Can a Christian lose their salvation? Or, are there former Christians?

You are going in a circle. Did Adam have free will?

Was he "free" to choose either?

Can we be in a right relationship with God after Christ's redemption. Are we not "redeemed" to the state of Adam before the fall? If so--can we choose to obey or disobey--and if we disobey, do we not then fall again as Adam fell?

They way you describe it, it's like it's God's "plan B". What is the point in having plan B if God doesn't provide fir a FREE will?

Of course. We agree. How was Christ without sin?

I keep asking because if we are returned to Adam's original state, then we too can freely choose to obey or disobey as Adam did. Adam's sin made man to fall--Christ's Sacrifice made redemption a reality--something we can seek and accept--but if we are redeemed to Adam's state, then it is logical that we could then choose like Adam and fall again.

 

John 14:28 ye heard that I said to you -- I go away, and I come unto you; if ye did love me, ye would have rejoiced that I said -- I go on to the Father, because my Father is greater than I.


why aint this thread closed yet?

ie... not even the bible thumpers can agree

perhaps because neither spend the time to "READ"

 

We are having a civil discussion. Why do you want to close a civil discussion? There are thread over 2,000 posts on this forum. We are discussing finer points of Christian theology. If you don't like it...tough titty said the kitty when the milk ran dry.

 

Yes, because he had a perfect Father, and was not born of a woman, wherefore he didn't have the inherent weakness his descendants did.

I'd say Christ is the Man Adam would have become had he not sinned.

 

I agree with you.

Jesus was "born of woman"--What does that tell you about Mary?


Hint: Think Ark of the Covenant

 

That she was the best woman for the job - which, considering the job, presumably means she was as pure a daughter of Adam and Eve as there was on the face of the Earth.

I don't see the connection.

 

Do you really expect him to comprehend that comparison? I will PM you.

 

As I said before again and again, I do not believe any have free will.

Yes Adam could chose to eat or not to eat.

No, we are not redeemed to the state of Adam before the fall, when we place faith in Christ. We are placed in a much higher place.

Once we become born again, then we do make decisions. None of which affect our eternal state of being redeemed.

Again, man doesn't have free will. Man has a will. Mans will, doesn't replace mans belief. And it is mans belief that gets him saved. And it is this belief that God gives. Then man exercises his will.

Christ was without sin in that the sin of Adam was not transferred to him and He had no sin of His own.

We are not returned to Adams state. We are returned to a higher state.

Quantrill

 

Not really...but maybe he'll Google Mary and Ark of the Covenant

 

I know...that's why I'm demonstrating how illogical that theology is.

Eating is not a sin.

Where is that in the Bible?

How'd that happen if he was "born of woman" and "fully man?"

 

I haven't seen any demonstration yet.

Eating the fruit when God said don't eat, is a sin.

Adam was not declared righteous. The Christian is declared righteous. Adam stood in his own righteousness. The Christian stands in the righteousness of Christ. Are these things unfamiliar to you?

Virgin birth. Yet born into the family of man.

Quantrill

 

This sin is consciously choosing to do that which is forbidden. Eating is not sinful--eating is good and nourishing. In fact, God commanded that Adam eat--all was available except one. What you are seeming to suggest is that it was an accident that Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Is that what you are suggesting? The key point her is that that fruit was forbidden--not that eating fruit was forbidden. The sin was disobedience--not eating, or choosing to eat--it was choosing to eat that which was forbidden.

Again--if one's will is not free, then one CANNOT be culpable for the choice. If it just "will," then God made Adam to sin in that He put Adam in a situation where he could not actually choose for himself whether to sin or not sin--he was simply doing what he was made to do. Is that what you are saying? The implication of that is an evil twisted God. I don't believe that God is evil and set Adam up to fail.

Where is THAT in the Bible. Adam was indeed declared "good" by God.

There are many things extra-Biblical that you claim despite your claim that the Bible is your authoritative guide.

So...Mary is part of the family of man, is she not? How did she not pass on the stain of original sin to Jesus?

 

There is no way to sin consciously, because the whole point of sin is to escape into a world of sweet little ego-affirming lies, which are not attractive to a person who is fully aware.

 

What do you mean when you say "fully aware"?

 

Strictly speaking the adverb is superfluous, since you can't be "half aware" any more than a woman can be half pregnant. That said, awareness is a gift from God which feels like hellfire to a sinner, so he seeks out lies instead; and he doesn't have far to look, as sin lieth at the door.

