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

It seems that we are engaged in a slight variation in doctrinal understandings.

At one point above you allude to a contradiction. The rationale you point out as the contradictory point is not seen in the former comments that I made. It seems that you might be perceiving that I might not have read the entire definition. To deny the point that is made in that definition (e) would be to deny the power of God. IMHO, a very basic concept to the Christian is the Omnipotence of God. At His spoken word, the whole of what He created can be re-arranged or completely undone. Except for one problem. God is unchanging. Which leads me now to your closing paragraph regarding your perception of what is meant by "If God removed His spirt from Adam and Eve before Eve got pregnant, God's spirit was no longer there to pass on. " Jesus, the incarnate God, spoke and said "I am the way the truth and the life"

"1) life

a) the state of one who is possessed of vitality or is animate

b) every living soul

2) life

a) of the absolute fulness of life, both essential and ethical, which belongs to God, and through him both to the hypostatic "logos" and to Christ in whom the "logos" put on human nature

b) life real and genuine, a life active and vigorous, devoted to God, blessed, in the portion even in this world of those who put their trust in Christ, but after the resurrection to be consummated by new accessions (among them a more perfect body), and to last for ever."

So, you see, if God withdrew his Spirit, then man would no longer be living. "God breathed into man the spirit of life". If you look back at my original statement, I stated that God withdrew His presence (in other words, God was there in Spirit talking to Adam and Eve.... when they sinned, He could not allow His being to be there in there presence any longer so He withdrew and caused man to submit to the obligation of Prayer if they wanted to commune with God). Just like with the story of Moses, an essence of God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush.

There is no contradiction in my statement.

 

First of all, the reward is not "eternal life".

As a warning, that we have to take God's word seriously - does not imply that you can lose your salvation.

This scripture is just saying don't look down on those who are struggling with sin - don't be arrogant about the fact that you've conquered your sinful desires, because you too can fall into shameful sin. Says nothing about salvation - you are reading that into it.

In other words, every one is subject to being tempted. If you are serious about not wanting to commit sin, but find yourself in a situation where you think you might give in, God is saying - He will give you a way of escape.
Also, has nothing to do with salvation. Believers continue to sin, after they have asked Jesus to be their Lord and savior.

 

HEY

You guys are about to be closed... I love reading your posts (all of you) and wish for it to continue. Please start a continuation please....

 

Ya think?

You claimed that "dead is dead" - in other words, when a person is killed, both his physical and spiritual beings are "dead". Then you quote a scripture, which contradicts what you are saying.
"Luke 12:4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do."

It is possible that we are not communicating. To clarify, I understood you to say that it is not possible for those without Christ to be spiritually dead. All that is meant by that statement is that they do not have the Spirit of God within them.

Meaning, the only way to have real "life" is to believe Him, to know that He is the Son of God and that He gave His life to save you.

This is the definition of "human" life - what everyone has, believers and unbelievers alike.

This is the definition of the "life" you have when you become a follower of Jesus.

If God didn't withdraw His Spirt from Adam and Eve and their descendants, why then would the NT tell us that the Holy Spirit comes to abide in those who believe?

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 )

The following scriptures, spoken to believers:

Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[a] Father.”Gal 4:6

“Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Corinthians 6:19)

“Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16)


“But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” (Romans 8:9)

“But if the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.” (Romans 8:11)

God removed His presence, and he also removed His spirt. They still had a spirit, but it was not God's spirit.

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement. However, it appears that we differ in that I believe that non-believers do not have the Holy Spirit within them, based on NT scripture - you claim that they always had it, but you haven't provided any scripture to support that.

 

I participated in a major Bible study (Bible Study Fellowship) for over 13 years, and I have been a Christian since I was 10- which is a lot of years of reading and studying the bible in my faith.

Nothing that you provide contradicts what I have said, or what other believers have said. You are just interpreting it wrong.

Here he is talking about the Jews (their unbelief) and the Gentiles. It is saying that Jews did not believe Jesus, so they were broken off. They were the ones that Jesus came to save initially, but because of their refusal it was extended to the Gentiles. So, we (Gentiles) should not be haughty about our opportunity to receive salvation, because that "opportunity" can be taken away. It is not talking about losing their salvation, because Romans 12:11 says:

11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

Paul is saying that God is not done with the Jews, just that their unbelief caused Him to offer the gift of salvation to the gentiles.

Meaning, that if God was able to offer the gift of salvation to others (Gentiles) and remove it from the Jews because the Jews were too stubborn to believe, He could just as well remove the offer from the Gentiles. Nowhere does it indicate that he will remove salvation from those that truly believe.

