Loss of salvation???

[Musicmaster]

So many games to try to support a system of theology.

You originally presented a strict either/or - a false dichotomy: OSAS or works-salvation. I rejected that false dichotomy and described responsive, cooperative, obedient, non-meritorious faith instead. You've never actually engaged that description or the verses I cited (1John3:23, etc.).

What you've done is straw-man my position, shift the goalposts, project your own dodging onto me, and resort to insults and mockery - all classic fallacies - under the guise of ‘let’s converse’.

It’s ironic to be decrying the condition of reasoning in our day and to be reproving others for lacking critical-thinking skills while repeatedly using fallacies, caricatures, and bullying tactics yourself.

Bullying? That's your go-to defense for not providing reasonable dialogue on the topic? I asked simple questions that are to the point, and you continue to avoid answering, offering only groundless caricatures of paint colors to slap on my posts to you.

Bullying indeed...

MM

 

[studier]

This is an example of an "ad hominem" fallacy, where the focus is on attacking the opponent's character or expressing disappointment in them rather than addressing the argument itself. This type of argument diverts attention from the actual issue being discussed

And posed as a critical-thinking authority. Wild place these threads.

 

[Musicmaster]

And posed as a critical-thinking authority. Wild place these threads.

That's it? That's all you have in your arsenal? Other people are watching these exchanges, you know, and this is all you're offering to us all? After all, this isn't just about you and me. It's an US economy here. We're all in this together. I'm sure others want to be regaled with your thoughts on this.

MM

 

[studier]

Yes, I understand all this as things other people believe, but what the various bandwagons believe is of no consequence to the absolute, objective truth of scripture for what it says. I'm somewhat disappointed that you would appeal to such a weak, subjective foundation for support...

Never have you even tried to tackle the idea that "denial" automatically leads to the allegedly ONLY understanding of it meaning loss of salvation. You and others you side with who eisegete that into the textual meaning, I had expected better of you than this. Bandwagon support is really no support at all.

MM

The hymn in 2Tim2:11-13 presents three parallel outcomes:

• die with Him -> live with Him
• endure -> reign
• deny Him -> He will deny us

The third line mirrors the first two, and the denial lexically applies to those same outcomes. That’s a straightforward textual observation, not an appeal to anyone’s bandwagon.

You’re importing OSAS into the language. And noting that there’s no universal consensus on these verses is not a bandwagon fallacy - it’s simply pointing out that your reading isn’t demanded by the text.

 

[rogerg]

Matt 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

As the verse you quoted tells us, Christ alone fulfilled all of the law and the commandments on our behalf; relying on oneself to do so would prove unsuccessful and disregard His completed work thereby placing us in violation of them; that is, Christ satisfied all that we are unable to satisfy - we do so by our trust in Christ as Savior, which trust is given by God as a gift.

Rev 12:17 - And the dragon was enraged at the woman and went to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea.

Rev 14:12 - Here is a call for the perseverance of the saints, who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

[Heb 7:12, 18-19 KJV]
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. ...
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

His commandments are now to keep faith in Christ as Savior, in His testimony, and to love the brethren— all only achieved by the Holy Spirit moving within us.

[1Jo 3:23 KJV] 23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

 

[HeIsHere]

Saved is saved, there is no quasi-saved

When saved always saved is the Good News of Christ Jesus, anything else is a counterfeit.

This question does have an answer in scripture that many today refuse to accept. If you're asking me to judge that man on the basis of that short sentence, nobody but the Lord can answer that apart from that man.

The pertinent question to ask THAT man is if he ever truly believed in the death, burial and resurrection on the third day of Christ Jesus.

So, when it comes to everything else along this line, there's no right answers to the wrong questions.

If he says "yes," and that answer is honest and true, then he is still saved, yes. That's not you or me judging him, but rather reliance upon the scriptures I have shared with you. Given those scriptures, do you accept them for what they say?

To help you with this, please answer some questions:

* Do you believe the seal of Holy Spirit is removed from a man who later claims disbelief?
* Do you believe Christ re-casts a man's sins back upon him from Himself on the basis of sin and unbelief?
* Do you believe Christ exercises unfaithfulness toward us on the basis of unbelief later in life for whatever reason(s)?
* Do you believe Christ falls into self-denial on the basis of our unbelief?

