Once in Heaven, can you lose your salvation?

[Pipiripi]

That count for the rapture theory. But BIBLICAL the second coming of Jesus is for take the saints. Just like the angel says in act 1:9-11. But the rapture theory tell that Jesus come secretly and Jesus never proclaims that he will come back secretly. Stop following men words and follow Jesus words.

 

[Dcopymope]

That count for the rapture theory. But BIBLICAL the second coming of Jesus is for take the saints. Just like the angel says in act 1:9-11. But the rapture theory tell that Jesus come secretly and Jesus never proclaims that he will come back secretly. Stop following men words and follow Jesus words.

Never said anything of the kind. Revelation makes it very clear that his re-entry will not be a quiet one. Revelation gives a more detailed account of everything prophesied to occur in the rest of the Bible. His entire second coming is described as follows:

1. Saints taken out of the way

2. Seven vials judgement upon the earth

3. Then a hole is torn in the sky and the lord returns with his army from heaven with absolute ferocity.

This is the real rapture event in whole as described in Revelation.

 

[Godssrvr]

There are many Christians in the denomination of 'Church of Christ' and they believe you can lose your salvation.

You might want to reconsider that thought. Considering they teach water baptism and obedience is required for salvation, wouldn't you say the Church of Christ teaches a works based salvation? (Ephesians 2:8-9)

But it was God who was drawing me to Himself.

Is "drawing" equivalent to saving? No one is saved until they have believed the truth of the gospel. The truth of the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If I add to that........water baptism, walking an isle, surrendering my life, repenting "of sins", or any number of other works of the flesh, grace is made null.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 4:2-3
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

 

[Stranger]

You seem to believe "our fathers house" is or will be a different place from the "kingdom of God" on earth. Where is that indicated?? It plainly states the 'Father' will be on the new earth with us, on his throne.



The 1,000 year reign is on earth, not in heaven. After the 1,000 year reign comes the lake of fire judgement and the new earth.

I explained it in post # 46. Where does it say the Father will be on the millennial throne? It is Jesus that is given that place by the Father.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

You might want to reconsider that thought. Considering they teach water baptism and obedience is required for salvation, wouldn't you say the Church of Christ teaches a works based salvation? (Ephesians 2:8-9)



Is "drawing" equivalent to saving? No one is saved until they have believed the truth of the gospel. The truth of the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If I add to that........water baptism, walking an isle, surrendering my life, repenting "of sins", or any number of other works of the flesh, grace is made null.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 4:2-3
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Do they believe on Jesus Christ is the key. Water baptism and obedience is a part of that salvation though they may mistake it as part of our initial salvation. But that they believe on Jesus Christ is the key.

Water baptism, walking an isle, surrendering your life, repenting of sins, are all aspects of one who has placed faith in Christ. They work in unison, not in opposition to.

Yes all is of grace. Walking an isle is of grace. Surrendering your life is of grace. repenting of your sins is of grace.

Yes, salvation is by grace through faith. Just like with Abraham, those in the Church of Christ who have believed have been saved, even though they believe they can lose their salvation. That is immaterial.

Do not consign a vast number of people to hell because they don't believe as you concerning certain aspects of salvation. They have believed.

Stranger

 

[Godssrvr]

Do they believe on Jesus Christ is the key. Water baptism and obedience is a part of that salvation though they may mistake it as part of our initial salvation. But that they believe on Jesus Christ is the key.

Water baptism, walking an isle, surrendering your life, repenting of sins, are all aspects of one who has placed faith in Christ. They work in unison, not in opposition to.

Yes all is of grace. Walking an isle is of grace. Surrendering your life is of grace. repenting of your sins is of grace.

Yes, salvation is by grace through faith. Just like with Abraham, those in the Church of Christ who have believed have been saved, even though they believe they can lose their salvation. That is immaterial.

Do not consign a vast number of people to hell because they don't believe as you concerning certain aspects of salvation. They have believed.

Stranger

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to take God's Word over your opinion. If one of us is going to "consign a vast number of people to hell", I would say it would be the one teaching his own understanding rather than clear scripture.

John 3:16, Rom. 3:22, Rom. 3:24, Rom. 3:26, Rom. 3:28-30, Rom. 4:3, Rom. 4:11, Rom. 4:5, [URL='https://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom.%204.16']Rom. 4:16, [/URL] Rom. 5:1, Rom. 5:9, Rom. 9:30, Rom. 9:33, Rom. 10:4, Rom. 10:9-10, Rom. 11:6, [URL='https://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gal.%202.16']Gal. 2:16, Gal. 2:21, Gal.3:5-6, [/URL]Gal. 3:14, Gal. 3:22 Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:24, Eph. 1:13, Eph. 2:8,

Phil. 3:9, ​

1 Tim. 1:16

 

[forrestcupp]

seems a hard sell, coming on the heels of
For we know that our old self was crucified with Him in order that sin's dominion over the body may be abolished, so that we may no longer be enslaved to (dead in) sin,

but to each his own i guess

You have to read things in context, though. The context of the entire passage is speaking figuratively about dying to sin. But he uses the example of literal death just to try to help us understand the concept of figuratively dying to sin.