Again, Paul is talking about the Jews - who because of their unbelief God removed the offer of salvation through Christ from them, but as Paul says in verse 11, they are not fallen beyond recovery. Paul is also saying to the believers (provided you continue in his kindness) which is one of the fruits of the spirit and proof that one is a true believer, so those that don't are obviously not true believers and will be cut off. In other words, God knows who the true believers are, and he will weed out those that aren't.

 

So, what makes the Catholic scripture sacred, but non-catholic Bible unsacred? As far as I know, the Catholic Bible contains extra books, but other than that, it is exactly the same as the non-catholic Christian bible.

As for Tradition - Jesus came to do away with some of the old traditions. That is why we no longer have to sacrifice animals to atone for our sins, why we don't have a high priest here on earth (Jesus is our High Priest).


The reason I am asking is because the poster I was responding to was insinuating that we believed in a book that written by men, ergo, not to be credible.

 

Every time a believer sins, he is not doing what Jesus wants us to do, and you are right, that doesn't mean he is not a Christian.

Believing that Jesus exists just means that you agree that He was on earth, that He lived (the demons even believed that He was the Son of God), but never asking Him to be your Lord and Savior.

Believing in Jesus as your Lord and savior means you believe that He is the Son of God, that He came to earth, and died on the cross to pay for your sins so that you could live with God for eternity when you leave this earth and you ask Him to be your Lord and Savior.

The only reason a believing person may not choose to follow what Jesus says is because they willingly want to sin. We should always do what Jesus says we should do, as a believer that is our responsibility.

 

Why are you comparing a mentally disabled person who has no concept of what it means to ask Jesus to be their Lord and savior to a person who has all his senses and can understand what that means? Your logic is flawed beyond comprehension.

One that is of sound mind must accept Jesus. And, it is not "some people" but those that are not of "sound mind". It's unbelievable that you cannot see the difference between the two. God is not a vicious God, that would blame a person who through no fault of their own cannot comprehend what God is asking of them.

You are the one whose logic is all screwed up. Of course there is "free will" if you are of sound mind, you are able to comprehend what God expects of you and YOU make the choice whether to accept Jesus or not. And, Christians surrender their will to God when they ask Jesus to be their savior because when you accept Christ, you no longer want your will to be done, but God's will.

 

'Believing' in the Christ, and Jesus as He, is not mere mental assent, or acceptance of a fact (as in "The devils believe & tremble") but as expounded upon as in the Amplified Bible (for ex.) as used per this scripture portion:


"....those who believed on (adhered to and trusted in and relied on)...

 

We're not disagreeing. I was giving Felicity the difference between believing in Christ (as the demons believed) and believing in Him as Christians believe in Him.

You didn't read her question.

Yeah, something the demons don't do, something that Judas didn't do, but what true believers do.

 

I was bolstering your remarks....as in agreement....You're Welcome....

 

I know

The scripture does not make my statement contradictory. What other meaning would you like to apply to the word "dead"? Those that kill the body cannot do anything further... just like the scripture says, and just like you pointed out earlier in another verse, it is only God that has the power to kill or destroy the soul... even the demons in Hell cannot destroy the soul... So, when we speak of 'dead', without referencing spiritual death or physical death, we are still speaking about being 'dead'. Luke 12:4 only advises us to 'fear God' not anything or anyone else.

That is correct. They are not 'spiritually dead' ... why? Because gave to them the 'spirit of life'. If you are declaring that those who choose to not worship the Lord are zombies (lifeless yet animated bodies) or the walking dead, then I suppose you would be correct.

"real life". You are dancing on that expression. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life". 'Real' in the secular realm is that which is objective.
They already have 'real life', but they don't have what is spoken of here:
"Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly. " That more abundant life is that life that is acquired after the baptism and rebirth of the spirit. Remember, that the spirit of life proceeds from God.

And where does that life come from?

Yes. The rebirth of the spirit of life. The old man has passed away and all things are become new.

An insurance policy established by Jesus. Meaning that even though Jesus (the physical body) was not going to be here to represent the claims that he made while his body was here, he was sending an agent representative to answering any questions about the policy, and to also act as an enforcer of that policy. Jesus knew that even the disciples would question the validity of the teachings of Jesus after seeing the awful death that his body was subjected to, so Jesus promised them a comforter and counselor to tend to their needs.

Absolutely... Now does that say anything about those others not having the spirit of life?

OK.

One more time: Where does the spirit of life come from?

I agree, non-believers do not have the Holy Spirit within them. However, God is not limited. God also encompasses such things as the spirit of love, the spirit of compassion, the spirit of courage, and the list goes on and on... to include the spirit of life. The essence of God is incomprehensible in all of the aspects which could be used to give identity to God. What I claimed that they always had was 'the spirit of life' (an aspect of God because only God can give life).

 

I guess it's just simple wrong what you are thinking here. No one is save. Lot's of people lost their belief in god because of Auschwitz-Birkenau for example.

http://youtu.be/rrGQZglZFTo

 

So is that no? You haven't read it straight through as a whole? Bible "study" does not mean you have done that--I'm curious.

