Why Believe One can Lose Salvation??

Paul thought that the Christians He knew could fallaway from Grace, IF they left Christ teaching to be justified by another teaching.

Please don't think these people were NOT christians. If that were the case then Paul being in tune in spirit would not ignorantly address unbelievers.

He simply warns them. It's that simple.

Just a thought </font>[/QUOTE]Very true.

1. You can not "fall" from a position you never had.

2. There is no such thing as "loster" for sinful lost humanity. Nor is there "Lost but still in grace". The bible never speaks to the lost about "better more improved ways to be lost" and the danger of failing to remain in such glorious lost states.</font>[/QUOTE]Thus we are well advised to go back to those "perseverance" motivation texts in scripture and see for ourselves that they do not appeal to "the lost to remain in a good lost condition rather than a bad lost condition"

 

And keep in mind that they would be "persevering" unto something that would occur shortly, in their lifetimes!

 

While I don't believe the final "coming" of Christ and judgment occurred then, still, in order for those passges to make any sense, I have seen that we must understand the end of the Temple as what was promised for them shortly. That would be the only reason salvation seemed so unstable for them.
Else, if this is simply extended to all the rest of us, it greatly stretches the language used to them. If God wanted to convey shortly to any time period, that could have been made clear. In addition, none of the Church age would be any better off that the OC, if salvation would always be so uncertain, and based on the person's own actions.

 

Is it your position that while "they" had to persevere after the cross in the NT -- we do not?

 

Yes; as long as the institution of "the Law" was still there, apparently, the full benefit of salvation was secured when that was removed.
Remember, it says those who endure "shall be" saved. If you apply this to us, then nobody is presently saved, and the Armstrong position is right.

 

It was easy for O.T. saints to backslide because they were not indwelled by the Spirit of God as N.T. Christians experience the Holy Spirit.

Only Jewish kings, prophets and some artisians who worked on or in the Temple experienced the Holy Spirit.

Yes, the O.T. and N.T. saints had God's covenant blessings on their lives. They had the sacrifices and the Law to live up to--while we enjoy Jesus' atonement, baptism into Christ, unction, indwelling and Baptism into the Holy Spirit.

There is a vast difference in the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Jesus covenant--though He was behind and in both covenants of grace [Hebrews 8:6].

 

Continuing means just that--you're continuing in something you are already by God’s grace doing. We know if we continue in Christ we still have salvation since salvation is in HIM. Again, the NT is full of conditional commands/statements regarding our faith and salvation and our need to continue...

“ …the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand (present tense), by which you are also saved if you hold fast the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. (1 Cor 15:2)”

“ Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but towards you goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. (Romans 11:22)”

“ And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard. (Colossians 1:23)”

“For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end. (Hebrews 3:14)”

That's absurd--if you are following the Spirit's conviction you don't "haughtily presume" anything. In fact, if anyone can be scripturally charged with being haughty it's the OSAS folks—the ones who think once they are “grafted in” they can never be “cut off” from Christ…to which Paul replies: “because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches He may not spare you either.” (Romans 11:20-21).

Scripture also says:
"God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (James 4:6)
"Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up." (James 4:10)
"Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." (1 Corinthians 10:12)

True, and as we become aware of them we CONFESS and WE REPENT OF THEM.

Wrong we are saved from sin, not in sin. We're promised that we are being transformed into the image of Christ Himself. But for this to take place we have to be abiding in Him, not rebelling against Him.

Wrong. Repentance is ongoing, especially when the Spirit reveals areas in our life we need to repent of.

John wrote to Christians:
“Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place unless you repent.” (Rev 2:5)

“Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent.”(Rev 3:3)

I never said otherwise. Of course, we must abide in Christ to bear fruit, but if we don't abide in Christ we won't bear fruit.

However, how does one abide in Christ? Well, by keeping His commandments:
“Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him.” (1 John 3:24)

Also by partaking of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist:
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” (John 6:56)

Actually the two go hand in hand. We’re nourished by our communion with Christ in the Eucharist and are enabled by His grace given therein to keep His commands.

