Why I now believe that salvation can be lost.

[Cameron143]

I know what your point is. And I believe your time frame is wrong for all the reasons stated previously. Even the OC itself did not become obsolete in 70 A.D., so how could it have ended in 70 A.D.? In Heb 8 you conflate obsolescence with disappearing, which is poor exegesis. You ignore both the verb tenses. What became obsolete at the Cross (the OC) the most preeminent symbol thereof (the temple) will surely disappear. (There was nothing more sacred and relelvant to the Mosaic Law than the temple. They were inextricably entwined!) The obsolescence took place in the writer's past, while he spoke of the disappearing as yet future.

The Cross work of Christ does not actually bring prophecies to their fulfillment. The Cross work was a necessary means to their end (fulfillment).

And if you insist that 70 A.D. brought an end to the "last days", then you must logically believe Isa 2:1-5 has already been fulfilled. It had to have been fulfilled some time prior to 70 A.D., which is very doubtful.

And since I hold to classical preterism, I do agree with your take on 70 A.D. Most of Revelation has been fulfilled. But that doesn't prove your premise on when the last days came to their end, since your timeframe is wrong.

Best we agree to disagree. You're not going to convince me or vice versa.

Just one question:
Under the terms of the old covenant what could bring the covenant to an end?

 

[Musicmaster]

What James wrote applied to the entire Body of Christ. Messianic Jews did have one covenant and Gentile believers a different one. Both were and are to this day under the New Covenant.

Then why did he specifically address his epistle to the Jews if it apples to even the Gentiles much later one after Paul is given the revelation of the mystery that was given to no other man from the Lord?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Here's a correction to my 4564 to MusicMaster:

What James wrote applied to the entire Body of Christ. Messianic Jews did not have one covenant and Gentile believers a different one. Both were and are to this day under the New Covenant.

Sorry for the confusion. I typed that in a hurry because my phone was ringing, so I sent up the post then went to answer my phone.

There's a difference between covenants and dispensations. Dispensations are an address of the truths that apply to different peoples in different times. The covenant of Christ's Blood is indeed the establishment of His Blood as the completion for redemption, BUT that does not bind the Lord's Hands in the chains of mankind's demands that the way He dispenses the resulting redemption/salvation MUST be in accordance to man's own imaginations and demands for doctrinal truth according to man.

You can believe whatever you want, but as for me, I will believe what the Lord says in His word through Paul as to what applies to us all, Jews and Gentiles. Your beliefs are your own concoction and/or that of mainstream, Westernized Christianity that is filled with socially engineered theologies.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Without going back to see what exactly you were correcting, what you have said here is what I understood you
to be saying in the previous post, which I certainly agree with. You two have been going at it with each other
for quite a few days now, and I must admit that I cannot always follow what exactly the disagreement is over,
since I am not keen on reading long posts in back and forths, nor posts full of acrimonious accusations.

What is at issue here is that it is widely believed that James was writing to not only Jews, when declaring that a man is justified by works, but also Gentiles, who were later told that a man is justified by faith. Westernized Christianity claims both are true for us all today.

My contention with that is that James wrote what was true for the Jews at that time, which was later replaced by the mystery revealed to Paul for us all. That is very similar to what is written in Genesis 1 in that all the plants and their seeds are for man's consumption, with no mention of animal flesh being on that menu, but later, in chapter 9, the truth that was valid for before the coming of sin was altered to man being allowed to eat ALL that moved upon the earth as food. Beyond that, the Mosaic Law THEN changed even that for the Jews, limiting their diet of animal flesh to certain types of animals, thus denying the consumption of certain animal flesh ONLY to the Jews.

But Westernized Christianity has been ignoring and even denying God's Sovereignty in applying different truths to different people's at different times within the New Testament. The Jews were given the Kingdom Gospel, with Paul later being given a revelation of a mystery that had been hidden in God since the creation of the world, never revealed to anyone, not even the prophets, until Paul. The Lord even said WHY He kept it sealed up in Himself, and yet this manic denial of the fact of a dichotomy between James declaring a man is justified by works and Paul declaring a man is justified by faith...that is a denial of the most basic reading of scripture, even moreso a more in-depth study.

It has peen proposed that James was speaking of the works that Christ accomplished, never minding that James made not one mention in that regard as to Lord's accomplishment in the place of a man, for the man, and yet saying that a man is justified by works. Good grief. James even gave examples of the works that were the chosen actions of men, such as offering Isaac on the altar, coupled with clothing and feeding someone in need. Their claims make no sense from the text.

