salvation and the loss of it

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Please direct us to the text that teaches that one who has been marked in Him with a seal can become "out of Christ". That phrase seem foreign to the Bible. But maybe there's a verse that addresses this conundrum, since this marking with a seal, being the Holy Spirit is a guarantee for the day of redemption."

LOL
I've answered this so many times FG, I know it by heart.

If so, it would have been very easy to provide the text that teaches that one who has been marked in Him with a seal can be unsealed.

But, no support was given. So there's a claim, but no substance.

 

[FreeGrace]

"Sleep generally works"

Yes. That's not snarky.
It's just YOU.

It's a FACT.

 

[Nathan]

No one can "leave Christ". Paul made that clear in Eph 1:13,14 by the words "a guarantee of our inheritance for the day of redemption" in Eph 1:13,14. So it's pure presumption to think that a sealed person can become unsealed.

Please, if you will, clearly underline where Paul said we could not leave Christ in Ephesians 1:13-14. I am really not seeing anything that says that.

Gal 1:6-7
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

I do know that some distort the Gospel of Christ - which astonished Paul that some would desert God turning to it. So, Paul very clearly states it is possible, and actually calls some out for doing so.

If you desert Christ, you leave the seal that He provides.

1Jo 5:11-12
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

 

[Nathan]

Again, how can the Word of God DIE??? Your answer here doesn't address that.


I will continue to challenge this presumption that one can "leave Christ" in the sense of beiing unsealed from Eph 1:13,14. Those verses teach that the indwelling Spirit is our gauarantee for our inheritance for the day of redemption.

How is that not eternal security?


Absolutely. But what text teaches that we can become unsealed, or unmarked, or unsaved by ceasing to believe?

"Die" - to be removed from, depart.

Rev 3:1-3
“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.

Christ is calling to this church, telling them to 'wake up' and 'strengthen what remains' - because it is about to die. He is addressing what they had 'received and heard'. This is the word of God. It is what Paul says we stand in and are being saved by. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

If that dies, completely - becomes removed from, departs - then there is nothing left to justify us before God the Father. Jesus the Christ will come against us.

This is a call for those who have ears. Many are coming in Christ's name, proclaiming another gospel - but it is not a true gospel and cannot save. We should not turn from Christ to follow this false gospel - the end of it is death. In Christ we will have life. In Christ we have eternal security - without Him we do not.

1Jo 5:11-12
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

 

[FreeGrace]

Please, if you will, clearly underline where Paul said we could not leave Christ in Ephesians 1:13-14. I am really not seeing anything that says that.

First, thanks for asking, so we can have a discussion of the meaning of these important verses.

Here are the 2 verses, with emphasis on the red words:
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

So, first, Paul says of those who have believed, are "included in Christ". Then he said they "were marked in Him with a seal, the Holy Spirit. Then he explained that the indwelling Spirit "is a deposit". Then he said this deposit "guarantees our inheritance". Then he explained what this sealing with the Spirit is for: "until the redemption of God's possession".

If it were possible for anyone so sealed can be "excluded from being in Christ", where are there no verses? None of the farming metaphors regarding branches in fire relate because Paul never related them. Paul wasn't using metaphors here.

So, please explain how a guarantee isn't really a guarantee, or under what conditions, within this context, can a guarantee be revoked.

He plainly said our inheritance is guaranteed for the day of redemption. What was he referring to, if not eternal security?

Gal 1:6-7
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

I do know that some distort the Gospel of Christ - which astonished Paul that some would desert God turning to it. So, Paul very clearly states it is possible, and actually calls some out for doing so.

Again, there is no argument, from me anyway, that a person can desert God in the sense of ceasing to believe in Him, or follow Him.

What I disagree with is that ceasing to believe in Him or ceasing to follow Him can result in loss of salvation. There just aren't any verses that say so. And I've explained what Eph 1:13,14 say.

If you desert Christ, you leave the seal that He provides.

1Jo 5:11-12
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Well, these verses certainly DO NOT say what you're claiming.

So, what verses DO say what you're claiming?

John said nothing about deserting Christ, or anything about the "seal" that Paul spoke of.

So your claim has no substance, from these verses, at least.

 

[FreeGrace]

"Die" - to be removed from, depart.

God's Word cannot die. Eternal life cannot die.

Rev 3:1-3
“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.