No. If that's the case Paul would be contradicting James:
“You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. (James 2:24)”

Also we're judged and given eternal life according to our works:
“God ‘who will render to each one according to his deeds’: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; and to those who are self-seeking and who do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil. (Romans 2:6-9)

It doesn’t say “fear for eternity” explicitly, but the context is regarding our saving faith and how we must continue in it or we too will be cut off.

The context of Romans 2:5 is the final judgment.

If they are cut off from Christ then they are cut off from salvation, whether it's before, during, or after AD 70.

So even if there's a "dual fulfillment" (of sorts) it doesn't mean you get to "have your cake and eat it too". God’s commands to “abide”, “hold fast”, “remain”, “stand firm”, “continue”, etc apply just as much after 70 AD as they do before.

Yet it's when we confess that we become cleansed. He’s not an Advocate for the unrepentant unless they do repent.

I do not advocate a "merit" based system at all. When we do our good works it’s not in the context of trying to “merit” or “earn” salvation as if God is obligated by our works to give us salvation. On the contrary, our attitude should be as that of the servants in Luke 17: “So likewise, when you have done all those things which you are commanded say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’” (Luke 17:10)

However, the wicked carnal servant will be cut in two and have his place assigned with that of the unbelievers. (Luke 12:46)

So though one is not saved by works, he is not saved without works either.

Christ did not abrogate the moral "law". Those who sow to the flesh will continue to reap destruction (Gal 6:8); this applies just as much after the advent of the New Covenant as it did before.
Listen to Paul (speaking to Christians): “If you live according to the sinful nature you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” (Romans 8:13)

CHRIST HIMSELF said: “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation.” (John 5:28-29)

You can’t spin this to apply to AD 70 or only to the “Old Covenant”. This occurs at the end at the final judgment.

(Psst--and neither John nor the author of Hebrews were preterists!)

You're mischaracterizing my position. Ultimately your beef is with the plain statements of Scripture mentioned above where the inspired writers of Scripture say that eternal security is conditional on our “standing”, “continuing”, “abiding”, “holding fast”, “enduring”, etc. God enables us to do all these things. If He didn’t, we couldn’t. However, He does, so we must.

I mean just what I say. It's not very difficult.

It's grace that teaches us not to sin—to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts while living soberly, righteously, and godly (Titus 2:11-12). It's not a "grace" that is a license to sin (Jude 4)

That's not true. You keep repeating the same straw man allegation that antinomians like to make. We're most certainly not doing everything. It's God who is working in us both to will and to do His good pleasure. We must however work out this salvation rather than neglect it, reject it, of forfeit it. It's only by submitting ourselves to Christ and abiding in Him that we changes us and we can bear fruit. Apart from Him we can do nothing. If we don't abide in Him we can't bear fruit, and any branch in Him that doesn't bear fruit He casts out as a branch to be burned.

The whole attempt to relegate the conditional and warning passages to before some magical cut-off time such as 70 AD--a position unheard of in the Church until apparently very recently --shows how bankrupt the OSAS/antinomian position really is Scripturally. Christians--Jews and Gentiles--faced severe persecutions even after 70 AD and the temptation was always there to fall away. There was nothing magically different about Nero's persecution than to, say, Domitian's (when John wrote Revelation) or Diocletian's or any in between (or any afterwards for that matter), and salvation was no more or less "stable" after AD 70 than before. There was no indication that those suffering under Domitian's persecution (or any subsequent ones) thought: "Pshew! At least we're living after the Temple's Destruction so if we fall away in this persecution we're still 'saved', praise Jesus!"

 

I'm familiar with the "three aspects of salvation" (though I've never heard them numbered as "1, 1.5, 2", before). Noone is saying there is no perseverance. Still, there is no constant threat of ultimate condemnation (Rom.8:1, and keep in mind "walk after the flesh" is not just "living in [any kind of] sin", but rather trusting in one's own physical inheritance and the Law following context). If you all's interpretation of such passages is correct, nobody is saved now. You are the ones who apply this to both 1.5 and 2 combined!

