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

[smaller]

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.

I've never made such a claim.

 

[Kidron]

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

Romans 5:17

Ephesians 2:8

 

[Drew]

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

I guess cheap shots are in the eye of the beholder. You present a highly unconventional, and I think clearly unBiblical view. So I call you on it. Cheap shot?

Your silence on the matter of a theologian who shares your view means what, exactly?

 

[Kidron]

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

Happy to do it.

Turn in your bible to 1 John 5:11-13

If you will take 5 mins and read these verses you will discovered that "eternal life" is not some obtuse future eternal doorway into eternal oblivion, but rather eternal life is a Living Righteous BEING.......His name is JESUS.
And once you understand this, based on believing those scriptures, you will realize that He is in you through the Holy Spirit if you are born again.
This means that Eternal Life is IN YOU, as JESUS is Eternal life, and that is why you cant lose your eternal life.
Read the scriptures.

So, lets do the math...

YOU cant lose Jesus as he is sealed in you "until the day of redemption".
So, as that is a fact, and as Jesus IS Eternal life, and you are in him, and He is IN you, ..."Christ in you the hope of glory" ..Colossians 1:27..
So, do you see it?
You cant lose Jesus.
He is Eternal Life.
So that means you cant lose eternal life.
So, working backwards now, we head to salvation., and we remind ourselves that if Jesus is in us, and HE IS Eternal Life, and we cant get him out of us or us out of him....then we are ETERNALLY secure, = once saved, always saved.

 

[Drew]

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

I believe the argument is that, per Romans 11:29:

1. God's gifts are irrevocable;
2. Salvation is a gift;
3. Therefore, once you have received this gift, it's with you for good.

The problem, of course, is that when something is "irrevocable", this only means the giver will not take the gift back; it does not rule out the possibility that the recipient can discard the gift.

When challenged on this, the poster asks for a Biblical text that says the gift can be discarded - clearly not "fair play" since scriptural silence relative to proposition X is certainly not denial of the truth of proposition X (here, X = the gift of salvation can be discarded).

 

[iLOVE]

Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV means you can't sin your salvation away, however you can renounce it. You can reject your faith. God had made it so difficult to do unless you meet the five qualifications mentioned in this scripture as a mature Christian and ignorance does not count. So it is possible but God has made it extremely difficult. Judas is a example of a mature Christian. Judas was baptizes. Judas baptizes others., Judas was anointed. Judas was empowered. Judas cast out Devils. Judas healed the sick. Judas preached the gospel.

The Lords Grace to Paul

"12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 1:12-14


Jesus Grace tops sin. All Christians are Holy, sanctified, and righteous by what Jesus did, not by what we do. Being Holy, sanctified, and righteous is not based on your behavior. If you believe in Jesus and believe what the blood has done you are Holy, sanctified, righteous, and redeemed. Your spirit has been sealed with Jesus so the good can't get out, and the bad can't get in. Hebrews 10:10 says, "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."The question is do you believe it?

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, = Unbelief, you do not believe Jesus is the finial sacrifice for your sins. Which means there are no more sacrifices.

 

[Drew]

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

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

Your request is clearly unreasonable; any reasonable person knows that just because there is no statement "the gift of salvation can be discarded" does not mean that it cannot be discarded. There is no Bible statement that says that God = Father + Son + Spirit, yet we almost all believe it. And there are many other examples.

Where does the Bible says that Jesus had a nose? Answer: nowhere. Does that mean He had no nose?

 

[Drew]

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.

Wait a minute. You are the one who argued that a gift cannot be returned. For a gift to be irrevocable merely means that giver will not retract the gift - the recipient can still toss it aside. So the onus is on you: since a gift that is irrevocable can indeed be discarded, you need to provide further Biblical evidence that the gift of eternal life can be revoked.

 

[Drew]

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.

No one is denying that an internal change is involved. But you simply assume that an internal change is permanent and unchangeable. When someone gives up booze, this is an internal change; however they certainly can relapse. So the fact that salvation is not an object, but rather an internal change does not help your case.

 

[Drew]

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

This is yet another example of the following invalid form of argument:

1. Scripture never says X;
2. Therefore, X is not possible (or cannot be true).

This is clearly not a correct way to reason: to be born again is, of course, a way of referring to a dramatic and radical internal change - no one is denying this - but there is no particular reason to assume that change cannot be reversed.

 

[Drew]

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

Why not - both are fundamental, internal changes. You have given the reader no reason to believe that the internal change associated with regeneration is not reversible. Remember what Paul says to the believer in Romans 8 (Romans is written to the church):

So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh- 13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. [Romans 8:12-13, NASB]

A clear statement that "living" - the context here is clearly that of eternal (easily proved if you do not believe me) - requires a continual effort to defeat sin.

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

Of course, that is equally IMPOSSIBLE.

Do you not see the obvious error here. You are constructing a strawman - you attribute to me a kind of claim I never made, and then you attack that fictitious claim. Of course, I am saying nothing like this at all. I merely stated what I suspect you know is obvious: the fact that a change is "internal" does not mean it is permanent and irreversible.

 

[Drew]

I've never made such a claim.

I think he's getting the two of us mixed up.

 

[Drew]

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.

You have a huge problem to face that you have not dealt with.

