How does one lose their salvation?

TN_VOL said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never said that homosexuals couldn't get married. And I never said that straight couples can marry as many times as they please.

Yes. Biblically it's possible for either of those to be saved. Salvation does not depend on someone's attainment of sinlessness. But that doesn't make those things less sinful, and it doesn't mean Christians shouldn't do them, or have no incentive to do what's right. It just means they don't stake their salvation on it.

Now, I don't know if this is what you meant, but I would say that same-sex couples never are really married in the biblical sense. There's nothing they can do about that. God does not make those two men or two women into one flesh. But this does not apply to polygamists. God does make polygamous people one flesh with their various spouses. The sin of one divorce doesn't give someone a reason to commit that sin a second time by divorcing their second spouse. And it doesn't mean that their second marriage is some ongoing perpetual sin that they can't get out of or be forgiven for. Nor does anything in the Bible suggest in the slightest way that that's the case.
 
erowe1 said:
I never said that homosexuals couldn't get married. And I never said that straight couples can marry as many times as they please.

Yes. Biblically it's possible for either of those to be saved. Salvation does not depend on someone's attainment of sinlessness. But that doesn't make those things less sinful, and it doesn't mean Christians shouldn't do them, or have no incentive to do what's right. It just means they don't stake their salvation on it.

Now, I don't know if this is what you meant, but I would say that same-sex couples never are really married in the biblical sense. There's nothing they can do about that. God does not make those two men or two women into one flesh. But this does not apply to polygamists. God does make polygamous people one flesh with their various spouses. The sin of one divorce doesn't give someone a reason to commit that sin a second time by divorcing their second spouse. And it doesn't mean that their second marriage is some ongoing perpetual sin that they can't get out of or be forgiven for. Nor does anything in the Bible suggest in the slightest way that that's the case.
Click to expand...

Ok I'm just going to stay away from the whole polygamy issue all together and I'll agree with you in that same sex couples are never married in the biblical sense, I was only attempting to show hypocrisy. So I'll go with this, like I stated earlier that Jesus never specifically mentions homosexuality or abortion but that doesn't stop Christians from protesting them and appealing to governments to stop them, but Jesus specifically mentions that remarriage is a sin twice and the authors of the gospels thought it was such an important teaching that it was included in the first three gospels. So in light of the divorce rate amongst Christians nearing 50%, where is the outrage, where are the marches to protect marriage as the way God intended, meaning til death do you part? When is the last time you have ever heard a sermon saying remarriage is a sin, wrong and should be avoided? The only three national pastors I know that preach this are Steven Anderson, Voddie Baucham,and John Piper. Baucham and Piper both say that it is wrong and if you have divorced then do not remarry, but if you are remarried then basically pray that God blesses you, but you still should not have done it. I also want to say that I have never heard a sermon on divorce and remarriage in person, have you? I guess that it is because a quarter of the church is either divorced and remarried themselves or someone in their family is despite that we are instructed by Jesus in Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple." The word hate here obviously refers to loving Jesus less than. On a side note both Anderson and Baucham endorsed Ron Paul and Piper I know has said good things about Ayn Rand and all three seem to reject Zionism. At least we can all probably agree with them on those points. I absolutely love listening to Voddie's sermons by the way. I think he is great man.
 
Last edited:
TN_VOL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well Jesus stated that the reason God created them "male and female" was for marriage. So technically while that isn't speaking against gay marriage, it is defining heterosexual marriage as the only legit marriage. Jesus never specifically spoke against a lot of things. I don't recall Jesus saying anything against sorcery for instance. And while it's not "politically correct" to say this, Jesus never spoke against bestiality or incest either. Paul spoke against a man sleeping with his stepmother but that's the only New Testament incest reference I'm aware of.

As for the atheist/Christian divorce rates, there's a little "freakonomics" (no pun intended) at work here. Atheists are far less likely to get married in the first place. 84% of conservative Christians have been married as opposed to only 65% of atheists.

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...-and-divorce-statistics-released#.VEqnmfnF_rg
In addition to finding that four out of every five adults (78%) have been married at least once, the Barna study revealed that an even higher proportion of born again Christians (84%) tie the knot. That eclipses the proportion among people aligned with non-Christian faiths (74%) and among atheists and agnostics (65%).

Obvious guy says "You can't get divorced unless you've first been married." With that in mind, I'm not sure what, if anything, can be drawn from the high divorce rate among Christians. What it may suggest is that born again Christians feel like they have to get married before having sex, marry the wrong person to satisfy sexual desires, and end up unhappy and ultimately divorced. So to have lower divorce rates Christians need to fornicate more? :confused:
 
Last edited:
erowe1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, the Eucharist and common belief in transubstantiation.
 
jmdrake said:
Well I guess that leaves out St. Clements and others.
Click to expand...

Clement believed in transubstantiation.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

Afterwards the sacred vine produced the prophetic cluster. This was a sign to them, when trained from wandering to their rest; representing the great cluster the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation.

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.
Click to expand...
IDK what "others" you speak of, but such people don't speak for the historic Church. Even Augustine made errors that Roman Catholics don't agree with now.
 
Last edited:
heavenlyboy34 said:
Clement believed in transubstantiation.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm
Click to expand...

Nope. From your own link.

In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, Take, drink: this is my blood— the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word shed for many, for the remission of sins— the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father. But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spoke concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: For the Son of man, He says, came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans. Matthew 11:19 Let this be held fast by us against those that are called Encratites.

The word "figuratively" is a synonym "metaphor". Nowhere in your link, and I read the whole thing, does Clements ever say "The way becomes the literal blood of Jesus and the bread becomes the physical body of Jesus." Here's more.

