Salvation Lost? Really?

[Musicmaster]

I don't know how this works properly iam new. I would like a philosophical debate with someone

Philosophy, in relation to the Bible, or philosophy in relation to secular constructs from established writers such as Kant, et al? Biblical philosophy is a constellation of arguments that are not so plastic and pliable as is secular, so what I recommend is that you start a new thread, which will have to be reviewed by the moderators before it is made available to the rest of the membership to see, and fire away.

This thread is for the stated topic of salvation and its alleged loss. There are those who do little more than to hyjack other people's threads, which is seen as bad etiquette by many. Just letting you know how things generally work in these threads.

Now, when it comes to topical constraints, there is a reasonable range of items that can be discussed that still are associated with the original post (OP) topic, and is not seen as hijacking. So long as the other topics brought forth are relatable to the OP in some way, it's a free range.

So, if you want an open range of philosophical topics for a thread, be prepared for potential chaos if enough people are interested, but you have to understand that not many people here are trained in the field of philosophical methodologies, such as logic, logical fallacies and reason. There are quite a number of people here whose only weapons in their arsenal is ad hominem. There is a growing list populating my IGNORE on this board, in this software so that I don't see any of their posts nor their comments that others are addressing.

If you are easily offended by violations of common courtesy and decency, be prepared for violations galore. The wolf packs out there who seem to have nothing better to do than to wreck other people's threads with ad hominem and innuendos from their lack in abilities for civility, they will give you a good going over in ways that makes rationality look like an impossibility to be addressed with them. The stoic, "This is what I believe, and so to Sheol with what the Bible says...," is a powerful force when you realize you are confronted with group-think, with the bandwagon riders throwing their garbage in all directions hoping to hit someone not of their ilk.

Does that help?

Welcome to the jungle...

MM

 

[Careym58]

(Gal 5:4) You have become estranged from Christ, you who [attempt to] be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
(2 Tim 4:10) for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica--Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia.
(1 Jn 1:9) If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
(Heb 6:4-6) For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put [Him] to an open shame.
(1 Tim 4:1) Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.
Heb 10:24-27) And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works,
not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as [is] the manner of some, but exhorting [one another], and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

All these verses came from letters written to Christians, who were believers. There are many verses found that show a Christian can fall away and loose their salvation, for a person to believe we can't loose it. In the history of God's word from Genesis forward, God has never allowed those who sin, to be considered faithful with out their repentance.

 

[Musicmaster]

Appreciate the response. A few comments:

• I agree that we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. As you've done, I also use Lexicons - several of them - and other tools to help define and translate words.
• Since you linked me to a Bible Study site that looks to have Thayer's and Strongs and maybe a few other tools, and since I have access to many more tools, I'll say that we also have to be diligent when using them because some Lexicons can also be giving us some theological definitions.
• Reading Thayer's, which I have on my system, I still do not see the need for "work out" and comparing to the Latin word. If I simply paraphrase its paraphrased translation, I could come up with "make every effort (work) to obtain (accomplish) salvation. It looks to me like Thayer's is trying to keep from translating in a way that could be taken as "works salvation". But I don't like translators to protect me based upon their theological traditions. I just want to know what the Texts says, so I learned Greek.

Excellent points.

One thing I've learned through the years, having studied Thayer, his life and his leanings in the arena of Universalism, and the many things written by other scholars about his work to bring about his Lexicon, SOME of his choices in how he words definitions still have the taint of doctrinal leanings. His work is lauded by many lingual scholars as a masterpiece of unbias, with which I agree in most of what I have encountered, but he does make copious cross references to other writers across a broad range, from ancient to more modern, all of which have their leanings as well.

I'm wanting to focus that upon this particular item we are discussing. Thayer seems to see the definition as being works TOWARD, or to OBTAIN salvation, his seeming interpretation of which is inconsistent with Paul's gospel. My dislike of how he worded it is that so many can and do see that as an affirmation of work's-based salvation. How do we accomplish salvation when it was actually Christ who 'obtained' it FOR us? That's my question to Thayer and other scholars who tend toward wording some definitions in a manner that is easily misconstrued as supportive of major doctrines such as works-based salvation.

