Why Believe One can Lose Salvation??

Actually it is...

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

If thou believe with all thine heart, thou mayest get baptized by water. Faith-then baptism.

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

This is an important statement. If water baptism was part of salvation it would have definitely been written in this very verse rather than faith alone . Secondly, getting bapitized in water is something done " of yourself " disqualifying it as having any part in salvation.

God Bless!

 

[incomplete duplicate post from flood protection]

 

Yes, and like I said, that's about the only difference, with your system.

But none of us live up to that still, so if any are to be saved, He must not be making that the prerequisite for Heaven. It's your side that brings God's standard down, because since nobody does live completly up to that, it must be doing the best we can that gets us into Heaven.

Still, the resurrection came after the Death, and then the outpouring of the Spirit afterwards. So it is possible that the removal of the Temple was also such a stage in God's plan. Remember, Christ promised them something "in their generation", "soon", etc. and yet we still expect these things thousands of years later. So it's not an "addendum",any more than any hope for a future Kingdom or Heaven, or whatever.

What good is that if we still can fall away? We have the power of the Spirit, but we ar ebasically still in the same boat as the OT believers, who did not have the power of the Spirit, and had to work for God's approval.

So a rehashed Old Covenant is just expanded, then. Actually, Gentiles could join Israel back then, so even that is still no difference.

Once again, just do your best, and God overlooks the rest. I guess He weighs the good and the bad, just like Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and the average secular nominal believes. But that's not what I see in other scriptures in the OT. Like I said, it's actually that philosophy that brings God's standard down. We can't reach it, so he brings it down to meet us, but we still have to do the work to meet Him half way. We must do something so that we're not getting in for "free", right?
Yes, He never changes, so as the Jews say, God would never "change His mind" and end one covenant and start another. They must be right, and Jesus is false, then. He certainly is not really needed in this system, except as a substitute of convenience so we don't have to get our hands bloody anymore.

And maybe the fact that the NT was not written yet supports the idea of a transition period. There are many things in the NT that you (Campbellites, I assume) do not believe are to be kept anymore, like tongues, prophecy, etc. You try to make the receipt of the canon the "perfection" that marks their end, but perhaps it was the destruction of the Temple instead. That was a more significant prophetic event, which occurred in their lifetime. Perhaps when all those signs ended, then salvation was secured at the same time. Remember, "to whom much is given, much is expected". Those who had their faith verifief by supernatural signs would have more expected from them (like perseverance to the end, etc).

We obey God because we love Him (1 John 2:3), and while this is held here as a sign of us loving Him, still, that is not the same as salvation resting on it. We can slip in keeping the commandments and still love Him, because v. 1 says that while we should not sin, "If any man sin, we have an advocate from the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins...". We could not slip if salvation rested on keeping the commandments, because God demanded perfection. If that were the case, then Jesus would not have been the propitiation, but it would all still rest on us.

 

Good stuff Eric B! You answer very well to the false "other gospel".

God Bless!

 

Only Christ can take away sins. Lambs, bulls, etc could not. The Old Covenant with it's sacrifices and ceremonial laws was just a tutor (as Paul said in Galatians) until Christ came and established the New Covenant. HOWEVER, the conditions of continued repentance and obedience are applicable to either covenant. Christ's sacrifice alone is able to take away sin, but one is not automatically forgiven for every sin that one will ever commit in the future when he first receives Christ in faith and repentance. One must CONTINUE having faith and abiding in Christ. When one sins, he must CONTINUE to confess and repent in order to have forgiveness even AFTER he initially receives Christ. This is all a CONTINUAL process, it's not just a one time, once for all "prayer to accept Christ". If one doesn't REMAIN in faith--if he doesn't ABIDE in Christ--he will be cut off. (John 15:6; Romans 11:19-22)

Eternal life is IN CHRIST. If one punts Christ, then one punts eternal life.

 

Does this mean "faith = abide" or "faith + abide"?

God Bless!

 

But it is not a prayer that saves, it is the "one time sacrifice of Christ" that saves. That is the mistake people on both sides make. It is basically on us, and the argument becomes whether we save ourselves by a single work, or continuous works. Although I am still weighing the notion of AD70 securing salvation, it would follow that a person really cannot "punt" Christ. That would be to undo His sacrifice, and that is accomplished already. It was already accomplished back then as well, but apprently, as long as the institution of the Law still stood, "the ministration of death" posed a greater threat to salvation.

