The reason you cant lose your salvation is?.....

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro,

How will you be able to satisfy the person promoting eternal security that 'never stop trusting in him' is not works salvation?

When you say that faith is the security of salvation, how is continuing faith able to be excluded from works?

Because Paul himself excludes it from, and contrasts it with the works that can not justify:

"4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:4-5 NASB bold mine)

Believing in Christ IS trusting in Christ; trusting in his blood to cleanse us and make us ready for the coming Judgment.

Do you support synergism or monergism in relation to salvation?

Oz

I suppose monergism, but I have a feeling that I'm not hardcore in either camp. Rarely do man made divisions in doctrine accurately represent the whole truth about a subject. That's why I rarely consult Commentaries or label and categorize my beliefs with these man made labels.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

! Timothy 1:19-20 does not say that they lost their salvation.

I personally have to be honest and agree. At the very least, what it does show is that a believer can indeed lose their faith, even if only temporarily as some might argue.

Are God's efforts to bring the back slidden ex-believer back to faith always successful? Are the warnings in the Bible sufficient to bring each and every ex-believer back to the faith they at first had, and thus that being the role of those warnings, even though God is not lying as to what will happen to the believer who does not come back? That, IMO, is the crux of the OSAS argument. We don't have to wonder what will happen to the person who departs from the faith. That is made clear in scripture. The question is, is God always completely 100% successful in bringing people back to a faith they once had by telling them the truth about what will happen to them if they don't?

I'm on the side that, 'no', he is not 100% successful in doing that. For one, the prophetic nature of Paul's warnings about losing reward for building blocks put in the body of Christ, but who later get burned up in the Judgement suggests the reality of that actually happening at the Judgment, not just a theoretical 'maybe' designed to always bring fallen believers back to the faith.

"the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. " (1 Corinthians 3:13-15 NASB)

Similar warnings have more than just a theoretical 'maybe' about them. And they make me think there really are people who abandon their faith and are not brought back and will be lost on the Day of Judgment and that it's not just a hypothetical, but true, outcome for those who walk away from their faith and don't return.

 

[FreeGrace]

I'm on the side that, 'no', he is not 100% successful in doing that. For one, the prophetic nature of Paul's warnings about losing reward for building blocks put in the body of Christ, but who later get burned up in the Judgement suggests the reality of that actually happening at the Judgment, not just a theoretical 'maybe' designed to always bring fallen believers back to the faith.

There are no Scriptures that tell us that any believer who loses reward will be "burned up at the Judgment". First, if that were true, what's the point of reward? Loss of reward is just that; not loss of salvation. To equate the 2 is a serious error.

"the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. " (1 Corinthians 3:13-15 NASB)[/QUOTE]
This passage should be clear to everyone; those believers who build on "wood, hay and stubble" will lose reward (suffer loss), but "he himself will be saved".

Similar warnings have more than just a theoretical 'maybe' about them.

Correct. There is nothing "theoretical" about Scripture. All warnings are real. But there are NO warnings about loss of salvation. It remains a figment of some imaginations.

And they make me think there really are people who abandon their faith and are not brought back and will be lost on the Day of Judgment and that it's not just a hypothetical, but true, outcome for those who walk away from their faith and don't return.

The only part of this that is ture is that there really are those who will abandon their faith, and are not brought back. But they will NOT be lost on Judgment Day.

Why not? Because Scripture is very clear that justification (Rom 5:15,16,17) eternal life are gifts of God (Romans 6:23) and God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). ps: there is no mention of "gift" (charisma) between 6:23 and 11:29.

If a believer who abandons the faith is lost on Judgment Day, then Paul was a LIAR.

 

[smaller]

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Using the above example, from Paul about himself, (I/me) and conversely, yet in his flesh, the messenger (or angel) of Satan, that only ONE of them would be saved. The other, uh, not so much and in fact the opposite fate, that of the end fate of the LoF.

Interesting?

Paul shows a similar example to the above, here:

Romans 7:
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

And Paul took or derived that information from Jesus, Himself, here:

Mark 4:
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

It may seem that Paul was standing smack in the middle of what Jesus proposed to be a fact.

AND, a believer might see that it was "temptation" of the "tempter" within Paul, as Paul described in Galatians 4:14, that temptation was in his flesh, presumably same being of the "tempter" then we could also derived how Paul termed himself the chief of sinners, after salvation, in 1 Tim. 1:15, IF we saw "the other party" that was not Paul, in his flesh.

