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

[JLB]

No, there's not one. In either case it means the water saved them.

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by [or through] water. (1Pt. 3:20 KJV)

What saved them, Freegrace? What does it say here? Does it say the ark saved them, or the water?

Furthermore, we see it was through the obedience of faith that Noah and his household were saved.

7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Hebrews 11:7

JLB

 

[JLB]

Sorry but I didn't see where you showed this...care to show me?

I've asked the same thing about 12 million times.... He has yet to comply!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

My point being, we all infer from Scripture, so it's logical to infer, looking at all the evidence from Gen. 12 itself and Heb.11, that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12.

No, it's not logical in the case of Abraham and Genesis 12:4. I explained this to you.

If you agree that inference is a proper exegetical tool, then do you think there is any organic reason in the Gen. 12/Heb. 11 account that would make you reject Abraham's faith as "justifying"? You have only said that "it doesn't say", and haven't really given any textual reason why you reject it.

That is not all I've said. I explained how it is 1) impossible to be re-justified, and 2) it is unnecessary to be re-justified.

We agree that Abraham is actually being justified in Genesis 15:6. That much we agree on. We just disagree on whether that was the first time that happened to him or not. And we also agree that Abraham did not fall into apostasy that can not be forgiven between Genesis 12:4--the first time you say he was justified--and Genesis 15:6 where the Bible actually says he was justified. So the first reason why Abraham could not have been re-justified in Genesis 15:6 is not applicable here. No reason to debate something we already agree on, lol.

So, that leaves the 2nd reason I gave above for why Abraham could not have been re-justified in Genesis 15:6--it's unnecessary. It is not necessary to be re-justified after you have already been justified. And since we both agree he really is being justified right there in Genesis 15:6 (you just argue it's an additional justification), and since it's unnecessary to be re-justified, that justification occurring there HAS to be his first and only justification (as in being MADE righteous). Perfectly legitimate logic.

 

[Drew]

It doesn't have to be "called that" to be that. I gave the definition of "ritual" which perfectly fits both water baptism and communion.

And the verse you provided refutes your claim. Checkmate.

No. You have a lot more work to make this argument work: you need to show that when Paul (or whoever) used the word "baptism" (for example), he knew that the word denoted something that was purely and ritual, and ritual only. Your argument here is more or less circular - you choose to see word "baptism" as defined to be something that is purely ritual and, voila, you claim checkmate.

I am quite sure you will not be able to make a case that the term "baptism" - as used in the original language by the writer of scripture - has only a ritualistic connotation.

 

[FreeGrace]

You going to have to do better than just stating your opinion with no scripture, as this type of dialogue is unproductive and disrespectful.

Actually, failing to read my post is what is unproductive and disrespectful. I cited 2 chapters of James.

It's clear you have rejected anything the New Testament writers teach us, that shows your OSAS indoctrination to be unbiblical.

Just more very unproductive and disrespectful dialogue. I've shown from Scripture that OSAS is true, and those who reject it have rejected Scriptural truth.

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? even demons believe, and they fear and tremble...
James 2:14,19
The context in which James is teaching concerns salvation.
JLB

Not eternal salvation, for sure. The question the discerning student of the Word ALWAYS asks when coming to the word "save" or "salvation" is this: saved from what? The meaning of the word is the same in English; to deliver or rescue from something. Context always informs us of what it is that we may be rescued or delivered from.

James uses the Greek word 'sozo' 5 times, and NONE of them aref abouta eternal soul salvation. Since it is clear from your response to my earlier post about James that neither ch 2 nor 3 were reviewed, here are the verses that contain the word 'sozo':
1:21 - Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. Saved from what? The context, beginning in v.12 and following, is about temptation. So, those believers, who ARE already saved, will be saved FROM temptation and sin WHEN they obey God's Word (receive the word implanted).

2:14 - What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith bu the has no works? Can that faith save him? Saved from what? The very next 2 verses give us the immediate context for what he means:
v.15,16 - 15If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

What is clear to all who rightly divide the Word of Truth is that the example given here is about hypocrisy; saying one thing and doing another. We see the same principle at the beginning of ch 2, which was ignored. About the rich man and poor man who come into their meeting. They are hypocritical to treat the rich man differently than the poor man.

The concept of hypocrisy continues in ch 3, which was also ignored, from v.5-12, about the tongue, which praises God but curses man, who was created in God's image.

It's all about hypocrisy, and those who read James with discernment already know that.

4:12 - There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor? Again, saved from what? judgment, of course. But notice the contrast of the Judge; to save and destroy. There is no reason to ASSUME that this is about eternal judgment, but rather the straightforward function of the law, where the judge has the authority and right to deliver from judgment or to hand over to judgment, meaning either jail time or even capital punishment.

Those who default to eternal soul salvation every time one encounters 'sozo' demonstrate lack of discernment.

5:15 - and the prayer offered in faith will restore (sozo) the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Saved from what? Illness, obviously.