The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood; but reproving the base tippling with the dregs of wine, it says: Intemperate is wine, and insolent is drunkenness. Proverbs 20:1

Wine is the symbol of Jesus blood! If you drink enough communion wine you will get drunk. That never happens because people only take a small sip. But Jesus' physical blood would not make you drunk.

Afterwards the sacred vine produced the prophetic cluster. This was a sign to them, when trained from wandering to their rest; representing the great cluster the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape— that is, the Word— desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation.

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.

What St. Clement wrote here lines up perfectly with what I've been saying all along regarding John 6:63. Jesus was not talking about drinking His physical blood which comes from the flesh. "For the flesh profits nothing. My Words are Spirit and they are life." And really, your link is the source that both Kevin and I used in the Eucharist thread to show Clements say Jesus' teaching on His body and blood as being metaphorical (figurative) instead of literal. So Clement believed in the Eucharist, but he didn't believe it was the literally body and blood of Jesus. Or if he did, your link doesn't prove that. But there's more:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm
when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. And when hope expires, it is as if blood flowed forth; and the vitality of faith is destroyed.

HB, that's from the same website you linked to, but on a different page. Clement is clearly saying that Jesus was speaking in metaphor. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. All along I've been saying the same thing as St. Clement. So has Kevin. Maybe you need to read your tradition a little more carefully.
 
Last edited:
jmdrake said:
Yep. And HB's own link provides the source for the refutation.
Click to expand...

Can I ask you and Kevin then--just what do you think is supposed to happen spiritually if we don't discern the blood and body of Christ properly at communion? Gods words says that you're eating and drinking damnation unto yourself. Explain then please if you will just how one can be damned by improper use a nothing more than a metaphor?

Holy Communion is not just "remembrance". No one is damned for not remembering something properly.

7Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Paul also says here--we don't come to Holy Communion hungry. Paul said if you're hungry--eat at home, but use this eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ as a spiritual communion--coming together in the spirit of Christ in faith--otherwise doing this ritual and tradition improperly can damn you for doing so. That doesn't sound like a metaphor to me.

33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

Jesus said eat my flesh and drink my blood. By partaking in this ritual--you are supposed to discern that you are literally taking Christ into your own body in remembrance of what He did on that cross.

The Eucharist can be compared to our regeneration process as well. There is a spiritual happening by acting upon our faith in belief in Christ--same as the Eucharist. There is a spiritual renewing happening by this ritual and tradition--same as baptism--a spiritual renewing. If you take the seriousness of the Eucharist any less than that of our spiritual regeneration or baptism--you are eating and drinking damnation unto yourself not discerning the Lords blood and body correctly and this is why the Eucharist is so sacred and treated as such.
 
Last edited:
erowe1 said:
That's not in the Bible. It just says judgment.
Click to expand...

I don't know which bible you're using, but damnation is a judgment by God.

1 Corinthians 11:

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
 
Terry1 said:
I don't know which bible you're using, but damnation is a judgment by God.

1 Corinthians 11:

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
Click to expand...

I added a link to an interlinear version so you can see for yourself. Most versions don't say damnation either.

Yes, damnation is a judgment by God. But there are lots of kinds of judgment. In 1 Corinthians 11:30 Paul says that the consequences he's talking about in that passage are physical sickness and death. So he himself excludes damnation.
 
Last edited:
erowe1 said:
I added a link to an interlinear version so you can see for yourself. Most versions don't say damnation either.

Yes, damnation is a judgment by God. But there are lots of kinds of judgment. In 1 Corinthians 11:30 Paul says that the consequences he's talking about in that passage are physical sickness and death. So he himself excludes damnation.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of interpretation--in any case as I said--you'd have to agree that the consequences for not discerning this ritual properly are dire and not something someone wants to do or participate in unless they do understand it properly. Knowledge and wisdom are the key here.
 
erowe1 said:
Something can be serious without entailing damnation. Which versions say "doom"?

The word is just krima. There's no reason to translate that as either "damnation" or "doom."
Click to expand...

The Wycliffe bible uses the word doom here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+11:27-34&version=WYC

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh doom to him[self] [eateth and drinketh doom, or damnation, to himself], not wisely deeming the body of the Lord.
 
Terry1 said:
It's a matter of interpretation--in any case as I said--you'd have to agree that the consequences for not discerning this ritual properly are dire and not something someone wants to do or participate in unless they do understand it properly. Knowledge and wisdom are the key here.
Click to expand...

But dire consequences don't have to be damnation.

It's also significant that Paul describes specifically what he means by partaking in the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, and it has nothing to do at all with whether or not someone believes that the wine and bread are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus of Nazareth, but still maintaining all physical properties of wine and bread, upon being blessed by an Eastern Orthodox bishop or priest delegated by one.
 
Terry1 said:
The Wycliffe bible uses the word doom here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+11:27-34&version=WYC

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh doom to him[self] [eateth and drinketh doom, or damnation, to himself], not wisely deeming the body of the Lord.
Click to expand...

So you had to go back to a version that was translated in the 1300's, when English was very different than it is now, from Latin, and not the original Greek.

I wonder if there are any versions that are less than 100 years old that translate krima as either damnation or doom.

From a quick scan of this it doesn't look like it.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1 Corinthians 11:29
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ClaytonB
Yes, the church of Jesus is the extreme right-wing
Replies
7
Views
436
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
I don't care anymore
Replies
0
Views
171
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
PAF
Cold War 2.0 Heats Up
Replies
1
Views
84
TheTexan
TheTexan
ClaytonB
You don't know the Bible
Replies
0
Views
709
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
PAF
The Coming Age Of AI Government
Replies
3
Views
96
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top