Things that jeopardize salvation

[studier]

I have an inkling that what you mean by salvation is not the same thing as what I may mean when it comes specifically to this issue of the way believers live.

A carnal lifestyle for a believer means loss of the sanctification part of salvation. It does not effect your salvation from spiritual death. You remain alive spiritually whether you sin or not because Christ covered all our sins (causing death) into His death. There is no sin a believer can commit that would cause their spirit to return to God and see them dead in their sin once more. If it were so, then Christ did not die for our sin.

For me, the issue isn't whether one can or cannot lose salvation, the real issue is "are you in Christ?" (that's you in the general sense not you personally). What does that mean? Why is it so and how does it work out? I think these are the issues we should be discussing.

my 5c worth.

Since we're in Galatians, Gal5 is not isolated from overall context. Interestingly, with a quick search, unless I missed something, Paul does not use the words "salvation" or "sav__" in Galatians. So we're left with dealing with the words and phrases he does use - like the phrase he uses at the end of Gal5:21, which is always debated in security discussions.

 

[sawdust]

Since we're in Galatians, Gal5 is not isolated from overall context. Interestingly, with a quick search, unless I missed something, Paul does not use the words "salvation" or "sav__" in Galatians. So we're left with dealing with the words and phrases he does use - like the phrase he uses at the end of Gal5:21, which is always debated in security discussions.

How many people do you know, that you would be confident are saved, that actually continually practice the things listed in the passage? I know of none.

As far as I am concerned, Paul is not dealing with loss of salvation in that passage, he is contrasting the lifestyle of the flesh (world) with the lifestyle of the Kingdom of God and ascertaining the two are antithetical. To try and use the passage as to how one can lose their salvation is outside it's scope imo.

If I were to meet anyone living that lifestyle, my response would not be "you are in danger of losing your salvation" but "are you saved?". I would endeavour to ascertain they know the Gospel and what it has done for them before suggesting anything else.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

God removes unfruitful branches from the vine and burns them. Branches have to be in the vine to be removed

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. John 15:1-2​

​

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6​

What fruit is the husbandman looking for?

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Galatians 5:22-25​

​

For this you know that every fornicator, unclean, or greedy person, who is an idolater, does not have an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Therefore, don't be partakers with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light, for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth, proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Ephesians 5:5-11​

​

Why are unfruitful branches removed from the vine? Because they do serve the husbandman's purpose. They are useless to him. In the verses below the word goodness means usefulness and the word severity means decisiveness. So God looks for usefulness (fruitfulness), and if that is not found then he decisively removes that which is unfruitful, and therefore useless to him.

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. Romans 11:20-22​

​

Usefulness
G5544 χρηστότης chrestotes (chree-sto'-tees) n.
usefulness, i.e. morally, excellence (in character or demeanor).

Severity
G663 ἀποτομία apotomia (a-po-to-miy'-a) n.
(figuratively) decisiveness, i.e. rigor.

 

[studier]

How many people do you know, that you would be confident are saved, that actually continually practice the things listed in the passage? I know of none.

As far as I am concerned, Paul is not dealing with loss of salvation in that passage, he is contrasting the lifestyle of the flesh (world) with the lifestyle of the Kingdom of God and ascertaining the two are antithetical. To try and use the passage as to how one can lose their salvation is outside it's scope imo.

If I were to meet anyone living that lifestyle, my response would not be "you are in danger of losing your salvation" but "are you saved?". I would endeavour to ascertain they know the Gospel and what it has done for them before suggesting anything else.

Actually, when I lived in CA, in the midst of a few big church systems, I observed many who may have fit Paul's instruction here. What would we do if someone living that way still insists they are saved? And who is Paul actually addressing here? I understand your framework, but I'm shedding and disregarding frameworks and working to remain within the flow of Galatians letting Paul’s own concerns speak. And as I noted, Paul never uses the word ‘saved’ in the letter, so my first question to Paul would be: are you addressing people we would call ‘saved’ or not? His concern in 5:21 and in Galatians certainly sounds substantial.

 

[sawdust]

Actually, when I lived in CA, in the midst of a few big church systems, I observed many who may have fit Paul's instruction here. What would we do if someone living that way still insists they are saved? And who is Paul actually addressing here? I understand your framework, but I'm shedding and disregarding frameworks and working to remain within the flow of Galatians letting Paul’s own concerns speak. And as I noted, Paul never uses the word ‘saved’ in the letter, so my first question to Paul would be: are you addressing people we would call ‘saved’ or not? His concern in 5:21 and in Galatians certainly sounds substantial.

Yes, but I did say "confident were saved", I imagine you were not inclined to think so but maybe I'm wrong.

