Once Saved, Always Saved?

[SeventyOne]

Question: if you can't give up salvation, either because you couldn't choose to give it up, or it was forced on you regardless of your choice, do you have free will?

Salvation is not heaven for me. I would live in hell forever if that meant being close to Christ. That is what salvation looks like. Not some destination. Salvation is a person. There is no life outside of a relationship with Christ. A person can be in the most heavenly place and have nothing because he rejects Christ.

What exactly is free will by your definition?

 

[sculleywr]

What exactly is free will by your definition?

Free will is the ability to choose either good or evil. Paul admits that there are people who have never been told the law but do what is written therein, showing that the law was written in their hearts, what we call the conscience. This law written in their hearts:

They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

The fact that the conscience can bear witness in defense of man shows that it is capable of following the good path.

However, this ability to do good is still not enough for salvation. Shoot, even if Adam had never eaten of the Tree, we would still need salvation, because we would still lack the relationship with God, something which does not come from forgiveness. Forgiveness merely reopens lines of communication between God and man. It does not establish the relationship we need to be truly saved. That kind of knowledge, the knowledge a husband and wife share of each other, even apart from the eros, the intimate knowledge of the other, is something that we humans can only establish over time. So it takes time to come to the fullness of salvation, and that time period is infinity. Even after glorification, because we have a beginning, there will be an infinite number of things that God knew before we were born that we can learn. We may never have an end, but there is an infinite God to learn about. And that is what we will spend eternity doing. For me, whether that learning is done in peace and comfort or pain and suffering is not the point of it.

This is one of the reasons there is a huge misunderstanding between many Protestants and Orthodox Christians. We don't mean the same thing when we say the word "salvation". A Protestant, in most cases, sees it in light of heaven and hell, sin and forgiveness, crime and pardon. The Orthodox Christian sees it in light of relationship. If a person goes to hell with Christ, he would be better off than if a person went to heaven hating Christ.

 

[sculleywr]

What exactly is free will by your definition?

• 
  If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.(Ignatius of Antioch, around 80 AD)
  

This is a simpler and quicker answer based on the early Church Fathers.

 

[SeventyOne]

Free will is the ability to choose either good or evil. Paul admits that there are people who have never been told the law but do what is written therein, showing that the law was written in their hearts, what we call the conscience. This law written in their hearts:

They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

The fact that the conscience can bear witness in defense of man shows that it is capable of following the good path.

However, this ability to do good is still not enough for salvation. Shoot, even if Adam had never eaten of the Tree, we would still need salvation, because we would still lack the relationship with God, something which does not come from forgiveness. Forgiveness merely reopens lines of communication between God and man. It does not establish the relationship we need to be truly saved. That kind of knowledge, the knowledge a husband and wife share of each other, even apart from the eros, the intimate knowledge of the other, is something that we humans can only establish over time. So it takes time to come to the fullness of salvation, and that time period is infinity. Even after glorification, because we have a beginning, there will be an infinite number of things that God knew before we were born that we can learn. We may never have an end, but there is an infinite God to learn about. And that is what we will spend eternity doing. For me, whether that learning is done in peace and comfort or pain and suffering is not the point of it.

This is one of the reasons there is a huge misunderstanding between many Protestants and Orthodox Christians. We don't mean the same thing when we say the word "salvation". A Protestant, in most cases, sees it in light of heaven and hell, sin and forgiveness, crime and pardon. The Orthodox Christian sees it in light of relationship. If a person goes to hell with Christ, he would be better off than if a person went to heaven hating Christ.

You're pretty close on the definition of free will. It's actually more the ability to choose or act freely, although you are restricting it to the realms of good and evil only.

The problem with free will though is that it's not an "anything goes" concept. There are restrictions to free will, primarily concerning the ability to carry out such decisions. For example, I am free to choose to jump to the moon, or to exchange the location of my bodily limbs at will, or to grab the sun and stick it in my pocket. I'm free to choose to do all those things, but I don't have the ability to do so, and all the free will in the universe won't make them happen.

