Forfeiting Salvation versus Losing Salvation - What is the difference?

Yes, that is how I understand it. But, what are the consequences of falling away from the truth?
James 5
19 Brethren, if anyone among you (believers) wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

This seems to say that the person who continues in their departure from the truth will suffer spiritual death. "If" they can be turned back, their soul will be saved from death.

I am trying to understand what it means to "turn away from the faith". It has been said that a believer cannot stop believing, but this verse seems to say otherwise. There are also many other warnings in scripture.
Help! :laugh:

 

HP: Debate is all about causing one to form an opinion. I am simply taking what I feel you and JJ have indicated out to its logical end. Here is your quote.

HP: So I ask the reader again, Is HOG and JJ to tell us that the idea of everlasting or without end was never understood or comprehended until this generation or generations of our recent past? HOG tells us that the GK does not have an expression that means ‘forever.’ I suppose that they just were forced to make some 'wild hand motions' to express a universal thought such as ‘forever??’ Where is your evidence for this wild assumption? Have you ever read an exegetical dictionary of GK words?

HP: There is no tactic here. I am simply pointing out the absolute unfounded assumptions you are making. You say that the context is the Kingdom, which you then tell us is 1000 years in duration, no more or less. Show us your evidence for either assumption. I will be listening carefully.

HP: I will let the reader determine that.

HP: What was that comment I heard from either you or JJ about personal attacks and the fact that when they start that you can be certain that one is lacking evidence for their assumptions, or something close to that?

HP: Be angry, and sin not.

HP: I will be happy to answer that on another thread. When you start it, define which of the (as I recall) ‘seven types’ of baptism you are referring to, so as to narrow down our discussion.

 

Let me try and clarify for the reader the argument that HOG and JJ seem to be making. The import of this discussion over the meaning of the word ‘eternal’ was summed up clearly by HOG in a comment at the end of post #206 explaining why he edited his post. He said,

I say that that is precisely what HOG and JJ are guilty of. They attempt to insert meanings to the word eternal, and create for the text a very limited context of a thousand year period, which I do not believe can be substantiated by the text or reason.

HP: Here HOG attempts to evidently prove his assumption that the GK had no expression for 'forever' or 'everlasting.' Is it logical or reasonable to try and establish whether or not the GK had any expression for everlasting or forever by such a means? I say absolutely not. There may be many reasons why such an approach is less than adept, but I will focus on one.

HOG tries in vain to establish his point by this means. His logic, reasoning from his conclusion backwards, is that if a word is created from another word in a different language, in which that word in the different language had a specific meaning which does not concur with what we now see our word as suggesting, that the original language did not in fact have a word that conveyed the meaning that we apply to it today. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the complete fallacy of such thinking or the lack thereof. Such reasoning overlooks the fact that the word in the original language could well have had different meanings, meanings that a particular ‘etymology’ either did not make mention of or felt it was unnecessary for whatever reason. For instance, Our word ‘dog’ may have came from a Latin word meaning canine, but this in no way suggests that the word was not in common parlance also used in the Latin to refer to a worthless human being as well. Let me reverse this to illustrate further the point I am making. Our word dog may have been used to depict a worthless human being in Latin, yet we use the word to depict a canine. HOG would have us to believe that if we use the word ‘dog’ in a different way than specifically expressed in an etymology of the word, which in this case they would have expressed a worthless human being as a ‘dog,’ that this is evidence that the Latin’s had no way of expressing the concept of a canine. This is a total abuse of the purpose of the process of etymology, and has landed HOG and JJ in a maelstrom of confusion as to their unfounded opinion that the GK had no way of expressing ‘everlasting or forever’ other than possibly in some form of a primordial grunt.

 

Amy the verse is talking about a soul being saved from death, not a spirit. So the verse is not talking about spiritual death. Soulical death and spiritual death are two totally different topics. If these two things are combined that is where the confusion comes in.

To turn away from the faith is not talking about eternal salvation faith, because that is not something that has to continue. Eternal saving faith is a one-time event in the Substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. Once you believe the first time then eternal salvation is a done deal according to Scripture (Acts 16:30-31 and Ephesians 2:8-9).

