Can "salvation", be "forfeit"?

[Rightglory]

Genez,

What contradiction?

the one in your statements. You made a very big deal that Christ did not lose any belivers. Yet you made the statement on the end "Its not about those who were once saved. [/quote] Obviously Christ lost one per your view. It is also an acknowledgement that a believer can indeed forfeit his salvation. Or do you have a different view of salvation alltogether. that one can actually be in Christ, live a life of transformation, give fruits of the Spirit, but all at the same time was never saved. So, just how do you know the difference, and how do you know if you are saved, or not saved? You have absolutely no assurance whatsoever.

Some people grow up in Christian homes and they never believed in Jesus. They conform to what is expected of them in a religious sort of way, but never by becoming born again.

How do you know if they were or not. Who made you the judge?

Satanic forces recruit and seduce them into becoming false teachers, for they can see that this one has the needed qualities for such a work. These ones grew up knowing all the churchianity lingo. They know the Christian culture they grew up in.

Again a HUGE contradiction is clearly implied in your explanation. Why would Satan seduce an unbeliever, a follower of Satan to be a follower of Satan? Please explain this very apparent contradiction in your theology?

These ones never came to Christ, yet they invoked the name of Christ as they had been shown. Demons inspire for pseudo Holy Spirit guidance, and you end up with preachers of the likes that Jesus said he will tell them he never knew them.

Again, are you the judge? How do you even know if they were sincere at one time. If they had always been unbelievers, then we don't need to speak of falling way, or losing salvation through apostasy, which is what you are describing here. Yet, the ONLY persons who can become apostate to the Truth or Christ, are believers. Thus it confirms the OP that a believer can forfeit their salvation.

That was hard for you to figure out?

I had it figured out, that is why I asked you for the explanation of contradiction. All you have done is confirmed you have a contradiction, but do not understand what scripture is saying.

 

[GenemZ]

The "works" in the context of 1 Cor 3:15 are new converts.

Some are gold? Some are silver? Some are precious stones?????????


AND?! Some are wood? Some are hay?... and some are straw?


Mind explaining that part to me?


And, while you're at it? Show how these converts will be burned up? Will these converts be their reward if they are gold, silver, and precious stones???


You do have a lot of "spaln'in" to do.

The context here deals with "building" the church.

What?

Building, is to be upon after our salvation in Christ!

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ."​

In Christ, GeneZ
.

 

[jmacvols]

Some are gold? Some are silver? Some are precious stones?????????


AND?! Some are wood? Some are hay?... and some are straw?


Mind explaining that part to me?


And, while you're at it? Show how these converts will be burned up? Will these converts be their reward if they are gold, silver, and precious stones???


You do have a lot of "spaln'in" to do.








What?

Building, is to be upon after our salvation in Christ!

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ."​

​

In Christ, GeneZ
.

In this passage Paul is making analogy between a building and the church. A building is only as strong as the material put into it, the church also is like that, converts with strong faiths will create a strong church, converts with weak faith create a weak church. The gold, silver and precious stones are the converts with a strong faith that will be saved, wood, hey and stubble are converts with a weak faith that will fall away and be lost on judgment day. Verse 13, judgment day will determine what sort of work/convert Paul made. The converts with a strong faith that abides will be saved and Paul will receive a reward for those converts. Those with a weak faith that fall away will be lost, yet Paul himself will not be lost [as long as he remains faithful] even though he converted them, just those converts will be lost, Paul will have a sense of loss over these converts. Paul will see that the time and energy he spent with them was in vain. This was Paul's concern with the Galatians, Gal 4:11. If these Galatian converts of Paul are lost, Paul will suffer a sense of loss over them, yet Paul himself will not be lost, only his work(converts) will be.

Paul laid the foundation of the church at Corinth, he made the intial converts and the church at Corinth was born. Again the church is not a physical building, but is made up of the Christians' souls there, 1 Cor 3:9, "ye are God's building".

