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

[Kidron]

I added the following (blue) to my post after you replied to me:



Believeth is present tense one must CONDITIONALLY continue to keep on believing to never die.
.

God offers Jesus, and God is Love...and both are free to any that would have them.
The gift of God is not dealt out with requirements that are subsequent to it, to keep it.
God will never say, and has never said......"if you do this", AFTER you are saved, then you are still saved."
He never said that, Paul never said that, and only you and people who want to avoid "the free gift of salvation", will try to
add to it "works", or "effort".
The only thing that keeps you saved is the fact that you were., as this puts the responsibility on the Savior and his finished work, and that is the only place the responsibility for Salvation can ever belong, in truth.

 

[dadof10]

Lol, yeah, I figured that's what you meant as far as Ishmael.
I know your reasoning is pretty well accepted among many, but can we look at it from a different angle?
I believe that when Abraham laughed, it was a joyous laughter. And when he questions, it's not doubt, but rather it's like saying, "Pinch me, is this real!".

I don't think the text bears out this interpretation. I think it was more of an "Oh, c'mon...Really?" type of response. I think Abraham got impatient and resigned himself to God's promise being fulfilled through Ishmael.

Remember, Abraham believed God. I don't think Abraham ever doubted God. But Abraham didn't know how God was going to fulfil that plan.

He believed Him in Gen 15, and in Gen. 12, but that doesn't mean there was never any doubt, ever. The text seems to point to doubt here in Gen. 17, and who could blame him? First, Abraham complains that his "steward" will have to be his heir, then God says "This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir." (Gen. 15:4 KJV) Note that nowhere in the text of Gen. 15 does it mention that Sarai would be the mother. OK, so if Sarai can't bear children, wouldn't it make sense that someone else would have to be the mother? Sure, enter Hagar. Abram and Sarai honestly think this is God's will, I believe, so Abram has Ishmael with Hagar and all is going according to plan, in Abram's mind. Then, 13 years later God comes along and says that Sarai will bear a child at 90 years old. First, Abraham thinks that Ishmael will be his only heir, then all of a sudden, out of a clear blue sky, God appears and says "change of plans, your 90 year old sterile wife will bear you a son". It's more of surprised shock and disbelief than joy, I would think.

I As far as what Abraham said about Ishmael, I get the idea that Abraham figured out "His" idea of how God was going to work in his life wasn't the way God was going to do things. Of course he cared for his son Ishmael... and he wanted his son to follow God. But I think Abraham had the realization that the promise wasn't going to come through Ishmael, but he still wanted good things for Ishmael.

No doubt (pun intended) God surprises Abraham with the news that his 90 year old sterile wife will bear him an heir. Sheesh, I would laugh and doubt too. Certainly, he loved his son, Ishmael. His reaction concerning Ishmael can only be interpreted as doubt, though. If he "believed" that God would bring forth a son through Sarah, why did he say "O that Ishmael might live before thee!" (Gen. 17:18a KJV)? Other translations say:

“If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!” (NIV)
"O that Ish'mael might live in thy sight!" (RSV)

What would your first reaction be if confronted with this situation? I might ask "what about Ishmael?" Or "I thought Ishmael was going to be my heir". Abraham is not accepting God's premise. God is saying "there's going to be another heir through Sarah" and Abraham is saying "Oh, come on, Sarah is 90 years old and sterile. Just let Ishmael 'live in thy sight' or 'under your blessing'". If he wasn't doubting, he would not have tried to keep Ishmael as the heir of the covenant, no matter how much he loved him.

As far as Sarah, yes, she laughed because she was being spiteful and bitter.

OK. But I don't see much of a difference between her laughter and Abraham's.

"Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?" (Gen. 18:12 KJV)

She doubted too, but it was because she and Abraham were abstaining from relations due to age. I really don't see how Sarah's laughing at the premise and Abraham laughing at the premise are any different. They both seem to be doubting God, but for different reasons.

We are justified through believing. Listen, if the Law of moses teaches anything, it teaches we can't obey every law. It even comes with snags where to uphold one law, you have to violate the other. In essence, it has within it the ability to teach discernment. But that's not my point... my point is that our salvation isn't based on our obedience.

Welcome to the fray. As has been said, more than once here, then can we disobey God and still be saved?

It's based on our faith and belief.

Yes, obedient faith and belief.

But I think it's more than just believing in Jesus. It's believing that he will never leave or forsake you, even when your being disobedient. Heaven knows we want to do what's right, but we need to discern what's right sometimes too. We need to look at the bigger picture and know when grace is needed

I don't think God will "leave or forsake you" for any reason, but we can push Him away by our disobedience.