We may see even more in Paul's description of "me" in Romans 9:19-21, the "two vessel" unveiling or again in 2 Tim. 2:20-21.

It all fits quite nicely.

The believer, unquestionably saved. The other working however, not so much so. So it may not be as easy a question on the surface of blanketing the entirety of Paul, or of any other believers, as that obviously wouldn't work, at least in Paul's case. Two opposite fates can be derived. One for Paul, saved. And the messenger of Satan, the "evil present" with Paul, the temptation in his flesh, presumably of the tempter, not, and in fact an opposite fate.

It does fit quite Perfectly together.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There are no Scriptures that tell us that any believer who loses reward will be "burned up at the Judgment".

You misunderstand the argument. The worker in the field/building does not get burned up. Those he labored for in the field/building is the work that gets burned up.

Loss of reward is just that; not loss of salvation. To equate the 2 is a serious error.

I agree. Paul makes that clear in the passage. That's why I say it's those you labor for that get burned up while you pass through the Judgment.

"the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. " (1 Corinthians 3:13-15 NASB bold mine)

This passage should be clear to everyone; those believers who build on "wood, hay and stubble" will lose reward (suffer loss), but "he himself will be saved".

Right. The hay, wood, and stubble is who gets burned up. That's why we need to be careful how we build. If we fail in our efforts to place living gem stones in the building of Christ, but instead can only crank out living building materials made out of hay and wood, then the Day will burn up that work and we will have no one to show for our labors.

"5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood" (1 Peter 2:5 NASB)

"God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord" (Ephesians 2:19-21 NASB)

"Are you (Corinthians) not my work in the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1 NASB parenthesis mine)

14 If any man's work which he has built on (the foundation of Christ) remains, he will receive a reward." (1 Corinthians 3:14 NASB parenthesis mine)

"14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing; 15 so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, 16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain. " (Philippians 2:14-16 NASB bold mine)

The only part of this that is ture is that there really are those who will abandon their faith, and are not brought back.
[...]
Because Scripture is very clear that justification (Rom 5:15,16,17) eternal life are gifts of God (Romans 6:23) and God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). ps: there is no mention of "gift" (charisma) between 6:23 and 11:29.

I see. So somehow now the gift of faith has conveniently escaped the gifts that Paul says are irrevocable. And it's obvious for no other reason except that it doesn't fit into your doctrine which says Paul is talking specifically about the gifts he speaks about in Romans.

 

[FreeGrace]

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Using the above example, from Paul about himself, (I/me) and conversely, yet in his flesh, the messenger (or angel) of Satan, that only ONE of them would be saved. The other, uh, not so much and in fact the opposite fate, that of the end fate of the LoF.

Interesting?

No, just very confusing or confused. Not sure which. Please re-phrase the second paragraph.

Paul shows a similar example to the above, here:

Romans 7:
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

And Paul took or derived that information from Jesus, Himself, here:

Mark 4:
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

It may seem that Paul was standing smack in the middle of what Jesus proposed to be a fact.

AND, a believer might see that it was "temptation" of the "tempter" within Paul, as Paul described in Galatians 4:14, that temptation was in his flesh, presumably same being of the "tempter" then we could also derived how Paul termed himself the chief of sinners, after salvation, in 1 Tim. 1:15, IF we saw "the other party" that was not Paul, in his flesh.

We may see even more in Paul's description of "me" in Romans 9:19-21, the "two vessel" unveiling or again in 2 Tim. 2:20-21.

It all fits quite nicely.

The believer, unquestionably saved. The other working however, not so much so. So it may not be as easy a question on the surface of blanketing the entirety of Paul, or of any other believers, as that obviously wouldn't work, at least in Paul's case. Two opposite fates can be derived. One for Paul, saved. And the messenger of Satan, the "evil present" with Paul, the temptation in his flesh, presumably of the tempter, not, and in fact an opposite fate.

It does fit quite Perfectly together.

I have no idea the point here.

 

[FreeGrace]

You misunderstand the argument. The worker in the field/building does not get burned up. Those he labored for in the field/building is the work that gets burned up.

I completely disagree. It's the effort (work) that is in view. Not people or 'those he labored for', as being posited. It's the labor itself that gets burned up. iow, no reward for that labor. And that labor is associated with wood, hay and stubble, not gold, silver and costly jewels.

