If you believe you can lose your salvation, you are not saved!(explanation)

[dadof10]

Please show from Scripture that it is necessary to continue to believe in Christ to be saved. Paul used the aorist tense in his answer to the jailer who asked what he must do to be saved. The aorist tense is completed action, NOT continuous action. Please explain how Paul can be correct and your claim at the same time.

I thought that's what you meant by "Jesus noted some who ceased to believe, so it is certainly possible. Lu 8:13"

"Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; fnthey believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away." (Luke 8:13 NASB)

Those who cease to believe and "fall away" are still saved, in your opinion?

 

[Drew]

Of course I deny your claim that the gift fo eternal life can be discarded.

That was not what I asked. Let me try again:

When you claim that salvation is an irrevocable gift you are effectively saying "once you have it, it cannot be lost". Well, that's not really correct - an irrevocable gift can still be discarded after receipt by the recipient (since the "revocability" of a gift is about the taking back of the gift by the giver). Do you deny this? Please answer this question. I will keep asking this question until you answer it, so it will be less painful for us all if you answer it.

My question is about the nature of irrevocability: Do you agree that, in general, a revocable gift cannot be discarded?

 

[JLB]

Because Paul already defined them as God's gifts back in 3:24, 5:15,16,17, and 6:23.

Paul defined covenant relationship as being conditioninal upon a continued believing, in the context of Romans 11, as he stated that some were broken off through unbelief.

There were "in covenant", but were removed... Because of unbelief.


And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Romans 11:17-21

We Gentiles as "wild olive branches" are grafted into the place where the natural olive branches were "broken off".

We Gentiles are given the same warning, because we are grafted in the same covenant as they.

For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.


Are you honestly trying to convince people that it's impossible for a person not to be removed from Covenant relationship, when Paul makes it clear their were people that were in covenant relationship, that were remove because of unbelief?


For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.

JLB

 

[Douglas Summers]

I will ask you the same question I have asked Kidron:

What do you think Paul meant when he dictated these very words?:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [Romans 2:6-7, NIV}

People often "answer" by arguing that in other places in the Bible, Paul says the opposite.

Well, if this is the line you will take, you still need to explain why Paul would write something here in Romans 2 that he knows to be false.

Hi Drew, I know what he meant. He tells you who he is talking to before he gives the warning. The Gentile pagan moralist of the day were pointing out the sins of other people. He says They are inexcusable as men to judge others when they do the same things. They do not know the goodness of God (who can forgive sin) that leads to repentance. But because of the hardness of their heart (the absence of God's grace) as non believers, are storing up God's wrath unto themselves . For God will render to every man (saved and unsaved) according to his deeds. To those who in continuance of patience and well doing seek after glory, honor and immortality, eternal life (the saved that are led by the born again Spirit who will be chastised or rewarded with crowns) and the immoral, self righteous,indignant, denying the grace of God. To them will receive the judgment and wrath of God. To unbelieving Jews first and the Gentiles. And glory honor and peace to those who work righteousness . To the Jew first and the Gentile.. Working righteousness does not mean working for your salvation, but working out the Spirit of Grace in you.

 

[Douglas Summers]

That was not what I asked. Let me try again:

When you claim that salvation is an irrevocable gift you are effectively saying "once you have it, it cannot be lost". Well, that's not really correct - an irrevocable gift can still be discarded after receipt by the recipient (since the "revocability" of a gift is about the taking back of the gift by the giver). Do you deny this? Please answer this question. I will keep asking this question until you answer it, so it will be less painful for us all if you answer it.

My question is about the nature of irrevocability: Do you agree that, in general, a revocable gift cannot be discarded?

Drew, We are talking about God's nature to His creation, not the nature of corruptible man. God never changes His mind. The nature of irrevocability is in man, not God.

 

[Douglas Summers]

I thought that's what you meant by "Jesus noted some who ceased to believe, so it is certainly possible. Lu 8:13"

"Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; fnthey believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away." (Luke 8:13 NASB)

Those who cease to believe and "fall away" are still saved, in your opinion?

Believing and trusting are two different things. Many believed but did not put their trust in Him, for they loved the praises of men more than the praise of God. You must be born again. If you are born again, your understanding would Spiritual and not carnal.

 

[Drew]

Drew, We are talking about God's nature to His creation, not the nature of corruptible man. God never changes His mind. The nature of irrevocability is in man, not God.

One thing at a time. My question is about the nature of the concept of "irrevocability". We need to get this straight before we can make any progress.

I will ask again, this time correcting an unfortunate typing error:

When you claim that salvation is an irrevocable gift you are effectively saying "once you have it, it cannot be lost". Well, that's not really correct - an irrevocable gift can still be discarded after receipt by the recipient (since the "revocability" of a gift is about the taking back of the gift by the giver). Do you deny this? Please answer this question. I will keep asking this question until you answer it, so it will be less painful for us all if you answer it.

