How does one lose their salvation?

[jmdrake]

No. And I don't see where you're getting that.

But the righteousness Paul says his audience has in 1 Corinthians 6 isn't a righteousness that comes from them not ever coveting any more. It's a righteousness that comes from their having been, already in the past, washed, justified, and sanctified. This doesn't mean that they won't do good works. But it doesn't depend on their good works.

Paul's rhetorical strategy again and again throughout his epistles is to appeal to this completed work of God as a motivation for his audience to live in ways that are appropriate for the category they now belong to. He doesn't tell them to become righteous, but to live as righteous people, because that's what they already are.

Also, I noticed that I didn't reply to this part of what you said earlier:

I agree with you. I think that if Paul wanted to be a stickler, he really could have said, "such were all of you." There's no doubt that it would have been true. It looks like a litotes to me. But perhaps that's still because he knew that his list wasn't exhaustive, and he didn't want the technicality of your point about coveting to detract from what he was getting at.

What other interpretation of this passage is there?

Is Paul telling these people that they had stopped committing any of those sins?

If so, doesn't this mean that they had stopped sinning completely?

If not, then what's the alternative? That none of them were committing any of those specific sins any more, but that there were still other sins that they committed, but that those other sins were not of the sort that would keep someone from inheriting the kingdom of God?

I think I've already explained it, but I will try again in case you missed it. Sanctification is the process where God delivers us from the power of sin. It starts with God giving us enmity towards it. That's why the Bible teaches that it is God who works in us to both will and do His good pleasure. The "will" part comes first. But the "do" part follows.

Don't forget that Paul himself had his own conversion experience. Before his conversion he was going around rounding up and killing Christians. I'm pretty sure that after his Damascus road experience he never killed another Christian. Wouldn't you agree? That doesn't mean Paul never sinned again. But if Paul was going around baptizing people and then hauling them off to prison and killing them his ministry would have been greatly hampered. I don't think anyone would have taken Paul or any Christian seriously if one day he was preaching Jesus and the next day he was offering sacrifices to Diana or Apollo or Athena. So this idea that you seem to be promoting that Paul was saying "Well all of you are really just the same as you always were. God just looks at you differently" doesn't hold water.

 

[TN_VOL]

Hello. I was just wondering if you were going to address the fact that you were wrong about your claim that Herodius was divorced? Thanks.

I'll agree with you that there is some validity to your claim, you very well maybe right. My intention when using that story was to show that those who stand up for marriage are sometimes persecuted for it or in his case lose their head. Although the scriptures are still clear that remarriage after divorce is a grave sin.

 

[TN_VOL]

@TN_VOL-Jesus said "what God has joined together, let man not separate." He didn't say, "What God has joined together is impossible for man to separate." He wasn't saying that a husband and wife are married in God's eyes even if they get a legal divorce in their country. You can look at the story of Jesus speaking to the woman who had been married and divorced a number of times. He told her "you have had five husbands, and the man you are living with now is not your husband." Notice he didn't say "you've had one husband, and the other four marriages you've been in have been invalid, adulterous marriages." It's clear from what Jesus said that he viewed every marriage she had been in as being a valid marriage. Thus why he said, "you have had five husbands." And he said that the one she was living with was not her husband, meaning that the other five men she was married to were her husband at one time.

John 4: 17-18

The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.

Of course it is not impossible to separate, he would not say something is a sin if we were unable to do it. That would be like Jesus saying a man should not a conceive a child. Secondly I don't see how this verse helps your stance for Jesus is basically saying that you have had five husbands but the one (husband) you are with now is not your husband (covenant spouse). That is because a one flesh union cannot be unbroken in the eyes of God regardless what Moses or any government says. Maybe he, her covenant spouse, remarried, which he would have felt entitled to due the Samaritan belief of being under the Law of Moses, we simple do not have enough information about her. Although as stated earlier Jesus said Moses was wrong to grant divorces. On a side note this woman, Photina, became a Martyr for Christ.

 

[erowe1]

I think I've already explained it, but I will try again in case you missed it. Sanctification is the process where God delivers us from the power of sin. It starts with God giving us enmity towards it.

Sometimes the word means that. But that's not a possible meaning in 1 Corinthians 6.

Don't forget that Paul himself had his own conversion experience. Before his conversion he was going around rounding up and killing Christians. I'm pretty sure that after his Damascus road experience he never killed another Christian. Wouldn't you agree? That doesn't mean Paul never sinned again. But if Paul was going around baptizing people and then hauling them off to prison and killing them his ministry would have been greatly hampered. I don't think anyone would have taken Paul or any Christian seriously if one day he was preaching Jesus and the next day he was offering sacrifices to Diana or Apollo or Athena.

I agree. But that isn't what the passage we're talking about is saying.