 

[Seabass]

Yes.

i think that if a saved person will ask themselves, "what am i trusting to save me", or "who saved me".....if they will ask themselves these and then answer honestly, they will discover if they are trusting in Christ or if instead they are trusting in themselves + the Cross.
There is only one right answer, and the answer is not....."well, i know that God saved me through Christ ,....BUT....

So, if there is a "but" in their inner faith world , there is a disease within their understanding of Grace.

Most, if not all, on this forum would agree that God is the one Who saves.

To me the bigger question is not Who saves, but WHY does God save one person and not another person?

WHY would God save "Joe" but not "Jack"?

Did God save Joe because he conditionally believeth and Jack does not?
If Joe quits conditionally believing will he be saved anyway?
If Joe quit believing he would be an unbeliever, the same as Jack. WHY would Joe continue to be unconditionally saved as an unbeliever yet Jack would not?

 

[Seabass]

God offers Jesus, and God is Love...and both are free to any that would have them.
The gift of God is not dealt out with requirements that are subsequent to it, to keep it.

One is not required to have faith to gain God's gift and keep faith in order to maintain God's gift????

God will never say, and has never said......"if you do this", AFTER you are saved, then you are still saved."

1 Jn 1:7 after one is saved, he does not have to CONDITIONALLY continue to walk in the light to have all his sins to be continually cleansed away by the blood of Christ????

He never said that, Paul never said that, and only you and people who want to avoid "the free gift of salvation", will try to
add to it "works", or "effort".

Jn 6:27 Jesus said to work for the meant that endures unto everlasting life...no work = no everlasting life.

Rev 2:26 can one quit CONDITIONALLY doing the works of Christ yet still overcome anyway? no.

The only thing that keeps you saved is the fact that you were., as this puts the responsibility on the Savior and his finished work, and that is the only place the responsibility for Salvation can ever belong, in truth.

I do not agree for no one is initially save UNcondtionally nor will one continue maintain his salvation UNcondtionally.

Instead, one must conditionally have faith to be initially saved and conditionally maintain that faith to maintain his salvation.
Quit meeting the condition = become lost.

 

[dadof10]

I disagree with your "definition". I've already given the requirements for saving faith.
#1 the object must be the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
#2 the goal must be salvation/eternal life.

What you've "defined" is what may happen AFTER exercising saving faith. That is a different subject altogether.

Then a person can become "born again", go out and sin (disobedience) being unrepentant until death, and still be saved? I hope this question is "addressed and answered. Not just ignored or disagreed using some quippy little post".

No wonder there is so much confusion; there is so much conflation.

But, let's address your so-called definition of "disobedient faith that saves". If this so-called person was wrong, then that would mean that there are "heinous sins" that will keep God's children out of heaven. So, what are those "heinous sins"? And please provide verses that actually teach and support such a notion.

Wow, really? Do you want me to go back through JLB's, Drew's, Jethro Bodine's and Seabass' posts to copy the verses and paste them here? If you won't accept theirs, why would you accept them if I posted them? That obedient faith saves has been demonstrated to you over and over. You just won't accept it.

So, I must ask a very simple question: how many sins did Jesus Christ die for? Some of them. Most of them, a few of them, or ALL of them?

All of them.

If He died for only the "non-heinous sins", then your so-called definition might have some merit. But I don't find any Scripture to support that.

Your premise is wrong. He died for all sins, but only through faithful obedience do we have His redemptive Grace applied to us.

If He died for anything LESS than ALL sins, again, your so-called definition might have some traction. But, again, I don't find any Scripture to support that.

Page back and look through the many verses already shown to you.

What I have found is that Jesus Christ died for ALL sins. Every last one of them.

Yep, every last one. It's the application of the Grace that's the point. You think it's by faith alone (which is nowhere in Scripture) and I think it's by faithful obedience (keeping the commandments, baptism, sacrifice).

So, that being so, how can any sin keep any of God's children out of heaven? That makes no sense.

If Christ died for all sins, how can any sin keep anyone (even unbelievers) out of Heaven? Christ died for all sins, right? Your premise is wrong.

 

[Kidron]

One is not required to have faith to gain God's gift and keep faith in order to maintain God's gift????
.

