Salvation...Can it be lost???

[Guest shiloh357]

[shiloh quote]Works do play in how we get saved, and they do play a part in how we stay saved.

Thank you for proving my point with that statment. If you would understand what is being said you would ahve figured out a long time ago that is what I have been saying.

Did I say that??? Hmmmm Let's see...

We fell short of God's glory the second we were conceived. Works do not play in how we get saved, and they do not play a part in how we stay saved. From beginning to end, salvation is both a gift and work of God and God alone.

How much of the bible do you believe should be applied to us? It seams that all you do is justify scriptures that you think shouldn't apply to us. You accuse my of being sloppy with the scriptures yet each time there ia a pertinant scripture that applies we need to apply to us you say that is not what it is saying of it was for the pastors, or for sombody else.

You don't understand. What I see you doing is batting around terms that you don't understand, and using verses to support a belief that they are not addressing when they are examined in their natural context. You are taking Scriptures that are for telling us how the Christian life should look when it is walked out in real life, and you are misapplying them to be references to how we get to heaven.

You constantly string a bunch of verses together and pepper me with more Scripture than I can answer in one post, and you provide no exegesis to support how you are interpretting anything. The verse sthat you provide, that I do have time to examine, are discovered to be addressing whole other issues not related to how you are using them when they are examined in their natural context.

It is also intellectually dishonest of you to claim that since I don't agree with your interpretations, I am rejecting the Bible, or ignoring certain verses, as if YOUR interpretation is tantamount to being the Word of God itself. When I do address the Scriptures you bring up, you ignore what I say, and go frothing at the mouth about how I reject the Bible and stuff. You apply definitions to terms and words in the Bible to support what you believe, and completely ignore the fact that the terms do not carry the meaning you assign to them.

[Ovedya]

Excellent post Ovedya and thank you, you helped me clear up some fuzzy thinking I was having lately!

My pleasure.

[Ovedya]

It is also intellectually dishonest of you to claim that since I don't agree with your interpretations, I am rejecting the Bible, or ignoring certain verses, as if YOUR interpretation is tantamount to being the Word of God itself.

Yeah....We've never seen that around here.

[Guest shiloh357]

[shiloh quote]Works do play in how we get saved, and they do play a part in how we stay saved.

Thank you for proving my point with that statment. If you would understand what is being said you would ahve figured out a long time ago that is what I have been saying.

Did I say that??? Hmmmm Let's see...

We fell short of God's glory the second we were conceived. Works do not play in how we get saved, and they do not play a part in how we stay saved. From beginning to end, salvation is both a gift and work of God and God alone.

How much of the bible do you believe should be applied to us? It seams that all you do is justify scriptures that you think shouldn't apply to us. You accuse my of being sloppy with the scriptures yet each time there ia a pertinant scripture that applies we need to apply to us you say that is not what it is saying of it was for the pastors, or for sombody else.

You don't understand. What I see you doing is batting around terms that you don't understand, and using verses to support a belief that they are not addressing when they are examined in their natural context. You are taking Scriptures that are for telling us how the Christian life should look when it is walked out in real life, and you are misapplying them to be references to how we get to heaven.

You constantly string a bunch of verses together and pepper me with more Scripture than I can answer in one post, and you provide no exegesis to support how you are interpretting anything. The versesthat you provide that do have time to examine discovered to be addressing whole other issues not related to how you are using them when they are examined in their natural conversation.

It is also intellectually dishonest of you to claim that since I don't agree with your interpretations, I am rejecting the Bible, or ignoring certain verses, as if YOUR interpretation is tantamount to being the Word of God itself. When I do address the Scriptures you bring up, you ignore what I say, and go frothing at the mouth about how reject the Bible and stuff. You apply definitions to terms and words in the Bible to support what you believe and completely ignore the fact that the terms do not carry the meaning you assign to them.

You are blind Shiloh and it is a shame that you don't see that. I will pray for you though. Rmember, study your bible. That is what it is for.

You cannot really answer what I said, so this nonsense is the best you can come up with. As long as you are still trying to work your way into heaven, you the one who is living in blindness.

