Freewill and OSAS

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: Remember, faith is not a work. If it were would have something to boast about. It is a wonderful gift from God that all we need to do is believe!

HP: Here you try and separate faith from belief. Explain to us the difference. How can you be certain that belief is not a gift from God just as you say faith is? Do we have to exercise our wills by the formation of an intent in order to believe? Is belief something we do or is it the mere coerced results of a gift from God?

 

[trustitl]

HP: Here you try and separate faith from belief. Explain to us the difference. How can you be certain that belief is not a gift from God just as you say faith is? Do we have to exercise our wills by the formation of an intent in order to believe? Is belief something we do or is it the mere coerced results of a gift from God?

Read my quote again. You misquoted me. I did not say faith is a gift nor did I separate it from belief.

Here it is:
It is a wonderful gift from God that all we need to do is believe!

Eph. 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I say grace is the it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: Remember, faith is not a work. If it were would have something to boast about. It is a wonderful gift from God that all we need to do is believe!

HP: How did I misquote you when I quoted you verbatim? In this statement you say that all we need to do is believe. You speak of faith, not grace, in this quote. It is a bit silly for you to attempt to sidestep the issue with such fancy footwork. The object of your quote is faith, not grace. If it is grace you are addressing, it is news to the reader. Are you now denying that faith is a gift from God?

When one has faith, is it a gift from God that simply coerces the will, or is the will active in forming an intent to believe? You say all we need to do is believe. What is the difference or distinction between belief and faith as you see it?

 

[gekko]

oh man. 9 pages already!

hey HP - sorry i didn't respond to your post way back on the first page right aways.. i'm busy all the time. heh. but now i have time.

OSAS does not simply state one ‘will not,’ or that one does not desire to, but that ‘one cannot’ make shipwreck of the faith. According to OSAS it is impossible for one to make shipwreck of the faith. Holding to OSAS it cannot affect ones eternal salvation regardless of anything one thinks or acts upon. Is that your position? If so, it is impossible for the will to be free, would you not agree?

"according to OSAS it is impossible for one to make a shipwreck of the faith"
i don't believe in OSAS in that definition or sense of the doctrine.
i don't believe it's impossible to make a "shipwreck of the faith" - but i do believe that it's not very probable if one is genuinly saved.

Webdog: To me, comparing the will of man to the justification by God is apples and oranges. My mother and father had the free will to have sex or not, but they had no free will in the result of what came from that, my birth.

well... they had no free will in the result of what came from that.. as in Life.
they had free will to choose if you were to be born or not though.
-just sayin is all.

 

[trustitl]

HP: How did I misquote you when I quoted you verbatim? In this statement you say that all we need to do is believe. You speak of faith, not grace, in this quote. It is a bit silly for you to attempt to sidestep the issue with such fancy footwork. The object of your quote is faith, not grace. If it is grace you are addressing, it is news to the reader. Are you now denying that faith is a gift from God?

When one has faith, is it a gift from God that simply coerces the will, or is the will active in forming an intent to believe? You say all we need to do is believe. What is the difference or distinction between belief and faith as you see it?

You cut and pasted my quote and then went on to say what I meant according to your concern that some(or sadly, most) teach that we have no free will in matters of salvation.


Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: Here you try and separate faith from belief. Explain to us the difference. How can you be certain that belief is not a gift from God just as you say faith is? Do we have to exercise our wills by the formation of an intent in order to believe? Is belief something we do or is it the mere coerced results of a gift from God?

No where did I say that faith is or is not a gift from God. I said "It is a wonderful gift from God that all we need to do is believe!" I will repeat it and put in bold the main point: "all we need to do is believe".

For some reason you won't accept that I said believe is something we DO. You first say that my quote made it clear that all we need to DO is believe and then go on to ask if I think belief is something we need to DO.

If you would like to talk about faith and belief we could do that. Just ask. As I look back at my words it appears that I say faith and belief are the same. If you want you can point out how some believed and were not saved to force a new issue. My main point on this was trying to address the issue of free will.