Even though Paul did go on to covet again, I'm sure, he still was no longer categorized by God as a covetous person. Even though he went on to do unrighteous things, he still was not categorized by God as an unrighteous person. This is because he was washed, sanctified, and justified, and it doesn't depend on anything he did. When he went on to sin again, he didn't lose his salvation.

So this idea that you seem to be promoting that Paul was saying "Well all of you are really just the same as you always were. God just looks at you differently" doesn't hold water.

I'm not sure why you think it seems like I'm promoting that. I definitely am not. God does change believers. But his reckoning them as perfectly sinless does not depend on their own performance of sinless living.

The reason none of the Corinthians were counted as covetous people any more is not that they stopped coveting. As you agree, they surely didn't. But it's that they were washed, justified, and sanctified, despite the fact that they were the things Paul listed.

 

[Brett85]

Secondly I don't see how this verse helps your stance for Jesus is basically saying that you have had five husbands but the one (husband) you are with now is not your husband (covenant spouse). That is because a one flesh union cannot be unbroken in the eyes of God regardless what Moses or any government says. Maybe he, her covenant spouse, remarried, which he would have felt entitled to due the Samaritan belief of being under the Law of Moses, we simple do not have enough information about her. Although as stated earlier Jesus said Moses was wrong to grant divorces. On a side note this woman, Photina, became a Martyr for Christ.

You can't get around the fact that Jesus criticized this woman for living with a man that she wasn't married to. According to your view, it would've been just as immoral for that woman to marry the man that she was living with than for her to live with him without being married. But that's not what Jesus said. He specifically criticized her for living with a man that she wasn't married with. He was basically saying, "go marry the man you're living with and sin no more." He never told her to go back to her original husband. He made it clear that it was wrong for her to live with a man that she wasn't married to, and that she should get married to him. And as I said, Jesus said that this woman had five husbands, not one husband. According to your view, the way that you would speak to such a woman would be, "you've had one husband and four adulterous invalid marriages with four other men." That's not what Jesus said. He said that she had had five husbands and was living with a man who wasn't her husband. The only person the woman had been with who Jesus didn't refer to as being her husband was the man she was living with at the moment. The other five that she had been married to he specifically said were her "husbands" at one point in time. So it's clear that when Jesus specifically criticized the woman for living with a man that she wasn't married to that he viewed that as being far worse than marrying this man and sticking with that marriage.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure why you think it seems like I'm promoting that. I definitely am not. God does change believers. But his reckoning them as perfectly sinless does not depend on their own performance of sinless living.

*SMH* Once again justification != sanctification. And nobody has made any claim about anything being "done on their own". God reckoning someone as being perfect is justification. God actually perfecting their character = sanctification. The point is that the "were" mentioned in the passage means that some change has already taken place. It doesn't mean they are actually sinless yet.

The reason none of the Corinthians were counted as covetous people any more is not that they stopped coveting. As you agree, they surely didn't. But it's that they were washed, justified, and sanctified, despite the fact that they were the things Paul listed.

Do you understand the difference between "none" and "some"? And do you understand the difference between someone who practices sin and someone who sometimes falls?

 

[TN_VOL]

You can't get around the fact that Jesus criticized this woman for living with a man that she wasn't married to. According to your view, it would've been just as immoral for that woman to marry the man that she was living with than for her to live with him without being married. But that's not what Jesus said. He specifically criticized her for living with a man that she wasn't married with. He was basically saying, "go marry the man you're living with and sin no more." He never told her to go back to her original husband. He made it clear that it was wrong for her to live with a man that she wasn't married to, and that she should get married to him. And as I said, Jesus said that this woman had five husbands, not one husband. According to your view, the way that you would speak to such a woman would be, "you've had one husband and four adulterous invalid marriages with four other men." That's not what Jesus said. He said that she had had five husbands and was living with a man who wasn't her husband. The only person the woman had been with who Jesus didn't refer to as being her husband was the man she was living with at the moment. The other five that she had been married to he specifically said were her "husbands" at one point in time. So it's clear that when Jesus specifically criticized the woman for living with a man that she wasn't married to that he viewed that as being far worse than marrying this man and sticking with that marriage.

Hahaha I just had to laugh when you suggested that Jesus would tell a woman who had been married five times to go marry again. Come on dude he, Jesus, is called wonderful counselor (Isaiah 9:6) what kind of counselor would recommend that someone get married for the sixth time, especially a wonderful one. Remember the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I imagine this is some advice that you might hear at Pastor Osteen or Hagee church. Additionally what kind of man would want to be the sixth husband to a woman? Do you know anyone that has been married five or six times that you would call a Christian? Lastly it does not appears that she (Photina) ever took the advice that you believe Jesus gave her because there is no mention of her marrying again rather she became a preacher and ultimately died for it at the hands of Nero. It looks like we are just disagreeing on the interpretation of this story or maybe you are just one of the persons Jesus spoke of in Matthew 19:11.