My question is about the nature of irrevocability: Do you agree with me that, in general, an irrevocable gift can be discarded?

 

[Douglas Summers]

You, like FreeGrace, are not answering the question and you surely know this!!!

I will ask again, this time correcting an unfortunate typing error:

When you claim that salvation is an irrevocable gift you are effectively saying "once you have it, it cannot be lost". Well, that's not really correct - an irrevocable gift can still be discarded after receipt by the recipient (since the "revocability" of a gift is about the taking back of the gift by the giver). Do you deny this? Please answer this question. I will keep asking this question until you answer it, so it will be less painful for us all if you answer it.

My question is about the nature of irrevocability: Do you agree with me that, in general, an irrevocable gift can be discarded?

I answered the question. You are wrong. Read the post. Quit relying on your own understanding. The Bible is a Spiritual Book.

 

[Drew]

Hi Drew, I know what he meant. He tells you who he is talking to before he gives the warning. The Gentile pagan moralist of the day were pointing out the sins of other people. He says They are inexcusable as men to judge others when they do the same things. They do not know the goodness of God (who can forgive sin) that leads to repentance. But because of the hardness of their heart (the absence of God's grace) as non believers, are storing up God's wrath unto themselves . For God will render to every man (saved and unsaved) according to his deeds. To those who in continuance of patience and well doing seek after glory, honor and immortality, eternal life (the saved that are led by the born again Spirit who will be chastised or rewarded with crowns) and the immoral, self righteous,indignant, denying the grace of God. To them will receive the judgment and wrath of God. To unbelieving Jews first and the Gentiles. And glory honor and peace to those who work righteousness . To the Jew first and the Gentile.. Working righteousness does not mean working for your salvation, but working out the Spirit of Grace in you.

Paul says this:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [Romans 2:6-7, NIV]

Paul says that eternal life is granted according to, yes, what has been done.

As much as people will bend the wording, Paul clearly asserts that the basis for getting eternal life is "persisting in doing good".

I don't know exactly what you are saying, but it is crystal clear that Paul says "if you persist in doing good, you will get eternal life. Yes, I am happy to say that such "good works' are "evidence" of salvation, but we need to honor what Paul actually writes: what will be the criterion for getting eternal life? Paul, here at least, says 'good works'.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Rollo, Please take that silly hat off.

There's nothing underneath.

 

[Drew]

I answered the question. You are wrong. Read the post. quit Quit relying on your own understanding. The Bible is a Spiritual Book.

I will not keep asking till you answer. The question is about the nature of the concept of "irrevocability". And what do you really mean by this vague statement "The Bible is a 'spiritual' book" and this equally suspicious "quit relying on your own understanding"?

The Bible contains words that we read. No magic: words have meaning, and we read them and understand them according to their meaning. So, again in slightly modified form:

An irrevocable gift can still be discarded after receipt by the recipient (since the "revocability" of a gift is about the taking back of the gift by the giver). Do you deny this? Please answer this question. I will keep asking this question until you answer it, so it will be less painful for us all if you answer it.

My question is about the nature of irrevocability: Do you agree with me that, in general, an irrevocable gift can be discarded?

This is a simple question about words and their meaning. Please answer it.

 

[dadof10]

Believing and trusting are two different things. Many believed but did not put their trust in Him, for they loved the praises of men more than the praise of God. You must be born again. If you are born again, your understanding would Spiritual and not carnal.

True. Do you think this "trusting" is ongoing? Do we have to continue to trust or we will "fall away"?

 

[FreeGrace]

I thought that's what you meant by "Jesus noted some who ceased to believe, so it is certainly possible. Lu 8:13"

"Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; fnthey believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away." (Luke 8:13 NASB)

Those who cease to believe and "fall away" are still saved, in your opinion?

Yes, because there is no evidence to the contrary. I have no idea why people equate the two. Given the passages that indicate eternal security.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Of course I deny your claim that the gift fo eternal life can be discarded."

That was not what I asked. Let me try again:

When you claim that salvation is an irrevocable gift you are effectively saying "once you have it, it cannot be lost". Well, that's not really correct - an irrevocable gift can still be discarded after receipt by the recipient (since the "revocability" of a gift is about the taking back of the gift by the giver). Do you deny this? Please answer this question.

OK, once again, since the issue is discarding of eternal life, which involves the new birth, NO, NO, NO, one CANNOT discard their new birth. I don't know how many times I must answer this.

My question is about the nature of irrevocability: Do you agree that, in general, a revocable gift cannot be discarded?