Of course there was grace then. There was nothing but grace in that God didn't wipe us out as soon as we fell. But the final revelation of grace was made in the New Covenant, and it is far more than what they had then.

I don't judge God's treatment at all. He was working out a plan, and the whole OT was basically a lesson for us, that trying to control sin through Law and fear of judgment is not what makes man righteous, though some were righteous under that system.

I don't get what you're saying. Lack of grace for those who obeyed? Once again, there was grace, but it was not as extensive as it is today. Do you believe Christ did anything for us, other than replacing bloody sacrifices? If so, that is God's grace. They did not have this much grace in the OC, even though they had other forms of grace. Still; Christ is more than just a rehashing of the OC.

He didn't say the Spirit "made" anyone do anything. Still, most people back then did not have the Spirit, but lived by the letter of the Law (and some today try to continue that method).

How is that?
What is more arrogant is to think that everything is the same as it was under the Law, and to observe that they could not keep the Law back then, but "we today are doing such a better job because we have Christ".

[ March 06, 2006, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

And it's conditional because the end of "the age" was not fulfilled yet. Otherwise, we today are no better off that those in the OT.

All of these scriptures are contradictory if you don't take the pending end of that age into consideration. The word "justification", just as we use it today, does not refer exclusively to salvation! Any act we do we can be "justified" in or not justified, and it has nothing to do with our standing before God. Paul is the one dealing with salvation. James is not talking about salvation, for Abraham and Rahab were not saved BECAUSE OF their acts! Their acts "justified" them in that they are now looked upon as "faithful" saints, depsite their sins. "justification" unto salvation could ONLY have been through Christ; not their works in addition to Christ. James is writing to Jewish Christians, who generally still have problems trusting in the letter of the Law, yet are lacking in certain works, which they probably thought uneccesary; not realizing that "having respect of persons" due to class (the sole context of the chapter) is just as much sin, that violates the spirit of the Law. Notice, that he speaks of "keeping the whole Law and offending in one point" (v.10,11). These are people trusting in "the works of the Law", but thinking "faith" alone THEN excuses them from areas in which they fail. That actually is closer to what you and others seem to be saying!But what James is really, ultimately saying here is what Paul told the Galatians: "For as many as are under the works of the Law are under a curse: for it is written 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things wich are written in the book of the Law'"(3:10)"...a debtor to do the whole Law! Christ is of no effect unto you whoseover are justified by the Law, for you are fallen from grace!"(5:3,4). This is what I call "the Great Irony": the legalists end up as the lawless!

Once again, if your interpretation is right, then one still wonders what the big difference with the OT was. Yeah, we have Christ, but according to Tazman, it is arrogant to say we have His Spirit and they didn't. To be consistent on your side, there is no difference. But the fact that the covenants overlapped explains it all. Remember, all of these people in the NT were the firstfruits. They were given more (as they saw Christ, or His apostles and their supernatural works) , and more was expected from then, and in the end, they are the first in the resurrection.

That assumes there is no dual fulfillment of "the day of wrath". The destruction of Jerusalem was a preliminary day of wrath for them. That was the event they were all "persevering" unto, not something yet in our future.

Since something was promised to happen in that generation, and I have learned of the possibility of a prelimilary rapture of the saints living at the time, that year, plus perhaps even some kind of appearance of Christ (Josephus has even been cited on this), then that would explain the time statements, as well as the perseverance statements.
Who has done "good" and who has done "evil"? Where is the line? It is either perfection, or we are evil. Or, we are declared righteous. (As for your class of people "falling out of Christ"; I'll address that last).

The word "preterist" is based on OUR perspective. It wasn't "past" to them (and this theory suggests the John wrote before that date, even if he may have lived afterwards).

