Losing Salvation Pt. 2

[Amy.G]

You are assuming that they were never saved to begin with. They were saved but then rejected God's grace and fell into sin. To say they were never saved to begin with is a cop-out.

Paul tells the Corinthians that they were "sanctified and justified " in 1 Cor. 6:11 yet in chapter 10:6-12 he tells these same Corinthians "these things are warnings to us...we must not indulge in immorality..therefore let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."

There is nothing in 1 Cor. 10 that implies we can lose our salvation. It is talking about relapsing into sin.

From Albert Barnes:
All professed Christians should be admonished. All are in danger of falling into sin, and of dishonouring their profession; and the exhortation cannot be too often or too urgently pressed, that they should take heed lest they fall into sin. The leading and special idea of the apostle here should not be forgotten or disregarded. It is, that Christians in their favoured moments, when they are permitted to approach near to God, and when the joys of salvation fill their hearts, should exercise peculiar caution. For

(a.) then the adversary will be peculiarly desirous to draw away their thoughts from God, and to lead them into sin, as their fall would most signally dishonour religion;

(b.) then they will be less likely to be on their guard, and more likely to feel themselves strong, and not to need caution and solicitude. Accordingly, it often happens that Christians, after they have been peculiarly favoured with the tokens of the Divine favour, soon relapse into their former state, or fall into some sin that grieves the hearts of their brethren, or wounds the cause of religion. So it is in revivals; so it is in individuals.

 

[Amy.G]

Originally Posted by Amy.G
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


Seems pretty clear to me. People who "believe" and then at some point don't believe were never saved to begin with.

Originally Posted by saved by grace
You are assuming that they were never saved to begin with. They were saved but then rejected God's grace and fell into sin. To say they were never saved to begin with is a cop-out.

Cop out? That's what the verse says plain and simple..."they were NOT of us".

 

[Don]

Agree

Jesus tells us in Luke what it means.

Context is everything. Do you deny that in John 3:16 it means a saving faith? In James it can't mean a saving faith because the demons are not saved they simply believe.


Again, in Luke 8 Jesus, our Lord and Savior, tells us what it means "lest they should believe and be saved." Jesus is telling us that "believe" in this context is a saving faith.


Context defines how the word is to be understood and Jesus gives us the context in Luke 8

You are absolutely correct (about context); so let's look at context, shall we?

v. 12 -- lest they believe and be saved. "lest": unless. Satan comes before they have a chance to believe and be saved.
v. 13 -- these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. "root"--no grounding, no anchor; nothing that holds them. In this particular case, using the previous verse (which explicitly modified the word "believe" with "and be saved") to define believe ignores the other wording around it. Believe without root; belief without a foundation; belief that is superficial, and thus is easily shed.

Exactly how you specify the difference between the word "believe" in John 3:16 and James 2:19. In one verse, it's absolutely clear that the word indicates a belief unto the saving of the soul; in the other verse, it's absolutely clear that the word is not implying salvation.

I'll give you another example: I'm going to assume that you don't believe we have to be baptized to be saved. If true, then look at Mark 16: "believeth and is baptized" has been construed by some to mean that we have to be baptized to be saved. If this is true, then every time we see "believe," especially in the rest of the statement ("he that believeth not") we should automatically associate it with baptism as well. If we don't agree this is true, then the same principle applies to Luke 8; simply because we see "believe and be saved" in a previous verse does not mean that further use of the word "believe" means "and be saved."

 

[HAMel]

Why would anyone want to live with the "fear" of losing their salvation?

At what point would this "fear" convert to "works"?

 

[saved by grace]

There is nothing in 1 Cor. 10 that implies we can lose our salvation. It is talking about relapsing into sin.

Paul says the Corinthians were sanctified and justifed yet he warns them "WE must not indulge in immorality ( Paul includes himself)Twenty three thousand fell in a single day. WE must not put the Lord to the test...these thing happened to them as a warning but they were written for OUR instruction. Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stand take heed lest he fall."

Paul is comparing the Corinthians to the Israelites in Numbers 25:1-18 where 23,000 were destroyed by God because of their sin.

Pauls says in 1 Cor 9:27 that he could be disqualified. The Greek word there is adokimos which also means a reprobate. Paul had no assurance of his salvation.

In 1 Corinthians 11:30 Paul tells these sanctified and justified Christians that some of them died because they ate the Lords Supper unworthly. They had no assurance of salvation.

Paul tells these sanctified and justified Corinthians that they can be led astray by a false gospel. ( 2 Cor, 11:3-4 )They had no assurance of salvation

I suggest all of you read Life in the Son by Baptist Theologian Robert Shank. It is 350 pages of scriptures that prove that assurance of salvation is a doctrine of men. Absoloute assurance is a false gospel.

 

[Don]

Pauls says in 1 Cor 9:27 that he could be disqualified. The Greek word there is adokimos which also means a reprobate. Paul had no assurance of his salvation.

