1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Can Christians lose there salvation?

Discussion in 'Salvation (Soteriology)' started by jayebrownlee, Dec 3, 2002.

Can a Christian lose there salvation?

  1. yes, if they lose their faith

  2. no, never

  3. depends on the situation

  4. only if they commit the unforgiveable sin

  5. unsure

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. eldermike

    eldermike Pray Supporter


    James wrote a letter, telling folks how to know if a person is saved or just playing saved (playing church) and somehow it has become mans test for salvation.

    James didn't give us anything new about salvation, or grace, or faith. All He did was tell us that saved people have a true faith and unsaved, church playing people have a false faith.

    That;s it, not one thing more.
    Sure, unsaved people will die. That is not new or different.

    To make James more than this will give you unreasonable conflicts with much of the rest of the NT.

  2. bluewolf

    bluewolf Christian Counseling

    There are numerous scriptures about this. See 1john1:19 and Heb 6:4 for starters. There are others too that say the same thing.

    If a person has a true conversion experience and is a Christian, following Christ, if they leave, turn their back on Christ, there is no turning back for them.

    imo- If a person gets out of their 'walk', slips for a time, but still has Christ in their heart and still has the unction of the Holy Spirit, they can, of course return to active oneness with the body of Christ.

  3. martinluther2003

    martinluther2003 New Member

    Thank you Laura. Luther said himself that James was written by a Jew who never even met a christian!! And that he could commit the sin of adultury 100 times a day and it would not effect his justification before the eyes of got.

  4. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    Laura, I mean no disrespect --- you post things on page 18 (page 36 if you've selected 10-posts-per-page), that have already been refuted. But patience being a virtue...

    1Jn1:19 is about one group, THEN; it does not say that EVERYONE that goes out, was NEVER OF us. There is still 2Jn1:7-9. Please see post 337 and tell me how 2Jn accommodates OSAS?

    Heb6:4 uses "METOCHOS", which really really means PARTNERS; does the Holy Spirit partner with the UNSAVED? NO!

    &#149PARTNERS in a heavenly calling (Heb3:1)
    &#149PARTNERS in CHRIST (Heb3:14)
    &#149PARTNERS in the Holy Spirit (Heb6:4)

    You cannot paint them as NEVER-SAVED. Notice FALL AWAY (parapipto) is aorist form, which very much supports continuing action. Translators of the NASV completely assert that --- they footnote WHILE --- "It is ADUNATOS-UNABLE/POWERLESS to restore them to repentance WHILE they fall away and crucify Christ to themselves anew and hold Him to public shame (hold Him in contempt)".

    can we finally declare Heb6:4-6 as not in support of OSAS?

    Think about what you just said; Jesus said "no good tree can produce bad fruit" (Mt7:16-20); you say "A good tree CAN produce bad fruit!" Who shall we believe? You or JESUS? John says that fruits will reveal which persons are of God, and which is of the devil. 1Jn3:7-10

    Salvation is fellowship with Christ (1Jn1:3,6) BORN AGAIN (Rm6). Please read Gal2:20 and tell me how that kind of fellowship/surrender/submission allows conscious sin?
    James harmonizes perfectly with all of Scripture. Jesus says, "a good tree can only produce good fruit, a bad tree can only produce bad fruit; you will know them by their fruits." With the ME-DUNAMAI construct, James declares: Faith that PRODUCES no works, that dead-faith can NOT save you, CAN IT!!! 2:14

    James harnonizes Jesus perfectly.
    I agree; you cannot make James say more than he does. Remember we talked here yesterday about 2Pet2:20-22? How that passage cannot acommodate OSAS? James says: "My brethren, if any among you wander from the truth, and another leads him back, let him know that he who turns a SINNER from the error of his way has saved a soul from death and covered a multitude of sins." 5:19-20

    to support OSAS Jms5:19-20 must mean:
    &#149James REALLY meant "my UNSAVED BRETHREN stalking amidst the SAVED"
    (he didn't mean "wander from the truth" for they were never IN the truth!)
    &#149"SOUL" is his MIND not eternal spirit! (PSUCHE is also used in Rev20:4)
    &#149It's not really ETERNAL DEATH (THANATOS according to Strong's is death-and-HELL )
    &#149There's some reason we can IGNORE the entire letter of James!

