Salvation...Can it be lost???

[Guest shiloh357]

The problem with your argument is you are picking and choosing the portions of the definition that are helpful to your argument and leaving the rest out. I just wrote down the definition without picking and choosing the context. Everyone here doesn't have a Greek Dictionary and they are only getting the portion of the definition you want them to see. That is kind of deceitful to me.

Baloney. I admitted that the definitions you supplied do apply to word in different contexts. The word cannot mean ALL of those things at once. Only ONE definition can fit a given word within a given context. In other contexts, in other verses we might find the same word using one of the definitions you supplied. However the definition I am using is the ONLY one that fits the context of Phillipians 2.

I know you admitted the definition contains all of those words, but nobody would have know that if I hadn't posted it. You are right that it cannont mean everything in the dictionary definition, but you didn't give anyone a chance to decide for themselves what the correct meaning is. You wrote it in a way that made it appear you gave the entire definition.

I am not saying you were intentionally being deceitful. I just said it appeared that way to me.

It is not up to you, me, cardcaptor or anyone else to decide what we think the word means. It means what the context allows it to mean. Therefore I don't have to enterain different definitions. The purpose of hermeneutics is to determine what the author meant. That means I cannot subjectively decide which definition I want to apply. I apply what the author intended. I gave the entire definition that the given context allows.

Just so you will know, this is not Cardcaptor, it is Butero.

You did subjectively decide which definition you wanted to apply. You determined it in the way you believe the author meant it. That does not mean that all agree with your determination. Others might say you were taking it out of proper context.

I know you are Butero I was saying that it was not up to you, me, or cardcaptor to determine the meaning. And, NO, I was not subjectively deciding what the word means. I simply allow the context, and line of thought to determine the meaning. You simply cannot apply any of the othe definitions to a verse and it make sense. This is particularly true in light of EVERYTHING else Paul has ever said about salvation. For example: It cannot mean "Finish" beause Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith, not us. It cannot be "fashion" because we cannot fashion or create salvation. It cannot mean "accomplish" because salvation was accomplished by Christ on the cross.

It can only mean to "work out" to perform, to "live out" and make any sense in the context and in the rest of Scripture. In this case it is not only the immediate context that one must take into account, but the rest of what Paul says about salvation. In ANY book context determines word meanings. That means that we must approach the text objectively. I am not assigning a meaning. The meaning has already been assigned by the author. It is not just the immediate context that is at stake, but the internal consistency of the Scriptures.

[Ovedya]

Before Jesus, a man was considered righteous by his faith in the fact that one day the Messiah would come and die on the cross for our sins. He believed God and was saved. He was required to live a righteous lifestyle before God, which means not breaking the law of Moses. In other words, he was saved by faith, but his faith brought about obedience. Abraham was saved by faith because he believed God, and remained saved because he obeyed God.

I disagree. Your using Abraham as evidence does not jive with the Scriptures. Abraham's faith was apart from the Law, since the Law was not given until Moses. If anything Abraham's faith is better used as an example of how God justifies us according to faith, and not according to the working out of the Law.

It is the same in the New Testament except we are on the other side of Calvary. We are saved by faith in Jesus and the work he did on Calvary. We remain saved through our obedience. In other words, we don't simply say "Lord, Lord, and do not the things he said." We by faith follow his commandments.

However, as I showed above, there was a change in the way that God's chosen are considered righteous. Again, if anything, the change from righteousness out of the keeping of the Law to righteousness out of Christ was a restoration of the faith of Abraham, who's faith was according to the vision of the Messiah. And yet I find no specific Scriptures that tell me that Abraham's actions were the essential factor of his salvation. The Scriptures simply say, "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness."

Another principle in the New Testament is that of walking in the Spirit. God doesn't want us to simply follow commandments on tablets of stone. He wants us to have his laws in our heart. When Jesus went away he sent us the Comforter, the Holy Ghost. He is our teacher and guide and if we follow his leading we won't need tablets of stone because the Spirit leads us to live in a way pleasing to God. When we are led of the Spirit we bear fruit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance, against such things there is no law.

