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

[FreeGrace]

Really? So Paul says:

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]
.....and then proceeds to disprove the very thing he asserted?

No, he is saying that if one persists in doing good, they will earn eternal life. iow, if one never sins, they don't need saving. The whole purpose of the Law was to show one's sinfulness, as Paul pointed out in Rom 7:7 - What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

So he is telling the moralist that they CANNOT be good enough to earn eternal life, the very thing they THOUGHT they were earning.

That would be like me saying:

"Admission to Harvard is based on grades"

....and then going on to argue that it's impossible to get good enough grades and that admission is actually based on whether your father or mother went to Harvard.

There is nothing wrong with this. To analogize this to the gospel, we would add that Jesus already took the test for us and if we accept His grades, we will get in to Harvard. Now, that is really good news!!

I suggest it is obvious that no reasonable person would ever construct such an argument.

There is no reason not to.

This is why Romans 2:6-7 is fatal to the view that good deeds are not relevant to salvation - to save that view, one has to make the exceedingly implausible claim that Paul goes around saying one thing, and then disproving what he has just said in the next breath.

Well, it's obvious that our views are in strong disagreement. My view is logical, reasonable, and rational. And lines up with the rest of Scripture that teaches that eternal life is based on faith in Christ, not works of any kind.

 

[dadof10]

By James' definition, Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6 NASB is "dead, being by itself", yet his faith, all by itself, is commendable in God's eyes at this moment in Genesis 15:6 NASB.

Abraham's faith was "dead" in Gen. 15? It was dead until he performed a "work"? The "work" made it a justifying faith? Are you sure you want to go down this road? We have discussed this over and over, and I can't remember you ever saying this.

"Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" (James 2:22 KJV)

"You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;" (ibid. ESV)

"You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did." (ibid. NIV)

Before Abraham's faith was "made complete", "completed by" or "made perfect" by his actions, was his faith "dead"? This doesn't seem to square with your view that he had justifying faith, that was demonstrated by this work. That the "works" merely "show" the faith that's already present. I say "doesn't seem to". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not "intentionally" "putting spin" on your view.

Some will be, some will not be (remember the definition of 'dead' faith). In Abraham's case we know his 'dead' faith (faith being by itself) did in fact obey when he offered Isaac up on the altar. The moment faith is obedient it is no longer by definition 'dead' and gets exposed as the faith that can save a person.

Again, do the actions merely show the kind of faith that exists, or actually make the faith "alive"? You seem to be fluctuating between the two.

It can. Abraham's did. We know that because of the obedience it produced. But, as I say, it ceased to be 'dead' when it produced obedience.

Then his faith was made alive (justifying) when the work was performed? Then Abraham's faith was made justifying when he obeyed and trusted in Gen 12.

It can. The moment faith acts obediently as expected it by definition ceases to be 'dead' and is able to save the person who has that faith. Again, I cite Abraham's example.

And again I remind you that in the above sentence, the faith was dead, and made saving by "obedient acts".

ALL faith, by strict definition, starts out as 'dead', "being by itself"--James 2:17 NASB. What matters is if it stays that way or not. A faith that is then obedient validates that faith as being genuine. A faith that remains dead signifies either a cessation of that faith, or, it was not a genuine faith to begin with:

And...back to "validating" or "signifying" an already existing "saving faith". I'm getting dizzy...

The great deceit presently gripping the Protestant church is that the faith that remains dead (that is, being by itself having no works attached) can still save a person, not knowing that it being dead signifies it is a faith that can not justify.

How is the bolded in the above sentence different from what I wrote here:

"On numerous occasions, while discussing James 2, you have made the point that faith that doesn't justify is "dead faith". "

This seems to be a new wrinkle in our conversations. That James describes Abraham's faith as "dead" before he offered Isaac, is new to me and seems to infer that the work itself actually does the justifying, or changes the faith from "dead" to "saving". I know you'll clear this up in your next post, or try to...