    Am I illustrating the HOOPS through which one must jump to believe OSAS? Don't you get tired of believing"OH they didn't really MEAN what they SAID!" ???
  5. eldermike

    eldermike Pray Supporter

    There are no "hoops". I have never had any trouble defending my position on this issue.

    James was speaking to unsaved and saved, just the same as any preacher in any church on any given Sunday. With one twist; the unsaved were devout Jews, who believed in their hearts that they were God's children because of birth-right and the Levitical law.

    Let me try your literal use of this text out on you. James said :he who turns a sinner has saved a soul: Who is He? Answer: The He is the one that leads Him back. The reason: James was speaking to Jewish converts, many unsaved ones and some saved. He was speaking about a tension between the old law and the New Covenant. If you lead a person to the cross then you UNDERSTAND!, you are saved! Praise God.

  6. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    Well, with respect, Mike, technically you are correct; there is no savior besides Jesus. Thus that verse cannot actually mean "one-of-us-who-turns-another SAVES that other".

    ...and yet, the written structure is very clear. Word-for-word translation from the Greek: "Brethren, if anyone among you err (goes astray) from the truth, and bring-back anyone him, let-him-know that he-who brings-back a-sinner from {the} error of-his-way, shall-save a-soul from death (death&Hell), and shall-cover a-multitude of-sins." The Greek is clear; he-who-brings-back does the saving. (The translators, far FAR more Greek scholars than us, concur; no translation presents "he" {he-who-brings-back} as capitalized, as they would if they throught "he" was GOD.)

    Did James believe in TWO SAVIORS? Certainly not. Consider:
    "By your endurance you will save (gain) your souls." Lk21:19

    "Receiving as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls." 1Pet1:9

    "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; for as you do this you will save yourself and those who hear you."1Tim4:16

    Are any of these verses denying that Jesus is the ONLY SAVIOR? No; they only recognize man's own volition in his own salvation. The entire work of salvation, ALL OF IT, was done by Jesus on the Cross; but only those who choose to RECIEVE it will be saved.

    In precisely the same understanding, one who leads another back to Christ, has led him back to salvation; clearly the OTHER is said to have saved him, meaning that the other has led him back to THE Savior. This is correct exegesis, not eisegesis.

    And to say that "he was speaking of leading never-SAVED, this denies what James said; "BRETHREN, if any of YOU"--- could he possibly be talking to usaved brothers? Show me where the UNSAVED are called BRETHREN?

    ..."wander from the truth" PLANEO APO ALETHEIA wander-astray to-separate the-truth; is there any way such a one has never been IN the truth? How can one wander astray from, and separate from, that in which he has never dwelt? Besides it plainly says "save-a-soul-from-death" --- so much for contending the soul was never in jeopardy!

    No, this is another verse that simply does not bend to "OSAS"...
  7. eldermike

    eldermike Pray Supporter

    Way to much explanation, back up.

    The He is the one that understands. It's the idea that James is working on that matters here. The Idea from the first of James to the last of James is the evidence of Salvation.

    First evidence = works
    works = leading other to the cross.

    faith without works is dead = teach the cross and you have saved a soul. YOURS!

  8. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    You've lost me. We agree that James labors to convey that true salvation inevitably produces good works; which does not connect salvation to works, but connects works to salvation; cause (salvation) and effect(works), not effect and cause. Perfectly mirroring Jesus in Matt7:16-23.

    But I'm still wondering how these two verses do not indicate"OSNAS'?

    Are you saying that "He who leads a sinner from the error of his way has saved a soul from death and covered a multitude of sins" means "He who leads-back-a-sinner, has saved his OWN (the leader's) soul"? Do you think the "one-who-wanders-from-the-truth" remains saved while he is APO-SEPARATED?
  9. eldermike

    eldermike Pray Supporter

    In the case of James, He is speaking to Jews (you can't forget this). He is trying to change what they teach. He is telling them, the jews, that if they lead others to the cross and away from the law (so to speak) that they understand and that this is true evidence of salvation.

    As to the one being led?, who knows, that is not what He is talking about.

    Remember! Under the law to cover a multitude of sins would require much in terms of sacrifice from the one trying to atone for His sin under the law.

    To cover a multitude of sins is speaking their language. The cross is what He is teaching them. It has nothing to do with losing salvation.

  10. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    I can understand that.
    I can understand that, too...
    This I can't understand. It would have nothing to do with falling-from-salvation if it said:

    "Brethren, if anyone is found never-having-known the truth, and another lead him TO the truth, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way"...

