Forfeiting Salvation versus Losing Salvation - What is the difference?

Q&A: When, where, and to whom was 1 Timothy written? What was its purpose? The answers are obvious. Timothy is being told how to deal with the various factions of those identifying themselves as "of the faith". Obviously, some are not, as Paul makes clear in the opening passages of 1 Timothy. Read those, then this:

1 Timothy 4 - Amplified

BUT THE [Holy] Spirit distinctly and expressly declares that in latter times some will turn away from the faith, giving attention to deluding and seducing spirits and doctrines that demons teach.

There were false teachers in those days, mingling with Believers.

For some, riding a fast horse back to Egypt seemed to be the appropriate response to the Christian faith and message.

Why? Liars, demonic utterances..... Result: You "turn away from" your destination before you get there!

1 Timothy 4 - The Message

The Spirit makes it clear that as time goes on, some are going to give up on the faith and chase after demonic illusions put forth by professional liars. These liars have lied so well and for so long that they've lost their capacity for truth.

Why? Liars, demonic utterances..... "I tried it, but I didn't like it. Lemme see what this guru over here is offering.........."

The other option is for folks to GROW COLD after becoming authentic Christians. They are turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that their spirit might be saved. "might" is King James English, the equivalent of "that their spirit can and will be saved."

The imagery is of a heated Town Hall meeting. Eventually, some of those present throw up their hands, saying "I've had enough of this," and don't return, ever. Others return much later. In each case their standing, their position as a citizen (read: saved, righteous, holy) is not the issue! Those of the faith renew their life in Christ or are given over to destruction of the flesh. Those not of the faith return, get saved, and go on their way, rejoicing.

:thumbs: :saint: :godisgood:

 

HP: For one that states they do not debate, you sure seem to do a lot of it.

Seriously, I am glad you see the need, regardless of any differences. The Church is not healthy without at least an open opportunity of active debate and open discussion.

You beg the question as to who can depart or fall from the faith, by inserting words NOT mentioned in the text, i.e., ‘draw back.’. It is true that IF the text mentioned drawing back, it could IN THAT CASE be seen in some light as to include addressing the non-believer. Just the same, what right does that give you or anyone else to read into this verse words that are NOT used, while openly ignoring the plain and obvious meaning of the text and to whom it applies, by the words depicting ONLY those that have once been enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, which were, ‘departing the faith’ or ‘falling away from’ the faith.

The only way one can ignore the true intended implications of this text, which are clearly that the ‘possibility is real and does exists’ that one can turn away from the grace they have received and willingly depart from the faith, is to allow ones presuppositions to control what they read into the text to the end of ignoring, yea diminishing or destroying. the true intended meaning and warning of the text.

I believe when one takes this approach to the Word of God that they do so to the peril of not only their own souls but to the peril of those around them.

 

:laugh:
I don't debate. I hang my hat on all those scriptures which so clearly and completely declare that ALL God's Word is spiritually discerned.

:wavey:

 

HP: Now that is clearly debatable. :laugh:

HP: That is indeed true, but it also is true that God grants to every man a measure of faith which of necessity incorporates a measure of spiritual discernment. Even a lost man can read the Bible and gain spiritual insight. The problem is that the unsaved man lives in contradiction to the truths that he indeed has had revealed to him by the Spirit of God.

 

Now don't you guys go and start debating about debating! That practice is highly debatable. However, I have debated whether this is true or not. I may have to start a thread and debate it. We'll see. :laugh:

 

Speaking of apostasy, do you think this is happening in the Church today? For instance, the Unitarian Church (or Unity Church) has definitely departed from the faith. I have a friend whose father belongs to the Unity Church and we were all together a couple of years ago and he started to pray for God to bless the meal, he said, "Father, Mother God, bless this food....ect. <-------- (what I must have looked like when I heard that!)

Be back later. Company just knocked at my door unexpectedly.

 

Good example. Did they ever have any faith to depart from??

 

HP: Only God knows where the Unitarians started from or where they are today individually.

This is the crux of the discussion as I see it at this point. If I told you that someone departed from Kansas City, could one rightfully interpret that to say that in reality such a one never was in Kansas City, they might have been close but never really chose to ever go there? Could one adamantly say that it could not even be possible for such a one to ever have gone to KC for they departed from it?

 

Can I stink my nose in here?


Here's a scripture that convinced me that there IS such a thing as Eternal Security.

This is Hebrews Chapter 7:23-28

Enough proof for me!

Not only this... But there's this too:

I could post more... but the sake of space... I'll quit for now.

 

Quote:
And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Hebrews 7:23-28 KJV)

HP: Jump in with both feet!!

Lets just look at the first passage. In your own words, can you point to a specific part of this passage that stuck out at you that established in your mind the notion of eternal security?

I believe the Scriptures teach eternal security, but not apart from conditions to be met on our part, remaining faithful being one. I cannot see anything in the passage you quoted that would establish any notion that one cannot leave their first love, sin, remain in an unrepentant state, and eventually be lost. That to me is what those teaching eternal security, apart from the condition of sustained obedience, are implying is not possible. If that is not what you believe is possible, you may need to establish for the list what it is that you do believe.

 

The man I was talking about in my earlier post was a Southern Baptist for many, many years. He raised his family in the Baptist church, taught SS and was very involved. Now, was he saved? As far as anyone could tell, I would say yes. But, only God knows for sure. But, he did depart the Baptist faith for a false religion.

What do you guys think?

 

HP: I thought there was only one faith and I never heard it referred to as Baptist. Help us out here so we understand the story. What is ‘the Baptist faith?’ Is that hard or soft shell, five, four, three, two, one point..... or what was that other kind that really believes what the tenants of Calvinism honestly infer?

 

Picky, picky, picky. :laugh:
Yes, there is only one faith. He left the Baptist Church. Don't know about the Calvinistic part.

 

HP: Let me see how well I know Baptists. I say their answer will be a Scriptural one, possibly this verse. 1Jo 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 continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

How did I do?

 

I don't know. I'm asking you. Sounds like a good verse though.
Is this a case of apostasy or falling away?

 

HP: How far did they fall? If they only fell into the Arminian camp, I would at least hope that that alone would not constitute total apostasy .

 

HP, let it go. :laugh: This is not a C/A question.

 

HP: Oh. What then do you mean by the term, ‘false religion?’ Possibly the Pelagian camp?

 

:BangHead: I'm getting a headache! I don't even know what Pelagian camping is!

 

HP: Well, I am not for sure either, but according to Augustine is was a false religion, and I sure know a lot of his followers are Baptist, and I know that the Arminians aren’t in the Baptist camp, so that would make the Arminians and whatever the Pelagians are belonging to false religions (to a Baptist) would it not?