Don't blame OSAS, and nobody here is advocating antinomianism! I am relaying something I have recently learned about, and one of the pressing questions that remains is why it was unheard of throughout Church history. One thing that has been suggested is that when the saints were raptured, the Church was then repopulated by those "left behind" [The ORIGINAL precursors to the ones modern novels deal with ]. This would also explain the subsequent Church's strange practices and doctrines that were unheard of in the NT writings (and which you must attribute to some "secret oral tradition"), and how the institution quickly then rose up to become a corrupt worldly power that itself became the new persecuting "Babylon".
I know these theories are far fetched, but on all counts, they seem to explain so much, and I think we should look into them for some of these answers which have eluded us for so long. Once again, for eternal security to be so constantly debated from the same scriptures, we all must be missing something; or perhaps "come clean" and confess to the world that the Bible contradicts itself. (Everyone has come to that conclusion regardless from watching all of this!) These theories sound to me like a much better alternative than that.

And one thing we all have either missed altogether, or greatly underestimated was the persecution waged by the Temple institution! This is proven by all the warnings about being put out of synagoges and stuff like that. The synagogues for one thing had immunity from emperor worship. when they threw Christians out, they were they subject to emperor worship, and HERE is where they now came under persecution fromt he Roman authorities. So in effect, the Romans did Jerusalem's bidding in persecuting the Christians, hence she was the typical "woman who rode the beast", and the immunity and resultant protection that could only be gained by renouncing Christ was therefore the preliminary "mark of the beast". All of this stuff may have future antetypical fulfillments, but we see thet Jerusalem did fulfill much of it at least in a typical fashion.
After the Temple system fell, persecutions by the Romans continued, but the one thing they had the earlier ones didn't is that the "persevering unto salvation' was over, and they now had eternal security. So those Romans could take their lives, but nobody could now take their souls (as the corrupt OC institution in effect could).

 

Right. You never know if you are making it, and if you say "You know you are saved if you keep following, etc. then that is presuming that you are really following (remember; God's standard for works is PERFECTION, not "just do the best you can").

So to use these verses here suggest that "grace" is something EARNed. But there are many instances of God's grace. "By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man boast"(Eph.2:8,9) is not the same thing as the "grace" given to someone in response to their being humble. One is saving grace. The other is not. A person is not saved for being humble!

Does that include every single sin you ever committed but hadn't "repented of" yet?
And are you sure you are doing this PERFECTLY? If you struggle with a sin, are you denied salvation until you get over it, (or are you pardoned for "trying hard"? Just where is "the line"?) These are the questions that works righteousness always brings up, and as much as you chide "OSAS antinomianism, your brand of churches seem to be the worst havens of that type of "get away with as much as one can and then repent" mindset. You still are falling into the trap people fell into under thew Law-- thinking that scaring people straight is how to save them.

That's a nice moral sounding cliché that is totally unbiblical. We start off IN sin, and then are saved OUT of that state. We don't get ourselves out of sin (either the acts or the state) first and then are saved. If that's your definition of "from", then once again, it is us who save ourselves, with God only giving instructions.

This is an entire church body He is speaking to, not an individual's salvation. Read the symbolism of what a lampstand is.

Then basically, everyone is in and out of Christ every single day. I guess you could call it "revolving door salvation".

And just about all of us would agree with that.

Still, where is the line between one and the other f this is describing all people for all time? None of us do everythign we are supposed to do. Remember, God's standard is perfection.

But if we're judged by Law again (i.e. graded on those things) then we are right back to where the people were before Christ. We are given instructions to do something we do not do perfectly. And I guess a [physcally]bloodless "repentance" now replaces the sacrifices, but otherwise, we are in and out of "grace" daily, and it all hinges on where we happen to land when we die; I guess. Right?

But according to you, "abiding" IS "bearing the fruit". So just do works, and it is really God who did it. But then we are right back to if we don't do the works, I guess it is because God decided not to do them? You say it is just "our choice", but then that means salvation starts and rest squarely with us. Or the secular line "God helps those who helps themselves". God can take credit for everything in the universe. Still, we are shown all through the Bible man's inability to justify himself (unto salvation) by his works.

And this just goes to show that the "partaking of His flesh" is spiritual, and not a ritual of eating bread and wine supposedly changed into Him physically. Many people go through the motions of that ritual, but are not following Christ. This is why it is ultimately not of works. Your system while quoting all these scriptures on works and falling away, inadvertantly leads to the real antinomianism. Everyone knows they can not consistently do all the works, so they are the ones who give up and count on death bed "repentance".

