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

[FreeGrace]

There is nothing in the context that remotely suggests Jesus was speaking "tongue in cheek".

His very words clearly suggest that. Or, otoh, He contradicts everything else He said in the book of John.

Jesus Himself said one must "work for heaven" when He said in Jn 6:27 to WORK for the meat that endures unto everlasting life.

OK, your view is salvation by works, which I reject because Scripture says over and over we are saved by grace through faith.

 

[Douglas Summers]

I will not keep asking till you answer. The question is about the nature of the concept of "irrevocability". And what do you really mean by this vague statement "The Bible is a 'spiritual' book" and this equally suspicious "quit relying on your own understanding"?

The Bible contains words that we read. No magic: words have meaning, and we read them and understand them according to their meaning. So, again in slightly modified form:

An irrevocable gift can still be discarded after receipt by the recipient (since the "revocability" of a gift is about the taking back of the gift by the giver). Do you deny this? Please answer this question. I will keep asking this question until you answer it, so it will be less painful for us all if you answer it.

My question is about the nature of irrevocability: Do you agree with me that, in general, an irrevocable gift can be discarded?

This is a simple question about words and their meaning. Please answer it.

 

[Drew]

Since this discussion isn't about being "in general", but the very specific issue of eternal life/new birth, NO, NO, NO, it cannot be discarded any more than one can discard their physical birth.

You are not playing fair as you continue to evade a simple clear question about the concept of "irrevocability".

You are arguing that salvation is an irrevocable gift. I ask you a simple question about what the word "irrevocable" means, and you will not answer it.

The reader will, I suggest, draw the obvious conclusion.

But let me spell it out anyway. They will know that, by the meaning of the concept of "irrevocability" an irrevocable gift can still be discarded by the recipient. They will see that you continually evade a clear question asking you to acknowledge this. You see, you cannot afford to acknowledge that an irrevocable gift can be discarded because your whole argument would collapse as a result. So you evade, insisting the general definition of the term that is a central pillar in your argument does not matter. You don't get to have it both ways, on the one hand using "irrevocability" as a central pillar in your argument while, on the other, refusing to acknowledge that the meaning of this term undercuts your own argument.

 

[Drew]

...no text

Was this an error? - there is no text in your response.

 

[WIP]

Let's refrain from the personal analysis of other members and stick to discussing the topic at hand, please.

 

[Seabass]

I agree,but I suspect you are aware of how FreeGrace is arguing this. I think his argument runs like this:

1. We have Bible texts that characterize salvation as a gift;
2. We have Bible texts that declare that we are "saved" at the point of belief;
3. Romans 11:29 declares that God's gifts are irrevocable;
4. Therefore, once you believe, your salvation is guaranteed.

Hi,

1) Yes, salvation is called a gift. Yet it is being ASSUMED by FreeGrace that the gift of salvation is offered by God UNconditionally and this gift is received by man UNconditionally when this is not the case at all.
Rom 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Here eternal life is called a gift but this gift is CONDITIONAL "through Jesus Christ". One does not maintain the gift UNconditionally even if he falls from Christ. One must CONDITIONALLY remain in Christ to maintain the gift.

2) Jn 3:16 says that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Another CONDITIONAL statement. The not perishing is CONDITIONAL upon one maintaining a present tense belief. If one quits believing then he should perish as the subjunctive mood of the verb 'should' shows. Those that support the man made teaching of eternal security often over look the present tense and subjunctive moods.

3) FreeGrace has yet to prove that God has made 'eternal security' a gift that cannot be revoked. God has not promised or 'gifted' eternal security to any individual unconditionally.

4) Yes, as long as one maintains a present tense, ongoing, sustained belief he will be saved. But what happens if one quits believing? One believes by his own volition and therefore can quit believing by his own volition also and become lost. Will FreeGrace argue one's salvation is still guaranteed even if one quits his present tense believing? Most likely not but will probably offer the common excuse that if one quits believing he "never really believed at all" which is not a valid excuse logically nor biblically.

As you know, I believe this is mistaken and I think there are texts like Romans 2:6-7 and Romans 8:12-13 that show that salvation depends on how we actually behave. And I know you believe this, too.

However, I think that FreeGrace could still make this 4 point argument above work; even though I have been arguing that an "irrevocable gift" can be discarded by the recipient, I suspect that one could at least argue that, in the case of salvation, this is not really possible.

My point is FreeGrace is ASSUMING that God has made eternal security a gift.