1. We have a free will in regards to salvation.
2. Our salvation is by grace through faith.
3. A person can believe that Jesus is the savior and not be saved.
4. God does not force coerce us into faith. He draws us. I say grace is irresistible in the same way a chocolate dessert is. It is irresistible, but I can still resist it:smilewinkgrin: .
................................................................................
"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: I will repeat it and put in bold the main point: "all we need to do is believe".

HP: The whole reason I am responding to your post is due to this remark.

TrustitL: Remember, faith is not a work. If it were would have something to boast about. It is a wonderful gift from God that all we need to do is believe!

HP: I am trying to get to the bottom of why you see faith as not a work, saying that “if it was we would have something to boast about,” yet you obviously see belief as something we “do” as you emphasis by placing in bold letters. If it something we “do” is it a work or not? Possibly you could define what constitutes a work to help shed light upon the matter. I see anything that involves an act of the will as a work in some sense. I see faith and or belief as something we must exercise with our own wills as opposed to God coercing us into either of them. What makes them NOT a work is 'in the sense of' something done 'for the sake of' salvation, or that they are done as 'the grounds of' salvation. Nothing we do is a work in that sense, yet both faith and belief are indeed works in the sense of 'not without which.' They are both formed by intents of the will and God calls upon man to ‘do’ them in order to be saved. Man is NOT passive in faith or belief as many would indicate by trying to separate faith and belief from a ‘work’ in a sense of something man must 'do.'

I see your remarks as trying to divorce mans will from the process of faith, saying that if faith was a work man would have something to boast about, while engaging or involving mans will on the other hand through ‘belief’ and somehow not seeing belief as a work. It appears to me that you say if mans will is involved in faith it constitutes a work, but if man mans will is involved in belief it is not a work, while claiming that faith and belief are basically one in the same. (“TrustitL: As I look back at my words it appears that I say faith and belief are the same.” ) that you are confusing the listener as to the part mans will MUST play in faith and belief.

A ‘work’ is nothing more or less than something we do and that our wills are active in doing. A work can be thought of in two senses, ‘that for the sake of’ and ‘not without which.’ Faith and belief are indeed works in one sense and yet are not works in the other sense. Faith and belief are indeed works that man must do in order to be saved, yet they are not works ‘in the sense of’ ‘that for the sake of,’ nor are they the grounds of our salvation. Our involvement in faith and belief, as they affect salvation, are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’ We are NOT saved for the sake of faith or belief, but neither will we be saved apart from our wills involvement of faith and belief. Faith and belief are separated from the works ONLY IF the sense being spoken of is speaking of the grounds of our salvation. Certainly our faith and belief are NOT the grounds of our salvation, but that does not negate the fact they are works in another sense and that indeed our wills are active in the formation of faith and belief, ‘without which’ salvation will not be the end result.

TryustitL: For some reason you won't accept that I said believe is something we DO.

HP: I clearly understand and accept your statement, but I see your remarks as inconsistent when you imply faith and belief are one in the same, yet if we believe that faith is a work(something we must do) we are of necessity claming we have something to boast about, yet our wills can be active in belief(which you imply is basically the same as faith) yet no boasting is necessitated. If faith and belief are basically the same, and ‘doing’ something constitutes salvation by works and the right to boast, one could not be required to do either. You try to have us necessitated to ‘do’ one (belief) yet not the other (faith). Again, I see that as simply inconsistent and confusing.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Gekko: "according to OSAS it is impossible for one to make a shipwreck of the faith"
i don't believe in OSAS in that definition or sense of the doctrine.
i don't believe it's impossible to make a "shipwreck of the faith" - but i do believe that it's not very probable if one is genuinly saved.

HP: I like your statement Gekko! :thumbs: It is when we start eliminating ‘possibilities’ that our theology so often runs amuck.

 

[BobRyan]

do not see it that way. If OSAS is correct, than free will does not exist after a person is saved.

WebDog said -
This is not a logical conclusion. I can have the free will to drink poison or not, but the consequences that result is not "free", nor does it undermine the free will to drink the poison in the first place.

Quote:

From my research the first person to espouse the idea of "once saved, always saved" was John Calvin in the mid-sixteenth century.