And who is Paul actually addressing here? I understand your framework, but I'm shedding and disregarding frameworks and working to remain within the flow of Galatians letting Paul’s own concerns speak.

I think it obvious who Paul is talking to, the Church at Galatia. And yet you seem to be the one wanting to put it in the framework of "losing salvation"? The only framework I see is the one of a comparison between two antithetical lifestyles. To try and extrapolate that into meaning you can lose your salvation is imo going beyond what is being said.

And as I noted, Paul never uses the word ‘saved’ in the letter, so my first question to Paul would be: are you addressing people we would call ‘saved’ or not? His concern in 5:21 and in Galatians certainly sounds substantial.

Of course it's substantial, it's the difference between life and death on an eternal basis. But does it mean "watch out or you will lose your salvation" or does it mean "watch out, don't assume you are in Christ just because you say you are a believer"? As we know, if you are not in Christ, you are none of His.

Either way, I don't think it is the intention of the author to say more than what it actually says.

 

[studier]

Either way, I don't think it is the intention of the author to say more than what it actually says.

An obvious consideration not always adhered to when reading and interpreting. With respect, you may be reading into it. Maybe not. Isn't that the discussion?

The fact is that Paul makes some very intense statements in this document that leave some on the side of the loosing salvation position and others not and seeming to explain away his statements. I'm simply at this point open to cautiously hearing and considering interpretations based upon solid lexical and logical arguments.

Where we are at the moment here is that the listed sins are not minor and Paul is speaking about those who habitually practicing them. We've yet to get into what inheriting the Kingdom means and I think we all know there are different views.

I've stated elsewhere that I do see security (not speaking of this Scripture at the moment), but likely narrower and differently than many - likely including you (with no intended offense).

 

[sawdust]

An obvious consideration not always adhered to when reading and interpreting. With respect, you may be reading into it. Maybe not. Isn't that the discussion?

Well I'm reading it that the kingdom of the world (cosmic system of thinking, with it's relative truth of "your truth/my truth" etc ) is antithetical to the Kingdom of God. Not sure what more you think I'm reading but I'd be interested to know.

The fact is that Paul makes some very intense statements in this document that leave some on the side of the loosing salvation position and others not and seeming to explain away his statements. I'm simply at this point open to cautiously hearing and considering interpretations based upon solid lexical and logical arguments.

Does it really need arguing with lexical and logical arguments that the level of immorality and evil as expressed in Paul's "works of the flesh" are not in anyway harmonious with the Kingdom of God?

Where we are at the moment here is that the listed sins are not minor and Paul is speaking about those who habitually practicing them. We've yet to get into what inheriting the Kingdom means and I think we all know there are different views.

We could go there but I still think it more important to discuss what it mean to be "in Christ".

I've stated elsewhere that I do see security (not speaking of this Scripture at the moment), but likely narrower and differently than many - likely including you (with no intended offense).

No offense taken. I appreciate the honesty. I always enjoy discussing topics with you. Would be interested to understand what you mean by "I do see security" as you have stated but also appreciate you may not want to delve into that at present.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Does it really need arguing with lexical and logical arguments that the level of immorality and evil as expressed in Paul's "works of the flesh" are not in anyway harmonious with the Kingdom of God?

Which is why those who do such things won't be allowed in the kingdom of God.

 

[John1335]

The better question is:
Were such people ever taught the Christian way of life?

The prevalent problem in churchianity is trying to clean up the flesh, not practice sinning.

Morality will never lead to spirituality. But spirituality will always lead to morality.

Believers are left wanting in todays churches. Work, work and work. Be good. Do good things. Clean up your life......Clean up your flesh.
No wonder most throw up their hands in defeat.

IMO, we will be more shocked at who is not in heaven compared to who is.

Do "churches" still teach good works these days? I thought the modern "church" was mostly into teaching presumptuous sin and cheap grace.

But I hear you, not a very good place for new converts to grow, whichever one of these pit of vipers they happen to fall into.

Fortunately, Christ who saves, pays very close attention to the condition of his flock. And will lose none of His precious lambs to unrighteous shepherds or ravenous wolves.

 

[Kroogz]

Do "churches" still teach good works these days? I thought the modern "church" was mostly into teaching presumptuous sin and cheap grace.

But I hear you, not a very good place for new converts to grow, whichever one of these pit of vipers they happen to fall into.

Fortunately, Christ who saves, pays very close attention to the condition of his flock. And will lose none of His precious lambs to unrighteous shepherds or ravenous wolves.

I hear you.

Most churches and the loss of salvation crowd here teach human good works.

They are perpetually stuck on human good and cannot see DIVINE good.....Thus, loss of salvation is their doctrine.