If you can find scripture that supports those things, then scripture is inconsistent and we ALL have a serious problem, for our salvation is then ALWAYS in question. None of us could know for sure if we're saved, and yet some choose to live in that state of mind and heart in this life, and that's sad.

2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Paul either meant what he said, or we transliterate his words into something else that more aligns with our chosen beliefs. That's the choice we all face when reading scripture and deciding as to if we want to believe what it says or make it say what we want it to say. I'm not saying you do that, but some do, and the tendency is very strong for that.

Group-think, for some, is not easy to resist. Riding the largest bandwagon has its lure, but those bandwagons are generally driven by Satan and his false doctrines he has so successfully served as the mastermind behind so much of it. Scripture is our weapon against him and his schemes.

MM

When salvation is not secure and is made conditional on the actions of a person, then it follows that the atonement

is necessary but not sufficient.

Ultimately, believers who are inclined to take their attention from the finished work (eternal), to their own performance (in time, by sight), end up actually hindering their potential to be transformed outwardly.

There is no false dichotomy, there is no dichotomy >>> justified (saved) is justified (saved)!!

 

[Musicmaster]

The hymn in 2Tim2:11-13 presents three parallel outcomes:

• die with Him -> live with Him
• endure -> reign
• deny Him -> He will deny us

The third line mirrors the first two, and the denial lexically applies to those same outcomes. That’s a straightforward textual observation, not an appeal to anyone’s bandwagon.

You’re importing OSAS into the language. And noting that there’s no universal consensus on these verses is not a bandwagon fallacy - it’s simply pointing out that your reading isn’t demanded by the text.

No, what I'm doing is arguing from silence as a tool to show that you're adding things to the scriptures items that are not there. You're forcing salvation into those contexts given that it's not mentioned within them as applying to all elements discussed contextually.

Case in point, if the driver of a car is distracted and crashes into a parked vehicle on the street directly in front of a house on fire the driver was distracted by, the reporter is writing down the events by saying there is a house fire and a car crash, a reader who picks up that paper recounts to his buddies that the report said that there was a car and house on fire, thus forcing the "fire" element onto all the objects within the context of the items in the imagery, how is that right?

That's precisely what you're doing. Applying an alleged loss of salvation as the outcome for "denial," even though I have quoted lexical clarification on that for you from someone who is far better versed in language than you, why continue to fight this? Is what you want to believe that much more powerful in your mind than the text itself? I mean, you tell me. I'm asking.

MM

 

[studier]

You are the closer since you refuse to quote scripture and explain why you believe they are saying what you think they teach.

So, let's make this simple enough:

How is a requirement to retain salvation NOT a works-based salvation? How do you know that you're applying enough resistance against sin and in keeping those commands of Christ enough to say that you're absolutely saved? What's the barometer for that? Can you at least answer that? If not, then even you should question your salvation when you can't even define that line between salvation and salvation lost. A bark with no bite is nothing to fear nor respect.

MM

You’re still avoiding the Scripture I cited and forcing everything into your OSAS/works false dichotomy, while repeating your artificial ‘line’ objection I’ve already addressed. Your reply continues the same fallacies: false dichotomy -insisting only OSAS or works-salvation exist; straw man - recasting obedience to believe (1John3:23) as ‘works’; circular reasoning - assuming non-OSAS = works, then concluding non-OSAS = works; and deflection - ignoring the verses cited and shifting to hypotheticals.

I’m willing to discuss the Scripture or the third option I offered, but I won’t chase in circles your invented lines, misused terminology, or hypotheticals. Go back and read my post #4,188 for an overview addressing your false dichotomy and let’s deal with what Scripture actually says. You now have my third-position overview, my reference to 1John3:23, and my explanation of 2Tim2:11–13. The actual language of Scripture should guide the discussion, and I ask that you gear up and avoid fallacious methods, especially ad hominem.

 

[studier]

That's it? That's all you have in your arsenal? Other people are watching these exchanges, you know, and this is all you're offering to us all? After all, this isn't just about you and me. It's an US economy here. We're all in this together. I'm sure others want to be regaled with your thoughts on this.

