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

No. It just meant that you bloviate on nonsense on either side of a ridiculous assertion.

 

What your saying about the fruit and Adam eating doesn't make sence. God told Adam of a specific fruit not to eat. Adam ate and as a result sinned. So, eating that fruit was a sin. It seems pretty simple.

Man has a will. Its not free. Mans will has things which influence it. Mans will has consequenses that if he had his will, he would choose to not have them. His will is not free. Outside infulences bear on his will and produce consequenses he cannot change. Mans will is not free. Only God has free will.

All that God created was good. Adam was created perfect. But Adam was not created as righteouss as God. After the fall, God provided man His righeousness which is imputed to him. Before the fall, man was good in his own goodness. After the fall and salvation man is made as righteouss as Jesus Christ, having the righteousness of Christ imputed to him.

1Cor.15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.

Sorry, I am not claiming things 'extra biblical'.

Are you saying Jesus was born a sinner?

Quantrill

 

What is the name of the sin? It's not "fruit-eating" --it is DISOBEDIENCE. One cannot obey or disobey unless one is free to bend his or her will toward what is good or what is not good. Unless one makes a free choice, it is an accident or an inevitable consequence and there is no individual culpability (much like how you and Mertex have described the state that severely mentally retarded persons are in). If Adam could not freely chose, he could not sin. If Adam did not sin, there is nothing to redeem. If there is nothing to redeem, then Jesus died for naught.

Christians know that Jesus did not die for no reason.

And if that is the case, then man cannot sin, because sin is choosing to do wrong. Furthermore, if man is not free, man cannot repent, because repentance is a free act of remorse.

MAn is not omniscient. Baser desires do influence how man is drawn to sin--but that does not negate man's ability to reject the sin. In fact--the concupiscence you describe SUPPORTS the idea of free will! We reject the lure of sin and disobedience and in doing so give glory to God!

Luke 15[4] "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it?
[5] And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
[6] And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, `Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.'
[7] Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
[8] "Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it?
[9] And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, `Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost.'
[10] Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

In accepting the sacrifice of Jesus, man does not become God-like. Jesus came DOWN from heaven--humbling Himself--to redeem man's nature to the perfect state in which He was created--to RESTORE mankind, NOT to raise mankind to gods.
Biblical reference please.

Mankind fell and was redeemed--not made gods.

It is made clear in some verses leading up to your supposed support:
1 Cor 15
[21] For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
[23] But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
[24] Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
[25] For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
[26] The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
[27] "For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.
[28] When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.

So we are made righteous--that doesn't make us equal to Jesus.

Yes you are.

In fact NO. But how do you account for him not being born with the stain of original sin? He was born of woman, he was 100% man--HOW was Jesus excepted from that stain.

Catholics have an answer. It is from Sacred Tradition. You do not have an answer because according to the Bible, He was born a man, but like us in all ways except sin--he was the "New Adam." .....HOW...according to the Bible?

My point is that you cannot answer that according to the Bible--you just go in circles--you need a teaching authority of the Church to keep you from error.

 

Your talking in circles. I have said that Adam sinned by eating the fruit. Eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge was a sin because God told him not to do it. Yes, Adam exercised his will in eating the fruit and disobeying God.

Adam sinned, by exercising his will which caused the fall. You and I are born sinners already. Man can repent with a will, but that is only if God allows him to repent.

1Cor.15:46 shows you that man was created first natural. And later spiritual. This shows you that though man was created first perfect, he wasnt what he was when later redeemed. Redeemptin brought man to higher place than he had before the fall.

As far as being as righteouss as Jesus Christ, it does make us equal. For it is His righteousness that we are coverd in.

Jesus was free from the sin of Adam because of the virgin birth. Sin is passed down through the man. Not the woman. This is why sin entered the race through the man, Adam. Not the woman. Even though the woman sinned first. The human race didn't fall in Eve. It fell in Adam.

This is not extra biblical teaching. It is Biblical. Yet you tell me you have the answers outside of the Bible. I reject your answers outside of the Bible. This is where you are in error.

Quantrill

 

Give me please an explanation how Adam was able to do a sin without knowledge.

http://youtu.be/LzKzmYCaO40

 

If God's will was that Adam Not eat the fruit, and Adam was able to do something outside of the will of God, then his will was free.

Then women have no original sin since their chromosomes are XX.

You're just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up, now.

