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

[FreeGrace]

I've asked the same thing about 12 million times.... He has yet to comply!

Actually, you've been shown about 12 million times, and rejected every one of them. I know what the Bible says about lying.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"My response was to ask where in Scripture is anyone given this supposed ability to "discard" their gift."

And that is not a legitimate request

Such assumptions and opinions are not from Scripture.

- your request presumes that if something is true, the Bible will make a statement to that effect.

How about that!!? Of course I do. And so do everyone else who has discernment and rejects mere speculation, assumptions and opinions that cannot be supported from the Bible.

 

[Drew]

Clearly fair play. Your ASSUMPTIONS cannot be found in Scripture.

When one ASSUMES anything, then one will believe anything. Let's just stick with what Scripture actually says.

Where do the Scriptures say that smoking causes cancer? There are many things that are true that are not directly asserted in the Scripture. Again, you seem to think that the concept of an "irrevocable gift" precludes the possibility that the recipient will discard the gift. But the concept of "irrevocable" only allows you to say that the giver will not rescind it - it does not allow you to say that the recipient will not discard it. Everyone knows this and you need to come to terms with this and move on to different arguments.

I know how this will go - you will say this is a false analogy. In fact, no matter how accurate the analogy would be, you will always be able to find a sense in which the analogy differs from the thing it refers to.

You are rigging the game: you make clearly incorrect claims - in this case that since the Bible does not directly say that the gift of salvation can be rejected that it therefore cannot be rejected - and then dance away from all counterarguments.

It's almost as if you think your position is true by definition. Is that what you believe? I am sure you will deny this. OK, then, please answer these questions:

1. Do you believe that the concept of "irrevocable gift" entails (by definition) that such an irrevocable gift cannot be discarded by the recipient.

2. Do you believe that anything that is true will be asserted to be true in the Bible? You would be certifiable if you did.

3. So that leads us to this question: since it is clearly true that, in general, an irrevocable gift can be discarded (point 1) and since it is also true that, in general, something can be true without it being asserted as true in the Bible (point 2), what possible argument could be put forward to prove to you that the gift of salvation can be discarded?

I politely suggest this last question forces your hand. If you answer "there is no possible argument", you are, whether you accept it or not, effectively claiming your position is true by definition - which no rational person would believe. If, you wisely admit that there is a way to demonstrate that your position is incorrect, I am sure I (or someone else) will quickly show that it is, indeed, incorrect.

Of course we all need to play by the same rules, you are free to apply these same principles to anything that I have posted.

In short, unless your position is falsifiable, then you are clearly not engaging in proper debate. So you need to tell us how your position is falsifiable and we can take it from there.

 

[FreeGrace]

The idea that a gift can be discarded is preposterous? Please.

Yeah, please! The idea that eternal life can be discarded is preposterous. Please focus on the issue.

People discard gifts by the thousands every day.

Totally irrelevant to the issue. Please focus on the issue.

[QUTOE] The fact that this is an "internal" gift - a change in internal state - is entirely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
That would be an erroneous opinion, that cannot be supported from Scripture.

Let's say my girlfriend offers me the gift of her unconditional love and I accept it. Two months later I could foolishly choose to toss away that gift.

Irrelevant to the gifts that God gives. Please focus on the issue.

Please explain how one can discard their new creation (2 Cor 5:17).
Please explain how one can discard their status as child of God.
Can you discard the DNA that links you to your birth parents?
Can you discard the Holy Spirit who indwells every believer? Cite Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace]

Where do the Scriptures say that smoking causes cancer?

It is precisely these kinds of totally irrevelant questions that prove that your opinions and assumptions are completley out of line with Scripture. And it demonstrates the blatant desperation of your views.

You are rigging the game

I'll explain something here to help with understanding. First, there is no game. This is about God's truth. Second, if using Scriptural truth is somehow rigging something, that is just total bunk.

Again, the desperation of your unsubstantiated opinions and assumptions forces such preposterous questions and defenses.

 

[smaller]

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?

According to who?

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

I'm not aware of any theologian who doesn't accept that sin is of the devil. Perhaps you can cite a theologian who doesn't subscribe to the fact of 1 John 3:8, 2 Cor. 4:4, Acts 26:18 or the myriad of others showing that there is an overlap with mankind and the tempter or his messengers, whom Jesus addressed and dealt with on nearly every page of the Gospels.