Is eternal security a gift God has given to man that cannot be revoked? NO! For God never made eternal security a gift.

Yet God has made eternal life a gift and God offers that gift CONDITIONALLY through faith. Those men that conditionally maintain a present tense faith receive the promise of the gift of eternal life. Yet if I cast away my faith then I have forfeited the promise of the gift and God did NOT revoke the promise of the gift of eternal life from me for the offer of the gift still remains before me but I have to go back to meeting the condition of having faith in order to have the promise for the gift of salvation again.

In other words, if I lose the promise of the gift of eternal life it is NOT because God revoked His promise of eternal life it is because I no longer meet the conditions God has placed upon His gift. The promise of the gift of eternal life is still there I just have to go back to meeting the condition of having faith. Seems to me FreeGrace is arguing that if I lose the promise of the gift it would be because God revoked the gift yet God does not revoke such gifts. Truth is God did not revoke the gift, I simply did not maintain the condition God put on the gift, yet the offer of the gift remains open to me but I must go back to meeting the conditions upon the gift to have the gift again.

Bottom line: I am highly suspicious of the general character of the 4 point argument above - it relies too much on "shuffling definitions around", and I suspect one could "prove" almost anything using this approach. I will try to think of an example that shows how flawed such an "argument from the dictionary definition of words" approach is.

 

[dadof10]

I said this:
"Of course I deny your claim that the gift fo eternal life can be discarded."

OK, once again, since the issue is discarding of eternal life, which involves the new birth, NO, NO, NO, one CANNOT discard their new birth. I don't know how many times I must answer this.


Since this discussion isn't about being "in general", but the very specific issue of eternal life/new birth, NO, NO, NO, it cannot be discarded any more than one can discard their physical birth.

But you can discard your physical birth. It's called suicide. We are born, and living our physical life, which we can "discard" by suicide. We are born again, living our spiritual life, which we can discard by disbelief and disobedience.

 

[Drew]

In Rom 4:4 the "worketh" in Rom 4:4 refers to flawless law keeping and not obedience to the will of God. Abraham was one who "worketh not" at trying to keep God's law flawlessly whereby his reward would be of debt and not of grace but instead Abraham had an obedient belief.

I disagree with you about what Romans 4:4 means, even though I agree with you that it is not a denial of what is clearly asserted in Romans 2:6-7:

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]

I think that Paul is using the metaphor of a workman to attack the Jewish belief that God "owes" the Jew membership in God's family.

Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness [Romans 4:4-5, NASB]

Paul is arguing that it is improper for the Jew to see his "righteous status" before God as something that is due to the Jew on the basis of covenant promises. And he does this through an analogy to a worker who is "owed" his wages. But this is only an analogy and is therefore not true in all its details. Paul is focusing on the error of the Jew who thinks God "owes him something" (by using the image of a worker who works for wages). Paul wants that Jew - and all people actually - to realize that God does not owe the Jew anything and confers a status of righteousness based on faith, instead. The problem is that the Reformers took the analogy as true in all its details and read this text as a repudiation of the relevance of good works to salvation (or justification).

Now I trust you realize that in saying this, I am not denying the necessity of good works for salvation. In fact, I am one of the most vocal supporters (here) of the necessity to "be a good person" to be saved.

 

[Seabass]

His very words clearly suggest that. Or, otoh, He contradicts everything else He said in the book of John.


OK, your view is salvation by works, which I reject because Scripture says over and over we are saved by grace through faith.

Jesus own very words were to WORK for the meat that endures unto everlasting life.
No work = no everlasting life.

Faith is a work, 1 Thess 1:3.

 

[Drew]

Hi,

1) Yes, salvation is called a gift. Yet it is being ASSUMED by FreeGrace that the gift of salvation is offered by God UNconditionally and this gift is received by man.......

Can't respond now, but please look for a future response from me. Although I ultimately disagree with FreeGrace, I think we are not fully countering his arguments.

 

[Douglas Summers]

True. Do you think this "trusting" is ongoing? Do we have to continue to trust or we will "fall away"?