Right. Yet the living out of our faith, walking according to the Spirit, is not a work unto salvation, it is simply living according to the divine life, being obedient to that life. Actually, if you read that passage carefully it says that the works of the flesh are manifest...but the fruits of the Spirit are...Seems to me that's a pretty important distinction.

Notice what the scripture says, Galatians 5:16 "This I say then, Walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." Also notice verse 18, "But IF ye be led of the spirit, ye ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW." The key here is the word "if". The law is given as a schoolmaster. A spirit led person doesn't need the law because the law is in his heart. He follows the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The implication here is also the fact that "if" a person is not led of the spirit, he is still under the schoolmaster, the law.

The problem here is that, rather than taking the verses at face-value, you are going by the implication. I think that if I seriously examined the Scriptures I could find a lot of "implications" that really don't have anything to do with what the Scriptures actually say. You're hinging an awful lot on a single word - if - rather than the abundance of words around it.

How do we know a person in this condition? Verses 19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleaness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkeness, revellings, and such like: of which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that THEY WHICH DO SUCH THINGS SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD." (Caps added for emphasis.)

There are many in the church world today that can point to a time where they made a confession of faith in Christ and are guilty of many of these sins. Those people are not walking in the Spirit and therefore come back under the condemnation of the curse of the law. They shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

You seem to be ignoring the indwelling Christ, and that's the essential crux of my original posting here. Our righteousness can only be according to two things: The keeping of the Law, or the keeping of Christ. If you are keeping the Law then you are obviously not walking according to the Spirit (And in fact, this should be evidence that you do not have the Spirit).

The verses that the whole passage in the latter part of Galations 5 hinge upon are 13-14, which say,

"For you were called for freedom, brothers; only so not turn this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Love fulfills the Law and it keeps the Law (Rom. 13:8, 10; James 2:8).

This chapter first begins with Paul's exhortation to not be entangled by the yoke of slavery - which is the Law, according to the teachings of some in the church. However, he also continues to affirm the proper condition of the members in the church, to not use the freedom that they have in Christ to indulge in fleshly behavior. Paul finally proceeds to delineate the distringuishing characteristics of the flesh and the Spirit, and ends with an exhortation to walk according to the Spirit.

Therefore losing salvation because of sin is not a case where Jesus would leave and forsake a Christian. This is a case where a Christian departs from the faith, so Jesus is not leaving a believer, it is a former believer. It is not Jesus forsaking them, it is they that did forsake Christ. Hebrews 10:28 and 29 "He that despised Moses law, died without mercy, under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath troden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewtih he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace?"

First, note the use of the word "punishment." It does not say "Loss of salvation," it says "punishment."

Secondly, your answer here really does not address the concern that Jesus would or would not leave a believer. Even if a believer left Christ, since Christ would never leave the believer, then the believer would still have Christ, would he not? There is an intrinsic relationship betweeen the believers and Christ that cannot be broken, in other words - either by Christ, or by the believer. Because not only does Christ indwell the believer, the believer indwells Christ (Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; 4:19 and 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Cor. 1:30; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27-28; 2 Cor. 12:2). In fact, the union of Christ in the believers and the believers in Christ is much the same as the very hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ Himself (Although I would not go so far as to say that we are Christ, but that we share in the divine nature as Christ shared in the human nature through incarnation. This made possible only because of His incarnation, human living, and the glorification of His humanity in resurrection), so I find it impossible to conceive that a believer could ever really depart from Christ Himself had he ever so desired. It would be something like wanting to suddently jump three feet to the left of your own skin. Departing from the faith might be one thing, but departing from Christ Himself is really quite another.

