-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why Believe One can Lose Salvation??
- Thread starter Tazman
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I agree that Jesus saves.
In fact as 1John 4:14 says "HE is the Savior of the World".
My point is that Jesus is correct when He says "SO shall my father do to each one of you IF ..." in the chapter on "forgiveness revoked".
(P.S. - I did add my two cents to the poll thread you gave. Thanks for the notice)
In Christ,
Bob
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Oops, that poll is in a public
area.
I guess i have egg all over my face
Maybe folks will be content to cook the
egg OVER EASY (instead of scrambling me
)If you believe and are already saved. We all stumble in many ways, so why repent?
If you have a brother that lead your church for 30 plus years. His life matches up to scripture and fruit is evident in his life, but later he get's caughtup in the sin of sexual imorality and he wants to change but doesn't, is he a believer?
What would repentance get him that he doesn't already have eternally?
2 Peter 2:
20: For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21: For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22: But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
20: For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21: For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22: But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Boy, I tell ya, I sometimes just do not get how people can argue and argue about things that are so plain in the Scriptures...
It's as if some people make a decision that they want to believe such and such a thing and then no matter what Bible verses prove them wrong, they just shut their eyes to the obvious.
I's amazing, actually.
Personally I believe that someone who does this... there is NOTHING you could say to them to convince them otherwise...
...you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear...
It's as if some people make a decision that they want to believe such and such a thing and then no matter what Bible verses prove them wrong, they just shut their eyes to the obvious.
I's amazing, actually.
Personally I believe that someone who does this... there is NOTHING you could say to them to convince them otherwise...
...you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear...
Gee, this question is endless...
A couple of months ago, I was trying to start a discussion about a doctrine called Comprehensive Grace at http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3505.html. It basically stems from prteterism, which has some advocates here. These positions draw upon all the "close at hand' statements regarding Christ's return and teach that the destruction of the temple in AD70 marked the event, which "fulfilled" all. CG goes one step further and says that all are therefore saved after that.
While I have argued against both position, still, I notice they one aspect of them does seem to explain some things, and possibly resolve this "eternal security" debate!
Both preterism and CG teach that the New Testament period was actually a "transition period" between the Old covenant of the Law, and the full fruition of the New Covenant of Grace. While Christ's death and resurrection opened up salvation, it would not be until that last vestige of the Law was removed —the Temple, that salvation would be finally secured. This would explain all those scriptures saying that salvation could be lost; that one could "draw back unto perdition" (which in that case would refer to a Jew or Gentile proselyte renouncing Christ and going back under the Law to appease the Temple system which was persecuting them, which would be a great affront to Christ, hence "trampling on the Blood" in Heb.10:29. Hence the need to "persevere until the end" —the end of the covenent, to be saved!) You can see all of this right in the contexts! This seems the only way to harmonize this apparently conflicting "eternal security" debate. Eternal security purely by grace and nothing we did is what Christ ultimately promised, but those in the "transition period" (especially those to whom "much was given" in that they saw Christ and His works, and His works continued by the apostles) had to persevere in good works to be saved. Afterwards, all of that would be settled for good.
This idea can be separated from the other stuff like the invisible "Parousia" and spiritual only resurrection and kingdom in AD70, and the near-universalism of CG. While those ideas may not be right, still, it is possible that AD70 was a lot more significant than the historic Church has realized. Add to this a visible appearance of Christ (reported by Josephus) and a literal bodily resurrection of the saints up to that time (the "firstfruits") theorized by one preterist, then all the scriptures on Christ's return being "at hand", have real meaning, rather than a "shortly" that gets stretched out for millennia. And it all explains why salvation seemed so unstable before that time.