WebDog said --
You need to go back a little further...to when Jesus was alive

When Jesus was alive - he spoke to "Forgiveness revoked" Matt 18
When Jesus was alive - he spoke to "Branches IN ME that are REMOVED and cast into the fire" John 15.

When Jesus was alive - he spoke to "Ground that springs TO LIFE and then dies" in Matt 13 -- parable of the sower.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[trustitl]

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I see faith in the same way I see conduit. When an electrician is putting in wire he puts up conduit to run his wire through. Conduit is merely a vessel for the wire, and hence the power, that run through. The conduit is of no value by itself. Only when something of value is placed inside it does it "do" anything.

Faith is not a work. In a theological sense, it is the epitomy of not working. A person will only come to God in faith when he realizes he can do no work to save himself. My faith is of no value. I am sitting in a chair as I type. I sat down in it by faith. However, if the chair broke my faith in the chair would not hold me up. My faith doesn't work on its own. Kamikazes and muslim terrorists flew planes into ships and buildings having faith they would be rewarded. However, they think they are going to be rewarded for their deeds while the Bible says I am going to be rewarded for my faith. Not because it is of value, but because God says it is. He calls it righteousness.

Romans 2:2-5
"if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Websters 1828

WORK, v.i.
6. To produce by action, labor or exertion.7. To operate; to produce effects by action or influence.

My works are incapable of producing righteousness necesary for my salvation. My merciful God knows that and has declared that my faith is him will be counted for righteousness.

So, we "do" faith, but it is not a work that produces anything that can save me. My faith will produce works of righteousness, but not "enough" to save me. In fact, the works produced by my faith will justify me in the sense that James talks about. It will "prove" that I am saved.

Websters 1828
JUST'IFY, v.t. [L. justus, just,and facio, to make.]
1. To prove or show to be just, or conformable to law, right, justice, propriety or duty

NOT WHAT MY HANDS HAVE DONE
Not what my hands have done can save my guilty soul;
Not what my toiling flesh has borne can make my spirit whole.
Not what I feel or do can give me peace with God;
Not all my prayers and sighs and tears can bear my awful load.

Your voice alone, O Lord, can speak to me of grace;
Your power alone, O Son of God, can all my sin erase.
No other work but Yours, no other blood will do;
No strength but that which is divine can bear me safely through.

You said "You try to have us necessitated to ‘do’ one (belief) yet not the other (faith). Again, I see that as simply inconsistent and confusing."

I am not sure I have answered this charge but I have tried. I have never really tried to address the belief verses faith issue. For this discussion, I think it is best to look at them as the same (For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: I am not sure I have answered this charge but I have tried. I have never really tried to address the belief verses faith issue. For this discussion, I think it is best to look at them as the same (For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness).

HP: You should know that I sincerely appreciate your responses. You have MUCH to offer.:thumbs:

Your post gives me much fodder to consider. I agree with most of what you present. Take for instance the sentence in the quote you offer. “No other work but Yours, no other blood will do;” I agree with this 100% IF one is speaking to the grounds of salvation, which I believe the author is speaking about. Just the same, there are acts of the will that are required for salvation, although NOT thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ ;repentance, faith and or belief, and obedience until the end. We are NOT saved by any of these things, but neither will we be saved ‘apart from’ 'doing' these things. They are NOT the grounds of salvation, and are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ NOT ‘that for the sake of.’

Not to be condescending or anything like that, but just asking, does this distinction make any sense to you? Can you see how that we indeed have to ‘do’ some things to be saved, yet our salvation is NOT based upon, nor are they the grounds of, our salvation? Can you see how even faith is seen, in a sense, as something our wills must do, something our wills must formulate by the forming of an intent, and 'in that sense' a work we must do in order to be saved? Bear in mind that ALL works men are required to do are NOT, I repeat, NOT meritorious in nature, and again are thought of only in the sense of ‘not without which’ and NOT ‘that for the sake of.’

Have you read the prisoner illustration that I have given concerning a pardon? If so, does it help to set forth the distinction I am trying to make in that works can be thought of in two senses?

 

[Amy.G]

When Jesus was alive - he spoke to "Forgiveness revoked" Matt 18

There is no such thing as "forgiveness revoked".
The unforgiving man in Matthew 18 was punished, not executed. God will also punish you and I until we repent.