[Arthur Durnan]

Since I'm "hid in Christ," and He's "in me, the Hope pf Glory," if I could be "re-lost" after being saved by His power divine, then Jesus Himself would have to "re-lost" too! Incredible poppycock indeed! There isn't ONE instance anywhere in Holy Writ of a person ever being "re-saved" after being "re-lost." Jesus fixes and completely saves forever broken people. He is not an amateur at this!

Go ahead & change John 3:16....Drum-Roll please: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should probably not perish but have temporal life." "Loss-of-salvation" folk should never attempt to leap a chasm in two jumps!

Hey, Philbin, Philbin, stay tuned for HIS Final Answer!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[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,

[HAZARD]

I

[Guest shiloh357]

"No, our salvation is kept by Christ, not by us. He is our keeper. As for the verses presented here, "those who obey on the gospel..." are the unsaved. They are not disobedient Christians. No it is the Jesus that saves you from punishment not your works. The Bible says that the Chastisement (punishment) of our peace was upon Him. Jesus suffered the punishment we deserved and in doing so satisfied the justice of God."

This is your whole problem here. Since you don't believe that Christians can fall from grace you won't believe anything that is given to support that.

This whole post is nonsense. Let's first look at this phrase you keep batting around: "Falling from grace." It is found ONE time in the Bible, and it is Galatians 5:4. Lets look at it.

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

(Galatians 5:4)

This is the only time we find this phrase, and it is not connected to Christians accused of fornicating, cheating, committing homosexuality etc. We find it being used to describe people who were trying to justified by works, specifically by converting to Judaism. If you look at this phrase in the Greek, Paul is simply telling them that they have left the sphere or economy of grace and have entered the economy of law. Interestingly, it is people like you, people who thought that works were necessary to saved, that Paul said had fallen from grace. YOU, cardcaptor, since you are trying to justified before God by your works, are the one who has fallen from grace. So no, I don't believe Christians cannot fall from grace. All I have to do is look at you.

You see Shiloh the books after the books of Acts to Jude most are written to Churches. The are written to Christians in how we must walk before our God. You have dismissed almost every example I have used showing that even as I a Christian I can either walk contrary to the gospel or I can just get up and turn my back on God. Either way a Christian not abiding in the doctrine of Christ has not God.

The problem is that a true Christian cannot and would not just get up one morning and just decided, "Today I will become apostate," or "Today I will begin worshipping Satan." If you can just get up and walk out on God and not look back, you were never a Christian. That is the problem we have today. People do not make the distinction between those who are religious and those who are true Christians. The assumption is that everyone who professes Christ is a Christian, and that could not be further from the truth. There are people who are players, and there are those who are genuinely deceived into thinking they are Christians and are unable to see the moral contradiction between their profession and their lifestyle. Then we have people like you come around and assume that these relgionists who live in sin are disobedient Christians who have lost their salvation. The truth is, they never belonged to Christ, and there was no salvation for them to lose.

A true Christian who loves the Lord could never turn his back on God anymore than a true parent could turn a deaf ear to their child's plea for help. A true Christian is a new person with a new heart, a new attitude, a new appetite for God, a new set of desires for those things that please the heart of the Father. Your problem is that you underestimate the power of regeneration. A true Christian shrinks back from those things that would hurt or offend the Lord. That does not mean that we do not fall in moments of weakness or distraction, but it is how we react to the situation that sets us apart from those who profess Christ but live unrepentantly in sin and concupiscence.

Either way a Christian not abiding in the doctrine of Christ has not God

That is an oxymoron. A person living without God was never a Christian.

It is not that I have been "sloppily" in handling scriptures, it is that you choose not to believe them because the don't support your idea of what Christianity should be. If the bible and all of its contents were not for us to follow then why didn't Christ just bring us one of those "Salvation Tracts" I have found in phone booths?

Baloney. It is exactly your sloppiness that is at fault here. I have not rejected ONE verse, or denied believing one verse that you have brought forth. What I have come against in your mode of interpretation. Why don't you find one place where I said that a verse does not apply to me, and copy and paste it for everyone to see. At every turn, it has been your interpretation that I have taken to task. They only way you for you avoid having to deal with my criticism of your interpretation is to accuse me of rejecting the Scripture itself to deflect attention away from your inability to address my actual remarks. That is what makes you so intellectually dishonest. You refuse to acknowledge that my disagreement is with YOU, not the Bible.