My observation, if 1 John 3:8 is true, is that no amounts of works or beliefs or actions is able to save the tempter. And anyone who perceives themselves as having internal temptation would also perceive this fact, and also would easily see that "the tempter" is not saved or savable. Most forms of OSAS do not take this into considerations, and rather think they are "freestanding" singular individuals. I do not believe that is the scriptural case. The instant anyone concedes to internal temptation via the tempter, they would perceive themselves identically to "how" Paul perceived himself. Having "evil" present with them. Romans 7:21, having sin indwelling their own flesh. Romans 7:17-20 which Paul says is "no longer I." It is there, internally, that the battle between the flesh and the Spirit are engaged, personally, for each of us. And this battle is not with the flesh, but with the lusts therein, inserted by the tempter.

Jesus has clearly informed us that it is not just external evil or external sin that defiles us, but evil thoughts most of us brush off without a clue, that in fact defiles us. Most preachers steer clear of this fact, because it is offensive to the pew sitters. Matt. 15:18-20, Mark 7:21-23. I do not consider this disclosure by Jesus offensive, but a fact. And if the origin of such thought is of and from the tempter, then it is no offense to me. I am led to understand it's origination is of the devil, the tempter, and this from all the seed parables, showing the entry of Satan into the heart to steal and to deceive.

Therefore OSAS does not apply to the entirety of what a believer is subject to, internally. And I observe Paul's statement of fact for himself in 2 Cor. 12:7. The messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh wasn't saved and never will be. And because of this fact, of internal temptation by a party that is not the person, our own flesh is vile, and our vile flesh won't be saved, but requires change from God in Christ Himself, which is commonly known as the Resurrection. Pretty sure a few theologians subscribe to this as well Drew.

And, most believers and theologians know that technically speaking, internally, we do have a battle on our hands with the devil, the tempter.

Eph. 6:11-13.

I'd have to say Wrights teachings on this subject are nearly entirely void.

And he is assuredly not accepted in many "fundamental" camps of mainstream evangelicals and reformed's. I would agree with their criticism of his slants on many subjects. His view that Jews who observed the Torah will be saved on that basis is one of those critiques, i.e. legalism for salvation. And it would appear to me that if you are "his" adherent, this same axiom seems to have rubbed off on you. Wrights legitimate critics have rightfully assailed his slants on Romans 2 judgment payment, largely because Wright sees the repayment as salvation or not, rather than, as most, the loss of things not worthy, but salvation nonetheless.

I'd suggest a bit of double dealing on Wrights part. Claiming salvation by faith alone, but also claiming salvation by works, you know, to keep his adherents on the edge of potential hell to keep them coming back for more.

It's sophisticated threat, imho.

 

[Drew]

There you go again; treating salvation and eternal life as a mere object, which can be discarded. When will you please stop making such erroneous assumptions? Salvation includes a changed life; regeneration, born again, justified, new creature. These aren't things that can be discarded.

You continue to try to "define" your position to be true.

You say "Salvation includes a changed life".

Well, giving up smoking entails a changed life - does that mean it's impossible to take up smoking again?

You cannot simply claim that just because salvation is an "internal state", it cannot be tossed aside.

You say "salvation makes you a 'new creature'". True enough, but how do you know this transition is one way and permanent? Look at what Paul actually writes:

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]

I see no wiggle room here:

1. Paul is clearly directing his remarks to believers;
2. By earlier context in the chapter, the "life" here is eternal life;
3. The fact that Paul warns us about falling away means that this must be possible.

What is your response?

 

[Drew]

It is precisely these kinds of totally irrevelant questions that prove that your opinions and assumptions are completley out of line with Scripture. And it demonstrates the blatant desperation of your views.

You are proving my point - you conveniently reject all analogies that challenge your position. The point here is that you are effectively claiming that "if the possibility of rejecting a gift of salvation" is not mentioned in the Bible, then that gift cannot be rejected.

Nobody will believe this argument and I really encourage you to drop it. My example of the link between smoking and cancer proves the point: The Bible never says that smoking causes cancer. And yet we know it does. Likewise, the fact that the Bible never directly says that the "gift of salvation" can be discarded. But that certainly does not prove that it cannot be discarded.

 

[Drew]

There isn't any such evidence that eternal life can be revoked.

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]

Who are the brethren? Are they not believers?
What does it mean to "die" and "live" here?
Would Paul warn us that if we live a certain way - and the "we" are clearly believers - that we could die, if this were not so?

