Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Marymog]

.I am reminded of the claim of the shroud of Turin being authentic. Neither claims are true.

The shroud produces a 3D image when scanned with the VP8 analyzer. No other cloth with an image on it does that.

The shroud produces a photographic negative on film. The creator of the shroud would have to have known about the future of film hundreds of years before it was invented. No other cloth with an image on it produces a negative on film.

There is no paint, ink or die on the shroud to produce the image.

The shroud has particles on it (pollen, dirt) that are native to the Jerusalem region, the Dead Sea, and Anatolia. The "creator" of the shroud would have had to have known that hundreds of years later scientists would be able to find those particles.

Only the upper fibers (as thin as a single hair) of the shroud contain the image. A feat that no man or technology can create.

The blood on the stroud has elevated levels of bilirubin, which are typically produced under conditions of extreme trauma — such as crucifixion. The creator of the shroud would have to have known about "levels of bilirubin" 1,000 years before bilirubin was discovered.

The shroud contains medically accurate details of crucifixion.

The carbon dating of the piece of cloth cut from the shroud was accurate. The sample they took from the cloth was a repair to the cloth and was not an accurate example of the full cloth.

There is no known method on how the shroud can be made using today's technology nor no known method on how it could have been made with technology from medieval times.

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, Raman Spectroscopy and Mechanical Measurements of strength and elasticity of the shroud samples date it near/in the time of Christ.

I realize that none of these facts will change your mind, but I felt you should know the truth instead of the lies you have been told.

Keeping it real with the truth........Mary

 

[Marymog]

Yes,you do.

Yes,we know. Your men taught you that you can lose your salvation.

Which is why you have last rites. When dying or even after.
And then,there's purgatory to look forward to.

Nope,no lies here. As I said,I'm not Catholic.

I know the truth if God in Christ

You crack me up.

You tell me Catholics practice/believe something we don't practice/believe with no facts to back it up which means it is your opinion. Thank you for your opinion.....everyone has one.

I gave you multiple passages from scripture that show you can lose your salvation, and you gave zero passages to show you can't lose salvation. Once again, thank you for your opinion.

You repeat the teachings of men from the 1500's about salvation but ignore the teachings of men from 2,000 years ago. Why? Because the men you follow teach what YOU believe so you agree with them because YOU, by your own admittance, know the truth and if anyone teaches YOUR truth....they a right! But anyone that disagrees with YOU is a false prophet.

BTW......What denomination are you following? Baptist? Mormon? Assemblies of God? LDS?

Curious Mary

 

[ProverbsInPink]

You crack me up.

You tell me Catholics practice/believe something we don't practice/believe with no facts to back it up which means it is your opinion. Thank you for your opinion.....everyone has one.

I gave you multiple passages from scripture that show you can lose your salvation, and you gave zero passages to show you can't lose salvation. Once again, thank you for your opinion.

Well,at least we know you're only pretending to be Catholic . You and Bread of Life sound alike. Curious. lol

Why Do Catholics Pray to Saints?

The historic practice of asking saints in heaven for their intercession is questioned by many. Explore the common arguments and the Catholic beliefs.

www.catholic.com

You repeat the teachings of men from the 1500's about salvation but ignore the teachings of men from 2,000 years ago. Why? Because the men you follow teach what YOU believe so you agree with them because YOU, by your own admittance, know the truth and if anyone teaches YOUR truth....they a right! But anyone that disagrees with YOU is a false prophet.

Nope.

BTW......What denomination are you following? Baptist? Mormon? Assemblies of God? LDS?

Curious Mary

Stay curious.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Yet, if your mother and husband – who was NOT your biological father said that to YOU – you wouldn’t have a problem with it. You ONLY have a problem because of your hatred for Catholics.

[Luk 2:49-50 KJV] 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

Again, you are a moron.

It is a general term that could mean MANY thigs – including:
a) generally used of the offspring of men
b) term describing man, carrying the connotation of weakness and mortality

In b) it has to be paired with anthropos.

c) those who revere God as their father, the pious worshippers of God,

This is BS as it only refers to dead men, Jesus the final messiah, and Adam.

No – I simply proved to you – and rather successfully, I might add – that “son” and “Father” have multiple Scriptural meanings. They are NOT pigeon-holed into strictly familial roles.