The successful sacrifice for sin was indeed accomplished, completed and thus the penalty paid by Christ in our place, but James said not one word about the required works having been accomplished for justification by way of the works he spoke of as examples. Pure nonsense.

MM

 

[PaulThomson]

Alot of people have a similar understanding or some variation of this. But what was actually taking place in the first century was the ending of a covenant between God and Israel.

Both can be true.

 

[PaulThomson]

But...the work of salvation never began with man. It began with God and so he will complete it by bringing all his sheep to pasture (home). Salvation does not depend on the man who runs or the man who wills. But on God's mercy (Rom 9:16).

That's one opinion. Salvation depending on God's mercy does not preclude God establishing His own criteria concerning to whom of those to whom He has extended mercy, He will grant that mercy. God of is own will granting mercy to someone at one time, does not preclude God of His own will withholding or restoring that same mercy to that person at different times beyond that time. It's not your call to insist that God keeps on granting mercy to whomever He starts granting mercy. It does not depend on man (you), but on the One who shows mercy (God).

 

[Beckworth]

Weren't you just telling us you knew for a fact people were saved and then they lost their salvation??? You said 50 to 100 people you knew lost their salvation!!! That's a lot of people you knew were saved and now you're saying only God knows whether or not people are saved. You contradict yourself.

Yes, it would seem so; however, according to Matthew 7, we can judge a person by their “fruits”; that is the outward things we can see them do and hear them say. So my judgement of unsaved people—and I think I put this in my post—was based on their withdrawing themselves from God, his church, and His people. It was based on them living a life of sin (based on scripture), and on the fact that they would not repent. I’m not reading their hearts but their fruit. Looking at their “fruits”, I can say, if the Bible is true, those people are lost. I can only judge a saved person in the same way. If I know they believe and have repented, confessed Christ and been baptized—those are outward “fruits” that I can see and know then I can judge that they have been saved.

For example, I used Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8 as an example of someone who was saved, but sinned and lost his salvation. To determine that, I used scripture to show that Simon had BELIEVED and was BAPTIZED in verse 13 of Acts 8. Based on those outward “acts” I judged him “saved.” Then, he tried to buy the Holy Spirit with money (verse 19) and Peter rebuked him and told him 1) he would PERISH with his money. 2) told him he was WICKED and told him to REPENT in verse 20. I may not be the brightest crayon in the box, but that makes me believe he was lost. But I had one John Calvinist tell me he never was saved in the first place. Now who is judging “hearts?”

The same with Hebrews 6:4-6. I based my belief that these were saved people in this verse because the Holy Spirit told me—and He can read hearts—that these people had been enlightened, had tasted the heavenly gift, been partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God. That’s evidence to most people that these people had been saved. Then He says “IF THEY FALL AWAY.” There again, it doesn’t seem all that hard to understand that the Holy Spirit would not have needed to say that, if it was impossible for them to fall away. It seems to me the Spirit is teaching that IT IS POSSIBLE TO LOSE YOUR SALVATION. He goes even farther and tells us that when SAVED people like this FALL AWAY, it is impossible to RENEW them to REPENTANCE. Would you believe that I’ve had John Calvinists tell me that these people never were saved in the first place? How did they know that? There wasn’t any “evidence” in the scripture given by the Holy Spirit that these people were never saved. In fact, all of the evidence was to the contrary. So how do the John Calvinists know this? Are they trying to read hearts? Also, I have NEVER had any John Calvinists explain to me where these people FELL FROM. Or where they FELL TO! If they were never saved in the first place, then that means they were lost and how can you FALL AWAY if you are already lost? Fell away from where? And isn’t being “lost” eternally in hell about as “low” as you can go? Where did they fall to?

The same is true with many examples and passages that I have given in my posts on this site. And in almost all cases, the John Calvinists always say, those people were never saved in the first place.

So I have told you how I make a judgment call on a person’s saved or unsaved condition—by seeing their “fruits (Matt. 7) or by what the Holy Spirit tells us about those people. Now can you tell me how you know that Simon in Acts 8 and the ones the Spirit talks about in Hebrews 6 were never saved?

 

[Jimbone]

The Greek word translated here as "will complete" is epitelesei, epi = upon + teleO I am finishing. It indicates a process of layering actions upon one another toward the finishing of a project or task.

Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in/among you (pl.) will keep on adding stages towards [that good work's] completion until (achris, up until a terminus) the day of Jesus Christ.

