Can you lose your salvation?

[Arsenios]

I remember...
Ezekiel 2:1-10
[1]“Stand up, son of man,” said the voice. “I want to speak with you.”
[2]The Spirit came into me as he spoke, and he set me on my feet. I listened carefully to his words.
[3]“Son of man,” he said, “I am sending you to the nation of Israel, a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me. They and their ancestors have been rebelling against me to this very day.
[4]They are a stubborn and hard-hearted people. But I am sending you to say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign lord says!’
[5]And whether they listen or refuse to listen—for remember, they are rebels—at least they will know they have had a prophet among them.
[6]“Son of man, do not fear them or their words. Don’t be afraid even though their threats surround you like nettles and briers and stinging scorpions. Do not be dismayed by their dark scowls, even though they are rebels.
[7]You must give them my messages whether they listen or not. But they won’t listen, for they are completely rebellious!
[8]Son of man, listen to what I say to you. Do not join them in their rebellion. Open your mouth, and eat what I give you.”
[9]Then I looked and saw a hand reaching out to me. It held a scroll,
[10]which he unrolled. And I saw that both sides were covered with funeral songs, words of sorrow, and pronouncements of doom.

Thank-you, Menno...

Fore-knowledge is a terrible thing...

Prophetic Gifts are terrible...

Can you imagine yourself walking in the world...
And seeing everyone according to their sins...
And according to their final disposition?
And still loving them as God Loves the Kosmos?

The Love of God does not falter...
The Jews above faltered...
God did not...
He did not predestinate them to falter...

So how does this passage establish that praying for the dead is without effect?

Elijah prayed for the dead son and rose him from the dead, remember?


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Thank-you, Menno...

Fore-knowledge is a terrible thing...

Prophetic Gifts are terrible...

Can you imagine yourself walking in the world...
And seeing everyone according to their sins...
And according to their final disposition?
And still loving them as God Loves the Kosmos?

The Love of God does not falter...
The Jews above faltered...
God did not...
He did not predestinate them to falter...

So how does this passage establish that praying for the dead is without effect?

Elijah prayed for the dead son and rose him from the dead, remember?


Arsenios

It shows Ezekiel is called the son of man.
Arsenios, if God has chosen to save a person, that person will be saved, with no need for your prayers. Prayer changes the person praying. God does what he wills according to his sovereign choice. God may will you to pray for your sake, but your prayer will not change God's will.
If God wills to bring a person back from the dead, he will do so. We have no indication that God will save an unregenerate person after they have died. In fact the indication from the story of the rich man and Lazerus is that the rich man's fate is sealed.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]
[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

I have no idea why you would want to drag me into this, but since you have, I will respond to just one of your verses and points:

1 Timothy 4:1, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons."
Radical Calvinists disagree with what "the Spirit clearly says." Note: One CANNOT abandon what they do not have, but yes, the Spirit says they can (and some WILL) abandon their faith.

1. This Calvinist would say you misunderstood the point of this verse, it has nothing to do with losing personal faith (or the inability to lose salvation).

2. Read 1 Timothy 4:1 again! It says “the faith”, not “their faith”.

3. The message is a warning to Timothy that there will come a time when people will claim to be the “church” but will reject “the faith” that Jesus handed to Paul and Paul handed to Timothy. An ancient parallel would be when “there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes” [Judges 17:6] and a modern fulfillment would be the Jehovah’s Witnesses or those Seminaries that teach the Bible is 100% allegorical/ 0% historical or Islam.

4. Those who walk away from “the faith” probably never had a personal faith in the true Jesus Christ at any point.

You need to be more careful with your exegesis. Some of the other verses you mentioned probably have merit (I did not look up the context of every verse in your long list ... those long lists have been one of my ongoing complaints with your posts) but I did recognize a few verses, like 1 Timothy 4:1, were not saying what you claim they are saying. They have nothing to do with the subject you are attempting to relate them to.