You proved nothing by not checking the Greek and noticing the word tekna.

WRQING.
“Immanuel” is a TITLE – not a “call line”, whatever that means . . .

More stewpidity on your part.

The “Loser” of an argument is usually the one who resorts to using ad hominem attacks whenbacked intoa corner - like YOU do . . .

You failed to notice that the first "pope" had a son who authored a gospel, at the very least. I realize you are delusional about
Babylon being Rome of all things, but really?

 

[MonoBiblical]

The shroud produces a photographic negative on film. The creator of the shroud would have to have known about the future of film hundreds of years before it was invented.

Or perhaps photography was getting started back then.

 

[Ezra]

So IF your men have taught you that you are "sealed by the Holy Spirit forever" by the Grace of God and you have Faith only.........They lied to you.

really what does scripture say sealed into the day of redemption And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption Ephesians 4:30

 

[Marymog]

really what does scripture say sealed into the day of redemption And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption Ephesians 4:30

the righteous judgment of God “will render to each one according to his deeds”:

If you don't do good deeds, you will be judged accordingly.

the sin of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven

 

[Muna]

the sin of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven

I never heard of the Holy Spirit sinning

 

[Marymog]

I never heard of the Holy Spirit sinning

I presume you are being factious........

 

[Muna]

I presume you are being factious........

Jesus said,

Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation

He did not say the sin of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven

 

[Marymog]

Jesus said,

Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation

He did not say the sin of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven

I presumed you knew that I was referencing Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:29. I shouldn't have presumed that.

 

[Muna]

I presumed you knew that I was referencing Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:29. I shouldn't have presumed that.

The Catholic Church teaches that it possesses the fullness of truth, rooted in its foundation on Jesus Christ, I would think you'd appreciate me posting his exact words so the Holy Spirit is not made a sinner.

 

[Ezra]

the righteous judgment of God “will render to each one according to his deeds”:

If you don't do good deeds, you will be judged accordingly.

the sin of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven

your using strange fire what kind of garbage are you posting ?

 

[JLB]

I have already explained the context of those terms "all men" and "whole world". But I will reluctantly tell you again, "ALL MEN" means all men "NOT JUST THE JEWS" and the "WHOLE WORLD" means "PEOPLE FROM EVERY TRIBE AND TONGUE" not just Israel,

‘So to you “the world” refers to Gentiles and Jews?

 

[Rightglory]

This topic always gets over heated. The discussion usually is confined to the subjective part of salvation. However, many want it to be objective totally missing the Gospel
There are two parts to our salvation. Part is objective. Christ taking on our human nature and subjecting it to death, the condemnation of death to mankind through Adam's sin. Christ by His resurrection defeated that curse of death mankind. All men, in fact the world itself was saved for an eternity. We all will be raised in the last day. God rill recreat a new heaven and a new earth. Rev 21 says He will make all things new.

Now that we have life again, it becomes incumbent upon all men to believe, to repent, to be baptized, and commit to serving Him faithfully. That is the subjective and that is a mutual, personal relationship with Christ. IF we remain faithful we shall be saved. Our relationship in not gurarantteed anywhere in Scripture. If if was not guaranteed to Adam, why would you think it is guaranteed to any person.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I never heard of the Holy Spirit sinning

The devil is the only one that would claim such, and those listening to the devil

None to worry, the Holy Spirit never sinned once and never will.

Those following the fake "holy spirit" (demons) might think so, but they are following demons

The catholic church teaches that it possesses the fullness of truth

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Newborns were not members of the household of the father? They were, Ronald. They were. Again, going back to the Old Testament and circumcision, the former sign and seal of the covenant (replaced as such by baptism in the New Testament), that sign and seal was to be performed on eight-day-old infants. Isaac, from his birth to Sarah, was a member of Abraham's household.

Sorry, but that is not what history says. The bar or Bat mitzvah entered a child into the "household".
Once again from Paul:

Galatians 4

King James Version

​

4 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

Even Scripture confirms this.

Knowing anything was not a prerequisite for being circumcised (Old Testament times) and is not a prerequisite for baptism (New Testament times).

In the OT circumcision was commanded on teh eigth day as a sign of the
Abrahamic covenant. Baptism has no such distinction.

