Once Saved always Saved?

[Guest NewPilgrim]

Butero, thinking about your analogy of a house (salvation) perhaps I might present an analogy of my own.

I picture a man and his bride. They are totally in love. The man, being the head of the woman lays down certain rules which are for her own benefit. Sometimes she breaks the rules, but her love causes her to confess her rule-breaking and despite her worst efforts she cant help but sing his praises to everyone she knows. She admits to being a poor wife at times, but she tells others that her husband is still strong and noble enough to forgive her. Sometimes she might not be allowed out because she has been untrustworthy of late, her actions bearing consequence, but still she loves him and still she sings his praises and for the most part their marriage is happy, fruitful and consummated.

I picture another man, he has a girlfriend who appears much the same as the aforementioned bride. Although they are not yet married, she sees his potential as a husband and for the most part she treats him as one and he treats her as a wife. She appears to obey him for the most part, but occassionally slips up, nevertheless she confesses and is forgiven through love, sometimes her actions having consequences that she may find uncomfortable. In private she sings her boyfriends praises to him and thanks him for being such a loving and forgiving man, yet when they are out together, the picture seems a little different. Even though she sits beside him, telling others what a great husband he would make for her, indeed she already likes to think of him as husband, she constantly reminds them that as great as he is, she could divorce him whenever she wants. When asked why would she leave him she says "well, I dont want to, but I might do one day" again when pressed she says "I love my "husband", but once married, if I wanted to I could divorce him, I can walk away and theres nothing he can or will do about it"

The day finally comes when she cant wait anymore. Dying to be married she comes to her boyfriend and she says, "Boyfriend, we have been together for so long now and for so many years I have called you husband, because I considered you so and yet you never asked for my hand in marriage. I sang your praises, despite my failings I always came back to you. You disciplined my wrongs and I gladly bore out the consequences, knowing what a loving and forgiving man you are. Boy friend, I love you. Have I not declared yo to everyone? have I not been like a wife to you and done all that you have asked of me? will you not now be my husband?" And the boyfriend, having been proclaimed so many times by his girlfriend to be unable to keep her in marriage says "Woman, so many years you declared me unable to keep you in marriage. Therefore I will not marry you as I have no desire to consumate our marriage. That which you declared impotent, so shall it be inpotent to you. Away from me, I have not, nor shall I ever know you"

[kjw47]

Let me ask you a question. If a person who calls themselves a Christian goes through hard times and turns to alcohol subsequently becoming a drunkard, are they still saved?

Yes

1 Corinthians 6:9,10

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, NOR DRUNKARDS, nor revilers, nor extortioners, SHALL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

Congradulations. Now you called God a liar because he says no drunkard shall inherit the Kingdom of God. He makes no exceptions for those who accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Would you like to change your view or go for your second strike?

Hi Friend, it goes on to say-- this is what some of you were ( past tense ) All can repent, repentence blots out sin- acts 3:19)--- No not one practicer of sin will recieve Jesus sacrafice-Hebrews 10:26)-- One must repent- the stopping of doing the sin-- not doing the sin and saying i am sorry and repeating this process through life.

[Guest NewPilgrim]

That is an interesting analogie New Pilgrim, but has one flaw. I know God "can" keep us. It is by his own choice that some Christians will eventually become castaways. He is in full control of the situation, not the bride.

Thats an interesting comment Butero, given that your position maintains one can walk away from ones salvation, effectively divorcing yourself from Christ. However, I will accept your above statement which leads me to ask the question, if Jesus didnt cast you out and you didnt "choose" to walk away, how on earth did you lose your salvation?

The suggestion seems to me to be that you walked away and you only succeeded because Jesus "let" you. How does this premise honour and glorify Christ, who in dying for you, purchased you as his bride only to stand and watch her walk out of the door without raising a finger? Doesnt the bible teach us that those who stray will be ceaselessly sought out by the shepherd until returned?

[Guest NewPilgrim]

In relation to "impossibe for a child of God to sin" you may find this post of interest. It says nothing of unconfessed or unintentional sin, by the way.

[Ovedya]

They were illustrations easily understood by the audience. I mean, one of the favorite verses of the Christian Church is Hebrews 10:25, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." This verse immediately precedes the verses I gave. Are you suggesting this doesn't have anything to do with the Christian Church but applies only to the Jews and their meeting in the synagogue?