The born again can backslide, after all we still have the old man in conflict with the new man (Rom. 7:14-ff) (Gal. 5: 15-17) The born again may have to repent many times, it means to turn again or turn back. But regeneration is only done once and is not repeated and it is a permanent possession.. It is also a confirmation of God's promise. To try to understand God's grace carnally is not possible. All you will get is a carnal reasoning to fit their own fleshy beliefs.. Being sorry is not repentance. It may lead to repentance. And repentance is not being saved. Repentance is a change of mind about God and man. All this is the act of man. But when he turns to God in Jesus Christ, he is regenerated (born again). This is an act of God. He then is no more under the law and it's penalty of death He is under Grace. Grace here is not a one time forgiveness. But this Grace carries us through to the finished with an eternal High Priest that liveith forevermore. Men are not that graceful. That is why they can not understand eternal security (Rom. 5: 12-21; 7: 14-25; 8: 1-39; Heb. 9,10,11) Study them.. and the Epistle of 1 John.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Was this an error? - there is no text in your response.

Yes it was an error

 

[Stan1953]

When I read Romans 11:29 in context, it seems clear to me it is about God's gifts to, and calling of, the Jewish people/faith as being a permanent part of God's plan, though somehow distinct from Christianity.

Yes the calling IS, but it is now part and parcel of the NEW covenant. The OLD covenant is now obsolete and HAS disappeared.

 

[Seabass]

I disagree with you about what Romans 4:4 means, even though I agree with you that it is not a denial of what is clearly asserted in Romans 2:6-7:

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]

I think that Paul is using the metaphor of a workman to attack the Jewish belief that God "owes" the Jew membership in God's family.

Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness [Romans 4:4-5, NASB]

Paul is arguing that it is improper for the Jew to see his "righteous status" before God as something that is due to the Jew on the basis of covenant promises. And he does this through an analogy to a worker who is "owed" his wages. But this is only an analogy and is therefore not true in all its details. Paul is focusing on the error of the Jew who thinks God "owes him something" (by using the image of a worker who works for wages). Paul wants that Jew - and all people actually - to realize that God does not owe the Jew anything and confers a status of righteousness based on faith, instead. The problem is that the Reformers took the analogy as true in all its details and read this text as a repudiation of the relevance of good works to salvation (or justification).

Now I trust you realize that in saying this, I am not denying the necessity of good works for salvation. In fact, I am one of the most vocal supporters (here) of the necessity to "be a good person" to be saved.

I agree that men will be judged according to their deeds, my point from Rom 4 is Paul is differentiating between deeds that do not justify and deeds that will justify.

At that time Christianity was new and Jews who lived under the law who became new Christians were still clinging to that OT law in someway.

One way they still clung to the OT law was they still thought one still had to keep the OT rite of circumcision to be saved, yet Paul clears that false idea up in Rom 4:10,11.

The other issue Paul deals with these Jewish Christian about in Rom 4 is the flawless law keeping the Jews did when they were back under the law of Moses. The law of Moses made complete justification before God impossible. All it allowed for was flawless law keeping whereby the Jews went about trying to keep all 600+ of those OT laws flawlessly/perfectly and if they could keep them flawlessly they would be without sin and could stand before God completely justified. In the process of this flawless law keeping they would be making their reward of debt and not of grace per Rom 4:4. Grace is for those that sin, yet if the Jew could keep the law flawlessly he would have no sin and therefore not need grace thereby making his reward of debt. Paul is telling these Jews to forget about the flawless law keeping. (The Jew always ended up committing sin.) Abraham was not one that was justified by trying to keep God's law flawlessly for Abraham sinned. Instead Abraham was justified by an obedient belief in doing the will of God.

So from the context of Rom 4, the work that does not justify is the work of flawless law keeping.
The work that does justify is an obedient belief in doing the will of God.

God will render unto me according to my deeds but the KIND of deed I have done determines where I will be in eternity. Not just any deed (circumcision or flawless law keeping) can get me into heaven it must be the correct deed (obeying the will of God) that gains me entrance into heaven.

Faith only advocates take the phrase "worketh not" and try to use that phrase to eliminate ALL works from salvation when it is eliminating the work of flawless law keeping and not the work of obedience in obeying the will of God.....Abraham was one who "worketh not" at flawless law keeping but instead had an obedient belief in God.

 

[smaller]

Why persist "in general", since the issue of eternal life is NOT about objects that can be discarded. You're trying to compare apples with oranges and coming up with mush.

Of course any object can be discarded. But this isn't the issue or debate at all. Not even close.

If one can show any evidence from Scripture that one's salvation, eternal life, or the new birth can be discarded, then it can be. Otherwise, the argument has NO EVIDENCE to support the assumption.

That's where the debate really is.

It's always interesting to see how many ways can be devised to topple simple belief by faith in Christ.

Drew for example is rather obsessed at the moment with God rendering to each according to his works. Drew might even see that "all" believers sin, have sin and have sinned. This much should be rather obvious to any honest observer of themselves.