Paul is contrasting divine good produced in the power of the Holy Spirit against human good, which is anything done apart from the power of the Holy Spirit. All such human good will be burned up and not rewarded.

"the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. " (1 Corinthians 3:13-15 NASB bold mine)

The text is clearly about receiving a reward for one's labor. And previous verses clarify which kind of labor will be rewarded.

Right. The hay, wood, and stubble is who gets burned up.

Wrong. Not "who" but "what". It's the wood, hay and stubble that burns. Not "who".

I see. So somehow now the gift of faith has conveniently escaped the gifts that Paul says are irrevocable.

Faith is a noun, referring to the body of what we believe to be true. And that is God's Word, which IS a gift and is not revocable. But believing is a verb, and there is NOTHING in Scripture that defines or describes the action of believing to be a gift.

And it's obvious for no other reason except that it doesn't fit into your doctrine which says Paul is talking specifically about the gifts he speaks about in Romans.

Paul specifically defined what he meant by 'gift' BEFORE he wrote Rom 11:29 in which he said that God's gifts are irrevocable. The ONLY meaning from a contextual sense would be what he alone defined as gift.

But there are many who simply reject what he defined as a gift when they come to 11:29.

 

[OzSpen]

There are no Scriptures that tell us that any believer who loses reward will be "burned up at the Judgment". First, if that were true, what's the point of reward? Loss of reward is just that; not loss of salvation. To equate the 2 is a serious error.

FreeGrace,

It is true that the exact words you request are not there. But we do have this teaching in Scripture:

'4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt' (Heb 6:4-6 ESV, emphasis added).​

If it is impossible to restore to repentance, the teaching is that they had repented, lost it because they 'have fallen away', and now cannot come to repentance again. That's the teaching of these verses.

It's not talking about a Christian losing rewards and then burning up in Judgement. But it is talking about losing repentance (something that is necessary for salvation) and being unable to repent again (unable to come to salvation).

This is a very serious situation and we dare not relegate it to an OSAS discussion without understanding the serious consequences for those who 'have fallen away'.

Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's the effort (work) that is in view. Not people or 'those he labored for', as being posited. It's the labor itself that gets burned up.

Nope. It's people:

"Are you (Corinthians) not my work in the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1 NASB parenthesis mine)

"prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God... so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain. " (Philippians 2:15-16 NASB bold mine)

that labor is associated with wood, hay and stubble, not gold, silver and costly jewels.

Absolutely correct. Wood, hay, and stubble get burned up because the building of Christ is made of gem stones:

"God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone" (Ephesians 2:19-20 NASB) "11 having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper." (Revelation 21:11 NASB)

The things that gets burned up in the kingdom of God because they are not gem stones are people, not effort. The result of which is a loss of reward for the person who labored to bring them in. You can't receive a reward for people brought into the kingdom that are purged out of the kingdom by fire at the Judgment.

"41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. " (Matthew 13:41-42 NASB)

 

[FreeGrace]

FreeGrace,

It is true that the exact words you request are not there. But we do have this teaching in Scripture:

'4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt' (Heb 6:4-6 ESV, emphasis added).​

If it is impossible to restore to repentance, the teaching is that they had repented, lost it because they 'have fallen away', and now cannot come to repentance again. That's the teaching of these verses.

Correct. Yet, coming to repentance doesn't mean loss of salvation. We must remember that the gift of eternal life is given WHEN one believes, per Jesus' words in Jn 5:24. And Paul defined eternal life as a gift in Rom 6;23 and the next time he used the word 'gift' was in 11:29 where he said that God's gifts are irrevocable.

It's not talking about a Christian losing rewards and then burning up in Judgement. But it is talking about losing repentance (something that is necessary for salvation) and being unable to repent again (unable to come to salvation).

However, there are no verses that say that those who lose their faith lose their salvation. Yes, we are saved by gracde through faith. But there are no verses that tell us that those who apostatize, lose faith, etc, lose salvation. That is the problem with conditional security.

This is a very serious situation and we dare not relegate it to an OSAS discussion without understanding the serious consequences for those who 'have fallen away'.
Oz

I couldn't agree more, Oz. The consequences ARE serious, but they do not include loss of salvation. If loss of salvation were possible, the Holy Spirit did a horrible job of communicating that.

We have very clear statements about how to be saved. Acts 16:31 is one example from many.