 

[MoreCoffee]

:smirk:

Finally!!

I have been looking for some time now, you know...

For this opportunity, you see...

To finally slather you properly...

With this emoji you have used...

So relentlessly, you doG!

A.

This thread is not attracting comments that I want to spend time writing about. So I just ignore it most of the time.

:smirk:

 

[atpollard]

I gave your post a like because I reckon that one MUST squint really hard to get that result from the verse you quoted.

:smirk:

Me thinkieth thou surely doth jest.
:stoic-hero:

[1Jo 2:19 NASB] 19 They went out from us, but they were not [really] of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but [they went out,] so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

"us" = just a bunch of good ol' SAVED boys.
"They went out from us" = they walked out on us SAVED folk
"but they were not [really] of us" = them what walked out wasn't really good ol' SAVED boys after all, them was just pretendin' to be SAVED
"for if they had been of us" = ifin they had been honest to gosh good ol' SAVED boys, like the rest of the Kinfolk
"they would have remained with us" = then they wouldn't have skedaddled off like that
"but [they went out,]" = but them no good snake-in-the-grass wolves in sheep clothing, DID skedaddle off
"so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." = so that everyone could see their true colors ... a mile wide yellow streak and a heart as black as coal and as hard as granite!

That sure sounds to me like it is describing someone that was "never truly saved".
:cool-relaxed:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Me thinkieth thou surely doth jest.
:stoic-hero:

..

[1Jo 2:19 NASB] 19 They went out from us, but they were not [really] of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but [they went out,] so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

I am curious as to why the NASB added the word really to the translation given that evangelicals regard the NASB as especially accurate (that is to say the NASB is regarded as word for word even of the word order and tenses are unnatural in standard English). Other translations that evangelicals will read and receive as acceptable do not add the word really. My translation doesn't add it either.

(I John 2:19) They went out from us but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us: but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.​

Protestant commentator Adam Clarke offers this view of the passage.

Verse 19. They went out from us] These heretics had belonged to our Christian assemblies, they professed Christianity, and do so still; but we apostles did not commission them to preach to you, for they have disgraced the Divine doctrine with the most pernicious opinions; they have given up or explained away its most essential principles; they have mingled the rest with heathenish rites and Jewish glosses. While, therefore, we acknowledge that they once belonged to us, we assert that they are not of us. They are not Christians; we abhor their conduct and their creed. We never sent them to teach.

They were not of us] For a considerable time before they left our assemblies they gave proofs that they had departed from the faith; for if they had been of us-if they had been apostles, and continued in the firm belief of the Christian doctrines, they would not have departed from us to form a sect of themselves.

That they were not all of us.] They were not expelled from the Christian Church; they were not sent out by us; but they separated from it and us. None of them had been inspired as we apostles were, though they pretended to a very high teaching; but their separating from us manifested that they were not taught, as we were, by the Spirit of God. These false teachers probably drew many sincere souls away with them; and to this it is probable the apostle alludes when he says, they were not ALL of us. Some were; others were not.​

Adam Clarke's emphasis is on what was observable; namely that they departed from the doctrine that the apostles preached and hence from the faith by which is meant they ceased to preach the true doctrines of the Christian faith. No implication about having been saved and loosing salvation is presented nor is any implication of having never been saved presented. I am inclined to agree with Adam Clarke on this verse. I do not think that saint John is offering opinions about the state of their souls as much as the state of their stated beliefs. They were, in effect, heretics and left the Christian community while still calling themselves Christians. Thus they were not of us which is to say, not of the faithful who adhered to apostolic doctrine, and hence they departed from us - being heretical in their beliefs - showing that they never were people who believed according to apostolic example and teaching.

The apostle does not imply that these heretics could never repent and become Christians by abandoning their heresies nor does he teach or intend to imply that any who departed with them were either never Christians nor cut off from the possibility of repentance which would result in them returning to the fellowship of the apostles and the Christian community and leaving the heretical movement to which they were drawn off by these heretical teachers.