So, if we're going to stick to the "obtaining" aspect of his wording, then to remain consistent with Paul's gospel, we are left with his meaning being aimed at how, and in what direction, we aim our faith. It is either the world and it's dogmas, or it is Christ for what He accomplished for us. I didn't mean to convey the idea that I'm of a higher caliber of scholar for languages than Thayer, for I am not. However, I've found myself at times having to temper the defining statements he puts forth so that the constraints of meaning that I see in them remains consistent with a more systematic approach that allows for a broader range of scripture to focus in on borders that constrain our understanding of his meaning so that we are then able to see its continuity with the systematic constraints as mentioned.

"Cleave" is one such English word that can so easily be misconstrued in polar opposites of meaning. One can take it as splitting in two, or to cleave one to another into a singular whole. Context is a massively useful tool for understanding which applies, but when that fails, then I gravitate toward the systematic approach so that it can be boiled down to the actual meaning.

Sorry to belabor the point, but it seemed necessary to go into more depth on this, considering the importance of biblical salvation as handed over to Paul first in order to rule out the "any other gospel" that, although true to those TO whom it was addressed by Peter and James, we must differentiate that other gospel from the one given to Paul and TO us today under the Gospel of Grace.

• Paul did write what you say. Paul also wrote Philippians. He also wrote other things about Faith, Grace and Salvation, and all of the Text needs to be in agreement re: these things.
• I haven't read all of what you've been writing, but I am a bit uncomfortable with some of the wording I'm seeing.

Well said, and I welcome your thoughts.

• What does "obtaining salvation" mean? Does it mean entering into God's Salvation Plan by His grace through Faith not by works? Does it mean something else? Is "salvation" spoken of in just this entering (or just in the past tense like "save by grace through faith not by works) or is salvation spoken of in other tenses also?
• Unless the just above question is answered, "by faith, and nothing else" becomes worthy of questions.
• I'll skip the born again statement for now and stick with the above.
• I do agree that the good works are "after the fact" or subsequent to coming to truly believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God which means He is YHWH's KING, the Only Absolute Ruler, etc. And by "truly believe" I mean we are submitted to who He is.
• What I'm not sure is whether or not we see salvation the same way. The way I see salvation from the Text, I have zero issues with accepting the greater Lexical evidence for the way I translated "accomplish our salvation" in Phil2 and I have no concerns for running afoul of any "works salvation" issues as Paul speaks of such things.
• Do you view salvation as only past tense for the Christian or do you see salvation as a process that includes such things as renewing the mind as you pointed out?

We can indeed pick apart various terms and spend days and weeks discussing the semantics of it all. My study of the first century Church peoples and cultures pretty much sealed my understanding of "salvation" as to what chord it struck in their minds. In a nut shell, it boiled down to two aspects for me:

1) The question of "How long does one have to spend atoning for just one of the tens of thousands of sins we all commit in life?" Given that it would be an eternal endeavor in relation to God's perfect justice, never satisfying the perfect justice of God for us to be able to atone for even just one sin, no measure, then, of suffering on our part could ever be sufficient for payment.

2) Ransom. That is a concept with which the ancients were VERY aware and understanding for its implications. Deliverance, to them, was indeed a powerful tone that harmonized with the chords of their understanding. Christ paying the ransom for our guilt is a major, relatable image in their vernaculars.

So, when our illustrious Bible Cemeteries teach the plethora of defining concepts about salvation, convoluting it with not only direct, but also indirectly relatable concepts, the confusions in the minds of students are inevitable, thus leading to many of the existing, and perhaps even new, diversions away from the historic, ancient meaning in how the ancients saw it all in their mind's eye.

Granted: The ancients saw many things that do not at all mesh with modern, Western ideologies and conceptual constraints. That is the only reason I delved into that study in order to try and understand the meanings behind the Greek words of choice the Lord spoke, His apostles spoke and that Paul spoke and wrote, especially in relation to the Judaizers who were not even OF the council of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and who tried to convert into Judaism the Churches Paul had planted.

