At What Point Do You Think You Are Truly Saved?

[Bob Carabbio]

Martin Luther was a servant of God no doubt but he was not a prophet otherwise his theology would be in line with all scripture not just some of it.

"Theology" and "Prophesy" are two things completely. What God SHOWED LUTHER (which is what prophesy is) was Gal 3:11 - the JUST will live by FAITH in direct opposition to the Roman catholic "Salvation by works" teachings.

Since that's the MOST BASIC TRUTH in Christendom, it makes absolute sense the God would have started there. Luther had theological problems for sure he WAS A TRAINED PRIEST after all. but his PRIMARY MESSAGE was right from the Bible, and the PRIMARY THING that the Romanists had forgotten in the midst of their ceremonial/Traditional foolishness.

"Theology" is nothing more than man's indifferent efforts to interpret the written Word. it only breeds division.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then how can John 15:6 be true? If your theology lines up with all scripture you should be able to answer this question.

I suppose you are taking John 15:6 to be saying a person can lose their salvation? Are you also taking it to say the Elect can lose their salvation?

"In me" can be like several other places in Scripture, where one attends to the mechanics of Christianity, but is not of the Elect. Judas belonged to Christ, in the sense that he was one that the Father gave Christ, but was not kept. Hebrews 6 possibly is talking about this sort of person. There are many, I think, who delight in theology, in the grandeur, perhaps, of high thoughts about omnipotence and of working out the intricacies of a theological system, of whom Christ will say, "I never knew you". I think most theologians consider it a parallel that God considered Israel his chosen people, yet most were wiped out, with Christianity, or the Church universal --those could be called "in Him", but most, I guess, will seek the easy road. Such were never truly saved.

Some may even say that since he is talking to the Jews at this point, he is referring to Jews only, thus, God's "chosen people", thus "in Him." (I personally don't hold to that, But notice how often that very same figure is used in the OT).

The Israelites, in a sense, had salvation, since they were God's people, but not all were actually saved. This also makes the statement that "a person can lose their salvation" mean that a person who only in that sense "had salvation" but was not actually saved, possible.

I will refrain from asking you to line your theology up with all of Scripture.

Here is a pretty good talk on the passage. The Vine and the Branches

 

[bekkilyn]

Here's the trade-off. If Christ died for all, and most are lost, he must not have paid for sin at all. It must come back to only those who are saved. Either he paid only for their sins only, or they saved themselves through self-righteous works the others did not perform.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Christ leads all to water, the living water, and so all who will drink are saved, but there are those who choose not to drink.

 

[BNR32FAN]

They are talking about an eventual reunification. What you find hard to believe does not change the facts of this world.

Yeah that’s been going on for almost a thousand years. Guess we’ll just have to wait & see how much longer it’ll be before that happens. One thing I can guarantee is it won’t happen until Rome’s doctrines are Orthodox.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"Theology" and "Prophesy" are two things completely. What God SHOWED LUTHER (which is what prophesy is) was Gal 3:11 - the JUST will live by FAITH in direct opposition to the Roman catholic "Salvation by works" teachings.

Since that's the MOST BASIC TRUTH in Christendom, it makes absolute sense the God would have started there. Luther had theological problems for sure he WAS A TRAINED PRIEST after all. but his PRIMARY MESSAGE was right from the Bible, and the PRIMARY THING that the Romanists had forgotten in the midst of their ceremonial/Traditional foolishness.

"Theology" is nothing more than man's indifferent efforts to interpret the written Word. it only breeds division.

Rome was overwhelmed by many things. Greed, arrogance, power, politics. Rome was a bad place to be and the corruption in politicians leaked its way into the church. If you follow the events that took place at the schism and afterwards you can definitely see a huge decline in morality within the church magisterium. First you had the claim of authority over all the church, then the inquisitions, then the abuse of indulgences, then the doctrine of purgatory and the claim of no salvation outside of the Roman Church. All of these were for no other reason than to increase the wealth and power of the church. I don’t see the corruption today being as prevalent as it was in the previous centuries but I think their main problem now is their refusal to admit their mistakes. I think they fear it would tarnish their reputation when in all reality it would actually rehabilitate people’s confidence in the church.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Rome was overwhelmed by many things. Greed, arrogance, power, politics. Rome was a bad place to be and the corruption in politicians leaked its way into the church. If you follow the events that took place at the schism and afterwards you can definitely see a huge decline in morality within the church magisterium. First you had the claim of authority over all the church, then the inquisitions, then the abuse of indulgences, then the doctrine of purgatory and the claim of no salvation outside of the Roman Church. All of these were for no other reason than to increase the wealth and power of the church. I don’t see the corruption today being as prevalent as it was in the previous centuries but I think their main problem now is their refusal to admit their mistakes. I think they fear it would tarnish their reputation when in all reality it would actually rehabilitate people’s confidence in the church.