Where does it explain that Jesus was without sin because he was born of a virgin? It doesn't. It says he was born of a virgin, and that he was without sin, but it doesn't say he was without sin BECAUSE he was born of a virgin.

And yet...here you are saying that is true. No--that is EXTRA-Biblical.

 

He's a catholic - traveling in the name of the Lord - and every catholic priest could forgive him that he is born - if it would be at all necessary to do so. But you? Your evilwilling 'god' - whoever this could be - sent you full of sin and without any free will in a world full of dangerous situations. You don't have any chance to make something right and you don't have any chance to make something wrong - because you are not responsible for anything without an own free will. And after your death your 'god' - whoever this could be - will send everyone to hell who denies to suffer without any chance.

How are you able to say you are a Christian? Did you ever hear sentences like "god is love" or "god is reason"?

http://youtu.be/HCTJeT2i9QU

 

Incorrect. What God forbade was eating the fruit of a specific tree containing a specific fruit.. that fruit was not just 'knowledge' but rather the specific fruit called the 'knowledge of good and evil'. Be specific in what you speak about otherwise there is the possibility that you will become snared by the words of your mouth (keyboard in this case).

 

No, because if you're outside the will of God, you're inside the will of satan, and your freedom is an illusion.

 

Free will also allows you to make a choice of whose will you will follow. Do you have a choice between robbing a bank and not robbing a bank. Not robbing a bank would be Gods preference (not stealing); Satans preference would be that you disobey God and go ahead and rob the bank. Now who makes the choice... you, God or Satan? Are you a puppet on a string with no will of your own?

 

Of course sin is bondage.... when it's chosen! Sin is irrelevant to the state of your soul if you don't choose to sin--just as Paul describes the Law being irrelevant when one operates within the Law.

 

Then there is no such thing, because you can't choose freely to follow the devil.

Doesn't matter, because I've never been tempted to rob a bank. Now if I were a drug addict, would I have a choice not to shoot up? No, because being an addict means not having that choice. Now I may turn away from drugs and towards some religion which gives me a high, but then I haven't dealt with the mother of all addictions, which is sin.

We all are. If we "choose" to let God make all our decisions, we don't know what we are choosing, becuase instead of knowledge we have faith that He will do right by us; but if we choose to make our own decisions, the devil will make them for us. The only thing we have that might be called a choice is to realize how stupid it is to pretend to be making our own choices and let God make them instead.

"All who sin are servants of sin", said the Messiah. How then can we disobey our slave master? We cannot, which is why we need a Savior.

 

Why? Because you say so?

Then you don't KNOW if it would be relevant or not.

Yes! How did you become an addict?

Turning away from drugs is a choice made by free will. Becoming a member of a religious group is a choice of 'free will'. Ever hear of a work in progress? Did you ever know of a person who was born having the ability to bench press 300 lbs? Until such time as he could bench press 300 lbs, he was a work in progress. Being free from sin, is also a work in progress.

You have the authority to speak for all of mankind? Since when?

If grasshoppers carried 45's, birds wouldn't mess with them. Deal with the here and now as opposed to what might be under conditions that you don't know are certain.

Do you obey every ordinance of man? Are you a subject of the laws of man?

 

No, because it IS so.

On the contrary, that's precisely how I know it's irrelevant.

Not if you turn from it to some other addiction, it isn't.

Not if that group makes you feel good about yourself so you don't have to look at your sins, it isn't.

Terrible analogy. Sin isn't being too weak to lift a hot potato, it's holding onto it because you think it's a lump of gold.

Don't need it. All I need is the authority to tell the truth.

Obeying just laws is nothing like obeying the will of satan.

 

No, Adam simply exercised his will. Having a will, and having free will is not the same. Whose will placed the tree in the Garden? Whose will was it that told Adam not to eat of the tree? Thus Adams will is not free. It is confined to one of two decisions. And no more. Not free will.

I don't know about 'chromosomes xx' and don't care. The Scriptures are clear that the human race fell in Adam not Eve. Thus, the sin of the woman was not transferable. Sin is transferred through the man. Thus the need of the virgin birth of Christ.

Are you not aware that in Adam the human race fell and not Eve. Do you need me to show you the Scriptures for it?

Quantrill

 

Then prove your claim, since you are making a declaration of absolute fact. "IS" = exist.

Since you have made that most ridiculous claim, I will intentionally disregard the remainder of your ridiculous display until you prove what you have stated above.