This is not saying that the good work will be completed, (i.e. will have been completed) at the day of Jesus Christ).
It is saying that the good work will be being built upon toward completion until that day.

It is not a given that the good work will have been successfully completed at the return of Jesus, only that God will continue on His part to work towards completing it. However, if any soul shrinks back from submitting toTh and cooperating with God in that process until that day, not enduring to the end,a seccessful completion is not promised here.

Okay, so you believe it's our works that saves or condemn us. I disagree. I do not believe in a works based gospel, you do. I think you're teaching a false gospel clearly, and are usurping Gods glory for yourself. Again I disagree, I believe it's ALL God that draws me to Him, Him that saves me, Him that guides me, and Him that keeps me. 100% ALL God the whole time, and He gets 100% ALL glory for it. We have a fundamental difference here and I do not believe His word at all supports a gospel where we have the burden on our shoulders and earn our salvation in the way you're teaching. Very obviously you're too convinced you're correct so at this point we should just admit the difference strait up, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong here. You believe in your works to save you right? If you're good enough.

 

[JJoseph]

So, you plan to be here during the tribulation under the Kingdom Gospel? Well, good luck...you're going to need it.

The Saviour says, you must persevere to the end to be saved. You disagree, and say, if you're justified/saved, you will persevere. You are not teaching what the Lord Jesus Christ did but your own opinion. In Mat 25:31-40, it is evident the sheep persevered in good works of love.

Here's Apostle Paul teach the same doctrine in Romans 2: "6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." (Romans 2:6-7). You can't read that and say works have nothing to do with final salvation, other than by doing violence to the plain sense of the passage. Works don't contribute to initial justification, that's true. But full salvation, including the grace of final perseverance, requires bearing fruit in good works, which God crowns with the grace of perseverance.

"2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters,[a] whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance ... 12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him." (James 1:2, 12). You must persevere through trials of many kinds and stand the test the Lord puts you through before receiving the crown of life.

 

[Beckworth]

At least you didn't claim to have Deity insight into their hearts. Instead, it's based upon your interpretation of non-related verses. I've seen all that before from those who fail to rightly divide the word of truth.

MM

.

Thank you for giving me just a little bit of credit. I further explain and talk about this in a post I just wrote to Magenta.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

The Greek word translated here as "will complete" is epitelesei, epi = upon + teleO I am finishing. It indicates a process of layering actions upon one another toward the finishing of a project or task.

Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in/among you (pl.) will keep on adding stages towards [that good work's] completion until (achris, up until a terminus) the day of Jesus Christ.

This is not saying that the good work will be completed, (i.e. will have been completed) at the day of Jesus Christ).
It is saying that the good work will be being built upon toward completion until that day.

It is not a given that the good work will have been successfully completed at the return of Jesus, only that God will continue on His part to work towards completing it. However, if any soul shrinks back from submitting to and cooperating with God in that process until that day, not enduring to the end,a seccessful completion is not promised here.

Sorry you do not have faith in God.

I will pray for you

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

God never called anything eternal. He called things עוֹלָם / ʽolam and αἰώνιος / aiOnios. Men called aeonous life "eternal life".

again, I am sorry you do not trust God.

I will pray for you

 

[Beckworth]

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

This verse is used a lot to try to prove that ALL Christians who “FALL AWAY” were never saved in the first place. One of the things I keep saying is that you can’t isolate a verse from its context. So let’s see what this passage is talking about.

Start by looking at verse 18. John says that ANTICHRIST is coming and in fact, MANY “antiChrist have already come. Immediately in verse 19 he says “they”. In English we know that a pronoun such as “they” has to have an antecedent which is the closest noun to the pronoun. The pronoun REFERS BACK to the closest noun which in this case is “antichrist.” So, John is saying that the ones who left them and were never a part of them were the “Antichrist.” Then in verse 22 he tells who the “antichrist are. First he says they are all liars and then he defines them as, “.He is an antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.”

So now my question is, are the John Calvinists saying that the ones who fell away in Hebrews 6 were all “antichrists”? The ones who Paul said had FALLEN FROM GRACE in Galations 5:4 were they “antichrists?” Paul did not say that they fell because they were “Antichrist’s” and were never part of them; he says they fell because they were trying to be saved by keeping the old law of Moses.

I believe good advice for ALL of us—myself included—is to always keep a verse in its context. Read before the verse and after the verse to get the setting. See who is doing the talking and to whom they are talking and what they are talking about.