5:20 - let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. Saved from what? Divine discipline of the 'sin unto death', clearly taught in 1 Cor 11:30 and 1 Jn 5:16 with a multitude of examples throughout the OT and NT.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes, that the whole point!

They believe in Jesus as a prophet, but will not confess Him as Lord.

No, that isn't even the point. Believing in Jesus as a human prophet is NOT saving faith. Why would anyone think that it is?

If they were to confess Jesus as their Lord, then they would have to turn away from Allah, and serve Jesus as Lord.

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10JLB

I suggest when citing a verse, that one actually read it for comprehension, in order to avoid such embarrassment as making such erroneous statements. The 2 verses that are cited here refute your claim that believing in Jesus as prophet is part of saving faith, when it is NOT.

 

[FreeGrace]

I'm really confused here....where does scripture say what you're asserting here, and EXACTLY what gift are you referring to?

I said this:
"God gives the gift. Only He would have the power or authority to take it back, and He has said that His gifts are irrevocable."

It was directed to one of the "insecurity crowd" who was arguing that though Rom 11:29 does say that God won't revoke His gift of eternal life, from Rom 6:23, the believer could "discard" their gift, which is preposterous.

My response was to ask where in Scripture is anyone given this supposed ability to "discard" their gift.

 

[FreeGrace]

Sorry but I didn't see where you showed this...care to show me?

Sure. Rom 3:24 and 5:15,16,17 define justification as a gift, which we KNOW to be from God alone.
Rom 6:23 defines eternal life as a gift from God.
Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable. And, Paul defines nothing else as "gifts of God" between 6:23 and 11:29. The conclusion should be obvious, though it seems to be highly resisted by the "insecurity crowd".

 

[FreeGrace]

I believe the argument is that, per Romans 11:29:

1. God's gifts are irrevocable;
2. Salvation is a gift;
3. Therefore, once you have received this gift, it's with you for good.

The problem, of course, is that when something is "irrevocable", this only means the giver will not take the gift back; it does not rule out the possibility that the recipient can discard the gift.

No one has yet shown from Scripture the possibility or reality that one can discard the changed life that occurred when they believed. The very idea is preposterous, and nothing more than a huge ASSUMPTION.

When challenged on this, the poster asks for a Biblical text that says the gift can be discarded - clearly not "fair play" since scriptural silence relative to proposition X is certainly not denial of the truth of proposition X (here, X = the gift of salvation can be discarded).

Clearly fair play. Your ASSUMPTIONS cannot be found in Scripture.

When one ASSUMES anything, then one will believe anything. Let's just stick with what Scripture actually says.

 

[Drew]

My response was to ask where in Scripture is anyone given this supposed ability to "discard" their gift.

And that is not a legitimate request - your request presumes that if something is true, the Bible will make a statement to that effect. Obviously that general principle is untrue: we all -believe in the Trinity, but we need to perform a rather complex inference to get to that idea; the doctrine of the Trinity is not directly articulated in the Bible.

So the fact that the Scriptures do not explicitly say we cannot discard the gift of salvation does not mean that we cannot, in fact, discard it. There are plenty of texts that show otherwise and I politely suggest you are effectively trying to "define those texts away" by unjustifiably claiming that the concept of a "gift" logically precludes the possibility that the receiver will discard.

And this is rather obviously not the case.

 

[FreeGrace]

Your request is clearly unreasonable; any reasonable person knows that just because there is no statement "the gift of salvation can be discarded" does not mean that it cannot be discarded. There is no Bible statement that says that God = Father + Son + Spirit, yet we almost all believe it. And there are many other examples.

Where does the Bible says that Jesus had a nose? Answer: nowhere. Does that mean He had no nose?

ASSUMPTIONS regarding the Bible are preposterous. And to be rejected. We need to stick with what Scriptures actually say and leave assumptions to other things.

Assumptions only lead to false doctrine. The truth is found only in Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace]

Wait a minute. You are the one who argued that a gift cannot be returned. For a gift to be irrevocable merely means that giver will not retract the gift - the recipient can still toss it aside.

There you go again; treating salvation and eternal life as a mere object, which can be discarded. When will you please stop making such erroneous assumptions? Salvation includes a changed life; regeneration, born again, justified, new creature. These aren't things that can be discarded.

So the onus is on you: since a gift that is irrevocable can indeed be discarded, you need to provide further Biblical evidence that the gift of eternal life can be revoked.

There isn't any such evidence that eternal life can be revoked. In fact, Rom 11:29 refutes that idea. Your question is completely out of whack.

Since your ASSUMPTION that eternal life can be discarded, the ONUS is on you to prove it. Not merely assume it to be so.

Since Scripture never says so, your ASSUMPTIONS are totally false and lead into false doctrine.

 

[FreeGrace]

No one is denying that an internal change is involved. But you simply assume that an internal change is permanent and unchangeable. When someone gives up booze, this is an internal change; however they certainly can relapse. So the fact that salvation is not an object, but rather an internal change does not help your case.