True for our mortal man, not for our spirit in Christ.

I believe in Hebrews 6:4-6, the writer is speaking of those who have been saved at one point, then were deceived by a false gospel. It is impossible to bring them to repentance again because in the context of justification, we can only repent (change our mind concerning our faith) once. At that point, we are born again, so there is no further repentance in the context of justification.

Interesting. I've never imagined anyone looking at it that way. I truly believe that if you could re-read that passage without the bias of any theology that it's pretty clear that's not the point he's trying to make there. The atmosphere of that passage is far from being an encouragement of eternal security. It's a warning.

forrestcupp:
Hebrews 6:4-6

[4] For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, [5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, [6] and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (ESV) ​

Yes, this is off topic indeed, although it applies to those during the time of Christ that were practicing their faith under the law. They gained knowledge and enlightenment of the gospel and even felt the presence of the spirit of God. However, they never made any commitment to follow God via his grace he was about to bestow on them. They turned back to practicing the law again. This mocks the truth and the son of God and his saving work on the cross. Their repentance was empty and meaningless as their repentance was always in the faith of the law and not faith in Christ’s work and the grace of God.

APAK

It's not really off topic, though. The OP admitted a little later that his whole point in this thread was to try to sneakily get people to believe in eternal security.

Anyway, there is a pretty big flaw with what you're saying. The passage says "restore them again to repentance," which means the subject of the passage did make a commitment in the past. Not only that, but it also says "crucifying once again the Son of God," which means: a) they had once accepted his sacrifice on the cross, and b) the subject matter took place after the cross.

But I enjoy hearing other people's interpretations.

Sorry..I cannot agree with you. You are limiting God! Most times I agree with your posts..this time I cannot. Why?
Because of my own experience!!
I came to Christ a strange way...but, contrary to what you write here...God will, and does, use anything to get His word and will across ( a donkey, case in point)

God started drawing me to Himself via Herbert Armstong...and the British Israelite movement.
I studied and studied all that they wrote. I wrote letters to them.
But it was God who was drawing me to Himself.
He knew I loved history..and I was sucked into the Armstrongites teachings.

Anyway, it took a while and my own Father asked a Pentecostal pastor to visit me and help me out.
But God did use a false teacher to draw my interest ...but I agree..Armstongism had no real power , I could see that..and I kept searching for the Truth. ( this was in the 60's )

But the point is, when you experienced God's work of salvation in your life, it was through His grace, and through Christ alone. God can use any circumstance to lead people to salvation. But salvation itself is only through Christ.

That count for the rapture theory. But BIBLICAL the second coming of Jesus is for take the saints. Just like the angel says in act 1:9-11. But the rapture theory tell that Jesus come secretly and Jesus never proclaims that he will come back secretly. Stop following men words and follow Jesus words.

Really?

Matt 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

1Thess 5:2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.

 

[bbyrd009]

Revelation makes it very clear that his re-entry will not be a quiet one.

ha no kidding, huh?

 

[bbyrd009]

3. Then a hole is torn in the sky and the lord returns with his army from heaven with absolute ferocity.

This is the real rapture event in whole as described in Revelation.

i'd keep an open mind there, wadr

 

[bbyrd009]

You have to read things in context, though. The context of the entire passage is speaking figuratively about dying to sin. But he uses the example of literal death just to try to help us understand the concept of figuratively dying to sin.

i forget my objection to "literal death" there now; as long as it is applied to dying to self, i guess that is what matters

Interesting. I've never imagined anyone looking at it that way. I truly believe that if you could re-read that passage without the bias of any theology that it's pretty clear that's not the point he's trying to make there. The atmosphere of that passage is far from being an encouragement of eternal security. It's a warning.

yes, imo

 

[APAK]

​

​

forrestcupp:
You said...
It's not really off topic, though. The OP admitted a little later that his whole point in this thread was to try to sneakily get people to believe in eternal security.

Anyway, there is a pretty big flaw with what you're saying. The passage says "restore them again to repentance," which means the subject of the passage did make a commitment in the past. Not only that, but it also says "crucifying once again the Son of God," which means: a) they had once accepted his sacrifice on the cross, and b) the subject matter took place after the cross.

But I enjoy hearing other people's interpretations.
----------------------------

You might want to re-read this Hebrews scripture once again. and not be in a rush to draw hasty conclusions. It does require a little thought.