I take James 3:1 very seriously. That doesn’t mean I won’t make mistakes; but I am mindful of the seriousness of what we are doing.

 

[mailmandan]

Here's Apostle Paul teach the same doctrine in Romans 2: "6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." (Romans 2:6-7). You can't read that and say works have nothing to do with final salvation, other than by doing violence to the plain sense of the passage. Works don't contribute to initial justification, that's true. But full salvation, including the grace of final perseverance, requires bearing fruit in good works, which God crowns with the grace of perseverance.

If one reads Romans 2:6-7 in isolation from the rest of the book of Romans, one might conclude that Paul was teaching salvation by works. However, as you read and study these passages, it’s critical to keep in mind that these verses do not describe how one becomes saved, but the way the saved conduct their lives. These good works done are the result of, not the means or basis of receiving eternal life.

So patient continuance in well doing, seeking for glory, honor, and immortality; (vs. 7) is not at all set forth as the means of their procuring eternal life, but as a description of those to whom God does render life eternal.

*Notice that ALL who receive eternal life are described as such, everyone who does good (vs. 10). Good deeds flow from a heart that is saved and evil deeds flow from a heart that is unsaved. Verse 8 - but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath.

*Notice that ALL who do not receive eternal life are described as such, everyone who does evil (vs. 9). What those passages convey is that though our deeds are judged by God, it's not the good deeds themselves which are the basis or means by which we receive eternal life, but the type of deeds expose our hearts.

These good deeds done out of faith are the fruit, but not the root of salvation. If Paul wanted to teach that we are saved by works, then he would have clearly stated that we are saved through faith and works in Ephesians 2:8 and that we are justified by faith and works in Romans 5:1 but that is clearly NOT what Paul said. *Also see (Romans 3:24-28; 4:4-6; 11:6; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9 etc..).

 

[mailmandan]

You can't read that and say works have nothing to do with final salvation, other than by doing violence to the plain sense of the passage. Works don't contribute to initial justification, that's true. .

This has become a popular false teaching. "Initially" saved by grace through faith, not works, but then after that, "ultimately" saved by works. I call that "type 2 works salvation" or salvation by works at the back door. Works-salvationists are always trying to find a way to "shoehorn" works "into" salvation by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9) so they can boast.

 

[Beckworth]

If A person is born again, and given eternal life., are they not faithful?

You did not really answer my question. Can you try again please?

just because we are born again does not mean we can never sin again. That does not mean that we can’t ever tell another lie, or commit adultery, or make a mistake, gossip, hate, or have evil thoughts. Being born again does not make us “perfect” so that we never sin again. We will not be “perfected” until we get to heaven. It does not take away our right to choose every day to live righteously or give in to temptation and satisfy the flesh. There are just too many scriptures that talk about “having fallen from grace”, “fallen” or “fall away” for anyone to believe that it is impossible to lose your salvation. We all have to be born again before we can “fall.” We all have to have HAD salvation before we can lose it. It’s impossible to “fall” from a place where you never were.

So many scriptures teach that eternal life is CONDITIONAL upon you making sure you don’t “fall” by being faithful (Rev. 2:10), eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus (John 6:54), keeping yourself in the love of God (Jude 1:21), drink the water of life which Jesus gives, (John 4:14), looking to the cross (John 3) and many more.

No one is considered “faithful” to God if they are not worshipping God and trying to keep his commandments. You would not misunderstand the word “faithful” when it comes to the husband/wife relationship. Would you consider a husband “faithful” if he no longer shared his life with his wife? Jesus taught that there are two masters, He and Satan. He also said, “He who is not for me is against me.” God often portrayed the nation of Israel as a harlot because they were suppose to be married to God but served other gods (idols). He uses that imagery again and again in the Old Testament. So yes, if God’s chosen people the Jews could become “unfaithful” to God, we can, too. Besides, please explain WHY Jesus told the christians in Revelation 2 to be faithful if it was impossible for them to be unfaithful. And why give them a command that didn’t matter because they were going to be saved whether they were faithful or not. You know He would never have done such a MEANINGLESS thing.

 

[PaulThomson]

again, I am sorry you do not trust God.

I will pray for you

I trust God greatly. Disagreeing with you may equate to not trusting you, but it does not equate to not trusting God.

