Jesus did not teach new and different things than the OT authors. You are inconsistent in that you will say that the Spirit only spoke NT Church truth through Paul, but not John or Peter? You make a big deal that we don't build an ark like Noah did, so we do not follow non-Pauline teaching, yet you use strained logic to put words in the mouth of Jesus who is bringing progressive revelation (Heb. 1:1-3). We interpret Jesus' words through the grid of the Gospels, NT, and OT, but we don't make your mistake of saying all OT theocratic Israel stuff is Jesus speaking truth for this age.
Jesus was not born when Moses was on earth, so we usually don't attribute all OT sayings to Jesus, but to YHWH (yes, I am trinitarian, but I am not sure what your point is). I am technically correct that Jesus did not say in the Gospels to stone homosexuals. You have an argument from silence and should also explain why Christians don't stone heterosexual sinners today.
we are saved from sin, wrath, hell, but that does not mean that saved cannot be equated with conversion or that saved cannot include past, present, future issues. Regardless, there are stronger arguments against OSAS.
genuineoriginal
New member
What argument is simpler than the fact that salvation does not happen before the return of Jesus?
StanJ53
New member
I don't know that so how is it you do?
By type of fellas you mean a Biblical type...yep.
StanJ53
New member
I Jn. 5:11-13 present tense...salvation is now for the believer. Paul uses past tenses about it in relation to believers. You confuse justification and glorification, inception and culmination. We are in right relationship with God when we receive Christ (Jn. 1:12), but our whole being including our bodies is not fully redeemed until resurrection.
The other issue is that some verses are referring to a future national restoration of Israel and a corporate, eschatological sense (so future tense is used). This should not be confused with present/past reality of salvation of individual Jew/Gentile, one in Christ.
Your view fails to recognize and semantical range on the word/subject and would rely on proof texting one theme, while selectively ignoring all the relevant evidence.
:zoomin:
His logic is strained at best.
The pre-incarnate Christ is seen in OT theophanies, but that does not mean every word through every OT author is the Son of God Himself (vs Father, YHWH, triune God, Spirit).
genuineoriginal
New member
Paul did not use past tenses, he used aorist tenses, which most translators converted into past tenses.
We can rejoice in knowing our names are written in the book of life because this is how we gain salvation from the wrath to come.
That does not mean we have already attained salvation, because there is always the possibility that our names will be blotted out from the book of life if we turn back before receiving the fulfillment of the promise.