How does one lose their salvation?

[TN_VOL]

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.

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.

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."

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

You do realize that the Orthodox Church considers itself to be both orthodox and catholic and it is officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church. Secondly I know you didn't say that I believed that sex = marriage I wasn't trying to imply you did I just wanted to make that clear, sorry for the mix up. Furthermore I never said I had all the wisdom of the early church fathers, that would be ridiculous of me or anyone to say. All I was trying to say is not to deprive yourself of something someone said because they were Catholic, every Christian was during Catholic during that time period. Refusing to read them would be akin to an African American or any American for that matter refusing to read Thomas Jefferson or George Washington because they owned slaves, well that was the norm of their day and they were wrong to do so but that does not mean that their writings should not be read so that history could be better understood.

 

[Brett85]

@ 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.

Then I guess it would be better for me to go out and have sex with a prostitute every few years or so and then ask for forgiveness than for me to choose to marry a woman who's been divorced. That's basically what your theology boils down to, that someone who occasionally goes out and has sex with prostitutes can be a Christian, but someone who marries a divorced person and stays with that person their entire life can't be saved.

 

[erowe1]

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

"Catholic" meaning what?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"Catholic" meaning what?

Universal. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catholic?s=t

 

[erowe1]

@ Traditional Conservative Absolutely we are all sinners, but not everyone makes a lifestyle out of it.

But the passage you quoted says that no sinners (i.e. unrighteous people, of which Paul lists several kinds including those who commit so common of a sin as coveting) will inherit the kingdom of God. It doesn't just focus on some especially bad ones who, as you say, "make a lifestyle out of it." And it doesn't say anything about whether somebody is, as you say, "trying," or not.

He then tells his audience that, despite the undoubtable fact that they did still commit such sins, they were not counted as such things any more, and the reason is that they were washed, sanctified, and justified.

That adulterer you're talking about can be counted as righteous in God's sight by being washed, sanctified, and justified. And this is by faith in Jesus. Regardless what they've done, God's verdict for them will become, "Such were you. But you were washed, sanctified, and justified."

Also, even if they committed a sin in divorcing and remarrying, their second marriage is still a real marriage with God having made the two into one flesh, and they are still obligated to that spouse. There's nothing they can do that will undo the past sin they committed. But another divorce would just mean another sin.

 

[erowe1]

Universal. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catholic?s=t

Obviously that's not what he meant.

 

[TN_VOL]

"Catholic" meaning what?

Meaning there were no Protestant churches until the Reformation took place so if you were a Christian you were defacto a Catholic. I am including the Orthodox church as well since they consider themselves to be both orthodox and catholic and it is officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[TN_VOL]

But the passage you quoted says that no sinners (i.e. unrighteous people, of which Paul lists several kinds including those who commit so common of a sin as coveting) will inherit the kingdom of God. It doesn't just focus on some especially bad ones who, as you say, "make a lifestyle out of it." And it doesn't say anything about whether somebody is, as you say, "trying," or not.

He then tells his audience that, despite the undoubtable fact that they did still commit such sins, they were not counted as such things any more, and the reason is that they were washed, sanctified, and justified.

That adulterer you're talking about can be counted as righteous in God's sight by being washed, sanctified, and justified. And this is by faith in Jesus. Regardless what they've done, God's verdict for them will become, "Such were you. But you were washed, sanctified, and justified."

Also, even if they committed a sin in divorcing and remarrying, their second marriage is still a real marriage with God having made the two into one flesh, and they are still obligated to that spouse. There's nothing they can do that will undo the past sin they committed. But another divorce would just mean another sin.

Ok as far as your first three paragraphs go I can already see that we are just going to disagree on the interpretation. Although in your last paragraph, as I understand it you are saying that it would be a sin for the second marriage to end in divorce. So you are saying is that at one time God made two into one flesh then there was no longer one flesh but rather two flesh then God again made one flesh with another spouse. Ok then, but Jesus says in Matthew 19:8 that Moses should not have allowed for divorce, but from the beginning it has not been this way, thus making the teaching in Deuteronomy about remarrying a spouse who remarried null and void. How would you reconcile with that? Specially how does one repent of a second marriage? Additionally if we are always saved and the sins, such as adultery and homosexuality, I mentioned earlier in 1st Corinthians and Galatians do not keep us from our salvation, then why do churches not allow gay persons to have gay marriages if they were saved prior to becoming gay, if they are going to allow second marriages. I mean they are both saved according to you and that's all that matters right? I know people who went to church and were saved then in their later years became practicing homosexuals and were basically driven from the church because they felt uncomfortable. Remember Jesus never said anything about homosexuality but mentioned remarriage twice, and is mentioned in the first three Gospels. I also have another thing I would like your opinion on, I know of a woman who got married and later began to study the bible in detail and came to the same view as mine. Later her Christian husband, whom had two children with, cheated on her with a younger woman and left her for said woman. The church allowed him to marry her in the church and she continues to this day too take care of the children and act a witness for Christ by continuing to keep her vows. Of course she would like to get remarried, but to her covenant husband and she prays he will come home even though I'm sure she is mad at him. Meanwhile he goes to church as if nothing has ever happened. So my question is where is the church compassion for her, she who continues to keep her covenant? Is it really til death do you part or til I no longer feel like loving her anymore or meet a younger hotter woman? Is this man saved? Also how do you think their children, when they get older, are going to perceive the preacher who presided over the second marriage. I'll tell you, as the one preacher who took part in the breaking up of their childhood. Do you not think that this act could harden the children's hearts against Christianity? Preachers don't have to marry all that request it.

