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

[Drew]

You dont maintain a gift.
A gift is free.
You receive it, and it becomes yours.
God does not take it back,.....

Quite a few of the arguments people use in this and other contexts take the form of what is written above: one takes a concept - in this case the concept of a "gift" - and then use a kind of general fuzzy line of argument to serve the position one supports. I suggest that there are many clear texts that show that you can indeed fall away after a commitment to Jesus. I am not necessarily saying that you are doing the following, but I have observed that people who believe in OSAS feel that they can effectively ignore such texts by making the kind of argument we see, above.

In any event, a gift can most certainly be "returned" or thrown away, so the concept of "gift" does very little to support the OSAS position. No one is saying that God "takes back" a gift, but there is no conceptual reason why characterizing salvation as a "gift" means that OSAS is correct.

 

[Drew]

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

I assume that others have pointed this out, but to say a gift is irrevocable only allows us to say that the giver will not the gift back. But it does not mean that the recipient cannot discard the gift.

 

[Drew]

Paul was exceptionally clear that through the law against lust, every manner of concupiscence transpired "within" him, and thusly, he was proven a sinner. Romans 7:7-13, Romans 7:17-21.

But Romans 7 cannot be describing Paul as a believer.

I have a number of arguments to make about Romans 7 being about the Jew under Torah. This is one of them. Its general nature is this:

1. There is a person in some state "x" described in Romans 7;
2. A clear transition of state is stated at the end of Romans 7, the person that was in state "x" transitions to state "y";
3. As per Romans 8, state "y" is that of being a Christian;
4. Therefore, state "x" cannot be the state of being a Christian;
5. Therefore, the person in Romans 7 cannot be a Christian.

I fully realize that the present argument does not support my specific claim that Romans 7 is about the Jew under Torah. But it does demonstrate that the person in Romans 7 is not a Christian.

 

[smaller]

But Romans 7 cannot be describing Paul as a believer.

I have a number of arguments to make about Romans 7 being about the Jew under Torah. This is one of them. Its general nature is this:

1. There is a person in some state "x" described in Romans 7;
2. A clear transition of state is stated at the end of Romans 7, the person that was in state "x" transitions to state "y";
3. As per Romans 8, state "y" is that of being a Christian;
4. Therefore, state "x" cannot be the state of being a Christian;
5. Therefore, the person in Romans 7 cannot be a Christian.

I fully realize that the present argument does not support my specific claim that Romans 7 is about the Jew under Torah. But it does demonstrate that the person in Romans 7 is not a Christian.

Elimination of scriptural facts is my least favorite form of theology Drew. Luke 4:4, Matt. 4:4 cited for fact checks in comparison to your alt. claims.

 

[FreeGrace]

I read what you said.

Good. I wasn't sure, by your response, which had no relevance to what I posted.

Did you read what I said ?

Sure did. Which is why I posted what I did.

You seemed to avoid the truth of what I said and shirt the issue by saying...
"The devil knows a lot of things"

That's basically was your only point. What the devil believes per James 2:19 has no relevance to saving faith, and it is an abuse of Scripture to cite that in trying to show that what the devil believes didn't save him. That is just irrelevant to anything and everything. Monotheism isn't part of saving faith, which everyone knows.

He specifically believes Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.

So what? He doesn't believe that from trust but from reality. There is a difference, don'tcha know.

Demons believe in Jesus, but still serve Satan.

No, they do NOT "believe in Jesus". That phrase is technical for trusting Him for salvation, which they do NOT have.

They believe that Jesus is the Son of God because they were present in heaven before they fell and know that He is the Second Person of the Trinity.

Their believing all by itself, without the action of repenting, is useless.

This is totally irrelevant. What they believe is from reality, which they've seen directly. Not from taking it on trust apart from evidence. The difference is huge.

People who believe in Jesus, but refuse to repent, which is to say, turn to God in committed trust and obedience, will not be saved either.

The obedience and trust that God commands is fulfilled when one believes in Jesus for eternal life.

The scriptures say repent and believe the Gospel. Mark 1:15

Check out the Greek word. It means to "change the mind". Which is necessary in order to come to faith in Christ.

The scriptures say confess with you mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart.... Not just a believing.
Romans 10:9-10

Well then, which verse shows Paul to be a LIAR then: Acts 16:31 or Rom 10:9-10? He never told the jailer to repent in order to be saved. So which verse do I need to cut out of my Bible as untrue? lol

 

[Drew]

Romans 7:21 was a fact for Paul, and thusly a fact for all of us.

But it was only a fact for Paul, and for us, in our state as a non-believer.

I find it fascinating to see how people continue to think the person in Romans 7 is a believer. There are two problems (at least) with this position, both fatal to the notion that Paul in Romans 7 is a believer:

1. The person in Romans 7 is characterized as hopelessly enslaved to sin!!!: For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. [Romans 7:14, NASB]. At this point, I simply have to shake my head in disbelief. This one statement by Paul ends the argument - it simply contradicts a basket full of texts to suggest that a Christian would remain in bondage to sin. How can you possibly believe this?