Granted, I'm still a novice in relation to those who have Th.D's and Ph.D's in the various fields of which we are discussing, but I also have seen many a historian allow themselves to become influenced in their interpretations of history with modern, doctrinal liberalism, from which replacement theology reared its ugly heads, like a multi-headed dragon devouring the masses of willfully ignorant morsels awaiting their fate.

Thank you for your thoughts and input. I very much appreciate it all.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

We certainly should follow God's leading to serve. I just think thinking of the reward tally too is not good for my journey. It never crossed my mind till this thread.

I don't possess a sense of moral crisis in coveting the storage of greater and greater treasure in Heaven. To me, that doesn't elicit a sinful measure of coveting that would jeopardize moral consistency with scripture in how I allow the Lord to work through me. Those good works that bring Him pleasure, like a sweet aroma unto His Throne.

We can see in history, and even in modern times, the Hellish endeavors for false humility, such as when monks whip themselves for their sins, crawling around cities on their knees, or doing some other meaningless penances for what Christ has already paid the price. Shoving our storage of treasures in Heaven in any comparable relation to a measure of false humility is indeed a strong tendency. I'm not saying this applies to you personally, but there are many out there who harbor that level of what they see as humility when in fact it is pride in their ability to atone for what no man could possibly atone for in relation to God's perfect justice.

In one particular instance, recounted in three of the four gospels, we see this:

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Jesus was not at all adverse to the idea of storing up treasure in Heaven. The things we may give in our alms is one such item we may do in our own effort, but there is also that which the Lord works through us:

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

It is what the Lord can and does work through us because of the treasure He placed within us, which is His Power expressed outwardly in so many manifestations toward others.

I hope this is good food for thought to at least some.

MM

 

[Gideon300]

Sounds like some years of endurance in the Faith.

50 plus. I've failed enough to be an example of how not to.......... and after too many years, learned a little of the Christian life is, and is not.

 

[Gideon300]

I'm not sure where or why you went there concerning myself since you absolutely do not know me, nor have you met me face to face in order to ascertain any measure of discernment about me. Did I speak with confidence on this topic? Yes, which is what we ALL should be doing of those things clearly stated or absolutely entrenched within scripture through various other anchors therein.

So, are you saying that there is such a thing as lost salvation?

If not, then what's your point? I am curious about the derivation that drove you to the fringes of ad hominem, because to even hint at the idea of perfection as a self-vision on my part, that is indeed an address of character rather than sticking strictly to the topic at hand. Despots out there who see themselves as perfect in all their doctrine are indeed expressing a warped and twisted personality; an extreme that I do not believe I have ever even given a hint.

So, if you DO believe such a thing as loss of salvation, then how does one escape the inevitable fact that such a loss clearly denotes the requirement for effort of works in order to maintain one's standing in the state of salvation? What other conclusion is there other than accidental loss, which also enjoys the same level of absurdity as intentional loss? I mean, please do elaborate if that is your position. Never mind the struggles and all the other distractions that have arisen within this discussion, let's just stick to that topic, if you don't mind. I would very much appreciate that.

Thanks for your feedback.

MM

You still miss the point. Never mind, one day you will understand.

 

[studier]

The only caveat I would throw into that is that we are to work OUT our salvation, not FOR our salvation. When you say "accomplish," that tends toward working FOR our salvation, which is contrary to grace, for if it is of works, then it is no more grace, as Paul stated in Romans 11:6.

I assume we agree on this, though.

MM

I'm going to go back to the beginning of our discussion (above) and my last question (below).

Do you view salvation as only past tense for the Christian or do you see salvation as a process that includes such things as renewing the mind as you pointed out?

The language we use concerning salvation and what we mean by the language we use is important, and ultimately has to do with how the Bible speaks of salvation, or how we think the Bible speaks of salvation.

So, I repeat my question since I didn't notice you answering it.

 

[studier]

50 plus. I've failed enough to be an example of how not to.......... and after too many years, learned a little of the Christian life is, and is not.