The turning away from faith is speaking of "the" faith, which has to do with believing something after eternal salvation is already taken care of.

If you would like to understand these matters further please email me or PM me and I would be more than happy to share with you.

You are on the verge of seeing some very exciting things in Scripture, because you are seeing the warnings and from what I'm gathering you are understanding that these warnings are for saved individuals, which puts you a leg up on understanding from a number in Christendom, because there are a lot of folks that unfortunately say these warnings are to the eternally damned, which just isn't possible.

I pray God will have mercy on your eyes and ears!!!

 

HP: Now this promises to be a presentation of yet another unfounded presuppositional theory. Show us plainly from the Word of God this distinction you speak of.

 

BobRyan, once again, while we disagree on the meanings of these passages, it is heartening to see someone who looks at what the verses actually say instead of sticking his fingers in his ears and going "nyah! nyah! nyah!"

What is it that we have to lay hold of?

I don't think it's simply being saved because that's something that is free, and I think Scriptures show plainly that it's secure, and that we know we can have it.

But, we do have to persevere for something. We do have to lay hold of something. There is something that we can lose. This is all talking to saved people, but it's subjective, and it's only a hope, not an assurance.

So, either you can lose your spiritual salvation, or it's talking about something else.

But, if a person simply ignores that this is talking about something that is not assured, what grounds of discussion are there?

I still find it ironic that although we are on the opposite side of the OSAS issue, that at least we both see the warnings that are given to those who are in the family.

 

It's actually the resurection "from among the dead [ones]".

But, it is also subjunctive, and if anyone should have known that he was saved, it would have been Paul.

This is what the verse says.

If I understand correctly, you think that he's hoping to be saved, but I think it's talking about something else.

Either way, if we ignore that this is what the verse says, we are blind. (I don't think you're blind, BTW; that's not what I'm saying.)

Once again, if one ignores this verse, it's much easier.

What has he not attained? What goal is he pressing toward? (This question is not aimed at you; you've answered it. Others have not, and I expect they will not.)

This, I think, is a problem with what you are looking at. This is not subjunctive. It's a present, active, indicative. Our citizenship is in heaven currently, even if we're not there physically.

The hope of a Christian is a hope of glory. It's not a hope of being saved. That's assured, and it cannot be lost or forfeited. We are citizens. We are in the family of God.

But, we can lose out on our inheritance, if we don't persevere; if we're not faithful.

Just like the prodigal son, we have an inheritance that we can squander, or we can use wisely and thereby gain.

We can have the inheritance of the first born (double portion), or we can have a robe, a ring, and a pair of shoes.

We can be like Jacob and esteem the birthright, or we can be like Esau and settle for second best.

We can have life in the age to come, or we can perish.

But, we cannot become unsaved. We cannot become unborn from the family.

 

Amy, I would ask you to look at what you wrote. The answer to your question is in your own writing.

You said, "If they can be turned back, their soul will be saved from death". In the previous sentence, you said that "this seems to say that the person who continues in their departure from the truth will suffer from spiritual death."

We're saved by "believe". (Believe (aorist; mental assent) on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.) We live by faith. Faith is what lets us serve him acceptably. (Hebrews 11:6) It's works. It's how you're a good soldier.

Romans 5:2 tells us, "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

What is the grace of God? 2 Corinthians 12:9 says, “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”

How do we get the power of Christ? The answer to that question is in Romans 5:2, which is quoted above: “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” If we make shipwreck of the faith, then grace will not be available for us to endure in times of testing. We need the grace of God, if we expect to serve Him in an acceptable manner.

Hebrews 12:28 says, “Let us have (it’s subjunctive; literally, “may we have”) grace, whereby we may serve (present, active, subjunctive) God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” If we cannot access the grace, then we cannot expect to “…receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.” (Colossians 3:24.)

Grace must reign! Romans 5:21 says, “So might grace reign through righteousness…” Grace does not reign simply because we’re saved. In Romans 5:21, the verb “might reign” is subjunctive, which indicates that grace might not reign. Grace reigns if we continually come to the throne of grace as in Hebrews 4:16, “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in the time of need.”