So when you ask if we can't walk away then does that mean we don't have free will, the question is incomplete. We would not only need to have the free will to do so, but also the ability to actually pull it off, which we do not have any more than I am able to jump to the moon.

 

[sculleywr]

You're pretty close on the definition of free will. It's actually more the ability to choose or act freely, although you are restricting it to the realms of good and evil only.

The problem with free will though is that it's not an "anything goes" concept. There are restrictions to free will, primarily concerning the ability to carry out such decisions. For example, I am free to choose to jump to the moon, or to exchange the location of my bodily limbs at will, or to grab the sun and stick it in my pocket. I'm free to choose to do all those things, but I don't have the ability to do so, and all the free will in the universe won't make them happen.

So when you ask if we can't walk away then does that mean we don't have free will, the question is incomplete. We would not only need to have the free will to do so, but also the ability to actually pull it off, which we do not have any more than I am able to jump to the moon.

And that is true. So if someone is disabled from doing something, then they do not have free will. So, for instance, if a person is born with free will, then at conversion is no longer able to perform an action such as turning away from God, then he does not have free will, as God has taken that free will away from him, as would be the case of Eternal Security.

The thing is that God is always going to respect our free will. He will not allow us to be "snatched" from His fold, but this does not mean we may not exit by the door. He will tell us that it is not safe outside the fold, that we will be in danger outside of the fold, but He will not prevent us from giving up on Him. This is evidenced in the life of Judas, but also of the Deacon Nicholas, and four of the Seventy Apostles sent out by Christ. These people showed evidence of being sent by Christ. Judas was a disciple, and nobody can really say he didn't truly believe. What we know is that when it came down to it, at the moment of truth, both Judas AND Peter failed. What differentiated them is that while Peter's remorse led to confession, repentance, and absolution, Judas's remorse led to despair, self-loathing, and eventually suicide. Nicholas was filled with the Spirit in Acts, but in Revelations his followers and he were "hated by God".

This is because, as I stated earlier, salvation is a relationship. Any person can walk away from a relationship before the marriage is completed. Joseph was going to put Mary away silently after betrothal, but never actually did. The fact that he intended to do it meant that it was possible. Before the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, it is possible for a person to leave Christ. For humans, that means at any time on earth. This is what happened to those branches which were cut off. They were part of the tree, at one point truly connected to the Source of Life, but they were removed by the Caretaker. This is speaking of us. We must remain ourselves in the Vine, must maintain that relationship, or else we will lose it, not because we were snatched:

But because we leave. It's not a single bad decision. We don't get up one day and say we're going to turn away from the plow. We don't say we aren't going to love God and neighbor, disobeying God. We do so one small choice at a time. and eventually it has become second nature over time. The alcoholic didn't get up one day and set up the goal to destroy his job, family, and life by giving himself to the drink. A person doesn't say he's going to abuse his Tramadol every day until he has a crippling addiction to opiates.

And just like that, a person doesn't go from being a raised Baptist to being a leader of Fascism in one night. He doesn't go from being a cute kid praising God by singing Jesus Loves Me on the stage to bombing a clinic in one night. That kid most certainly thought he was doing the right thing. Five year olds aren't capable of the kind of subterfuge that would allow that child-like faith to be faked.

Who are we to say that the five year old Timothy McVeigh didn't really love Jesus when he was going daily to church his whole childhood? Or that young Adolf Hitler wasn't sincere in his church life as a child?

Conversion doesn't put you on rails. It is completely possible to leave Christ after one makes a committment. It isn't a comforting truth. It is highly inconvenient. But I would rather have an inconvenient Truth than a convenient lie.

 

[SeventyOne]

And that is true. So if someone is disabled from doing something, then they do not have free will. So, for instance, if a person is born with free will, then at conversion is no longer able to perform an action such as turning away from God, then he does not have free will, as God has taken that free will away from him, as would be the case of Eternal Security.