You dont maintain a gift.
A gift is free.
You receive it, and it becomes yours.
God does not take it back, when he in fact knew of all the sins you were going to commit for the rest of your life, day by day....the very day he saved you.
He KNEW all the times you would sin after you were saved, and he saved you ANYWAY.
Do you understand this?....Have you ever realized it?
That is because once you are saved, your sins are no longer YOURS, even while you commit them, as they have now become the property of Jesus, who died to take them all from you and pay for them all for you.
Its a done deal, and it cant be undone, as Jesus's BLOOD cant be erased from your record.
You cant out-sin redemption.
Its not possible.
And you cant undo salvation any more then you can stop being born.
Its not possible.

Remember that Eternal life IS Jesus......He IS Eternal life.....Its HIM.
1 John 5:11-13
And if you have him, you have Eternal life, and you have him because every believer has the Holy Spirit inside.
This cant be taken from you based on your behavior or your lack of faith or the number of porn downloads you save.
Salvation is a completion of the operation of securing the Sonship position into the family of God.
It cant be undone.
You cant be "unseated" in heavenly places.
You cant be "unsealed" to the day of redemption.
You cant be "unborn" again.

All you can do is misunderstand Grace, or understand it.
You ither try to make yourself righteous, or you let God do it for free without any of your deeds.



thank you for our discussion, ive enjoyed it... but, im good.

 

[dadof10]

Consider what John the baptist said: “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

The baptism John was referring to was one without water, as he very clearly noted.

So? I don't get your point. Is it that you think "baptism in the Spirit" took the place of "water baptism"? Do you want me to post all the verses in the NT that refer to water baptism?

 

[WIP]

Note from admin. We can argue opinions back and forth all the day long but in the end they mean nothing. Please remember to apply the forum guidelines when posting so we are sure to remain focused on His word and not our own understanding.

Thank you.

 

[stovebolts]

I don't think the text bears out this interpretation. I think it was more of an "Oh, c'mon...Really?" type of response. I think Abraham got impatient and resigned himself to God's promise being fulfilled through Ishmael.


He believed Him in Gen 15, and in Gen. 12, but that doesn't mean there was never any doubt, ever. The text seems to point to doubt here in Gen. 17, and who could blame him? First, Abraham complains that his "steward" will have to be his heir, then God says "This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir." (Gen. 15:4 KJV) Note that nowhere in the text of Gen. 15 does it mention that Sarai would be the mother. OK, so if Sarai can't bear children, wouldn't it make sense that someone else would have to be the mother? Sure, enter Hagar. Abram and Sarai honestly think this is God's will, I believe, so Abram has Ishmael with Hagar and all is going according to plan, in Abram's mind. Then, 13 years later God comes along and says that Sarai will bear a child at 90 years old. First, Abraham thinks that Ishmael will be his only heir, then all of a sudden, out of a clear blue sky, God appears and says "change of plans, your 90 year old sterile wife will bear you a son". It's more of surprised shock and disbelief than joy, I would think.


No doubt (pun intended) God surprises Abraham with the news that his 90 year old sterile wife will bear him an heir. Sheesh, I would laugh and doubt too. Certainly, he loved his son, Ishmael. His reaction concerning Ishmael can only be interpreted as doubt, though. If he "believed" that God would bring forth a son through Sarah, why did he say "O that Ishmael might live before thee!" (Gen. 17:18a KJV)? Other translations say:

“If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!” (NIV)
"O that Ish'mael might live in thy sight!" (RSV)

What would your first reaction be if confronted with this situation? I might ask "what about Ishmael?" Or "I thought Ishmael was going to be my heir". Abraham is not accepting God's premise. God is saying "there's going to be another heir through Sarah" and Abraham is saying "Oh, come on, Sarah is 90 years old and sterile. Just let Ishmael 'live in thy sight' or 'under your blessing'". If he wasn't doubting, he would not have tried to keep Ishmael as the heir of the covenant, no matter how much he loved him.


OK. But I don't see much of a difference between her laughter and Abraham's.

"Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?" (Gen. 18:12 KJV)

She doubted too, but it was because she and Abraham were abstaining from relations due to age. I really don't see how Sarah's laughing at the premise and Abraham laughing at the premise are any different. They both seem to be doubting God, but for different reasons.


Welcome to the fray. As has been said, more than once here, then can we disobey God and still be saved?


Yes, obedient faith and belief.


I don't think God will "leave or forsake you" for any reason, but we can push Him away by our disobedience.

This is going to be difficult from my phone...

You and others can interprete the texts in that fashion, but as with myself, it's ambiguity can be viewed to fit my bias as firmly, perhaps firmer than your bias.