    But it doesn't say that, does it? It says: "BRETHREN, if any of YOU wander from the truth, and another lead him (the wanderer) back, let him (the leader) know that he (the leader) who turns a sinner (the wanderer) from the error of his way"...

    By stating "BRETHREN", he is addressing brothers-in-Christ; by saying "ANY of YOU", he is addressing saved-brothers-in-Christ; how can he not be? I've never heard any Scripture written to "Brethren, YOU..." --- addressed to unsaved; have you?

    WANDER from the truth? "PLANAO" is aorist passive subjunctive; the translators render --- "do err". This seems to simply mirror Gal5, which says "You WERE running well, but you return to a salvation-by-works; you are severed from Christ, you are fallen from grace. How could they have been considered brethren if they had not been saved? How could they have been running well if they had not been saved? In James, by stating, "any of YOU", he indicates the potentiality for ANY of them to be found wandered-themselves-from-the-truth.

    And we must remember that Jews are held to the same salvation as Gentiles; so merely labelling a passage as "JEWISH-FOCUSED", does not negate Gal3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; you are all one in Christ Jesus." What applies to JEWS, regarding salvation, also applies to Gentiles now. And vice-versa...
  11. eldermike

    eldermike Pray Supporter


    Brother, you have a right to be wrong. "Any of you" that eventually get's the point I made about this passage will be better prepared to lead others to the truth. It's about being outward focused.

    BTW, "any of you" is a negative address, it's not something a brother would say to a brother.

  12. Outspoken

    Outspoken Standing in the Gap


    BINGO! Tell him what he has won today Jonny.
  13. akb3

    akb3 New Member

    Ben- Sorry I took so long to get back to you, but I have been busy, and have also been a little ill. We then had the big server crash, so it has been quite a while. Here are my comments from your last message:

    Allow me to go through all of my posts and post verses I have already posted that YOU HAVE NOT EVEN BEGUN TO DEAL WITH!!!

  14. akb3

    akb3 New Member

    The reason this definition holds up, is because in the Old Testament times they would burn metals in fire to refine them. Hence, “refined metal” came to be known as “proven metal” [See Zodhiates’ Word Study Dictionary].
    Hence, as I said, since adokimos is simple the opposite of dokimos, what then would be the opposite meaning-“tested and failed; failure; not approved; not up to standard.” With this in mind, let us take into consideration the usage of adokimos. It appears 7 times in the NT [barring from the disputed passage].

    The most interesting of the verses comes in next two verses from the disputed passage [which I will get to in a moment]. However, suffice it to say that all of these uses fit the definition of “not meeting a standard, tested and failed.” The most interesting uses is in LXX:

    Hence, the Pauline understanding of this word comes in the context of purifying metal by burning it to remove the dross. This fits well with the usage in the NT.

    Verse 5 begins with [first a pronoun but then] the imperative peirazete. The direct object is eautous: yourselves. Peirazete has the idea, “to put on trial.” Hence, we are to put ourselves on trial [ie. Test] ourselves “to see” if we are in the faith. Now, the phrase “to see” is not in the text. It is implied from the text, and is connected with the conditional particle “ei” and the phrase en te pistei. This is one of only three occurrences in the NT [cf 1 Corinthians 16:13 and Titus 1:13]. Hence, it is hard to get a complete usage of this phrase, but the other two uses seem to suggest that we are talking about the Christian life. Hence, the testing is to see if we indeed are in the Christian life. The next phrase is with “dokimazete eautous” Friberg notes that this has the idea of self-examination. This is the only occurrence of this phrase in the NT and the LXX. Hence, this we must conclude from the lexical meaning of dokimazete, that this has the idea of putting ourselves to the test. However, why would Paul repeat the same thing? The answer is that he is trying to be emphatic, and press this upon the believer. Next, he introduces a phrase e ouk epignoskete eautous “do you not know concerning yourselves” is a specific construction expecting a positive answer. Hence, he is expecting them to say YES, WE KNOW! This brings us to the next phrase hoti Iesous Christos en humin ei meti adokimoi este which is a hoti clause. I take this hoti clause to be a declarative hoti clause. My reasons for this are as follows [See Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p453- 461]:

    1. A declarative hoti comes after verbs of perception [which epignoskete is].
    2. It recast an original thought into a reported form.
    3. It is not a subject clause, [the implied “you” from the verb epignoskete is]
    4. It is not a direct object clause [DOCs do not come after verbs of perception]
    5. It does not have an antecedent [ruling out apposition and epexegetical]
    6. The clause does not give reason. [it is not casual]

    Hence this phrase tells what they know. Now we come to the portion that you asked me about: Ei meti adokimoi este. Ei meti is a particular phrase used 3 times in the NT and one time in the LXX:

    Hence, we see that in every instance the ONLY way the preceding clause is negated is if the proceeding clause is true. This is the definition Dr. Spiros Zodhiates gives. Hence “if the gods can tell the king his dream, then it is not true that no one can,” “if the disciples go and by food, they will have more than five loaves and two fish,” and “if married couples have an agreement they can deprive one another.” Now, let us apply this meaning to our passage. If we are an “adokimos,” then Christ is not in us. Also, if we are not an “adokimos,” then Christ is in us. Now, as to the meaning of “adokimos,” we must refer back to the study we did earlier of the meaning of adokimos: -“tested and failed; failure; not approved; not up to standard.” Now is there testing in the context? YES! Two very explicit words: peirazete and dokimazete show that this is indeed the definition Paul is going for here. Furthermore, dokimazete and adokimos come from the same root [with the “a” in front for negation]. Hence, the last phrase could be interpreted as “unless you are one tested and failed.” This is usually just simplified into “unless you fail the test” or “disqualified” in most translations:

    Now that I am done with my exegesis, I choose no#2. Now to answer your questions:

    [I believe I already have]

    First, I think this interpretation reads two things into the text that are not there. First, had Paul wanted to convey the idea of “Christ is still in you,” he could have done so by using three perfectly good words [akmen, eti, and heos]. Second, for the phrase “unless you are a failure,” he should have used either the aorist or perfect of ginomai rather than present form of eimi. Then, it would convey the idea that one has BECOME an adokimos. Furthermore, the phrase “have the IMAGE OF CHRIST” reads WAY more into the text than what is warranted. The phrase eti echeis ton eikona christou would suffice at this point. Furthermore, he should not have used the word adokimos with it’s verbal root dokimazete if he had intended something else. However, because he uses the verb eimi in the present tense, we can safely assume that what is being tested is your PRESENT STATE, and this says NOTHING about your past state.

    First, I note that AGAIN you misrepresent us in thinking that we believe God saves apart from our will! Although Christ has control over our will, HE DOES NOT SAVE APART FROM IT. His choice is our will. Second, if one were to take this interpretation, one would come to some very bizarre conclusions. First, we would have the notion that one can save oneself. This is known as Pelagianism [4th century heresy]. Next, we would also have to assume that we can save other people. So, I note that you are making an equivocation on the word “save.” However, if you look at the context, we see that this is talking about “salvation from false doctrine.” Now, knowing that you are immediately going to challenge me on the word sozo, I will immediately post verses in which this word it not talking about salvation from sin:

    I could EASILY go on to list more if you would like them, but I think these will suffice.
  15. akb3

    akb3 New Member


    Here is the misrepresentation again. The idea that we believe God saves apart from our will. Furthermore, you are forgetting the context of the book of Hebrews. Hebrews was written to a Jewish congregation who was being persuaded by family members to go back to the Levitical sacrifices. In fact, it is highly interesting to me that people who believe in conditional security go to this book for support since it is so damaging to their position [see below]. All throughout the book of Hebrews, we find that perfection of the work of Christ and his ability to save for all time. Hence, I would say he is talking to the elect AND the non-elect [seeing as how we cannot tell them apart]. With regards to the first citation, you are confusing the noun soteria with the verb form sozo. Furthermore, it does not say “if we forsake OUR salvation.” However, the question is, “are these people going to choose salvation through Christ or salvation through the law?” That is what the author of the Hebrews is talking about in these verses. Not loosing salvation, but leaving the church, and embracing Levitical sacrifices again. Again, do not assume that every time you see “falling away” and “turn away” that we are talking about salvation.