Which puts you where on the temporal if I may ask.

Since you're still enduring, you're probably like most if not all of us; examples of what and what not to do.

 

[Gideon300]

Which puts you where on the temporal if I may ask.

Since you're still enduring, you're probably like most if not all of us; examples of what and what not to do.

73. Alive, not so sure about kicking!

 

[Musicmaster]

I'm going to go back to the beginning of our discussion (above) and my last question (below).



The language we use concerning salvation and what we mean by the language we use is important, and ultimately has to do with how the Bible speaks of salvation, or how we think the Bible speaks of salvation.

So, I repeat my question since I didn't notice you answering it.

Sorry. Lots of distractions going on all around me, so it's easy for me to overlook some questions. Please forgive.

So, to answer your question, salvation is done for all who have placed their faith in the death, burial and resurrection on the third day of Christ Jesus. For all of us, it's past, not an ongoing process. Yes, there are some passages at which some can point that states such things as "...unto the day of salvation...," etc., but under the Gospel of Grace, we have what was not offered nor provided to those who were or will be under the Kingdom Gospel, which is the sealing of Holy Spirit:

Ephesians 1:13 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...

Sanctification, on the other hand, is an ongoing process of growth in spiritual stature and understanding, striving toward the fullness of the stature of Christ in our lives.

Does that answer your question?

MM

 

[studier]

For all of us, it's past, not an ongoing process

Yes, it does answer my question very succinctly. Thanks.

I disagree and this disagreement will keep us from agreeing on related things and terminology.

Sanctification, on the other hand, is an ongoing process of growth in spiritual stature and understanding, striving toward the fullness of the stature of Christ in our lives.

This is in line with the view of how you see salvation. Sanctification is actually spoken of in the past (e.g. 1Cor6:11) as well as the present progressive tense.

Salvation is spoken of the same way.

The theological construct used for teaching in some traditions - Saved > Sanctified > Glorified is not entirely accurate and can cause misunderstandings when reading the Text.

 

[studier]

73. Alive, not so sure about kicking!

Thanks! Fully understand the kicking part... Keyboards and voice control kick pretty well though.

 

[Musicmaster]

Yes, it does answer my question very succinctly. Thanks.

I disagree and this disagreement will keep us from agreeing on related things and terminology.



This is in line with the view of how you see salvation. Sanctification is actually spoken of in the past (e.g. 1Cor6:11) as well as the present progressive tense.

Salvation is spoken of the same way.

The theological construct used for teaching in some traditions - Saved > Sanctified > Glorified is not entirely accurate and can cause misunderstandings when reading the Text.

I see. So, in your opinion, how does the sealing of Holy Spirit fit in with your view? Is the grasp of Holy Spirit weak enough that salvation must then be an ongoing process, or is the strength of Holy Spirit's seal an event that never needs ongoing maintenance. If it's ongoing 'maintenance,' then who is it that must put forth that effort? Was not the sealing of Holy Spirit on the finished basis of the completed work of Christ's shed Blood? If it's on the merits of our efforts, then how can that be differentiated from works-based salvation?

Just trying to grasp your drift for better understanding on my part.

MM

 

[studier]

I see. So, in your opinion, how does the sealing of Holy Spirit fit in with your view? Is the grasp of Holy Spirit weak enough that salvation must then be an ongoing process, or is the strength of Holy Spirit's seal an event that never needs ongoing maintenance. If it's ongoing 'maintenance,' then who is it that must put forth that effort? Was not the sealing of Holy Spirit on the finished basis of the completed work of Christ's shed Blood? If it's on the merits of our efforts, then how can that be differentiated from works-based salvation?

Just trying to grasp your drift for better understanding on my part.

MM

I put forth a poorly formatted (lost the original formatting when pasting and didn't notice before editing ability lapsed), [too] lengthy thoughts post earlier. Rather than starting from the loss of salvation OP like so many others that end up in the typical mass of repeated disagreement, although not unique, I turned it back to a question of who truly believes and is true belief determined by God rather than just viewed loosely as it seems is normally the case.