 

[Kroogz]

Which is why those who do such things won't be allowed in the kingdom of God.

Nope. Get with @studier. It specifically says will not INHERIT the kingdom.

All believers enter the kingdom, not all will INHERIT the kingdom.

You guys need to seriously contemplate this......Because you guys are squandering away your inheritance by your loss of salvation theory.

And the worst part? You will be held accountable for the believers lives you WRECKED.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Nope. Get with @studier. It specifically says will not INHERIT the kingdom.

All believers enter the kingdom, not all will INHERIT the kingdom.

You guys need to seriously contemplate this......Because you guys are squandering away your inheritance by your loss of salvation theory.

And the worst part? You will be held accountable for the believers lives you WRECKED.

You're just pulling this out of thin air. No inheritance in the kingdom means no presence in the kingdom, ie, cast into outer darkness

 

[Kroogz]

You're just pulling this out of thin air. No inheritance in the kingdom means no presence in the kingdom, ie, cast into outer darkness

We will never perish.
We will never, no not ever come into condemnation.
We are Born from imperishable seed.
We have the same seal as the Son.......If we lose it He loses it. Not going to happen!

So you toss out all these CLEAR truths, to formulate your doctrine from verses that "scare" you.

Not the way to study the Bible bud.

 

[studier]

Well I'm reading it that the kingdom of the world (cosmic system of thinking, with it's relative truth of "your truth/my truth" etc ) is antithetical to the Kingdom of God. Not sure what more you think I'm reading but I'd be interested to know.



Does it really need arguing with lexical and logical arguments that the level of immorality and evil as expressed in Paul's "works of the flesh" are not in anyway harmonious with the Kingdom of God?



We could go there but I still think it more important to discuss what it mean to be "in Christ".



No offense taken. I appreciate the honesty. I always enjoy discussing topics with you. Would be interested to understand what you mean by "I do see security" as you have stated but also appreciate you may not want to delve into that at present.

Sorry to be lazy and not separating quotes. Winding down for the day.

You (and many others) may be reading ES into Gal. I'm open to arguments against ES here and see reason to be.

The lex & logical arguments have to do with eisegeting ES or Loss into the document. IMO many verses in the argument are using argument from silence and other fallacies. The link I'm giving you below is dealing with several fallacies being used to push OSAS, two of which I'm focusing on there.

"in Christ" of course is important to the argument of remaining in Christ or not.

Thanks for the understanding. I share the sentiment.

Re: a narrower security I'm going to direct you here (see linked post) for a 30,000 foot view for the time being. It all ends up tying together and I think the issues are at the foundation level. It's hard to be methodical around here unless I just put all on ignore and simply write to myself.

 

[studier]

You're just pulling this out of thin air. No inheritance in the kingdom means no presence in the kingdom, ie, cast into outer darkness

Here we go.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

We will never perish.
We will never, no not ever come into condemnation.
We are Born from imperishable seed.

The Valentinian gnostics "hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the physical actions in which they may be involved.​

​

..."they themselves have grace as their own special possession, which has descended from above by means of an unspeakable and indescribable union; and on this account more will be given them... to them who are called "the spiritual and perfect" ... [good] conduct is not at all necessary. For it is not conduct of any kind which leads into [heaven], but the seed [of grace] sent forth from there in a feeble, immature state, and here brought to perfection. "​

 

[Kroogz]

The Valentinian gnostics "hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the physical actions in which they may be involved.​

​

..."they themselves have grace as their own special possession, which has descended from above by means of an unspeakable and indescribable union; and on this account more will be given them... to them who are called "the spiritual and perfect" ... [good] conduct is not at all necessary. For it is not conduct of any kind which leads into [heaven], but the seed [of grace] sent forth from there in a feeble, immature state, and here brought to perfection. "​

You just cannot handle the truth.

We will NEVER perish.
We will never, NO NOT EVER come into condemnation.
We are born from imperishable seed.
We have a forever advocate.
We have the same seal as the Son.

We are in Christ and He CANNOT deny Himself.

But we have "perfect" believers denying parts of His Body!.....Saved, yet so as through FIRE.

 

[DJT_47]

Renunciation of the Lord as warned of in Hebrews.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

You just cannot handle the truth.

The Valentinian gnostics "run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed."​

 

[Kroogz]

The Valentinian gnostics "run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed."​

You just cannot handle the truth.

We will NEVER perish.
We will never, NO NOT EVER come into condemnation.
We are born from imperishable seed.
We have a forever advocate.
We have the same seal as the Son.

We are in Christ and He CANNOT deny Himself.

But we have "perfect" believers denying parts of His Body!.....Saved, yet so as through FIRE.