Can a genuine, blood-bought, regenerated believer forfeit their salvation?

[Mark Quayle]

You do realize this is one interpretive position based upon a certain view of election, correct?

As I've clearly revealed, it would be helpful for you to present Scripture, at least in discussion with me. If you'd rather not, I understand. But apart from making the case with Scripture, all we have here is a viewpoint. Granted, we may well disagree on interpretation of Scripture, but we'll at least be presenting our case using the Standard.

Fair enough.

But to my mind, and since to me Scripture shows it, plain reasoning demands it. If God is first cause (and I will accept no other) then all subsequent things —all truth and all reality— are caused by God.

I've been showing Scripture for decades, and some get what I'm saying and some don't. I have also noticed that in most of my conversations with those who oppose what I believe, that I could probably prove their points as well as they do, but don't because to me they don't match scripture.

Just one kind of thing they do, I will try to describe: They list multitudes of verses and passages that demonstrate will and choice, and think they from scripture have demonstrated uncaused freewill. Often in the same context they will show verses showing that if one thing had happened the other wouldn't have happened, and think it defeats predestination.

I can't say I don't do the same thing, but I try not to. For example, I think their reasoning assumes the authority of mere Chance, but I don't go to verses that show that chance has no authority, in order to prove them wrong. But often, I try to use plain reasoning instead of scripture, as inevitably the Scripture is either denied as meaning what I use it to mean, or my point is ignored, or the old debate tactics of red herring with strawman, moving the goalposts, and of course the old favorite, ad hom, etc etc etc are employed.

 

[GDL]

@GDL says, "In being theologically instructed did you ever hear teachings about "God consciousness"?"
"You mention the heart of man and you have brought up election with Jacob.
Does God not know the hearts of men?"

Were you going somewhere with these questions? Seems like you wanted to say something.

What is this term, "God consciousness", anyway? Sounds a bit catchy-trendy to me.

Why did you ask, "Does God not know the hearts of men?" Are you rhetorically implying something about Election and Jacob?

The questions are in the context of whether or not God is looking into (accommodation language) or knows the hearts of men and is utilizing this knowledge to grant or not grant men to His Son. If you simply look at John 6 and set aside presuppositions about election for a moment, I'm asking how God decides who to grant to Jesus. Jesus tells us God is drawing unbelievers to His Son by teaching them. It doesn't say God has elected some. At the end of the chapter, it says Jesus chose the 12 to be His disciples but the evangelization seems clearly open to those in context who are following Jesus from place to place even if just for free food.

The catchy-trendy you speak of was a fairly common teaching title when I was hearing it 3+ decades ago. In concept it's pretty simple. God has given men General Revelation for them to be conscious of certain things about God that He wants them to know and respond to and will use to judge them (no man has an excuse for rejecting it/Him). Special Revelation (spiritual information) is the next step in disclosure.

I'm sure you can find the Revelation terminology on the internet now. God Consciousness is likely a very intermixed title and concept now.

 

[GDL]

Fair enough.

But to my mind, and since to me Scripture shows it, plain reasoning demands it. If God is first cause (and I will accept no other) then all subsequent things —all truth and all reality— are caused by God.

I've been showing Scripture for decades, and some get what I'm saying and some don't. I have also noticed that in most of my conversations with those who oppose what I believe, that I could probably prove their points as well as they do, but don't because to me they don't match scripture.

Just one kind of thing they do, I will try to describe: They list multitudes of verses and passages that demonstrate will and choice, and think they from scripture have demonstrated uncaused freewill. Often in the same context they will show verses showing that if one thing had happened the other wouldn't have happened, and think it defeats predestination.

I can't say I don't do the same thing, but I try not to. For example, I think their reasoning assumes the authority of mere Chance, but I don't go to verses that show that chance has no authority, in order to prove them wrong. But often, I try to use plain reasoning instead of scripture, as inevitably the Scripture is either denied as meaning what I use it to mean, or my point is ignored, or the old debate tactics of red herring with strawman, moving the goalposts, and of course the old favorite, ad hom, etc etc etc are employed.

I get it. As I said, using Scripture is not the end all, but it's my choice of practice and I would agree that too much at once is problematic.

I agree that God is first cause. In the things I've been asking re criteria in John 4 and 6, He's clearly first cause in even this limited discussion. He sent His Son who is there proclaiming. He's drawing men to His Son by teaching them. His Son will give food (information) that remains for eternal life. Jesus says men's belief is God's work. The point I brought up in context for discussion is that God' grants people to His Son. If this isn't enough, the people following Jesus from place to place want more free food. Men are frequently enough presented as dolts. There's no issue here as to who and what is foundational.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I get it. As I said, using Scripture is not the end all, but it's my choice of practice and I would agree that too much at once is problematic.

