Why I now believe that salvation can be lost.

I know man's will is not free because it's in bondage in more ways than one. (Picture the ancient Israelites in Egypt who were in slavery under Pharaoh until God rescued them.) You might want to study the unconditional, unilateral New Covenant very carefully (Jer 31:31-34; 32:36-41; Ezek 36:22-32). The fact that God gives his elect a new heart should tell you something about ALL of fallen man's faculties, including their will.

The command in Jos 24:15 makes perfectly good sense even though the unregenerate cannot obey. The commands in the bible do not imply or presuppose innate ability, as so many seem to think. Rather, they imply man's solemn duty towards God. When Adam fell and brought ruin to the entire human race, God did not lower his impeccable moral standards to accommodate man's evil, corrupt nature. Rather what he ultimately did is give mankind, through, Israel the unilateral New Covenant whereby God essentially promises to take up man's spiritual slack by his supernatural work in man's heart and soul. He makes wicked, depraved and unwilling evildoers whose hearts are full of evil (Eccl 9:3) "willing in the day of his power" (Ps 110:3).

The word ' replacement' is yours, not mine. It has always been God's plan and intention to save those who are to be saved by grace, so nothing is being replaced, only fulfilled.

[Eph 1:4 KJV] 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Great passage! And look what it goes on to say in vv.32-38, which is basically teaching that God will separate the wheat (his elect) from the chaff (the apostates)! Incredible passage!

Ezek 20:32-38
32 "'You say, "We want to be like the nations, like the peoples of the world, who serve wood and stone." But what you have in mind will never happen. 33 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will rule over you with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath. 34 I will bring you from the nations and gather you from the countries where you have been scattered — with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath. 35 I will bring you into the desert of the nations and there, face to face, I will execute judgment upon you. 36 As I judged your fathers in the desert of the land of Egypt, so I will judge you, declares the Sovereign LORD. 37 I will take note of you as you pass under my rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant. 38 I will purge you of those who revolt and rebel against me. Although I will bring them out of the land where they are living, yet they will not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.
NIV

Exactly right, starting in Gen 3:15 but more thoroughly explicated in the Abrahamic Covenant, which sadly is misunderstood by many in the Church.

John the Baptist"s and Jesus' ministries were fulfilling the last week of Daniel's 70 weeks of years determined on Daniel's people as the custodians of the Word of God. Seven years after John the Baptist came preaching to the Jews, during the persecution that followed Stephen's stoning, the interpretation of the word of God through the Holy Spirit was given to Gentiles, beginning with those living in Samaria. During Jesus' first 2.5 years of teaching ministry among the Jews, before His death and resurrection, the Gentiles were outside of the mandate given Him by the Father, even though some Gentiles did eavesdrop on Jesus' preaching to the Jews and did believe He was a prophet with miracle-working authority from God. Jesus was speaking the truth to the Syro-Phoenician woman. she was unclean by Torah standards, but the Father commanded Jesus to breach his official mandate in her case, because God appreciated her humble faith. Clearly, it is not true that the ONLY salvation available to Gentiles was to become Jews, because this woman, though according to Torah a dog, was heard by God and her Gentile daughter was saved/made whole, i.e. the Gr.eek word sOzO.

Ephesians 3:5 makes it clear that Paul's gospel was also understood and being preached by Peter and the other apostles, not just Paul.

3 ...the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, ...
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

"His holy apostles and prophets" includes the twelve. Philip and Peter had already learned the mystery of this new phase of the Gospel, soon after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7, through God's dealings with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 and the Roman Cornelius in Acts 10. Paul learned and began to teach to Jews in the synagogues that Jesus is the Messiah in Acts 9, but he did not reach out to Gentiles until He had learned to see the mystery "that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" in the Old Testament when He spent time alone learning it from Jesus in Arabia. This eventual extension of the offer of family membership to the Gentiles was part of Jesus' message during His ministry. It was not a Gospel given to Paul that competed with a different Gospel given to the Twelve.

It is argued by some that James was not claiming that Abraham and others are justified before God by their works, but that James is saying that the man who claims to have faith in God justifies himself and his claim by what he does. If he behaves like a man who loves and seeks to please God, he will be judged by men as speaking the truth when he claims to believe God. If he lives like the devil, but claims to trust God, men will assess him as a deceiver and self-deceived regarding his claims to trust God.

Do you not think that interpretation of James makes sense and meshes with Pau, who said that if Abraham is justified by works, he has something to boast about [before men] but not before God. Our works don't earn us good standing with God. It is our faith occurring, before the obedience which flows out of our genuine faith, that God recognises and reckons to us as righteousness.

I don't see any difference between the gospel taught by Jesus, by the Twelve and by Paul. I do see the Twelve's and Paul's and our own understanding of that same gospel growing over time as we study God's word and practise it.