I don't disagree with this, but the practice also shows that adults were exhorted to have their entire households circumcised (Old Testament) or baptized (New Testament). And also that this outward sign (circumcision [Old Testament] or baptism [New Testament]) was never effectual unto salvation, but inward circumcision/baptism, by the Spirit, was and is. As Paul says in Romans 2:29, true circumcision "is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit." And he also says, to each of us Christians even today in Colossians 2:11-12, "you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

You are ocnlfating baptism with circumcision and that is not so. House holders were those considered adult members and that was aound 12-13 years old as the cite I showed you. It is a historical fact.

They were. I assume you have children... Well, maybe not, but I do. They are no longer infants, but they have always been part of my household. It was no different then.

There is a difference between how 21st century and 1st century considered members of a household.

Ah, but it is not a blind hope, Ronald. God has promised it, and it is done by the parents in faith, which according to Hebrews 11:1 is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen," and is given by God, a gift of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:8, 1 Corinthians 12:9). So the parents are calling God on His promise, which... like all God's promises, has its 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus... so they have full confidence that God will work in the child's heart at his/her appointed time by God by the Holy Spirit, and that he/she then will believe.

So do you buy the Mormons getting baptized for all people. According to your premise, all people then will get saved for they are doing it in faith.

It says, Ronald, that they are not to be excluded by anyone for any reason, that they are just as... eligible... to be children of the promise as anyone else. Regardless of age or ability. Is there anything in Scripture that gives, implicitly or explicitly, a prerequisite of any kind for one to somehow deserve baptism?

Baptism is for one who believes.

Acts 2:

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Mark 16:

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

All these show one has to believe first! and that comes with age. You cannot find aqn explicit verse like these that says babies are to be baptized (not sprinkled).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Just for reference, he is a Dallas Theological Seminary professor, and the textbook I quoted from is one of the main advanced Greek textbooks in most evangelical seminaries. Daniel B. Wallace

You pile hubris upon hubris - again, I'd think it was self parody, but for the fact that you seem so sincere.

And I can get my experts that show him wrong! Appeal to authority is a very subjective thing.

In what follows, starting here, I'm not even sure what your point is because it is garbled. But you seem to be trying to argue that Mary used the present tense (I know not a man) simply to speak of her past conduct (I did not know a man). How does this make any sense of the text in its context? Gabriel told Mary about something that would happen in her future (you will conceive), and Mary acts surprised as to how that could happen and responds - according to what I think is your point - incoherently and illogically simply by speaking to the fact that she hadn't in the past been physically intimate with a man? You've reviled others for bad hermeutics, yet here you make nonsense out of the plain text. Mary's answer - I know not a man - makes sense in response to Gabriel's future tense message to her only if Mary's answer has future tense significance. And as I noted before, one "quite common" usage of the present tense in Koine--according to evangelical advanced Greek textbooks--is to refer to past, present, and future action (like "i fast" and "I tithe" in Luke 18 - a point you completely ignored) of the person, in the sense that the person is speaking of their customary/habitual action or practice that they intend to continue in the future.

Wrong again. What I wrote is the real exegesis and hermeneutic for that verse. The present tense includes past action if modified like Mary did . Once again if Mary was proclaiming hersel fto stay a virgin, God would have inspired it in the perfect active participle, as I showed you .

Tense voice and mood matter, though to you maybe not so much.

Again, hard to make sense of your point. But you seem to be arguing that if Mary had said "I have not known a man"--perfect tense--somehow she would have made it clearer that she never intended to, either. Read that sentence again - what sense does that make? And usually - again, as advanced grammars like Wallace, and even basic ones like Mounce, will tell you - the perfect tense ordinarily speaks of past, completed action with present consequences, but doesn't necessarily speak to the future ("I have made the cake" means I did so and it is now ready; it doesn't mean I will make a cake again in the future). I have no idea where you are getting this idea that the Koine perfect tense always (?) speaks of "once for all time" action.

The perfect does speak of an action completed in the ast once for all! So it would have worked out in the English as Mary saying- I have not known a man, do not know and will not know- that is what the perfect does- it is a completed thought or action. And your example of a cake is incongruent with perpetual virginity.

