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

[dadof10]

(Great. I was just getting ready to practice my t’ai chi out on the lawn and you come back to the discussion. )

Yeah, busy couple of days with work and my son's football game.

Anyway, here is where it says:
" his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" (Romans 4:5-6 NASB)

That doesn't say "faith, all by itself..." That says "faith without works", works inferred to be "all deeds done". The point is, you have no problem inferring from scripture when it seems to prove your point. Anyway, short on time today too. Take your time responding to the rest, I won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Have a blessed Lord's day...

 

[Stan1953]

When metaphor is used in scripture, it is just that, metaphor. It does not equate to exactness or all qualities of that metaphor, such as 'gift'.
It conveys that we did NOTHING to deserve or warrant what God gives to us...that's it. A good verse to read would be 1 Cor 12:11 (NIV) "All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines."
As Paul doesn't try to say HOW He determines, I don't think we can GUESS as to what his reasons are, nor should we. As in all things, we obey in faith.

 

[Drew]

Here is what I mean by "no context": the word "works" in v.9 isn't preceded by ANY mention of "the works of the Law of Moses" in either ch 1 or 2. So, by no context, there is NO REASON to think that Paul wa referring to "the works of the Law of Moses" by his use of "works" in v.9. I've already explained this.

But your argument is clearly not correct. The fact that Paul did not mention the Law of Moses before verse 9 does not mean he can't be talking about the Law of Moses in verse 9. You really must abandon this clearly over-simplistic and demonstrably incorrect line of reasoning.

Suppose a parent says the following to a child after giving that child long lecture about he loves that child, and in that "preamble" says nothing about cleaning his room:

You know, Johnny, you must do the "works" I ask you to do. Therefore, you must make your bed, sweep the floor, hang up your clothes, and clean out the hamster cage.

Clearly, these "works" must be the "works" that involve cleaning the room! So here we have a simple example that strongly challenges the position you are defending.

 

[Drew]

When metaphor is used in scripture, it is just that, metaphor. It does not equate to exactness or all qualities of that metaphor, such as 'gift'.

Brilliant - wish I had thought of this.

I could not agree more - we need to be very careful in interpreting metaphors. In this context, people try to get too much mileage out of the concept of a "gift".

 

[Drew]

"how you be" one is easy. Grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18) or quench the Spirit (1 Thess5:19) is how you be.

How can a believer possibly enslaved to sin as in Romans 7 when Paul makes it clear in Romans 8 that the believer has left the Roman 7 position behind?:

(repeated from earlier today)

1. 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 7:23-24a, NASB]

2. 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]

3. 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.

 

[Kidron]

Just ask yourself..
">Who< Saved you"??
If you try to add anything to HIM, you are theologically lost.

"but what about works".
"but what about enduring to the end"
"but what about the unpardonable sin"
"but what about Hebrews, if we sin willfully"
"but what about WATER BAPTISM".

So, as i said.....if you go THERE ^^^^^^, you are ither not saved, or have been taught incorrectly, or have Fallen from Grace.

Now, one more time.
Just ask yourself WHO saved you, and if you try to add to this any from that list of quotes, or your own circular reasoning, you are in the spiritual darkness regarding "born again" and are a devout legalist.

 

[Drew]

If we view Paul accurately, we might even see that both eternal security and eternal damnation resides in the same pair of shoes.

What an unusual theology! I have to give you credit for being will to give voice to a theology that I have never seen before. Can you cite one theologian who supports this very unusual, very "schizophrenic" model of the nature of the human person?

 

[Drew]

Just ask yourself..
">Who< Saved you"??
If you try to add anything to HIM, you are theologically lost.

I asked you this in another thread, and I would like to ask you the same question here:

What do you think Paul meant when he dictated these very 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, NIV}

People often "answer" by arguing that in other places in the Bible, Paul says the opposite.

Well, if this is the line you will take, you still need to explain why Paul would write something here in Romans 2 that he knows to be false.

 

[Stan1953]

What an unusual theology! I have to give you credit for being will to give voice to a theology that I have never seen before. Can you cite one theologian who supports this very unusual, very "schizophrenic" model of the nature of the human person?

I'm a tad confused as well, but you omitted the link to his post so I can't respond to it In context.

 

[smaller]

What an unusual theology! I have to give you credit for being will to give voice to a theology that I have never seen before. Can you cite one theologian who supports this very unusual, very "schizophrenic" model of the nature of the human person?

Drew you should know well enough by now that I reject your categorization cheap shots.

I didn't have to buy into some guy's deciphering of Jesus' and his Apostle's Words when their own statements suffice. If you can only believe using a Wright filter don't expect everyone else to buy his replacement stories.

2 Peter 1:3

I don't believe anyone's vile body is capable of earning salvation. Phil. 3:21

No one avoids the contrariness between the flesh and Spirit by any means. Gal. 5:17

All are factually planted in dishonour, corruption and weakness as a mandatory precursor to being eternally raised. 1 Cor. 15:43-49

All are sinners. (Do we really need a citing or will the openly obvious suffice?)

