For those who think they can “lose itâ€Â…

[Guest]

For those that believe we can looe that which Christ as bought (how one can lose something that someone else own's is beyond me! ie: God own's (is in possession of) our salvation - bought for with the blood of the Lamb)

But let's say that we can lose it: How does one get it back? Or is it a one time deal - ie: you had salvation, you lost it, too bad no getting it back.

 

[cyberjosh]

1. Mercy - if sinning against God removes my name or any other saints' from the book of life then no one would have chance! God in his wisdom knew this - that is why he paid for my future sins also.

Problem is Josh you do not believe Christ died for your sins.

You have misevaluated both me and the nature of God's grace. Christ died for sins through which we recieve propitiation through faith in Christ. Once in that relationship God gives us grace to run from our sinful life though no doubt among the way we will sin, but the point is we should keep reaching for that grace to get away from our sin. Some who stop doing that begin to backslide (something I and many others have done at one point or another in their life) and as a result sin (don't act like it has no effect whatsoever on the Christian - hogwash - it causes uncleaness and hardens the heart) decieves us and hardens out heart. If this were to continue in unrepentance you end up making God's grace to no effect - why do you think Paul beseeched the Corinthians not to recieve God's grace in vain?

Trampling grace underfoot is the warning given in Hebrews - and in Hebrews is also the warning that sin decieves and hardens.

2. The body of Christ is in no way connected with any covenant with God - The body of Christ is not connected to Abraham's calling - the church, which is his body, is associated with a high calling.

I trust this helps but I know it will not - folks want to be Jewish believers under the OT so bad.

Really...? So God's eternal covenant just disappeared? The whole Bible rests on the foundation of God and his covenant relationship with man. If you take the covenant away you take the means of grace away (even though his grace transcends the covenant it is his grace that enacted the covenant as well - using it as a channel & bond to man for His grace). Blood had to be shed for a covenant to be enacted and Jesus' precious blood ushered us into the New Covenant. Also Paul makes it clear that Jesus extended/fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace to the point that the promise made to Abraham is still in effect and being acted on (the Covenant is still good - and indeed God called it an everlasting covenant[Genesis 17:7])- drawing Gentiles also into the salvation of God through Christ.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Drew]

We must utilize the freely given grace of God to obey his covenant (for God's glory) with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength. God's hesed (lovingkindness - his highest grace) is superabounding under the New Covenant, lifting us up still after repetetive failures, but he lifts up those who repent with Godly sorrow by His Holy Spirit and sets us aright again. But repetetive sin unnaccompanied by Godly sorrow unto repentance in the life of the believer, just because he or she is a child of God, does not exempt them from the truth that sin decieves and hardens one's heart: "But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin." (Hebrews 3:13).

I think this is a correct take on the matter. And I think it is critical that people not be deceived into thinking that their salvation is assured, no matter how they live their lives. Getting this issue correct is not some idle theological item. If one's name can be blotted from the book of life, as I believe it can, then people need to know this - it is literally a matter of life and death. Of course, the preceding statements are not an argument for believing that OSAS is false, but rather an expression of the importance of this issue.

As to the objection:

if sinning against God removes my name or any other saints' from the book of life then no one would have chance!

I think that different people have different fundamental ways of reading the Scriptures. And what I am talking about now generalizes beyond this particular issue. However, I will use this and other "Calvinism - Arminianism" issues as an example.

When I read a text like Ephesians 2:8:

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

I see this as true in a less than an entirely "literalistic" sense. I believe that there are those who look at such texts in almost a mathematical sense and argue as follows:

1. Salvation comes from God (clearly stated)
2. Salvation is not of man (clearly stated)
3. Therefore, man cannot perform an act of free will acceptance of the gift - this is inconsistent with both 1 and 2.

I understand this reasoning, but I think it is fundamentally untrue to the nature of language as used at least in our culture. I have another objection to the standard Calvinist take on this verse - namely that the denial of free will participation violates what is entailed by the concept of a "gift" - but that objection is not relevant to my immediate point. My way of looking at this text involves accepting that language usage is such that when we say that "A is responsible for achieving X", we mean that "A is substantially responsible for X", not that "A is responsible for achieving X to the utter and absolute exclusion of any other agents contributing to achieving X"

Similarly, I think that when argues that "if sinning against God removes my name or any other saints' from the book of life then no one would have chance", one is thinking very discretely and very mathematically as follows:

1. Every believer will commit at least one sin after they are "saved". (Obviously true, I would suggest)
2. Therefore, unless no people wind up in Heaven, it simply cannot be the case that we can lose our salvation by sinning.