MM

Do you realize you’re continuing to use ad hominem and other fallacies? Wouldn't it be more constructive to get back to Scripture?

 

[studier]

No, what I'm doing is arguing from silence as a tool to show that you're adding things to the scriptures items that are not there. You're forcing salvation into those contexts given that it's not mentioned within them as applying to all elements discussed contextually.

Case in point, if the driver of a car is distracted and crashes into a parked vehicle on the street directly in front of a house on fire the driver was distracted by, the reporter is writing down the events by saying there is a house fire and a car crash, a reader who picks up that paper recounts to his buddies that the report said that there was a car and house on fire, thus forcing the "fire" element onto all the objects within the context of the items in the imagery, how is that right?

That's precisely what you're doing. Applying an alleged loss of salvation as the outcome for "denial," even though I have quoted lexical clarification on that for you from someone who is far better versed in language than you, why continue to fight this? Is what you want to believe that much more powerful in your mind than the text itself? I mean, you tell me. I'm asking.

MM

How difficult it is around here to just analyze what actual Scripture says and doesn't say.

Your analogies, appeals to authority, and argument from silence are distracting from the Text. The 2Tim2:11-13 hymn’s third line mirrors the first two - die with Him -> live with Him, endure -> reign with Him, deny Him -> He will deny us. That denial lexically applies to the same outcomes. Please explain how you think Thayer’s supports your position, and let’s deal specifically with Scripture itself.

 

[studier]

Ultimately, believers who are inclined to take their attention from the finished work (eternal), to their own performance (in time, by sight), end up actually hindering their potential to be transformed outwardly.

There is no false dichotomy, there is no dichotomy >>> justified (saved) is justified (saved)!!

Your false dichotomy frames obedient faith as opposing Christ’s finished work, but Scripture shows that responsive, cooperative, God-enabled faith, based in and flowing from that finished work, participates fully in it. To claim this constitutes works, self-reliance, or hindrance is a also fallacy.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Saved is saved, there is no quasi-saved
When saved always saved is the Good News of Christ Jesus, anything else is a counterfeit.
When salvation is not secure and is made conditional on the actions of a person, then it follows that the atonement
is necessary but not sufficient.

Ultimately, believers who are inclined to take their attention from the finished work (eternal), to their own performance (in time, by sight), end up actually hindering their potential to be transformed outwardly.

There is no false dichotomy, there is no dichotomy >>> justified (saved) is justified (saved)!!

I don't think that follows. Reconciliation is both necessary and sufficient for those who do what is commanded of them. Conformity to the image of Christ is not observable in any form other than outward actions, so it is profitable to pay attention to what we do and think. Hearkening to what Christ said is not taking attention off of Christ's finished work; it's quite the opposite.

 

[studier]

Hearkening to what Christ said is not taking attention off of Christ's finished work; it's quite the opposite.

Agreed.

 

[Musicmaster]

You’re still avoiding the Scripture I cited and forcing everything into your OSAS/works false dichotomy, while repeating your artificial ‘line’ objection I’ve already addressed. Your reply continues the same fallacies: false dichotomy -insisting only OSAS or works-salvation exist; straw man - recasting obedience to believe (1John3:23) as ‘works’; circular reasoning - assuming non-OSAS = works, then concluding non-OSAS = works; and deflection - ignoring the verses cited and shifting to hypotheticals.

I’m willing to discuss the Scripture or the third option I offered, but I won’t chase in circles your invented lines, misused terminology, or hypotheticals. Go back and read my post #4,188 for an overview addressing your false dichotomy and let’s deal with what Scripture actually says. You now have my third-position overview, my reference to 1John3:23, and my explanation of 2Tim2:11–13. The actual language of Scripture should guide the discussion, and I ask that you gear up and avoid fallacious methods, especially ad hominem.

What scripture? I very recently asked questions that you never once provided scripture WITH explanation as to how I was in error. All you've done is CLAIM I'm in error. That proves nothing in support of your claim.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Do you realize you’re continuing to use ad hominem and other fallacies? Wouldn't it be more constructive to get back to Scripture?