 

Thank you for making my exact point for me, that the truth is not in you.

You quote me, where I specifically say that the Greek has an expression for "forever".

Then, you distort the truth (I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not doing it intentionally (lie), and only through incompetence with English grammar) and say, "HoG says the Greek doesn't have an expression that means 'forever'."

How in the world do you get my statement that "Greek has an expression for 'forever'" and turn it into me saying "Greek has no expression for 'forever'?"

Please explain this direct misrepresentation of the truth.

 

You know, I would have almost been willing to bet money that you wouldn't simply answer the question.

However, let me answer it for you, using the yardstick that you have applied to these other words. Let me use modern definitions, all taken from modern English dictionaries and let's see how it lines up with Scriptures (highlights are mine; in most cases, highlights aren't necessary to draw attention to the absurdity of it):

From American Heritage Dictionary. Please note what the primary definition is, according to them:

1. A religious sacrament marked by the symbolic application of water to the head or immersion of the body into water and resulting in admission of the recipient into the community of Christians.
2. A ceremony, trial, or experience by which one is initiated, purified, or given a name.

From dictionary.com (based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary):

1.Ecclesiastical. a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church. 2.any similar ceremony or action of initiation, dedication, etc. 3.a trying or purifying experience or initiation. 4. Christian Science. purification of thought and character.



From WordNet, we get the following:

a Christian sacrament signifying spiritual cleansing and rebirth; "most churches baptize infants but some insist on adult baptism"

From the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy Third Edition:

The ceremony of initiation into Christianity; in most Christian churches, it is considered a sacrament. Persons baptized either have water poured on them or are immersed in water; some groups of Christians insist on immersion. The effect of baptism, in Christian belief, is to cleanse persons of their sins, so that they are born into a new life with Jesus. Most churches baptize members when they are infants, but some groups, like the Baptists, insist on adult baptism. Jesus himself was baptized.

So, based on the standards you have set forth for the other words, we may as well brick up our baptismals, and sprinkle them as soon as they're born!

What do you think? Go ahead and save everyone that way. After all, modern usage by over half the world tells us that this is what happens.

 

Hope of Glory,

Heavenly Pilgrim will surely answer much better than this, but....

We are not to pay any attention to what "over half of the modern world" is doing.

It is the scriptures, and the scriptures alone that we are to turn, and thus we know that sprinkling water on an infant will no more make that infant a christian than it will make that infant a lizard.

Peace,

Mike

 

That's precisely the point. The majority of people say that aionios means lasting forever and ever and ever. But just because the majority says that is what it means doesn't mean they are right. They happen to be very wrong in this case

One doesn't even need to do an etymological study to see that. One can just look at the Scriptures to get that understanding. However the etymology just backs up what Scripture says in this case.

 

I agree with you 100%.

However, HP wanted to set the above standard for other words.

We can't pick and choose.

Koine Greek is a static language; English is not.

We need to look at the Scriptures, the words used therein, and what they mean therein, and not apply modern usages to them. All of them.

Not pick and choose.

Unfortunately, our preconceived ideas blind us to what Scriptures say. For example, there were many passges about lost people that did not make sense to me. I, like most Baptists (and most other Christians and some non-Christians that I know) equated "lost" with "unsaved". Well, I have learned the hard way that reading from the Greek keeps modern usages from getting in the way. I realized that only a person in the family could become "lost". But, an a saved person become unsaved? I think that would contradict Scriptures, if he could.

By the same token, "aiOnios" does not mean "forever". It doesn't mean it in the Greek, it doesn't mean it in the Latin, it did not mean it in English until the last two or three hundred years. It's an adjective derived from "aiOn" and means "age-lasting".

Now, if a person were honest, he would be like a Nazarene preacher friend of mine who admits that the word means "age-lasting", but feels that the writers were incapable of expressing "forever". Personally, since there is a Greek idiom that means "forever" and it's used several times throughout the Bible, that God is not the author of confusion, so would not use two completely different expression to mean exactly the same thing.

There are some words that have multiple meanings, but offhand, I can't think of two different Greek words that have precisely the same meaning. It's a very precise language, and the nuances mean things. There are several different words for "child", and they all mean something different. In English, I use the word "son" to talk about my male child, from the time he was in the womb, when he was born, now, when he's 15, and I will use it until the day I die, no matter how old he is.