Faith says sins were taken away from our account by Jesus, at His Cross, 2 Cor. 5:19 and many other citings. So there is no ILL repayment for SIN. Will our unworthy words aka SIN stand under Gods Judgments? Yes, but not to the loss of salvation:

1 Corinthians 3:
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Does this judgment result in damnation in eternal hell? Of course not! Paul is very succinct about this:

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

I might presume we'll all have work that will not abide this infamous "trial by fire." And what will be lost will be worthy to be lost, burned up, forgotten, not carried forward or what have you.

And some, maybe all at some point, may forget this happened:

Ephesians 1:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

 

[Stan1953]

I quote from the NASB most of the time. I don't know what is meant by the verses I show and the words I types not agreeing. How so?

If I use the NIV and quote it like this; Rom 8:28-30 (NIV), a small box pops up with that scripture. If you use the NASB, and just type Rom 8:28-30, the box that pops up is the KJV, by default, so if you quote with the name of the translation and then actually quote the words of the translation, the two will NOT be the same, as was the case with your post.

Since I see no relevance in such questions, I see no reason why I should answer them. How would different gifts have anything to do with the possibility of loss of salvation? If that can be explained, then I'll answer.

So because a blind person feels he is OK to walk around on his own, he is justified, despite the fact that a seeing eye dog has been proven to be a lot smarter in keeping him safe? Sorry but your personal POV of what is and isn't relevant does NOT apply to public debate or when someone is trying to show you a point. It does however convey a certain amount of condescension on your part, which won't help you in supporting your POV.

Seems to me you've just made my point.

I wouldn't know as I didn't see you make one.

Now, per the last sentence/question, yes, people DO change their minds after believing in Christ for salvation. Jesus clearly made that point in Luke 8:13 with the second soil.

so then why equivocate about the word loss verses the word apostasy, when they equate to the same thing in essence?

But, to equate loss of faith with loss of salvation is in error because the Bible never equates the 2. Given all the warning passages, why didn't any of the authors clearly state that loss of salvation was the issue? They certainly had a great opportunity to do so. Yet, none of the warning passages mention salvation as what can be lost. It's just an assumption that many make when they cite these passages.

Technically they don't, but objectively they do. If someone falls into apostasy, which means they no longer believe in their confession of faith in Jesus, then what is the difference? They are no longer bound for eternity as Heb 6:4-6 (NIV) shows. I suggest you read it along with Heb 10:38-39 (NIV) to see what Luke is teaching.
If we don't endure then we can't receive eternal life, which means our salvation is no longer efficacious.

Have you considered all the passages that have been used to prove eternal security? Or have you dismissed them?

Indeed I have, and as nobody has ever been able to show me their eisegesis is sound and true, I have not accepted that teaching as fact. Usually my discussions fall away into more and more doctrinal vernacular, just as these are doing.

 

[smaller]

Faith only advocates take the phrase "worketh not" and try to use that phrase to eliminate ALL works from salvation when it is eliminating the work of flawless law keeping and not the work of obedience in obeying the will of God.....Abraham was one who "worketh not" at flawless law keeping but instead had an obedient belief in God.

It has been observed [many times prior] that some turn other matters into their own concocted laws with attendant penalty of potential (or else) eternal damnation, and this without a shred of evidence to do so.

The amounts of these "imaginary laws" are profligate in christian sects, each having their own little special sets of made up laws with penalties.

They are no different in my sight than any common O.T. Jewish legalist, except with an even more ill fated bent to those who will not bow to their "law with penalty" attachments. Anyone joining into these concoctions is also then essentially forced to damn to hell any other believers who do not therefore bow before their "sects" rules. It's a horrific practice, forcing believers to potentially damn other believers to hell. It's just pathetic.

But, to each his own, I say.

Romans 14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

I "let." But that "let" does not extend to letting one man convince himself to the detriment of another believer. That is where all such "fully persuaded" in their own minds does not LET another be fully convinced that such schemes are exactly that. Just what some other guy happens to think is right, and largely without the proof sets to back them up. But their own imaginations that extend from "right thinking" to "right actions" as if they can ALL be absolutely codified, qualified and determined like some pre-flight checklist. Just with baptism alone, there are so many sects with different "rules of the game" which exactly "none" have full agreement with, yet all thinking they alone are right, and that is what saves their adherents.

I find Paul to be very generous in this regards:

Gal. 6:
4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Paul is very clear in Romans 3 that we are saved by "the law of faith" and not the "law of works."