 

[erowe1]

Meaning there were no Protestant churches until the Reformation took place so if you were a Christian you were defacto a Catholic. I am including the Orthodox church as well since they consider themselves to be both orthodox and catholic and it is officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church.

OK. There were no Protestant churches. Why does that make anyone Catholic, unless you meant catholic in the sense of universal, which would have to include Protestants?

 

[erowe1]

Although in your last paragraph, as I understand it you are saying that it would be a sin for the second marriage to end in divorce. So you are saying is that at one time God made two into one flesh then there was no longer one flesh but rather two flesh then God again made one flesh with another spouse.

I'm with you except for the two flesh part. The first marriage is never undone. What God has put together no man can separate. But that doesn't make the second marriage less of a marriage. The person is essentially a polygamist. I grant that that's a sin (although I'm tentative about this and may change my mind). But all the spouses of polygamists are still their spouses. It's not like only their first spouse is their spouse and all the others aren't.

 

[jmdrake]

You do realize that the Orthodox Church considers itself to be both orthodox and catholic and it is officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church. Secondly I know you didn't say that I believed that sex = marriage I wasn't trying to imply you did I just wanted to make that clear, sorry for the mix up. Furthermore I never said I had all the wisdom of the early church fathers, that would be ridiculous of me or anyone to say. All I was trying to say is not to deprive yourself of something someone said because they were Catholic, every Christian was during Catholic during that time period. Refusing to read them would be akin to an African American or any American for that matter refusing to read Thomas Jefferson or George Washington because they owned slaves, well that was the norm of their day and they were wrong to do so but that does not mean that their writings should not be read so that history could be better understood.

Hello TN_Vol. Sorry for the snark. But honestly statements like the ones that I saw you make and I've seen others make about the "wisdom of the fathers" makes me wonder if such wisdom is really worth it. It comes across as prideful and arrogant. Nothing wrong with enjoying reading the wisdom of the church fathers. There's plenty wrong with statements that imply someone else that you think doesn't read the church fathers is somehow missing something. I'm sure that's not what you mean, but that's how it comes across. I didn't point out that your belief was a Catholic one to denigrate it though it seems that's how you took it. I pointed that out simply to show that it wasn't as "odd" as you seemed to think it was. Yes I know the Orthodox Church sees itself as a "Catholic" church. I've chatted with enough of them here to know that. I also know that there are significant differences between the two in doctrine, so in the context of this discussion it's not generally legit to treat the two as the same even though on the issue of marriage and divorce they agree. (And I've already pointed that out.) And as for "refusing to read" anything, that's a silly argument. I've never refused to read anything. I've actually participated in threads where all TER does is post writings from old saints. But going back to your Jefferson/Washington argument, while I read Jefferson and Washington and Adams and Lincoln, I don't treat anything any of those men wrote as the constitution. John Adams signed laws that went directly against the U.S. constitution! And Abraham Lincoln violated the U.S. Constitution as president less than 100 years after the ratification of the Constitution. There is a whole thread that TER started hoping to use a similar argument to argue against sola scriptura and it actually ended up boosting sola scriptura.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

You know, this is worth commenting on. Often people look at things from a cookie cutter perspective. Like the general idea "The belief that people can get remarried is why divorce is so high." Well maybe in general but not in my case. My ex wife has no interest in marrying anybody ever again (including me) and I didn't want to get divorced. Maybe our situation is the exception and not the rule, I don't know. But whatever is the correct teaching on divorce and remarriage, it had no effect on our marriage.

 

[Miss Annie]

Mt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

 

[TN_VOL]

You're right there were no Protestant churches so if you were Christian you were by default considered Catholic as well. It's like saying if you are a Baptist you are also a Protestant.