 

[GenemZ]

In this passage Paul is making analogy between a building and the church. A building is only as strong as the material put into it, the church also is like that, converts with strong faiths will create a strong church, converts with weak faith create a weak church. The gold, silver and precious stones are the converts with a strong faith that will be saved, wood, hey and stubble are converts with a weak faith that will fall away and be lost on judgment day. Verse 13, judgment day will determine what sort of work/convert Paul made. The converts with a strong faith that abides will be saved and Paul will receive a reward for those converts. Those with a weak faith that fall away will be lost, yet Paul himself will not be lost [as long as he remains faithful] even though he converted them, just those converts will be lost, Paul will have a sense of loss over these converts. Paul will see that the time and energy he spent with them was in vain. This was Paul's concern with the Galatians, Gal 4:11. If these Galatian converts of Paul are lost, Paul will suffer a sense of loss over them, yet Paul himself will not be lost, only his work(converts) will be.

Paul laid the foundation of the church at Corinth, he made the intial converts and the church at Corinth was born. Again the church is not a physical building, but is made up of the Christians' souls there, 1 Cor 3:9, "ye are God's building".

Then, if his works?

Is speaking of converts?

How he builds his church?

Why does the passage only mention his own salvation?

And, that he can not lose his salvation, even if he completely blows it with his church building? Even if he builds his church on totally false doctrines? (wood, hay, straw)

Still sounds like this pastor teacher can not lose his salvation. Does it not?

Interesting point! James 3:1, tells us the teachers will be judged more severely than the regular congregation believers. So, even if your interperation so happens to be correct? Even the more severely judged teacher will still have his soul saved. Even if all he does is wood, hay, and straw.

Therefore.. The regular believer is even less likely to lose his salvation if a more severely judged, pastor teacher can't. Right?

Even, if what you said were accurate? If a lousy, misleading teacher can not lose his salvation? No regular believer can! For the regular members are to be judged less severly!!!!!

"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."​

James 3:1 (New International Version)​

​

.

 

[jmacvols]

Then, if his works?

Is speaking of converts?

How he builds his church?

Why does the passage only mention his own salvation?

1 COr 3:14,15 speak about the convert, if any man's work (convert) abide or burn. THis speaks about the salvation and condemnation of the work (convert).

And, that he can not lose his salvation, even if he completely blows it with his church building?

Even if he builds his church on totally false doctrines? (wood, hay, straw)

If a convert Paul made later becomes unfaith and is lost on judgment day, Paul will not be lost for that convert, as long as Paul remains faithful, Paul will suffer a sense of loss over that convert. If Paul correctly taught a new convert and later that convert turns out on judgment day to be wood, hey, stubble, this is not Pauls' fault, Paul will not be lost due to his converts unfaithfulness. But those converts that Paul made that do remain faithful and are are saved on judgment day, Paul will receive a reward for those.

Still sounds like this pastor teacher can not lose his salvation. Does it not?

No, Paul is just saying if his convert becomes unfaithful and is lost on judgment day, Paul himself will not lose his salvation as long as he ramains faithful.

Interesting point! James 3:1, tells us the teachers will be judged more severely than the regular congregation believers. So, even if your interperation so happens to be correct? Even the more severely judged teacher will still have his soul saved. Even if all he does is wood, hay, and straw.

If Paul taught a false doctrine and his listerners are lost due to his false teaching, Paul will be lost with them. But if Paul made converts by teaching them the truth, yet later those converts turn from the truth, Paul will not be lost for their unfaithfulness, as long as Paul himself remains faithful.

Therefore.. The regular believer is even less likely to lose his salvation if a more severely judged, pastor teacher can't. Right?

Even, if what you said were accurate? If a lousy, misleading teacher can not lose his salvation? No regular believer can! For the regular members are to be judged less severly!!!!!

"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."​

James 3:1 (New International Version)​

​

.

I don't think you quite get what I am saying. Paul was not a lousy, misleading teacher, he taught the truth. Paul made converts by teaching them the truth. Those converts he made that remained faithful and are saved on judgment day, Paul will receive a reward for them. Those converts Paul made that become unfaithful and are lost on judgment day, even though those works (converts) are lost, Paul himself will still be saved. Paul will not be lost because some of his converts are lost, Paul did not make them to become unfaithful, so Paul will maintain his own salvation as long as he remains faithful.

 

[GenemZ]

1 COr 3:14,15 speak about the convert, if any man's work (convert) abide or burn. THis speaks about the salvation and condemnation of the work (convert).



If a convert Paul made later becomes unfaith and is lost on judgment day, Paul will not be lost for that convert, as long as Paul remains faithful, Paul will suffer a sense of loss over that convert. If Paul correctly taught a new convert and later that convert turns out on judgment day to be wood, hey, stubble, this is not Pauls' fault, Paul will not be lost due to his converts unfaithfulness. But those converts that Paul made that do remain faithful and are are saved on judgment day, Paul will receive a reward for those.



