Salvation...Can it be lost???

January 1, 2006

shiloh
This is what I meant by getting on the same page. I never said it is impossible for a Christian to turn his back on God. I am not talking about "free-will" issues. For the umpteenth time... I know Christians who have fallen into sin because of times of weakness and discouragement with God.

Wishing you a happy new year, brother. We are almost on the same page but not quite there yet. The question asked by the OP, to paraphrase,

January 1, 2006

Shiloh
I have read your previous post that is why I am asking you these question. I will try to ask this one question again. In Hebrews 6 it talks about ones who had obey the principles of the doctrine of Christ but they did not go on to perfection because it says in verse 4 the it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, ( in other words the had received the Holy Spirit), And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

This passage seem obvious that these Christian who had the Holy Spirit fell away, they lost their salvation and in verse 7 & 8) say their end is to be burned. By this scripture it would seem that osas is not true and that a person has to be obedient or work out his salvation until the day he or she dies.

What is your understanding of these verse?

My understanding is that it is an attempt by the author to keep them from apostasy. I will point out to you as well, that I am not arguing for OSAS. That is not my contention with cardcaptor, but rather I am arguing against the silly notion that salvation is earned.

But let me point out, that Hebrews 6 does not make a very good passage to use against the OSAS doctrine. If this passage is used as an affirmation that salvation can be lost, then one would have to deal with the reality that is passage would indicate that salvation once lost cannot ever be attained again. It says that those who fall away cannot be renewed unto repentance. The writer says it is impossible to renew them unto repentance. The "falling away" mentioned here is more than simply losing one's salvation. The offense is far more grievious.

January 1, 2006

shiloh
This is what I meant by getting on the same page. I never said it is impossible for a Christian to turn his back on God. I am not talking about "free-will" issues. For the umpteenth time... I know Christians who have fallen into sin because of times of weakness and discouragement with God.

Wishing you a happy new year, brother. We are almost on the same page but not quite there yet. The question asked by the OP, to paraphrase,

January 1, 2006

Then please enlighten me to what you think a covenant is and the New Covenant differs from the Old Covenant.

The New Covenant is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant that God cut with Abraham in Genesis 15. This occurred 25 years before Abraham was circumcised and 430 years before the Torah/law was given at Sinai.

In Genesis 15, After Abraham questioned God about how He would know that God would keep His promise regarding an heir, God instructed Abraham to take a heifer, ram, goat, turtledove, and a pigeon and split each animal down the middle of the back. This allowed each half to fall opposite each other on the ground. The blood was taken and pooled between the halves.

This a common blood covenant practice in OT times in the days of Abraham. It was the most serious and deadly of all covenants because to break a blood covenant was to incur an immediate death penalty.

Ordinarily, the two people making covenant would walk together in the blood and declare the blessings and curses of the covenant.

In this case, though God put Abraham in a deep sleep. By way of a vision Abraham saw God Himself walking in the midst of the animal halves. Actually what Abraham saw was a flaming torch and a smoking oven. Abraham saw two things passing back and forth, or should I say he saw two people. I with others believe it was God the Father and the Son of God walking together between those halves.

Abraham did not walk between the halves. Abraham was not responsible for making the covenant come to pass. Only those who walked between the halves, (The Father and the Son) were responsible for bringing all that God spoke to pass. Abraham getting an heir, depended upon solely upon God not upon Abraham. God did not give Abraham a set of laws, and say, "If you do these things, I will bless you." God blessed Abraham and made a covenant of promise with Him which was independant of what Abraham did or did not do.

Ishmael and Isaac illustrate the difference between a work of the flesh and a product of the Spirit. Ishmael was a product of Abraham's flesh. Isaac was the son of promise. God waited until Abraham and Sarah could not have children naturally. God waited until it would be clear that Isaac was brought about by the hand of God. Only in this way could God get all of the glory. If God had given them a son in their younger years, it would not have been so clear that God was the source of the blessing. Sarah was both barren AND too old to have a child, so really you have a double miracle there.

Isaac was not product of Abraham's works. He was the product of Abraham's inability to do anything, forcing Him to totally rely on God, and thus making it totally a product of God's hand independent of Abraham.

Likewise the New Covenant is the fulfillment of Abrahamic Covenant. Just like the Abrahamic covenant was cut in the blood of clean animals, likewise the blood of this Covenant is cut in the pure, clean, sinless blood of Jesus. This Covenant is between the Father and Jesus. It is not between the Father and man.