My guarantee is God's zeal to bestow love and mercy on those who repent (turn from looking to things other than God for wholeness to looking to God for wholeness) as revealed in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. My guarantee is the character God revealed in Christ and His promise that a broken and contrite spirit He will not reject. This guarantees that if I fall away today, but I come to Him broken and contrite and trusting tomorrow, I will be reconciled and accepted in the beloved (i.e. saved).

I do not concern myself with measuring whether my works yesterday were, or tomorrow will be, acceptable to God. I am not concerned with how many times I have last my salvation in the past, or might lose it in the future. I aim to focus on whether my life NOW is focused on trusting my heavenly Father, receiving God's love and aiming to please Him. If I am in that zone NOW, I am saved/made whole NOW. And NOW is all that exists in reality. The future and past do not exist NOW.

[QUOTE="PaulThomson, post: 5357701, member: 327121"]John the Baptist"s and Jesus' ministries were fulfilling the last week of Daniel's 70 weeks of years determined on Daniel's people as the custodians of the Word of God. Seven years after John the Baptist came preaching to the Jews, during the persecution that followed Stephen's stoning, the interpretation of the word of God through the Holy Spirit was given to Gentiles, beginning with those living in Samaria. During Jesus' first 2.5 years of teaching ministry among the Jews, before His death and resurrection, the Gentiles were outside of the mandate given Him by the Father, even though some Gentiles did eavesdrop on Jesus' preaching to the Jews and did believe He was a prophet with miracle-working authority from God. Jesus was speaking the truth to the Syro-Phoenician woman. she was unclean by Torah standards, but the Father commanded Jesus to breach his official mandate in her case, because God appreciated her humble faith. Clearly, it is not true that the ONLY salvation available to Gentiles was to become Jews, because this woman, though according to Torah a dog, was heard by God and her Gentile daughter was saved/made whole, i.e. the Gr.eek word sOzO.

Ephesians 3:5 makes it clear that Paul's gospel was also understood and being preached by Peter and the other apostles, not just Paul.

3 ...the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, ...
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

"His holy apostles and prophets" includes the twelve. Philip and Peter had already learned the mystery of this new phase of the Gospel, soon after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7, through God's dealings with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 and the Roman Cornelius in Acts 10. Paul learned and began to teach to Jews in the synagogues that Jesus is the Messiah in Acts 9, but he did not reach out to Gentiles until He had learned to see the mystery "that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" in the Old Testament when He spent time alone learning it from Jesus in Arabia. This eventual extension of the offer of family membership to the Gentiles was part of Jesus' message during His ministry. It was not a Gospel given to Paul that competed with a different Gospel given to the Twelve.

It is argued by some that James was not claiming that Abraham and others are justified before God by their works, but that James is saying that the man who claims to have faith in God justifies himself and his claim by what he does. If he behaves like a man who loves and seeks to please God, he will be judged by men as speaking the truth when he claims to believe God. If he lives like the devil, but claims to trust God, men will assess him as a deceiver and self-deceived regarding his claims to trust God.

Do you not think that interpretation of James makes sense and meshes with Pau, who said that if Abraham is justified by works, he has something to boast about [before men] but not before God. Our works don't earn us good standing with God. It is our faith occurring, before the obedience which flows out of our genuine faith, that God recognises and reckons to us as righteousness.

I don't see any difference between the gospel taught by Jesus, by the Twelve and by Paul. I do see the Twelve's and Paul's and our own understanding of that same gospel growing over time as we study God's word and practise it.[/QUOTE]

Close but no cigar. Jesus' death on the Cross took him to just the first half of the 70th week. The last half of the 70th week was not fulfilled until 70 A.D. It seems that so many miss what this text in Daniel says that deals with the scope of the prophecy:

Dan 9:24
24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.
NIV

While Daniel 9 is certainly a messianic prophecy, it also includes the people of Israel AND the fate of Jerusalem, and this city is certainly included in the prophecy itself (vv. 26b). Verse 26 talks about the Messiah being "cut off", which occurred in the middle of the seven (v. 27a) at the Cross -- i.e. in the middle of the 70th Week. This interpretation harmonizes beautifully with the Mt. Olivet Discourse and the fact that Revelation itself contains a few passages that speak to this last half of the 70th week in "half week" language, which strongly indicates that last half of the last week was not fulfilled until 70 A.D. That's when the Holy City and its Temple were destroyed, which would have been within the scope of "this generation" spoken of in Matthew 24.

So...God began the good work of Salvation...but you must finish it? You still think that salvation is a business arrangement whereby God did his part and now you must do yours? Quid pro quo, heh, whereby you get to share in God's glory?

On the other hand, it is written:

John 6:38-40
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
NIV

How 'bout this for a wild and crazy idea: The saints persevere in the faith because that is God's will!? That is his purpose for his chosen people. That is what he has foreordained in eternity. God's grace is what keeps his helpless, powerless sheep safe, secure and protected to the end.

Mark 14:3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

Do you think Mark referring to Simon as Simon the leper means that Simon was still a leper in this episode? Is Will Smith a blacksmith? Is Elsie Tanner a maker of leather. Is Thomas Cook a chef? Is it reasonable to assume that the chances are that Simon the Sorcerer was still practising sorcery merely because he is referred to by his pre-Christian name?