In answer to your question here re: the Sealing, in light of what I just said, I'd answer in the same track, who truly gets sealed?

In further answer and more globally, I think the whole works salvation argument is overdone and many remain on the outward ranges of the pendulum swings both ways. Most errors are met with counterarguments that also end up being erroneous.

Then, yes, salvation in its full scope involves good works we were created to do under grace in Christ in Spirit meaning apart from God we can do nothing but in Christ we can do all things including work with God to accomplish our salvation that is first and foremost His salvation that He gifts to men.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I think the whole works salvation argument is overdone

It's an argument built on a false premise. Paul was only talking about one thing when he was contrasting works with faith, ie, works of the law of Moses. Works of law don't exist in our time because the economy for the law doesn't exist, and it never existed for those outside of ancient Israel.

So there remains only faith and unbelief, which results in either works of the spirit or works of the flesh. But they are both works

 

[Cranberry]

I don't possess a sense of moral crisis in coveting the storage of greater and greater treasure in Heaven. To me, that doesn't elicit a sinful measure of coveting that would jeopardize moral consistency with scripture in how I allow the Lord to work through me. Those good works that bring Him pleasure, like a sweet aroma unto His Throne.

We can see in history, and even in modern times, the Hellish endeavors for false humility, such as when monks whip themselves for their sins, crawling around cities on their knees, or doing some other meaningless penances for what Christ has already paid the price. Shoving our storage of treasures in Heaven in any comparable relation to a measure of false humility is indeed a strong tendency. I'm not saying this applies to you personally, but there are many out there who harbor that level of what they see as humility when in fact it is pride in their ability to atone for what no man could possibly atone for in relation to God's perfect justice.

In one particular instance, recounted in three of the four gospels, we see this:

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Jesus was not at all adverse to the idea of storing up treasure in Heaven. The things we may give in our alms is one such item we may do in our own effort, but there is also that which the Lord works through us:

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

It is what the Lord can and does work through us because of the treasure He placed within us, which is His Power expressed outwardly in so many manifestations toward others.

I hope this is good food for thought to at least some.

MM

I wasn't judging you. I was speaking for myself.

 

[studier]

It's an argument built on a false premise. Paul was only talking about one thing when he was contrasting works with faith, ie, works of the law of Moses. Works of law don't exist in our time because the economy for the law doesn't exist, and it never existed for those outside of ancient Israel.

So there remains only faith and unbelief, which results in either works of the spirit or works of the flesh. But they are both works

Mostly agree. Definitely agree with your first 2 sentences.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Mostly agree. Definitely agree with your first 2 sentences.

The ergophobic crowd thinks any kind of human effort based on one's own will is a work of the flesh, and therefore sinful and to be eschewed. So they exist in a state of passive faith that imagines God doing everything through them and think they are doing works of the spirit, when in fact they are doing nothing but deluding their own selves.

We either follow the spirit and do works of the spirit, or we follow the longings of the flesh and do works of the flesh. So works is a reality of life and is a bad word only to the ergophobic crowd

 

[studier]

The ergophobic crowd thinks any kind of human effort based on one's own will is a work of the flesh, and therefore sinful and to be eschewed. So they exist in a state of passive faith that imagines God doing everything through them and think they are doing works of the spirit, when in fact they are doing nothing but deluding their own selves.

We either follow the spirit and do works of the spirit, or we follow the longings of the flesh and do works of the flesh. So works is a reality of life and is a bad word only to the ergophobic crowd

I've watched and was actually close to some who were working very hard to exegetically prove Faith is an absolutely passive function in order to defend against works doctrine. Much of that was based at least part in the "persuasion" concepts I was discussing earlier on another thread.

I agree with your assessment.

 

[Chester]

It is either works, or it is grace. It cannot be both, for there is no power on this earth that can truly intermix them together under the Gospel of Grace.

MM

There actually is a power that can combine works and grace: that power is Jesus Christ. And then the works we do are from the grace of God working in us.

I am not afraid of "works". I am glad that works are very part of what saves me from a miserable life of following the flesh and the Devil.