When Jesus was alive - he spoke to "Branches IN ME that are REMOVED and cast into the fire" John 15.

I could not find a verse that said this.
Here is what the Bible says:

Jhn 15:6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw [them] into the fire, and they are burned

These are people who have never had eternal life in Christ. They do not abide in Christ. It does not say that they stopped adiding.

When Jesus was alive - he spoke to "Ground that springs TO LIFE and then dies" in Matt 13 -- parable of the sower.

in Christ,

Bob

"Springs to life" is not found in this parable.

The scripture says:
Mat 13:5 "Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth.
Mat 13:6 "But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away.

The only seed that took root and grew and produced fruit was the seed that fell on good ground, or the prepared heart of the believer.


I was reading Esther last night and lo and behold, the illustration of the "sealing" of the King was right there.

Est 8:8 "You yourselves write a decree concerning the Jews, as you please, in the king's name, and seal it with the king's signet ring; for whatever is written in the king's name and sealed with the king's signet ring no one can revoke."

This is also the case of Daniel being thrown into the furnace because of the King's decree, which could not be revoked.


We are sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. It cannot be revoked.

It couldn't be any simpler.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

AMY: This is also the case of Daniel being thrown into the furnace because of the King's decree, which could not be revoked.

HP: I am reminded of the case of circumcision which has been stated as well to be irrevocable. We can see clearly that any effects of circumcision are made of no affect due to disobedience. In the case of Daniel it is true that the decree itself was not revoked, but as I recall the effects of that decree were indeed revoked by God. Such is the case with salvation. Nothing can change the fact of what has been forgiven, but newly acquired sin, apart from renewed repentance, sets in motion consequences which annul the effects of ones initial pardon from sin. The same is said for one that receives a pardon and then returns to a life of crime. The effects of ones original pardon are made of no effect due to subsequent transgressions. Nothing can disannul the original pardon, but future acts can indeed eliminate all good effects once obtained. Such is the case of the believer, who having been pardoned for sins that are past, returns to his selfish ways once again. In doing so he incurs the wrath and penalty of the law apart from renewed repentance and forsaking of all sin.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: I am reminded of the case of circumcision which has been stated as well to be irrevocable. We can see clearly that any effects of circumcision are made of no affect due to disobedience. In the case of Daniel it is true that the decree itself was not revoked, but as I recall the effects of that decree were indeed revoked by God. Such is the case with salvation. Nothing can change the fact of what has been forgiven, but newly acquired sin, apart from renewed repentance, sets in motion consequences which annul the effects of ones initial pardon from sin. The same is said for one that receives a pardon and then returns to a life of crime. The effects of ones original pardon are made of no effect due to subsequent transgressions. Nothing can disannul the original pardon, but future acts can indeed eliminate all good effects once obtained. Such is the case of the believer, who having been pardoned for sins that are past, returns to his selfish ways once again. In doing so he incurs the wrath and penalty of the law apart from renewed repentance and forsaking of all sin.

Do you believe that once someone is saved that they never sin again? Because that is where you are headed. We are saved once for all eternity, in the spirit, but we will still sin in the flesh. The flesh has yet to be redeemed.

And where is your scriptural support for what you have just posted?

I have given you scripture and proved to you that God does not revoke His promises. It seems you are determined to remain in your belief that you are the sole reason you stay saved. The scripture is plain. We have been sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. You're saved and then you're redeemed. Period. Do you believe the word of God? Why are you trying to make the plain meaning of scripture say something it doesn't say?

In the case of Daniel, there was nothing that was revoked. The decree was for Daniel to be thrown into the furnace. That was it. What happened to Daniel afterwards was never in the hands of the King. It was in the hand of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Do you believe that once someone is saved that they never sin again? Because that is where you are headed.

HP: Absolutely not. That is not what I believe, it is not what Scripture states, nor is it where I am headed.

Amy: We are saved once for all eternity, in the spirit, but we will still sin in the flesh. The flesh has yet to be redeemed.

HP: God has stated conditions to be fulfilled, and continued in, in order for us to see our final redemption. The flesh will not be redeemed, it must and will have to be changed. This flesh and blood will see nothing but corruption. From dust it was formed and to dust it will return.