Prove your assumptions from Scripture. Otherwise, they are just false ideas.

 

[Drew]

No one has yet shown from Scripture the possibility or reality that one can discard the changed life that occurred when they believed. The very idea is preposterous, and nothing more than a huge ASSUMPTION.

The idea that a gift can be discarded is preposterous? Please.

People discard gifts by the thousands every day. The fact that this is an "internal" gift - a change in internal state - is entirely irrelevant.

Let's say my girlfriend offers me the gift of her unconditional love and I accept it. Two months later I could foolishly choose to toss away that gift.

 

[FreeGrace]

This is yet another example of the following invalid form of argument:

1. Scripture never says X;
2. Therefore, X is not possible (or cannot be true).

This is clearly not a correct way to reason: to be born again is, of course, a way of referring to a dramatic and radical internal change - no one is denying this - but there is no particular reason to assume that change cannot be reversed.

Your assumptions are unreasonable since they cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace]

Why not - both are fundamental, internal changes. You have given the reader no reason to believe that the internal change associated with regeneration is not reversible. Remember what Paul says to the believer in Romans 8 (Romans is written to the church):

So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh- 13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. [Romans 8:12-13, NASB]

A clear statement that "living" - the context here is clearly that of eternal (easily proved if you do not believe me) - requires a continual effort to defeat sin.

Do you not see the obvious error here. You are constructing a strawman - you attribute to me a kind of claim I never made, and then you attack that fictitious claim. Of course, I am saying nothing like this at all. I merely stated what I suspect you know is obvious: the fact that a change is "internal" does not mean it is permanent and irreversible.

You've done nothing to prove your assumptions. I was simply taking your erroneous assumptions and taking it to the extreme to show just how unreasonable it is.

 

[FreeGrace]

I think he's getting the two of us mixed up.

Seems there are a lot of mixed up posters.

 

[FreeGrace]

You have a huge problem to face that you have not dealt with.

It's really quite simple: If, as you say, Paul believes that one cannot persist in doing good, why would he say that people will get eternal life by persisting in doing good?

This question will not go away - please address it.

The answer is very simple, and it is quite perplexing why it hasn't gone away. Paul is stating to moralists who think they are good enough to earn eternal life that they have to be perfect to earn eternal life. And the point is; no one is.

This is how people always try to wriggle out of dealing with Romans 2:6-7 - they argue that these verses cannot be true because Paul later shows that one cannot persist in doing good.

Who can you cite that is perfect and doesn't need Christ's work on the cross for salvation?

Does it not occur to you that you have to explain why Paul wrote something that he knew was not true. Are we to believe that this is not true as well?:

Here's why the question will not go away; comprehension of the issue has not occurred even a little. What Paul wrote was absolutely true; a perfect person will get eternal life on the basis of his perfection. But Paul's point is that no human is perfect.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Uh, please don't ignore the previous verse, which CLEARLY indicates that the 8 were saved THROUGH water, not BY water. Do you understand the huge difference?"

No, there's not one. In either case it means the water saved them.

The difference is huge, even though there are those who refuse to comprehend that. The 8 in the ark were saved through water, by the ark, a type of Christ. The water sure didn't save them from drowning.

Please explain your apparent view that they were saved by the water, when EVERYONE else on the planet was killed by the water. This should be interesting. I'll get the popcorn!

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by [or through] water. (1Pt. 3:20 KJV)

I don't care what translation one chooses to try to prove that they were saved by water. Please explain how the water (flood) saved them from drowning?

The simple and obvious fact is that they were saved by the ark, from the water. The water would have killed them, as it did for EVERYONE ELSE on the planet.

What saved them, Freegrace? What does it say here? Does it say the ark saved them, or the water?

That's the point. It doesn't say the water saved them. They were saved FROM THE WATER. Are you aware what deep water does to people over time? They drown. That means water kills. I can't believe I am having to explain all this.

But I can't wait for your explanation of how the flood water saved them.

 

[FreeGrace]

This is what Jesus commissioned Paul to preach and do.

But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 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 26:16-18

Turning from Satan to God is how a person reveives the forgiveness of sins.

Read what this verse says...

Turn them from the power of Satan to God that the may receive the forgiveness of sins.

They are forgiven their sins because they have turned away from Satan to Jesus Christ as their Lord.

A person who has no intention of turning away from a lifestyle of sin, because they are still a captive of the Devil to do his will, can not expect to receive the forgiveness of sins, for they have not obeyed the Gospel command to repent.



.

They believe Jesus is the Son of God and He was raised from the dead, and they try and steal what is sown into the hearts of people that hear the Gospel (Matt 13), yet they still serve Satan.

This is the point that James makes in his teaching about Salvation through the work of obedience.

Here is what He wrote from the previous chapter.

Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. James 1:12

Eternal salvation comes to those who obey..,

And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,
Hebrews 5:9


JLB

It's all been explained and very clearly. And one is free to reject truth.