Christ is calling to this church, telling them to 'wake up' and 'strengthen what remains' - because it is about to die.

Did you miss where John also said "you have the reputation of being alive, but YOU ARE DEAD"? So, what, exactly, remains and is about to die? They are ALREADY DEAD, according to John? I suspect you've misread the verses.

He is addressing what they had 'received and heard'. This is the word of God.

Whatever "what remains" refers to, those to whom he was addressing are ALREADY DEAD. So, what's the point?

Further, John appealed to works not being complete. Is salvation achieved by complete works?

It is what Paul says we stand in and are being saved by. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

If that dies, completely - becomes removed from, departs - then there is nothing left to justify us before God the Father. Jesus the Christ will come against us.

So, we're really not secure at all in Christ. If we screw up, we lose everything, huh??

Do you not see that this view puts our ultimate salvation upon ourselves???

 

[Nathan]

First, thanks for asking, so we can have a discussion of the meaning of these important verses.

Here are the 2 verses, with emphasis on the red words:
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

So, first, Paul says of those who have believed, are "included in Christ". Then he said they "were marked in Him with a seal, the Holy Spirit. Then he explained that the indwelling Spirit "is a deposit". Then he said this deposit "guarantees our inheritance". Then he explained what this sealing with the Spirit is for: "until the redemption of God's possession".

If it were possible for anyone so sealed can be "excluded from being in Christ", where are there no verses? None of the farming metaphors regarding branches in fire relate because Paul never related them. Paul wasn't using metaphors here.

So, please explain how a guarantee isn't really a guarantee, or under what conditions, within this context, can a guarantee be revoked.

He plainly said our inheritance is guaranteed for the day of redemption. What was he referring to, if not eternal security?


Again, there is no argument, from me anyway, that a person can desert God in the sense of ceasing to believe in Him, or follow Him.

What I disagree with is that ceasing to believe in Him or ceasing to follow Him can result in loss of salvation. There just aren't any verses that say so. And I've explained what Eph 1:13,14 say.


Well, these verses certainly DO NOT say what you're claiming.

So, what verses DO say what you're claiming?

John said nothing about deserting Christ, or anything about the "seal" that Paul spoke of.

So your claim has no substance, from these verses, at least.

It would help to understand that the entire letter to the Galatians was meant to be read. We find the opening of this letter stating that some were deserting God in turning to another 'false' gospel. Later, after Paul gives reasons why this is ignorant, Paul clearly states that this departure is putting the person in the position of being severed from Christ, fallen from Grace, and under the obligation to keep the entire law - that is impossible, which means that the person would no longer have salvation.

Context - we have to see this in context. Paul opens his letter with the simple fact that it was them who were leaving, not Christ who was leaving them.

Gal 5:2-4
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Another 'false' gospel would say it is ok to be severed from Christ, that it is ok to do the works of the law and still retain eternal life. This is the same lie that the serpent told Eve.

If you are severed from Christ, you are severed from eternal life. There is no way around this. To preach you can be severed from Christ and not be severed from eternal life is a false gospel.

1Jo 5:12
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

 

[Nathan]

God's Word cannot die. Eternal life cannot die.


Did you miss where John also said "you have the reputation of being alive, but YOU ARE DEAD"? So, what, exactly, remains and is about to die? They are ALREADY DEAD, according to John? I suspect you've misread the verses.


Whatever "what remains" refers to, those to whom he was addressing are ALREADY DEAD. So, what's the point?

Further, John appealed to works not being complete. Is salvation achieved by complete works?

So, we're really not secure at all in Christ. If we screw up, we lose everything, huh??

Do you not see that this view puts our ultimate salvation upon ourselves???

Eternal life can be removed. Christ, who was the eternal life, died on the cross. He died. How did He die? He had the sin of the world placed on Him. Sin brings death.

On the contrary, we are ONLY secure in Christ. He is our righteousness. In Him sin is taken away from us. If we are found outside of Him, we are found outside of His righteousness and the judgement of sin is placed back on us. In Him, the judgment of sin is paid for by His blood.

This puts all of salvation on Him, and in Him. If we leave Him, we leave salvation. To preach that we can leave Him, yet retain salvation, puts salvation upon ourselves.

In Christ, we can know we have eternal life. It is only when we are outside of Him do we not know. Many have tried to convince people over the years that Christ is not the only way of salvation and that eternal life can be had apart from Him.