The thing is that God is always going to respect our free will. He will not allow us to be "snatched" from His fold, but this does not mean we may not exit by the door. He will tell us that it is not safe outside the fold, that we will be in danger outside of the fold, but He will not prevent us from giving up on Him. This is evidenced in the life of Judas, but also of the Deacon Nicholas, and four of the Seventy Apostles sent out by Christ. These people showed evidence of being sent by Christ. Judas was a disciple, and nobody can really say he didn't truly believe. What we know is that when it came down to it, at the moment of truth, both Judas AND Peter failed. What differentiated them is that while Peter's remorse led to confession, repentance, and absolution, Judas's remorse led to despair, self-loathing, and eventually suicide. Nicholas was filled with the Spirit in Acts, but in Revelations his followers and he were "hated by God".

This is because, as I stated earlier, salvation is a relationship. Any person can walk away from a relationship before the marriage is completed. Joseph was going to put Mary away silently after betrothal, but never actually did. The fact that he intended to do it meant that it was possible. Before the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, it is possible for a person to leave Christ. For humans, that means at any time on earth. This is what happened to those branches which were cut off. They were part of the tree, at one point truly connected to the Source of Life, but they were removed by the Caretaker. This is speaking of us. We must remain ourselves in the Vine, must maintain that relationship, or else we will lose it, not because we were snatched:

But because we leave. It's not a single bad decision. We don't get up one day and say we're going to turn away from the plow. We don't say we aren't going to love God and neighbor, disobeying God. We do so one small choice at a time. and eventually it has become second nature over time. The alcoholic didn't get up one day and set up the goal to destroy his job, family, and life by giving himself to the drink. A person doesn't say he's going to abuse his Tramadol every day until he has a crippling addiction to opiates.

And just like that, a person doesn't go from being a raised Baptist to being a leader of Fascism in one night. He doesn't go from being a cute kid praising God by singing Jesus Loves Me on the stage to bombing a clinic in one night. That kid most certainly thought he was doing the right thing. Five year olds aren't capable of the kind of subterfuge that would allow that child-like faith to be faked.

Who are we to say that the five year old Timothy McVeigh didn't really love Jesus when he was going daily to church his whole childhood? Or that young Adolf Hitler wasn't sincere in his church life as a child?

Conversion doesn't put you on rails. It is completely possible to leave Christ after one makes a committment. It isn't a comforting truth. It is highly inconvenient. But I would rather have an inconvenient Truth than a convenient lie.

"The thing is that God is always going to respect our free will."

Oh, really? What verse is that? That's quite the assumption you are relying on there.

 

[sculleywr]

"The thing is that God is always going to respect our free will."

Oh, really? What verse is that? That's quite the assumption you are relying on there.

It's evidenced by His actions towards Nicholas, towards Judas, towards even Peter. And it's something evident not just in that, but in the prayer life of the early Church and even in the prayer book par excellence of the early Church, the book of Psalms. Psalm 51/52 (depending on your Bible's numbers) is a penitential psalm of a man described as "A man after God's own heart".

The fact is that if, at any time, God does not respect our free will, then He becomes truly unjust and unloving:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated
it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury

If love does not seek its own interests, and God is love, then God does not seek His own interests. This is non-negotiable. Either God is love, and I Corinthians is correct about the description of love, and therefore God respects our free will, or all three are false statements. God always puts our interests ahead of His because He is humble. He does not want automatons that have no choice but to love Him because they can't do anything else. If that was what He wanted, then He could have made us perfect from the beginning. He wants us to be His family, His friends. He wants us to, as Athanasius put it, "become by grace, what Christ is by nature". And the only way that is possible is by free will.

Who the Son frees is free indeed.

 

[SeventyOne]

It's evidenced by His actions towards Nicholas, towards Judas, towards even Peter. And it's something evident not just in that, but in the prayer life of the early Church and even in the prayer book par excellence of the early Church, the book of Psalms. Psalm 51/52 (depending on your Bible's numbers) is a penitential psalm of a man described as "A man after God's own heart".