2. The person in Romans 8 is clearly a Christian, yet Paul also makes it clear that this person is the same person in Romans 7 after they have been delivered from the Romans 7 position:

(i). The person described in Romans 7 is experiencing a "law" of sin that leads to death:but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? [Romans 7:23-24, NASB]

(ii). The Christian in Romans 8 is described as having been set free from from this law of sin and death.
2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death [Romans 8:2, NASB]

(iii). If the position that the person in Romans 7 is a Christian is correct, - then we have the following statements:

a. The Christian is subject to the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 7)

b. The Christian is set free from the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 8)

These statements are inconsistent. Therefore, assuming we agree that the statement from Romans 8 is about the Christian, the Romans 7 cannot be descriptive of the experience of the Christian - one cannot be both subject to the effects of a law and yet also released from its effect.

 

[FreeGrace]

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does itprofit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 8 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! James 2:14-19

The context and point of what James is teaching is about salvation.

Why would he do that? His audience were saved Jews. From the beginning of ch 2 to the end of ch 3, the examples he gives are all about hypocrisy.

James is teaching that unsaved demons believe, and they fear and tremble.

This is NO relevance to saving faith. They believe in monotheism. Which isn't saving faith. Please stop abusing Scripture with irrelevance.

Some people today believe in Jesus, and have heard the Gospel, and they say Jesus is a prophet, while they strap bombs onto kids to blow up their enemies.

JLB

lol How about the whole story. These jihadish terrorists simply believe that Jesus was a prophet, and lesser than Muhammed. They certainly DO NOT believe in Jesus as their Savior. In fact, the Messiah that they are looking for to come fits the description of the antichrist of the Bible.

 

[FreeGrace]

Water baptism saves, that's what Scripture says.

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1Pt. 3:21 RSV)

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?

The ones who got "dunked" baptism style were the whole world, and they DIED!! They were not saved from the flood.

The onew who were saved FROM the water were kept dry by the ark. They were NOT baptised in water. It was the whole world that was dunked in water. And they died.

And v.21 makes very clear that Peter wasn't talking about about water baptism by the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body". That is how one gets clean; by bathing in water. And Peter says NOT AS A REMOVAL OF DIRT, which requires water.

The question I asked was "Again, could you please show me where water baptism is called merely a "ritual". It is never called "merely a ritual", It's never called "symbolic" either, and it saves.

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.

 

[FreeGrace]

Are we saved by faith alone, whether we obey or not?

As previously explained, the obedience involved in getting saved is to place one's full trust (faith, belief) in Christ as Savior. Those who believe in Christ for salvation ARE obeying the command. Those who aren't obeying the command aren't expressing saving faith.

If we "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" are we saved?

Depends on what one is believing on Him FOR. If it's FOR eternal life, then yes, they are saved. If it is FOR anything else, they are NOT saved. i.e., the health and wealth so-called gospel.

If we disobey after "accepting Him as Lord and Savior" are we saved anyway?

Yes, because we have been regenerated, born again, new creatures, child of God, possessor of eternal life, a free gift that is irrevocable.

So, if you believe the above, we can't lose our salvation through disobedience.

Lifestyle obedience has NOTHING to do with getting or staying saved.

If it did, then what Christ did on the cross was meaningless and worthless. Why would anyone believe that?

 

[FreeGrace]

I assume that others have pointed this out, but to say a gift is irrevocable only allows us to say that the giver will not the gift back. But it does not mean that the recipient cannot discard the gift.

Please defend such a view from Scripture. Where does the Bible say or indicate that one can discard their gift?

That is merely treating salvation, eternal life and justification as mere objects, much like a coin or something else that can be held in the hand and dropped, thrown, etc.

When one is saved, there is a HUGE change IN them. If you contracted a virus from someone, can you 'discard it'? Of course not. It is IN you.

Same for salvation. Please stop abusing the doctrine of salvation, justifiation and eternal life like some mere object

All of these are gifts which involve HUGE changes in the believer. It cannot be undone, or discarded any more than your physical birth can be discarded. That isn't even rational.

 

[Drew]

Elimination of scriptural facts is my least favorite form of theology Drew. Luke 4:4, Matt. 4:4 cited for fact checks in comparison to your alt. claims.

It's highly informative that you do not try to attack my argument. I think we all know why this is - the argument is bullet-proof. This is the hallmark of being on the wrong side of the truth in a debate - refuse to engage a challenging argument.

Anyway, let's see what these texts actually say:

4And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'" [Luke 4:4, NASB]

Are you sure this is the right text - I don't see the connection.