Maybe one must ask for forgiveness with a certain degree of genuine remorse, and Peter was not assuming that Simon would approach God with that kind of attitude. maybe that is why Simon's forgiveness was not guaranteed in Peter's mind.

When you say, "His heart was filled with bitterness and captive to sin, which are certainly NOT marks of a true believer," are you typing that without grimacing?

If these are the arguments you have used to field this text, your dismissal of this text is truly on very shaky ground.

Close but no cigar. Jesus' death on the Cross took him to just the first half of the 70th week. The last half of the 70th week was not fulfilled until 70 A.D. It seems that so many miss what this text in Daniel says that deals with the scope of the prophecy:

Dan 9:24
24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.
NIV

While Daniel 9 is certainly a messianic prophecy, it also includes the people of Israel AND the fate of Jerusalem, and this city is certainly included in the prophecy itself (vv. 26b). Verse 26 talks about the Messiah being "cut off", which occurred in the middle of the seven (v. 27a) at the Cross -- i.e. in the middle of the 70th Week. This interpretation harmonizes beautifully with the Mt. Olivet Discourse and the fact that Revelation itself contains a few passages that speak to this last half of the 70th week in "half week" language, which strongly indicates that last half of the last week was not fulfilled until 70 A.D. That's when the Holy City and its Temple were destroyed, which would have been within the scope of "this generation" spoken of in Matthew 24.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing in Dan. 9:24-27 that indicates that the destruction of Jerusalem must be included in the 70th week. None of those elements listed describe the destruction of the city.

Dan 9:24
24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.
NIV

I certainly didn't say that. You could save yourself a lot of typing, if you addressed what people actually say, and didn't invent straw men to pontificate against.

Is it possible that Paul is talking about having a heavenly body given to us if we die during this age (aiOn) in which to dwell in heaven while we wait for the end of this age and the beginning of the next age, the 1000 year reign of the saints with Christ in resurrected bodies on earth? Since those heavenly bodies will merge with our resurrected physical bodies, when our resurrected bodies are not shed but clothed upon and become spiritual and immortal physical bodies, we will live in the heavenly bodies in heaven only in this age (aiOn) which makes them "age-enduring" (i.e. aiOnios) and "appropriate for the present age" (i.e. aiOnios), rather that eternal/endless (i.e. aidios).

5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (the physical body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, aeonous (aiOnios) in the heavens (an age-enduring/present-age-appropriate heavenly body).

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven (our temporary heavenly body):

3 If so be that being clothed (with the heavenly body) we shall not be found naked (in just the physical body).

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, (our physical removed) but clothed upon (with the heavenly body), that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

As a clarification, I was't talking about Christ, James was not talking about Christ, and Paul was not talking about Christ when it comes to grace versus works.

MM

Destined? Not sure if that's a side-blow from Calvinism, for which I have no regard, but the few cases that fit that bill, no problem.

MM

No thanks. I'm not into Covenant Theology because it's used as the springboard into Replacement Theology, which is a doctrine from Hell.

MM

I think Simon the Sorcerer was never truly converted. He was a man totally enamored with himself who loved to be in the limelight. He was boastful and prideful and had a very high opinion of himself (Act 8:9) and he greatly coveted people's attention and obviously fed his ego off it (v.10). Besides the things I pointed out earlier, there is another big clue in the text that points to the true condition of his "post-conversion" heart: "He followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw" (v. 13). He didn't follow Philip to learn how to do gospel ministry and thereby actually help and benefit other people. Rather, that Simon was awe-struck by real miracles that Philip performed, as opposed to weaker, demonic signs he performed before people. This is precisely why he wanted to pay for the ability that had been given to Philip. Simon was JEALOUS! He was being outdone by a real McCoy!

Simon reminds me of Jesus' false disciples who urgently and ardently followed him after his miracle of Feeding Five Thousand. But Jesus had their number as well (Jn 6:26-27). They didn't go out of their way to seek him because of who he was but because they perceived they could personally reap benefits from his power. Likewise, Peter, too, read Simon's wicked heart and understood that Simon wasn't really interested in God's great salvation but only in capitalizing on God's power for his personal monetary gain and self-aggrandizement, which is why Peter told Simon to pray and repent, for PERHAPS God would hear him. I strongly suspect that Simon quit following Philip and the other disciples around just as Jesus' false disciples left him (Jn 6:66).

The problem with many people's understanding of that verse if that they equate it with extreme Calvinism, in that God decides who is saved and who is not. The body of Christ in general is what the Lord had determined from the foundations of the world, but that's another topic entirely.

MM

Oh...so you believe that God started the work of salvation and will complete it, and Jesus, therefore, will lose none?

"Extreme" you say? But that's precisely what happened in the post-fall Garden in Gen 3:15ff. God sovereignly chose one of our first parents while the other not so much. Would you like to take a guess? I mean...you have a .500 shot at getting it right.