 

[reba]

Ya know guys this site is not a college debate forum ... and no member is registered here as part of a debate team... We are just folks from different backgrounds... so college so not .. Some are/were Bible school students some not... Some speak from emotions some dont.. Learn/accept who your audience is and be kind to one another... even when the 'other guy' is wrong... ADMIN

 

[dadof10]

Well, I guess we've got that sorted out now. My faith was not dead faith, because, by pure definition, it did something:

"faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." (James 2:17 NASB italics in orig. )

Let's both be careful to not deviate from the actual definition of 'dead faith'. If we stay on this particular subject of faith what we need to explore is the long term implications of a faith that remains dead and what it proves about that faith. The other subject of discussion, of course, is in regard to faith that is not dead, but is proven by what it does that it is not the faith that justifies (i.e. Abraham's circumcision).

Well, we also need to stick to the subject of the obedience of Abraham in Gen. 12, since that is the topic. We can discuss "going to church" or "not stealing" or "circumcision" but the real, Biblical example that proves Abraham's faith in Gen. 12 is that he trusted God and "went out, not knowing where he was to go", and God approved his faith. I know you believe that an obedient, trusting faith is the faith that justifies. What is missing from Abraham's faith in Gen. 12 that makes it not a justifying faith?

 

[Drew]

I've already dealt with it. I have nothing more to say about it. Sorry that you don't agree.

You have not dealt with my argument - perhaps someone else needs to point this out to you.

What you have done is provide other arguments, and you appear to think that those other arguments remove your obligation to deal with my argument. That's not correct.

Here is an analogy:

1. FreeGrace declares that Mr. X killed his wife;
2. FreeGrace supports this by pointing out that the fingerprints of Mr. X are all over the murder weapon;
3. Drew de that Mr. X is innocent;
4. Drew provides someone who swears they were with Mr. X at the time he supposedly killed his wife.

.....and now here is the problem:

5. FreeGrace does not try to show that this witness is mistaken, or is unreliable, or is lying. Instead, FreeGrace simply claims that the evidence of the fingerprints is enough to make the case.

Do you see the problem?

I have argued in fair detail in post 262 that the "works" in Eph 2:9 are the works of the Law of Moses. You need to show how that argument is wrong by attacking its details, not by making a different argument.

 

[Drew]

Ya know guys this site is not a college debate forum ... and no member is registered here as part of a debate team... We are just folks from different backgrounds... so college so not .. Some are/were Bible school students some not... Some speak from emotions some dont.. Learn/accept who your audience is and be kind to one another... even when the 'other guy' is wrong... ADMIN

Not sure what you are saying. Surely you are not saying that some posters get a free pass to make claims and then not properly defend them? For my part, I am simply insisting that the debate be proper.

With all respect, "emotions" are not the basis for a solid Biblical position.

 

[reba]

1Jn_4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

[dadof10]

This is a huge typo. I would NEVER consciously believe or state that a "disobedient faith saves". My point, if one carefully read the whole context of the post, was that saving faith IS an obedient faith. I was pointing out that there is no such thing as a disobedient faith.


Will forgiveness be forthcoming, or do I have to do some penance for my mishandling of the keyboard? Okay, both have made their point so let's drop reference to this and stick to the topic.

LOL...Sure. No problem, but the reason why this erroneous view was viable in my mind was because you believe that ONLY faith saves. I thought the point you were making was that, since ONLY faith saves, that it doesn't make a difference if the faith itself was obedient or disobedient. I have actually heard that view before. Thank God you don't hold it.

 

[dadof10]

Well, I just don't what ELSE to say. There is no context for claiming that "works" means "works of the Law of Moses", as I have already explained. In fact, Paul doesn't even get to the Law until 6 verses later. So why would one think Paul was thinking of the Law in v.9, when all he was doing was differentiating works from faith?

How many verses does it take for him to "get into" good deeds or obedient faith? That's the point.

 

[JLB]

I'm not seeing anything "unfortunate" for OSAS here. Nor do I see anything that resembles loss of salvation, or loss of salvation. Please point to the exact words that claim that one can lose their salvation.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:18-31

The wrath of God is revealed against these....

Because they once knew God, but became darkened in their heart....

They exchanged the truth for a lie...

God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,wickedness...

These knew God, which is the very definition of eternal life, but later they began to worship and serve God's creation rather than God.

They were saved at one time, but in the end God's wrath being revealed against them.

JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You have only ever mentioned "dead faith" and "justifying faith". I didn't know there was a third option, faith that does "good deeds" but does not justify.