But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every wordthat proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" [Matt 4:4,NASB]

Again, how is this relevant?

 

[Drew]

Please defend such a view from Scripture. Where does the Bible say or indicate that one can discard their gift?

What? You are trying to have it both ways.

The Bible obviously does not say that a gift can be discarded. But it certainly does not say it can't be, either.

You are the one often who argues from the "meaning of words" - you take the work "irrevocable", and then by appealing to your understanding of its meaning, you say that salvation cannot be lost. Well, I think that does not work precisely because, as everyone knows, "gifts" - even ones that are irrevocable in the sense that the giver will not take it back - can still be discarded.

Asking to "defend from Scripture" that a gift can be discarded is like saying "defend from Scripture that 2+2=4! Everyone knows that a gift can be discarded - people do it all the time with ugly neckties.

 

[Drew]

That is merely treating salvation, eternal life and justification as mere objects, much like a coin or something else that can be held in the hand and dropped, thrown, etc.

Just because "salvation" is not an object does not mean it cannot be rejected or tossed aside. Why would you think otherwise?

When one is saved, there is a HUGE change IN them. If you contracted a virus from someone, can you 'discard it'? Of course not. It is IN you.

This does not really work. I can eat a pizza, it will then be "in me" and I can then "discard" it by intentionally vomiting it up. Yes, people should and do change when they accept Jesus, but why would you think that must be a permanent change. A person can give up drinking - there is a huge change IN them - and still fall off the wagon later.

Same for salvation. Please stop abusing the doctrine of salvation, justifiation and eternal life like some mere object

Not relevant - the fact that salvation is not an object does not mean it cannot be rejected. Stopping drinking is not an object, but one can always resume drinking after stopping.

 

[Drew]

Io, my question is, who is being judged? For such, by faith in Christ, Christ is in them and with them. There is no individual standing.

Paul certainly seems to believe otherwise:

6God “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, NIV]

 

[smaller]

It's highly informative that you do not try to attack my argument.

I see no purpose in your posture and even less in trying to eliminate Paul's words as applicable to believers or to himself.

I think we all know why this is - the argument is bullet-proof.

I appreciate your attempt at humor. I take theology understanding from what the scriptures say. Not by figuring out how to eliminate them. Hence my prior minor citings of many more like Luke 4:4 Matt. 4:4 to which we could add 2 Tim. 3:16 for good measure just to drive home the point.

 

[Drew]

If we look at any sinner we'll probably find sin. This doesn't preclude God being with/within any believer by faith, nor will it preclude the actions of the flesh/being a sinner. Paul was quite clear about how indwelling sin works internally and adversely to the Dictates of God in Romans 7:7-13, in anyone, including a laugher.

You appear to have a really unusual theology that I suspect no one else here believes; that does not make you wrong, of course, but it is interesting. I have never heard anyone express this deeply pessimistic notion that the Christian remains hopelessly enslaved to sin. How can you believe such a thing? You seem to at least try to deal with this by suggesting that we are "flesh vessels hopelessly enslaved to sin but that somehow we still have Christ dwelling in us". A very unusual position, and one I have never encountered before.

 

[Drew]

I see no purpose in your posture and even less in trying to eliminate Paul's words as applicable to believers or to himself.

You are free to believe this, but you still are not engaging a clear argument; your refusal to deal with is telling. Per the "rules" for this forum:

Failing to answer someone’s question doesn’t necessarily amount to an admission of error or surrender but keep in mind that in any debate if you refuse to or can not answer a reasonable question, it may weaken your position.

Not by figuring out how to eliminate them. Hence my prior minor citings of many more like Luke 4:4 Matt. 4:4 to which we could add 2 Tim. 3:16 for good measure just to drive home the point.

More evasion. I have presented clear, detailed, scripturally supported arguments. Deal with them, please. If you do not, the fair-minded reader will draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[Drew]

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

What does Paul say?:

6God “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]

So?

 

[Drew]

If one believes that one must obey Him to be saved, one must be able to clearly and completely define what it means to obey Him.

No, we do not need to know this and here is why:

1. We are told that if we believe we are given the Spirit;
2. We are told that the Spirit will produce good works in us.

Do you deny this? I doubt you will. If you agree with these statements, let me ask you a question:

Do you not believe the Spirit knows how much it must accomplish in order to pass the Romans 2 threshold?

6God “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, NIV]

 

[Drew]

Actually, what follows says NOTHING about being justified by the works of the Law of Moses. From v.11-22 Paul teaches that Jews and Gentiles are united at the cross.

You are making my case for me.

Indeed, that is what the writer says. I trust you realize that the Law of Moses was only given to the Jews. That is why it is precisely because one is not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses - which only the Jew can do - that the Jew and Gentile are now united! If the works of the Law of Moses did justify, then only the Jew could be justified!! And how could the Jew and Gentile be united in that scenario?