Since this discussion isn't about being "in general", but the very specific issue of eternal life/new birth, NO, NO, NO, it cannot be discarded any more than one can discard their physical birth.

 

[dadof10]

Yes, because there is no evidence to the contrary. I have no idea why people equate the two. Given the passages that indicate eternal security.

Again, disobedient faith saves. You can complain about it all you want, but that's what you are describing. A person can actually cease to believe and fall away and still be saved, by faith.

 

[FreeGrace]

Paul defined covenant relationship as being conditioninal upon a continued believing, in the context of Romans 11, as he stated that some were broken off through unbelief.

There were "in covenant", but were removed... Because of unbelief.

And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Romans 11:17-21

We Gentiles as "wild olive branches" are grafted into the place where the natural olive branches were "broken off".

We Gentiles are given the same warning, because we are grafted in the same covenant as they.

For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.


Are you honestly trying to convince people that it's impossible for a person not to be removed from Covenant relationship, when Paul makes it clear their were people that were in covenant relationship, that were remove because of unbelief?


For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.JLB

I've already answered all this. There is no agreement between our views.

 

[FreeGrace]

I don't know exactly what you are saying, but it is crystal clear that Paul says "if you persist in doing good, you will get eternal life.

Why wouldn't someone who fits this not get eternal life? But Paul's point is that no one CAN "persist in doing good".

Yes, I am happy to say that such "good works' are "evidence" of salvation, but we need to honor what Paul actually writes: what will be the criterion for getting eternal life? Paul, here at least, says 'good works'.

No, this is incorrect. It isn't just about "good works", but persistence in good works. Please don't miss that very important thing.

 

[FreeGrace]

My question is about the nature of irrevocability: Do you agree with me that, in general, an irrevocable gift can be discarded?

This is a simple question about words and their meaning. Please answer it.

Why persist "in general", since the issue of eternal life is NOT about objects that can be discarded. You're trying to compare apples with oranges and coming up with mush.

Of course any object can be discarded. But this isn't the issue or debate at all. Not even close.

If one can show any evidence from Scripture that one's salvation, eternal life, or the new birth can be discarded, then it can be. Otherwise, the argument has NO EVIDENCE to support the assumption.

That's where the debate really is.

 

[Seabass]

I believe that Jesus was speaking "tongue-in-cheek" there. He was speaking to Jews who believed that one must work for heaven. When one compares this with Rom 4:4, it should be obvious that Paul contrasted works, which creates a debt owed with faith, which doesn't. iow, faith is non-meritorious. God grants salvation on the condition of believing in Christ. But that faith in Christ doesn't create a debt owed by God to the believer. He gifts salvation on the basis of grace, not works.

Because of what Paul wrote, and the many verses on salvation based on faith in Christ, there is no other way to understand John 6:27-29 that Jesus was speaking tongue-in-cheek. If He wasn't, then Scripture contains contradictions. And I reject that notion.

There is nothing in the context that remotely suggests Jesus was speaking "tongue in cheek".

Jesus Himself said one must "work for heaven" when He said in Jn 6:27 to WORK for the meat that endures unto everlasting life.
In Jn 6:28 they ask Jesus "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?"
Jesus did not answer their question by telling them to do no works but have belief only. But instead Jesus gave the the work of believing to do.

In Rom 4:4 the "worketh" in Rom 4:4 refers to flawless law keeping and not obedience to the will of God. Abraham was one who "worketh not" at trying to keep God's law flawlessly whereby his reward would be of debt and not of grace but instead Abraham had an obedient belief.

Too many pull the "worketh not" of Rom 4:5 out of context and then isolate it from all other contexts and then wrongly claim that it excludes ALL works from salvation.
How could Abraham be one who "worketh not" when in fact he did do works, Heb 11:8,17? Obviously the 'worketh not' does not exclude ALL works but excludes the work of flawless law keeping and does not exclude obedient works in doing the will of God as Abraham did do.

 

[FreeGrace]

Again, disobedient faith saves.

No it doesn't. In fact, to be "saving faith", it MUST BE obedient. After saving faith, there is the issue of lifestyle faith, in which the believer relies on God for sustenance, etc.

You can complain about it all you want, but that's what you are describing. A person can actually cease to believe and fall away and still be saved, by faith.

No, they are NOT "still saved by faith". They are still saved by GRACE. Eph 2:8

We are saved by grace and kept by that same grace.

What the insecurity crowd cannot answer or explain is this: if sin, which would include loss of believing, results in loss of salvation, apparently Jesus Christ didn't die for every sin. Is that your view?

If He didn't die for every sin, where is that taught in Scripture?

If one believes that He did die for every sin, why would ANY SIN result in loss of salvation?