Please directly address each of these question.

 

[FreeGrace]

You continue to try to "define" your position to be true.

I've shown it to be true from Scripture. Unlike those who merely use speculation, opinion and assumptions that cannot be shown to be true from Scripture.

You say "Salvation includes a changed life".

Actually, the Bible says it.
2 Cor 5:17 - Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

Please explain how to discard being a new creature. From Scripture, of course. Or, from your own words, how would one vomit up their new creaturedness?

[QUOTER]Well, giving up smoking entails a changed life - does that mean it's impossible to take up smoking again?[/QUOTE]
Never mentioned smoking because it is totally irrelevant to the issue.

You cannot simply claim that just because salvation is an "internal state", it cannot be tossed aside.

Reality check; you cannot simply ASSUME, SPECULATE that it can, since there is NO Scripture to back up your opinions.

You say "salvation makes you a 'new creature'". True enough, but how do you know this transition is one way and permanent? Look at what Paul actually writes:

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]

How does any of this support your assumptions, speculations and opinion?

I see no wiggle room here:

1. Paul is clearly directing his remarks to believers;
2. By earlier context in the chapter, the "life" here is eternal life;
3. The fact that Paul warns us about falling away means that this must be possible.
What is your response?

That your view has no support or evidence from Scripture.

In several earlier posts the Trinity was mentioned in an attempt to defend your position that Scripture doesn't have to say something for it to be true. So, is it your assumption and speculation that the Trinity is true?

In fact, Scripture tells us that The Heavenly Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all God. For those who aren't familiar with Scripture, 2 Cor 13:14 mentions all three in 1 verse: The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

And there are many verses that refer to each Member as God.

So, the point: the Trinity is true because of Scriptural EVIDENCE. There is NO evidence for your assumptions or speculations from Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace]

You are proving my point - you conveniently reject all analogies that challenge your position.

I reject what is totally irrelevant to the issue. All your assumptions and speculations are false.

The point here is that you are effectively claiming that "if the possibility of rejecting a gift of salvation" is not mentioned in the Bible, then that gift cannot be rejected.

I go farther than that. There is NO EVIDENCE for your assumption in Scripture. So there is no reason to accept it.

Nobody will believe this argument and I really encourage you to drop it.

Great example of unreality.

[QUTOE] My example of the link between smoking and cancer proves the point: The Bible never says that smoking causes cancer. And yet we know it does.[/QUOTE]
Failed defense of one's assumptions and speculations. Smoking isn't even related to being a new creature in Christ which is part of salvation. Totally irrelevant.

Likewise, the fact that the Bible never directly says that the "gift of salvation" can be discarded. But that certainly does not prove that it cannot be discarded.

The point goes much further. There is NO EVIDENCE in the Bible that it can be discarded.

Your view is ONLY your own assumptions and speculations. In my opinion There is no reality or truth to them. Which is why I reject them. (Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah)

 

[FreeGrace]

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]

Who are the brethren? Are they not believers?
What does it mean to "die" and "live" here?
Would Paul warn us that if we live a certain way - and the "we" are clearly believers - that we could die, if this were not so?

Please directly address each of these question.

It really doesn't matter what this verse is about. The reality is that it says nothing about salvation being discarded.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness, unwelcome spiritual advice. Obadiah)

The truth is stated in Scripture. Deception comes from the devil. Through speculations and assumptions.

I'm staying with Scripture.

 

[Drew]

The answer is very simple, and it is quite perplexing why it hasn't gone away. Paul is stating to moralists who think they are good enough to earn eternal life that they have to be perfect to earn eternal life. And the point is; no one is.

This is, of course, what you have to say. But what you cannot answer - and you have repeatedly refused to engage this question - is why, if what you are saying is true, Paul would tell the moralist that there will be a coming judgment at which eternal life is handed out according to works, with eternal life going to those who persist in doing good?

You are basically saying that Pau is saying something untrue to this moralist.

I trust you realize how odd this is: it's one thing to say that Paul argues elsewhere that one cannot win eternal life by good works. But even if you do that, you still need to explain why, in 2:6-7, Paul directly states that those who persist in doing good get eternal life.

Imagine I, was a teacher and I told a number of students this:

I will reward you according to what you have done; to those who get a passing grade on the final test, I will give a high school diploma.

Now suppose that I somehow know that no student can possibly pass the test.