The fact is that if, at any time, God does not respect our free will, then He becomes truly unjust and unloving:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated
it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury

If love does not seek its own interests, and God is love, then God does not seek His own interests. This is non-negotiable. Either God is love, and I Corinthians is correct about the description of love, and therefore God respects our free will, or all three are false statements. God always puts our interests ahead of His because He is humble. He does not want automatons that have no choice but to love Him because they can't do anything else. If that was what He wanted, then He could have made us perfect from the beginning. He wants us to be His family, His friends. He wants us to, as Athanasius put it, "become by grace, what Christ is by nature". And the only way that is possible is by free will.

Who the Son frees is free indeed.

So you have no passage that ways that, you infer it from the text.

Let's look at this sentence in a little different light, "The fact is that if, at any time, God does not respect our free will, then He becomes truly unjust and unloving"

Now I will change the subjects a bit, from God and us, to a parent and children. This will take it out of the abstract and into something more practical. "The fact is that if, at any time, a parent does not respect their child's free will, then He becomes truly unjust and unloving"

I can think of plenty of times where my will has had to supersede over the will of any of my children. I am the parent after all. I can look out for them better than they can fro themselves. I make sure they study, eat properly, have good hygiene, have respect and good manners, and praise and punish them as I see fit, not according to their will, but mine. Always letting them do whatever they will to do would make them unruly and spoiled.

And I disagree with you completely that salvation is merely a relationship as a married or engaged couple might have. Scripture also speaks about it in language of new creations, or adoption as sons. These are not fragile relationship types.

 

[sculleywr]

So you have no passage that ways that, you infer it from the text.

Let's look at this sentence in a little different light, "The fact is that if, at any time, God does not respect our free will, then He becomes truly unjust and unloving"

Now I will change the subjects a bit, from God and us, to a parent and children. This will take it out of the abstract and into something more practical. "The fact is that if, at any time, a parent does not respect their child's free will, then He becomes truly unjust and unloving"

I can think of plenty of times where my will has had to supersede over the will of any of my children. I am the parent after all. I can look out for them better than they can fro themselves. I make sure they study, eat properly, have good hygiene, have respect and good manners, and praise and punish them as I see fit, not according to their will, but mine. Always letting them do whatever they will to do would make them unruly and spoiled.

And I disagree with you completely that salvation is merely a relationship as a married or engaged couple might have. Scripture also speaks about it in language of new creations, or adoption as sons. These are not fragile relationship types.

That doesn't mean our children don't have free will. You set rules. How many times do they break them? If more than once, then they have free will. Punishment does not negate freedom of will. If your child breaks the rule of "no sex before marriage", and ends up with a child on the way, will you allow him to shirk the responsibility he has to his coming kid? I would hope not. My parents certainly didn't do that with my brother. But there comes a point as parents that we must allow the child to leave the nest. They become independent. The purpose of a parental relationship is to build the child up to independence, and to allow his choices to eventually be his to deal with in the consequences. That is the very definition of free will. It doesn't change your relationship to them as father. But you no longer have that position as authority figure.

See, this is where your metaphor hits a snag, because the relationship with Christ is either an intended permanent relationship wherein we have the choice to leave, as in a betrothal, or it is an intended temporary relationship where we will have to leave eventually. In both cases, the relationship is capable of allowing negative results to us as His children. See, we are all, every human, His children. He made us. He formed us in the womb. But He still allows us to choose.

And again, we are left with the problem of God changing if there is choice, as would seem to be the teaching of Calvary Chapel if the website's own statement of doctrine is to be believed. If God allows us to freely choose to follow Him at the beginning, then either He changes after we choose Him, or He doesn't allow us to freely choose Him.

But with God there is no changing. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So if He respects our free will before conversion, then He respects it after.

 

[SeventyOne]

That doesn't mean our children don't have free will. You set rules. How many times do they break them? If more than once, then they have free will. Punishment does not negate freedom of will. If your child breaks the rule of "no sex before marriage", and ends up with a child on the way, will you allow him to shirk the responsibility he has to his coming kid? I would hope not. My parents certainly didn't do that with my brother. But there comes a point as parents that we must allow the child to leave the nest. They become independent. The purpose of a parental relationship is to build the child up to independence, and to allow his choices to eventually be his to deal with in the consequences. That is the very definition of free will. It doesn't change your relationship to them as father. But you no longer have that position as authority figure.