Abraham's circumcision is exactly that--obedience prompted by faith in what was said, but which does not justify (Galatians 5:6 NASB)

Your premise has always been that "good deeds shows that we have the faith that justifies", so I assumed that if a person who has faith (like Abraham in Gen 12) and demonstrated the kind of faith he has by performing good deeds and trusting in God (like Abraham in Gen 12), this would be considered justifying faith as opposed to dead faith.

And so you have assumed wrong.
The evidence of justifying faith is not categorically and without exception going to church, scoping out a homeland, getting circumcised, etc. The New Testament explains that the obedience of 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Leviticus 19:18 NASB), specifically, is the signifying mark of the faith that justifies: "faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6 NASB)

justifying faith as opposed to dead faith.

I think we've been introducing confusion into our discussion by not being careful to note that dead faith is not defined by whether or not it is justifying faith (I should have caught this earlier). Abraham's circumcision is an example of faith that is not dead, yet can not justify, illustrating that dead faith is not defined by whether it can justify or not. So let's put that premise to death right now and start distinguishing between the faith that is alive and can justify, and faith that is alive but can NOT justify.

To prove your case, you have to demonstrate how a person can have an obedient, trusting faith that garners God's approval, yet doesn't justify. Seems like a daunting task.

I did that already.
Abraham's faithful obedience to be circumcised demonstrates how "a person can have an obedient, trusting faith that garners God's approval, yet doesn't justify" (dadof10).

So, this third option. Could you define it? How many good deeds, or of what caliber do the works have to be before the faith is demonstrated to be "justifying"?

Well, as I said, the NT is clear that it is deeds that represent the command to 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Leviticus 19:18 NASB), specifically, that demonstrate ones faith to be not just a faith that is alive, but a faith that can justify.

 

[reba]

Not sure what you are saying. Surely you are not saying that some posters get a free pass to make claims and then not properly defend them? For my part, I am simply insisting that the debate be proper.

With all respect, "emotions" are not the basis for a solid Biblical position.

Nope not saying anyone gets a free pass... one person idea of a properly defended post may not be the same as anothers ..Who is to decide what is proper?
Please note if i sign a post "Admin" it is really not an open post to respond to. Keeping in line with 1.3 and 2.14 of the TOS.. Admin

 

[Drew]

Hi FreeGrace, Just reread my own post. When I referred to "his wife", I was of course referring to the hypothetical wife of the equally hypothetical Mr. X. I was certainly not referring to your wife, if you have one. I apologize for the confusing wording.

 

[FreeGrace]

You have not dealt with my argument - perhaps someone else needs to point this out to you.

What you have done is provide other arguments, and you appear to think that those other arguments remove your obligation to deal with my argument. That's not correct.

Here is an analogy:

1. FreeGrace declares that Mr. X killed his wife;
2. FreeGrace supports this by pointing out that the fingerprints of Mr. X are all over the murder weapon;
3. Drew de that Mr. X is innocent;
4. Drew provides someone who swears they were with Mr. X at the time he supposedly killed his wife.

.....and now here is the problem:

5. FreeGrace does not try to show that this witness is mistaken, or is unreliable, or is lying. Instead, FreeGrace simply claims that the evidence of the fingerprints is enough to make the case.

Do you see the problem?

No. Not at all. Here's why. Fingerprints don't lie. Witnesses do, and frequently.

I have argued in fair detail in post 262 that the "works" in Eph 2:9 are the works of the Law of Moses.

And I have responded by saying that there is NO CONTEXT to understand "works" to be "works of the Law of Moses", since Paul doesn't even mention the Law until 2:15.

And by the time he mentions the Law in 2:15, he was comparing Gentiles, who didn't have the Law to Jews who did. But none of that is relevant to Eph 2;8,9. imho.

You need to show how that argument is wrong by attacking its details, not by making a different argument.

I did attack the details. There is NO CONTEXT for the Law when Paul wrote about works in Eph 2:9. There is nothing else to attack.

 

[FreeGrace]

LOL…Sure.

Great! I'm not much for penance anyway.

