Sigh...and I guess the reason you can't accept what Christ is really saying given the contextual considerations is because you want to continue to hold to your "doctrine of men" known as "OSAS", which is nothing more than a false hope for antinomian 'fire-insurance'.
Hate to say it, but if there's no "insurance", then there's no certain promise. Considering Cara's point that we do not know if we will remain faithful to the end, then there is no real "good news", only a fear based walk of works-justification.
Those believers who are actively and presently listening to and following Christ (the good Shepherd) are assured that they don't have anything to fear from these others.
well, yes they do, if they can easily forfeit salvation by turning from Christ, and one of these false leaders might come in His name, and teach them a compelling false doctrine that leads them astray. So what we end up with, is once again, the good news promise is really not for anybody alive now, because nobody has yet remained faithful till the end.
One cannot undo the sacrifice of Christ, but salvation is IN HIM. Salvation is in a PERSON because of WHO that PERSON IS and WHAT that PERSON did. If one leaves Christ, that one leaves salvation. If one is no longer abiding in Christ, the blood of the Cross is no longer "applied" to that one's heart. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ is only personally effective if one is actually IN CHRIST.
Life is in the Son. He who has (present tense) the Son has (present tense) Life; He who doesn't have the Son doesn't have Life.
I don't know if the concept of sacrifice being "unapplied" is recognized in God's plan. There was no such thing in the OT, but since the blood of bulls and goats did not really take away sins, the people remained under condemnation even after offering sacrifices.
Of course, I am averse to the idea that a person is now forced to be saved even if he later changes his mind, and that this will encourage "antinomianism"; but then to object on this is to use our own reasoning. The consistent conclusion of the AD70 idea is Comprehensive Grace (in which all mean are unconditionally saved after that event). Of course, this is a way radical position, and I would think there would need to be a whole additional "testament" outlining the Church[if any]'s new mission, being that we are no longer steering people from Hell. "Losing salvation" would be completely moot, then. Still, at least part of the AD70 theory seems to explain the passages on falling away.
Not at all. In the case of the first, Christ clearly states he believed for a while (ie saved) then fell away. The John 15:6 passage said those who don't abide are cast out as branches and burned. In other words, they were saved at one point or else they couldn't be said to have been branches in the first place.
This would be for those who lived back then, ans saw Him and all His works (or at least the disciples, when they continued in His works, including the supernatural —Mark 16:17,18), yet fell back under the Law regardless. This would explain "trodden underfoot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an
unholy thing..." (Heb.10:29). Someone today who falls away most likely won;t think of the blood as "unholy". It's obviously talking about those back then going back under the Law, due to persecution from the Temple system.
Though no other one can remove the Christian, the Christian can remove himself by not continuing in faith and not abiding in the Vine.
I basically always held this position, but still, there is a point that salvation is ultimately up to us, then.
Plus you separate justification from sanctification, which is also something Scriptures don't do. The two are inseparable. Christ indeed says that the one(s) in question "believed for a while". However, continued justification and sanctification are both contingent on continued belief/faith. If one "falls away"--ie, he no longer believes after believing for "a while"--then he is no longer justified or sanctified.
You seem to draw that conclusion from a universal application of the prodigal son to everyone. Actually, the prodigal represented originally those in Israel (such as the "publicans and sinners") who had gone astray. The jealous brother is the Jews who continued in the Law, and thought themselves righteous (of course, they really weren't, but that is covered elsewhere by Jesus. And of course, the brother would be one who as steaver pointed out, "spend most of my time thinking about my own well being [keeping myself justified by my works] and neglect the needs of others around me" [the prodigal]).
But a person is either "made just", or not "made just". There is no back and forth. Justification and dsanctification can be made synonymous if you understand them as "imputational" (God looks at us and sees
Christ's holiness, hence "
sanctification), and then "justifies" us based on that, not our works of "living holy" and then "remaining holy". So many people seem to be trusting in this (in practice), and that is why there is so much confusion. Nobody could keep themselves sanctified if it were really based on our works. Once again, it comes out to "I'm doing the best I can, so God must be filling in the rest".