It's really quite simple: If, as you say, Paul believes that one cannot persist in doing good, why would he say that people will get eternal life by persisting in doing good?

This question will not go away - please address it.

This is how people always try to wriggle out of dealing with Romans 2:6-7 - they argue that these verses cannot be true because Paul later shows that one cannot persist in doing good.

Huh?

Does it not occur to you that you have to explain why Paul wrote something that he knew was not true. Are we to believe that this is not true as well?:

So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh- 13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. [Romans 8:12-13, NASB]

Why stop there? Why not claim that lots of things that Paul writes are not true?

 

[Drew]

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.

No. My point number 2 - which is that the Spirit will produce good works in the believer - is clearly, and I mean drop-dead clearly, supported right here, if not elsewhere in the Bible:

So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh- 13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. [Romans 8:12-13, NASB]

....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.

Whoa, you are again creating a strawman. I have never said the believer cannot reject the work of the Spirit - in fact I have strongly implied that I believe that the believer can indeed do this and be ultimately lost.

Huh? What "threshold"?

When I referred to a threshold, I was simply referring to the reasonable implication that there must some sort of a "pass mark" if we believe Paul when he says we get eternal life based on what we do. And I believe Paul. You, on the other hand, believe that Paul does not believe his own words:

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.

This is really simple: When you commit to this argument, you have a huge problem: If you were right about 3:9 and 3:23 - and you are not right since these verses clearly describe a non-believer - you would still need to answer this extremely straightforward question:

Why does Paul say that people will get eternal life according to what they have, yes, done if he believes that this is not the case?

I suggest this question is impossible for you to answer given the position you hold.

 

[Rick W]

This is yet another example of the following invalid form of argument:

1. Scripture never says X;
2. Therefore, X is not possible (or cannot be true).

This is clearly not a correct way to reason: to be born again is, of course, a way of referring to a dramatic and radical internal change - no one is denying this - but there is no particular reason to assume that change cannot be reversed.

This topic has scriptural evidence for both sides. Depends largely I believe on how that salvation was attained.
There's a marriage ceremony going on. The bride, groom and other participants, or those who attendance is required for one reason or another, must be there. They are not invited nor do they ask permission to attend. One way or another they cannot ignore the obligation or calling.

There are those who receive invitations to attend. For them it's a choice, to go or not. And of course some will change their minds as the appointed time draws closer.

Then there are those who hear of the event and do indeed ask if they can attend. These too may change their minds about their attendance.
But one thing is for sure. IF you attend you will be part of the overall ceremony.

 

[dadof10]

They all spoke in tongues. That ability means categorically and without exception that they were justified/saved.

He inferred...2

And in their story we see that it happened apart from ANY AND ALL work. Even the sacred act of water baptism:

"the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." (Acts 10:44-48 NASB italics in orig.)

I agree with you. We both infer that they all accepted Peter's message and believed in Christ, even though it doesn't implicitly "say" they did. My point being, we all infer from Scripture, so it's logical to infer, looking at all the evidence from Gen. 12 itself and Heb.11, that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12.

If you agree that inference is a proper exegetical tool, then do you think there is any organic reason in the Gen. 12/Heb. 11 account that would make you reject Abraham's faith as "justifying"? You have only said that "it doesn't say", and haven't really given any textual reason why you reject it.

 

[dadof10]

Nope, I said what I meant, and the word conveys the meaning. Feel free to refute anything I post in like manner.

I didn't "refute" anything. I was asking for clarification. That's why the question mark. Does "properly exegeted scripture", trump all "dogma"? Aren't the words "properly exegeted" subjective? "Proper" to you and "proper" to me might mean totally different things. The "dogmas" that we find within Scripture might be totally different too. So, Which one of us, if either, is right? Which one should change our POV?

 

[dadof10]

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?

No, there's not one. In either case it means the water saved them.

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by [or through] water. (1Pt. 3:20 KJV)

What saved them, Freegrace? What does it say here? Does it say the ark saved them, or the water?

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.

This is not a thread on baptism, so I'm not going any further in discussing your view. Suffice to say that Scripture says water baptism saves here, not anything else.

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.

 

[JLB]

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.

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


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.


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


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


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

This is what Jesus commissioned Paul to preach and do.

But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me. Acts 26:16-18

Turning from Satan to God is how a person reveives the forgiveness of sins.

Read what this verse says...

Turn them from the power of Satan to God that the may receive the forgiveness of sins.

They are forgiven their sins because they have turned away from Satan to Jesus Christ as their Lord.

A person who has no intention of turning away from a lifestyle of sin, because they are still a captive of the Devil to do his will, can not expect to receive the forgiveness of sins, for they have not obeyed the Gospel command to repent.

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

.

They believe Jesus is the Son of God and He was raised from the dead, and they try and steal what is sown into the hearts of people that hear the Gospel (Matt 13), yet they still serve Satan.

This is the point that James makes in his teaching about Salvation through the work of obedience.

Here is what He wrote from the previous chapter.

Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. James 1:12

Eternal salvation comes to those who obey..,

And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,
Hebrews 5:9


JLB

 

[JLB]

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".

The gift is given based not on the receipient "earning" the gift, but rather, it is given based on the receipient meeting the condition of requirement, which is the obedience of faith.

And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.
And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.
Hebrews 5:9


JLB