Again, I have a certain empathy for such reasoning. However, once again, I think such a reading is untrue to what is really meant in the texts that talk about "falling away" (example: Hebrews 10:29). I think that in such texts, reference is not being made to the occasional "slip-up" sin like kicking the dog or driving 70 in a 60 zone or saying something hurtful to your child in a moment of anger. Instead, I think that what disqualifies us is habitual entrenched sinning that reflects the lack of a commitment to follow the teachings of Jesus and of the Scriptures.

I admit that most of what I have said in this post is statement of a position with no supporting justification for why I think the way I do on these matters. Perhaps in another post.

 

[sisterchristian]

For those that believe we can looe that which Christ as bought (how one can lose something that someone else own's is beyond me! ie: God own's (is in possession of) our salvation - bought for with the blood of the Lamb)

But let's say that we can lose it: How does one get it back? Or is it a one time deal - ie: you had salvation, you lost it, too bad no getting it back.

We were bought at a price and that price was the blood of Jesus Christ that was shed for us on the cross. Since salvation is a FREE gift that cannot be earned, than how can someone lose it? If someone gave you a gift, is it not yours? would the person that gave it to you turn around and take it back after some time because maybe you did something to them that wasn't right in there eyes?? I don't think so! So for those people that think that they can lose it, well I feel really sorry for them because there going to live their life always wondering if they've done something that possibly made them lose their salvation. That isn't the kind of life that God would want you to live, being in constant fear of doing something wrong! why must people make the GIFT of salvation so complicated instead of just accepting it as that! :smt009

 

[Drew]

Also Paul makes it clear that Jesus extended/fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace to the point that the promise made to Abraham is still in effect and being acted on (the Covenant is still good - and indeed God called it an everlasting covenant[Genesis 17:7])- drawing Gentiles also into the salvation of God through Christ.

At the risk of seeming backslap once again, I think that this is a correct view of things. My take is this: When Adam fell, God marshalled a plan to redeem mankind and creation generally. His plan was that mankind and creation will be redeemed through the agency of Israel. I think that "Jesus becomes Israel" in order to fulfill this covenant to redeem the world. As such, his death on the cross is not "plan B" but rather weaves seamlessly and coherently into a single plan that was formed at creation of the world. Jesus' sacrifice is the way that God demonstrates his righteousness as a covenant - keeper. It is not really a "new" covenant, although I suspect people can credibly argue otherwise based on Jesus' own words re the last supper.

I think that Paul writes about the "righteousness of God" in Romans, he is not talking about a righteousness that is imputed to us (which is what most Christians believe (I think) but rather he is talking about God's own (and therefore non-imputed) righteousness in using the sacrifice of Jesus to fulfill the covenant made to Abraham. God is righteous in that He keeps his covenant - He does not discard it and make a new one.

When I assert that the "righteousness of God" is not referring to an imputed righteousness, I am not saying that Christ's death did not render us legally "justified". It seems entirely coherent to believe that we are justified by Jesus' death without also arguing that God "imputes his own righteousness" to us.

I suspect that while I have started out backslapping cybershark in this post, he may well wish to slap me in the face and not the back : for this take on the "righteousness of God". I admit my thoughts about this (and actually about the entirety of this post) are very preliminary. I also give credit or blame, as the case may be, to NT Wright whose ideas have influenced me on the "what does Paul mean by the righteousness of God" issue.

I may have veered away from the topic, so I will stop now.

 

[handy]

AVBunyan, thanks for your explanation of the verses. I must admit, some of your conclusions are different from any teaching I've ever had on certain of the texts, but I promise I'll study these texts from your POV and do some cross-referencing and see if they hold up to Scriptural scrutiny. If they do, then the position of OSAS becomes much more reconciled to the whole of scripture.

I'm just very busy for the next couple of weeks, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to respond to your post, but I do appreciate it.