(And are you?)

At this point, we need to address all of these people today you keep hypothesizing on, who are "falling away".
How many devout Spirit led christians do we see up and one day decide "OK; I'm tired of this stuff; I renounce Christ and believe in atheism or some other religion now"?
Many in the past were "devout" in the sence of being raised in churches, and knew all the doctrine, and went a long with the practice, and all, and then saw some hypocrisy, or other corruption, or they just felt like sowing wild oats, and felt the Church was suppressing this, and then "rebelled" and "went int ot he world". With all the talk from many conservatives of how Christian the nation was up until a couple of generations ago, much of the people in our parents' generation fit this bill. Both of my parents have this "reverse testimony". (one being "devout", but then being silenced when asking questions, and turned off by all the racism, etc. and the other just "going along with it" to please parents until coming of age, and then leaving it behind.
But these are not people who were "in Christ". They were nominals, and from listenng to many of them; they did not understand Christ and the Gospel at all. Much of the old-time Church was a purely cultural institution, and childred were forced to go, and taught all the basics in Sumday School, etc. all under the premise that "the good" go to Church. That was not being "in Christ". It was as I have said; precisely a works-based system, devoid of the Spirit (they spoke of the "spirit; but you cannot be yielding to the Spirit when trying to work your way to eternal life in your "flesh". That once again is the real meaning of "flesh", not just what you call "living in sin".
Of course, the conversation keeps swinging back to "those who rebel", and deliberately "walk away", as a hypothetical situation in which "surely", salvation must be revoked then! But what you're really trying to push is this daily in and out of salvation for every sin idea, where you helplessly "fall out" not necessarily for deliberately turning away, but for not doing enough. Sorry, but once again, if you want to teach that, then noone will be saved.

 

Oh, how could I forget?

Freudian slip?

 

Doubting Thomas,

As for the "haughty spirit" remarks, I think you are right on the money about that.

Jesus told the people that they needed to "continue" in His word and then they'd truly be His disciples, but they said "We be Abraham's seed"

In other words they viewed themselves as being the favorites of Heaven who couldnt be lost no matter what they did.


Talk about a haughty spirit!


John 8:
31: Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33: They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34: Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35: And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36: If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.


In my opinion, the Once Saved Always Saved bunch posess this same haughty spirit but do not realize it. They just think that they have some sort of a "automatic pass" to heaven no matter what they do.


Claudia

 

We be Abraham's Seed!


We have a sure place in Heaven no matter what we do!


We are the chosen ones!


...things never change, do they?

 

I am of Christ. I have accepted His blood sacrifice on Calvary's cross for the payment for my sin.

I am eternally secure because of my love for Christ. He has sealed me eternally with His Holy Spirit. I cannot lose my salvation.

It is those who claim they can lose their salvation who do not believe in the redemptive power of the sacrificial blood of the Lamb.

Exodus 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

Our God has given us the promise that His wrath will not be upon those who have placed their faith in His Son, because they through believing are passed from death unto life.

Praise His Holy Name!

 

Even Hymenaeus and Philetus it is said that they '...erred concerning the truth' not that their salvation was ended or deleted by Jesus. [II Timothy 2:17-21].

They had caused confusion in the church not only in their own beliefs but that also of some other true believers in Christ. They, of course, believed that the resurrection from the dead had taken place already; this was a mistake.

What does the Lord say? 'Nevertheless, the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, The Lord knows those who are His. And in verse 20 the Word says that in God's Kingdom their are people who have characters of 'gold' while others in their Christian life offer only something of the value of wood and of clay, as to their devotion and 'good works' done in the Name of the Lord.

We see this in our days; it is sad but it is true. This gives some preachers on T.V. some hope as to the after life. Yes, they love Jesus and preach the best they know, and yet they do not always get everything right.

The Lord is God of mercy as Paul declares in II Timothy 1:15-18. He is merciful toward those who have faultered in their faith.

I do not think any of us always run in 'top form' before the eyes of our enthroned Lord and God.