 

Are you then suggesting that you are "fully aware"?

 

No, but what difference does it make?

 

The difference would be centered or focused around your previous comment

I am attempting to ascertain 'who' it is that you are describing as being "fully aware". Now that we know by your declaration above (in red text quotation), then that fully aware person must be someone else. Who in particular were you talking about ? Do you actually KNOW someone who is "fully aware"?

 

For what purpose?

Non sequitur. First, the refusal to claim to be something is not a denial of being that something. Second, one can be aware one minute and not the next.

24/7? I don't know anyone who even claims that, never mind the problem of verifying it for myself...

...although I can see how it might be a scary thought.

That said, I'd say we are all in that state of awareness until the first time we sin.

 

Curiosity.

First you did not submit a refusal, you submitted an outright declaration of "No".

Second, we were talking about "fully aware", not just "aware".

Currently.

If you "don't KNOW anyone who even claims that" they are 'fully aware', then your statement regarding "..which are not attractive to a person who is fully aware.", then how would you KNOW if there is in FACT any attractive or repelling relationship between "..sweet little ego-affirming lies.." and "..which are not attractive to a person who is fully aware."? It appears that you are speaking through a condition of ignorance of the subject matter. The subject matter being "a person who is fully aware."



..which are not attractive to a person who is fully aware."...although I can see how it might be a scary thought.

That said, I'd say we are all in that state of awareness until the first time we sin.[/QUOTE]

Once again, the topic of the discussion between you and me was "fully aware" not merely "awareness" in general.

 

Well, it's pretty obvious - not a fantastic revelation.

Yes it does. Because there is physical death and spiritual death. The scripture is saying that people can only kill your physical body - it is only God that can harm your "spirit". So, I hate to repeat myself, if there is something that goes beyond "physical", that only God can hurt - your idea that dead is dead is dead wrong.

So, your comment that "dead is dead" goes out the window. When a person dies, it is only physically that they die, they still have the "spiritiual" life they have to deal with, and there are only two places it can go.

Your getting all caught up in semantics. Of course every one has a spirit - but only believers have another spirit along with their own spirit, and that is the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit.

Again, you are getting caught up in semantics. You know what I mean about real life. Yeah, life on earth is real, alright, real painful, sad, difficult. It is only through Jesus that people experience "real" life - joy amid your troubles.

Life comes from God, but it is only when you recognize his Son as your Lord that you experience life in all its fullness.

Semantics, again.

You can call it whatever you want. The Bible calls it the Holy Spirit that comes and abides in you.
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38 )

We're saying the same thing here.

This does. They don't have the Holy Spirit.

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Noone is disagreeing that our "life" comes from God - you seem to have a difficult time understanding that there is "another" spirit that indwells a person when they believe and make Jesus Lord, and that is the Holy Spirit.

And now you've taken the word "spirit" to a whole different level - I think you are just having a hard time understanding.

 

Your opinion that I'm wrong. It just happens to be my opinion backed by scripture that I'm right.

 

I have, I just don't think it is as important as studying it.

Bible study means you have studied what it says - researched the greek and hebrew language and how it is used - if you think you get all that from just reading it, no wonder you are confused.

The Holy Spirit that indwells in me helps me discern. But, I can just tell by your questions and suggestion and the scriptures that you post to back what you say - that you are misled - they are talking about totally different things. It has been pointed out to you by others.

 

To the question of whether I claim to be "fully aware", not to the quesiton of whether I am.

And as I told you, it's the same thing.

If I say yes, how are you going to know it's the truth?

And since it doesn't necessarily last longer than a fraction of a second, what good would it do you to know anyway?

Because I've been in that state of awareness.

If you could see your way clear to easing up on the semantical hair-splitting, that would be great. If it doesn't, the conversation terminates.

 

So, we agree, that except for the additional books the Catholic Bible has, they are the same.

Catholics chose to keep books that were not recommended by the cannon, they do not add anything than what you get without them.

I said "some" - go back and read my post and you will see. You will also see that I did not say "customs" - quit trying to put words in my mouth.

And I never said it did. I know it was written by men, inspired by God, and his comment about it not being credible was what I was responding to.

And, to clarify, the Apostles after they became Jesus' followers no longer had to go to the high priest to atone for their sins - Jesus took care of that.