Why aren't there any as clear statements about loss of salvation? There are plenty of passages that could have easily added that plain statement if it were true.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"It's the effort (work) that is in view. Not people or 'those he labored for', as being posited. It's the labor itself that gets burned up."

Nope. It's people:

"Are you (Corinthians) not my work in the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1 NASB parenthesis mine)

The people were the RESULT of Paul's WORK. They were NOT his work.

Let's look at more context, to help understand all that Paul said:
12Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The point being missed by your view is that the "building materials" are references to whether the work is done in the power of the Hoily Spirit (divine good) or from one's own efforts (human good). All human good is judged by fire and burned up. iow, no rewards for any effort done in the flesh (human good). Only that done in the power of the Holy Spirit, or divine good, will be rewarded (v.14).

The things that gets burned up in the kingdom of God because they are not gem stones are people, not effort.

How silly. No one will get "burned up" IN the kingdom of God. Where does one get such stuff??

See above for understanding of "effort". Again, the passage is about whether one's efforts are done from divine good, or human good. Spiritual discernment clarifies Paul's words.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The people were the RESULT of Paul's WORK. They were NOT his work.

No. The verse says the people are his work:

""Are you (Corinthians) not my work in the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1 NASB parenthesis mine)

The answer to the rhetorical question being, of course, "yes, we are your work in the Lord."

The point being missed by your view is that the "building materials" are references to whether the work is done in the power of the Hoily Spirit (divine good) or from one's own efforts (human good).

No.
This shows us that Paul is talking about the Corinthians potentially being burned up, not his 'efforts':

"16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him" (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NASB)

All human good is judged by fire and burned up. iow, no rewards for any effort done in the flesh (human good). Only that done in the power of the Holy Spirit, or divine good, will be rewarded (v.14).

Ah, yes. The famous belief of so many in the Protestant church developed because they do not know that Paul's discourse about human good being unable to save is in regard to that human effort not being able to justify you. But the church has misunderstood it to mean that any good you do on your own (whatever that means for a transformed believer) is evil and you will be punished for it.

 

[FreeGrace]

No. The verse says the people are his work:

""Are you (Corinthians) not my work in the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1 NASB parenthesis mine)

The answer to the rhetorical question being, of course, "yes, we are your work in the Lord."



No.
This shows us that Paul is talking about the Corinthians potentially being burned up, not his 'efforts':

"16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him" (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NASB)


Ah, yes. The famous belief of so many in the Protestant church developed because they do not know that Paul's discourse about human good being unable to save is in regard to that human effort not being able to justify you. But the church has misunderstood it to mean that any good you do on your own (whatever that means for a transformed believer) is evil and you will be punished for it.

I've fully explained my view, and refuted yours. I'll let the reader decide for themselves.

We've been fully around the bend. There are no verses that state in any way that salvation or eternal life can be lost, so there is no reason to believe that it can.

otoh, there are verses that plainly tell us that God holds onto His children without regard to behavior (Jn 10), that eternal life, a gift of God (Rom 6:23) is irrevocable (Rom 11:29), and that those who HAVE eternal life will NEVER come into condemnation (Jn 5:24).

If these verses don't convince a person of the truth, then nothing else said will. But God does hold everyone accountable for accepting His truth.

 

[smaller]

No, just very confusing or confused. Not sure which. Please re-phrase the second paragraph.

I have no idea the point here.

I pointed out the possible futility in blanketing the entirety of Paul with eternal security as that obviously would not apply to the "messenger of Satan" in Paul's flesh. Which same could "dominate" any particular believer at any time and diminish or eliminate their 'faith.' Yet the believer would be saved, the messenger of Satan in the flesh, NOT saved.

I would propose that both parties to this debate just need to look at Paul and their mutual issues would be instantly resolved. But in order to do that the believers would have to see themselves as Paul saw himself.

Paul had evil present with him, a messenger of Satan in his flesh, and presumably, because of his "status" of Apostolic calling, he was subject to even more "internal temptation" from the "tempter" than the average joe believer, which is also the reason Paul saw himself as the chief of sinners, after salvation, in 1 Tim. 1:15.

If we see that "internal temptation" as a real internal factor for Paul from the "tempter," we might observe that Paul undoubtedly would be saved no matter what, but that would not apply to the "tempter," the messenger of Satan in his flesh, which will receive an exact opposite fate in the forthcoming eternal LoF.

If we, any of us, see this, this entire debate goes away.