I agree that God is first cause. In the things I've been asking re criteria in John 4 and 6, He's clearly first cause in even this limited discussion. He sent His Son who is there proclaiming. He's drawing men to His Son by teaching them. His Son will give food (information) that remains for eternal life. Jesus says men's belief is God's work. The point I brought up in context for discussion is that God' grants people to His Son. If this isn't enough, the people following Jesus from place to place want more free food. Men are frequently enough presented as dolts. There's no issue here as to who and what is foundational.

Well, great then. Do you have a problem if I move from the logical notion of God being first cause, to expand the thinking to the notion that there is no other first cause, and in fact, that all fact descends by causation from him?

 

[GDL]

Well, great then. Do you have a problem if I move from the logical notion of God being first cause, to expand the thinking to the notion that there is no other first cause, and in fact, that all fact descends by causation from him?

I don't have a problem with you saying whatever you want to say or setting up any premise and logic you want to set up. In the end I agree with Him no matter what anybody says He says, and I know there is no existence or facts apart from Him. Where you might take this, I would always scrutinize if I should have the desire to be involved.

 

[GDL]

@Mark Quayle

Good choice of buttons. Now I can go to sleep.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't have a problem with you saying whatever you want to say or setting up any premise and logic you want to set up. In the end I agree with Him no matter what anybody says He says, and I know there is no existence or facts apart from Him. Where you might take this, I would always scrutinize if I should have the desire to be involved.

I remember one police academy instructor, in a class for the Dept of Corrections, actually: "Now THAT is when I bring out my SCRUTEN EYES!", and he would duck his head a bit, looking up through his eyebrows suspiciously, squinting...

 

[GDL]

I remember one police academy instructor, in a class for the Dept of Corrections, actually: "Now THAT is when I bring out my SCRUTEN EYES!", and he would duck his head a bit, looking up through his eyebrows suspiciously, squinting...

Works for me. Do you still work for the PD?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Works for me. Do you still work for the PD?

Dept of Corrections. No I don't, I hate that politics works it way down to even the lowest peon. And I hate the prevalent mode of operation in Government; efficiency and truth are irrelevant. The only thing important is how it is presented in the media. I bowed out of that servanthood.

 

[Rapture Bound]

N/A

 

[Fervent]

I think the question is improperly framed, and comes from viewing salvation as a one time event. Prayed and got saved, now what? In reality, both Scripture and the historic church seem to have taught salvation as an on going event that has a past, present, and future. So while there is a sense in which I have already been brought into salvation, my personal salvation is not an accomplished fact until the song is finished. So whil my experience of being in salvation is genuine, it does no mean I have come to possess that salvation and until my union with Christ is fully realized the partial experience is insufficient and I must continue to abide in Christ to receive the benefits of salvation. This is, in part, related to the particular understanding of Romans and justification among Protestants, especially the conflation of justification and salvation which in my view is an impoverished view of salvation. So while Jesus will not lose a single one that belongs to Him, I as a Christian can have no such assurance of belonging to Him though that does not mean that my experience of genuinely being a Christian is in doubt.

 

[Rapture Bound]

I think the question is improperly framed, and comes from viewing salvation as a one time event. Prayed and got saved, now what? In reality, both Scripture and the historic church seem to have taught salvation as an on going event that has a past, present, and future. So while there is a sense in which I have already been brought into salvation, my personal salvation is not an accomplished fact until the song is finished. So whil my experience of being in salvation is genuine, it does no mean I have come to possess that salvation and until my union with Christ is fully realized the partial experience is insufficient and I must continue to abide in Christ to receive the benefits of salvation. This is, in part, related to the particular understanding of Romans and justification among Protestants, especially the conflation of justification and salvation which in my view is an impoverished view of salvation. So while Jesus will not lose a single one that belongs to Him, I as a Christian can have no such assurance of belonging to Him though that does not mean that my experience of genuinely being a Christian is in doubt.

You said, "I think the question is improperly framed, and comes from viewing salvation as a one time event. Prayed and got saved, now what? In reality, both Scripture and the historic church seem to have taught salvation as an on going event that has a past, present, and future."

From my Molinist perspective, I simply don't see the question as being improperly framed; rather, it was very carefully and precisely framed.

I also believe that salvation is an ongoing process. There are 3 components to salvation ... justification [past], sanctification [present], and glorification [future]. However, only the component of sanctification can be said to be an on-going process [present]. This was one of the great points of contention between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church - which viewed justification as a process. On this point, I strongly side with the Reformed view and believe that once a person has been justified [through solely trusting in Christ's atoning blood on their behalf] and were placed into union with Jesus, God's justified verdict will never be rescinded.