See, this is where your metaphor hits a snag, because the relationship with Christ is either an intended permanent relationship wherein we have the choice to leave, as in a betrothal, or it is an intended temporary relationship where we will have to leave eventually. In both cases, the relationship is capable of allowing negative results to us as His children. See, we are all, every human, His children. He made us. He formed us in the womb. But He still allows us to choose.

And again, we are left with the problem of God changing if there is choice, as would seem to be the teaching of Calvary Chapel if the website's own statement of doctrine is to be believed. If God allows us to freely choose to follow Him at the beginning, then either He changes after we choose Him, or He doesn't allow us to freely choose Him.

But with God there is no changing. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So if He respects our free will before conversion, then He respects it after.

Yes, they do have free will to a point, and they do things they are not supposed to do, just as in our relationship with God, we sin too. However, they don't have the right or ability to do all they would want to do, and neither do we with our relationship with God.

All free will has constraints, all of it, even God's own free will. He is constrained by His nature. For example, can God lie? No, the scripture tells us clearly that He cannot lie, Hebrews 6:18. Not that could if He chose to do so, but simply that it is impossible for Him to do so. Period.

My analogy doesn't hit a snag at all, only your conclusion. Yes, the end goal of our parenting is to eventually launch our children into the world on their own. But the end goal with us as God's family is to go to live with Him in His house forever. He's not launching us anywhere, but rather He receives us and takes us in.

I'm still waiting for that verse that states, "If you want to walk away from Me, I will allow you to do so, because your will is greater than mine." Rather, I see verses that say things like 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

Walking away is a sign of never belonging to God to begin with. Those who belong to God remain with Him. So, this entire concept of a true believer walking away at all, is really just a fairy tale, a story for children, but it doesn't really happen. This is like debating the merits of Humpty-Dumpty.

 

[spiritman]

The subject here is false teachers among the believers (v1), not the believers themselves. You are falling into the same trap as those who claim Hebrews 10:26 indicate a loss of salvation as well.

All these verses cite are people falling away after gaining "knowledge of" Jesus. You can't be saved by intellectually understanding something or someone. You even contradicted the verses you quoted, stating, "We are required to live the new life that we received", which is no where in these verses, or any of the surrounding verses of 2 Peter 2.

I didn't no Calvary Chapel was a religion. I thought it was a church. I visited Calvary Chapel a few times in San Diego, CA. Is Chuck Smith still there?

You stated, "All these verses cite are people falling away after gaining "knowledge of" Jesus."

Can you fall away from something you were not in? Did you contradict yourself?

II Pet 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions ( corruptions, defilements ) 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.

Can one escape the pollutions/corruptions/defilements of the world without knowing Christ?
Notice the words "again entangled and overcome". We know that we were once entangled and overcome prior to Jesus setting us free.

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.

Can unbelievers know the "way of righteousness"? Can unbelievers turn from the holy commandment?

Obviously, based on the text a believer can turn from the Word of God. v21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness,.....

You stated, "We are required to live the new life that we received", which is no where in these verses, or any of the surrounding verses of 2 Peter 2.

True, it was meant as a statement of fact. Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 

[-57]

II Pet 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions ( corruptions, defilements ) 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.

I've read several commentaries that say this verse is refering to people who have made some sort of profession of faith without actually possessing new life in Christ. Then they rejected the knowledge.

 

[sculleywr]

Yes, they do have free will to a point, and they do things they are not supposed to do, just as in our relationship with God, we sin too. However, they don't have the right or ability to do all they would want to do, and neither do we with our relationship with God.

All free will has constraints, all of it, even God's own free will. He is constrained by His nature. For example, can God lie? No, the scripture tells us clearly that He cannot lie, Hebrews 6:18. Not that could if He chose to do so, but simply that it is impossible for Him to do so. Period.

My analogy doesn't hit a snag at all, only your conclusion. Yes, the end goal of our parenting is to eventually launch our children into the world on their own. But the end goal with us as God's family is to go to live with Him in His house forever. He's not launching us anywhere, but rather He receives us and takes us in.