As far as the present. Just listing the tense is totally inadequate to understand in English what Greek says. If one is talking about I tithe and there is a plan to continue, it would be written in the present active subjunctive, simply because the future in this has room for doubt. Need more than just the tense to get to know what is said.

I have no idea where you are getting this idea that the Koine perfect tense always (?) speaks of "once for all time"

Simply because
Greek tenses require mood and voice to fully know what is being said. If Mary was telling of perpetual virginity- when she said I know not man- it would be perfect, active participle which rendered in full English, I have no tknown a man ever, nor will I ever be knowing a man! Write Mounce and Wallace yourself on this speicific and see if I lie or not.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

See my last comment about Luke 1. Who is torturing the meaning of the text (I ask rhetorically)? At best, you've picked and chosen scripture selectively ("until"! "brothers"!) and then forced your acontextual and ahistorical reading onto your preferred passages; while then trying to wave away the whole counsel of scripture, including passages that foreclose your acontextual and ahistorical reading of your preferred passages. In doing so, you strain at gnats and swallow camels

Nope! I simply used Greek dictionaries, Lexicons and linguistic study guides to show me. Once again if jesus brothers are cousins then this is how this passage would read:

Mt. 12:

46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

This is the Romanist translation accroding to you and BOL

While He yet talked, behold His mother and cousins stood without desiring to speak with him
Then one said to HIm, Behold your mother and cousins stand without desiring to speak to you.
But He answered and said, Who is my mother, and who are my cousins?...........

That is utter foolishness!

If it "tortures" the meaning of adelphos so much to recognize it can speak of relatives beyond biological siblings, why do we see it used that way in the LXX? Or in contemporaneous sources like Josephus? Why do Strong and McClintock, in their ten-ish volume theological encyclopedia, recognize non-biological-sibling kin as the *second* possible usage of adelphos (similar for adelphe)? Why does Liddell Scott Jones, a lexicon spanning classical greek sources, recognize the same: LSJ Lexicon (LSJ.js v.1.0.3)

Have already wxplained the OT usage was different than NT usage. You use LIddel and Scott and they only show kinsmen in 2 passages kinsman, ib. Ge. 13.8, al.; tribesman, Ex. 2.11, al.

Genesis 13:8

King James Version

​

8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.

EX. 2:

8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother.

9 And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the women took the child, and nursed it.

10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

Both of these in context are very well using adelphos as fellow country men. Abraham in contrext is talking about lot and his herdsmen and Abraham and his herdsmen.

Moses went to his fellow Israelites not his kin.

All in the defiinition of adelphois as defined in NT use as I showed you from Greek experts.

Same James Strong, from his larger theological encyclopedia, is what I linked to previously. Had you bothered to click, you could've seen for yourself.

Well I didn't click. Are ypou saying a protestant is infallible here?

 

[BreadOfLife]

[Luk 2:49-50 KJV] 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

Again, you are a moron.

Another ad hominem instead of evidence.
What a surprise . . .

In b) it has to be paired with anthropos.

WRONG again.

As I educated you before – Son () is a general term and has MANY meanings . . .

a) in a RESTRICTED sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)
b) in a WIDER sense, a descendant, the children of Israel, sons of Abraham
c) used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower
d) a PUPIL

Time for YOU to concede defeat on this point . . .

This is BS as it only refers to dead men, Jesus the final messiah, and Adam.

No – it refers to those who revere God as their Father.
How that that detract from Jesus being the Messiah??

You proved nothing by not checking the Greek and noticing the word tekna.

WRONG again, because tekna (τέκνα) is a broad term that ALSO ha multiple implications:

It means children, offspring, or descendants. The word CAN be used in its literal sense for a family's children OR more broadly to refer to a group of people who are characterized by a certain quality, like "children of God" or "children of disobedience (Eph. 2:2 and Col. 3:6).

More stewpidity on your part.

Again, Einstein – it’s a prophetic TITLE for the Son, like “Prince of Peace”.

I think the “stewpidty” is all YOURS . . .

You failed to notice that the first "pope" had a son who authored a gospel, at the very least. I realize you are delusional about Babylon being Rome of all things, but really?

And yet, YOU can’t provide a SHRED of evidence for this.

Since I’ve pretty much destroyed your weak “uios/tekna” argument, you should probably just concede defeat on this one as well . . .