You said, "So while Jesus will not lose a single one that belongs to Him, I as a Christian can have no such assurance of belonging to Him though that does not mean that my experience of genuinely being a Christian is in doubt."

Does every genuine Christian belong to Jesus? ... I would say so. And since Jesus said He will not lose a single one that belongs to Him, how is it that you have no assurance that you belong to Him? ... that simply doesn't make sense to me.

Romans 8:16, "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God."

1 John 3:14, "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death."

1 John 3:24, "And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us."

 

[rturner76]

"Can a genuine, blood-bought, regenerated believer forfeit their salvation?"

If they are a regenerate believer, they would not forfeit unless they become apostates.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If they are a regenerate believer, they would not forfeit unless they become apostates.

Are you suggesting that one whom God has chosen is able to become apostate? Or maybe, that one who is regenerate is not also one whom God has chosen (i.e. Elect) to be a member of the Bride and Body of Christ?

 

[Rapture Bound]

If they are a regenerate believer, they would not forfeit unless they become apostates.

Coming from my Molinist perspective I would reword your statement in the following manner ... "if they are a regenerate believer they [will not] forfeit their salvation, they [will not] become apostates". In other words, not one single blood bought child of God will ever ultimately be cast into the Lake of Fire and eternally perish.

Q: Can a genuine believer lose salvation?
A: Yes.

Q: Will a genuine believer lose salvation?
A: No.

It is one thing to state that something is possible and impossible at the same time, and quite another to say that although a circumstance is possible ... that it must necessarily [at least in one single instance] actuate or come to pass ... the former claim is simply nonsensical. My Molinist position asserts that just because a circumstance [with it's accompanying consequences] may occur ... it simply will not occur in the case of a genuine believer.

"Salvation is secure. The promises of salvation are there to encourage the faint hearted and discouraged. The warnings are there to awake the complacent, presumptuous, backsliding or sinning. God utilizes both blessings and warnings in order to fulfill His promise to preserve all of His children [John 6:37-39].

For example, let's take the warning label on lawnmowers. Manufacturers are lawfully required to mark an easily seen warning that says something along these lines, "DANGER!! ... KEEP HANDS AND FEET AWAY TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH"

(1) What is the purpose of the warning? ... to prevent serious injury or death.

(2) Is it logical or coherent to assert that any person will or must actually place their hands or feet under the lawnmower in order to make the warning real? ... I don't believe so.

(3) Whether or not a person complies with the warning does not do away with the actual consequences that accompany failure to do so.

(4) Whether or not, and which persons, which actually fail to heed the warning(s) and suffer the real consequences is an entirely distinct question.

The above truth statements contain some of the most essential premises contained in the Molinist "can/won't model of perseverance". It's the model which I believe best answers the question of "what do we do with the various warning passages we find throughout scripture?"

 

[rturner76]

Are you suggesting that one whom God has chosen is able to become apostate?

Yes.

 

[rturner76]

Q: Can a genuine believer lose salvation?
A: Yes.

Q: Will a genuine believer lose salvation?
A: No.

Can a genuine believer turn into an apostate, for example, a baptized Christian who becomes an atheist?

 

[Rapture Bound]

Can a genuine believer turn into an apostate, for example, a baptized Christian who becomes an atheist?

The way I see it is that no genuine believer will turn into an apostate [as defined by - a person who formely professed faith and allegiance to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior ... but subsequently renounces their profession of faith. Of course those of the "LOS"(Loss Of Salvation) camp would disagree with my prespective and definition of that term ... so the issue here essentially revolves around how a person [specifically] defines the word "apostate".

As far a baptism is concerned [that is, if you mean water baptism], I do not believe that every person who is water baptized is a genuine believer; nor does the mere act of being water baptized regenerate any person's soul/spirit. The topic of water baptism is not a tangent that I'm not interested in pursuing at this time [there are many threads here that address that topic, and the "rabbit hole" runs deep]. However, if you were to ask me if I believe that any genuine follower of Jesus Christ will ever become an atheist, my answer would be ... 'no they will not'.

 

[rturner76]

However, if you were to ask me if I believe that any genuine follower of Jesus Christ will ever become an atheist, my answer would be ... 'no they will not'.

Am I correct in saying you believe that once somebody believes, they cannot become an unbeliever? My church believes in free will so I do believe it is possible for one to renounce their faith.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can a genuine believer turn into an apostate, for example, a baptized Christian who becomes an atheist?

What makes such a 'believer' more believing than the demons, who also believe but tremble? Does emotional assent make intellectual assent more valid? Is such a belief 'genuine' if it fails? Or does the Spirit of God provide the gift of salvific faith?