Once Saved Always Saved ....?

[madsend81]

Madsend81 we are going back and forth in 2 different threads. I will just say this. Just as you were wrong in the other thread you are also wrong about the NWT.

Yes, we happen to be participating simultaneously in different threads.

You can believe what you want, but disparaging other's beliefs is not what this thread was about. Calling the religion of others cults and discounting what they have to teach not the purpose of this forum.

FYI, I am not a Jehova's Witness nor do I read the NWT, but I will support any JW's right to participate in this discussion in a civilized manner without them being subjected to name-calling. For the record, I am Mormon, a church more properly known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We are not a cult, but a worldwide religion. You and I simply have different ideas of the nature of the Godhead, but we both believe in Christ as our Savior and Redeemer.

I do believe that we can learn from each other and have a civilized discussion about this topic of "being saved" w/o resorting to calling each other cultists, heretics, apostates, etc...

[Jefferey13]

Ok, as pointed out in another post, the NWT is considered a flawed version by many and you won't find it any true Christian churches (JW and Mormonism don't fall into that category).

All for Him.


.

I disagree with this. What makes one Christian church true or not true besides opinion? And does somehow membership size or collective agreement represent correctness?

The bible was compiled by flawed men (as we all are) around 325AD and therefore is subject to those flaws. We currently have ZERO original documents of any of the 73/66 books in the bible. There were tons of arguments over which books should or should not be included. The possibility then exists that some books were included erroneously or should have been included and were not. Martin Luther pulled 7 books out of the original "bible" as we know it today.

Point being, yes the Jehovas witnesses have a different bible then that of many others, but that in and of itself doesn't make it any more right or wrong. They actually claim theirs is more correct because they have used older more correct documents for the translation.

Mormons use the King James Bible so any argument based on their bible choices is flawed.

[madsend81]

Mormons use the King James Bible so any argument based on their bible choices is flawed.

Unless you are going back to the original Greek or Hebrew texts, any modern translation of the NT or OT will be flawed.

[Watchur6]

I'm having a little trouble understanding the "sin no more" part. I have never got from the Bible that after I was saved that I would no longer sin. It was my understanding that my sins were and are forgiven by the only God that can forgive. I've never heard that I would be free from sin. It was Paul that said,
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. Romans 7:15.
Is it safe to say that we continue to struggle with sin even after we are saved? And that it is necessary to go to the cross daily because we have all fallen short of the glory of God?

[Barang]

For practical application, "when you turn away from your sin", "go and sin no more" and such. You live in newness of life meaning living holy and righteous life. That doesn't mean that you will not sin again but your mind is transformed into Christ like.
For example: 1) You're living with your girlfriend in one the same roof, you move out. If you want to live in the same roof, get married.
2) If you're married and having an affair with other woman, you get out of that situation and be faithful to your wife.

It's life different from the world. I tell you this, the more you stay away from what the world offers, devoting a time to read God's Word, Stop going to R rated movies, stop watching trash tv programs and listening to corrupt radio. The easier to say no to the world.

[Bill Carson]

I disagree with this. What makes one Christian church true or not true besides opinion? And does somehow membership size or collective agreement represent correctness?

The bible was compiled by flawed men (as we all are) around 325AD and therefore is subject to those flaws. We currently have ZERO original documents of any of the 73/66 books in the bible. There were tons of arguments over which books should or should not be included. The possibility then exists that some books were included erroneously or should have been included and were not. Martin Luther pulled 7 books out of the original "bible" as we know it today.

Point being, yes the Jehovas witnesses have a different bible then that of many others, but that in and of itself doesn't make it any more right or wrong. They actually claim theirs is more correct because they have used older more correct documents for the translation.

Mormons use the King James Bible so any argument based on their bible choices is flawed.

So many untrue statements I wouldn't even know where to begin.

[Jefferey13]

So many untrue statements I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Pick one place to begin where I said something that is factually incorrect?

[Doheny]

I disagree with this. What makes one Christian church true or not true besides opinion? And does somehow membership size or collective agreement represent correctness?

The bible was compiled by flawed men (as we all are) around 325AD and therefore is subject to those flaws. We currently have ZERO original documents of any of the 73/66 books in the bible. There were tons of arguments over which books should or should not be included. The possibility then exists that some books were included erroneously or should have been included and were not. Martin Luther pulled 7 books out of the original "bible" as we know it today.

Point being, yes the Jehovas witnesses have a different bible then that of many others, but that in and of itself doesn't make it any more right or wrong. They actually claim theirs is more correct because they have used older more correct documents for the translation.

Mormons use the King James Bible so any argument based on their bible choices is flawed.

It's ok, you can disagree.

The more popularly accepted acid test if someone or some group is/are Christian is their belief in the Trinity. True Christians believe that Jesus was the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt. Any other belief is simply an adulteration.

We could go around and around all night on this, so we'll just agree to disagree.

.

[Watchur6]

For practical application, "when you turn away from your sin", "go and sin no more" and such. You live in newness of life meaning living holy and righteous life. That doesn't mean that you will not sin again but your mind is transformed into Christ like.
For example: 1) You're living with your girlfriend in one the same roof, you move out. If you want to live in the same roof, get married.
2) If you're married and having an affair with other woman, you get out of that situation and be faithful to your wife.