The New Covenant is a better covenant. How does it differ from the Old Covenant??? It differs in that it has a better sacrifice, a better High Priest, and better blood. Notice that it does not do away with the need for a sacrifice, it just provides a better one. The New Covenant does not remove the need for obedience. It does not differ from the Old Covenant with regard to the Torah/law.

The law is the same, and will always stay the same. There is no such thing as a "new law." The same moral code laid down at Sinai is still applicable for us today. The law did not change in regards to its moral requirements, but what changed is the way it is administered. According to 2 Cor. 3 it is administered in the Newness of the Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. The New Covenant makes the Old Covenant obsolete because it not only has a better sacrificial system but it accounts for the inclusion of the Gentiles by faith without having to physically join the Jewish people.

Arthur Durnan · January 1, 2006

So the Prodigal Son was no longer the son of his father when he journeyed to the far country & fell into grievous sin? Hmm. This saved, then "re-lost," then "re-saved," then "re-lost" (without limit, mind you) philosophy tap-dances at 100-miles per hour! Yes, sir, so I, being "hid in Christ" become "re-lost," Jesus in Whom I'm hid in, becomes "lost" too, right? So, pray tell, WHAT were we saved from the "first time"? Certainly not hell because we're heading there again? Surely not the Great White Throne Judgment because that's now "back on the front burner" (excuse the pun). And, of course, we weren't saved from Satan the "first time we were saved" because he's now our "father" again!! O, what a despairing doctrine is this once-saved, then "re-lost", then "re-saved," then "re-lost" philosophy of hell!

John 10 is quite clear: "My sheep hear my voice and I give unto them temporal life many times over. And they shall never perish unless, of course, they happen to perish again and again and, alas & alack, again." Heaven help us all!

Thank You, Lord Jesus, for Your everlasting salvation purchased for us on Mt. Calvary!

http//arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

Arthur Durnan · January 1, 2006

Thanx for your personal version of this powerful biblical story. However you failed to answer my loving query. Was the Prodigal Son no longer his father's son when he was in the far country? Hmm. Excellent query indeed. And it will not curl up in the corner and stay curled.

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

January 1, 2006

Shiloh

You made this statment:

I simply reject cardcaptor's ignorant contention that we have to earn eternal life by our deeds.

I am not saying that, you are saying that I am saying that.

Maybe if I right this slower you will get it.

After .......salvation ......we ......are ......commanded ......to ......maintain ......good ......works, ......Our ......good ......works .....are ......nothing ......more ......than ......our ......obedience ......to ......the ......gospel ......of ......Christ. Without ......that ......obedience ......we ......will ......not ......see ......God ......(2 John 2:9).

Did you get it that time or do I have to write it slower?

Except that when you say we have to maintain our salvation with good works, that is the same thing as earning it, because in your world, salvation utlimately depends upon you, not upon God. Salvation is determined by what you do. No matter how you word it, it ultimately amounts to earning eternal life.

Again, when you use 2 John 1:9, you don't know what you are talking about. That is talking about those who reject the doctrine of Christ's divinity. It is not talking about sinning, but about rejecting the revelation of Christ's Deity. You need to learn how read the Bible.

Avodah · January 1, 2006

Thanx for your personal version of this powerful biblical story. However you failed to answer my loving query. Was the Prodigal Son no longer his father's son when he was in the far country? Hmm. Excellent query indeed. And it will not curl up in the corner and stay curled.

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

Whatever!!

I would be interested in your answer.

eric · January 2, 2006

Okay cardcaptor, let me try again to see if I can fathom where you are coming from.

I consider myself as a regenerated or born again as you can get and according to scripture, I am promised eternal life with God after I leave this planet. In other words I have received His salvation, I've been justified by His Spirit and have been filled with His Holy Spirit, my sins have been washed aaway by the blood of the sacrifice, I am a new creation and I'm heaven bound.

But according to you I have some works to perfom. Would you please tell me some of the works I have to perform in order for me to be redeemed when the Lord comes.......Thank you.

eric

Smalcald · January 2, 2006

But maybe you just think you are saved Eric? If you live a life of un-repented sin (I don't think you do I am just offering an example), you can consider yourself anything you want including saved. But the bible is clear that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and we have specific descriptions of what practicing those things consists of in Galatians and in Corinthians.

The danger of holding on to an idea of eternal security (the term does not appear in scripture), is that it may give people who do not have a true saving faith in Christ, an excuse to not repent, to not fully turn their lives over to Christ and believe. I worked with a guy once when I was in college, a major pothead and he smoked pot on the job and was involved with various women sexually, but he claimed to be a Christian. We were on break one day and I said you know you shouldn