Abraham laughs. People laugh for many reasons. They laugh when they are sad, sarcastic (such as Sari) or joy.

Considering Abraham was a man of faith, and he had learned from his experience in Egypt, it is very plausible that his laughter was that of Joy. First, God had just told him his wife would bear a son. This would restore her dignity. No doubt he loved Sari very much. Ohh how glad to have a child with the woman you loved and how exciting to know that son shall be the son of the promise.

Prior to this, God had not stated how the promised child would be born. After realizing Saris wound was barren, Hagar comes onto the scene. Nothing here at the time to note that suggests this isn't gods plan.

But what about Ishmael? The child who was thought to be the son of promise? Will he be struck down? Will others think less of him? Will he accept this change of events and how will Hagar take this? Fast forward, and Sari has her and the boy leave. How sad. But Abraham has Gods promise that Ishmeal has Gods blessing. There is no need for Abraham to doubt when there is great cause to worry.

And go back and read Sari's response to the news. She sounds more bitter. Imagine, she is old. Her body is tired. Kids are a lot of work, and now she is old. Welcome to child bearing

As far as them abstaining from sex, you do know Abraham had other children from *Katura (I think) after Sarah died. We have no reason to think Abram and Sarah stopped having sex just because she couldn't bear children.

Oh, and I believe that no, you can't loose your salvation. But I would discuss one who threw it away.

 

[stovebolts]

Note from admin. We can argue opinions back and forth all the day long but in the end they mean nothing. Please remember to apply the forum guidelines when posting so we are sure to remain focused on His word and not our own understanding.

Thank you.

What if our understanding is the discussion of Gods word?
Dadof10 and I are discussing our differing views of interpretation of a subset of verses

 

[JLB]

And if you have him, you have Eternal life,

How is it that you have come to have Him?

 

[JLB]

Interesting. Given your Arminian view that salvation can be lost, and that Arminians also believe in unlimited atonement, this is a switch.

Anyhow:
Heb 2:9 - But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

2 Cor 5:14,15
14For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

You're welcome.

Sorry but the phrase "Jesus died for all your sins" is not mentioned in these verses.


As I said, Jesus died for us and for the world.

That's covers who Jesus died for, All men.

Will all men be saved? NO.

Now please post the scripture where Jesus died for all of your sins.

So far you have not.


Thank you.


JLB

 

[JLB]

"being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption (the forgiveness of sins-Ephesians 1:7) which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24 NASB)

This single truth excludes any and all consideration of any and all work being able to justify a person.

Here is what Ephesians 1:7 actually says -

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace. Ephesians 1:7

Here is what Paul also says in the next Chapter.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, Ephesians 2:8


The way we have the forgiveness of sins by repenting.



to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.' Acts 26:18

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

 

[WIP]

What if our understanding is the discussion of Gods word?
Dadof10 and I are discussing our differing views of interpretation of a subset of verses

It's one thing to attempt to clarify one's position by offering more details but it's another to make a claim about things and not have Scripture to support. To put it simply if one begins with something like, "What I mean is...." then one is just adding clarification. However if one makes a statement to the effect, "This is how it is...." then one is making a claim and should be able to back up the understanding with Scripture. I'm beginning to see more posts that fall in line with the latter of those two examples which eventually turn into "He said, she said" arguments.

 

[dadof10]

This is going to be difficult from my phone...

You and others can interprete the texts in that fashion, but as with myself, it's ambiguity can be viewed to fit my bias as firmly, perhaps firmer than your bias.

Abraham laughs. People laugh for many reasons. They laugh when they are sad, sarcastic (such as Sari) or joy.

Yes, he laughs, but he also denies God's premise. He laughs "and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?" God just told him that a child would be born to "him that is an hundred years old", so why does he question it if he had accepted God's plan? I could see if he said "I rejoice..." or something like that, but he doesn't. In fact, he only "says in his heart..." Why? Maybe because he was scared to say it out loud to God? If he was overjoyed, why didn't he say it out loud to God? Why did he hide it, like Sarah did?

But what about Ishmael? The child who was thought to be the son of promise? Will he be struck down? Will others think less of him? Will he accept this change of events and how will Hagar take this?

You are not dealing with the verses at hand. Abraham didn't ask if Ishmael would be struck down or if others would think less of him or what Hagar would think. What he actually said was "O that Ishmael might live before thee!". Again, if Abraham had joyfully accepted God's premise, why would he want Ishmael to inherit the promise instead of the child God just said he would have?

And go back and read Sari's response to the news. She sounds more bitter.