I'm still waiting for that verse that states, "If you want to walk away from Me, I will allow you to do so, because your will is greater than mine." Rather, I see verses that say things like 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

Walking away is a sign of never belonging to God to begin with. Those who belong to God remain with Him. So, this entire concept of a true believer walking away at all, is really just a fairy tale, a story for children, but it doesn't really happen. This is like debating the merits of Humpty-Dumpty.

If you want that verse, you'll find it next to the verse that states "I am a triune God in three persons, the Father Who is unoriginate, the Son Who is incarnate as two Hypostases, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father".

The fact is that there are branches of the vine that will be cut off. They could not be cut off from the vine unless they were part of the vine.

And as I said, you just described the purpose of betrothal, not parenting. But betrothal is something we can leave.

 

[spiritman]

I've read several commentaries that say this verse is refering to people who have made some sort of profession of faith without actually possessing new life in Christ. Then they rejected the knowledge.

But what does it actually say to you?

 

[SeventyOne]

I didn't no Calvary Chapel was a religion. I thought it was a church. I visited Calvary Chapel a few times in San Diego, CA. Is Chuck Smith still there?

You stated, "All these verses cite are people falling away after gaining "knowledge of" Jesus."

Can you fall away from something you were not in? Did you contradict yourself?

II Pet 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions ( corruptions, defilements ) 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.

Can one escape the pollutions/corruptions/defilements of the world without knowing Christ?
Notice the words "again entangled and overcome". We know that we were once entangled and overcome prior to Jesus setting us free.

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.

Can unbelievers know the "way of righteousness"? Can unbelievers turn from the holy commandment?

Obviously, based on the text a believer can turn from the Word of God. v21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness,.....

You stated, "We are required to live the new life that we received", which is no where in these verses, or any of the surrounding verses of 2 Peter 2.

True, it was meant as a statement of fact. Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Simon the Sorcerer would be an example. He believed and he was baptized, but he was still not born again and fell away.

 

[SeventyOne]

If you want that verse, you'll find it next to the verse that states "I am a triune God in three persons, the Father Who is unoriginate, the Son Who is incarnate as two Hypostases, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father".

The fact is that there are branches of the vine that will be cut off. They could not be cut off from the vine unless they were part of the vine.

And as I said, you just described the purpose of betrothal, not parenting. But betrothal is something we can leave.

And betrothal is the relationship of the corporate Church to the Son. Individually, we are adopted sons and new creations.

 

[Albion]

Simon the Sorcerer would be an example. He believed and he was baptized, but he was still not born again and fell away.

So....this example would prove nothing about OSAS, right? Simon was not born again so he couldn't have fallen away.

 

[sculleywr]

And betrothal is the relationship of the corporate Church to the Son. Individually, we are adopted sons and new creations.

It's still something we can leave in both cases.

 

[trinichristiannudist]

erofthemosthigh7, post: 70229093, member: 389668"]agree to everything but the "holding on" part...
it's called GRACE [/QUOTE]
Yes it is called GRACE! Ephesians2:8 says," For by GRACE are ye SAVED thru FAITH; & that NOT OF YOURSELVES". I agree. Yet what does verse 10 say," For we are his WORKMANSHIP, created IN CHRIST JESUS UNTO GOOD WORKS, which God had before ORDAINED that we should walk in them." And in that same book the Apostle PAUL states,"I therefore ,.......besheech you brethren that YE WALK WORTHY of the vocation to which ye are called",( Ephesians4:1). And in Phillipians 3:12 he makes it very clear," WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION with FEAR (reverence) and TREMBLING (like our lives depended on it). Yes we have his GRACE it is free and available to all who believe. But it is also available to all who HOLD ONTO SALVATION!!!

 

[trinichristiannudist]

As for the "GOOD WORKS", that is the whole point of holding onto our salvation. It only confirms what JESUS said in JOHN 15 about bearing fruit. Once we surrender daily to the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans12), and conform to HIS will, Holy Spirit comes in and does the rest(John 14). So in the end we have our salvation once we "CHOOSE" to hold onto it.