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

[dadof10]

Wait. I'm tired, and I'm fighting this fight on several fronts, but are you saying faith does the justifying all by itself, apart from works?

I feel your pain. Been there. It's kind of overwhelming to be attacked on three sides. It would be fine, if I didn't work. Anyway, in answer to your question, no, I'm just saying "for the sake of argument". I truly believe that our justification is an ongoing process, and Abraham in Gen. 12 and 15 proves it. I'm really not arguing WHAT justifies, just that Abraham was justified twice, which assumes "process" not "event". If you want to take a break from it and deal with JLB's and Drew's points, just let me know. We can pick this up later.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You readily admit that what justifies is obedient faith that trusts God.

You are changing around what I said to say 'all obedient faith justifies'. I'm NOT saying that. I said the faith that justifies is the faith that is obedient so as to distinguish it from the faith that is not obedient. That faith, that dead faith, has no power to justify. Not because it needed works attached to make it now able to justify, but because it shows itself to be a non-justifying faith because it does not change the person into a righteous person who then does righteous work because they are now righteous (1 John 3:7 NASB).

there is no doubt that Abraham was justified (by obedient, trusting faith in God) twice. So, to resolve this seeming contradiction you choose to minimize Abraham's faith in Gen. 12 to keep your "justification is a one time event" theology.

From these passages, why is Cornelius' devout, obedient faith, expressed in good deeds even, not sufficient to have justified/saved him so that he needs to hear the gospel message from Peter? He could have easily been cited in the Hebrews 11 list of people with commendable faith, yet he still needs to be justified/saved:

"Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you (Peter) to come to his house and hear a message from you."
(Acts 10:1-2 NASB, Acts 10: NASB)

Did simply being obedient to send for Peter justify Cornelius so that he is now justified/saved? Or was it necessary that he put his faith in something very specific in order to be justified/ saved (thus the need for him to hear the message)?

Off to the slave ship.....

 

[JLB]

You have it backwards.
I had faith FIRST, then I responded to his call through that faith. Like Abraham had faith first and then responded to the call:

"By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance" (Hebrews 11:8 NASB)

He had faith then when out. But you have it he went out and then had faith. That's not what it says above.



Turns out the church I went to could not help me. They played no part whatsoever in my salvation. So what's your point?

That's my point. Your faith was dead until you... went out not knowing where.

Faith comes from God. You responded to Him through obedience. Just like Abraham.

Abraham responded to the same Lord, Jesus Christ, when he obeyed Him to get out and go to the land of promise...

He is our example of the obedience of faith.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26


Of course you had faith first. God speaks to us, that's how faith comes... it's not until you put action to the faith you have, that you are considered obedient, and therefore accounted as righteous.

What your doctrine teaches is: you don't have to obey God to be accounted as righteous.

I think you know from the examples in the bible that this is just not the case.



JLB

 

[JLB]

I'm going to go with the Bible on this one. It says that a person is justified (made righteous) by the forgiveness of God, not what they do.

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

By the nature of what having your sins forgiven is, that automatically excludes any and all work a person has do to be justified. It's a free gift.

Are you sure your not "Freegrace".

Your taking a chapter and a verse, and posting it, but what you posted is not the actual scripture, but your own special blend, of words you added.

This is what Ephesians 1:7 says in the NASB.

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


Paul warning of passing judgement on other while doing themselves the very things that they judge others for doing.

2 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.3 But do you suppose this,O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,6 who will render to each person according to his deeds:7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality,eternal life;

8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
Romans 2:2-8


Those who do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.

The gift of eternal life and immortality is given to those who obey righteousness... that is to say, those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality,eternal life;

The obedience of faith, means you obey God.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, THESE are the sons of God.



JLB

 

[JLB]

You have it backwards.
I had faith FIRST, then I responded to his call through that faith. Like Abraham had faith first and then responded to the call:

"By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance" (Hebrews 11:8 NASB)

He had faith then when out. But you have it he went out and then had faith. That's not what it says above.