Which has nothing at all to do with anything I said, which is the restoration by Luther of Eph 2:8,9.

 

[RickReads]

Yeah that’s been going on for almost a thousand years. Guess we’ll just have to wait & see how much longer it’ll be before that happens. One thing I can guarantee is it won’t happen until Rome’s doctrines are Orthodox.

And how you think you guarantee it?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I suppose you are taking John 15:6 to be saying a person can lose their salvation? Are you also taking it to say the Elect can lose their salvation?

"In me" can be like several other places in Scripture, where one attends to the mechanics of Christianity, but is not of the Elect. Judas belonged to Christ, in the sense that he was one that the Father gave Christ, but was not kept. Hebrews 6 possibly is talking about this sort of person. There are many, I think, who delight in theology, in the grandeur, perhaps, of high thoughts about omnipotence and of working out the intricacies of a theological system, of whom Christ will say, "I never knew you". I think most theologians consider it a parallel that God considered Israel his chosen people, yet most were wiped out, with Christianity, or the Church universal --those could be called "in Him", but most, I guess, will seek the easy road. Such were never truly saved.

Some may even say that since he is talking to the Jews at this point, he is referring to Jews only, thus, God's "chosen people", thus "in Him." (I personally don't hold to that, But notice how often that very same figure is used in the OT).

The Israelites, in a sense, had salvation, since they were God's people, but not all were actually saved. This also makes the statement that "a person can lose their salvation" mean that a person who only in that sense "had salvation" but was not actually saved, possible.

I will refrain from asking you to line your theology up with all of Scripture.

Here is a pretty good talk on the passage. The Vine and the Branches

The problem I see with this interpretation is the surrounding context and the implications of it. John 15:6 is not the only verse in that message that indicates the possibility of loss of salvation. First you have verse 2. He (The Father) cuts off every branch IN ME that beareth not fruit. Then verse 4 where He tells His 11 faithful apostles to abide in Him. Just Him telling them to abide in Him suggests the possibility of them being capable of not abiding in Him otherwise it would be pointless to say it. Then again in verse 4 He says “unless you abide in Me” reinforcing the idea that they are capable of failing to abide in Him. Then in verse 5 He tells them why they must abide in Him “for apart from Me you can do nothing”. This is another indication that they are capable of failing to abide in Him. Now this whole message has been directed at His apostles and because people hold to eternal security so tightly they refuse to admit that verse 6 is also directed towards them even though all the implications in the surrounding verses indicate that these men are capable of failing to abide in Him. Even verse 7 is a huge indication when He says “IF you abide in Me”. I mean verse after verse it’s one implication after another that these 11 faithful men were capable of failing to abide in Him and people just blind themselves and try so hard to interpret this passage of scripture to coincide with their doctrine of eternal security. This is the primary problem with many reformed Christians is they let their doctrines define the scriptures instead of letting the scriptures define their doctrines. I struggled with it as well when I went thru it. It was this passage of scripture that made me reevaluate my theology. I had originally set out to prove that John 15:1-10 did not contradict eternal security and I couldn’t in good conscience honestly come to the conclusion that it doesn’t refute eternal security without ignoring the evidence and implications in these verses. I prayed, studied the Greek definitions, searched commentaries and nothing changed the message in such a way to coincide with eternal security. In fact the Greek definitions only strengthened the message in opposition to eternal security. I had been arguing and debating against Catholic theology fiercely supporting reformed theology up until this point where I hit a brick wall that simply would not budge. I studied these 10 verses for 3 days and finally came to the conclusion that if I can’t reconcile these verses to coincide with reformed theology then I have to go back and reevaluate every verse in the Bible that I thought supported reformed theology to see if it can be translated to not support reformed theology and much to my surprise they actually can. I found that some verses like John 6:37 for example actually translate against eternal security. I spent 3 weeks reevaluating my theology. I don’t mean 3 weeks in my spare time I mean 3 solid weeks of studying church history, early church writings, Greek definitions, and just trying to put this all together. I had plenty of spare time because I had taken a leave of absence from my work to take care of my father in his last days before he went to be with the Lord. When it was finally completed and I had re-evaluated every verse I could think of that supported reformed theology I finally had to admit it to myself that I was wrong. Then I went to the people I had been debating against and admitted to them that I was wrong and recanted my posts. One thing I had to be sure of was that my pride was not more important than speaking the truth about God’s word. Now I’m not accusing anyone of this I’m just giving my testimony of what happened when I discovered the apostolic teachings. Afterwards I began looking for the apostolic Church of God and from my studies I believe it is the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are the only church I’ve found that hold to the teachings of the scriptures, early church writings, and their actions reflect Christ’s teachings.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Which has nothing at all to do with anything I said, which is the restoration by Luther of Eph 2:8,9.