The Book of 1 Corithians was written to the CHURCH in Corinth. So how can you say that the BROTHER in chapter 5 was not a Christian? We know he was a brother because we are commanded to withdraw ourselves from our brethren who walk disorderly.

Just because a mouse lives in a cookie jar, it doesn't make him a cookie.

Just because someone belongs to the 1st Baptist Church of Corinth Greece, it does not make him a Christian. The specific passage you are referring to says the the individual in question was "called a brother." It doesn't say that he was indeed a Christian. People are called "Christians" all the time in our day and age but they are homosexuals and the like who are demanding to considered Christians while still being allowed to engage in their sinful lifestyle.

If you are not going to apply all of the bible to you then you must think that you are perfect and don't need it.

I apply all of it. I just do it better than you. I apply it properly and with careful study.

You are completely wrong if you think that these don't apply to us also. Is God a respector of person that he will treat ungodly sinners with hell and not ungodly Christians? You are sorely mistaken if you think that I won't be punished like a sinner if as a Christian I live as a sinner.

Like I said before, your justification is that scriptures like these don't apply to Christians, yet they were written to Christian and by Christians and delivered to the church to be read to the Christians.

No, I never said that those verses or ANY OTHER verses that you have put forth do not apply to Christians today. I have never said that they were not required. I have never said that. That is just what you, in your ignorance, have ascribed to me. What I have said is that I disagree with your mode of application/interpretation. They apply to Christians as to how Christians should live and what the Christian life is supposed to look like after it has been lived out. The difference here, is that I refuse to simply rip them out of their context and treat them as the means of procuring our salvation. Just because something is required of us, does NOT mean that it is required for salvation. Again the only way you can get around having to address the specific contextual issues I have raised concerning your approach, is to just pretend that I am simply rejecting the Bible. It's just a cowardly response to an intellectual argument.

You understanding on our New Law is way off base. You made this comment:

"God renewed his covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. He did this at the cross when Jesus died. So not even the New Covenant is "New" in the absolute sense. It is a renewed and improved version of the Older Covenant which is now being made obsolete. Evidently you don't understand the terms you throw around."

Let me get this strait. Are you saying that we have no law because the "new law" is an improved version of the "old law" and is now obsolete? And you say that I don't understand?

Yes, you don't understand, and it is clear from looking at your remarks, and the actual quote from me, just above it. I never said anything about a "new law." How old are you? Do you know the difference between the words "covenant" and "law?" I was talking about the New and Old Covenants. I said that the Old Covenant is becoming obsolete. I did not say that some "new law" was obsolete. Maybe you should slow down and read more carefully, because you screwed that up, royally.

I said that God has renewed His covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. This New (renewed) Covenant has a better sacrifice, better blood and a better priesthood. Therefore the New Covenant makes the Old Covenant obsolete. There is NO SUCH THING AS A NEW LAW. That is pure poppycock and displays your lack of expertise in handling the Bible. God's moral code never changed. What changed was the way God's moral code is administered. It is administered in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. The law has never changed. It never needed to change. All of the sins in the Old Testament, are still sins today (fornication, adultery, incest, lying, cheating, stealing, murder, rape, abuse, fraud etc.) Those thing that were righteous are still righteous today (honesty, generosity, charity, loving God, loving man, looking after the poor, the widow, the orphan, marital fidelity, truthfulness, sexual purity, respect for human life, respecting others' property, etc.) There is no new law, no new set of morals. It has always been the same.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)

If Christ did everything for us like you said then why would I need doctrine, reproof,correction, and instruction in righteousness?

Because you need to know how live the Christian life. You need to know how to walk it out. What I said was that Christ did everything that needs to be done to get you saved, and keep you saved. I did NOT say that Christ has done everything and that Christians do not need to do anything. That is like the 50th time I have caught you misquoting and misrepresenting what I have said. I am getting tired of being misquoted and having things ascribed to me that I did not say.