We have faith first, when God speaks to us. That faith is made alive and active when we obey what God has said to us.


JLB

 

[JLB]

You are changing around what I said to say 'all obedient faith justifies'. I'm NOT saying that. I said the faith that justifies is the faith that is obedient so as to distinguish it from the faith that is not obedient. That faith, that dead faith, has no power to justify. Not because it needed works attached to make it now able to justify, but because it shows itself to be a non-justifying faith because it does not change the person into a righteous person who then does righteous work because they are now righteous (1 John 3:7 NASB).


From these passages, why is Cornelius' devout, obedient faith, expressed in good deeds even, not sufficient to have justified/saved him so that he needs to hear the gospel message from Peter? He could have easily been cited in the Hebrews 11 list of people with commendable faith, yet he still needs to be justified/saved:

"Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you (Peter) to come to his house and hear a message from you."
(Acts 10:1-2 NASB, Acts 10: NASB)

Did simply being obedient to send for Peter justify Cornelius so that he is now justified/saved? Or was it necessary that he put his faith in something very specific in order to be justified/ saved (thus the need for him to hear the message)?

Off to the slave ship.....

Cornelius had to repent and believe the Gospel.

Abraham had to turn away from his fathers house and country and follow the Lord, the same Lord.


Abraham was our example of the obedience of faith.


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

Is accepting "Jesus as Savior" a "work"? It's something that MUST BE DONE IN ORDER TO BE BORN AGAIN, right? So, how can you call it a "free gift" if we HAVE TO do something to earn it?

Because the Bible defines both salvation (Eph 2:8) and eternal life (Rom 6:23) as gifts.

And Paul defined "work" as something that creates a debt owed (Rom 4:4). Believing God's promise does not create a debt owed. It's that simple.

 

[FreeGrace]

llama, I hope you understand the following:

1. I vigorously and furiously deny that we can "earn" heaven "on our own";

2. I affirm what Paul writes in Romans 2 and elsewhere - eternal life is granted based on the "evidence" of good works. But I hasten to add that it is essentially the Holy Spirit in us that is responsible for these works.

Why not also AFFIRM the following verses that exclude "the evidence of good works for receiving eternal life??

John 3:15-16
15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

1 Tim 1:16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

To paraphrase NT Wright:

Paul affirms salvation by faith alone and he also affirms salvation by good works. What sense does this make? It makes Spirit-sense.

It is clear that NT Wright is a very confused and conflicted person. If salvation is by faith alone, then it CANNOT be by good works. It is either one or the other.

He makes no sense. Not even "Spirit-sense", whatever that might be.

 

[FreeGrace]

Cornelius had to repent and believe the Gospel.

Where does the Bible say this?

Abraham had to turn away from his fathers house and country and follow the Lord, the same Lord.

Not for salvation.

 

[dadof10]

You are changing around what I said to say 'all obedient faith justifies'. I'm NOT saying that. I said the faith that justifies is the faith that is obedient so as to distinguish it from the faith that is not obedient. That faith, that dead faith, has no power to justify.

Really..."Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval." (Heb. 11:1-2 RSV) This comes right before the description of Abraham's faith in Gen. 12, so these "men of old" obviously include Abraham. Let's recap.

1) Abraham had the "kind of" faith that "received divine approval"
2) By this faith, which was approved by God he "obeyed God".
3) By this obedient faith that received divine approval, he trusted God and "went out, not knowing where he was to go."
4) This is an example of "dead faith".

Do I have this about right?

Not because it needed works attached to make it now able to justify, but because it shows itself to be a non-justifying faith because it does not change the person into a righteous person who then does righteous work because they are now righteous (1 John 3:7 NASB).

The above seems to me a textbook example of justifying faith. Is it that you don't think Abraham trusting God and "going out, not knowing where he was to go" constitutes "righteous work"? I really am trying to understand why you wouldn't consider Abraham's faith in Gen. 12 a "justifying faith". The example seems to meet all of your criteria.

