Saved from what?

[Hammster]

I don't but what has that to do with "saved from what?"?

You've not been concerned with the topic previously. I don't know why you would care now.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You've not been concerned with the topic previously. I don't know why you would care now.

One would not want to see your thread derailed by yourself

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #42 the Poster said:

You might want to read the opening paragraph again where I state that God is omniscient.

If anything, those who believe salvation can be lost are denying God's omniscience. They act as if God doesn't know someone will "lose" their salvation. So He saves them from hell only to be disappointed later.

Actually, Jesus stated in Matthew 24:13:

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

And in Mark 13:13:

And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Luke 9:62 records:

And Jesus said to him, No one, having put his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

The English word “saved” is used to describe deliverance from a number of different conditions in the Bible.

However, in the context of the Poster's post, it must be pointed out that if a requirement of being “saved” is enduring to the end, and if it is possible to embark on a journey that requires that tenacity, then any condition of “saved” ascribed to any individual who is currently on that journey, must be viewed as provisional.

It is also a direct revelation from God that those two conditions (enduring and not enduring, once started on the journey) actually exist, is it not? And are there not a significant number of other scriptures that speak of the same thing?


If God reveals it, He knows it, and it in no way conflicts with His omniscience or purpose.

Awareness of His broader purpose clears up a lot of apparently puzzling things, along with a number of otherwise ostensibly perplexing conflicts. Unfortunately, most churches seem to stop short of that.

 

[Pedrito]

In the light of the information offered in Post #183, maybe a closer look at John 1:11-13 is in order (emphasis added):

11 He came to [His] own, and [His] own received Him not.
12 But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name,
13 who were born, not of bloods, nor of [the] will of [the] flesh, nor of [the] will of man, but [were born] of God.

The word translated “born” is actually the Greek word γεννάω (gennao). It's primary meaning is (according to Mickelson [an updated Strong's]):

1. (properly, of the father) to procreate
2. (by extension, of the mother) to conceive
3. (figuratively) to regenerate
[from a variation of G1085]
KJV: bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring

Therefore, and in the light of other Scripture, the picture seems to be one of embryonic conception rather than the finality of birth. In that picture, not enduring to the end would parallel foetal death.

Also, God's revelation says those people who made Jesus welcome were given the right, the power, the authority, to become children of God – they were not immediately made His children. There was and is a second step involved – one for which those people were and are responsible. Could that second step include enduring to the end?


And what else might the Scriptures say could be involved in that second step (if we take the time to have a proper look)?


Could it even be that God has special blessings for people who make the effort to find out?

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #53 in defence of the “once saved always saved” perspective, the Poster quoted among other things, John 6:39:

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

And in Post #55:

And again you ignore the fact that Christ is a Good Shepherd and we are His sheep. The sheep are given to Him by His Father. To say He would lose any for any reason is making Him a failure.

And in Post #57:

Now you are just making stuff up. Jesus never said that most of His sheep would follow, and the ones that didn't we're screwed. In fact, He says a good shepherd will go after one who strays. It's best if you just stick to the scripture.

How then do we classify Judas Iscariot?

Might John 17:12 help?

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

A precedent was set.

Other Scripture plainly states that others will fall away during the present period in which the church is being built. Must not those inspired statements be fulfilled as well?

 

[Pedrito]

Scattered throughout this thread, the Poster of Post #42 provides us with examples of the Evangelical way of dealing with precise logic when that precise logic destroys the house-of-cards arguments some Evangelicals are given to.

In Post #116 he gives us an example in his response to the intelligently and precisely presented set of practical scenarios set forth in Post #111, a set of scenarios for which he could apparently find no intelligent, precise and practical reply.

Please read Post #116 in its entirety (it includes the text of Post #111) – it is important. The response is classic:

I have no idea what view you are trying to represent here. Maybe a bit less blathering about would help.

Could the Poster in Post #116 be feigning lack of intelligence, or pretending that Post #111 does not make sense, in an attempt to deflect our attention away from the armour-piercing truth expressed in that post?

(Both posts are on Page 12, by the way.)

Whatever the reason for that particular response (which some Readers could well judge to be dishonest), Readers should not be put off reading Post #111 carefully, and not be swayed against considering the points it makes, with equal care.

The technique employed in Post #116 in an attempt to devalue the truth of Post #111, actually lends credence to Post # 111's veracity.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #157 the Poster offered:

Why did I say that I cannot produce fruit unless connected to the vine? Because it's the vine that supplies everything. A branch apart from the vine is useless. So bearing fruit is indicative of being in Christ.