However, in the Greek there are different words for the different stages of development, whether it's from the perspective of the parent or the child, etc. It clarifies many confusing passages to look at it in the Greek. A "son" is not the same as a "child", but because of our English usages, we interchange them. (Also, part of the English conventions uses pronouns, when often in the Hebrew OT, the way the proper names are used are very, very important, and we miss those parts of the message.)

It's important to look to the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone to get their meanings. But, we need to shed our modern ideas in order to do that.

(Chiasmus is another good example of this. In the Western world, we generally write linearally, with a beginning, a middle, a climax, and an end. In the ancient world, in several different societies, it was more circular, with a beginning, a middle, a climax, the middle restated, back to the beginning. Beautiful and poetic, but lost on us if we don't shed our modern English thinking.)

BTW, if I've made any typos, I apologize. One of my cats has decided that she needs to sleep on my right hand, and she's pretty persistent right now.

 

That's why I always thought it was simply poor translation up until recently. I was doing a sermon on son-placement (adoption) and went to the dictionary to get the modern definition of "adoption" and I discovered that the definition "to place into a family" is a fairly modern definition and mostly American English. It's original meaning and its primary modern meaning in the rest of the English speaking world is "approval", which is in line with the biblical meaning of "son-placement" and not "to place into a family".

So, this set me off looking up other etymological meanings of words, and "damn", "hell", "affiliation", "adoption", "eternal", etc. all are fascinating studies. Especially when you look at a source that concentrates on English instead of Baptist (or some other flavor) doctrine.

 

HP: Do you even think for a minute that when one states or implies that the universally understood word eternal does not really mean eternal and that what we think the word means is not what those penning the GK Scriptures believed it meant, that one, in the process of trying to understand such novel notions, might in fact misunderstand you in one point? Do you think that every one that misunderstands you is a liar and the truth is not in them? Such is not the case.

I admit, in retrospect, having read more carefully what you 'actually' stated, that you DID NOT SAY that the GK language had ‘no way’ to express the idea of forever. I humbly ask for your forgiveness in this matter.

Just the same, I in no way am stating that I agree with your denial that the word eternal does not in fact mean forever or everlasting or carry with it that basic idea even when referring to God. I also do not agree, as I have pointed out, that your development of such novel ideas, are supported by the manner in which you employ etymology.

HP: Here again is a classic example of your approach to Scripture, which is clearly based upon an unproven presupposition. You then filter everything you read through it.

Here is your reasoning in reverse so as to better see it. You start by begging the question that one saved cannot be lost. You reason from this unfounded assumption that a saved person cannot be lost to the conclusion that the word ‘lost’ can only then be seen in a context of a saved person in the family of God.

Let me guess. I bet you must believe that the word ‘lost’, (as we saw you treat the word eternal,) when it is said that Jesus came to “seek and to save that which is lost” does not refer in any way to what we think today as being ‘lost,’ due to the way we interpret the word, i.e., a manner inconsistent with the way the GK language and the authors of Scripture used it. Are you sugesting that Jesus only came to save those that were already at one time in the family?

This appears to be precisely your approach to the word eternal. If the word eternal is used in a manner that it could be seen as in contradiction to your preconceived notion of evidently, 'OSAS,' it cannot mean what it really says. Again, you start by begging the question of whether or not one can forfeit or lose ones standing as a believer, and then attach words and their meanings to fit your presuppositions by whatever means you find available, even if it means using etymology in a manner not even closely related to a proper use of the parameters by which its findings are limited to within the boundaries of reason.

 

HP: Neither can we assume that because JJ and HOG refuse to treat words from a logical and reasonable manner, that we need to believe them because they are in a minority. “They happen to be very wrong in this case ”

HP: You are fooling yourself if you believe the false conclusions of HOG, in which he formulated conclusions that lie beyond any reasonable scope, and the clear limitations, of etymology. What we have witnessed by HOG is nothing short of an attempt to provide a false presupposition with cover by means of untrustworthy etymological engineering.