No, she really doesn't sound any more bitter than he does. All she says is I'm old and worn out and so is "my lord". What makes you think her response is any more bitter than his?

As far as them abstaining from sex, you do know Abraham had other children from *Katura (I think) after Sarah died. We have no reason to think Abram and Sarah stopped having sex just because she couldn't bear children.

OK. Then the only reason was because she was old and sterile.

Oh, and I believe that no, you can't loose your salvation. But I would discuss one who threw it away.

I believe that's the only way we can lose it, is to throw it away.

 

[JLB]

So, being born again, is to be saved once, and once saved is all there ever will be, and as you cant be unborn again,
you are eternally secure.

Please give us the scripture that teaches this.

We will be like the angels, as sons of God. At the resurrection.

But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Luke 20:35-36

Until then we have the right to become children of God.
John 1:12

In this life we walk by faith, not by sight.

For we have been saved in the hope of salvation, not that we have already obtained salvation, but we have the hope of salvation. Romans 8:24-25

That why Paul says -

we eagerly wait for it (salvation) with perseverance...

JLB

 

[stovebolts]

Yes, he laughs, but he also denies God's premise. He laughs "and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?" God just told him that a child would be born to "him that is an hundred years old", so why does he question it if he had accepted God's plan? I could see if he said "I rejoice..." or something like that, but he doesn't. In fact, he only "says in his heart..." Why? Maybe because he was scared to say it out loud to God? If he was overjoyed, why didn't he say it out loud to God? Why did he hide it, like Sarah did?


You are not dealing with the verses at hand. Abraham didn't ask if Ishmael would be struck down or if others would think less of him or what Hagar would think. What he actually said was "O that Ishmael might live before thee!". Again, if Abraham had joyfully accepted God's premise, why would he want Ishmael to inherit the promise instead of the child God just said he would have?


No, she really doesn't sound any more bitter than he does. All she says is I'm old and worn out and so is "my lord". What makes you think her response is any more bitter than his?


OK. Then the only reason was because she was old and sterile.


I believe that's the only way we can lose it, is to throw it away.

We agree on throwing away our salvation, but we're not going to agree on the other points.

Anyway, there was my two cents for what it was worth. You seem pretty set in your view so it doesn't seem we have uck more to discuss.

Take care and enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[dadof10]

We agree on throwing away our salvation, but we're not going to agree on the other points.

Anyway, there was my two cents for what it was worth. You seem pretty set in your view so it doesn't seem we have uck more to discuss.

Take care and enjoy the rest of your day.

You too. Nice talking to you.

 

[FreeGrace]

Again, the context is about God's gift and calling to the Jews was without repentance.

Please. There is NO mention of gifts in ch 7-11 until 11:29, so how can this claim be made? And what is this gift to the Jews that you think Paul was referring to? Please be specific.

Paul never said in Rom 11 or else that when one receives the promise of salvation he can never lose it under any circumstance.

Actually, Paul said that God's gifts, which he had already defined clearly, are irrevocable. Denying that fact doesn't make it go away.

Context is important for in Rom 11 Paul clearly says the Jews, who were once God's elect, were now cut off/cast away and the context informs us those unbelieving Jews were still beloved because of the fathers and God would not repent of the calling and gifts He had made to the Jews, that is, make salvation impossible for the Jews but instead would still keep His word and make salvation possible for the Jews through Christ.

So, please show exactly where in ch 11 where Paul defined what he meant by gift in 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

"Believe" and "believe only" are not the same thing.

When the Bible repeatedly says "believe" and doesn't add anything else, one can rest assurred that believe goes it alone.

"Believe" includes repentance confession and baptism to be saved.
"Believe only" excludes repentance confession and baptism from being saved.

Please prove your claim that "believe" includes baptism. From a lexicon.

Not one says to 'believe only" to receive eternal life.

Maybe a careful reading of the gospel of John is in order here. That book uses the word "believe" nearly 100 times. Note what Jesus Himself said about eternal life.

Are you insisting one can refuse to repent of his sins, Lk 13:3; refuse to confess Christ Mt 10:32,33; refuse to accept the gospel by being baptized Acts 2:41 and still have the promise of eternal life???

Very faulty charge. None of these things are required for eternal life, as I have already proven and you've already rejected. Seems there isn't anything more to discuss. We disagree and that's that.

These verses do not merely 'suggest' one must do the will of God to be saved but require/demand one do the will of God to be saved/of God.

Please define what the "will of God" actually is. From Scripture.