No, Paul is just saying if his convert becomes unfaithful and is lost on judgment day, Paul himself will not lose his salvation as long as he ramains faithful.



If Paul taught a false doctrine and his listerners are lost due to his false teaching, Paul will be lost with them. But if Paul made converts by teaching them the truth, yet later those converts turn from the truth, Paul will not be lost for their unfaithfulness, as long as Paul himself remains faithful.


I don't think you quite get what I am saying. Paul was not a lousy, misleading teacher, he taught the truth. Paul made converts by teaching them the truth. Those converts he made that remained faithful and are saved on judgment day, Paul will receive a reward for them. Those converts Paul made that become unfaithful and are lost on judgment day, even though those works (converts) are lost, Paul himself will still be saved. Paul will not be lost because some of his converts are lost, Paul did not make them to become unfaithful, so Paul will maintain his own salvation as long as he remains faithful.

We are so far apart on this issue that it would make no sense for me to continue to try to reason with you according to what I understand the Scriptures speak of.

I believe my prior posts have made my thinking self evident, and to further attempt to clarify, would only serve to muddy the waters even more than they already have become.

Have a nice Day...


Grace and peace, GeneZ



.

 

[heymikey80]

"Blotted from the BOOK of LIFE", can somehow be "not-soterioligical"? No way, Mike.

You state it as if you cited it before. That's a "bait & switch" tactic. By round-swapping the arguments you're engaging in a debate tactic. That tactic assumes that, "When you answer one of my questions, I'll throw up another in its place." Unfortunately that assumes that, "If not all of my questions can be answered in one fell of the question tree, then simply drawing your attention to another problem means my position is right."

Yet to address this new assertion of course it can be non-soteriological. The gloss to push this book into to a permanent statement about eternal life is a soteriological reach. It's a book of who God intends to live. That's more than soteriological. People are blotted out of this book every day.

People die.

Therein lies the problem in microcosm. When you presume that the author intends a statement to be exclusively soteriological, then you neglect the fact that the wording includes more or less than soteriology. Or even that the author wasn't even thinking on soteriological lines.

 

[heymikey80]

Works are not necessary to salvation --- I have never said that. Works are necessary consequence of one who has BEEN saved.

An utterly necessary consequence? That is, everyone who is saved shall do good works, whether or not they draw another breath?

If you'd say, "No" there I'd point out that Reformed theology would agree pointblank with you.

This is colored by the preconception that "unregenerated men cannot desire to be saved" --- they can.

I think this is a far deeper problem than you're exposing. If by "desire" you mean the self-preserving desire to escape punishment and death, I'd agree with you.

But you know that's not anything like what God would be saying. That's the motivating condition that forces all men to make some kind of consideration of the Savior. But not everyone looking for asbestos underpants is saved: God sets a different requirement: relying on His Son. That's a radically different thing from the desire to escape punishment.

Nowhere does regeneration happen BEFORE faith.

Face it, there are only two places in Scripture where "regeneration" is actually used in the NT. You're not saying much if you're saying, "In two instances, Scripture doesn't say how regeneration is organized."

If you look at "born of God/Spirit" though, you get quite a different response from Scripture.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1:12-13
​

If the will of man were caused the person to have faith and receive Christ, then there's a contradiction here. Jn 1:13 states these people were not born of the will of man.

REgeneration is not by a "self-changed-heart" --- I've never said that either. Regeneration is by the received Spirit, who THEN changes the heart.

In Acts 2, the people were first "cut to the heart". That's a heart change. Then they asked, "what shall we do?"

Peter hadn't got to the part about relying on Christ.

Are you saying their hearts weren't yet changed to repent of their actions at that point? That they had to receive Jesus, Who then actually changed their hearts to move in a different direction?

How were their hearts reached before receiving the Spirit?

 

[heymikey80]

"Thanatos" conveys "death with implication of eternity in Hell". If one were to deny "spiritual/eternal death", he would have to assert "SINNINGLY saved" in James1:14-16, and sinningly saved (UNCOVERED SINS!!!) in James5:19-20.