Amy: And where is your scriptural support for what you have just posted?

HP: The litany of Scriptural evidence has been posted more times than I can count. BR has led the charge with his numerous passages that show froth forgiveness revoked, yet to no avail with those that desire to believe otherwise. Warning after warning is given to the believers about remaining firm to the end and as to the certain punishment for sins not repented of, yet those have well have fallen dead on the ears of those believing to the contrary.

If you were new to the list, or honestly had never been exposed to the multitude of passages, I would be very inclined to go over them with you. Such is not the case. Search the Scriptures for yourself. Lay your faith in whatever you so desire. Write off the warnings as if though they are all for someone besides yourself if that is your desire. It is to God and not I that we all will answer. Just remember, it is your very soul at stake. Error on the side of caution is my advice to you.

Amy: I have given you scripture and proved to you that God does not revoke His promises.

HP: The problem seems to be that you have a predisposition that all promises of God are unconditional. Such is simply not the case. Even in the OT we find God stating that certain things would happen, such as Nineveh being destroyed, yet upon sincere repentance God stayed His hand and revoked His promise. Often Scripture uses the little word ‘if’ to state a promise. Do a word search on the many times promises are conditioned with an ‘if’ and or a stated condition.

Amy: It seems you are determined to remain in your belief that you are the sole reason you stay saved. The scripture is plain. We have been sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. You're saved and then you're redeemed. Period. Do you believe the word of God? Why are you trying to make the plain meaning of scripture say something it doesn't say?

HP: Show me one time I have ever indicated or stated that we are the sole reason we stay saved. What are you speaking about? Without God we cannot and will not do nothing in accordance to benevolence. I am waiting for the reference you speak about.

Amy: In the case of Daniel, there was nothing that was revoked. The decree was for Daniel to be thrown into the furnace. That was it. What happened to Daniel afterwards was never in the hands of the King. It was in the hand of God.

HP: To what end was the decree of the King? To walk around and rejoice and praise the Most High God in the fire? I think not. The decree was the death sentence…….and it was indeed revoked by God. If God can revoke one decree, and can alter even His own decrees, and does in fact promise us our eternal salvation conditionally upon our repentance, faith and obedience to the end, we all would do well to take heed that while thinking we stand, fall and perish. Does the Holy Spirit testify to your mind of the passage that would indicate such a warning?

 

[trustitl]

HP: You should know that I sincerely appreciate your responses. You have MUCH to offer.:thumbs:

Your post gives me much fodder to consider.

Websters 1828
FOD'DER, n.
1. Food or dry food for cattle, horses and sheep, as hay, straw and other kinds of vegetables. The word is never applied to pasture.

Sound like wood, hay and stubble to me , but I'll take it as a compliment. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Your post gives me much fodder to consider.

TrustitL: Sound like wood, hay and stubble to me , but I'll take it as a compliment.

HP: I am revoking the word ‘fodder.’ It was a compliment. I now simply say, “your posts give me much to consider.”

 

[trustitl]

Not to be condescending or anything like that, but just asking, does this distinction make any sense to you? Can you see how that we indeed have to ‘do’ some things to be saved, yet our salvation is NOT based upon, nor are they the grounds of, our salvation? Can you see how even faith is seen, in a sense, as something our wills must do, something our wills must formulate by the forming of an intent, and 'in that sense' a work we must do in order to be saved? Bear in mind that ALL works men are required to do are NOT, I repeat, NOT meritorious in nature, and again are thought of only in the sense of ‘not without which’ and NOT ‘that for the sake of.’

I have no problem saying we need to do domething to be saved. The bible gives us many conditions or things to do: repent, believe, have faith, hold fast,... I think people are afraid of saying we need to do something because they don't want to be accused of believing that works are necessary for salvation. It is one of the most dangerous parts of the false teachings of Calvinism.

Have you read the prisoner illustration that I have given concerning a pardon? If so, does it help to set forth the distinction I am trying to make in that works can be thought of in two senses?

I haven't. If there is a post you could refer me to I would gladly read it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

This illustration I believe establishes the distinction between the two senses of the word 'works.'