1Jo 5:12-13
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

 

[FreeGrace]

It would help to understand that the entire letter to the Galatians was meant to be read.

No kidding!!!

We find the opening of this letter stating that some were deserting God in turning to another 'false' gospel.

I find it instructive that in this very horrible thing, that Paul said nothing about losing salvation because of it. If there would ever be a warning about losing salvation, it would be in the very texts that speak of these things (ceasing to believe, sinful lifestyles, etc).

Later, after Paul gives reasons why this is ignorant, Paul clearly states that this departure is putting the person in the position of being severed from Christ, fallen from Grace, and under the obligation to keep the entire law - that is impossible, which means that the person would no longer have salvation.

But Paul had also taught eternal security from Eph 1:13,14. I do not believe he had somehow changed his mind between Galatians and Ephesians.

Context - we have to see this in context. Paul opens his letter with the simple fact that it was them who were leaving, not Christ who was leaving them.

Gal 5:2-4
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Another 'false' gospel would say it is ok to be severed from Christ, that it is ok to do the works of the law and still retain eternal life.

Huh??!

The false doctrine is claiming one who has eternal life can end up in the lake of fire. No verse teaches this. But the opposite IS found in Scripture: Jesus promised recipients of eternal life that they will never perish. An unconditional promise.

I'm baffled about the insertion of "it is ok to do the works of the law and still retain eternal life" though. Where did that come from?

I've certainly not ever said such a thing.

The sole issue here is about eternal security. You've explained how one who has been given eternal life can end up in the lake of fire, but this is in direct conflict with Jesus' unconditional promise in John 10:28.

If you are severed from Christ, you are severed from eternal life.

There has been NO PROOF from Scripture for this.

It is only an assumption, or presumption, or hopeful wishing that a sealed one can even be removed from being "in Christ".

There is no way around this.

Actually, there is no way around the unconditional promise of Jesus in John 19:28.

To preach you can be severed from Christ and not be severed from eternal life is a false gospel.

1Jo 5:12
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

How come John mentioned nothing about being severed here? How does this verse support your assumption?

In fact, John was simply distinguishing between believer and unbeliever.

One who has believed HAS the Son.

One who has NOT believed DOES NOT HAVE the Son.

 

[Nathan]

No kidding!!!


I find it instructive that in this very horrible thing, that Paul said nothing about losing salvation because of it. If there would ever be a warning about losing salvation, it would be in the very texts that speak of these things (ceasing to believe, sinful lifestyles, etc).


But Paul had also taught eternal security from Eph 1:13,14. I do not believe he had somehow changed his mind between Galatians and Ephesians.

Paul said they would be severed from Christ, and fall from grace. How do you get any clearer about not having salvation if you are severed from Christ and away from grace?

The only way to view that being severed from Christ and not in grace, and still having salvation, is to believe that you can do something for salvation.

Gal 5:2-4
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

The ONLY way we are justified before God is through Christ. If we leave Him, turn to another 'false' gospel, Christ will be of no advantage to us. How can it not be any clearer than this? Do you believe that eternal life can be had without Christ? If not, then how can you have eternal life if Christ is no advantage to you?

1Jo 5:12
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

 

[Gregg T]

Anyone who DOES understand it will make exactly the statement that Gregg T made.

[portion omitted]

I've said many times on these threads that I'm friendly with a theologian who knows koine Greek, amongst other languages,
and he said EXACTLY what Gregg T said. This is also what he stated.

[portion omitted]

I forget what verse was being used, but I was not disagreeing with the conclusion FreeGrace made about OSAS when he cited the aorist tense. Perhaps he will refresh my memory with the particular verse.

My question was HOW he came to KNOW the Greek?

I have been studying Koine Greek for about 15 years, beginning in seminary. I read language study textbooks, Greek lexicons and word studies, expository commentary based on the original language, and different Greek New Testament versions.

My expertise is only mid-level. Nonetheless, the most proficient and learned Greek language scholars disagree among themselves on many fundamental issues in the Scriptures.

 

[FreeGrace]

Paul said they would be severed from Christ, and fall from grace.

I have no problem understanding and accepting what he meant.

But I don't understand how anyone can believe that salvation can be lost when Jesus promised unconditionally that those He gives eternal life will never perish, from John 10:28.

The obvious point is that, from the moment of one being given eternal life, Jesus said they will never perish. No conditions.