From these passages, why is Cornelius' devout, obedient faith, expressed in good deeds even, not sufficient to have justified/saved him so that he needs to hear the gospel message from Peter? He could have easily been cited in the Hebrews 11 list of people with commendable faith, yet he still needs to be justified/saved:

"Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you (Peter) to come to his house and hear a message from you."
(Acts 10:1-2 NASB, Acts 10: NASB)

Did simply being obedient to send for Peter justify Cornelius so that he is now justified/saved? Or was it necessary that he put his faith in something very specific in order to be justified/ saved (thus the need for him to hear the message)?

Off to the slave ship.....

What makes you think he wasn't justified before Peter came? I haven't really thought about it before, but after a cursory reading of Acts 10, it seems possible. He had faith in the One, True God, like Abraham, and that faith definitely produced "righteous works", like Abraham. Certainly if Abraham being "declared righteous" was possible before hearing the Gospel and having an opportunity to "repent and believe" in Jesus, then Cornelius being "declared righteous" was possible also. After hearing the Gospel, it was necessary for he and his household to accept it, but to say that justification is impossible before belief in Christ, is to reject the entire NT teaching on the example of Abraham. There are a lot of similarities, so I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility. What do you think?

 

[dadof10]

Because the Bible defines both salvation (Eph 2:8) and eternal life (Rom 6:23) as gifts.

And Paul defined "work" as something that creates a debt owed (Rom 4:4). Believing God's promise does not create a debt owed. It's that simple.

Neither does faithful obedience to God, therefore obedience is not a "work" by your own definition.

 

[dadof10]

He had faith in the One, True God, like Abraham, and that faith definitely produced "righteous works", like Abraham.

"At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God." (Acts 10:1-2 RSV)

 

[Drew]

Very poor analogy.
For your analogy to be accurate it would have to be true that Americans in America are held accountable by Canadian law, just as the whole world is accountable to the law of Moses.

Sorry, don't understand. But forget the analogy. I believe I have provided a range of texts that definitively show that God intended only the Jew to follow the Law of Moses. And you have not addressed those texts. For example, if the Law was for all, why would Paul write these words:

1I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,...[Romans 9:1-4, NASB]

If you can give an account as to how this text does not undermine your view about the universality of the Law of Moses, I (and likely others) would like to hear it.

Plus, I will again point out that I believe your view is held by almost no reputable Biblical scholars - this does not prove anything but, again, it is compelling.

I will address your texts in another post.

 

[Drew]

"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God" (Romans 2:19 NASB)

I already addressed this - see post 131.

"But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore, the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. " (Galatians 3:23-24 NASB italics in orig.)

Paul is talking to Jews here. You cannot, and I am sure you know this, simply assume that the "us" here is a universal "us"! Paul is always talking about Jews and Gentiles as distinct groups so he certainly could be addressing only Jews here. My reasoning is simple: it is otherwise clear from other texts - which you have not dealt with yet - that the Law is only for Jews. So since Paul is a Jew, the "us" here pretty much has to be a Jewish "us". In fact, even here in Galatians 3, Paul distinguishes Jews from Gentiles in his argument. So we know he has these two distinct categories in mind.

""When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us" (Colossians 2:13-14 NASB)

Again, Paul is addressing Jews here. In fact, that this is the case is borne out by what Paul says just before the verses you have posted:

11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. [Colossians 2:11-12, NASB]

Paul is clearly talking to Jews here. And this is really clear, let there be no mistake: When Paul tells the "you" that he is addressing that they are also circumcised in a non-physical way, he can only be talking about people who are physically circumcised as well.

And these are Jews, of course.