As far as this post


[/quote]cybershark5886 wrote:
1. By sinning against God
2. by trangressing his covenant and its accompanying grace (lovingkindness - hesed).

1. Mercy - if sinning against God removes my name or any other saints' from the book of life then no one would have chance! God in his wisdom knew this - that is why he paid for my future sins also.

God did tell Moses, "Whoever sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book." Exodus 32:33 Other references to the book of life do indicate that God will blot the wicked from the book. I'm intrigued by the book of life. Given the account of the Great White Throne judgment, anyone whose name is not in the book is thrown into the lake of fire. The book is real, even Jesus refers to it, it does not to be any kind of symbolic thing, but an actual book that is in Heaven.

Someone reference Romans 9:7 in regards to this book, (sorry, I just cannot think of who right now) and I think that may be a key. We are all born alive, and when we come to a knowledge of the law, sin comes and we die. Perhaps this is when names are blotted. But, I'm not sure because nowhere do the Scriptures indicate that once a name is blotted, it will be restored. If that is the case, then no one's name would be in the book.

Granted, the book is a mystery that we cannot fully understand, simply because it's one of the heavenly things that are referenced but not really explained. But, I do believe the purpose of the references to the book of life is so that we can, by studying what we can know about it, with other texts regarding who is saved and who is condemned we can better understand how we are saved.

aLoneVoice, you said:
[quote:624c0]But let's say that we can lose it: How does one get it back? Or is it a one time deal - ie: you had salvation, you lost it, too bad no getting it back.

The answer is no, you cannot get it back. See Hebrews 4:4-6 and 10:26-27. Consider also the example that Paul gives us of Esau: See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who shold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected for he found no place for repentance, though he saught for it with tears. Hebrews 12:15-17

Someone somewhere also asked me to consider who the book of Hebrews was written to. I'm not sure exactly what the person wanted me to consider but the book of Hebrews was written to the Jewish Christians of the Dispersion, an edict by Claudius expelling all Jews from Rome. (Acts 18:2) Being removed from their homes, many sought refuge with Jewish family members and within Jewish communities in other cities but were rejected by the Jewish communities because of their Christianity. Many of these Christians then were then tempted to leave their faith and return to Judaism.

But, the bottom line is that these people were Christians, fully Christian and were facing severe persecution because of their faith, which is why the letter was written. The writer is very loving to these Christians calling them holy brethren, and affirmed that they were partakers of a heavenly calling. That this letter is written to Christians and not to

Israel seeking to get into the millennial rest

[/quote:624c0]
is confirmed by the benediction of the letter Hebrews 13:20-25 which shows that these words were written to a body of believers that Timothy and the writer were soon to visit personally.

Considering that the main theme of the book is to hold fast to one's faith and an exhortation NOT to fall away is one of the main reasons why I have come to believe that falling away is a very real possibility.

But, I can't spend any more time on-line. Thanks again AV for your post and I promise to consider them prayerfully and examine them fully.

 

[Drew]

So for those people that think that they can lose it, well I feel really sorry for them because there going to live their life always wondering if they've done something that possibly made them lose their salvation.

I suspect that I probably speak for all of us who reject OSAS when I say that we believe the way we do not because we enjoy worrying about losing salvation, but rather because of a compelling set of Biblical texts whose "plain reading" certainly suggests that one can be lost even after "accepting Christ".

Now to be fair, I have not read material such AVB's response to handy's "big list". But supporters of OSAS must obviously deal with these texts.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. I'm just very busy for the next couple of weeks, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to respond to your post, but I do appreciate it.

2. God did tell Moses, "Whoever sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.".

1. Thanks Handy - I understand - take your time - at least you took the time to reflect on thme - that is more than some do.

2. Handy - this was prior to Calvary under the law when God was speaking driectly to theleader of the nation of Israel - has noting to do with the body of Christ truth today.

My take is this: When Adam fell, God marshalled a plan to redeem mankind and creation generally.

God was not taken by surprise (if that iswhat you hinted at) - God did not create a plan because of Adam's sin - Please review Ephesian 1-3 and you will see God had all this worked out and Adam's fall was according to his predetermined plan. The church (body of Christ) was prepared from before the foundation of the world- there is no covenant relationship connected with the body of Christ.