Romans 3:
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

 

[Stan1953]

This question was uncalled for. Of course I do, because the Bible describes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all as God. That's clear evidence of the Trinity. And all of His omni attributes are described in Scripture, again, evidence of them. Your question is stunning, to say the least.

Sometimes you have to stun people out of their comfort zone. Just as you clearly see, as do I, the thread that runs though scripture that shows the triune nature of God in scripture, I clearly see the thread that runs through it that shows OSAS does NOT exist, unlike you.

Another stunning question. Of course the Bible teaches that believers go to heaven after death. David noted that though his 7 day old son would not come back to him, he would be going to him, meaning that when David would die, he would be where his son went.
And Paul said this: "absent from the body (death) face to face with the Lord". How can that not be a reference to going to heaven?

Where does it teach this? Jesus said NO MAN has EVER seen God. David noted that his son went to Paradise, which is where all believers go. Paradise is NOT heaven. Heaven is where God resides, NOT human souls.
Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in paradise that day. I'm pretty sure Jesus knows the difference. Paul said He would RATHER be with Jesus, not that he would be when he died.

My whole point is perspective is quite often a result of doctrinal bias and NOT true examination of scripture, as your above responses showing your incredulity at considering anything else, clearly show.

 

[FreeGrace]

You are not playing fair as you continue to evade a simple clear question about the concept of "irrevocability".

I answered directly with a resounding NO, NO, NO. What more can I say?

You are arguing that salvation is an irrevocable gift. I ask you a simple question about what the word "irrevocable" means, and you will not answer it.

I did, many times. [personal remarks. WIP]

The reader will, I suggest, draw the obvious conclusion.

Yes, I certainly hope so. That your arguement is totally without any evidence for it from Scripture. That should clue in everyone.

But let me spell it out anyway. They will know that, by the meaning of the concept of "irrevocability" an irrevocable gift can still be discarded by the recipient.

[Too personal. WIP] I've NEVER discussed or argued with the meaning it in "in general". My ONLY focus is about eternal life being discarded, which is NOT possible.

Your point, which I have acknowledged regarding being "in general", does NOT relate to the specific point that you've made about eternal life being discarded.

They will see that you continually evade a clear question asking you to acknowledge this.

Hardly. I've directly answered your question repeatedly. Please read my posts.

You see, you cannot afford to acknowledge that an irrevocable gift can be discarded because your whole argument would collapse as a result.

I will make this as clear as possible: if eternal life were an object, then, yes, one could discard it. But eternal life is NOT an object, so eternal life CANNOT be discarded. [Rude remark, WIP]

So you evade, insisting the general definition of the term that is a central pillar in your argument does not matter.

Because it doesn't matter. Not one bit. Your claim is totally without evidence from Scripture. Why should anyone believe it?

You don't get to have it both ways, on the one hand using "irrevocability" as a central pillar in your argument while, on the other, refusing to acknowledge that the meaning of this term undercuts your own argument.

The error in your argument here is treating eternal life as an object. It isn't and you're unable to show any evidence from Scripture to support your view.

 

[Stan1953]

Which is why I put quotation marks around it. My authority is a Church, yours is "Scripture", which breaks down to your personal interpretation of Scripture, or "properly exegeted scripture". "Properly" is a subjective term, hence my comment. The Church "properly" engages in exegesis also. So when there is a discrepancy in doctrine, who is right and why?

The church is ALL believers, NOT an institution. Scripture is our ONLY authority as Paul teaches in 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Tim 2:15. If you are NOT going to accept it then why debate in a forum based on scriptural authority? You would be better off debating in an RC forum...I can refer you to a few. If you don't accept what I show as properly exegeted, [No need to get personal, WIP], then refute it FROM scripture.

Right, but it's how this Truth is transmitted to the faithful that's the issue here. I think it's through an authoritative, Holy Spirit guided Church, who's mission includes interpreting and teaching "properly exegeted" Scripture. You think it's ONLY through Holy Spirit written Scripture, which needs personal interpretation.

I guess this would depend on your understanding of WHAT that is exactly?
From my perspective, you think in RCC terms, which then makes it invalid as such. Using words without understanding or opposite intent doesn't help much and this response contradicts what you just wrote above.
I'm not going to debate the RCC with you. I was born and raised as one, and when I got saved I left the RCC permanently for the denomination I was saved in. let's try to stick to the TOPIC at hand shall we, and not make it about the RCC vs the rest of Christianity.