"us" = just a bunch of good ol' SAVED boys.
"They went out from us" = they walked out on us SAVED folk
"but they were not [really] of us" = them what walked out wasn't really good ol' SAVED boys after all, them was just pretendin' to be SAVED
"for if they had been of us" = ifin they had been honest to gosh good ol' SAVED boys, like the rest of the Kinfolk
"they would have remained with us" = then they wouldn't have skedaddled off like that
"but [they went out,]" = but them no good snake-in-the-grass wolves in sheep clothing, DID skedaddle off
"so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." = so that everyone could see their true colors ... a mile wide yellow streak and a heart as black as coal and as hard as granite!

That sure sounds to me like it is describing someone that was "never truly saved".
:cool-relaxed:

 

[MennoSota]

I have found Clarke's commentary to be even worse than Matthew Henry's. Clarke is an odd duck.
Try this site for more commentaries.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/1john_218-23_commentary

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have found Clarke's commentary to be even worse than Matthew Henry's.

Adam Clarke was a Methodist and follower of John Wesley as well as a biblical theologian who was a little bit distrustful of systematic theolgy. Being of that ilk he would not conform to your approach so I do not wonder that you do not like his commentary.

Clarke is an odd duck.
Try this site for more commentaries.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/1john_218-23_commentary

 

[MennoSota]

Adam Clarke was a Methodist and follower of John Wesley as well as a biblical theologian who was a little bit distrustful of systematic theolgy. Being of that ilk he would not conform to your approach so I do not wonder that you do not like his commentary.

Indeed, he was a full fledged semi-pelagian Arminian, which is really what the Roman church is as well.

 

[atpollard]

..I am curious as to why the NASB added the word really to the translation given that evangelicals regard the NASB as especially accurate (that is to say the NASB is regarded as word for word even of the word order and tenses are unnatural in standard English). Other translations that evangelicals will read and receive as acceptable do not add the word really. My translation doesn't add it either.

(I John 2:19) They went out from us but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us: but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.​

Protestant commentator Adam Clarke offers this view of the passage.

Verse 19. They went out from us] These heretics had belonged to our Christian assemblies, they professed Christianity, and do so still; but we apostles did not commission them to preach to you, for they have disgraced the Divine doctrine with the most pernicious opinions; they have given up or explained away its most essential principles; they have mingled the rest with heathenish rites and Jewish glosses. While, therefore, we acknowledge that they once belonged to us, we assert that they are not of us. They are not Christians; we abhor their conduct and their creed. We never sent them to teach.

They were not of us] For a considerable time before they left our assemblies they gave proofs that they had departed from the faith; for if they had been of us-if they had been apostles, and continued in the firm belief of the Christian doctrines, they would not have departed from us to form a sect of themselves.

That they were not all of us.] They were not expelled from the Christian Church; they were not sent out by us; but they separated from it and us. None of them had been inspired as we apostles were, though they pretended to a very high teaching; but their separating from us manifested that they were not taught, as we were, by the Spirit of God. These false teachers probably drew many sincere souls away with them; and to this it is probable the apostle alludes when he says, they were not ALL of us. Some were; others were not.​

Adam Clarke's emphasis is on what was observable; namely that they departed from the doctrine that the apostles preached and hence from the faith by which is meant they ceased to preach the true doctrines of the Christian faith. No implication about having been saved and loosing salvation is presented nor is any implication of having never been saved presented. I am inclined to agree with Adam Clarke on this verse. I do not think that saint John is offering opinions about the state of their souls as much as the state of their stated beliefs. They were, in effect, heretics and left the Christian community while still calling themselves Christians. Thus they were not of us which is to say, not of the faithful who adhered to apostolic doctrine, and hence they departed from us - being heretical in their beliefs - showing that they never were people who believed according to apostolic example and teaching.