Oh, come now! Don't you ever get tired of false accusations as a tact to try and win an illegitimate victory? I did not at all attack your character. You may have FELT there was some assault along that front, but my words reveal the false accusation of such. Let's keep this on the level, shall we?

MM

 

[HeIsHere]

What scripture? I very recently asked questions that you never once provided scripture WITH explanation as to how I was in error. All you've done is CLAIM I'm in error. That proves nothing in support of your claim.

MM

What I see is conflating scripture which actually have sanctification in view and making them be about justification?

This is the typical error of those who deny justification is secure.

 

[Magenta]

When salvation is not secure and is made conditional on the actions of a person, then it follows that the atonement is necessary but not sufficient.

 

[Musicmaster]

Your false dichotomy frames obedient faith as opposing Christ’s finished work, but Scripture shows that responsive, cooperative, God-enabled faith, based in and flowing from that finished work, participates fully in it. To claim this constitutes works, self-reliance, or hindrance is a also fallacy.

Obedient faith is not at all what I'm addressing. I never said that wasn't a good thing. I've stayed the course without wavering that obedience is not the basis for our salvation:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Adding to that obedience, no matter how good it may sound as a viable part of our salvation, that's EISEGESIS, not EXEGESIS.

Why can't you seem to get that? When it's NOT OF OURSELVES, then its retention is ALSO not of ourselves given that it's a gift, we're SEALED by Holy Spirit, Christ is FAITHFUL and cannot DENY Himself. What part of all that are you missing here? You NEVER seem willing to go into those territories, sticking only to what you seem to feel safe about.

Parents may take their gifts back from their children in the midst of disobedience, but comparing God to fallen parents who do the taking as a disciplinary measure, that would be a false comparison.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Given that Paul persecuted the believing Jews on the basis of what he learned from men, possibly Peter himself, which was the Kingdom Gospel, this section of scripture makes it abundantly clear that Paul's Gospel of Grace was not a continuation of Peter's works-based gospel of the Kingdom since it did not come from Peter or any of the other eleven or ANY other man on this earth.

If Paul was preaching among the Gentiles precisely what the twelve were preaching to the Jews, we may as well cast our Bibles into the trash.

Intellectual honesty should force anyone to recognize that the twelve preached to Israel salvation on the basis of perseverance, never on the basis of grace through faith:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Those who believe one can earn a gift through works of effort, they fool only themselves. Retention of that gift through works of effort is equally flawed theology. No dichotomy here. No fallacious reasoning, just quoting scripture with commentary pointing at the clear language of what's shown. This is not a matter of pitting scripture against scripture, but rather supporting those other sections that some misrepresent for who they were addressed and what they were actually saying.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Compare:

1 Corinthians 15:2-4
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Believing in vain...meaning that coupling works with faith for us today under the Gospel of Grace, that is a VAIN faith.

That some out there claim these are precisely the same gospel messages...oh, wow!

Acts 16:30-31
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Saved...when? At the point of believing upon Christ Jesus is what Paul said, no matter what transpired later, this is what Paul and his fellows said to the Philippian jailer. No command was uttered by Paul, or the others with him, to be water baptized nor DO anything else in order to be saved. The order in those quotes is unmistakable. Just faith, which is NOT what Pater and the other eleven preached to Israel without THEM also having to be water baptized FOR the remission of their sins. Who can be saved without the remission of sins. What differs are the specifics...under the Kingdom Gospel, it was water baptism, but under the Gospel of Grace, it was by grace alone through faith alone, with not one word commanded for water baptism as the means unto salvation. Works versus no works, the difference is clear.

To WHOM did Jesus send the twelve?

Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

They were later to go out into all the world to preach to Israel, and yet 30 years later after the Ascension, the twelve were still in Jerusalem.

Not the Gentiles, but to Israel given that their gospel was not the same as what had to be delivered to Gentiles AFTER salvation had come directly to Gentiles.

To WHOM did Jesus come?

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Israel alone was the nation of priests, not Gentiles...not yet at the time when that was spoken. Before salvation came to the Gentiles, the Gentiles were dogs, as Jesus clearly stated.

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Given that salvation CAME unto the Gentiles what obviously wasn't available to them before apart from joining with Israel, it CAME unto Gentiles after the fall of Israel to provoke Israel to Jealousy.

MM