You folks have to learn to distinguish between what is meant for Israel as a nation and that which is meant for the body of Christ - don't mix them together - creates much confusion in doctrinal matters.

God bless

 

[cyberjosh]

God is righteous in that He keeps his covenant

That's right! I was just studying on this last night and the night before. I have a New Testament Theology book written by Frank Thielman and he say that the way Paul uses the phrase "righteousness of God" (8 times in all) in Romans is rather colorful - but that it is not used the exact same each time. He noted the verses in chapter 6 where it literally refered to a state of being, but for Romans 1:16-17 he showed how Paul used the sense of "righteous" in the Old Testament manner where God shows his righteousness (justness & faithfulness) to make good on his promises - and he subsequently showed a passage (in Isaiah I think - I'll look it up later) that showed via parallelism that righteouness was connected to preforming promises of the covenant. However Paul does make it clear that Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, and that if the glory of the former covenant was great, then how much more the new (2 Corinthians 3:9-11).

So I do agree that one sense of the word righteous when connected to God (and even sometimes to man) means covenant keeping, but I wouldn't go as far as to say the Covenant of the Law hasn't gone away (Paul makes it clear that it has). But this does not mean other the covenants have gone away: The Davidic Covenant (particularly to Israel), the Abrahamic Covenant (for all), and the Noahic Covenant (common grace promising to never flood the world again).

~Josh

 

[golfjack]

reply

I don't believe we can use Matt.:7:21 as a verse to show one can lose salvation. I believe Jesus was addressing the religious people of that day. We also can apply it to todays world.

So, what does this verse really mean? We see the religious leaders of yesterday, which were the Pharisees, priests, and scribes. It's no wonder that Jesus said Anyone who cries, Lord, Lord (v.21) but does not believe that Jesus is the God-Man, the only Savior, has a false religion. So, how does this apply to todays Christian? In the first place there are many that say they are Christians, but really aren't. Can I be the judge of that? Absolutely not. Only God can judge one's heart. Today, we see many Christians that act the part of being a Christian. They even preach in His name, cast out demons in His name, Perform miracles in His name, and do wonderful works in His name, deceiving many Christians, but such a person cannot fool the Lord, who knows the heart.

Therefore, this verse doesn't apply to a believer. It applys to the unsaved. Salvation doesn't come until Jesus was resurrectted. If the people of the four Gospel day, happened to die before Jesus was resurrected, and they did obey the law, they would go to Hades until Jesus preached to them.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[Drew]

God was not taken by surprise (if that iswhat you hinted at) - God did not create a plan because of Adam's sin - Please review Ephesian 1-3 and you will see God had all this worked out and Adam's fall was according to his predetermined plan.

I agree with the above and I did not intend my previous post to suggest otherwise.

The church (body of Christ) was prepared from before the foundation of the world- there is no covenant relationship connected with the body of Christ.

You folks have to learn to distinguish between what is meant for Israel as a nation and that which is meant for the body of Christ - don't mix them together - creates much confusion in doctrinal matters.

I am a little confused. Do you agree with the following statement:

"Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross is a major part of the mechanism by which God carries through on the covenant He made with Abraham".

 

[cyberjosh]

We are all born alive, and when we come to a knowledge of the law, sin comes and we die. Perhaps this is when names are blotted. But, I'm not sure because nowhere do the Scriptures indicate that once a name is blotted, it will be restored. If that is the case, then no one's name would be in the book.

We are born physically alive but not spiritually alive for "in sin my mother concieved me". And no God doesn't blot your name out and then change his mind, and then, oh wait... let's put him back in..no take him out. No one's name can be penned in the Book of Life unless Christ puts it there. I prefer to use the anology that our names are written with Christ's blood as the ink in the Book of Life. This is why we must not show contempt for the blood that bought us.

But people who ask "but if you loose it can you get it back again" are not thinking of the true ramifications of what it means and takes to reject God. This is like a battle of the Titans between man's sinful flesh and God's righteous Spirit. The Bible makes it clear that someone can sear their conscience beyond repair - becoming callous - which is also what hardening your heart does: it "hardens over with a callous" to God's grace and his Spirit which gives it to us. The decision is not an occasional slip, as has been previously said, it is a process which if continued down in unrepentance can result in utter ruin - the unforgivable sin of saying no to God's grace, insulting the Spirit of God's grace (Hebrews 10:26-29), and blaspheming the Holy Spirit who graciously reaches out to you.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

I don't believe we can use Matt.:7:21 as a verse to show one can lose salvation.