 

[FreeGrace]

I pointed out the possible futility in blanketing the entirety of Paul with eternal security as that obviously would not apply to the "messenger of Satan" in Paul's flesh.

I'm not following what is meant by eternal security "not applying" to the messenger of Sstan. What does the messenger of Satan have to do with eternal security anyway? Paul was telling us that because of his incredible experience in the 3rd heaven, God allowed a messenger of Satan to keep him humble.

Which same could "dominate" any particular believer at any time and diminish or eliminate their 'faith.' Yet the believer would be saved, the messenger of Satan in the flesh, NOT saved.

Again, why even bring up anything about this "messenger of Satan" not being saved? It seems to me that Paul was speaking of a demon or fallen angel that was keeping him humble.

Paul had evil present with him, a messenger of Satan in his flesh, and presumably, because of his "status" of Apostolic calling, he was subject to even more "internal temptation" from the "tempter" than the average joe believer, which is also the reason Paul saw himself as the chief of sinners, after salvation, in 1 Tim. 1:15.

If we see that "internal temptation" as a real internal factor for Paul from the "tempter," we might observe that Paul undoubtedly would be saved no matter what, but that would not apply to the "tempter," the messenger of Satan in his flesh, which will receive an exact opposite fate in the forthcoming eternal LoF.

If we, any of us, see this, this entire debate goes away.

I still see no way the messenger of Satan has anything to do with eternal security.

Finally, Paul defined what he meant by 'gift' in Romans before he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. He spoke of spiritual gifts in 1:11, justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17, and etrnal life in 6:23. It is these 3 ONLY that Paul meant when he wrote 11:29. Because he specified NO OTHER gifts of God.

 

[Deborah13]

Paul had evil present with him, a messenger of Satan in his flesh, and presumably, because of his "status" of Apostolic calling, he was subject to even more "internal temptation" from the "tempter" than the average joe believer, which is also the reason Paul saw himself as the chief of sinners, after salvation, in 1 Tim. 1:15.

My problem with this interpretation is that being tempted is not sin. If it was then Jesus would also be a sinner, as He was truly tempted by the tempter.
The only way that we could say Paul was and Jesus was not, is if Paul actually gave in to those temptations.

 

[smaller]

My problem with this interpretation is that being tempted is not sin. If it was then Jesus would also be a sinner, as He was truly tempted by the tempter.

The "tempter" commits the sin, by tempting. And yes, temptation is a sin. For example, with Paul, we can see that the law against lust caused every manner of concupiscence to transpire within him. And he directly relates this to be sin in Romans 7. Sin always starts first in "thought." And does so via the avenue of temptation to do what the law says not to do. That is the "activity" of the tempter, to tempt into lawlessness in thought.

The only way that we could say Paul was and Jesus was not, is if Paul actually gave in to those temptations.

I cited this earlier Deborah:

Mark 7:
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Matt. 15:
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man:

The notion that sin is only "sin" when acted upon in the external is NOT true. See Matt. 5:28 for another example from Jesus.

As it pertains to this subject, if Paul had a messenger of Satan in his flesh, then it is quite pointless to look at Paul and only see Paul. We should see Paul as Paul saw Paul, as himself AND also with a messenger of Satan in his flesh.

Therefore, Paul was saved. But the messenger of Satan was NOT saved. It is quite pointless to blanket the entirety of Paul with salvation as that would certainly NOT apply to the messenger of Satan in the flesh of Paul, who would actually have an opposite fate than Paul.

If the "eternal security" of the believers side of this debate saw this, it actually BOLSTERS their position, because there is another "entity" upon which to view adverse judgment rather than Paul (or any other believer for that matter.)

We should also be able to "fess" up that our own temptations are of the tempter, and they do transpire "internally." Which places the "tempter" internally to DO SO. This is an honest conclusion, but not a fact that too many believers are fond of reckoning with when they connect the dots.

 

[smaller]

I'm not following what is meant by eternal security "not applying" to the messenger of Sstan. What does the messenger of Satan have to do with eternal security anyway? Paul was telling us that because of his incredible experience in the 3rd heaven, God allowed a messenger of Satan to keep him humble.

Yes, which categorically makes Paul not just Paul, but Paul and a messenger of Satan in his flesh. Salvation certainly would not apply to the messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh. That is an impossible sight. We can derive an opposite conclusion for the messenger of Satan.

So it's rather silly to say Paul was saved, as to the whole of Paul, as that was NOT the whole of Paul.

