#1. IF you really "believed" that idea you propose "Worked" you would not have abandoned it for the text-denying model of preterism. So we know that even you see the flaw in what you are suggesting.
#2. I have pointed to specific texts - but where do you see yourself exegeting those texts to show that "IN CHRIST" means "LOST" as you propose above? Or as in Matt 18 "obtaining forgiveness" is really "being lost still" or in Rom 11 "Being IN the vine of Christ" and persevering in BELIEVING is the "wicked state" -- try to "Show that".
Even your reference to John 8 does not "show" the quote for "belief" and how that means "lost". Of course I could point to James 2 showing that those who "believe" are lost - in fact lost as demons who believe the same way are lost. Perhaps you had intended to use that text? "Can that faith save him?" did you mean to use James 2?
My view fully embraces both sets. The problem in your view is that it only allows you to read one set -- taking them to such an extreme that you find the other set to be fully contradicting to your views.
It would be like the Jews in Mark 7 who make up the tradition of CORBAN arguing "Obey your elders" as "The TEXT" to extend to far extremes and then glossing over the commandment "Honor your parents" saying "This does not conflict with our tradition and definitions". Yet Christ shows that they clearly were in conflict with scripture.
You are not exegeting these "inconvenient texts" to SHOW that "IN Christ" and "IN the vine of Christ" is the definition of "LOST" in scripture. You simply hold it to be "a challenge" for your view as you make up ways to try and preserve an a priori bias to OSAS.
Why no TRY the harmony of texts I have recommended here before jumping right into "THAT NT text should not be paid attention too".
Your OWN "solution" SHOWS that you do NOT see harmony between your view of OSAS and faith and salvation - and the texts I have mentioned.
You can not now pretend that they fit your model after admitting that they are soooo devastating to your views that you need them "to not apply to Christians" anymore!
You can't have it both ways!
I did not abandon anything for anything else. I have never been completely sure on eternal security, since I have seen scriptures taken both ways, and I have said every time that I am not sure of the preterist theory. Yet still, you go into accuse and twist-my-words mode, just like in the sabbath debate. (e.g. "'
In Christ' means lost".) The only reason you read it that way is because you are pasting together several prooftexts (as you always, ALWAYS,
ALWAYS do), and some speak of being "In Christ", but the ones I dealt with did not. Jesus in John 8 did not say those Jews were "In Him".
Hence, in the same vein, Romans 11 is talking anout Jew and Gentile as groups, and then offering a warning to individuals. If you don't recognize this, you make the same mistake as the Calvinists in chapter 9.
Those people Paul describes as "broken off are those who rejected Him. They never were "in Him" in the sense you are suggesting, because once again, these were the same people He was addressing in John, and who ultimately crucified him. "Branches" in that case was obviously being used conditionally. Those he spoke to were assumed to be Christians, but if they didn't abide, they would prove that they too, like the Jews in John, were not of Him, and then they would be cast out from among the bretheren. (either in disfellowship, or at the judgment).
Once again, I am not simply trying to "save" OSAS. For most of my Christian walk, I basically leaned the other way. But as I came to learn more of other scriptures and scriptural principles; I saw where conditional salvation has its problems. Like the concept of having one's sins "covered". I have never heard of anyone being "uncovered" by the blood. In the OT, noone was ever "uncovered". Atonement was never "undone". Now since the sacrifices were not perfect, they had to be done over and over, not because the last one was "undone", but because it was only meant to be temporal. Hebrews 10, speaking of "trampling the blood" and coming under judgment is laced with references to the "judgment" coming shortly in their time, (v.25, 37) and this would help support the preterist idea that salvation was not secured yet. It is not a matter of abandoning one for the other, but both could be true. Some passages can have preterist explantations, while others you have misunderstood, such as the vines.
Once again, I am not sure how all of this fits together, but it all seems betterthat your system where if I just keep trying hard enough I should make it. Nobody here is advocating Christians to do whatever they want and try to get in by "faith alone" without any works. But we must get straight the true purpose of works, and how they fit in with faith and salvation. If we don't, then we have a false gospel, and you who teach it are the ones in danger of being "cast out" as false believers with the faith of demons. That's what ultimately happens when one trusts in himself, and that is what is being advocated, even if you do try to credit God for the "instructions" or even the Holy Spirit. Remember, the Pharisee said "
Thank You, Lord that I am not like that Publican over there".