    With regards to Galatians 5:4, you have forgotten that in that text Paul specifically defines his audience. It is not believers. I think James White’s refutation of this usage would be helpful at this point:

    With regards to 2 Peter 2:20-22 you write:

    I will refute you one statement at a time:

    Let me ask you something. If the gospel makes someone feel guilty of their sin, but instead of turning to Christ for cleansing, they try to turn from their evil ways on their own strength: Would you call such a person NOT SINNING?! I hope not. Having knowledge of what Christ did, and yet relying on ones on righteousness [or lack thereof] is a PAR EXCELLANCE example of total depravity.

    I think I will now call upon one of the greatest Biblical scholars EVER, in Dr. John Owen to prove my point:

    Now, note the difference in the two passages:

    Where in the text of 2 Peter 2:20-21 does it say that “by these HE HAS GRANTED” to them “HIS PRECIOUS AND MAGNIFICENT PROMISES?” You won’t find it. However, one would expect to if they were really paralleling each other. Here, the Gospel brings condemnation to false teachers.

    Absloutely not!! And this is exactly the reason you cannot take the same word used A CHAPTER APART, and make it fit the context. Second, if you really believe that words do not change in meaning a chapter apart, let me see how you would interpret Acts 12:1-17 in relation to the word “hand.”
  16. akb3

    akb3 New Member

    There is no way to fit one definition to each usage of the words. The context just will not allow it. Acts 12:1 contains an idiom which means “to arrest.” Acts 12:7 and Acts 12:17 have the meaning “a hand” [part of the anatomy], and Acts 12:11 it is again found in an idiom which means “authority of, bondage of.”

    I reply: While I would agree that the Cross of Christ was predestined, [Acts 2:23], THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN EPHESIANS 1. Let us take a look at the grammar and syntax:

    First we have the word Proorisas in the 2 person active Aorist. Hence we have “he predestined” [past tense]. Who did he predestine? The answer is what is in the accusative:
    Hemas. BUT THIS IS NOT “JESUS.” This is the plural form of you [us]. So it is US [the believers] who are predestined! Then he uses the phrase eis huithesian literally [unto our adoption as sons].

    Louw and Nida write that huithesian means:

    They say this passage means that:

    Likewise, Friberg gives huithesian this meaning:

    Also, since we have “according to the kind intention of his will” [kata ten eudokian tou thelematos autou,] we can pretty much assume that the function of the eis used here is an eis of result [“Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” p. 369]. This is due to the fact that this would create a purpose-result clause (which is common in the NT) [cf. Romans 1:20]. Hence, the semantic force of this verse is:

    Now let us continue by taking a look at the next verse. It begins with “Eis epainon.” Again, the context has not changed “and we are in the same sentence.” Hence, it is safe to assume that this is the same eis used in the previous verse [eis of result]. Again the semantic force of this is “to [resulting in] the praise of the glory of His grace.” Next, is the key verse:

    Now, freely bestowed is ONE WORD. Dr. Spiros Zodhiates notes that this word means [in the context of Ephesians 1]:

    Next, if you take that translation, then I must note that “freely” is an adverb. Hence, it modifies “bestowed,” and means that the way it was given to us is FREELY [by God’s free will].

    Now, for the two verses you quoted:

    I think this is a misquotation. I believe what you wanted is John 6:29:

    If this is not the verse you wanted, please tell me the citation, and which version it is from because I have looked it up in several and cannot find it.

    Hence, it is the WORK of God that we believe in the one he has sent. Hence, God does not want everyone there to believe in him. In fact, this verse is contradicted by [well many passages, including this one] this passage:

    As to the next passage:

    First, I must note that you are reading universality into EVERYONE. Why do you not consult the Greek? The Greek to this passage runs as such:

    Hina ho pas theoron ton huion kai pisteuon eis auton

    Literally, “so that every beholding one of the son and believing one in him.” Nothing in this passage states that believing is an action that originates in us, and that we do by exercising our “free will.”
    Also, why don’t we follow this to it’s logical conclusion. If God predestines by his will people to eternal life, according to Ephesians 1, and every believing one will have eternal life, it then follows that every and only predestined people BELIEVE.

    As for Romans 9, I am sure you have written much about it, since it is so clear in asserting the absolute freedom of God. With regard to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, you have neglected on small little detail. First, we need to take a good look at Exodus 8:32.

    To find the nature of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in this verse, we must go to the last time Moses writes of him hardening his heart:

    Let me ask you something. When did the Lord EVER say that Pharaoh would harden his own heart? The only time we see mention of the LORD saying anything about Pharaoh’s heart is in Exodus 4:21:

    Furthermore, this is not the only place this occurs:

    Also, why do you assume that both could not have done it. This is not alien to scripture:

    Who meant it? God or Joseph’s brothers?