Note what He didn't say. He never said that those who no longer bear fruit will be removed. He did, however, say that those who bear fruit will bear even more. And not because of our work, but because of His.

However, God inspired the apostle Paul to write in Romans 11:17-24:

17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and became a sharer of the root and the fatness of the olive tree with them,
18 do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, [it is] not you [that] bears the root, but the root bears you.

19 You will say then, The branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.
20 Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not [be] high-minded, but fear.

21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, [fear] lest He also may not spare you either!
22 Behold then [the] kindness, and [the] severity of God; on those having fallen, severity; but on you, kindness, if you continue in the kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

23 And those also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut out of the natural wild olive [tree], and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive [tree]; how much more these [being] according to nature will be grafted into [their] own olive-tree?

It must be comforting in some way for the Poster to believe that being broken off the holy tree into which he believes he has been grafted, is somehow different from Jesus' word picture in John 15:5,6:

5 I am the Vine, you [are] the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered. And they gather and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.

Very comforting indeed.

 

[Pedrito]

Another twist for the Reader to be aware of.

The Poster of Post #169, in an attempt to downplay MoreCoffee's comments about Jesus' words being included in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic mass, stated:

Mormons quote Jesus, too.

in response, MoreCoffee in Post #170 expressed joy that the word of God was being spread, no matter who was spreading it, thus:

May God be praised when they do. Truth remains true no matter who says it. ...

To which the Poster replied in Post #171:

And now you support heretics. I wish I could say I was surprised.

The Reader can judge the degree of illogicality and adversarial attitude revealed by that comment.

In the broader context, the Poster appears to want to argue with God in order to bolster doctrines that are precious to him, but are apparently somewhat difficult for him to find proper support for.

I personally will side with God and believe what He says in Isaiah 55:10,11:

10 For as the rain comes down, and the snow from the heavens, and does not return there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring out and bud, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
11 so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.

God's Word, the Bible, His inspired holy message to us, is not to be taken lightly, nor handled carelessly, nor regarded with disrespect.

God's Word gives specific answers to the various situations covered by the broad question “Saved from what?”, the original subject of this thread. However, it requires a degree of precise thought for a person not to blend those situations confusingly in their mind.

That precise thought in turn requires effort – the effort of serious, unbiased Bible study – the kind of effort that is discouraged in many churches.

 

[Alithis]

Let's agree that Open Theism is false and that God is truly omniscient, even knowing all future events.

With that established, some folks think that truly saved believers can lose/forfeit their salvation. So my question is this: what exactly are they saved from? I cannot be hell, since that's where they will end up if they stay unrepentant. So if they are saved, from what are they saved?

ouuh i do like a revived thread .. lol

saved from what ... ? we are saved from our SIN for it is sin that brings death it is sin that results in judgment and it is sin that leads to hell.. save us from sin and none of the others will follow .
so the question becomes what does it mean to be saved from sin? it means to be set free from its controlling power in us so that we do not have to do it any more .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Saved from, among other things, bad theology

 

[Alithis]

Saved from, among other things, bad theology

great.. so your renouncing rome and the falsehood of the pope

 

[MoreCoffee]

great.. so your renouncing rome and the falsehood of the pope

Nope; more a case of renouncing the kind of theology that your question exhibits.

 

[Alithis]

odd .. since a lot of rome's theology does not exist in the bible ..like the pope for instance--not there ..none zip nada .but hey lets not call the bible correct by suggesting rome's wrong

 

[MoreCoffee]

odd .. since a lot of rome's theology does not exist in the bible ..like the pope for instance--not there ..none zip nada .but hey lets not call the bible correct by suggesting rome's wrong

Look, no doubt you get kicks out of railing against the Catholic Church but you're not saying anything that I have not heard before from numerous people who hate the Catholic Church. So, spare me the rudeness and that predictability. Maybe we can have a normal conversation minus the attitude, please.

 

[visionary]

There are different types of saved. You can be saved from present physical, mental, spiritual, and emotional danger. You can be saved from sinning. You can be saved from future dangers. The ultimate gospel salvation is the eternal one. The offer of this ultimate gospel salvation that is the one that lasts for all eternity does not occur until their fates are sealed. Fates are sealed at death. Up to that moment, people come and go, grabbing the gift of salvation, then squandering it away. This is what Hebrews is talking about.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame

That is a hard verse but absolutely necessary to keep believers from becoming complacent about their connection with God. Paul also explained this when he was using the "race" analogy and until it is finished it is not secure.