And sin is of the devil. 1 John 3:8

No tempter in man will be pulling the wool over Jesus' Eyes.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"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.

How is this response a defense? The claim is that salvation or eternal life can be "discarded". Prove it. Or retract it.

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

If there is NO evidence from Scripture about such an action, why ASSUME that it is possible? In fact, your view cannot be proven from Scripture. It is mere SPECULATION.

I provided SOLID reasoning that salvation involves an INTERNAL CHANGE in the person; being born again, regenerated, justified, now a child of God. Such things as these are not "discardable" and you've not given any evidence that they can.

I never accept any ASSUMPTIONS.

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.

Because that's exactly what "irrevocable" means. God gives the gift. Only He would have the power or authority to take it back, and He has said that His gifts are irrevocable.

And you've NOT shown that any believer has such power or authority to "discard" their new status.

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.

Such an ASSUMPTION cannot be proven from Scripture.

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.

This isn't even close to a defense for a view that is mere ASSUMPTION.

In order to refute my view, one needs to show from Scripture that one has the capability, NOT just the ASSUMPTION, of being able to discard salvation.

However, the idea of "discarding" treats one's state of salvation, eternal life and justification as a mere object, like a coin that can be thrown away, which is what 'discard' means.

So, instead of assumption without any kind of evidence, I have decided to discard your view.

 

[FreeGrace]

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

I explained exactly why. What wasn't understood in my explanation? I do NOT assume anything in Scripture. If it's plainly taught, I accept it. If there is NO evidence of an idea in Scripture, it is mere assumption, which I do NOT do.

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.

Why provide such an irrelevant example that isn't even close to the concept of discarding a non object.

Are you really suggesting that people can vomit up their salvation, their born again status, their justification? Seriously?

Yes, people should and do change when they accept Jesus, but why would you think that must be a permanent change.

Exactly because there is NO EVIDENCE from Scripture that being born again CAN change.

Not relevant - the fact that salvation is not an object does not mean it cannot be rejected.

I certainly does, but one is free to ASSUME anything they want to.

Stopping drinking is not an object, but one can always resume drinking after stopping.

This doesn't even come close to equating with the internal change of regeneration and the new birth.

How about this much BETTER example: one can vomit up their physical birth and discard it. lol

Of course, that is equally IMPOSSIBLE.

Just as a human being CANNOT change their physical birth in ANY way, a believer cannot change their spiritual birth in ANY way.

Anything to the contrary is merely a huge ASSUMPTION. There is no reality to it.

 

[FreeGrace]

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?

So…what!! I already explained this. ch 2 begins with addressing moralists, who believe they can earn God's favor and receive eternal life based on their works or lifestyle.

v.6,7 is saying that for those who persist in doing good God will give eternal life. But Paul's HUGE point is that no one can persist in doing good. ONLY IF one could would one receive eternal life.

In ch 3:9 and 23 Paul clearly states the opposite reality; everyone is a sinner and therefore CANNOT persist in doing good.

There is NO OTHER WAY to understand these 2 verses.

I need to ask: who do you know who has "persisted in doing good"?

 

[FreeGrace]

I appreciate your attempt at humor. I take theology understanding from what the scriptures say.

This is rather odd, and contradictory as well. I showed from Scripture that eternal life is irrevocable and your response was that one can "discard" their gift, as though it were some object. And without a shred of any evidence from the Bible. So your claim here about where your theology comes from ISN'T from "what the Scriptures say" at all. Rather, it comes from huge ASSUMPTIONS instead of Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"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.

We are not puppets, nor robots. Your 2 point claim is only an assumption, since Paul warns clearly about grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit. When that happens, the believer cannot produce good works, so your ASSUMPTION that all believers will produce good works is refuted by Paul's warning.

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

Huh? What "threshold"? And why refer to the Holy Spirit as an "it"? He is God.

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]

Getting kind of tired explaining these verses. Only those who "persist in doing good" will God give eternal life. But Paul proved that NO ONE can "persist in doing good" in 3:9 and 23.

Therefore, everyone receives eternal life ONLY through faith in Christ.

 

[FreeGrace]

How can a believer possibly enslaved to sin as in Romans 7 when Paul makes it clear in Romans 8 that the believer has left the Roman 7 position behind?:

He proved that back in ch 6:16. It's a CHOICE to whom we present ourselves as slaves to obey.

 

[JLB]

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.


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


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.

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

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

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? even demons believe, and they fear and tremble...
James 2:14,19

The context in which James is teaching concerns salvation.

JLB

 

[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.

Yes, that the whole point!

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

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

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


JLB

 

[Stan1953]

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

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

 

[Stan1953]

I showed from Scripture that eternal life is irrevocable

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