    Hence, if you take your interpretation, you are stuck trying to explain why the LORD never said Pharaoh would harden his heart.

    Furthermore, I am also NOT surprised that you decided to take the two vessels for “common use” and for “honorable” use to both be saved. You may not be aware of this, but “The Justification of God” is John Piper’s doctoral dissertation. Hence, I am sure that EVERY argument you could conceivably come up with against that passage is probably more than likely in there. Here is his response to this argument:
  17. akb3

    akb3 New Member


    Now, I agree with frumanchu. We have both heard EVERY response the other side could possibly bring up, and hence, we both reject every response offered by the other side. THAT IS WHY I HAVE TRIED TO FOCUS THE DISCUSSION ON THE CENTRAL ISSUE. That is, the deadness of man in sin, and the Perfect work of Christ. Does God save PERFECTLY in Christ, without human merit, or does he save IMPERFECTLY resulting in us needing human merit. In other words, did Christ save people at the cross, or did he just make salvation a mere possibility. I think several verses make the view that he did not save perfectly IMPOSSIBLE.

    The first objection normally brought up is “how did Jesus save.” This is refuted, however, on the grounds that Christ CAME to save. Hence, the act of saving happened on the earth. The next objection is that God used his foreknowledge to determine who he would die for. The problem is that Ephesians 1:4-5 says that the choosing and predestining happened before the foundation of the world and according to his will and pleasure. Hence, that rules this idea out. However, I think a much more powerful passage that I could go to is Hebrews 10:

    Now, this is very much like conditional security. Conditional security says that by the commission of a sin or other act, one can renounce the perfection of Christ in our lives. Hence, we have to again accept the gospel and believe. Hence, we have a situation where this “action,” [whatever it might be] is just like the Levitical sacrifices. It must be done again and again and NEVER perfects ANYONE. The reason is because you must go back if you sin [or whatever one believes one does to lose salvation]. Hence, they are not cleansed “once for all.” However:

    Hence, we now find that because these sacrifices could not take away sins, they were an annual reminder of sins. However, verse 2 says that if the sacrifices had perfected people, they would have ceased to be offered? Hence, I would say these verses demonstrate, that if salvation must be repeated, IT DID NOT PERFECT ANYONE THE FIRST TIME. This will become clearer as the passage goes on.

    What is interesting to note about this passage is that the Greek word for body “soma” is the same in both verses 5 and 10. There has been no change in context “ie. The conjunction “and” at the beginning of verse 10, and the theme of sacrifice], and hence, we can assume that we are talking about the same thing. However, the most interesting thing about this verse, is that the death of Christ is seen as a “once for all” action [aorist+ephapax]. However, if they indeed lost their salvation, then Christ’s work of redemption was imperfect. However, we will see that in stark contrast to the Levitical sacrifices [and conditional security], Christ’s work cannot be undone.

    Now, the idea of a priest sitting down in the old covenant was just plain nonsense. That is the reason there was no chair in the temple for the priest. It was a symbol that his work was never done. However, just as in the previous verses, we note that Christ DID sit down, because he COMPLETED his work. However, what were the results of this work? “For by one offering He has perfected FOR ALL TIME those who are sanctified.” For all time is a temporal usage of eis which is translated “for, throughout [Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p 369].” Hence, the semantic force of this passage is “For by one offering He has perfected for [throughout] all time those who are sanctified.” Louw and Nida give this definition for this idiom:

    Now, if you believe that when you were saved the blood of Christ perfected you throughout all time, why then is it true that at a particular point in time you could loose that perfection by an act you do? Anyway, we will see that shortly, the writer of Hebrews has some very nasty things to say to people who believe this.
  18. akb3

    akb3 New Member

    This passage has just said basically the same thing as the last passage. Again, if there is forgiveness of sins there is no more offering because it has been done “once for all. [v18]” In fact, Paul gets very nasty with people who would deny this next.