I'm not sure who you were talking to here, but when I used it I didn't use it for that but rather to reinforce the idea that we must keep God's commands in line with his covenant, not a salvation of works but a covenant participation and faithfulness as God gives us the grace and salvation to accomplish it. This is why we cannot misapply God's grace or he will stop giving it to us if we use it to "spend it on our pleasures" (as James talks about) and it can equally be on our side since God wants to give us grace but we can fail to recieve it (recieveing the "grace of God in vain" - 2 Corinthians 6:1).

~Josh

 

[jgredline]

You folks have to learn to distinguish between what is meant for Israel as a nation and that which is meant for the body of Christ - don't mix them together - creates much confusion in doctrinal matters.God bless

Actually, I have been thinking about starting a thread on this...This is a very common mistake and causes and leads to much confusion...

Example...Hebrews...Who was this book written to?

 

[Vic C.]

Actually, I have been thinking about starting a thread on this...This is a very common mistake and causes and leads to much confusion...

Example...Hebrews...Who was this book written to?

I believe it was written to them about "us".

Just like Romans 9, 10 and 11 were written to us; about "them". ;-)

 

[handy]

Example...Hebrews...Who was this book written to?

I believe it was written to them about "us".

Just like Romans 9, 10 and 11 were written to us; about "them". ;-)

Us and them? :smt017
Hmmm, I truly do not understand why there seems to be a question as to whom the book of Hebrews was written to. I understand the controversary surrounding whom it was written by, but it's obviously written to Jewish Christians. Even if one is going to ascribe to replacement theology, it doesn't alter the fact that the author of the book of Hebrews uses very inclusive language that makes it clear he is writing to Christian brethren. The only difference between Jewish Christians and Christians is geneology. After all, Peter, James, and John were Jewish Christians. For that matter, Jesus was the original Jewish Christian.

Whereas the specific community where these brethern lived is a mystery, it was somewhere within the missionary outreach of the apostles, for the writer and Timothy were planning to visit them. v13:23. But that they are to be considered first and foremost Christian shouldn't be in doubt.

 

[Guest]

Here is a silly question:

But what if the verses that those who ascribe to losing one's salvation - are merely meant as a warning or a rebuke as to not misuse the gift that you were given?

For example, when I give a gift to my children - I teach them how to use it, how it should be respected, the joys that can come from it by using it correctly - but in the end - they can decide how to use it. When it 'breaks' - I do not take it away from them - merely show them the error of their ways and help them fix it. Is it as good as the original, not always - but that doesn't mean that I take the gift away from them.

Silly, I know... .

 

[AVBunyan]

1. I believe it was written to them about "us".

2. Just like Romans 9, 10 and 11 were written to us; about "them". ;-)

1. Don't see us (body of Christ) any where but many of those truths can be "applied" to and for us.

2. This I see

Thanks Vic -

God bless

 

[Vic C.]

Us and them? :smt017
Hmmm, I truly do not understand why there seems to be a question as to whom the book of Hebrews was written to. I understand the controversary surrounding whom it was written by, but it's obviously written to Jewish Christians. Even if one is going to ascribe to replacement theology, it doesn't alter the fact that the author of the book of Hebrews uses very inclusive language that makes it clear he is writing to Christian brethren. The only difference between Jewish Christians and Christians is geneology. After all, Peter, James, and John were Jewish Christians. For that matter, Jesus was the original Jewish Christian.

Whereas the specific community where these brethern lived is a mystery, it was somewhere within the missionary outreach of the apostles, for the writer and Timothy were planning to visit them. v13:23. But that they are to be considered first and foremost Christian shouldn't be in doubt.

Christian wasn't even a word when Jesus was alive. :-?

Anyways... maybe it was my terminology. Hebrews was written for... Hebrews (them), hence the book's name. It was was written about us (gentiles) and the new covenant. Or should I say, with "us" in mind?

 

[Vic C.]

1. Don't see us (body of Christ) any where but many of those truths can be "applied" to and for us.

Which I would say was my intentions. 8-)