1 edit
Once saved, always saved? No.
God cannot walk away from you but you can certainly walk away from God. Saul is an example of this. There was a whole generation of "believing" Israelites that died in the wilderness because they didn't obey God.
We are Saved by the Grace of God.
Grace is activated by our Faith in the God.
Faith is confirmed by our Works.
Note that Works can be dead just as faith without works is dead.
Originally posted by SourJaxFaith without works is dead is oft used to support this argument--the problem is "dead" doesn't mean unsaved.
Once saved, always saved? No.
God cannot walk away from you but you can certainly walk away from God. Saul is an example of this. There was a whole generation of "believing" Israelites that died in the wilderness because they didn't obey God.
We are Saved by the Grace of God.
Grace is activated by our Faith in the God.
Faith is confirmed by our Works.
Note that Works can be dead just as faith without works is dead.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI'm not sure what you mean? What argument are you speaking of? And how does "dead" not mean unsaved? God is the source of ALL Life, without God you are DEAD.
Faith without works is dead is oft used to support this argument--the problem is "dead" doesn't mean unsaved.
If you are assuming that I mean that without works you are not saved, let me be clear that is not what I mean. Works are a manifestation of Faith, not the other way around.
Works without Faith is like me gathering firewood for a fire in the winter, but if I don't have the matches to start the fire I'm going to freeze.
Faith without works is like me starting a fire in the winter and then never gathering any more firewood to feed that fire, when it runs out of fuel I'm going to freeze.
Faith that is confirmed by works is like me starting a fire in the winter and then gathering firewood to keep the fire going. I stay warm and toasty.
Many religions stress works, all this does is states that you can save yourself form yourself. Its a less pronounced self-godhood, that is common in all false religions.
Originally posted by SourJaxYou must also be without God because you are sour. God is the source of all sweetness. You are without sweetness, and therefore without God.
I'm not sure what you mean? What argument are you speaking of? And how does "dead" not mean unsaved? God is the source of ALL Life, without God you are DEAD.
If you are assuming that I mean that without works you are not saved, let me be clear that is not what I mean. Works are a manifestation of Faith, not the other way around.
Works without Faith is ...[text shortened]... form yourself. Its a less pronounced self-godhood, that is common in all false religions.
Originally posted by telerionah, but God is the source of all things, therefore god is the source of sour as well; so he must be with god....
You must also be without God because you are sour. God is the source of all sweetness. You are without sweetness, and therefore without God.
Originally posted by SourJaxdo you ever actually read what you write?
I'm not sure what you mean? What argument are you speaking of? And how does "dead" not mean unsaved? God is the source of ALL Life, without God you are DEAD.
If you are assuming that I mean that without works you are not saved, let me be clear that is not what I mean. Works are a manifestation of Faith, not the other way around.
Works without Faith is ...[text shortened]... form yourself. Its a less pronounced self-godhood, that is common in all false religions.
seriously; it's like a childs version of fables; except even more naive, if that's possible.
1 edit
Originally posted by snowinscotlandGod is not the source of evil nor is he the source of sour. You see just as evil is the absence of good so to sour is the absence of sweetness*.
ah, but God is the source of all things, therefore god is the source of sour as well; so he must be with god....
* - English nazi's: Do not confuse sour and bitter. Bitter is the absence of unbitterness.
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydOriginally posted by PinkFloyd
I said no such thing. I said "dead" is not synonymous with "unsaved". When you read something carefully, it prevents an embarrassing faux pas--like yours😳
Faith without works is dead is oft used to support this argument--the problem is "dead" doesn't mean unsaved.
Let's reduce this. Essentially, you said:
Dead faith < > unsaved.
Therefore, it is possible that someone with a 'dead faith' is also saved.
This is a laughable proposition, because what else could St James mean but 'unsaved' when he
said 'dead faith?' So, unless you are utterly confused with what you wrote, then you have to
explain what 'dead faith' means if it does not mean 'unsaved.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThat is not logically correct. It might be that 'dead faith' is a subset of 'unsaved'.
Let's reduce this. Essentially, you said:
Dead faith < > unsaved.
Therefore, it is possible that someone with a 'dead faith' is also saved.[/b]
For example: suppose that there exists someone with 'live faith' who is also unsaved, then "Dead faith < > unsaved" may still hold true without your conclusion being true.