It was in response to your reference to the Roman Church’s salvation by works theology. I don’t know what you expected me to say. Galatians 3:11 is not the only message in the scriptures.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And how you think you guarantee it?

Do you know what the word Orthodox means?

 

[prodromos]

Are you saved when you're
Called
Called and Chosen
Called, Chosen and Faithful

Some believe once saved always saved, with some scripture to suggest this. Some believe they can lose salvation, with some scripture to suggests this. I do not wish to argue, debate over this, just your thoughts on the above question, whichever side you're on.



Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him

We no longer look to be served. We look to serve and give our lives for others. No longer fight for privilege, influence and status. We esteem others better than ourselves and put their interests above our own.

Peace be with all those in the body of Christ

When I hear the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant"

 

[John Mullally]

The moment we are born again and receive Eternal Life which never ends.

What is the process you see for one to be born again? Its a fair question because you included yourself within a particular moment as being born again.

In Acts 2:37 on the day of Pentecost with the crowd shouting "Men and brethren, what shall we do". Peter responded in verse 38 with "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Many responded, as required. As we see in verse 41 that 3000 were added to the church. Interesting that Peter implored the crowd to "Save yourselves" in verse 40. Do you think that the ones responding in Acts 2 were saved before they acted?

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

​

 

[ViaCrucis]

Chances are that it's the ROMANISTS that have no idea what the reformation was all about. Rome had FORGOTTEN the simplicity of Eph 2:8-9, and covered it over with layers of their own worthless Traditions, Works requirements, and Rituals. Luther returned to the simplicity of the Gospel, and the Visible church of Jesus Christ has been digging out from under Rome's corruption ever since.

Out of pure curiosity, what do you think Luther believed and taught?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Christ leads all to water, the living water, and so all who will drink are saved, but there are those who choose not to drink.

God creates a new person in the new birth. You then love holiness and hate sin. And want nothing more than to repent. Any that don't experience this, is not born again

 

[Dave L]

I find no difference between any of the religious franchises of the land I was born into. They all seem to have their own version of the Levitical Priesthood with their shrines of worship and images of God in the likeness of man. They are all religious business, just and the Mainstream God of Abraham preachers of Jesus’ time turned God’s Word into business.
Jesus gave no such directives to His Apostles.

The temple is in our mind. Jesus tells us how to pray and warns about religious men who come in His name.

We are told to “be separate” as the early church separated themselves from the mainstream religions of their time.

it wasn’t easy for them, and there is a cost for doing so today. Jesus said so.

So “No”, I don’t believe free will is heresy. And I think men should “Beware they are not spoiled by the religious philosophy of men”.

Law demands free will. But the gospel is not law.

 

[Dave L]

Here's my take on this.

Who belongs to the Church? Did you belong to the Church before you were saved? I would say no. Can you point to someone in the Bible who belonged to the Church before being saved? Of course not!

So Christ has purchased the Church of believers. If you like you can compare it to a boat. The boat is the Church purchased with his blood. When a person is saved, he gets on the boat that takes him home. We are not possessions of Christ before we are saved.

I know many would disagree with this, but we are not atoned by Christ until we receive him as savior. Yes he has borne our sins, but atonement is after salvation, not before.

God bless!

The church is the body of Christ. It is invisible until two or more meet in Jesus' name. Then it returns to invisibility. Anyone saved belongs to this church body of Christ.

 

[Saint Steven]

There’s also conditions to maintaining salvation.


“yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach- if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:22-23‬ ‭NASB

Yet He has NOW reconciled you
To present you Holy & blameless (on judgement day)
IF you stand firm in the faith.

Is that an encouragement or a requirement?

If it is a requirement, how are such things measured?
Were you faithful enough? (who knows?)
Could you have been more faithful? (of course)
Were you faithful enough to be saved in the end? (who knows?)

Better to measure salvation by that which can be measured.
The FINISHED work of Christ on our behalf.

We can't undo, by an act of our own will, what only God can do it the first place.

 

[Dave L]

Pelagianism is was condemned at the councils of Carthage and Orange. The council of Ephesus was against Nestorianism which was about Christ’s divine nature. It has nothing to do with man’s sinful nature or Pelagianisn.

They condemned Pelagianism first, then Orange and Carthage, and all subsequent Reformed Creeds.

 

[Dave L]

It is not said in the scriptures that he did repent or that he was saved. That’s quite an assumption your making. If he did repent then surely he was not cast into fire to be burned. Jesus said that anyone who does not abide in Him will be cast away to wither and cast into the fire to be burned. So if this man did repent and he was not cast into the fire to be burned then he would’ve had to abide in Christ after his repentance, right? So what about those whom Jesus said will be cast away to wither and cast into the fire to be burned? He did say that this will happen. So what about these people? Did they not lose their salvation?

Keep reading, Paul says he repented and all was well.

 

[Psalm 27]

Matthew 22:14