 

One cannot undo the sacrifice of Christ, but salvation is IN HIM. Salvation is in a PERSON because of WHO that PERSON IS and WHAT that PERSON did. If one leaves Christ, that one leaves salvation. If one is no longer abiding in Christ, the blood of the Cross is no longer "applied" to that one's heart. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ is only personally effective if one is actually IN CHRIST.

Life is in the Son. He who has (present tense) the Son has (present tense) Life; He who doesn't have the Son doesn't have Life.

 

This makes salvation dependant upon man. All men, including us, are apart of "...no man can pluck them from My Father's Hand...".

 

Though no other one can remove the Christian, the Christian can remove himself by not continuing in faith and not abiding in the Vine.

 

Then the Christian is the exception of "no man"? I don't think so. When Christ says NO MAN he means no man, including Chrisitians! There is not one man in history who can pluck someone else or himself from the Father's Hand.

 

Then you are totally misconstruing what Christ is talking about here. He is not referring to the one who believes for a while and then falls away (Luke 8:13). Nor is He talking about those who do not abide in Him--you know, the ones which don't bear fruit (since they aren't abiding) and are cast out as branches to be burned (John 15:6). He is referring to those who are external to the believing (present tense) Christian. The Father is not going to keep one against his own will...just ask the prodigal son.

 

Besides those verses you quoted out of context not applying to someone who is saved and lost, the prodical son STILL was his son...even if he did die in the hog pen instead of returning home.

"No man" can remove themselves from God's grip...you, I and everyone included!

 

Not at all. In the case of the first, Christ clearly states he believed for a while (ie saved) then fell away. The John 15:6 passage said those who don't abide are cast out as branches and burned. In other words, they were saved at one point or else they couldn't be said to have been branches in the first place.

But had he not returned to the father he would have remained dead and lost.

No, He's referring to those who are external to the Christian not the Christian himself. He's not going to hold the persistently rebellious one in His grip against his will.

 

This is not dealing with losing justification, but sanctification. The greek for "falling away" does not mean to lose your salvation.
Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
This is not speaking of those "in Christ", but those who DO NOT abide in Christ. It is also not saying these people ARE branches, they are discarded as branches. Big difference.

The text does not say he was dead or lost...he knew exactly where he was, in the hog pit. If he were dead, how could he do anything anyway? This makes no sense.

I applaud your effort in trying to twist "no man" to exclude Christians. He is saying what He is saying, regardless if someone is "persistently rebellious" or not. If Jesus gives the promise that no man can remove those in Christ from His Father's Hand, this includes everybody!

 

My first post here, so please be patient with me my questions may have been answered many times.

I've always thought that the term "losing salvation" was misused/misunderstood (sometimes even by those who use it regularly, and almost always by those who don't subscribe to OSAS). God clearly tells us that nothing can snatch us from His hand. In that sense, then, we cannot "lose" our saving faith. Rather than "losing" salvation, it could be argued that "rejecting salvation" is the possible alternative to "losing" it; this is an alternative that is also clearly spelled out in Scripture. In other words, when we are filled with grace...with the faith that ensures salvation...we know we will have eternal life, should we happen to die at that very moment. But we cannot know IF we (as one individual) will always so treasure God's precious gift of faith.

I'm reminded of a few unfortunate individuals I've known over the years who once claimed to be Christian and who are now NOT Christians. Some might argue that these folks were "never saved in the first place." That may be true, but they surely believed (with certainty) that they were faith-filled when they were proclaiming themselves "saved." How does one know that the same thing might not be the case in his or her own personal future? (That he or she won't choose to reject God's precious gift?)

The only con I can think of with respect to a personal belief in a general OSAS is that such a doctrine can (not necessarily does -- but CAN) be a breeding ground for complacency, and even be akin to claiming for oneself the omniscience and prescience God alone possesses.

As an individual, I treasure God's gift of faith, and view it as the gift it is. I am abundantly grateful for it and am secure in the knowledge that nothing can take it away from me; however, I cannot overlook Scriptural support for the possibility that I -- again, as an individual -- could possibly (God forbid!) one day reject it. To think that that couldn't possibly happen to me would be, as I said above, akin to claiming for myself a knowledge that only God possesses.

So, to sum up..."losing" it? Not possible. "Rejecting" it? Unfortunately...possible.