Loss of salvation???

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Oct 19, 2024
4,407
984
113
USA-TX
But this is the problem. There's no consensus re: "debunked"? (We probably agree there will not be and consensus of men is not the determining factor}.

One of my questions is, have we attacked it from all angles to the extent of our abilities and allowed each their say? These threads tend to operate at a surface level and then end very early in a surface-level disgust.

I have a question about Matt24:13. There most certainly is a context (that is even surely debated), but with all the NT instruction and even command to endure, and to abide (endure is an intensified form of abide), was Jesus also laying down a principle that carries into the rest of the NC instruction of the necessity to endure? What gives the Christian the idea that he does not have to endure as a Christian? Why would we even want to suggest such a thing?
Re "One of my questions is, have we attacked it from all angles to the extent of our abilities and allowed each their say?": This hermeneutical method has been called dialectical theology, which endeavors to harmonize partially true thesis A with somewhat right opinion B in order to arrive at what should be the more correct interpretation C, which if the process continues will result in the most true belief eventually.

Unfortunately, pastors do not teach this process to parishioners, so they tend to operate at a surface level
and be content with proof-texting arguments, which I believe grieves God.
 

Musicmaster

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2021
1,525
326
83
Saved is saved, therefore, once spiritually saved (meaning reconnected to God and having accepted the payment (gift) of being declared innocent) is ALWAYS saved.

And no scripture teaches otherwise.

Often people use verses which do not have spiritually salvation in view but the deliverance or the saving of the body, mind, soul etc.,
Which is so obvious especially in Matthew example ...

"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
Matthew 24:13
Saved physically!!

It really is that simple.
God is true to His word.
Not many professing believers understand and follow what you have said in this post. Most believe in the loss of salvation.

Interesting indeed.

MM
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
2,841
633
113
Re "One of my questions is, have we attacked it from all angles to the extent of our abilities and allowed each their say?": This hermeneutical method has been called dialectical theology, which endeavors to harmonize partially true thesis A with somewhat right opinion B in order to arrive at what should be the more correct interpretation C, which if the process continues will result in the most true belief eventually.

Unfortunately, pastors do not teach this process to parishioners, so they tend to operate at a surface level
and be content with proof-texting arguments, which I believe grieves God.
Logical reasoning through exchange of ideas is definitely not the normal practice on open forums and not from most pulpits which push specific traditions.

Yes, agreed, the surface level proof-texting most of us do is a problem.
 

HeIsHere

Well-known member
May 21, 2022
8,140
3,195
113
Not many professing believers understand and follow what you have said in this post. Most believe in the loss of salvation.

Interesting indeed.

MM
I tend to jump in and out of threads, probably not a good approach, but do you think salvation is 100% secure?
 

Musicmaster

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2021
1,525
326
83
I tend to jump in and out of threads, probably not a good approach, but do you think salvation is 100% secure?
It is absolutely secure. It's as secure as is the power of the seal Holy Spirit places upon us. Anything that suggests loss of salvation is works based salvation, which is a salvation that saves nobody today since such is not of grace.

MM
 

HeIsHere

Well-known member
May 21, 2022
8,140
3,195
113
But this is the problem. There's no consensus re: "debunked"? (We probably agree there will not be and consensus of men is not the determining factor}.

One of my questions is, have we attacked it from all angles to the extent of our abilities and allowed each their say? These threads tend to operate at a surface level and then end very early in a surface-level disgust.

I have a question about Matt24:13. There most certainly is a context (that is even surely debated), but with all the NT instruction and even command to endure, and to abide (endure is an intensified form of abide), was Jesus also laying down a principle that carries into the rest of the NC instruction of the necessity to endure? What gives the Christian the idea that he does not have to endure as a Christian? Why would we even want to suggest such a thing?
I am thinking you are looking at it from a cost - benefit approach

I see the

Benefit side of no losable salvation gives >>>>> absolute security, freedom, peace and grace
Cost side >>>>> insecurity, diminishes the work of Christ Jesus.