1.If you think that only true repentance means commitment and the gift of God is bestowed on a person, then you are clearly mistaken. I clearly disagree with you and so does scripture. Regardless, it suggests that his repentance was in vain, he did it with a heart for the law not Christ.

2. 'Crucifying Christ on the cross again' means a false and empty repentance and no commitment to Christ for those still under the law. He faked it all the way. He believed in the law. And for someone under the law then to try and to repent again is like re-crucifying Christ all over again. Christ would have to die again for him to grace and away for the law. Quite, a simple concept to grasp I would think.
This person in question NEVER accepted Christ, he went back to the law.

APAK

 

[bbyrd009]

hmm, that's awfully pat imo, and "Scripture clearly disagrees, and so do i" is kind of troubling, but i have enough irons in the fire now lol

in the context of justification, we can only repent (change our mind concerning our faith) once. At that point, we are born again

arg!
at that point, you might just as easily be Under the Influence, imo, or even afflicted with Seven Worse Spirits too tho. i do not agree that you only get one chance to rebound "concerning your faith," wadr, and @ "born again" i can already hear the approved Checklist for Salvation being invoked!

 

[bbyrd009]

Really?

Matt 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

1Thess 5:2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.

takes a while to reconcile (hey, that rhymes) with the other language, the "don't bother even going to look, when someone says 'Here He is!'" or the "so shall the return of the Son of Man be," the lightning flashing, and refs to Noah's day, in Matthew 24, but ya, i agree.

the dichotomy there isn't revealed here yet though i guess; @Pipiripi (ntmy, btw) really hasn't gotten a complete answer there yet, iow

 

[bbyrd009]

Once in Heaven, can you lose your salvation?

once you have manifested Christ, can you fail to manifest Christ in your next decision?

bc regardless of what might happen Tomorrow, Today is where we are called to be imo

 

[forrestcupp]

You might want to re-read this Hebrews scripture once again. and not be in a rush to draw hasty conclusions. It does require a little thought.

1.If you think that only true repentance means commitment and the gift of God is bestowed on a person, then you are clearly mistaken. I clearly disagree with you and so does scripture. Regardless, it suggests that his repentance was in vain, he did it with a heart for the law not Christ.

2. 'Crucifying Christ on the cross again' means a false and empty repentance and no commitment to Christ for those still under the law. He faked it all the way. He believed in the law. And for someone under the law then to try and to repent again is like re-crucifying Christ all over again. Christ would have to die again for him to grace and away for the law. Quite, a simple concept to grasp I would think.
This person in question NEVER accepted Christ, he went back to the law.

APAK

Haha. See, this is why we have so many different denominations and theological beliefs. I can look at the whole thing in a completely different light and wonder how in the world anyone else can't see it that way.

Anyway, repentance is a huge topic. What does repentance mean? In its simplest form, it basically means a change in mind or mentality. Changing from focusing on things that are not from God to fixing your eyes on Jesus. Don't forget that it is part of the process, though. Peter said:

Acts 2:38 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.

So yeah, it is a part of the initial acceptance of salvation. In Heb. 6, it's clear that the subject had already experienced repentance, and they had already experienced the crucified Christ. That's why it uses the word "again" twice. It's not really your place to judge whether they were sincere or not, and the contextual evidence points toward sincerity. I'll explain why I see it that way. Verses 4-6 are purely hypothetical. He isn't speaking to people who have fallen away. Verses 4-6 are a warning to the people he actually is speaking to, which are Christians that he is admonishing to mature in the Lord. It's pretty obvious that, in context, he is speaking to Christians who need spurred on. So why in the world would he slip an example of people who weren't sincere and who had no chance into a passage that is exhorting sincere Christians? It just doesn't make sense.

It's an interesting discussion, but I'm smart enough to know that neither of us will change the other's mind. The main thing that matters is that you and I both have confessed that Jesus is our Lord, and we believe that God raised Him from the dead. We're both saved, and that's the main thing. So I can love you, even if we disagree.

takes a while to reconcile (hey, that rhymes) with the other language, the "don't bother even going to look, when someone says 'Here He is!'" or the "so shall the return of the Son of Man be," the lightning flashing, and refs to Noah's day, in Matthew 24, but ya, i agree.

the dichotomy there isn't revealed here yet though i guess; @Pipiripi (ntmy, btw) really hasn't gotten a complete answer there yet, iow

Sometimes the Bible talks about it like it's a secret event, or a catching away, and sometimes it talks about it like it's a huge event that everyone in the world is going to see. In my opinion, the only way to reconcile that without the Bible contradicting itself is that they are two separate events. A rapture of the church, followed by a tribulation period, followed by the physical return of Christ where He sets foot on the Mount of Olives, the Dead Sea comes alive again, and He sets up a physical reign. I know there are a thousand ways of looking at things, but that's what makes the most sense to me to explain things that could appear contradictory otherwise.