Paul was Paul and a messenger of Satan in his flesh, therefore we should not just heap a eternal security blanket over the whole of Paul as it does not compute very well, as we'd end up giving a DEVIL salvation.

Again, why even bring up anything about this "messenger of Satan" not being saved? It seems to me that Paul was speaking of a demon or fallen angel that was keeping him humble.

We should keep in mind that once we believe, it is WE who become bigger targets of the opposition party, Satan.

2 Timothy 2:26
And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Luke 22:31
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:


I'd suggest that it would be a bolster to your position. You have in Paul another adversarial party to view other than the "man." Or, "other than the believer." So the "believer" can be saved and the tempter, the opposer who RECAPTURES any believer would be LOST regardless.

I still see no way the messenger of Satan has anything to do with eternal security.

There is no way to divide our own sin from the devil either:

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

It may be about time we "wise up" to this "overlap" between mankind and devils.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I mean, really, Jesus showed us literally thousands of examples of devils inhabiting mankind. How many more do we need to figure out that this stuff is not all "just about us" as individuals? The tempter, the devil, Satan and his own, remain on the table for viewing in all these matters. Any positions that do not factor this into their equations are missing one very large component.

Finally, Paul defined what he meant by 'gift' in Romans before he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. He spoke of spiritual gifts in 1:11, justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17, and etrnal life in 6:23. It is these 3 ONLY that Paul meant when he wrote 11:29. Because he specified NO OTHER gifts of God.

I'm in your camp on this matter. I do not believe it is possible for Jesus to lose one sheep. To me that just makes a Savior, NOT a Savior. If these matters were in our hands alone, none of us would stand much of a "chance." I'd say about a zero percent chance.

We have A Divine Shepherd precisely because there are WOLVES who seek to devour the flocks of God. And those who seek to "destroy" our fellow believers in hell, I would not trust for a nanosecond. It could very well be them who have been taken in by the tempter in trying to destroy sheep.

There is just a whole lot more going on in these spiritual battles than just the believer, that is for sure. We have a common enemy and it is not the believer.

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes, which categorically makes Paul not just Paul, but Paul and a messenger of Satan in his flesh.

There is no reason to add this "messenger" to Paul's being, as it seem your view does. Paul stands before God alone. The mesenger of Satan was to keep Paul humble, as he clearly indicates. Nothing more.

So it's rather silly to say Paul was saved, as to the whole of Paul, as that was NOT the whole of Paul.

So, somehow, the messenger makes Paul "whole"??? How does that work?

Paul was Paul and a messenger of Satan in his flesh, therefore we should not just heap a eternal security blanket over the whole of Paul as it does not compute very well, as we'd end up giving a DEVIL salvation.

There is no reason at all to include this messenger of Satan as being part of Paul. Paul HAD eternal security.

What about what Jesus said of those who believe: they HAVE eternal life (Jn 5:24). Did Jesus include a disclaimer about any believer who had a "messenger of Satan"? No, of course not.

I'd suggest that it would be a bolster to your position. You have in Paul another adversarial party to view other than the "man." Or, "other than the believer."

It is fallacious to even consider this messenger of Satan as being "part of the man" of Paul, or anyone else. The messenger of Satan did not become a part of Paul, as is being assumed.

I mean, really, Jesus showed us literally thousands of examples of devils inhabiting mankind. How many more do we need to figure out that this stuff is not all "just about us" as individuals?

Did Paul say or insinuate that he was being indwelt by this "messenger of Satan"? No, he did not. It should be pretty obvious that Paul was speaking of one of Satan's fallen angels assigned to torment Paul. Not to indwell him. There are no verses that tell us or suggest that a believer can be indwelt by a demon. The reason should be obvious; we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. How in the world could a demon co-habit with the Holy Spirit? That is nonsense.

The tempter, the devil, Satan and his own, remain on the table for viewing in all these matters. Any positions that do not factor this into their equations are missing one very large component.

This is all irrelevant.

 

[smaller]

There is no reason to add this "messenger" to Paul's being, as it seem your view does. Paul stands before God alone. The mesenger of Satan was to keep Paul humble, as he clearly indicates. Nothing more.

You are welcome to only observe Paul. Paul did not make that case for himself.

So, somehow, the messenger makes Paul "whole"??? How does that work?