But anyway, ultimately it is what is plain as day in scripture, Christ endured all, we have nothing we can add, but we do have to believe it.
 

HeIsHere

Well-known member
May 21, 2022
8,140
3,195
113
It is absolutely secure. It's as secure as is the power of the seal Holy Spirit places upon us. Anything that suggests loss of salvation is works based salvation, which is a salvation that saves nobody today since such is not of grace.

MM
Amen and Amen!! :)
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
2,841
633
113
I am thinking you are looking at it from a cost - benefit approach

I see the

Benefit side of no losable salvation gives >>>>> absolute security, freedom, peace and grace
Cost side >>>>> insecurity, diminishes the work of Christ Jesus.

But anyway, ultimately it is what is plain as day in scripture, Christ endured all, we have nothing we can add, but we do have to believe it.
So, the normal question, enduring belief is not necessary?
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
3,403
1,242
113
New Zealand
What usually happens, is a verse about service to God after salvation, gets taken to mean this is part of salvation.

Rather than the service being the right response to grace given, it becomes part of the process to attain salvation.

So verses about discipline and rebuke get read as destroying the process of salvation.

It is ignoring the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit in a saved person's soul. The seal of the Holy Spirit.

This seal is not dependent on our good behaviour, but imputed righteousness apart from works.

Salvation is not a higher purchase agreement, but a free gift.

The service to God does have requirements and consequences, but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit remains.

In a biological family..if parents are doing their job.. they don't leave their child but will discipline their child.

The child can't undo their birth into the family.

The same is true of the Family of God.
Reborn by the Holy Spirit into this Family.. the Holy Spirit keeps your salvation aside from your efforts, but will also correct and encourage etc.
 

HeIsHere

Well-known member
May 21, 2022
8,140
3,195
113
So, the normal question, enduring belief is not necessary?

Well let us be logical,

if I was told someone else paid all my debt, I am persuaded by the evidence it is true (believe) and receive the payment for myself, a very generous gift and am thereby declared innocent of all charges
then person who took on all the debt stamps my debt paid in full/justified.

I have no more debt owed,
can my unbelief in my being declared innocent change the reality that I was declared innocent, free of all debt.


Now some people get around this by stating the "future personal sins" have not been dealt with, I do not see the logic in this nor does hold up if we examine scripture to support this.

Or you have to say the person who absolved the debt is fickle. Not good.
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
2,841
633
113
Well let us be logical,

if I was told someone else paid all my debt, I am persuaded by the evidence it is true (believe) and receive the payment for myself, a very generous gift and am thereby declared innocent of all charges
then person who took on all the debt stamps my debt paid in full/justified.

I have no more debt owed,
can my unbelief in my being declared innocent change the reality that I was declared innocent, free of all debt.


Now some people get around this by stating the "future personal sins" have not been dealt with, I do not see the logic in this nor does hold up if we examine scripture to support this.

Or you have to say the person who absolved the debt is fickle. Not good.

But that doesn't specifically answer my questions about the necessity of enduring, which seems like they could be answered very simply.
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
2,841
633
113
No. It is not.

Now, let's ask a more relevant question: Who was it the Lord said must endure unto the end and THEN they shall be (future tense, not present) saved?

MM
OK. I understand your [emphatic] position.

Please go back here and see that I'm asking something beyond specific context of one verse.
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
4,482
775
113
But this is the problem. There's no consensus re: "debunked"? (We probably agree there will not be and consensus of men is not the determining factor}.

One of my questions is, have we attacked it from all angles to the extent of our abilities and allowed each their say? These threads tend to operate at a surface level and then end very early in a surface-level disgust.

I have a question about Matt24:13. There most certainly is a context (that is even surely debated), but with all the NT instruction and even command to endure, and to abide (endure is an intensified form of abide), was Jesus also laying down a principle that carries into the rest of the NC instruction of the necessity to endure? What gives the Christian the idea that he does not have to endure as a Christian? Why would we even want to suggest such a thing?
Come on! Stop diverting away from what is to be known!