So this is what I am now convinced is the answer to all of this. If we have to worry about falling away, then first, what really did Christ accomplish for us? We are in exactly the same danger as the unsaved. He has to believe to be saved, and we have to keep believing. What really is the difference, other than the conditional "salvation" we legally "possess" at the moment? Second, salvation is ultimately up to our works, then. (Especially when one objects that "teaching security will lead to everyone sinning with impunity"). Most get around this by saying "but this scripture says you can fall away..." or whatever, but it is still a contradiction even if you can find a prooftext for a contradictory point. What is most likely is that you are misunderstanding the proof text.
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. (Gal. 6:7-9)
People who know not what they are doing, attempt to mock God by teaching, in essence, you can reap eternal life even though you sow to please the sinful nature (or flesh). This, in truth, is the very heart of the security-in-sin gospel. But Paul said, Do not be deceived. It will not happen. Instead you will reap what you sow. If you sow to please your sinful nature, you will reap destruction instead of eternal life.
To reap eternal life, you must sow to please the Spirit. (NOTE: This is not a rewards passage as the eternal security deceivers try to change it into. This is a salvation passage for it tells about reaping eternal life.)
People who know not what they are doing, attempt to mock God by teaching, in essence, you can reap eternal life even though you sow to please the sinful nature (or flesh). This, in truth, is the very heart of the security-in-sin gospel. But Paul said, Do not be deceived. It will not happen. Instead you will reap what you sow. If you sow to please your sinful nature, you will reap destruction instead of eternal life.
To reap eternal life, you must sow to please the Spirit. (NOTE: This is not a rewards passage as the eternal security deceivers try to change it into. This is a salvation passage for it tells about reaping eternal life.)
Pastor KevinR
New Member
These verses has zero to do w/ losing salvation. It simply means the person made a mental assent to Christ, w/o the heart committment, hence they returned to their true self; i.e. "dog" & "sow"
Jer 13:23 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to evil." Grace saves and keeps. If one truly has Eternal Life, and somehow they lose it, it wasn't eternal to begin with. If one gets "saved" then exhibits conduct to the contrary, it would seem to me that he never truly repented, and therefore is what the Bible calls a "dog" or "sow" by returning to their true nature. On the other hand, one truly saved by grace is a partaker of the "divine nature" 2 Ptr 1:4, and is adopted. Rom 8:15-16.
God bless,
Kevin
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
As it turns out there are a few posts pointing to texts talking about "forgiveness revoked" on this thread --
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3609/2.html#000022
I will repost them on this page shortly.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3609/2.html#000022
I will repost them on this page shortly.
Bro. Ruben
New Member
I haven't read all the pages; my input might have been given above.
The Bible teaches of Regeneration, and that a man must be born again. Being dead spiritually we have to be regenerated in order to see God.
Now, does the Bible teach of un-regeneration? And in order for a man to lose his salvation, it means he has to die again spiritually. Where can we find such a teaching in the Bible -- that a man is capable of being dead again (spiritually) after he/she has gained "life"?
Death, in the Bible, means "separation". When we received the Lord, repented and declared Him as our Saviour, then we gain eternal life. At my age, I haven't read any verse that a man can be spiritually dead (separated) again from God. In the Bible a doctrine shows "being born again"; but NO, NOTHING, being "dead again".
Thanks.
[ February 15, 2006, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Ruben ]
The Bible teaches of Regeneration, and that a man must be born again. Being dead spiritually we have to be regenerated in order to see God.
Now, does the Bible teach of un-regeneration? And in order for a man to lose his salvation, it means he has to die again spiritually. Where can we find such a teaching in the Bible -- that a man is capable of being dead again (spiritually) after he/she has gained "life"?
Death, in the Bible, means "separation". When we received the Lord, repented and declared Him as our Saviour, then we gain eternal life. At my age, I haven't read any verse that a man can be spiritually dead (separated) again from God. In the Bible a doctrine shows "being born again"; but NO, NOTHING, being "dead again".
Thanks.
[ February 15, 2006, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Ruben ]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In the three key posts listed at the link I just posted above - the 2nd one goes like this --
The story Christ tells AND The summary lesson He says applies "to you" does not fit with your ideas above.