I would suggest that this "dilemma" is the dilemma of every sinner. The presence of "lawlessness" in the form of "evil present" in the "internals" of us all is what makes all of us "lawless." This is why no person can be 'justified' under the law. And Grace makes no provisions or excuses for sins either.

The basis of the complaint that the anti eternal security crowd makes is this: That there is then no "judgment" for believers who sin, and sin therefore is irrelevant. This is in fact a very valid complaint. Their own folly however is that they believe that they are not sinners.

The basis of judgment for sins remains upon every believer. Grace has not justified a single sin amongst the lot of us, NOR does Grace just 'gloss over" sin for us. This is a common sight from the eternal security camp, that being "in Christ" means that God doesn't see "my" sins, but DOES see everyone else's that doesn't believe. And this makes God into just another common hypocrite, not seeing "our sin" but seeing "everyone else's sin." That's NOT how it works and God is not a hypocrite. God is no respecter of persons when it comes to sin and judges us all "as sinners." This part of the christian equation doesn't change after salvation. And in fact if we observe Paul, his own condition may have gotten WORSE after salvation, as he saw himself the "chief of sinners" AFTER salvation.

The only credible angle that we can view that with is as I noted earlier, that an Apostle is "singled out" for even greater "internal attacking" by the tempter, placing same "within" the Apostle to do so.

We can even read in Revelation this:
Revelation 2:2
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

I'd say any claimed "Apostle" will in fact confess that temptation of the tempter is within them, because that is a fact, and without that "trial" and such speaking that it is a fact for them personally, they can NOT be an Apostle.

It is "essential" that an Apostle "understand" his own internal dilemma. The "presence" of A LIAR is in fact within them to a greater degree than anyone else. And if such a called out one can not own up to this fact, they are not AN APOSTLE. If they can not step into Paul's own shoes, they are LIARS if they can not speak this truth.

Paul OWNED UP. He 'fessed up' with the fruit of simple HONESTY. And in that process he 'exposed' his internal dilemma for us all to observe, and to consider for ourselves.

What about what Jesus said of those who believe: they HAVE eternal life (Jn 5:24). Did Jesus include a disclaimer about any believer who had a "messenger of Satan"? No, of course not.

We do 'have,' present tense, eternal life. But that "life" is not extended to the tempter, who's workings are "internal" within us all. This is very simple to observe.

It is fallacious to even consider this messenger of Satan as being "part of the man" of Paul, or anyone else. The messenger of Satan did not become a part of Paul, as is being assumed.

Temptation was in the flesh of Paul. Evil present was "within" Paul. Paul had a messenger of Satan in his own flesh. It is impossible NOT to see it. And if we do see this AND consider this to be also a fact for ourselves, then it is we who are blinded to the fact by our own "internal enemy." Only the fruit of "honesty" can speak of this matter. I honestly say that I am tempted by the tempter, internally. Therefore where is the tempter, but internal? This makes "me" a child of God who "bears" the tempter in my own flesh. So, no, it's not just me. Nor was it "just" Paul.

I would utterly refuse to "justify" the tempter in anyone. Even less, to claim that working "legal, obedient OR under Grace." The sheet of Grace does not extend that far and never will.

Did Paul say or insinuate that he was being indwelt by this "messenger of Satan"? No, he did not.

I would suggest that is exactly what Paul said in 2 Cor. 12;7.

It should be pretty obvious that Paul was speaking of one of Satan's fallen angels assigned to torment Paul. Not to indwell him. There are no verses that tell us or suggest that a believer can be indwelt by a demon.

It does not take some spiritual giant to understand that "temptation" transpires within and that temptation is of and from the tempter. It only takes honesty to realize that places that operation and operator within to do so.

But you might consider that that very working will buck and fight that disclosure in anyone, and attempt to blind them to it.

The reason should be obvious; we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. How in the world could a demon co-habit with the Holy Spirit? That is nonsense.

Believers are still sinners after salvation and sin is still of the devil no matter how you care to slice it. This notion that anyone is "entirely holy" when the Apostle of our Lord exposed that he had "evil present" with him is utter nonsense.

Evil present within no person will ever be "justified" "legal" or "obedient" or even less, under Grace.

And Paul assuredly had "evil present" with him by his own very public admissions.

Romans 7:
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

No one "escapes" this law after salvation.

This is all irrelevant.

You may think it so, but the blanket of Grace and Salvation does NOT extend to the tempter. Never has, never will, never happened.

No one can justify the "entirety" of themselves while in the flesh by any measures.