John 6:37-39

All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me,
but raise them up at the last day.


If you were an unstable baby Christian?
I would show you some patience.

But why? Why keep harping on what terrorizes insecure (or masochistic) believers?

Matthew was a time of Jesus speaking to Jews.
Speaking as a rabbi would to his disciples.
He was not teaching in the Church age.
No one at that time even knew that there was to be a Church age...

So, Jesus?
Was teaching prophesy, as it pertained to Jews.

Those who endure to the end?
Jesus spoke in reference to the Tribulation period that was yet to come to Israel.
Those who endure faithfully those seven years?
They will be saved, and delivred bodily, into the Millennium as promised to the Jews by their prophets.

And... as Christians? Yes, we need to endure, as well.

We need to endure bungling teachers who would have us not knowing up from down,
if we were to believe that they are truly a voice from the Spirit.

Come on! You have been exposed to teaching that should have snapped you out of that realm of doubt.
Yet, you reject it? Perhaps? You like to make insecure believers to suffer?

Show them the truth about what "endure to the end" was actually addressing?
Then, you wouldf be a help, rather than adding to the confusion.

You have rejected excellent teaching.
No excuses for you if you continue to do so.
 

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
3,861
1,093
113
That was wrong....

And spewed the typical wrong thinking of many emotion driven Christians.

For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies
of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their
shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await
a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Philippians 3:18-20​
The word 'belly' held a meaning at the time that verse was written.

It meant, emotions.
Their god is their emotions...

AI, ChatFat? ... none of that will show us what we need to know.
We need... The truth.

Too many dumb sheep playing shepherd.
Their god is their belly.

And make friends with those who have the same belly shape.

........
I asked Chat GPT to discuss Philippians 3:18-20.

Great question. The passage you're referring to, Philippians 3:18-20, includes a phrase that has sparked a lot of interpretation over time—especially "their god is their belly." Let's look at the passage first and then unpack what that term meant in the first-century context.


🔹 Philippians 3:18-20 (ESV)

18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.
19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.
20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ...​

🔍 Greek Word for "Belly"

The word used in verse 19 is "κοιλία" (koilia) — literally translated: belly, stomach, or abdomen. But in ancient Greek and Jewish thinking, koilia often symbolized more than physical hunger:


  • It could refer to appetites or desires in a general sense—not just for food, but for pleasure, comfort, and earthly satisfaction.
  • In some contexts, it symbolized self-indulgence or fleshly cravings—anything driven by carnal or worldly desires.

So, while the literal word is “belly,” the phrase “their god is their belly” means they worship their own desires, they are slaves to their cravings, whatever those may be—food, comfort, lust, wealth, status, etc.


🧠 Would a better translation be about food or overeating?

Not quite. While overeating could fit under this phrase, Paul wasn’t merely talking about gluttony in a literal sense. The focus is much broader: it’s about people who are driven by physical appetites rather than the Spirit.


Paul is contrasting:


  • The earthly-minded who live for immediate satisfaction (verse 19)
  • With the heavenly-minded, whose citizenship is in heaven and who await Christ (verse 20)

So the “belly” here is symbolic of being governed by the flesh, rather than by faith or the cross of Christ.


🔄 Alternative Translation (paraphrased for clarity)

"For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. I’ve warned you about them before, and I say it again with tears: their final destination is ruin. They worship their own desires, and they’re proud of what they ought to be ashamed of. Their minds are fixed on this world. But our true home is in heaven, and we eagerly wait there for our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ."​

❤️ Spiritual Takeaway

Paul's lament is deeply emotional—“I tell you even with tears”—because he's grieved by those who once may have seemed Christian, but now live by fleshly desires instead of the cross.


It's a powerful warning: whatever rules our decisions—comfort, pleasure, food, lust, wealth, safety—can become a false god. Even good things, like food or security, become harmful if they displace Christ as Lord.