What authority do you have that gives you the power to declare my reading wrong? The Holy Spirit? What do you think you have that I, another practicing Christian, don't?

 

Technically, there is no book in the Protestant Bible that is not Catholic Scripture.

Actually Protestants removed books rather than Catholics added. History is good to know.

Isn't communion a Sacred Tradition? Yes. It is. So, your claim is false. Sacred tradition is not "customs" --It is the teaching of the Apostles.

Well--men did write it--through inspiration as decided upon by men inspired to codify the texts. The men who codified the texts were acting as the teaching authority of the Church--the Sacred Tradition is the teaching passed on by the Apostles, that in no way contradicts what is contained in the Scriptures.

 

No--it's not. Where do you draw the line of "comprehension"? And who are YOU to draw that line??? What about a person raised in a remote village that never had the opportunity to come to know Christ? Is that person (*)(*)(*)(*)ed to hell? What about the person who was raised in a culture hostile to Christ? Just for being born into a specific culture, is that person (*)(*)(*)(*)ed to hell? What about a person with schizophrenia? A severely depressed person? A neurotic person? An addicted person? Who goes to hell and who doesn't?

I don't know about your perspective, but Quantrill has been suggesting an incredibly rigid formula that God uses to make these decisions, and it leads to either there being no such thing as free will, or God is not the Merciful Savior that calls all men to himself. Both are false doctrines, IMO.

Where is that in the Bible, if the Bible is the only authority?

I DO see the difference--I am challenging Quantrill's (and to some extent your ) rigid claims about Salvation.

 

Im not prescribing a forumula. I was just answering your questions. You seem upset that there is an answer. Perhaps if there is an answer, it is correct.

Ive always said there is no free will. Just 'will'. God is still meciful, and the Saviour.

Its not a question of , 'who am I to draw the line'. Its a question of what God has said in the Bible. And am I willing to believe what God has said.

Quantrill

 

Good point. Sincere believers can face hardening by circumstances. That doesn't mean God's mercy abandons them--but neither does it mean they did not willfully abandon Him excusing themselves from responsibility to God. Only God knows our hearts.

 

Why would we need Jesus if our will was not free?

 

If free will is not existing then laws and rules are without any sense.

Salomo for example had once the problem to decide who of two women could be the right mother of a baby. Because this was not evident he suggested to cut the baby in two parts - so every woman had had a half baby. Such a solutions is fullfllling what I would call the "justice of the human words".

One of the women agreed but the other woman said: "No - give the baby to her - don't cut it in two parts". So Salomon found this was the right mother for this baby - the mother who loved it so much. But do we know now that she was really the biological mother? We don't know this - and it's indeed not important to know this. Whoever she was - she was the right mother. That's what I would call the "justice of the spirit".

Where the spirit blows there's freedom and justice - both - so don't worry: be free - be alive.

http://youtu.be/eZo26c8Npqo

 

Because you're a sinner.

Quantrill

 

How can I sin if I am not free to choose wrong over right?

If I can't choose, then it is as if I am that severely disabled person unable to call upon Jesus.

If I cannot choose wrong, I also cannot choose right.

In that case, there is no sin, and there is no need for redemption.

Do you not see how the concept you are suggesting negates Christ's sacrifice and makes it into an empty act?

Quaint aphorisms are nice, but you need to follow your claims to their logical conclusion.


.

 

Your born a sinner. No matter what decision you ever make.

You can choose. But belief is not 'will'. And belief comes before the 'will'.

There is sin which you inheirited from Adam. Thus the need for redeemption. No one asked you, did they?

It negates nothing. You're a sinner. You need a saviour. Jesus Christ is the Saviour.

I believe I have.

Quantrill

 

Are we not children born from Adam? How was ADAM able to sin? Did Adam have free will and we do not? Was he somehow different in nature?

And related to that--How do you think Christ redeemed mankind? What was he redeeming? Was Christ fully man? Or something "other"?

If sin is something that Adam could choose, but we cannot, when we are "redeemed" can we not re-commit the sin of Adam and fall again? Again I ask--was Adam something other than we are? And, if that is the case, how can one be "redeemed" (which means returned to the original state of being)?

 

Yes we are from Adam. Adam sinned by disobeying God. Adam had a will, just as we have a will. Yes Adam was different in that he had no sin.

Christ redeemed mankind by paying the penalty for sin on the cross. Christ provided the redeemption necessary to save all mankind. Christ was fully man and fully God being the Son of God.

To obey or disobey was Adams choice. Adam was in a right relationship with God already. Why do you keep asking if Adam was something other than we were. Of course he was. He was without sin. We are redeemed by placing faith in Christ and His sacrifice is attributed to us.

Quantrill