The apostle does not imply that these heretics could never repent and become Christians by abandoning their heresies nor does he teach or intend to imply that any who departed with them were either never Christians nor cut off from the possibility of repentance which would result in them returning to the fellowship of the apostles and the Christian community and leaving the heretical movement to which they were drawn off by these heretical teachers.

... but doesn't "showing that they never were people who believed according to apostolic example and teaching" (as you say) mean they were "never truly saved" (as Arsenios requested a verse claiming)?
[Can one be saved believing damnable heresies ... like Jesus never really died on the Cross as Islam claims, or is an allegorical figure like some modern seminaries teach?]

 

[atpollard]

I am curious as to why the NASB added the word really to the translation given that evangelicals regard the NASB as especially accurate (that is to say the NASB is regarded as word for word even of the word order and tenses are unnatural in standard English). Other translations that evangelicals will read and receive as acceptable do not add the word really. My translation doesn't add it either.

Just speculation on my part, but they placed "really" in brackets [] to clearly denote that it was a word added to clarify the meaning. Without that word, the sentence reads as almost transcendental ... they were of us, but not of us (que strange music). The Greek grammatical structure may have made the intended meaning clear and the translators were concerned that "with" vs "of" was too subtle in English to convey the clear implication in Greek.

Here are a few other translations that added "really" or added emphasis with some other phrase:

[1Jo 2:19 NLT] 19 These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us.

[1Jo 2:19 CSB] 19 They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us.

[1Jo 2:19 NET] 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us.

... but you are correct that most translations stick with "They went out from us, but they were not of us"

 

[MoreCoffee]

... but doesn't "showing that they never were people who believed according to apostolic example and teaching" (as you say) mean they were "never truly saved" (as Arsenios requested a verse claiming)?
[Can one be saved believing damnable heresies ... like Jesus never really died on the Cross as Islam claims, or is an allegorical figure like some modern seminaries teach?]

Who decides what heresies are damnable? I, for example, may regard Baptist teaching on Communion and Baptism as heresy and Calvinistic predestination as serious heresy and you will have views about beliefs that I hold which may meet whatever criteria you have for heresy and serious heresy when do you reach a stage of thinking that some specific belief is a damnable heresy? I ask because saint John's assessment is most directly against some who appear to have led others out of fellowship with the apostles and the faith that they taught. He does imply that the ones he aims for were never "of us" but that may be because they came in from outside to disturb the faith of Christians in the community to which saint John wrote his first letter. Such ones would be infiltrators with motives that saint John condemns.

 

[Josiah]

As to whether one can "wreck" their faith or "fall" from faith or whether those once saved may no longer be, READ (and accept) the following. Don't deny or "spin" so that they "mean" the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they say because what God says is something you disagree with (you are good at that):


Luke 8:13 "....they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away."
They had faith FOR A WHILE.... and later, "FELL AWAY." Not, "if you believe for a moment, you are saved no matter whether you have faith or not, ONCE believe you, you're covered no matter what."


1 Timothy 4:1, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons."
Radical Calvinists disagree with what "the Spirit clearly says." Note: One CANNOT abandon what they do not have, but yes, the Spirit says they can (and some WILL) abandon the faith.


Galatians 5:4 "... you have fallen away from grace."
Can't fall away from something that wasn't previously the case.


2 Peter 3:17, "Be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."
If OSAS is correct, then Scripture is issuing a severe warning to a situation that CANNOT EVER exist; Scripture would be deceptive, misleading, FALSELY warning.


John 15:4-7, "Remain in me, and I will remain in you... If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."
One cannot cease to remain if they were not at one time; this speaks to one who ONCE was in grace but ceased to be.


Hebrews 8:9, "They did not remain faithful to My covenant, and I turned away from them"
Note: REMAIN... they were in the faith but then they ceased to be and lost their salvation; Jesus turning away from them.


Revelation 2:10, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life."


Matthew 10:22, "He who stands firm to the end will be saved."


John 8:31, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really My disciples."