It's life different from the world. I tell you this, the more you stay away from what the world offers, devoting a time to read God's Word, Stop going to R rated movies, stop watching trash tv programs and listening to corrupt radio. The easier to say no to the world.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

[Barang]

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Anytime.

[Jefferey13]

It's ok, you can disagree.

The more popularly accepted acid test if someone or some group is/are Christian is their belief in the Trinity. True Christians believe that Jesus was the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt. Any other belief is simply an adulteration.

We could go around and around all night on this, so we'll just agree to disagree.

.

No, I agree with you about the acid. It's true the mostly commonly used distinction to be considered a Christian is if you are trinitarian. My point was only that because it was the most common belief doesn't make it correct or incorrect. Because you and lots of other people believe it to be an adulteration isn't proof God also believes it to be.

Reading my posts back, I actually don't see anything opinion based. It's just facts.

[Not a Cook]

It's ok, you can disagree.

The more popularly accepted acid test if someone or some group is/are Christian is their belief in the Trinity. True Christians believe that Jesus was the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt. Any other belief is simply an adulteration.

We could go around and around all night on this, so we'll just agree to disagree.

.

I'm not sure, but I think you may have made a mis-statement somewhere in the above quote (I suspect what you meant to write was slightly different from how the reader will understand what you actually wrote, even though you know what you actually meant - if you know what I mean). I'd like to clarify this just in case someone who isn't familiar with biblical doctrines reads this thread - simply so that someone unfamiliar with the Bible doesn't become confused.

Disclaimer: We as creatures CANNOT comprehend our Creator (not even remotely close!); as such, the doctrine of the trinity cannot be fully comprehended by any man and has to accepted by faith (just like all the gospel). By His grace, He has revealed Himself to us through His Son and through His word, and by His grace He gives us the faith to believe Him, even on topics we do not comprehend. It's like Abraham - he chose to believe God, even when he didn't understand.

That said... the doctrine of the trinity, or tri-unity, of God is a fundamental Christian belief - however, it is not exactly what you described (as stated up-front, I suspect you made a mis-statement, without realizing it).

Classic trinitarian doctrine holds that there is only one true God, but that He has revealed Himself to mankind in three "persons" - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each "person" is fully God, yet each "person" is distinct, and each "person" exists at all times. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son; yet, each is God, and there is only one God. Your quote above reaches toward what is often-referred to as "oneness", which is distinct from classic, traditional, commonly-understood trinitarian doctrine.

The classic example of each "person" of the "Godhead" being distinct from one another is found in John 3:21-22, namely, "When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, 'You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.' "

In the above-referenced passage we see the Son present (Jesus being baptized), we see the Holy Spirit present ("descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him"), and we see the Father present ("a voice came from heaven which said, 'You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased"), all at the same time. Yet, all three are distinct.

[Bill Carson]

Pick one place to begin where I said something that is factually incorrect?

325AD date is wrong.

[Doheny]

No, I agree with you about the acid. It's true the mostly commonly used distinction to be considered a Christian is if you are trinitarian. My point was only that because it was the most common belief doesn't make it correct or incorrect. Because you and lots of other people believe it to be an adulteration isn't proof God also believes it to be.

Reading my posts back, I actually don't see anything opinion based. It's just facts.

.

[Doheny]

I'm not sure, but I think you may have made a mis-statement somewhere in the above quote (I suspect what you meant to write was slightly different from how the reader will understand what you actually wrote, even though you know what you actually meant - if you know what I mean). I'd like to clarify this just in case someone who isn't familiar with biblical doctrines reads this thread - simply so that someone unfamiliar with the Bible doesn't become confused.

Disclaimer: We as creatures CANNOT comprehend our Creator (not even remotely close!); as such, the doctrine of the trinity cannot be fully comprehended by any man and has to accepted by faith (just like all the gospel). By His grace, He has revealed Himself to us through His Son and through His word, and by His grace He gives us the faith to believe Him, even on topics we do not comprehend. It's like Abraham - he chose to believe God, even when he didn't understand.

That said... the doctrine of the trinity, or tri-unity, of God is a fundamental Christian belief - however, it is not exactly what you described (as stated up-front, I suspect you made a mis-statement, without realizing it).

Classic trinitarian doctrine holds that there is only one true God, but that He has revealed Himself to mankind in three "persons" - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each "person" is fully God, yet each "person" is distinct, and each "person" exists at all times. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son; yet, each is God, and there is only one God. Your quote above reaches toward what is often-referred to as "oneness", which is distinct from classic, traditional, commonly-understood trinitarian doctrine.

The classic example of each "person" of the "Godhead" being distinct from one another is found in John 3:21-22, namely, "When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, 'You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.' "

In the above-referenced passage we see the Son present (Jesus being baptized), we see the Holy Spirit present ("descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him"), and we see the Father present ("a voice came from heaven which said, 'You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased"), all at the same time. Yet, all three are distinct.

I'm guessing you're Mormon?

.