Neglecting the moment the attempt to replace James 1:14-16 with James 5:19-20 to try to make a different case on a much later context ...
It's interesting to me that you'd make this assertion. James 1:14-16 doesn't explicitly state this is about spiritual/eternal death. It doesn't state salvation in explicit terms. Its prior context looks to a "crown of life", which itself could be understood by Jewish hearers as a this-life victory.

The problem with a focus on soteriology to the exclusion of nonsoteriological meanings is that it neglects the broader meaning of the statement. Not everything is soteriology -- it may cover more than soteriology.

I don't think anyone would be willing to contend for "unforgiven/SINNINGLY saved".

As you've pulled this together from an overemphasis on soteriology, and as I've pointed out, "Not everything is soteriology", I wonder why you think anyone would even try.

Or did you mean I should contend for it? I don't even know what you mean by it, since I think it's nonsense to consider everything soteriology.

James says that without works, our faith is dead (unsaved).

Not everything is soteriology. Who said James was talking about salvation? As James himself put it, faith has no use. That's a this-world, practical application of faith, Ben. That's not soteriology. That's obedience.

Forcing soteriology into that context makes work a definitive requirement for faith. It puts the cart firmly before the horse.

That's why, when discussing Scripture, I maintain and reiterate that not everything is soteriology.

There are only two choices, Mike:

Only when everything is soteriology, Ben.

No, He's making from ONE lump of clay "honor", and "dishonor/common"; there is ONE vessel in verse 22, and the Greek supports "prepared THEMSELVES for destruction".

The passage flatly denies it. The answer you're proposing, "God's will doesn't desire people's destruction", is drowned in his actual answer, "Who are you to talk back to God? Shall what is made say to who made it, 'Why have YOU made me this way?'"

Paul's answering a question. "Who resists his will?" The supposition implied here is a direct contradiction to your idea that they've "prepared THEMSELVES for destruction".

Greek grammar allows "prepared BY SOMEONE ELSE for destruction". And semantic context already closed the door on the middle case. It's "prepared by God", and that's clear from the context, where Paul cites God as the Maker in all cases.

Do you think God creates sin?

Does sin exist?

You're missing the direction of His justification. He justifies those who believe --- not vice-versa. Rom3:26

Not missing it. You're swapping in another issue. Let's focus on the question, and not spiral out to some other issue. Paul states flatly that the people chosen are the people justified.

There're only two choices, Ben:
1. Everyone is justified.
2. God chooses fewer than everyone.

This is the problem with "Sovereign Predestination" --- it casts God as ACTIVE in man's salvation, and man fully passive --- making men unresponsible and God fully responsible.

Always stated, never factual, never demonstrated. By "passive" Reformed theologians mean we're always responding to something initiated by God. But philosophically that's obvious. When there's a Prime Mover, everything else is not the Prime.

And theologically, that's passivity.

God receiving man's consideration; that's the truth of Scripture...

No cutting to the heart, no God working in the heart, no God changing the will, everything subject to man's consideration. That's not the truth of Scripture, as Acts 2:37 points out, as do a variety of other verses:

But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. Rom 2:29

God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. Rom 5:5

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed Rom 6:17

But thanks be to God, who put into the heart of Titus the same earnest care I have for you. 2 Cor 8:16

And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" Gal 4:6

declares the Lord:I will put my laws into their minds,and write them on their hearts Heb 8:10
​

Please re-read Matt22:2-14; who are the chosen? ALL are invited (many called), but only those who CAME and changed clothes (but few chosen) were accepted.

You can't deny it.

I never did. This is a different call, completely outside the context of Romans 8. You're talking about two different summons.

The passage begins with "those WHO love God"...

... continuing by rephrasing "those who love God" as "those who are called according to His purpose" ... leaving you with the same problem.

You can't get past thinking "saving-faith is meritorious/self-cause". Our faith is not in OURSELVES ...

There you're mistaken, as you know I'm Reformed, and we don't see faith as a cause in the first place. Yet you've recapitulated the basic issue I've identified. In your view your faith is a reliance on Someone else, yes, but in your view your faith -- something you generate yourself -- is the meritorious self-cause of Jesus saving you.

Proof? In your view He doesn't save anyone else, right? He actually looks for faith in you. He rewards it with eternal life. That faith merits life.

And that faith is entirely from you. God had to ask you for it, and He wasn't involved in your gaining it.