Context again.
1) v. 1 - am I not an apostle?
2) v. 3 - Mine answer to them that do examine me
3) v. 25 - they do it for a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
Note: Paul uses the illustration of runners in a race...running the race half-heartedly, not preparing, not running to win...which results in disappointment, loss of reward--but not disqualification. In verse 25, he compares athletes to Christians; those who deny themselves in order to train for a race, who subject their bodies to certain regimens in order to run the best they can. As asked in one commentary, if an athlete can subject himself to such discipline in order to run the race to their absolute best, should a Christian expect no less of him/herself, especially when our crown is worth so much more?

This chapter isn't about salvation; it's about credibility, making a mockery of Christ to those without looking at us, who are supposed to be the children of God. The chapter starts off with Paul establishing his authority as an apostle; asks the question why he has to provide a defense of himself to others; and finishes by answering why.

 

[saved by grace]

=Don;1664325]Context again.
1) v. 1 - am I not an apostle?
2) v. 3 - Mine answer to them that do examine me
3) v. 25 - they do it for a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible

.
The incorruptible crown is eternal life not some kind of "reward"

Note: Paul uses the illustration of runners in a race...running the race half-heartedly, not preparing, not running to win...which results in disappointment, loss of reward--but not disqualification

.
Not disqualification? That is exactly what Paul says, he will be disqualified.

The word used here is adokimos. This word means reprobate

This word is not used frequently in Scripture but when it does, it has a strong negative connotation.

Look at 2 Tim 3:8 It means found worthless in the faith, and not in the sense that we are all worthless without Christ. It is in the sense that Jannes and Jambres were reprobate (worthless) in the faith because they opposed the truth.

2 Cor 13:4-5 it is used again in reference to failing the test and finding that one does not have Jesus Christ within them!

Paul is saying that he is training to run the race for fear that he should become reprobate! Worthless in the faith! Find that he has failed the test and Jesus Christ is not within him!

Reprobate refers to conduct characteristic of the damned every other time that it is used in the New Testament (Rom 1:28; 2 Cor 13:5-7; 2 Tim 3:8; Tit 1:16; Heb 6:8).

This chapter isn't about salvation;

The entire bible is about salvation.

 

[freeatlast]

Salvation cannot be lost.

 

[Don]

The incorruptible crown is eternal life not some kind of "reward"

There are at least three different commentaries that disagree with that statement.

Not disqualification? That is exactly what Paul says, he will be disqualified.

Where? 1 Cor 9:27 says "lest I be adokimos"; the word means unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate; that which does not prove itself as it ought to.

The word used here is adokimos. This word means reprobate

This word is not used frequently in Scripture but when it does, it has a strong negative connotation.

Look at 2 Tim 3:8 It means found worthless in the faith, and not in the sense that we are all worthless without Christ. It is in the sense that Jannes and Jambres were reprobate (worthless) in the faith because they opposed the truth.

2 Cor 13:4-5 it is used again in reference to failing the test and finding that one does not have Jesus Christ within them!

2 Tim 3:8 - context again. Look at 2 Tim 3:7 -- "never able to come to the knowledge." The men being described in v. 8 are not "saved, and then fallen"; they never had the knowledge to begin with.

2 Cor 13 v. 5 - examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith. Before Paul says "lest ye be reprobate," he says make sure you're in the faith. Once again, not a "saved, then fallen"; but a "saved, not a reprobate."

Paul is saying that he is training to run the race for fear that he should become reprobate! Worthless in the faith! Find that he has failed the test and Jesus Christ is not within him!

You need to really, really look at that verse; Paul says, "lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be castaway (a reprobate)."

Why would Paul worry about that one thing (preaching to others) if his admonition is about not finding Christ within him?

There's a method called "book-ending"; on a shelf of books, you have a book-end at the start of the row, and a book-end at the end of the row. Literature has a similar mechanism. For example, 1 Cor 9 starts with the question, "Am I not an apostle?" and ends with "when I have preached to others." Thus, a context is established.

Reprobate refers to conduct characteristic of the damned every other time that it is used in the New Testament (Rom 1:28; 2 Cor 13:5-7; 2 Tim 3:8; Tit 1:16; Heb 6:8).

Exactly correct; in the case of 2 Cor 13, as shown above, it's qualified by the preceeding statement of "examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith." In 2 Tim 3, as shown above, it's referencing those that never had the knowledge, and therefore are damned. Titus 1:16 is modified by Titus 1:15, where it identifies the ones who profess God as defiled and unbelieving. Hebrews 6:8 is modified by the context of the previous verses, which talk about relying on something other than faith for salvation.

The entire bible is about salvation.

Well, that's a nice cop-out. You keep trying to admonish me about context, but then you turn around and use that statement?

Can't/won't argue about the entire bible; but tell us, is 1 Cor 12 talking about salvation, or about spiritual gifts? Is Romans 12 talking about salvation, or about how Christians should treat each other? Is Ephesians 5 talking about salvation, or about our walk with God and how we should treat our spouses?

