Forfeiting Salvation versus Losing Salvation - What is the difference?

Forum Moderator

Forfit, omit, forgo, lose, forget, ignore, overlook, relinquish, quit, renounce, leave, abandon, give up, let go, you are a ... [Moderator Warning: This post in violation of BB Posting Rules 3 and 4. Likewise, you are not allowed to question the salvation of another poster. This post is being brought to the attention of the BB Admin Council.]

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Jud 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

 

That's all the same...pluck...pull...jump...squeeze. Once in the Father's hand, NOTHING / NOBODY can remove you...including you.

 

Really? Even John 6:37?
Sounds like you are reading into the text what is not there.

 

This is works based salvation, plain and simple. If you have to continue to do anything, you are no longer saved by grace through faith.

What happens if you decided to aposticize your faith...and the Holy Spirit draws you back?

 

Is continuing in your faith any more of a work than having faith to begin with?

 

We who ARE IN Christ Jesus ARE created FOR good works (Eph. 2:10)

My reply was to "you must continue TO COME to the Lord". Once you are there...you're there. You either arrive or you don't. Continuing to arrive makes no sense. Justification is a one time event...not a process. Sanctification is the process those justified go through.

 

For those that believe one can lose/forfeit their salvation, almost every "proof-text they use can be shown to be out of context.

"Take the following passage for instance. Heb 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God."

Your apparent position is that Paul here is addressing the brethren, as in those that are saved. I don't believe he is. The book of Hebrews is written to the Hebrews. The key word in the book is "better." The contrast throughout the book is a better covenant, a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, and of course a better salvation. Everything is better. Within this group of "Hebrews" were some that were not saved, and thinking of returning back to Judaism. You cannot have both systems and be a Christian at the same time; just as you cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. You must choose one or the other. This is Paul's emphasis throughout this epistle.

A believing heart would in no way depart from the faith.
However, among the Hebrews there were some that did not believe. They had unbelieving hearts. They had heard the gospel but had not accepted. They were thinking of returning back to Judaism. Paul was warning them about "that evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God." They were Jews. Rejecting the gospel and returning to Judaism would be departing from the living God and remaining in unbelief.

Are there other verses that you have taken out of context that you think will prove that one can lose/forfeit their salvation?

 

DHK

Hi DHK,

You are correct. The writer of Hebrews(I also believe it is Paul)addresses Christians as Holy brothers, not just brothers.
"Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling..."-Hebrews 3:1

 

Heb 3:1 ¶ Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

HP: DHK, it would appear to me that the Apostle Paul was speaking to Christian believers, his brethren, in fact to be absolutely correct, his ‘holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.’ Are you suggesting that unbelievers are referred to by the Apostle Paul as ‘holy brethren?’ Are the unsaved 'partakers of the heavenly calling?' Possibly your argument is with the Apostle having a senior moment or a slip of the pen, a mistake referring to those unsaved as ‘ holy.’ Could you possibly have another translation that clears this matter up and eliminates the ‘holy brethren’ and 'partakers of the heavenly calling' from the context, or does it even matter to you who is being specifically addressed and warned?

 

HP: Are you sure you typed this correct? How can DHK's comments be viewed as being 'correct?'

 

Sorry Webdog, I misunderstood.

 

HP: Where do you get this ‘continuing to arrive?’ How does ‘continued obedience’ once you arrive equate to ‘continual arrival?’ Here you create a fictitious scenario by putting up your paper duck to shoot at that has absolutely no merit.

 

Yup. A forfeit is still a loss.

 

HP: DHK implies that the writer of Hebrews is not addressing Christian believers in chapter 3, and to say that the author is, would be paramount to taking the authors comments 'out of context.'

Help me out here. I have listed eight versions here that all place the context of the chapter speaking directly to believers. Can anyone tell me what possible version DHK has been reading that would state differently?

 

The Hebrews were being addressed. That is obvious from the title of the epistle. Within this group of Hebrews the majority may have been believers, but there was an element of unbelieving Hebrews. As a group they may be addressed brethren. But the warning is still addressed to those that are unbelieving and wanting to return to Judaism. The context of the passage bears this out. Actually, the entire letter bears this out. The whole letter is a contrast of what is better to what is not--and for that very purpose--to convince who have not yet been convinced of salvation by faith in Christ, not to draw back to their former Judaism. This is one of the main purposes of the letter.

 

HP: I brought up a specific passage in chapter 3. Who was this chapter specifically addressed to?