In fact in this notion - that a believer may depart from the faith, but never from Christ - appears to be supported by Scripture. Take a look at 1 Cor. 5:5: "To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (bold added). This verses is talking about a person who committed a wicked act in the church (v. 1). Clearly, by the wicked act that this Corinthian believer committed, he had departed from the faith. But did he depart from the Lord?. Paul told the Corinthians to expel this one from their midst, to deliver him to Satan. However, take note of that bolded portion. It does not say that he is unsaved! In fact, it says that the expulsion is for his ultimate salvation!

[Guest shiloh357]

The problem with your argument is you are picking and choosing the portions of the definition that are helpful to your argument and leaving the rest out. I just wrote down the definition without picking and choosing the context. Everyone here doesn't have a Greek Dictionary and they are only getting the portion of the definition you want them to see. That is kind of deceitful to me.

Baloney. I admitted that the definitions you supplied do apply to word in different contexts. The word cannot mean ALL of those things at once. Only ONE definition can fit a given word within a given context. In other contexts, in other verses we might find the same word using one of the definitions you supplied. However the definition I am using is the ONLY one that fits the context of Phillipians 2.

I know you admitted the definition contains all of those words, but nobody would have know that if I hadn't posted it. You are right that it cannont mean everything in the dictionary definition, but you didn't give anyone a chance to decide for themselves what the correct meaning is. You wrote it in a way that made it appear you gave the entire definition.

I am not saying you were intentionally being deceitful. I just said it appeared that way to me.

It is not up to you, me, cardcaptor or anyone else to decide what we think the word means. It means what the context allows it to mean. Therefore I don't have to enterain different definitions. The purpose of hermeneutics is to determine what the author meant. That means I cannot subjectively decide which definition I want to apply. I apply what the author intended. I gave the entire definition that the given context allows.

Just so you will know, this is not Cardcaptor, it is Butero.

You did subjectively decide which definition you wanted to apply. You determined it in the way you believe the author meant it. That does not mean that all agree with your determination. Others might say you were taking it out of proper context.

I know you are Butero I was saying that it was not up to you, me, or cardcaptor to determine the meaning. And, NO, I was not subjectively deciding what the word means. I simply allow the context, and line of thought to determine the meaning. You simply cannot apply any of the othe definitions to a verse and it make sense. This is particularly true in light of EVERYTHING else Paul has ever said about salvation. For example: It cannot mean "Finish" beause Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith, not us. It cannot be "fashion" because we cannot fashion or create salvation. It cannot mean "accomplish" because salvation was accomplished by Christ on the cross.

It can only mean to "work out" to perform, to "live out" and make any sense in the context and in the rest of Scripture. In this case it is not only the immediate context that one must take into account, but the rest of what Paul says about salvation. In ANY book context determines word meanings. That means that we must approach the text objectively. I am not assigning a meaning. The meaning has already been assigned by the author. It is not just the immediate context that is at stake, but the internal consistency of the Scriptures.

Shilioh, I understand your point. An additional problem I have with your argument is however that in my Greek Dictionary I gave the entire definition. That means that the word must mean one of the things I said. katergazomai means either 1 To work fully 2 accomplish 3 finish 4 fashion 5 cause 6 do 7 perform. Take your pick but those are the only options I have been given.

What Greek Dictionary are you getting your definition from? It is obvious mine and yours don't agree on the meaning of this word.

If you bother to read my previous post I said the following:

It cannot mean "Finish" beause Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith, not us. It cannot be "fashion" because we cannot fashion or create salvation. It cannot mean "accomplish" because salvation was accomplished by Christ on the cross.

It can only mean to "work out" to perform, to "live out" and make any sense in the context and in the rest of Scripture. In this case it is not only the immediate context that one must take into account, but the rest of what Paul says about salvation. In ANY book context determines word meanings. That means that we must approach the text objectively. I am not assigning a meaning. The meaning has already been assigned by the author. It is not just the immediate context that is at stake, but the internal consistency of the Scriptures.

My Greek dictionaries offer the same definitions. There is more to understanding the Bible than looking up a word in Greek and Hebrew.

[Guest shiloh357]

I appreciate you clarifying that. So in other words, if I find a word in any scripture and look up the definition and don't think the definition fits my view of the word, I am free to re-write it to make it say what I think it should say? Imagine the untold heresies that one could come up with by doing that!