What would such a statement (the one in italics) make me?

Either a liar or a total nutcase, I suggest.

 

[smaller]

The truth is stated in Scripture. Deception comes from the devil. Through speculations and assumptions.

I'm staying with Scripture.

At the heart of this conversation is imputation. Protestant reformers hit quite solidly on the fact that the righteousness of Christ Himself is imputed by faith in Him, and that we do not establish our own righteousness or justification. There is more than sufficient scriptural evidence for this sight, showing salvation to be "present tense, eternal" by faith in Christ, from Jesus Himself, here for example, in this famous One Liner that pretty well sums up the whole deal of Jesus:

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

This was a hingepoint in semi-modern views which were in effect "reconstituted" from what was already set in scriptures, over older orthodoxy, who had somewhat fallen into various states of unknown, unknowable, always ever iffy salvation.

I don't think anyone would disagree that a believer, having once been enlightened, can not be subsequently deceived in many ways. Sin itself is always deception. We do have a factual enemy, or many, that is not us as believers. That doesn't mean Jesus ever left anyone who has called on Him to save.

The Protestant belief, across the board, is that only Jesus is sufficient to save. That might seem rather obvious to many of us, but to some, He apparently isn't, and they must, in effect, prove themselves sufficient. IF Christ is within them, don't know how they can claim they do anything on their own to start with.

 

[JLB]

Actually, you've been shown about 12 million times, and rejected every one of them. I know what the Bible says about lying.

Ok. Let's try it again.

Please post the verse that says eternal life is irrevocable.

If you can not, then I believe you would be the one in error. (Edited, Obadiah)


JLB

 

[JLB]

It's all been explained and very clearly. And one is free to reject truth.

Yes, you are free to reject the truth of what is stated so plainly for all to see, right here in the scripture.

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 receives the forgiveness of sins.

The condition named here in this verse, for receiving the forgiveness of sins, is turning from the power of Satan to God, from darkness to light.




JLB

 

[JLB]

No, that isn't even the point. Believing in Jesus as a human prophet is NOT saving faith.

Yes I agree, that's why Muslims are not saved, because the refuse to confess Jesus as Lord, though they believe in Him.

For with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:10


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

This is, of course, what you have to say. But what you cannot answer - and you have repeatedly refused to engage this question - is why, if what you are saying is true, Paul would tell the moralist that there will be a coming judgment at which eternal life is handed out according to works, with eternal life going to those who persist in doing good?

You are basically saying that Pau is saying something untrue to this moralist.

Good heavens, no. What is untrue is that the moralist can earn eternal life, when they think they can. That was Paul's point.

Here is Paul's point, boiled down. If you persist in doing good, you can earn eternal life. But you can't persist in doing good. Which is why Jesus Christ died for your sins. Eternal life is obtained only by faith in Him. You can't earn it.

 

[FreeGrace]

Ok. Let's try it again.

Please post the verse that says eternal life is irrevocable.

If you can not, then you would be the one guilty of lying.
JLB

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness, unwelcome spiritual advice. Obadiah) Paul defined what he meant by "gifts of God" in Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17 and 6:23. Is that clear enough? And by gifts, he SAID justification and eternal life.

After 6:23, the very next use of that word 'gift' is found in 11:29 where Paul says that God's gifts are irrevocable

All reasonable and rational people will easily understand that Paul was referring to what he had already defined as gifts of God; that being justification and eternal life. Which is why Paul used the plural for 'gift'.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness, unwelcome spiritual advice. Obadiah)

And you've failed to prove your claim that Paul wasn't referring to eternal life in 11:29 but something else. Yet, there is NO EVIDENCE for anything else that Paul supposedly defined as a gift.

Your view has no evidence that I can see (Edited, Obadiah). Scripture is very clear; eternal life and justification are gifts of God. And God's gifts are irrevocable.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness, unwelcome spiritual advice. Obadiah)

 

[JLB]

James uses the Greek word 'sozo' 5 times, and NONE of them aref abouta eternal soul salvation.

Ok, let's compare what James says, with what Jesus says, and see if James is referring to salvation of the soul.

14 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 it profit?
17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 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.
James 2:14-18


Here is what Jesus said about these things -

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;

43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'
Matthew 25:41-43


These will be cast into the everlasting fires of hell, for the same exact things James mentions in James 2.

James is referring to salvation, the kind that saves a person from the fires of hell.


JLB