 

[TN_VOL]

Hello TN_Vol. Sorry for the snark. But honestly statements like the ones that I saw you make and I've seen others make about the "wisdom of the fathers" makes me wonder if such wisdom is really worth it. It comes across as prideful and arrogant. Nothing wrong with enjoying reading the wisdom of the church fathers. There's plenty wrong with statements that imply someone else that you think doesn't read the church fathers is somehow missing something. I'm sure that's not what you mean, but that's how it comes across. I didn't point out that your belief was a Catholic one to denigrate it though it seems that's how you took it. I pointed that out simply to show that it wasn't as "odd" as you seemed to think it was. Yes I know the Orthodox Church sees itself as a "Catholic" church. I've chatted with enough of them here to know that. I also know that there are significant differences between the two in doctrine, so in the context of this discussion it's not generally legit to treat the two as the same even though on the issue of marriage and divorce they agree. (And I've already pointed that out.) And as for "refusing to read" anything, that's a silly argument. I've never refused to read anything. I've actually participated in threads where all TER does is post writings from old saints. But going back to your Jefferson/Washington argument, while I read Jefferson and Washington and Adams and Lincoln, I don't treat anything any of those men wrote as the constitution. John Adams signed laws that went directly against the U.S. constitution! And Abraham Lincoln violated the U.S. Constitution as president less than 100 years after the ratification of the Constitution. There is a whole thread that TER started hoping to use a similar argument to argue against sola scriptura and it actually ended up boosting sola scriptura.

First of all I am not Catholic and have never attended a Catholic Mass, although I would be lying if I said I wasn't thinking about looking into Catholicism more seriously.

 

[TN_VOL]

I'm with you except for the two flesh part. The first marriage is never undone. What God has put together no man can separate. But that doesn't make the second marriage less of a marriage. The person is essentially a polygamist. I grant that that's a sin (although I'm tentative about this and may change my mind). But all the spouses of polygamists are still their spouses. It's not like only their first spouse is their spouse and all the others aren't.

I would like to request that you address the issue of why saved homosexuals can not get married and straight couples can marry as many times as they please, once a year I suppose if they want, because according to you both would be still be saved. All the while keeping in mind the fact that the sin of homosexuality is never mentioned by Jesus and remarriage is mentioned twice by Jesus and in the first three gospels.

 

[Kevin007]

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.

you missed an important part- all people- saved and the unsaved are all sinners and will sin/live in the flesh till the end of their life or the rapture. Believers are believers, even if they wander/sin/make mistake's. If our salvation depended upon us not sinning- ALL OF US ARE DOOMED. The diff. is Believer's are justified through Jesus.

 

[Kevin007]

I would like to request that you address the issue of why saved homosexuals can not get married and straight couples can marry as many times as they please, once a year I suppose if they want, because according to you both would be still be saved. All the while keeping in mind the fact that the sin of homosexuality is never mentioned by Jesus and remarriage is mentioned twice by Jesus and in the first three gospels.

because in Jesus' time men married women. Gays didn't even think of marrying.

 

[TN_VOL]

because in Jesus' time men married women. Gays didn't even think of marrying.

I guess I hoping for a little more in depth reply there. I realize gays were not getting married then, but we know homosexuality existed yet Jesus did not say anything about it, but currently churches across this country are passing resolutions barring them, their church, from performing homosexuals unions and their members are out marching in the street against it yet again Jesus said nothing about it or specifically abortion for that matter. Although Jesus spoke against remarriage twice and it is included in the first three gospels, so the writers of the gospels must have thought he (Jesus) thought it to be an important teaching. Meanwhile the divorce rate amongst Christians is almost 50%, a rate higher than atheists, and yet their silence on remarriage is deafening. If they (homosexuals) got married they would still be saved according to you then they, homosexuals, could help grow the church. Lastly I do not believe any church should recognize a homosexual marriage I am just trying to point how churches selectively choose the scriptures they want to emphasize, I welcome your defense that process.

 

[erowe1]

You're right there were no Protestant churches so if you were Christian you were by default considered Catholic as well. It's like saying if you are a Baptist you are also a Protestant.

I don't follow you. What definition of catholic are you using? If you just mean universal, then by that definition all Christians, including Protestant ones, still are catholic today. If you mean something else, then what?

You said second century. But Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as we know them did not exist in the second century, and many of the features that both of those denominations consider absolutely essential to their identity wouldn't come into existence until centuries later than that. There was no Pope. There was no Pentarchy. Monarchical bishops were only slowly coming into existence in parts of christendom. What made Christians back then catholic that wouldn't also apply to today's Protestants?