Tell you what: Why don't you spend just a minute and learn how to use the "quote" function? It might make it easier to remember what I have said. After you copy and paste the text into your response, all you you have to do is set your curser in front of the first letter of the first word of the text you want to quote. Left click and drag your mouse over the desired text to highlight it in blue. Release the button and click the "quote" button located next to the "#" symbol on the tool bar.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357

The problem is that a true Christian cannot and would not just get up one morning and just decided, "Today I will become apostate," or "Today I will begin worshipping Satan."

Yes, they can and I have seen it. Solomon did it when he chose to marry outside of the Jews. Eventually all his heart was taken away from God when HE decided to follow their idols.

Solomon was never a Christian.

A true Christian who loves the Lord could never turn his back on God anymore than a true parent could turn a deaf ear to their child's plea for help.

You aren't reading your bible then. How many time did God practially beg for the nation of Isreal to come back to him? He eventually turned away and they ceased to be his chosen people. Do you need scriptures?

Israel did not have the indwelling presence of God. They did not have regenerated hearts. I find it interesting that you have to consistently rely on the Old Testament to address New Testament issues.

Baloney. It is exactly your sloppiness that is at fault here. I have not rejected ONE verse, or denied believing one verse that you have brought forth.

You reject the verses like how you said that the first three chapters in Revelations was for the Pastors. This completely takes away the effect they were meant for. They were writen to the Churches of Asia. The chruches are made up of members. not the pastor.

No, I said they were written to the Pastors. I did not say they only applied to the pastors. I was addressing the way you applied what Jesus said, as saying that He was threatening to take their salvation from them, and he didn't. When the letter says, "to the angel of..." The angel is the pastor. When Jesus said to one that he was going to take away His "candlestick," Jesus was talking about removing him from his position if he did not get the congregation back on track. I have already addressed those verses out of Revelation numerous times. I am not going to keep repeating myself. There is only one way to overcome, and that is by faith in Christ. The reality of living a life of an overcomer begins with our faith. That is where the victory lies. That is where we begin. We do not overcome by working our way into it. We overcome by putting our faith in Christ. John says that our faith is the victory that overcomes the world. I am an overcomer, and I live as one. I know whereof I speak.

Just because a mouse lives in a cookie jar, it doesn't make him a cookie.

Just because someone belongs to the 1st Baptist Church of Corinth Greece, it does not make him a Christian. The specific passage you are referring to says the the individual in question was "called a brother." It doesn't say that he was. People are called "Christians" all the time in our day and age but they are homosexuals and the like.

Put that back into context:

1Cr 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

1Cr 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

If you paid as close attention to scripture as you say you do, you would see that he is making the difference beteewn those in the world and one called a brother. These are two dofferent people and this type of action of excomunication would not be done to the world.

This is another one you justified away so that isn't applied to you.

No, Paul does not make a distinction between this so-called "brother" and the rest of the world. In fact, Paul says the man is of the world. Paul says the man is fornicator. There is nothing in Paul's writing that would suggest that he thinks the man is a Christian. That is why the man needs to be saved. That is why we need to do the same thing to everyone who claims to be a Christian but lives in sin. We need to stop feeding their pride and appeasing their whims, and stop letting them think that they can feign Christianity when indeed, they are unsaved and are on their way to hell.

Paul does not say the man is brother but says not to fellowship with those who are called brothers but are indeed fornicators, covetous, idolators, etc. These are people whose profession is not true, and they should not be afforded brotherhood by us, until they are truly regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

I apply all of it. I just do it better than you. I apply it properly and with careful study.

No, you don't. If you did then you would understand what is being said. You accuse me of a "Work" based salvation. And no matter how many times I tell you different it won't sink in.

When you teach that works are necessary for maintaining salvation, THAT is a works-based salvation. The problem is that your definition of "works-based salvation" is too narrow.

Our salvation is compliled of many things. It STARTS with grace. The reason I posted all of the "saved" verses I did was to show that we are saved by many things. We are saved by hope, grace, faith, works, repentance, belief, baptism, confession, etc. It takes ALL of these in the name of Jesus Christ.