    Some people have ripped these proceeding verses from their context, and have thought that these verses means one can loose ones salvation NOT REALIZING THAT THESE VERSES ARE DIRECTED AT THEM!!! The question must be asked, “why is there no longer sacrifice for sins?” Because Christ already made the one true sacrifice. Hence, this is a warning to those who would have “knowledge” of the truth. Yet, despite this knowledge go back to the Levitical sacrifices. He no longer has any redemption for sins. Hence, if a person goes back to the old sacrifices, he only has “THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.” John Owen comments:

    If we continue to look, we will note that the writer to the Hebrews gets very nasty with such people:

    Now, some will think that the sanctified one refers to the reprobate. However, is that the only solution? Look at this. Is it:


    John Owen comments on this:

    Hence, I think the author to the Hebrews has made it extremely clear that if you go to a system that cannot perfect [such as conditional security] there are serious consequences. As this passage says, Christ has perfected us FOREVER. To go against that is a VERY serious thing indeed. Hence, this is the central issue. If Christ perfected us perfectly for all time, then eternal security is true. If he did not, then conditional security is true. This is the CENTRAL issue. Hence, I think our discussion should focus on this.

    God Bless
  19. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    Hello, akb3! Goodness, you went to a lot of effort! I have been called "tireless" in these discussions; but I think you've invested more energy than I have! :)

    I'm curious as to how you came to "PREDESTINED-ELECTION" belief.

    It will take me a bit to reply; I copied your pages to a word processor, it filled 39 pages! By reducing the font to size "6", and laboriously removing spaces and the word "QUOTE", I have gotten it down to 8 pages; but I may need my visor-magnifier to read...

    Hopefully you're not in a hurry.

    Hope also that you're feeling better; do you need prayer for anything?

    God bless you too!

    (Anyone else is welcome to comment --- this is not "exclusive conversation"...)
  20. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    Hello, akb3! Now it is my turn to apologize. Of the three beliefs of "OSAS", predestination (Calvinism) is the most difficult for apologetics. Not because of Scripture, but because of the depth of entinement of its proponents. It is not enough to simply cite verses that say "Jesus died for ALL", because "ALL" is interpreted to mean “Only SOME of ALL TYPES”. Thus the debate cannot occur in a few simple sentences; one must labor to reconstruct the very foundations, the substance of the doctrine of the Gospel.

    Always I walk a thin line of balance. Keenly aware of verses that speak of “fruits of the flesh” such as Gal 5, disputes, factions and dissentions; but I am urged on by verses such as Titus 1:9, “The overseer must ...hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able to both exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” Verse 2:7 also applies: “In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.”

    Why do I participate in debates? My spirit is desirous of strengthening my brothers and sisters; to build and never to destroy, to lift up and never to tear down. There is of course only ONE Savior; in the end, whatever my brother or sister chooses to believe, is between themselves and God. What if I was to pursue pride, and to “WIN” at any cost? If I should hurt my brother or sister at ALL, then I shall have LOST, severely. Does “PREDESTINATION/RESPONSIBILITY” matter? Yes, I think it does. It cuts to the heart of the NATURE of salvation. Does GOD persevere US? Or do WE persevere IN GOD? Two fundamentally different perspectives --- they cannot both be true. If WE are responsible to “keep OURSELVES in the love of Christ, waiting anxiously to eternal life” (as Jude pens), then that is a far different cry from counting on GOD to maintain US. Am I suggesting that Calvinists are LAZY or UNMOTIVATED? Certainly not! Nor do I even HINT that ANY of them are not SAVED!

    We stand on the precipice of a great conflict; we bear undivertibly towards the “END OF THE AGE”. Since I also do not believe in a “PRE-TRIB-RAPTURE”, I see terrible danger ahead for those who, first, count on a RESCUE from TRIBULATION, but also (for whatever reason --- Carnal, Predestinationist or Security) rest secure in the BELIEF that one CANNOT become UNSAVED. For if both views are WRONG, then some of them WILL PERISH! They enforce seat-belt laws, not that they think you are a BAD DRIVER, but against the unforseen crash; I seek to strengthen my brothers and sisters against the unforseen trial. If, at the end of a discussion, we can NOT come to agreement, fine with me. As I said, there is ONE Savior; and it’s not ME. What has been lost? Nothing, really. What has been gained? My colleagues must delve into the Scriptures, seeing verses through MY eyes; and simultaneously, I see Scriptures through YOURS. Can we not BUT come to better understanding of each other? Shall we part in more anger, or in more friendship? I cannot imagine the former.

    Seeing through YOUR eyes gives me a greater respect for you; I hope each of you can say the same for me.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.