How do you get any clearer about not having salvation if you are severed from Christ and away from grace?

It cannot mean that since Jesus unconditionally promised that those given eternal life will never perish.

The only way to view that being severed from Christ and not in grace, and still having salvation, is to believe that you can do something for salvation.

Do, it doesn't and that doesn't even make sense to me.

What does make sense to me is that we are saved by God and kept by God. We didn't earn salvation, and we can't earn loss of it.

The ONLY way we are justified before God is through Christ.

And we can't be removed from Him. Because Jesus unconditionally promised recipients of eternal life that they will never perish. Jn 1-0:28

If we leave Him, turn to another 'false' gospel, Christ will be of no advantage to us.

That refers to blessings in this life and reward in eternity. Not loss of salvation. Which is impossible, given all the promises of eternal security.

How can it not be any clearer than this?

That is my question for anyone who thinks that salvation can be lost.

Do you believe that eternal life can be had without Christ?

Nope. But why believe that the guarantee of our inheritance, based on the indwelling Holy Spirit, can be lost?

If not, then how can you have eternal life if Christ is no advantage to you?

You've not shown that's what it's referring to. You're making an assumption only. In spite of the clear verses on eternal security.

 

[FreeGrace]

I forget what verse was being used, but I was not disagreeing with the conclusion FreeGrace made about OSAS when he cited the aorist tense. Perhaps he will refresh my memory with the particular verse.

Thanks for the agreement! And I don't recall the verse either.

I have been studying Koine Greek for about 15 years, beginning in seminary. I read language study textbooks, Greek lexicons and word studies, expository commentary based on the original language, and different Greek New Testament versions.

Which was my point. One learns Greek from reading textbooks, lexicons, and grammar texts.

My expertise is only mid-level. Nonetheless, the most proficient and learned Greek language scholars disagree among themselves on many fundamental issues in the Scriptures.

That's true.

 

[WIP]

Thanks for the agreement! And I don't recall the verse either.


Which was my point. One learns Greek from reading textbooks, lexicons, and grammar texts.


That's true.

This is actually off topic but for clarity's sake I'll ask. The English translations were not completed by individual persons but rather teams of scholars and learned persons. It goes without saying that there were probably disagreements about the correct translation during the process and eventually they settled on a final result. How can any one of us claim to know better than they? I'm still going to trust that those who translated the Scriptures from the ancient text did so with God's direction and with diligence and I must take their version before any one individual's version, including my own.

 

[Nathan]

I have no problem understanding and accepting what he meant.

But I don't understand how anyone can believe that salvation can be lost when Jesus promised unconditionally that those He gives eternal life will never perish, from John 10:28.

The obvious point is that, from the moment of one being given eternal life, Jesus said they will never perish. No conditions.


It cannot mean that since Jesus unconditionally promised that those given eternal life will never perish.


Do, it doesn't and that doesn't even make sense to me.

What does make sense to me is that we are saved by God and kept by God. We didn't earn salvation, and we can't earn loss of it.


And we can't be removed from Him. Because Jesus unconditionally promised recipients of eternal life that they will never perish. Jn 1-0:28


That refers to blessings in this life and reward in eternity. Not loss of salvation. Which is impossible, given all the promises of eternal security.


That is my question for anyone who thinks that salvation can be lost.


Nope. But why believe that the guarantee of our inheritance, based on the indwelling Holy Spirit, can be lost?


You've not shown that's what it's referring to. You're making an assumption only. In spite of the clear verses on eternal security.

You may not understand simply because of who taught you the things that you know. Its ok to not understand. There are a lot of people who do not understand. The issue comes when someone presents truth and the hearer disregards it solely based on what they want to know.

I am not sure who taught you the things you speak about, but they added words into passages that simply are not there. The single sentence that you keep referring to in John 10:28 is speaking of the sheep that Jesus spoke of in the previous sentence. Jesus never said that those who do not follow Him have eternal life and will never perish - again - Jesus never said that those who do not follow Him have eternal life and will never perish.

He did say exactly what this eternal life is;

Jhn 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

That is eternal life. Now, someone who turns from that, and believes in something else - is that which they 'know' eternal life?

Jesus Himself spoke of a person who "lost" this - it happened because it was prophesied to happen, but it does not negate the fact that it actually happened - he was apart of the ones who God gave to Christ out of the world, he was Christ's because God gave him to Christ, and yet he was lost from that group.