 

[PaulThomson]

Okay, so you believe it's our works that saves or condemn us. I disagree. I do not believe in a works based gospel, you do. I think you're teaching a false gospel clearly, and are usurping Gods glory for yourself. Again I disagree, I believe it's ALL God that draws me to Him, Him that saves me, Him that guides me, and Him that keeps me. 100% ALL God the whole time, and He gets 100% ALL glory for it. We have a fundamental difference here and I do not believe His word at all supports a gospel where we have the burden on our shoulders and earn our salvation in the way you're teaching. Very obviously you're too convinced you're correct so at this point we should just admit the difference strait up, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong here. You believe in your works to save you right? If you're good enough.

I have stated before that I am not convinced one way or the other concerning once saved always saved (OSAS) or Perseverance of the Saints (POTS). I am not settled on one side or the other. I don't see any imperative to believe one or the other, Whether OSAS or POTS is true does not affect my relationship with God and my trust in God or my personal experience of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

My point is that the Greek text of Philippians 1:6 does not seem to me to say what some are relying on it to be saying to prove Paul was teaching OSAS or POTS.

The argument that God needs to do EVERYTHING involved in us getting saved in order to get ALL the glory for our salvation; and that God getting ALL the credit is morally superior to the believer getting credit from God for his/her faith in God, is a moralistic fallacy. Clearly, Abraham's faith was reckoned to him by God as righteousness, and Abraham glorified God nonetheless -

Rom. 6:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it (his faith) was imputed/reckoned/credited to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it (his faith) was imputed/reckoned/credited to him (for righteousness);
24 But for us also, to whom it (our faith) shall be imputed/reckoned/credited (for righteousness), if we believe on Him (God) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

It is not immoral to accept the credit God gives us for putting faith in Him.

 

[Rufus]

Then why did he specifically address his epistle to the Jews if it apples to even the Gentiles much later one after Paul is given the revelation of the mystery that was given to no other man from the Lord?

MM

Because ALL scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, training in righteousness so that the man of God [whether Jew or Greek] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2Tim 3:16). And wasn't James concerned about good works, just as Paul was in all his writings, including the text I just quoted? Didn't Paul also write that God created his church in Christ Jesus to do good works (Eph 2:10)? There is no contradiction between Pauline and Jameson theology. What makes the epistle of James different from Paul's is Jame's singular focus on Wisdom, which is the practical application of theological knowledge in our everyday living.

 

[rogerg]

I don't have time to spend on James but here's my quick take on the book, as a whole. James to the NT what the Wisdom Books are to the Old. There's lots of clues to what I just said throughout the book. James even writes about "wisdom" and the "wise". But what is "wisdom" if not the practical application of knowledge?
James also alludes quite a bit to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, especially the Beatitudes which filled with godly wisdom.
James, therefore, differs substantially from other NT writers for all of them were concerned first about theology proper (orthodoxy), and then with practical application (orthopraxy), as well. But James focuses on the latter in his book. His epistle is the Manual on Practical Theology. This is where he and Paul differ, for in Romans, for example, Paul spends a great deal of time teaching the theology of Justification, whereas James is looking entirely at Justification from the horizontal perspective -- from day-to-day living and a Christian's contact with other people. From this perspective, then, we can understand why he would say that a man is justified also by his works -- because this is what people see in a professing Christian -- or at least should see. And when they see a Christian walking the talk, then that Christian's talk is vindicated -- he's actually justified in people's eyes because he backed up his talk by good deeds, with faithfulness, love, etc. God knows peoples' hearts whereas man does not. Men need practical proof of faith.
Anyhoo...that's my 3 cents worth...

Thanks for your reply, Rufus. I greatly respect your biblical knowledge and understanding, so please see this as a different perspective, not a criticism. I noticed that the thread’s discussion has moved past our posts—my fault for being otherwise occupied - so I’ll keep this brief. Anyway, I think that I view the Bible a little differently than you do. In my opinion, it's a cohesive, fully self-contained book entirely written by God, not man (except for translation errors). I therefore try to find and understand a word’s global biblical meaning and implication if possible, not just by its local context. This seems to add a spiritual dimension to my conclusions. I believe the Bible's foundational message is Christ, so everything in it, in one way or another, relates back to Him. My reply to MM saw “justified” as spiritual justification (made righteous by God) and having been imputed Christ's faith and works that become manifested in our actions but He is the source, rather than in proving (justifying) ourselves to non-Christians through actions like feeding the poor (if I’ve understood your point correctly). Not that such deeds are undesirable, but there's often an underlying spiritual component to most verses of the Bible that are of overriding significance. Yet, your point is valid, and so I will continue to ponder it given that the book of James (in my opinion), is full of many subtle and interesting facets.

Thanks again,
Roger