Luke 21:19, "By standing firm you will gain life."


Col. 1:23, "If you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel."


Hebrews 10:26, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."


2 Peter 1:8-10, "But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure."


Revelation 3:5, He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white.



.

Read 1 Timothy 4:1 again! It says “the faith”, not “their faith”. The message is a warning to Timothy that there will come a time when people will claim to be the “church” but will reject “the faith” that Jesus handed to Paul and Paul handed to Timothy.

No. The verse does NOT say, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times, some will falsely claim to believe." It says some will ABANDON. One cannot ABANDON what they did not once have.




.

 

[NewCreation435]

No. The verse does NOT say, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times, some will falsely claim to believe." It says some will ABANDON. One cannot ABANDON what they did not once have.




.

The actual transliterated word for this is the phrase "shall depart from" in the KJV which is transliterated aphistemi which means
to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to remove
to stand off, to stand aloof
to go away
to desert
to fall away
to shun, flee from
to cease to vex one
to withdraw one's self from
to keep one's self from

It reminds me of the parable of the seeds planted on different soil that Jesus tells. Where some seed falls along the path and some in the shallow soil and some get disturbed by weeds and thorns. These people in this verse get misled by doctrines of demons and false teaching. Which parallels nicely with the verse I started this thread with

 

[Arsenios]

He had his Salvation, but being the son of perdition, he then betrayed Christ and lost it...

Nor did he repent...

He departed and did not remain...

Unlike Peter, who did not betray Christ, but denied Him, and repented and was restored, having remained...


Arsenios

Here is a very short Orthodox article on the death of Judas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jPeknCiH9U

States that the tree Judas hanged himself from bent and lowered him to the ground...

So he survived his own hanging...

I had not heard that account...

I always assumed he killed himself by hanging himself...


Arsenios

 

[mailmandan]

Judas is always a hard case to wrap my hands around and come up with a definitive answer from scripture.
On the one hand ...

[Mar 3:14-15 NASB] 14 And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He [could] send them out to preach, 15 and to have authority to cast out the demons.


And on the other hand ...

[Jhn 6:70 NASB] 70 Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and [yet] one of you is a devil?"

[Jhn 17:12 NASB] 12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

I don't believe that Judas Iscariot was saved and lost his salvation. Judas Iscariot was an unbelieving, unclean devil who betrayed Jesus.
(John 6:64-71; 13:10-11)

 

[pinacled]

1 John 2:19

 

[NetChaplain]

“Through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” I believe this phrase is the same as many other passages like Heb 10:26 – “receiving the knowledge of the truth” i.e. Gospel. I think if this intended to mean receiving or accepting the truth of the Gospel, and not just the knowledge of it, this would be stated differently, because Scripture is directly plain when the subject concerns being saved, redeemed or reborn. Thus, it is more hermeneutically reasonable that “the knowledge of the Lord” intends only the knowledge of the Lord in learned, received or discovered, but not His Gospel and Himself received, as explained by a theologian from the 1600-1700th centuries:

“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world”: “these, men may escape, abstain from, and outwardly reform, with respect unto, and yet be destitute of the grace of God; so that this can be no instance of the final and total apostasy of real saints; for the house may be swept and garnished with an external reformation; persons may be outwardly righteous before men, have a form of godliness and a name to live, and yet be dead in trespasses and sins.”

“By which "knowledge" is meant, not a spiritual experimental knowledge of Christ, for that is eternal life, the beginning, pledge, and earnest of it; but a notional knowledge of Christ, or a profession of knowledge of him, for it may be rendered "acknowledgment"; or rather the Gospel of Christ, which, being only notionally received, may have such an effect on men, as outwardly to reform their lives, at least in some instances, and for a while, in whose hearts it has no place.

2 Peter 2 Bible Commentary - John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible

Study 2 Peter 2 using John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible to better understand Scripture with full outline and verse meaning.

www.christianity.com