1 Co 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25
And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Yes... it does say castaway... that mean lose the salvation once offered and accepted... Your point might be that "true" believers don't lose their salvation. My point is that salvation can be lost.

Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

 

[Alithis]

Look, no doubt you get kicks out of railing against the Catholic Church but you're not saying anything that I have not heard before from numerous people who hate the Catholic Church. So, spare me the rudeness and that predictability. Maybe we can have a normal conversation minus the attitude, please.

I LOVE THE TRUTH i get my kicks out of loving the truth speaking the truth of gods word in his holy Script ..i cannot love the lord's truth and love lies at the same time ..

yes you have heard it all before and you well know rome teaches in opposition to the truth yet thus far you refuse to repent and follow the truth as recorded in simple plain unambiguous scripture which a child can understand - you simply cannot follow two masters ..its either the lord JEsus or the pope .. you cant have it two ways .JESUS said so .. -i believe HIM.

he came to save us from SIN and sin began with lies from the father of lies ..to be saved from sin we must repent and go the way of truth for jesus said "I am the truth "

when he saves us from our sin by our obedient repentance rom following lies ..then we are set free to walk in the truth ..to abide in Jesus .

 

[MoreCoffee]

I LOVE THE TRUTH i get my kicks out of loving the truth speaking the truth of gods word in his holy Script ..i cannot love the lord's truth and love lies at the same time ..

In that case gather the facts from credible sources state them with proper citations and credits and make your case and avoid posting generalities that are intended as insulting condemnations of the teaching of the Catholic Church but are in fact not what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Pedrito]

Regarding MoreCoffee's statement in Post #190:

Saved from, among other things, bad theology.

While the comment was offered good naturedly, it holds a lot of serious implication, which can and should be explored dispassionately.

Lets have a quick look at theology historically.

First of all we have the clearly stated theology of Jesus and the apostles and the apostolic church, as plainly revealed in the collection of writings we call the New Testament.

Then we have the post-apostolic theologies of the early “church fathers”.

Then we have the progressive theological proclamations of the Council of Nicea in 325AD and the Council of Constantinople of 381AD.

And since then a variety of Councils have expanded what has become Roman Catholic theology to include yet other things unknown to the Jesus and the apostles. Some examples include the veneration of Mary, the elevation of the Bishop of Rome and the titles given to him, the infallibility of “ex cathedra” statements, and the canonisation of saints (whether by former or current procedures) and the later decanonisation of some.


The three-fold major question that all this brings to mind is:
1. Has God kept changing His mind?
2. If not, why has it taken the Roman Catholic Church so long to understand what God wants of it?
..... And has it even got there yet? Will there be even more changes?
3. Is the RCC guilty of disobedience and/or failing to obey the Holy Spirit's leading?
..... By not understanding much sooner the predefined set of doctrines and practices God wanted?


Must it not be true that if the RCC theology of the present day is “good”, then any future changes or additions by definition will be “bad”, as was every form of its former theology, and as must have been the theology of Jesus himself and His apostles?


I can't help but wonder what the One who sits at the right hand of God must think about that.

 

[Alithis]

In that case gather the facts from credible sources state them with proper citations and credits and make your case and avoid posting generalities that are intended as insulting condemnations of the teaching of the Catholic Church but are in fact not what the Catholic Church teaches.

now you imply the direct unambiguous scripture is NOT a Credible source ? well, that says more the enough . but still you hold to the traditions of your denomination even though they blatantly oppose the word of God in Holy scripture.
"thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."-mark 7:13

 

[MoreCoffee]

now you imply the direct unambiguous scripture is NOT a Credible source ? well, that says more the enough. but still you hold to the traditions of your denomination even though they blatantly oppose the word of God in Holy scripture.

"thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."-mark 7:13

Okay, your post is not serious. So my reply will deal with the facts and leave the hypercritical comments behind.

The following is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

TRADITION: The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (75–82). The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition (83).

I. The Apostolic Tradition

75 “Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.”32 (171)

In the apostolic preaching...

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

— orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received—whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33

— in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.”34

...continued in apostolic succession

77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’”35 Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”36 (861)

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”37 “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”38 (174, 1124, 2651)

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church—and through her in the world—leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”39

II. The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture

One common source...

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.”40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age.”41

...two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”42 (113)

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.”43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. (1202, 2041, 2684)

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium.
​