Where is the mischaracterization? Maybe it's your view that faith "isn't worth that much", so it can't in your view be meritorious? Yes, but you aren't the evaluator. God truly is. And so in your view God set a value, a merit, based on this faith? Yes? If so then faith is truly meritorious in your view. If not, please correct the implications you're making and refine your statements to exclude merit.

 

[Ormly]

"Paul states flatly that the people chosen are the people justified."

There're only two choices:
1. Everyone is justified.
2. God chooses fewer than everyone.

Not only two choices. God chose from the called. All are called but few chosen. Why? Because few choose Him.

God's grace goes out universally to all, for all that they might embrace it. The righteous see it, the unrighteous do not. In either case a preacher is needed to explain what the issues are that everyone has a clear understanding as to what they are and what is at stake.

 

[heymikey80]

Not only two choices. God chose from the called. All are called but few chosen. Why? Because few choose Him.

Paul states:

Those He called, He also justified. Rom 8:30
​

Looking back on the "many are called but few are chosen", this is a statement from Jesus in a different context.

Two calls.

 

[Ormly]

Paul states:

Those He called, He also justified. Rom 8:30​

Yep. And they still didn't choose Him to become what He intended for them after He justified them.

Looking back on the "many are called but few are chosen", this is a statement from Jesus in a different context.

Two calls.

Nope. The ones He doesn't choose are those who receive His salvation but desire to hang on to their "self" nature. It is called: "Double mindedness". Need scripture?

 

[heymikey80]

Yep. And they still didn't choose Him to become what He intended for them after He justified them.

Well, if God's justified them, no one condemns them. So they're justified, so they're saved.

Nope. The ones He doesn't choose are those who receive His salvation but desire to hang on to their "self" nature. It is called: "Double mindedness". Need scripture?

I'd need Scripture in immediate context. Paul wouldn't leave this out.

 

[GenemZ]

I ask you all...


What is it that we can do after we are saved? That we did not already do before we were saved? That would cause one to lose their salvation?


We can commit worse sins than before, after we were saved? Jesus only died for certain sins???



.

 

[Ben johnson]

I ask you all...

What is it that we can do after we are saved?

We can sin. Does God want us to sin? No.

God is resistible.

That we did not already do before we were saved? That would cause one to lose their salvation?

What did we do to BECOME saved?

1. We believed in Christ savingly.
2. We repented.
3. We received Christ bodily into our hearts, and received the Holy Spirit.
4. We received the Spirit's regeneration of our hearts.

We can commit worse sins than before, after we were saved?

Yes, it's fully possible.

Jesus only died for certain sins???

Jesus said, "Unless you REPENT, you WILL PERISH". Lk13:3

There is a vast difference between "sinning after salvation", and "continuing sinning willfully". We do sin; but as we abide in Him, we walk in repentance. We strive NOT to sin; though not by our power, by His in us.

"If, by the Holy Spirit we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live." Rom8:13

James says in 1:14-16 that lust conceives sin, and sin brings death (spiritual death!); this mirrors Heb3:6-14, where we are told not to harden our hearts --- to be careful lest our hearts be hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from God.

"Hardened-hearts", is identical to "unbelief"; hence all the warnings (like Col2:6-8) to abide in Him and not be taken captive by worldly philosophy.

Look at this: "If WE continue sinning willfully after having received KNOWLEDGE ('epignosis' full knowledge!) of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a terrifying expectation of judgment and fury of fire that consumes the adversaries." Heb10:26 Then follows (vs29) an example of a man who WAS sanctified (by Jesus' blood! No way he wasn't ever saved!!!), but now TRAMPLES Jesus, SCORNS the blood, and INSULTS the Spirit. Such a man has come to UNBELIEF.

Unbelief, is walking in sin; it is separated from Christ.

Belief abides in repentance; not fully free from sin, but growing close to Him --- and the closer we are to Him, the less we sin.

This is the truth of Scripture, Gene; men can be deceived away from belief in Jesus, to "walking in sin" and eternal death. That's the POINT of deception in Col2:6-8, in 1Jn2:26-28, in 2Pet3:17, in Heb3:8-14 (look now at 4:11!).

And it's the point of what's happening in 2Pet2:18-22; in verse 18 the FALSE (teachers and prophets) entice the TRULY-ESCAPED back into corruptions; we're told that "If after having ESCAPED the corruptions of the world through the TRUE KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the second state is worse than the first; better to have never KNOWN the way of righteousness, than having KNOWN it, to have turned AWAY from the holy commandment."