In Christ,
Bob
Severed FROM Christ and Fallen from grace
Your argument seems to be that the "unforgiven state" is the same as the "forgiven state" and therefore EVEN though it looks like a change the way Christ is telling the story - we can ignore it because to have forgiveness revoked is still to be saved and still to have eternal life.
The story Christ tells AND The summary lesson He says applies "to you" does not fit with your ideas above.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Then of course there was the 3rd post at that link I posted previously (and in fact a few other posts there as well that made this point)
In Christ,
Bob
Denied by Christ instead of His “confessing us before God and His angels” –
</font>[/QUOTE]So that link was basically a pretty good review of the highlights of just a few texts making this argument.
In Christ,
Bob
Gee, this question is endless...
While I have argued against both position, still, I notice they one aspect of them does seem to explain some things, and possibly resolve this "eternal security" debate!
that one could "draw back unto perdition" (which in that case would refer to a Jew or Gentile proselyte renouncing Christ and going back under the Law to appease the Temple system which was persecuting them, which would be a great affront to Christ, hence "trampling on the Blood" in Heb.10:29. Hence the need to "persevere until the end" —the end of the covenent, to be saved!) You can see all of this right in the contexts! This seems the only way to harmonize this apparently
And it all explains why salvation seemed so unstable before that time.
So this is what I am now convinced is the answer to all of this. If we have to worry about falling away, then first, what really did Christ accomplish for us? We are in exactly the same danger as the unsaved. He has to believe to be saved, and we have to keep believing. What really is the difference, other than the conditional "salvation" we legally "possess" at the moment? Second, salvation is ultimately up to our works, then. (Especially when one objects that "teaching security will lead to everyone sinning with impunity"). Most get around this by saying "but this scripture says you can fall away..." or whatever, but it is still a contradiction even if you can find a prooftext for a contradictory point. What is most likely is that you are misunderstanding the proof text. </font>[/QUOTE]WOW, that's allot!
Do you realize you have to do more explaining to Justify your understanding of OSAS than I do just going to scripture.
The harmony is there but your search will push you further and further away from it. Because as you read the text, you read into it, simple.
As you're doing your reseach and consulting of those who agree with you also keep in mind that there are Early Christian writings before 70ad up to 325ad available that would not Support your understanding of OSAS, but they would support the Apostle teachings as they had learned from them.
Just a thought
you bring a lot of clear bible teachings to question if you suggest that God's new covenant was not astablished at the Cross.
If i were to assume there were some type of "trasitional period", i would think it was Three Days
Christ accomplished Salvation for those who bleive and endure till the end (his return - which is soon)
Danger? The bible is clear to be on our guard.
We don't possess anything, it is in his hands till the end. All we have to do is believe and obey Him
Nope, not the way your thinking. Obeying Jesus is not work like it would be with obeying the Law of Moses. Salvation is for those who continue to trust in Jesus "keeping" with the Commands of Jesus and relying on His mercy. That's not work, it a lifestyle.
Rev 3:1"To the angel[a] of the church in Sardis write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven spiritsof God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. 3Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. 4Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels. 6He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
Jesus will never blot out the names of those who are counted by Jesus as "worthy". Not just the believers, but the doers as well. they really are not separate.
But this is consistant with all teaching regarding this subject.
It's his choice and covenant. And as with any covenant it can be broken, but as usual its by us and not God.
But you don't have anything to worry about IF you stay commited.
It's not a bad thing, its simply the truth.
I understand what you're saying, and would have always answered like you before, but right here, if you think about what you've just said, there is no difference between this covenant and the last one. We keep up our end of the covenant by our works. Only some of the "works" have changed from the Mosaic system to the "Christian" ones, and we are given a better sacrifice. Still, it is all up to us.
But yes, we do need more proof of the position from early writings, and I wondered if that was true, just when how and why did the Church lose sight of it?
But yes, we do need more proof of the position from early writings, and I wondered if that was true, just when how and why did the Church lose sight of it?