No problem, but the reason why this erroneous view was viable in my mind was because you believe that ONLY faith saves. I thought the point you were making was that, since ONLY faith saves, that it doesn't make a difference if the faith itself was obedient or disobedient. I have actually heard that view before. Thank God you don't hold it.

People really believe there is such a thing as a disobedient faith? Wow

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"I'm not seeing anything "unfortunate" for OSAS here. Nor do I see anything that resembles loss of salvation, or loss of salvation. Please point to the exact words that claim that one can lose their salvation."

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:18-31

I don't see any pointing to the exact words that claim that salvation can be lost.

The wrath of God is revealed against these....

Because they once knew God, but became darkened in their heart….

The context is clear that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE so that no one has any excuse for not glorify Him as Creator nor be unthankful to Him. And those that have NOT glorified Him as Creator nor are thankful to Him have, by that behavior, exchanged the truth of God for a lie. How so? They created idols, per v.23. iow, they exhcanged the reality of God's existence for idols created by their own hands.

This is absolutely NOT about former believers, as is being supposed.

They exchanged the truth for a lie…[/QUOT]
Explained.

These knew God, which is the very definition of eternal life, but later they began to worship and serve God's creation rather than God.

Explained. They knew God by the FACT that God revealed His existence to them through creation but they rejected it and never accepted it. As shown.

They were saved at one time, but in the end God's wrath being revealed against them.
JLB

This is a misunderstanding of the text.

 

[FreeGrace]

Hi FreeGrace, Just reread my own post. When I referred to "his wife", I was of course referring to the hypothetical wife of the equally hypothetical Mr. X. I was certainly not referring to your wife, if you have one. I apologize for the confusing wording.

I wasn't even focusing on 'wife'. Only 'witness'.

 

[Drew]

No. Not at all. Here's why. Fingerprints don't lie. Witnesses do, and frequently.

Well, how about this version:

1. FreeGrace declares that Mr. X killed his (Mr. X's) wife;
2. FreeGrace supports this by pointing out that the fingerprints of Mr. X are all over the murder weapon;
3. Drew de that Mr. X is innocent;
4. Drew provides video footage of Mr X in a mall at the time his wife was killed.

.....and now here is the problem:

5. FreeGrace does not try to show that there is a problem with the video evidence. Instead, FreeGrace simply claims that the evidence of the fingerprints is enough to make the case.

Do you see the problem?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Abraham's faith was "dead" in Gen. 15? It was dead until he performed a "work"? The "work" made it a justifying faith?

Yes, his faith is 'dead' in Genesis 15:6, because by pure definition "faith if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." (James 2:17 NASB italics in original). And we know his work that came later in Genesis 22, and which made his faith 'alive', did not make his faith in Genesis 15:6 a justifying faith because it plainly says his faith there in Genesis 15:6 was a justifying faith.

Before Abraham's faith was "made complete", "completed by" or "made perfect" by his actions, was his faith "dead"?

If dead faith by definition is 'faith without works', as it surely is (James 2:17 NASB), then, yes, before Abraham's faith came to completion (that is, was fulfilled) it was dead, not having works.

I know that's probably a scary thing to say, but it's only scary because we've been conditioned to automatically think that dead faith is categorically and without exception, all of the time, a false faith. But that's simply not true. Dead faith is simply faith that hasn't acted. Whether or not the faith is genuine determines if it really can, or will act or not. James calls it 'useless' faith (James 2:16,20 NASB). In the example he gives, it's no use to the brother or sister in need (James 2:16 NASB). That hardly means it can't be genuine. It means it's no use for anything, even salvation (I didn't say justification) until it finds fulfillment in some kind of manifest obedience to validate it as genuine.

This doesn't seem to square with your view that he had justifying faith, that was demonstrated by this work. That the "works" merely "show" the faith that's already present.

Work proves the existence of faith. The work produced can determine whether the faith that produced it is a justifying faith or not. For example, love exposes justifying faith in a person, while simply going to church, or getting circumcised, or giving money to the church does not--but it doesn't mean those things can't ever be motivated by a genuine justifying faith in Christ. In Abraham's example, by the nature of what it meant to put Isaac on the altar, believing he would die yet live again, that work did expose his faith as the faith that justifies. This in no way defeats the truth that faith is dead until it does something. Even Abraham's faith was dead, being useless to show him as having the righteousness that comes by faith, until it did something commensurate with what it believed when the opportunity arose.