No, but I do believe that verses 25 and 26 are couched solidly in the concepts which the writer of Hebrews is trying to convey to the Hebrew church. In other words, the writer of Hebrews is obviously attempting to show the supremacy of the death of Christ above those of the temple, and he is, in fact, making direct inferences to Christ being the reality of all the sacrifices of the temple. Futhermore, the writer of Hebrews is attmepting to correct the errors of the Hebrew believers. One of those errors happens to be that of shrinking back to the old practices, to the old ways of Judaism, which was a pretty big stumbling block for the Jewish believers in the early church.

See, the entire chapter of Hebrews 10 essentially deals with two things: First, the issue of Christ's death being a type of, and being in supremacy to, the sacrifices (cf. vv. 4-10, 14-18). Secondly, the writer deals with the issue of Jewish believers shrinking back to the old ways of Judaism (cf. vv. 23, 39) . If I were to sum this chapter up, I would say that the writer is essentially saying, "The old ways of sacrificing for sin have been done away with through the blood of Jesus Christ, who is not only the reality of those sacrifices, but whose death reigns supreme to those sacrifices. Whereas, through the old sacrifices we could not dare to appraoch the throne of God, now through the blood of Christ we can enter into the holiest of holies boldly. Furthermore, for those who have shruken back to the old ways, there is no longer a sacrifice of bulls and goats for sin, for those sacrifices have been done away with. Therefore, in shrinking back to the old ways, there is no provision for the forgiveness of sins in the blood of animals. So when you shrink back to the old ways, you are considering Christ's blood of no effect in comparison with the blood of bulls and goats, and in that way you will find yourself in ruin."

So, with regard to verse 25, the writer is discussing primarilly the issue of abandoning the gathering together in prayer in favor of shrinking back to Judaism. And in verse 26 the writer begins to talk about the reason: Because there no longer remains a sacrifice of bulls and goats for sins.

Think about it: You've been raised from birth to believe that the Laws of Moses were the only way to gain God's favor and to be considered righteous before Him. Your whole life you've believed that animals sacrifices were the only thing that appeased God's wrath upon you and upon your people. Then along comes a New Way which says essentially, this one sacrifice is sufficient for all time, and has been offered up once for the remission of all of your sins. You now have to put aside all those practices by which you formerly believed you were righteous before God's eyes and, by faith, receive the one sacrifice which is eternal. Wouldn't you have some doubts about the efficacy of the blood of Christ? I think about the times which I heard of men and women who were diligent and faithful to the religion of Catholicism in their youth, then received the grace of God to not rely on those religious practices any longer. For a while they were so dynamically freed from those practices. But later some of them shrunk back because they had been so institutionalized by those rituals. I believe the real lesson to be learned from this chapter is the freedom which Christ afforded through His wonderful and vicarious death, from religion and from ritualistic service to God. I don't think it has anything to do with the loss of salvation at all.

[Mark777]

2the point,

It has and Horizion keeps it going. These are his pet passages.

[Mark777]

Butero,

I'm glad you found a docrtine buddy. As for you, I don't believe what you do but your cool.

Mark

[Guest NewPilgrim]

It is that Jesus casts them away because of their wilful rebellions against him.

3 strikes butero. thats three times youve called God a liar in such a short number of posts. I cant consider it profitable to talk to such direct contradiction of God.

[Mark777]

Sounds like everyone is tired. I would like to thank everyone for an interesting conversation.

Mark

Edited June 15, 2006 by Mark777

[Ovedya]

Ovedya, I do think you have an interesting argument, but let me ask you this. If this passage means as you say, looking at verse 26 which says, "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins," wouldn't that mean that people were only accountable for sins after they received the knowledge of the truth, and until then, animal sacrifices for sins would be acceptable? If I am understanding you correctly, your contention is that the writer is warning people against a return to the practices of Judaism and saying that if they sin, there is no atonement anymore in bulls and goats, yet verse 26 says "For if we sin wilfully AFTER WE HAVE RECEIVED THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH." I hope you understand my question. It was a little hard to relate. In other words, if you sin wilfully before you receive the knowledge of the truth, you would not be accountable.

No. The whole point is that the blood of cows and goats is no longer effectual because Christ has satisfied the payment for once and for all. The "willful sin" in verses 26 is directy related to the abandoning of the gathering together in prayer. That is the context. So therefore, these Jews received the knowledge of the truth - that Christ shed His blood for the remission of sins - then willfully fell back to the practices of Judaism, under which there remains no sacrifice for sins. The writer is trying to get those that had fallen back to understand that the sacrifices under the law were no longer effectual. In fact, in verse 28 he uses the abandoning of the Law of Moses as an example and contrasts it with the truth of the New Way: "By how much do you think he will be thought worthy of worse punishment who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has considered the blood of the coventnat by which he was sanctified a common thing and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (v. 29)