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

The things I listed are all the things that are given to us and they are through the knowledge of the bible.

With all of the things that are given to us save it is like baking a cake. You use ALL of the ingredients and you have a great cake. You on the other hand are trying to bake a cake with only two ingredients and leaving out the rest.

My postiion, as stated many times before, is NOT to davocate a "works" based salvation, but to express that all of the ingredients are needed.

We are saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross. Salvation does not begin with grace, it begins with Jesus, and it ends with Jesus. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.

Saved by hope??? Here is a classic example of how you misapply. Paul is not talking in Rom 8:24 about our eternal salvation. If you bothered to do an ounce of research, what you would see is that Paul is saying that are we are saved (preserved, kept) through our trials and tribulations "in hope." We are able to endure the pain of this world because of our hope in the inheritance we have in Christ that awaits us. He is not saying that hope is an ingredient in receiving salvation. Hope is the product of the salvation. It is these precious promises that keeps both our hope and our faith alive.

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

The things I listed are all the things that are given to us and they are through the knowledge of the bible.

No, the Scriptures says that they through His Divine Power. It says that God has given us great and precious promises that we might be partakers of the Divine Nature. In other words, that we might bear resemblance to the image of Christ; that we might appropriate the principles of grace that have been implanted in our regenerated hearts. What Peter is discussing is the outcome, the produce of grace, not the means of securing it.

Works alone won't save us. None of the ingredients alone will save us. But if I leave any of them out I jeopordize(sp) the salvation of my soul. That is why it says "Faith without works is deat". That is why it says "If I abide not in the doctrine of Christ I have not God". That is why it says, "Repentance unto salvation".

Actually you are doing the opposite. You are adding ingredients to how a person is saved. You are "adding to the cake." The mix calls for butter flour, sugar, shortening, eggs, and milk. You are adding ketchup, peanut butter, tomato soup and anchovies. What is necessary for living a Christian life, and what is necessary for becoming a Christian are two different things.

Yes, you don't understand, and it is clear from looking at your remarks, and the actual quote from me, just above it. I never said anything about a "new law." How old are you? Do you know the difference between the words "covenant" and "law?" I was talking about the New and Old Covenants. I said that the Old Covenant is becoming obsolete. I did not say that some "new law" was obsolete. Maybe you should slow down and read more carefully, because you screwed that up, royally.

I thank God I don't talk to people that way. My bible teaches me longsuffering, mercy, and kindness.

I was not being mean, I was being honest. If you cannot handle it, tough. I noticed that you did not refute it this time. Sometimes I have to get a little more hard nosed to get the point across. Perhaps you will take the time to actually read what I say, from now on.

Because you need to know how live the Christian life. You need to know how to walk it out. What I said was that Christ did everything that needs to be done to get you saved, and keep you saved. I did NOT say that Christ has done everything and that Christians do not need to do anything. That is like the 50th time I have caught you misquoting and misrepresenting what I have said. I am getting tired of being misquoted and having things ascribed to me that I did not say.

If Christ has not done everything for us then what is it that we need to do? What do yo mean by "walk it out"? What would happen if after salvation I chose not to do "anything" or "walk it out"?

What do we need to do? What does the Bible say we need to do? By "walking it out," I mean living out what God commands. I am talking about taking what the Bible says we are to do, and do it. Not because we are trying to hold on to salvation, but because these things are what we desire to do. The Christian life is not a grocery list of commands to follow, it is living, relationship with our Heavenly Father. The works we do, we do naturally. Where true Christians are concerned, these things flow out of us like water. But in the case of relgionists, everyday is just "do, do, do." Well at least until they get tired of "doing" all the time and decide that it is not worth it and go live in sin. But they were not Christians anyway, so that should not come as any surprise.

[Guest shiloh357]

Duh... Yeah. I have been trying to make that clarificatoin with cardcaptor. In his stark confusion he takes verses that are describing what the Christian life should look like when lived out, and interpreting those verses as if they are describing how salvation is attained. I have never said that works were not "required." I am saying that works are not required for salvation. Cardcaptor says they are.

I am saying that works are not required for salvation. Cardcaptor says they are.

Herein lies much of the confusion on this thread