 

[Brett85]

Hahaha I just had to laugh when you suggested that Jesus would tell a woman who had been married five times to go marry again. Come on dude he, Jesus, is called wonderful counselor (Isaiah 9:6) what kind of counselor would recommend that someone get married for the sixth time, especially a wonderful one. Remember the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Why exactly would Jesus criticize a woman for living with a man that she wasn't married to? Again, according to you it would've been just has bad if she had married that man. But Jesus specifically condemned her for living with him without being married.

 

[Brett85]

It looks like we are just disagreeing on the interpretation of this story or maybe you are just one of the persons Jesus spoke of in Matthew 19:11.

I suppose you're one of those people who have gouged out your eyes after you looked at a woman lustfully? I mean, since we're supposed to interpret every single word that Jesus said 100% literally and all.

 

[moostraks]

Hahaha I just had to laugh when you suggested that Jesus would tell a woman who had been married five times to go marry again. Come on dude he, Jesus, is called wonderful counselor (Isaiah 9:6) what kind of counselor would recommend that someone get married for the sixth time, especially a wonderful one. Remember the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I imagine this is some advice that you might hear at Pastor Osteen or Hagee church. Additionally what kind of man would want to be the sixth husband to a woman? Do you know anyone that has been married five or six times that you would call a Christian? Lastly it does not appears that she (Photina) ever took the advice that you believe Jesus gave her because there is no mention of her marrying again rather she became a preacher and ultimately died for it at the hands of Nero. It looks like we are just disagreeing on the interpretation of this story or maybe you are just one of the persons Jesus spoke of in Matthew 19:11.

One of the more compassionate opinions I have seen regarding the woman for which you are speaking so contemptuously: http://patriabolivariana2008.blogspot.com/2011/03/st-photina-at-well-part-1.html For those who might be interested. Must be nice to perch in a glass filled house throwing stones at others because your sin is different from theirs. You may not know as much as you assume regarding the underlying cause for why a particular person lived the life they lived.

 

[Brett85]

So apparently the answer to Kevin's question is that you lose your salvation if you get divorced and remarried, or if you get married to someone who's been divorced.

 

[TN_VOL]

I realize my views may sound sound somewhat out of the norm, but so are most of Ron Paul's political views, although that never stopped me from embracing them. My view, the indissolubility of marriage, was preached for the first 1500 hundred years of Christianity and the divorce rate was basically nil. The view preached by most churches today has led to nearly half of all Christian marriages ending in divorce, a rate higher than marriages occurring between atheists. Yet some people believe that the modern view is somehow correct despite the results. If preaching the indissolubility of marriage worked well before then why should we not preach it again? Think of all the social ills that could be cured if churches no longer embraced divorce and remarriage. Again Hebrews 13:8 states that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" I would encourage you to study what all the early church fathers taught in regards to divorce. I would rather be in accordance with them the any prosperity preacher, but I guess you guys would just say that they are being contemptuous as did moostraks. Lastly to Traditional Conservative, based on different versions of the bible, I do not believe that the scripture is clear enough to say whether the woman at the well was living with a man that was her fifth husband or a live in boyfriend, but for the sake of argument I'll agree with you. What I was trying to say is that why would any counselor, much less a great one, recommend that anyone do something for the sixth time after they had failed at it five times? That would be the definition of crazy. Here are some links to what the early church fathers taught, don't be scared to educate yourselves.
http://theology1.tripod.com/readings/fathersofthechurch.htm
http://www.churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/marriage-and-divorce/

 

[jmdrake]

Naw. They sound Catholic. Sola_Fide's views were beyond the norm. (Sex = marriage so if a woman gets raped she either has to marry her rapist or remain celibate the rest of her life.) Anyhow, I suppose the modern view is to forget the marriage thing and just have sex and ask forgiveness when you get done so you don't have to worry about the whole divorce/remarriage thing.

I realize my views may sound sound somewhat out of the norm, but so are most of Ron Paul's political views, although that never stopped me from embracing them. My view, the indissolubility of marriage, was preached for the first 1500 hundred years of Christianity and the divorce rate was basically nil. The view preached by most churches today has led to nearly half of all Christian marriages ending in divorce, a rate higher than marriages occurring between atheists. Yet some people believe that the modern view is somehow correct despite the results. If preaching the indissolubility of marriage worked well before then why should we not preach it again? Think of all the social ills that could be cured if churches no longer embraced divorce and remarriage. Again Hebrews 13:8 states that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" I would encourage you to study what all the early church fathers taught in regards to divorce. I would rather be in accordance with them the any prosperity preacher, but I guess you guys would just say that they are being contemptuous as did moostraks. Lastly to Traditional Conservative, based on different versions of the bible, I do not believe that the scripture is clear enough to say whether the woman at the well was living with a man that was her fifth husband or a live in boyfriend, but for the sake of argument I'll agree with you. What I was trying to say is that why would any counselor, much less a great one, recommend that anyone do something for the sixth time after they had failed at it five times? That would be the definition of crazy. Here are some links to what the early church fathers taught, don't be scared to educate yourselves.
http://theology1.tripod.com/readings/fathersofthechurch.htm
http://www.churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/marriage-and-divorce/

 

[TN_VOL]

So apparently the answer to Kevin's question is that you lose your salvation if you get divorced and remarried, or if you get married to someone who's been divorced.