And again I remind you that in the above sentence, the faith was dead, and made saving by "obedient acts".

No question about it. If someone's faith can't produce a change of nature, that faith can not save that person on the Day of Wrath because it can't produce the expected obedience by which God measures justifying faith. It was either never the faith that justifies to begin with, or, the faith that justifies ceased somewhere along the line. That 'faith' is useless. It can not save a person. It can't justify the person who has it, nor can it produce the required works that validate it as able to justify. And it sure doesn't help the people around us live better lives.

And...back to "validating" or "signifying" an already existing "saving faith". I'm getting dizzy...

It's really quite simple: Faith does the justifying--the making righteous--all by itself, apart from what it does. And we know that faith is able to justify by what it does. What it does is what God will use on the Day of Judgment to determine if you do indeed have the righteousness of Christ and, therefore, eligible to enter the kingdom, because that is how justifying faith (the faith that makes you righteous in God's sight) is recognized and identified. It's that "faith working through love" being the only thing that means anything toward justification thing that Paul talks about (Galatians 5:6 NASB).

"On numerous occasions, while discussing James 2, you have made the point that faith that doesn't justify is "dead faith". "

Yes. That is true. Faith that doesn't justify is dead faith because by what it means to be justified (made righteous) it can't produce the work of the new nature. The problem with what you're saying is, we can't turn 'faith that doesn't justify is dead faith' around and say 'faith that is dead doesn't justify'. We know that can't possibly be true because Abraham's faith was dead (being without works) when he had it in Genesis 15:6 NASB. ALL faith starts out that way. What is important is that it not remain dead (absent of work) so that faith can then save us.

That James describes Abraham's faith as "dead" before he offered Isaac, is new to me and seems to infer that the work itself actually does the justifying, or changes the faith from "dead" to "saving". I know you'll clear this up in your next post, or try to...

You are making the erroneous inference that work completed points back and makes the faith that produced it now able to justify. And I think you're doing that because you and a lot of other people, me included, have erroneously defined 'dead' faith as the faith that can not justify. But actually James' definition of 'dead faith' is 'faith that has not acted' and is, therefore, useless in actually accomplishing something. That doesn't mean it can't, or never will act, accomplishing something. And it doesn't mean it's not a justifying faith. We know that because Abraham did not 'complete' his justifying faith in Genesis 15:6 until much later when he sacrificed Isaac on the altar in Genesis 22:9-10, yet his then 'dead' faith in Genesis 15 justified him, nonetheless.

 

[JLB]

I said this:
"I'm not seeing anything "unfortunate" for OSAS here. Nor do I see anything that resembles loss of salvation, or loss of salvation. Please point to the exact words that claim that one can lose their salvation."

I don't see any pointing to the exact words that claim that salvation can be lost.


The context is clear that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE so that no one has any excuse for not glorify Him as Creator nor be unthankful to Him. And those that have NOT glorified Him as Creator nor are thankful to Him have, by that behavior, exchanged the truth of God for a lie. How so? They created idols, per v.23. iow, they exhcanged the reality of God's existence for idols created by their own hands.

This is absolutely NOT about former believers, as is being supposed.

They "knew" God, past tense. As Paul shows they distressed into ungodly and unrighteous behavior, until God gave them to there lusts.

They "exchanged" the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator....

That's called idolatry! ...idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Rev 21:8


I'm sorry you can't or won't see the truth of scripture.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...

Those who are ungodly and unrighteousness will receive Gods wrath.

Well, how about this version:

1. FreeGrace declares that Mr. X killed his (Mr. X's) wife;
2. FreeGrace supports this by pointing out that the fingerprints of Mr. X are all over the murder weapon;
3. Drew de that Mr. X is innocent;
4. Drew provides video footage of Mr X in a mall at the time his wife was killed.

.....and now here is the problem:

5. FreeGrace does not try to show that there is a problem with the video evidence. Instead, FreeGrace simply claims that the evidence of the fingerprints is enough to make the case.

Do you see the problem?

I see the problem.

He ignores all the evidence in favor of just what he wants to see.

The would be the very foundation of deception.


JLB