Thanks but I will stay with my King James Bible and Greek and Hebrew Dictionary when it comes to interpreting the scripture

No, that is not what I said. Try paying attention. The King James if you notice does not use the definitions you provided such as Accomplish, cause, Finish, etc. It used the term the best fits the line of thought. Work out does not mean the same as the other definitions. It fits the Greek and it fits the context. It also agrees with what I am saying. It does not agree with cardcaptor's approach which is to make "work out" mean "work for." Work out is the closest to the word "perform." We are to work out, or "out work" as if we are as if our every deed is on display, for indeed they are. They are told to perform those things that are fit for those who claim the Name of Christ. Commentator John Gill puts it beautifully:

The words may be rendered, "work about your salvation"; employ yourselves in things which accompany salvation, and to be performed by all those that expect it, though not to be expected for the performance of them; such as hearing of the word, submission to Gospel ordinances, and a discharge of every branch of moral, spiritual, and evangelical obedience for which the apostle before commends them, and now exhorts them to continue in; to go on in a course of cheerful obedience to the close of their days, believing in Christ, obeying his Gospel, attending constantly to his word and ordinances, and discharging every duty in faith and fear, until at last they should receive the end of their faith, the salvation of their souls

Indeed we are to continue working for the Lord until that final day when we realize our final, and full salvation, when all will finally be made new, and receive the inheritance promised to us, and for which the Holy Spirit is the guarantee.

We are to do this with fear and trembling, not because God is going to rip grace away from us, but because other souls are depending upon our testimony. Also, we will answer to God. We are not to serve God in slavish terror, but we are to shrink back from anything that might offend our Savior. Paul is also telling them to continue even His absence. They are to keep on, pressing on to the goal. They are to carry on to the goal with even greater zeal than when he was with them.

As I already said, I don't choose on my own the definition of a word. I am not allowed to do that. Context determines word usage. Context always determines word usage.

What cardcaptor is doing in his treatment of Scripture, is he is taking verses that talk about what the Christian life is supposed to look like when it is lived out on a daily basis, and treating those admonishments as instruction on how salvation is attained (Phil 2:12 is a classic example of this error), and that is simply sloppy theology. There are very few on this board who would fall for such nonsense.

[HAZARD]

I

[Smalcald]

Shilo is correct.

Works can have no part in our salvation; anything, which attempts to add on to what Christ has already done, is in error.

The underlying assumption of a faith plus works idea is that if we don't include works in salvation, people won't follow the commands of God, in fact are free from them. But that would mean that we follow God by compulsion only, not out of love. But if we follow God out of compulsion only this is sin, we in our heart hate the law, we are hypocrites, because we are doing it through threat of death, yet we are to love the law. The only way to love the law is through faith and true conversion. Lewis stated that through faith we indeed still follow the law, just not in a worried fearful way. We know we can't meet the law yet we try to follow it out of love, we give it a shot, not because we will perfectly fulfill the law, but because we want to try, the trying is the key.

While I don't agree with your conclusions, I totally reject the idea of unconditional eternal security, I do agree with you on one point. There are people that believe your doctrine that do live a righteous life and there are also those that do not believe as you do and still don't live right. I believe there are sincere Christians on both sides of this issue. It all comes down to how we interpret scripture. Two people read the same verses and take them to mean completely different things. That will continue till Jesus returns.

Concerning your statement "Works can have no part in our salvation", I would then ask, do you teach people to say a sinners prayer and accept Christ? If you do, that is a work. Calvin did not teach that. He taught our salvation was entirely up to God, that he had predestined us saved or lost before we were born. The Baptist Church of today latched on to portions of his teachings and rejected the rest. As a result, there are holes in your arguments.