According to Paul in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." ...and in Galatians 5:19-24 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." It would seem unlikely.

 

[TN_VOL]

Naw. They sound Catholic. Sola_Fide's views were beyond the norm. (Sex = marriage so if a woman gets raped she either has to marry her rapist or remain celibate the rest of her life.) Anyhow, I suppose the modern view is to forget the marriage thing and just have sex and ask forgiveness when you get done so you don't have to worry about the whole divorce/remarriage thing.

FYI every Christian was also a Catholic from the early second century until the 1500's and for the record I do not believe sex equals marriage. Why would you want to deny yourself all their wisdom of persons so historically close to the time of Christ? That would be like saying I don't care what someone in the late 19th century thought about what the framers had in mind in regards to the constitution. If the modern view of marriage is what you believe it to be then I would encourage you be not to conform to the ways of the ways of the world, but rather be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God (Romans 12:2).

 

[Brett85]

According to Paul in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." ...and in Galatians 5:19-24 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." It would seem unlikely.

If you interpret those verses according to the way you're interpreting them, I think you would be in quite a bit of trouble as well. You certainly have coveted your neighbor's possessions before, right? That's probably even something you do on a regular basis too, isn't it?

 

[Brett85]

I realize my views may sound sound somewhat out of the norm, but so are most of Ron Paul's political views, although that never stopped me from embracing them. My view, the indissolubility of marriage, was preached for the first 1500 hundred years of Christianity and the divorce rate was basically nil. The view preached by most churches today has led to nearly half of all Christian marriages ending in divorce, a rate higher than marriages occurring between atheists. Yet some people believe that the modern view is somehow correct despite the results.

Well, I don't really agree with the "modern view" or your view. I view divorce as a terrible thing and don't believe that people should get divorced for trivial reasons. The Bible says that God hates divorce and intends for a married couple to stay together until one of them dies. The church needs to encourage couples to stay together. But I just don't see how divorce and remarriage are somehow worse than all of the other sins and disqualifies people from belonging to the Christian faith. And I don't see how the sin of divorce and remarriage is any worse than the sins that I'm sure you commit on a regular basis.

 

[jmdrake]

FYI every Christian was also a Catholic from the early second century until the 1500's

FYI, Eastern Orthodox Christians (and other groups) would disagree with your timeline. Edit: And before you respond with "Well EO's agree with me on marriage" let me point out that I know that. Just because I disagree with the provably false parts of your argument doesn't mean I think your entire argument is false.

and for the record I do not believe sex equals marriage.

I didn't say you did. Did you not understand anything I wrote? You were acting like your position was "odd" or "unique" and I was pointed out that it wasn't, but that SF's position was odd.

Why would you want to deny yourself all their wisdom of persons so historically close to the time of Christ?

Oh boy. Let the silliness begin. FTR I have not in this thread taken a position for or against your position on divorce other than to point out that you got the history of Herodius flat out wrong. That despite your apparently having "all the wisdom of persons so historically close to the time of Christ."

That would be like saying I don't care what someone in the late 19th century thought about what the framers had in mind in regards to the constitution.

Except I never said that.

If the modern view of marriage is what you believe it to be then I would encourage you be not to conform to the ways of the ways of the world, but rather be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God (Romans 12:2).

And I would encourage you not to think more highly of yourself than you should. (Romans 12:3)

 

[TN_VOL]

@ Traditional Conservative Absolutely we are all sinners, but not everyone makes a lifestyle out of it. For instance if I went out tonight and had a few too many beers and got drunk could someone look upon me and say he is a drunkard, technically I guess, or I had a moment of weakness and fornicated with someone, could I be considered a fornicator, technically yes, despite the fact I have done neither in over two years. God knows if we are trying and he knows that we all will fail. No one is perfect except for him.

 

[jmdrake]

Absolutely we are all sinners, but not everyone makes a lifestyle out of it. For instance if I went out tonight and had a few too many beers and got drunk could someone look upon me and say he is a drunkard, technically I guess, or I had a moment of weakness and fornicated with someone, could I be considered a fornicator, technically yes, despite the fact I have done neither in over two years. God knows if we are trying and he knows that we all will fail. No one is perfect except for him.

Sounds like the argument I was making to Erowe1 in this thread. See post #146.