 

[bbyrd009]

Sometimes the Bible talks about it like it's a secret event, or a catching away, and sometimes it talks about it like it's a huge event that everyone in the world is going to see. In my opinion, the only way to reconcile that without the Bible contradicting itself is that they are two separate events. A rapture of the church, followed by a tribulation period, followed by the physical return of Christ where He sets foot on the Mount of Olives, the Dead Sea comes alive again, and He sets up a physical reign. I know there are a thousand ways of looking at things, but that's what makes the most sense to me to explain things that could appear contradictory otherwise.

arg, ok, guess we'll be having a thread on it then, bmg or i can do it after lunch
i would suggest two diff perspectives over two diff events fwiw

 

[Dcopymope]

I explained it in post # 46. Where does it say the Father will be on the millennial throne? It is Jesus that is given that place by the Father.

Stranger

Well we know that Jesus Christ descends from heaven to rule during the millennial period. The Father himself makes an appearance immediately after this period, sitting on his throne to judge those of the second Resurrection. His me're appearance on the scene causes both heaven and earth to pass away. This is of course unlike the appearance of Jesus Christ where no such thing occurs.

(Revelation 20:11-12) "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. {12} And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

After this we get the new heaven and earth, the Fathers house descending from heaven, and there is a further distinction made between Jesus and the Father described as simply "God" and the "Lamb". God will have his throne, and the Lamb will have his own, as plainly stated throughout both old and new testament of Jesus Christ sitting on the right hand of the Father. There is no reason to believe this set up suddenly changes on earth.

(Revelation 21:1-3) "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. {2} And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. {3} And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."

(Revelation 21:22-23) "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. {23} And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."

(Revelation 22:1) "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb."

(Revelation 22:3) "And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:"

The Father "God" is the one that gives light to the city, and Jesus Christ the "Lamb" is the light of his Father. This is quite obviously referring to two different entities.

 

[Dcopymope]

i'd keep an open mind there, wadr

My mind is not open, it is in fact closed. An open mind means that my Norton security system is down, allowing anything to just walk in uninvited to corrupt it.

 

[bbyrd009]

My mind is not open, it is in fact closed. An open mind means that my Norton security system is down, allowing anything to just walk in uninvited to corrupt it.

this to me is like saying "if i consider a perspective i am unfamiliar with, even for a second, it will magically turn into a belief."

"open mind" does not imply "don't think" or "don't question" or even "don't be skeptical," imo

after all, your mind was open enough to accept that pagan strange gospel of party in the afterlife, right? we suck right up to that one, huh. Now you wanna be critical? lol

pls take that in the spirit intended, imo whatever you believe right now is fine

 

[Pipiripi]

Never said anything of the kind. Revelation makes it very clear that his re-entry will not be a quiet one. Revelation gives a more detailed account of everything prophesied to occur in the rest of the Bible. His entire second coming is described as follows:

1. Saints taken out of the way

2. Seven vials judgement upon the earth

3. Then a hole is torn in the sky and the lord returns with his army from heaven with absolute ferocity.

This is the real rapture event in whole as described in Revelation.

That's right and we must let the world knowing the truth BIBLICALLY. We must preached in SPIRIT and TRUTH.

The JW stopped predicting the date of the end because they were wrong each time.

Might be a good idea since Jesus said even HE doesn't know the day or the time...

You have to read things in context, though. The context of the entire passage is speaking figuratively about dying to sin. But he uses the example of literal death just to try to help us understand the concept of figuratively dying to sin.

Interesting. I've never imagined anyone looking at it that way. I truly believe that if you could re-read that passage without the bias of any theology that it's pretty clear that's not the point he's trying to make there. The atmosphere of that passage is far from being an encouragement of eternal security. It's a warning.

It's not really off topic, though. The OP admitted a little later that his whole point in this thread was to try to sneakily get people to believe in eternal security.

Anyway, there is a pretty big flaw with what you're saying. The passage says "restore them again to repentance," which means the subject of the passage did make a commitment in the past. Not only that, but it also says "crucifying once again the Son of God," which means: a) they had once accepted his sacrifice on the cross, and b) the subject matter took place after the cross.

But I enjoy hearing other people's interpretations.

But the point is, when you experienced God's work of salvation in your life, it was through His grace, and through Christ alone. God can use any circumstance to lead people to salvation. But salvation itself is only through Christ.

Really?

Matt 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

1Thess 5:2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.

Just come like a thieve in the night means, for those in the world who are keeping their worldly things. And also the Christians who believed one time save always save. And for also the Christians who their eyes is locked up a literal Israel and a literal amargeddon. For those people's it is like a thieve. But we who have the garments of God on us keep us awake. That is the meaning like a thieve in the nights. We are SPIRITUAL ISRAEL. The seed of JESUS. Amen