Why Believe One can Lose Salvation??

No Ed, the poll area is ALL Christians.

God Bless!

 

I agree that Jesus saves.

In fact as 1John 4:14 says "HE is the Savior of the World".

My point is that Jesus is correct when He says "SO shall my father do to each one of you IF ..." in the chapter on "forgiveness revoked".

(P.S. - I did add my two cents to the poll thread you gave. Thanks for the notice)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oops, that poll is in a public
area.

I guess i have egg all over my face
Maybe folks will be content to cook the
egg OVER EASY (instead of scrambling me )

 

Does it matter? Christians only do good because of the pay back?

 

2Cor:6:1: We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

 

2 Peter 2:

20: For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21: For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22: But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

 

Boy, I tell ya, I sometimes just do not get how people can argue and argue about things that are so plain in the Scriptures...

It's as if some people make a decision that they want to believe such and such a thing and then no matter what Bible verses prove them wrong, they just shut their eyes to the obvious.

I's amazing, actually.

Personally I believe that someone who does this... there is NOTHING you could say to them to convince them otherwise...

...you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear...

 

Luke 16:
31: And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

Gee, this question is endless...
A couple of months ago, I was trying to start a discussion about a doctrine called Comprehensive Grace at http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3505.html. It basically stems from prteterism, which has some advocates here. These positions draw upon all the "close at hand' statements regarding Christ's return and teach that the destruction of the temple in AD70 marked the event, which "fulfilled" all. CG goes one step further and says that all are therefore saved after that.
While I have argued against both position, still, I notice they one aspect of them does seem to explain some things, and possibly resolve this "eternal security" debate!

Both preterism and CG teach that the New Testament period was actually a "transition period" between the Old covenant of the Law, and the full fruition of the New Covenant of Grace. While Christ's death and resurrection opened up salvation, it would not be until that last vestige of the Law was removed —the Temple, that salvation would be finally secured. This would explain all those scriptures saying that salvation could be lost; that one could "draw back unto perdition" (which in that case would refer to a Jew or Gentile proselyte renouncing Christ and going back under the Law to appease the Temple system which was persecuting them, which would be a great affront to Christ, hence "trampling on the Blood" in Heb.10:29. Hence the need to "persevere until the end" —the end of the covenent, to be saved!) You can see all of this right in the contexts! This seems the only way to harmonize this apparently conflicting "eternal security" debate. Eternal security purely by grace and nothing we did is what Christ ultimately promised, but those in the "transition period" (especially those to whom "much was given" in that they saw Christ and His works, and His works continued by the apostles) had to persevere in good works to be saved. Afterwards, all of that would be settled for good.

This idea can be separated from the other stuff like the invisible "Parousia" and spiritual only resurrection and kingdom in AD70, and the near-universalism of CG. While those ideas may not be right, still, it is possible that AD70 was a lot more significant than the historic Church has realized. Add to this a visible appearance of Christ (reported by Josephus) and a literal bodily resurrection of the saints up to that time (the "firstfruits") theorized by one preterist, then all the scriptures on Christ's return being "at hand", have real meaning, rather than a "shortly" that gets stretched out for millennia. And it all explains why salvation seemed so unstable before that time.

So this is what I am now convinced is the answer to all of this. If we have to worry about falling away, then first, what really did Christ accomplish for us? We are in exactly the same danger as the unsaved. He has to believe to be saved, and we have to keep believing. What really is the difference, other than the conditional "salvation" we legally "possess" at the moment? Second, salvation is ultimately up to our works, then. (Especially when one objects that "teaching security will lead to everyone sinning with impunity"). Most get around this by saying "but this scripture says you can fall away..." or whatever, but it is still a contradiction even if you can find a prooftext for a contradictory point. What is most likely is that you are misunderstanding the proof text.

 

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. (Gal. 6:7-9)

People who know not what they are doing, attempt to mock God by teaching, in essence, you can reap eternal life even though you sow to please the sinful nature (or flesh). This, in truth, is the very heart of the security-in-sin gospel. But Paul said, Do not be deceived. It will not happen. Instead you will reap what you sow. If you sow to please your sinful nature, you will reap destruction instead of eternal life.

To reap eternal life, you must sow to please the Spirit. (NOTE: This is not a rewards passage as the eternal security deceivers try to change it into. This is a salvation passage for it tells about reaping eternal life.)

 

These verses has zero to do w/ losing salvation. It simply means the person made a mental assent to Christ, w/o the heart committment, hence they returned to their true self; i.e. "dog" & "sow"
Jer 13:23 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to evil." Grace saves and keeps. If one truly has Eternal Life, and somehow they lose it, it wasn't eternal to begin with. If one gets "saved" then exhibits conduct to the contrary, it would seem to me that he never truly repented, and therefore is what the Bible calls a "dog" or "sow" by returning to their true nature. On the other hand, one truly saved by grace is a partaker of the "divine nature" 2 Ptr 1:4, and is adopted. Rom 8:15-16.
God bless,
Kevin

 

As it turns out there are a few posts pointing to texts talking about "forgiveness revoked" on this thread --

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3609/2.html#000022

I will repost them on this page shortly.

 

I haven't read all the pages; my input might have been given above.

The Bible teaches of Regeneration, and that a man must be born again. Being dead spiritually we have to be regenerated in order to see God.

Now, does the Bible teach of un-regeneration? And in order for a man to lose his salvation, it means he has to die again spiritually. Where can we find such a teaching in the Bible -- that a man is capable of being dead again (spiritually) after he/she has gained "life"?

Death, in the Bible, means "separation". When we received the Lord, repented and declared Him as our Saviour, then we gain eternal life. At my age, I haven't read any verse that a man can be spiritually dead (separated) again from God. In the Bible a doctrine shows "being born again"; but NO, NOTHING, being "dead again".

Thanks.

[ February 15, 2006, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Ruben ]

 

In the three key posts listed at the link I just posted above - the 2nd one goes like this --

Severed FROM Christ and Fallen from grace

Your argument seems to be that the "unforgiven state" is the same as the "forgiven state" and therefore EVEN though it looks like a change the way Christ is telling the story - we can ignore it because to have forgiveness revoked is still to be saved and still to have eternal life.

The story Christ tells AND The summary lesson He says applies "to you" does not fit with your ideas above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In the first key post in that previous link I gave - we see people severed from the vine of Christ AND we see the promise of their being "grafted back in" if they do not persist in rebellion.

</font>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

Then of course there was the 3rd post at that link I posted previously (and in fact a few other posts there as well that made this point)

Denied by Christ instead of His “confessing us before God and His angels” –

</font>[/QUOTE]So that link was basically a pretty good review of the highlights of just a few texts making this argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I understand what you're saying, and would have always answered like you before, but right here, if you think about what you've just said, there is no difference between this covenant and the last one. We keep up our end of the covenant by our works. Only some of the "works" have changed from the Mosaic system to the "Christian" ones, and we are given a better sacrifice. Still, it is all up to us.

But yes, we do need more proof of the position from early writings, and I wondered if that was true, just when how and why did the Church lose sight of it?