 

To give the full title of the tree was not important in what was being discussed as the contrast was in 'disobeying' or 'eating the particular fruit'.

So, save your warnings for another.

Quantrill

 

What? He didn't have to eat of that tree. He had all kinds of things from which he could freely excercise his will and eat whatever. You're asserting that because something was available, but forbidden that man was not free to obey? Malarky. Adam never needed to eat the forbidden fruit. He was capable of obeying God eternally. He chose NOT to--remember, as you have already noted, he was not drawn to sin as we are having been born into a nature warped already by sin. Adam's will was FREE.
Our will, though damaged is still free.

Well...actually the scriptures say that Eve did not intentionally sin because she was deceived, whereas Adam was not deceived and THAT is why Adam is blamed even though Eve ate first.

1Tim.2

[13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
[14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Bible citation please.

The fact that you are saying "thus" rather than citing the Bible shows you are making an extra-Biblical claim.

 

Prove it's ridiculous.

Izzat so? Well then I'm gonna intentionally disregard the fact that you're disregarding it. Howdya like that?

 

Correct, Adam did not have to eat. Which only proves he has a will, not a free will. What I said was Adam did not have a sin nature to appeal to. That doesn't mean he was not able to be influenced. Other things bear an influence on his will. His will was not free.

Scriptures say Eve sinned. Decieved or not, it is a sin. But, the human race did not fall in Eve. It fell in Adam. Not because he knowingly sinned. But because the human race was in Adam.

Not extra-biblical--Romans 5:12 " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. "

Sin entered the world through Adam. Not Eve. All are sinners due to Adam, not Eve. Sin is passed down through the man, not the woman. The virgin birth breaks that connection.

Quantrill

 

The proof is in the pudding. Did you forget the recipe that you used?

Yep!

If you want to put your endorsement on the fact that you intentionally disregard a challenge submitted to you requiring you to show objective empirical evidence... then go ahead. You cannot back up your claim that was challenged, so you bow out in a cowardly manner. THAT is COOL.

 

No--he had to eat--nourishment is necessary for physical bodies. He did not have to eat FORBIDDEN fruit.

Free will does not mean that you live in a vacuum. As I said--man was not made omniscient, but that doesn't mean he isn't free.

There are two kinds of sin--sin that wounds the relationship with God (like Eve's--she was tricked and so her culpability is mitigated somewhat by her ignorance) and sin that kills the relationship (Adam's sin--because he freely and knowingly chose his will over God's).

The different kinds of sin is Biblical (I believe I already gave you this reference):
1 John 5:
[13]I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
[14] And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.
[15] And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him.
[16] If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
[17] All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
[18]We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.


Fortunately we can always ask God's forgiveness.

That is absolutely not Biblical. You keep asserting that, but offer no evidence. The Virgin Birth was a sign of the Messiah--that's all the Bible says about it. You are making a theological leap (which you say you don't do because the Bible is supposedly your only source).

If what I say isn't so--give the Bible reference that contains the theology you are professing concerning how sin travels through the man, and how the Virgin Birth breaks that. I won't hold my breath because I KNOW it isn't Biblical.

 

You may say so, because you quoted me and typed a little insult under the quote.

It does not change the fact that you do not and do not want to address my points.

You never do.

 

I responded to what you wrote with a question “Are you for real?’’ Your answer confirms that you are not BECAUSE you’re void of any sense of reality.
Here:

.

The reality where there is my arbitrary association of colors as being either good or evil exists only for you and Felicity. As well my “blanket association of superstition and religion pointing to potentially all superstitions” and everything else you have made up and address are products of a delusion but not a reality of my posts.

I pretty much described the evil usage of “but” here http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...n-there-former-christians-57.html#post4558152 – in the post you have failed to address in any intelligent way. As to your other claims they are false and ill minded. Generally they are called strawmen.

 

Of course you cannot say anything but to express the state of denial. No – to what? To the basic and simple truth – you have shamelessly quoted out of the context bolded red by me your quote? It is a very primitive but always winning among atheists move. I have demonstrated a more sophisticated double tongue speak here: http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...n-there-former-christians-57.html#post4558194

First you have made a claim that I am feeling afraid of you.
Now you have abandoned any pretense of honesty and sophistication and go boldly atheistic, quoting a few words out of context. It is plainly boring. When and if I have time and G-d is willing I will rather continue to demonstrate the same doubled tongue