There was a time in Peter's letter, when the "escapees" were NOT "dogs" and "pigs"; the time when they were escaped defilements.

Thus --- we GUARD ourselves; not by our own strength or righteousness, but by embodying James' words:

"Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you. Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to GOD, and He will draw near to you." James4:10, 7-8

That's the truth of Scripture, Gene; does it make sense the way I conveyed it (with full Scriptural citations)?

 

[Ben johnson]

Gene, I messed up the setting of my time machine; so I answered your post before you made it.

Mike --- it may take me awhile to answer; if you're game, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on Post #254....

 

[GenemZ]

We can sin. Does God want us to sin? No.

God is resistible. What did we do to BECOME saved?

1. We believed in Christ savingly.
2. We repented.
3. We received Christ bodily into our hearts, and received the Holy Spirit.
4. We received the Spirit's regeneration of our hearts.
Yes, it's fully possible. Jesus said, "Unless you REPENT, you WILL PERISH". Lk13:3

Luke 13:1-3 (New American Standard Bible)
"Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.

And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?




"I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
​

The Greek word for repent, means to change one's mind. Change one's mind in regards to how they saw Christ. Jesus was not speaking about repenting of one's sins! For these Galileans mentioned were sacrificing animals! They knew they were sinners!!! They knew they needed forgiveness! The issue was concerning what one thought about Christ.

Luke 12:8 (New American Standard Bible)
"And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God."
​

In the previous chapter, Jesus had just made that verse the central issue. It continued in theme into what you quoted from in chapter 13! The issue in salvation was not said to be repenting from sins! It was changing one's mind (repentance) about Christ!

There is a vast difference between "sinning after salvation", and "continuing sinning willfully". We do sin; but as we abide in Him, we walk in repentance. We strive NOT to sin; though not by our power, by His in us.

The sins of the unbeliever will not even be mentioned that their judgment! Didn't you know that?

Only their "works" will be mentioned.

Revelation 20:12 (New King James Version)
"And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books."
​

Sins will not be mentioned. Why? Because Jesus has paid for the penalty for all mens sins. Even the unbelievers sins have all been paid for!

1 John 2:2 (New International Version)
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
​

The unbeliever's works will be looked for! Not their sins!

The only work that will be found to be missing that will condemn the unbeliever, will be the one work of believing in Jesus Christ!

John 6:28-29 (New International Version)
"Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"


Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."


​

That one work will not be found in the "Book of Life" concerning the unbeliever. That's what will condemn them.

Their 'sins' will not even be mentioned. Only their works!


Because? Jesus paid for their sins as well! All mens sins!!!

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours

but also for the sins of the whole world."​

In Christ! GeneZ




.

 

[Ben johnson]

You state it as if you cited it before. That's a "bait & switch" tactic. By round-swapping the arguments you're engaging in a debate tactic. That tactic assumes that, "When you answer one of my questions, I'll throw up another in its place." Unfortunately that assumes that, "If not all of my questions can be answered in one fell of the question tree, then simply drawing your attention to another problem means my position is right."

The answers are suspect, Mike; when Scripture says "FALL", the answers assert things like "Oh they may FALL, but they're still SAVED; they may be unsteadfast or faithless but all they'll lose is heavenly CROWNS."

Yet to address this new assertion of course it can be non-soteriological. The gloss to push this book into to a permanent statement about eternal life is a soteriological reach. It's a book of who God intends to live. That's more than soteriological. People are blotted out of this book every day.

The "book of life", is stated in Rev20:15 to be the delineation between "IMMORTALITY and the LAKE OF FIRE".

That's "salvational"; soteriology.

People die.

Therein lies the problem in microcosm. When you presume that the author intends a statement to be exclusively soteriological, then you neglect the fact that the wording includes more or less than soteriology. Or even that the author wasn't even thinking on soteriological lines.

"The Book of Life", is established to be salvational; being blotted from the book of life, is loss-of-salvation.

This is established; the only response from someone who holds to "OSAS", is: "Oh they can't REALLY be blotted".

 

[Ben johnson]

You state it as if you cited it before. That's a "bait & switch" tactic. By round-swapping the arguments you're engaging in a debate tactic. That tactic assumes that, "When you answer one of my questions, I'll throw up another in its place." Unfortunately that assumes that, "If not all of my questions can be answered in one fell of the question tree, then simply drawing your attention to another problem means my position is right."