Jhn 17:6-12
“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Try something, just read the Gospels without adding any words to the passages. Just read it like letters that are sent to you from someone. It may help if you find a Bible without chapter or verses, one with just the pure words. Maybe then you can see the things you say that you cannot see.

 

[GodsGrace]

I forget what verse was being used, but I was not disagreeing with the conclusion FreeGrace made about OSAS when he cited the aorist tense. Perhaps he will refresh my memory with the particular verse.



I have been studying Koine Greek for about 15 years, beginning in seminary. I read language study textbooks, Greek lexicons and word studies, expository commentary based on the original language, and different Greek New Testament versions.

My expertise is only mid-level. Nonetheless, the most proficient and learned Greek language scholars disagree among themselves on many fundamental issues in the Scriptures.

You made a comment on page 8, post no. 144.
Here it is:

The aorist tense refers to kind/type of action when the Greek mood is subjunctive, imperitive, and infinitive; and does not primarily (if at all) reference time.

The aorist tense refers to the punctiliar time of the action when the Greek mood is indicative, imperfect, or perfect.

Meaning and interpretation of a verb or participle (a verbal substantive) having the aorist tense can be influenced by other things, such as the presence of a main verb or a qualifying phrase or case of the nominative doing or recieving the action, among a multiple of other factors. The aorist tense, when unmodified or without a contextual qualification, refers to either a kind (its primary use) of action or the punctiliar time (its secondary use) of the action.

~

Some Greek interlinear Bibles identify the tense, voice, and mood of verbs; but consulting that type of tool does not guarantee a correct understanding or interpretation.

Many posters use the aorist tense to prove something or other. Usually it has to do with OSAS.
It seems to me that you really understand it, not many do.

That's all.

 

[Gregg T]

​

You made a comment on page 8, post no. 144.
Here it is:

The aorist tense refers to kind/type of action when the Greek mood is subjunctive, imperitive, and infinitive; and does not primarily (if at all) reference time.

The aorist tense refers to the punctiliar time of the action when the Greek mood is indicative, imperfect, or perfect.

Meaning and interpretation of a verb or participle (a verbal substantive) having the aorist tense can be influenced by other things, such as the presence of a main verb or a qualifying phrase or case of the nominative doing or recieving the action, among a multiple of other factors. The aorist tense, when unmodified or without a contextual qualification, refers to either a kind (its primary use) of action or the punctiliar time (its secondary use) of the action.

~

Some Greek interlinear Bibles identify the tense, voice, and mood of verbs; but consulting that type of tool does not guarantee a correct understanding or interpretation.

Many posters use the aorist tense to prove something or other. Usually it has to do with OSAS.
It seems to me that you really understand it, not many do.

That's all.

I appreciate the comment, and would say I have a partial understanding of Koine Greek.​

 

[GodsGrace]

I appreciate the comment, and would say I have a partial understanding of Koine Greek.​

As I said, I have a theologian friend who speaks it and he agrees with you.
I asked him about it a long time ago and he said to keep away from it because it can't be discussed unless the person really knows it.
He speaks Koine Greek, Hewbrew, English, Italian, Spanish, French, German and Latin.

Some here won't believe this.
The ones who know me will believe it.
I don't embellish.

So, yes, YOU are 100% correct.
No matter what your position is on OSAS.

 

[Gregg T]

As I said, I have a theologian friend who speaks it and he agrees with you.
I asked him about it a long time ago and he said to keep away from it because it can't be discussed unless the person really knows it.
He speaks Koine Greek, Hewbrew, English, Italian, Spanish, French, German and Latin.

Some here won't believe this.
The ones who know me will believe it.
I don't embellish.

So, yes, YOU are 100% correct.
No matter what your position is on OSAS.

Are you saying because I partially understand Koine, meaning that I don't "really know" it, that I should not discuss or refer to Greek grammar here? If that is what you are saying, then I disagree.

We both have a theologian Friend, and can appeal to Him for an understanding of His words.

 

[GodsGrace]

Are you saying because I partially understand Koine, meaning that I don't "really know" it, that I should not discuss or refer to Greek grammar here? If that is what you are saying, then I disagree.

We both have a theologian Friend, and can appeal to Him for an understanding of His words.

Oh my, no.
This is not what I said.
Sorry you understood it this way.
Let's just let it go.