HP:
A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. You cannot then consider any intents or actions as the grounds of his pardon, not could you say that he in any way could ‘merit’ a pardon. IF he is granted a pardon it cannot be said that in any sense his pardon was ‘for the sake of’ anything the prisoner had done or could do.

Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just. . If the prisoner is to receive a pardon it still can be said that there must be attitudes that are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word being something the prisoner must do. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal. Here we see that the intents and actions of the prisoner indeed do play a part in a pardon, though again, not in the sense of 'that for the sake of.' The sense that the intents and works of the prisoner are involved in a pardon can only be seen in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.' Nothing the prisoner can or will do can merit a pardon, but just the same neither will he receive a pardon without repentance and an assurance of future behavior is garnered.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are again, in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on the account of any or all of their works. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’) in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such I believe is the case in our salvation. We indeed will be judged by our works, but our works are not the grounds of our salvation. There is no amount of works that can coerce God into granting us a pardon, but just the same no man will be found in Him without works consistent with their faith. Nothing we do is meritorious, nor can anything we do be seen of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ our salvation. Nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for a single sin. Just the same, God does command us to repent and be obedient to the end, bearing fruits of righteousness and holiness, ‘without which’ no man shall see the Lord.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Absolutely not. That is not what I believe, it is not what Scripture states, nor is it where I am headed.

HP: The effects of ones original pardon are made of no effect due to subsequent transgressions.

If this is so, then you must be saved over and over and over again.

HP: God has stated conditions to be fulfilled, and continued in, in order for us to see our final redemption.

What are the conditions God requires for us to keep our salvation? Scripture?

HP: The litany of Scriptural evidence has been posted more times than I can count. BR has led the charge with his numerous passages that show froth forgiveness revoked, yet to no avail with those that desire to believe otherwise.

BR has made up the term "forgiveness revoked". There is no such thing. I refer you back to the post I made to him regarding Matt. 18

HP: The problem seems to be that you have a predisposition that all promises of God are unconditional.

Yes. There is a condition. We must have faith. Saved by grace through faith.

HP: Show me one time I have ever indicated or stated that we are the sole reason we stay saved. What are you speaking about? Without God we cannot and will not do nothing in accordance to benevolence. I am waiting for the reference you speak about.

You imply that constant repenting and adhering to the so called warnings will keep you saved. That is a doctrine of works.

HP: To what end was the decree of the King? To walk around and rejoice and praise the Most High God in the fire? I think not. The decree was the death sentence…….and it was indeed revoked by God. If God can revoke one decree, and can alter even His own decrees, and does in fact promise us our eternal salvation conditionally upon our repentance, faith and obedience to the end, we all would do well to take heed that while thinking we stand, fall and perish. Does the Holy Spirit testify to your mind of the passage that would indicate such a warning?

The decree was carried out. But God did not decree for Daniel to go into the fire. Therefore, He didn't revoke anything.

There are no warnings from God that say we will ever lose our salvation which was once and eternally secured by Christ and His work.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: I have no problem saying we need to do something to be saved. The bible gives us many conditions or things to do: repent, believe, have faith, hold fast,... I think people are afraid of saying we need to do something because they don't want to be accused of believing that works are necessary for salvation. It is one of the most dangerous parts of the false teachings of Calvinism.

HP: Precisely. That was my whole point in raising this issue after you posted. I do not believe Scripture pits works against faith in the sense most understand it. What Scripture maintains is that works are NOT the grounds of our salvation, not that they are not a condition of salvation. I believe Scripture represents repentance, faith, belief, remaining steadfast, etc, all as things we must do, works in a sense, (although NOT in any meritorious way as if by these things we merit salvation, for nothing but the blood is meritorious) that are all our obligation and duty to will intents consistent with God’s commands. God will not do any of these things for us, neither will they come as a gift without our willing in obedience to God's influences. God commands us to do them. They are our duty and obligation, but NOT without the proffered held of God. As we voluntarily yield ourselves in obedience, He grants the strength to obey.

As I have said on many occasions, there is nothing we can do to merit salvation, but there are several things we must do without which we will not see God.