Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Yeshua1, Oct 25, 2013.
Or is it something else being spoken of here?
It does refer to losing salavtion and it is something I personally do not accept.
It does not mean losing their salvation. They were not rejecting Jesus or denying Him. It is a reference to their failure to rely on the grace of God. Christians can do that without losing their salvation.
Can Christians fail to rely on God's grace? Even if a saved person is in sin, God's grace is covering it. I'd concede that they might not intellectually be relying on it, but whether they know it or not, they are.
I see "fallen from grace" as more like being out of the "good graces" of God. We know that if we are harboring sin in our life, He won't listen to us. So, to me, fallen from grace us simply being out of fellowship with God.
The context of that passage is that there were some in the church who listened to those who came along and taught that the law was still required. While they once believed in God's grace for salvation they had begun to listen to the false teachers that had come into the church. Hence they had fallen from grace.
It could be watered down to "lost and lost-ER" if one does not like what the Bible text appears to say.
In Romans 6 "under grace" appears to mean saved. -- But we could just ignore that and pretend that "under grace " is just "another form of lost".
Then that might help rescue OSAS in the Gal 5:4 case where "They were running well" as lost people - but then suddenly got "lost-ER' and fell from grace.
I think that is the only alternative to just accepting the text as it is written.
If you are going to rail against how other people post then you might consider your own.
In Romans 6 "under grace" means "saved".
In Gal 5:4 "Fallen from Grace" is said to be "Severed FROM Christ".
In John 15:1-5 - being severed from Christ - is to then die and be "burned in the fire" as a dead branch -- no longer alive in Christ at all.
You could argue that "under Grace" means saved and "fallen from Grace" means "still saved so that we can rescue OSAS" -- it would be eisegesis. Inserting into the text whatever you need to protect a prior misconception rather than allowing the Bible to speak for itself.
Ok now that is a good point.
If I post "you liar" or "you hypocrit" or "you cult" or "I wish were banned" or "I don't know why they allow you to ..." and someone had to keep bleeping out my ad hominem text with the message "<obligatory rant deleted here>" -- certainly I would need to consider reigning in that sort of language.
Do you find posts from me using that sort of unchristian language???
If so then please point it out to me - and I will happily retract it.
But if you only find that in my post as a "quote" of someone directing that language at me - I cannot be blamed for what they post.
I appreciate your honesty.
That is refreshing.
Paul points to some people in Galatia that experienced this problem
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
I think we are agreeing on a base level, but arguing semantics. I think we both agree that God's grace was still covering them, but that they thought it did not. I apologize if I have misrepresented your position, but this is the gist I am getting.
Well apparently I misunderstood your post. No worries
This is another of those many instances where Paul didn’t really mean what he said. You have to be careful when reading Paul’s epistles because they’re just full of those misleading remarks. Fortunately we have a number of enlightened people on this board who can distinguish whether Paul was really serious or just inserting a throwaway line to confuse us.
Yes but there are those who when they read "Fallen from grace" and "Severed from Christ" in Gal 5:4 - may add "yes but in a good way" or "yes but only in the lost getting lost-ER sense".
Indeed "all is not really all"
"World is not really world"
"Fallen FROM Grace" is not really fallen FROM Grace but is "somewhat ungracious" or "A little less graceful these days".
You know all the politically correct ways to morph the text in true "any ol excuse will do" fashion so as to cling to prior dearly held positions that are otherwise refuted by the Bible.
:laugh: good one! I like it.
But really, the problem is not in the lines "fallen from grace" or "severed from Christ". The problem is, the line they want to throw away is "ye who would be justified by the law". Put the whole statement in it's proper context and the controversy goes away.
"Fallen from grace" is not a good thing no matter what you believe it means. The question one needs to ask themselves is do I want to be justified by works or obedience? If one does, then one has fallen from grace. Thus, they better figure out what to do to get out of this fallen situation. The answer is obvious to most, but to some the verse is a stumbling block.
Those who imagine that "Fallen from Grace" and "Severed from Christ" are just another way to say "OSAS" have the "all news is good news" view of the Bible where any text that refutes OSAS must be re-invented as "strongly affirming it" no matter if it points to "fallen from Grace".
And of course as Steaver sometimes appears to imply - to accept 1John 5:2-4 or Rev 14:12 or 1Cor 7:19 "as written" is to "fall from grace" so somehow that "protects OSAS" as well.
Not sure why he keeps going there as if that idea "works".
the Contex of the book, and the Apsotle paul contrasting to us of grace vrs Law, and that He was writting to already saved persons, would demand that what he was saying to us is that the Galatians were starting to heed the Judaizers coming to them, who wanted thenm to have a more perfect way of mixing faith and keeping the law, and oull said to them the right way was to continue in faith,to walk in the Spirit and Grace of God, NOT to go nack to bondage of law as under Old Covenant! falling from Grace refers to saved saints striving to perfect their maturity by keeping the jewish Law and not by walking by and in the Spirit!
Basically contrasting saints who live by grace vrs those who choose to live under bondage of the Law!
Indeed but OSAS does not survive if only SOME saved people are then lost. It does not survive if ANY saved persons are then lost.
You respond with something of the form "yes but THESE saved people are then lost because they decide in favor of the Judaizers" as if that will spare OSAS.
But OSAS makes no such mythical claim about "Once saved always saved UNLESS you turn to agreement with a Judaizer - then you can go from saved to lost".
Steaver struggles with this point - but I don't think it is as hard to see has he pretends.
As a result - the point remains.
Galatians 5:4 is very different in the KJB and seems to give a very different meaning;
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
In the KJB this verse says "Christ is become of no effect unto you" not "severed". What does this mean?
Could this mean a person who was once saved is now lost? Possibly, but I believe it is saying something very similar to Hebrews 4:2;
Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
I believe what Paul is saying in Galatians 5:4 is similar to Heb 4:2, that the gospel does not profit those who fail to depend on Jesus alone to save them, but depend on their own works.
The potential to save you is there, but a person who depends on their works has forfeited this potential salvation.
So it is not necessarily saying that a person could be saved, and then lose salvation, these particular persons were never saved, they never believed on Jesus.
As for "ye did run well", this could be saying that this church at one time was following true doctrine, but has departed from it and is now teaching error.
Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
Note that Paul did not say they had "turned" from the truth, he said, "that ye should not obey the truth". So this supports that these persons NEVER believed proper doctrine to begin with, they were never saved.
So, I get the impression that the truth (proper doctrine) was in time past being taught in this church, but now error had been introduced and was being taught. People under this false doctrine were not being saved, the gospel had become of no effect to them and did not profit them, because they were not depending by faith on Jesus, but on the works of the law.
I would be the first to admit there are many scriptures that COULD SEEM to teach that a person can lose salvation, and Galatians 5 is a good example. But I believe there is MUCH scripture that clearly says you cannot lose salvation, and so Galatians 5 and other such passages cannot possibly be teaching this. The scriptures cannot contradict themselves.