But what are the holes? Christ saved us, our works don't save us, do you agree with that? Even faith itself as the bible shows and I think Calvin was correct on that, is not in our control, if it were it would also be a work. The only power we have is to reject faith to push the Holy Spirit away. Some of this does come down to semantics I think. Works will be evident with true faith Luther said you could no more separate works from faith as you can separate heat from fire, and I agree with him. But works without faith are nothing to God, they are a man made attempt at justification, a sign of every false religion since the beginning of time. A person with faith, cannot help doing works, they burst forth naturally.

I think I kind of morphed into a faith versus works argument from the question of the thread, which was "salvation can it be lost?" In answer to that I would basically agree with you. I would say that many people who believe they are saved are not saved, in addition I do believe that people can have faith in Christ at some time in their lives, or at least believe that they do have faith very strongly, and later in life reject that faith, I think scripture shows us this does occur and will occur.

On the other question being debated on the verse,

[MrSealedEternal]

Butero,

You said that that Christ covered your past sins, but not your future ones. Weren't they all future when He paid for them? Didn't He pay "once for all" as He claimed. Where in the Bible does it say that Christ paid for our past sins, but from here on we're on our own? If you forget to confess one sin, then have you lost your salvation, and will spend eternity in Hell?

Mr SE

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357

No I have only told about 30 times what it means. The two words "work out" are one word in Greek. It is word that means to "put on display" to "show forth." When we "work out" our salvation, it means that we are demonstrating to the sinners that our profession is true. It means that when we say, "Jesus is my Savior and Lord," it is backed up with corresponding actions. We are "working out" our salvation when we do those things we should and abastain from sinful things in the sight of men in order that they can see our faith is genuine, and in doing so, we are giving a faithful testimony for the Lord.

YOU, on the other hand are missusing the concept to mean that we are working it out in order to be saved, and that is not at all what that Apostle Paul had in mind when he penned that phrase, and the surrounding context supports my view, and not yours. You simply refuse to do the study necessary. You simply grab verses and phrases and apply them anyway you want, and that is simply an incorrect method of handling the Scriptures.

shiloh357

No, your sloppiness is a product of your lack of skill in hermeneutics. I simply exegete the Bible better than you.

I would have to question your skill in both hermeneutics and exegesis of scripture. The Greek word,

[MrSealedEternal]

Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, THERE REMAINETH NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS." That is where it says he didn't pay for your future sins.

As for your other question, in Matthew 6:12 Jesus taught us that when we pray we should ask the Father to "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." If we confess our sins daily, we will remain in Christ. Also, you asked about if we forget to confess one sin? We know when we commit a wilful sin. If I make a decision to commit adultery and then carry it out, I know I commited a transgression against God's Word. I will not forget to confess it.

At the same time, if I do something God is not pleased with without thinking, and have not come under conviction as of yet, that will not cost me my salvation. The scripture says "If we sin WILFULLY. That is the key word here. Nobody ever has or ever will measure up to God's standard of holiness. We all have moments of weakness and evil thoughts enter our mind. That is not the same as a pre-meditated wilful sin.

If a person does commit wilful sin after salvation and does not confess it they will have their name removed from God's book and will end up in hell.

[Guest shiloh357]

Thanks horizoneast,

I already discovered he had given a wrong definition of that word. He said that the dictionary definition didn't fit the context of the passage, so he came up with his own definition of what it really means. Sometimes we get too smart for our own good. I do not think that is a proper way to interpret scripture, and feel like that is why he is mixed up on his doctrine.

I have not given the wrong meaning. I have already acknowledge other possible definitions. Nothing Horizoneast said refutes how I have rendered "work out." You do not use verses from other books and from other contexts unrelated to the passage at hand to determine what a single verse is saying. Parallel passages that speak to the same issue are a different issue.

If you think that Phil 2:12 is saying you have to work for your salvtion, YOU are the one who is mixed up on doctrine, buddy.

He said that the dictionary definition didn't fit the context of the passage, so he came up with his own definition of what it really means

Baloney, I used one of the very definitions you offered from your own Greek dictionary, if you recall. I said that one cannot use all of the definitions at once.

Immediate context determines word usage.