The answers are suspect, Mike; when Scripture says "FALL", the answers assert things like "Oh they may FALL, but they're still SAVED; they may be unsteadfast or faithless but all they'll lose is heavenly CROWNS."

Yet to address this new assertion of course it can be non-soteriological. The gloss to push this book into to a permanent statement about eternal life is a soteriological reach. It's a book of who God intends to live. That's more than soteriological. People are blotted out of this book every day.

The "book of life", is stated in Rev20:15 to be the delineation between "IMMORTALITY and the LAKE OF FIRE".

That's "salvational"; soteriology.

People die.

Therein lies the problem in microcosm. When you presume that the author intends a statement to be exclusively soteriological, then you neglect the fact that the wording includes more or less than soteriology. Or even that the author wasn't even thinking on soteriological lines.

"The Book of Life", is established to be salvational; being blotted from the book of life, is loss-of-salvation.

This is established; the only response from someone who holds to "OSAS", is: "Oh they can't REALLY be blotted".

 

[Ben johnson]

An utterly necessary consequence? That is, everyone who is saved shall do good works, whether or not they draw another breath?

If you'd say, "No" there I'd point out that Reformed theology would agree pointblank with you.

Jesus said, "No bad tree CAN produce good fruit (works), no good tree CAN produce bad fruit (works); therefore you will KNOW them by their fruit."

Was Jesus right, or wrong? Did He mean what He said?

James said "Faith, if it produces no good works, is dead being by itself." Did James mean what he said?

I think this is a far deeper problem than you're exposing. If by "desire" you mean the self-preserving desire to escape punishment and death, I'd agree with you.

No; I mean recognize the reality of Jesus and His sacrifice to atone for their sins, and believe.

But you know that's not anything like what God would be saying. That's the motivating condition that forces all men to make some kind of consideration of the Savior. But not everyone looking for asbestos underpants is saved: God sets a different requirement: relying on His Son. That's a radically different thing from the desire to escape punishment.

Yet --- when we're given an account of "those who escape defilements of the world through the true knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", the response is "Oh they were NOT REALLY saved".

Face it, there are only two places in Scripture where "regeneration" is actually used in the NT. You're not saying much if you're saying, "In two instances, Scripture doesn't say how regeneration is organized."

Then let's look at Titus3:5-6; regeneration (to us) is by the Spirit who WAS POURED on us by Jesus our Savior.

"Poured", coexists with "regenerate"; it is a character of the REGENERATING Spirit.

1. The POURED Spirit regenerates
2. The Spirit is poured through Jesus-our-Savior
3. "Savior" denotes "belief"; thus belief precedes poured, just as it does in Acts10:45-47 & 11:17.

Can any case be made for "regenerated by the Spirit who was THEN poured on us through our THEN-Savior Jesus? How?

If you look at "born of God/Spirit" though, you get quite a different response from Scripture.
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1:12-13

"Begottenness", is all of Him and nothing of us (verse 13); but verse 12 says "BECOMING begotten is by believing and receiving Jesus."

Look up "blameless", and tell me who decides it for us --- God, or ourselves? Col1:21-23, 2Pet3:14, Jude1:24 (with 20-21), Philip2:25.

If the will of man were caused the person to have faith and receive Christ, then there's a contradiction here. Jn 1:13 states these people were not born of the will of man.

The "born", is not of the will of men; becoming "born", is.

Look at how "children" is cast in Heb12:7-9; if WE do not submit to God's discipline, then WE are not His children. "SHALL we not much rather BE subject to (the discipline of) the Father of spirits, AND LIVE?" Any way to deny the soteriological meaning of that?

In Acts 2, the people were first "cut to the heart". That's a heart change. Then they asked, "what shall we do?"

Peter hadn't got to the part about relying on Christ.

What were they "cut to the heart", about?

Peter said: "You've been looking for the Messiah; well, He CAME, and you KILLED Him." That's what convicted them.

Are you saying their hearts weren't yet changed to repent of their actions at that point? That they had to receive Jesus, Who then actually changed their hearts to move in a different direction?

It was conviction that changed them.

How were their hearts reached before receiving the Spirit?

By exposing them to the truth of Who they crucified.