 

[Drew]

"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”" (Galatians 5:14 NASB bold mine)

Why is he making the point to the gentiles at Galatia that they fulfill the ENTIRE law of Moses if, as you say, we gentiles were not given the law? He didn't say to the Galatians, "Oh, you don't have to keep the law that you are keeping. Let it go," and then stops there. No, he goes on to explain to them what fulfills the law and how to do it--this law that you are so sure was/is not for the gentiles.

You have a big challenge that you have not yet met - to explain all the texts that show that the Law of Moses was for Jews only. We will be interested to read how you explain texts like this one from Leviticus:

25You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine. [Lev 20,25-26, NASB]

I see no wiggle room here at all:

1. God expresses a piece of the Law of Moses;
2. He (God) then use "thus" at the beginning of verse 26 indicating that He is about to provide an explanation for what He has just said;
3. The content of the "thus" statement is that it is through following the Law of Moses that the Jew is marked as distinct from the Gentile.

Now please: engage this text and this argument directly. Explain to us how it is possible that these verses do not rule out the possibility that the Law of Moses was for Gentiles as well.

I have already affirmed that Paul claims the Gentile can "do the things of the law" as he says here:

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, [Romans 2:14, NASB]

What do you make of Paul's statement that the Gentile does not have the Law? How does this not undermine your position. Yes, of course a Gentile can do the things the Law of Moses prescribes! For example, the Gentile can honour his parents. But this certainly does not mean that the Gentile is under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses!! Somewhere in the Amazon basin, some native is choosing not to commit murder. Murder is prohibited by American law. So we have a native in South America "doing the things required by American law".

Is that native under the jurisdiction of American law ? Of course not.

Likewise, Paul knows that the Law of Moses has good stuff in it and is exhorting the Gentile to love since love is the principle that undergirds the Law of Moses. But that certainly does not mean that the Gentile was given the Law of Moses.

 

[JLB]

Where does the Bible say this?.

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."
Acts 11:18

Not for salvation.

Eternal life is knowing God, and Jesus Christ whom He sent.
John 17:3


JLB

 

[Drew]

Why not also AFFIRM the following verses that exclude "the evidence of good works for receiving eternal life??

John 3:15-16
15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

This verse clearly does not exclude the evidence of good works. All it says is that those who believe in Him will get eternal life. How, and please be really clear about this, do you know that it is not possible that those people who really believe in Him will produce lots of good works and that God will look on those good works as the evidence for true belief?

And while you are at it, please explain what was going through Paul's mind when he wrote these words, yes these particular words:

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

Please do not talk about other texts to the exclusion of this text. I think you have to say that Paul is saying something here he knows to be false. Why would Paul do that? Do you typically say things you know to be false?

Often people argue that Paul goes on to show in Romans 3 and elsewhere that no one could do good works. Well, OK, but how does that explain why he would say the opposite here in Romans 2? This is what is so odd about apologists for the 'works don't matter' camp - they appear to believe that they get a free pass on explaining why Paul would affirm something he knows to be false.

 

[JLB]

Because the Bible defines both salvation (Eph 2:8) and eternal life (Rom 6:23) as gifts.

And Paul defined "work" as something that creates a debt owed (Rom 4:4). Believing God's promise does not create a debt owed. It's that simple.

4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
Romans 4:4

Yes agreed, the work that is described here is work in order to receive wages.

Is that the only description of the word "works" in scripture?

Works to receive wages.
Works of the law.
Good works of charity.
The work of obedience in responses to the Voice of God.

I believe we are all in agreement that we can not work as one works to receive wages, to earn eternal life.

However, Paul just got through writing these words from Romans Chapter 2.

1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds":
7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath,
9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;
10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Romans 2:1-10


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

Neither does faithful obedience to God, therefore obedience is not a "work" by your own definition.

And no one goes to heaven because of "faithful obedience".

 

[dadof10]

And no one goes to heaven because of "faithful obedience".

That's not the point. You said "Paul defined "work" as something that creates a debt owed". I agree, however faithful obedience does not create "a debt owed" either. Therefore it does not fit into Paul's category of "works". Are we in agreement here?