Losing one's salvation

**********If the foundational cause of an individual's salvation is their free will choice to have faith then that should also be its sustaining power as Natter's suggests.*********


Faith plays a very important role but should never be considered the foundational cause of salvation. Salvation comes from God in the form of an escape from judgement, so the fact that He has made a way of escape is the foundation. He offers us salvation through Christ. Christ is our escape. From where we are standing in our sinful state we can't reach up to God. He reaches down to us. He wants to rescue us, but we have to at least accept His truth. I've always viewed faith as part of the receiving.

 

Does man's faith result in God's regeneration of him or does God's regeneration of the man result in his faith? Did God first choose and act or did man first choose and act?

Faith plays an essential role. The question is, "Can saving faith come from an unregenerate spirit?"

Can the dead rise by his own will? Does his will have that kind of freedom absent life? Can the blind will themselves to see? Can those bound by the curse of sin free themselves so they can have faith or must they first be freed to have faith?

 

Right!

I think parables are also analogies. They help us to understand spiritual truths (broadly), but like all analogies they will break down at some point if we try to be too dogmatic with them. They help us with the "sense" of a thing, rather than expressing immutable rules to create doctrines.

 

Personally, I think the Holy Spirit was capable of saying exactly what he meant, and it was perfect. Besides, when Scripture plainly states that the Promised Land is the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, I don't think that the Holy Spirit is saying, "That's not what I really mean. The Promised Land is really the Land Flowing with Milk and Honey, but I just couldn't express that."

 

Personally, I think the Holy Spirit was capable of saying exactly what he meant, and it was perfect.</font>[/QUOTE] So do I. That isn't the question. The question is whether you can draw doctrine from "types" without direct statements. You can't. Types illustrate and "shadow" the genuine article.

A doctrine derived from a type is no more assured than a portrait drawn only from a shadow.

Me neither.

But, I have really struggled with that a little since it seems an incredibly small part of history that Israel actually occupied this land... but it seems a very small portion of land for them to own when God finally redeems that nation. However, God said it was the promised land and I personally have no doubts that He meant it exactly as He defined it.

Notably, the very conservative Jewish sects don't get too excited about all the stuff going on today in Israel... they know that when God is ready, no force on earth will deny them the land.

 

Yes. But, they certainly don't contradict the original article.

That part occupies a very small part in their history, just as the time that we are babes should occupy very little of our history. We're to move on, toward the Land Flowing with Milk and Honey.

 

Yes. But, they certainly don't contradict the original article.

</font>[/QUOTE]Did I say they did?

I said that you should be careful trying to derive doctrine from types.

 

I never said that I derived doctrine from types.

 

types confirm doctrine

 

For me, this is one of those areas where both the Calvinist and Armenian camps have scriptures to support their positions. I find that I can't be a five point Calvinist nor an Armenian. Yet I leave it in God's hands how both can be true and right.

I do believe in the security of the believer. I don't believe that you can lose your salvation because you lost your temper or told a lie and, as a result, need to go to an alter to repent to get resaved. I do believe there is a role for free will in salvation. I do believe in the security of the believer but also in the 'perseverance of the saints.' Just because you are a saint doesn't mean you will necessarily persevere, but you do need to persevere because you're a saint.

Jesus said, "If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed;" (John 8:31), and "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. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." (John 15:6-7).

It was Jesus Himself who brought up the possibility of a person not abiding in Him.

 

bubba jimmy,
I agree with you Brother!

 

Abiding has to do with works and position, not salvation. Also, not all Christians are "saints".

 

From Dictionary.com:

I tend to view abide as to mean to continue to be sure or firm. To endure.


In Romans 1:7 we read:

Was the book of Romans not written to all believers who were in Rome? All the other references to "saints" I can find also seem to refer to believers.

 

Although when studying Scripture, I rarely care what a secular dictionary says, the verb quoted above conveys the idea. But, my point is, abiding doesn't have anything to do with maintaining your common salvation (works). Abiding is a family matter.

For instance, take John 15:5: I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Abiding, or enduring, creates conditions that will bring forth fruit. It's works. Unless you think that salvation is by works, then this just doesn't quite fit.

-------

The Greek word that is translated as “saint” is the adjective “hagios”. It means “separated ones” or “holy ones”. As an adjective, it describes or identifies a quality or characteristic of the noun that it modifies.

Mark 6:20: For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and HOLY MAN [hagios = a SAINT; John was not only a just man, but a saint], and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

Herod knew that John was a just man and a saint. Herod knew that he was a just man and a holy man by the way John conducted his life; by the way he lived. John was not given this title simply because he was a child of God.

It was given because Herod observed him. Herod observed him and knew that he was living a different kind of life than the normal life of the normal person would live according to lust and the power of sin that dominates the life of a normal human being.

John separated himself and was different and lived a lifestyle that was different. John had a holy lifestyle. You might be sitting there today and thinking, “I fall short of a holy lifestyle.” We all fall short.

A holy lifestyle means that I am separated unto purity. It does not mean that we live a lifestyle that is sinless. John was not deity; he was not God. He was a man, just like you and me. He was not practicing a lifestyle of lawlessness. He was very careful how he lived. He separated himself unto purity. He separated himself from that which was impure unto that which was clean.

So, when we talk about walking after a holy lifestyle, we’re talking about walking after the commandments of God (not talking about legalism, though).

Is this a requirement to being saved?

BTW, in Romans 1:7, they are "called saints", not "called to be saints". Any time you see italics in the KJV, those words are added and are not in the original text. Why are they called saints? Because they lived a holy lifestyle.

 

I understand your point of view.

I find discussions difficult when the get into disagreement on the definitions of common words and in calling translations of the Bible into question unless it is a clearly ungodly tranlation (such as the JW version). Whether the KJV or the NIV, I believe that the translators were far more proficient in Biblical languages and the best rendering of scripture into English than I'll ever be.

Anyway, I appreciate your point of view even though I don't share it.

 

If you're talking about the italics comment, that's why the italics are there: To let you know the words aren't in the original text.

 

I unserstand, but the italics are added by the translator as their best effort at rendering the translation as closely as possible to the originally intended meaning. I would have to become quite a language scholar to dispute or improve on their "italics" insertions, which I am not.

 

Any time you see the italics, question them. I've never actually done a comprehensive survey, but in my perception, in most cases, in trying to make things clear, they make things more unclear.

 

I've had lots of conversations about this subject, but all I have to say is do you really think God would be an Indian giver? That he woudl "take" away your salvation? Defineltly not the God I know!

 

Well, I don't try to reason it out based on what I think God would or wouldn't do based on what I might or might not do. I have to look to scripture to understand. I see both the security of the believe and the requirement to abide in Christ. If you don't abide in Christ, how can you be secure in anything? I don't know of any security outside of Jesus Christ. But as long as I abide in Him, He's going to keep me from falling, He's going to present me faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy. And no man can pluck me out of His hand. I believe that, and I experience God's security.

See, the problem comes in when I consider the person who appears to be backslidden. The Calvinist says he was never saved. Well, if I say he was never saved than how do I know if I'm saved? Where's my security? He seemed to be serving the Lord and leading people to Christ. I want to serve the Lord and lead people to Christ. Maybe I'm not saved either? Where's the security in that? How can we describe what we observe in a person's relationship with the Lord?

I believe both in the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Scripture supports that, and I leave it to God to resolve anything that looks like inconsistency.