-----

Eternal Security is not about freedom to sin. Eternal security is used as an excuse to sin; but the defiled, unbelieving mind can find any excuse it wants to justify its ungodly actions.

We could start using all kinds of analogies: drug addicts, people drowning, etc. But all analogies fall short. The truth of the matter is this: I know my savior died for me, and for that I'm truly grateful. My gratefulness extends to not doing the things that He finds displeasing, because in my gratefulness, I don't want to disappoint Him. I want to do my best for Him, because He did His best for me.

 

[HAMel]

Eternal Security is not about freedom to sin. Eternal security is used as an excuse to sin; but the defiled, unbelieving mind can find any excuse it wants to justify its ungodly actions.

I believe in eternal salvation but never considered that position to justify sin. When I sin the Holy Spirit taps me on the shoulder.

Perhaps this line of thinking is merely justification and a good defense for those who believe otherwise? That one can lose their salvation.

As asked earlier..., who would want to live under the fear of losing their salvation?

 

[Amy.G]

Eternal security is used as an excuse to sin

Not according to Paul.

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

 

[Don]

Not according to Paul.

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Hamel, Amy - thanks for pointing out that I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

Eternal security is used as an excuse by those that are looking for excuses to sin.

Those who understand eternal security understand that once saved, we have failings--just like Paul (Romans 7-8)--but that we don't willfully continue in sin.

 

[freeatlast]

Hamel, Amy - thanks for pointing out that I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

Eternal security is used as an excuse by those that are looking for excuses to sin.

Those who understand eternal security understand that once saved, we have failings--just like Paul (Romans 7-8)--but that we don't willfully continue in sin.

This statement is an excuse to sin;
"Those who understand eternal security understand that once saved, we have failings--just like Paul (Romans 7-8)--but that we don't willfully continue in sin"

 

[Don]

This statement is an excuse to sin;
"Those who understand eternal security understand that once saved, we have failings--just like Paul (Romans 7-8)--but that we don't willfully continue in sin"

Nah. It just recognizes that we're not perfect, and that we continue to battle against the flesh.

Your statement denies what Paul says about himself: "That which I would, I do not; that which I would not, I do."

 

[Steadfast Fred]

This statement is an excuse to sin;
"Those who understand eternal security understand that once saved, we have failings--just like Paul (Romans 7-8)--but that we don't willfully continue in sin"

That doesn't look like an excuse to sin to me.

The fact is, our flesh is weak; and because it is weak, we sometimes give in to it.

Does that mean we have lost our Salvation? of course not!
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

If any man sins, he has an advocate with the Father. Jesus is our Defense... and He ain't been defeated yet, nor will He ever be.

Now that we are in Christ, sin no longer has dominion over us. The penalty for sin was laid upon our Advocate, and He bore our sins in His own body that we might be freed from the penalty for sin.

So, no, we cannot lose our Salvation, for every sin, past, present, and future has already been paid for.

That does not mean we continue in sin without any fear or repentance for sin. If one has a heart that he has made a profession of faith in Christ and that now it doesn't matter if he lives like the devil, the truth of the matter is, the man merely made a profession but did not truly believe that which he professed.

He who drinks and eats using the devils cup and plate must also be at the devils table in the devils house.

1 Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

 

[freeatlast]

Nah. It just recognizes that we're not perfect, and that we continue to battle against the flesh.

Your statement denies what Paul says about himself: "That which I would, I do not; that which I would not, I do."

I do not believe that Paul is saying he is failing and sinning. He clearly states that while under the law he was blameless. If that be the case then becoming a Christian did not bring cause for him sinning. While i agree that this is not sinless perfection neither is it a statement of him sinning as a practice.
Those who point to the Romans passage as a way to excuse their sin are doing just that, making excuses.

 

[Don]

I do not believe that Paul is saying he is failing and sinning. He clearly states that while under the law he was blameless. If that be the case then becoming a Christian did not bring cause for him sinning. While i agree that this is not sinless perfection neither is it a statement of him sinning as a practice.
Those who point to the Romans passage as a way to excuse their sin are doing just that, making excuses.

Here's where I'm not making myself clear: You said "as a practice." I'm not trying to say "as a practice." I'm trying to say that no one's perfect; that I may never lie, but I have caught myself thinking, "how come I don't have as nice a car as him?" (coveting) It's not something I "practice," and it's something I'm always ashamed of; but it's not something that I live in fear that I've lost my salvation over.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[freeatlast]

Here's where I'm not making myself clear: You said "as a practice." I'm not trying to say "as a practice." I'm trying to say that no one's perfect; that I may never lie, but I have caught myself thinking, "how come I don't have as nice a car as him?" (coveting) It's not something I "practice," and it's something I'm always ashamed of; but it's not something that I live in fear that I've lost my salvation over.

Does that make it clearer?

Hello Don,
thank you for the clarification.