Can "salvation", be "forfeit"?

[Ben johnson]

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 ...

No "replace", they both speak of "falling from salvation". Beloved-brother can be deceived by sin to spiritual death (thanatos) in ch1, and saved-brethren can wander from the truth to "soul-death" (psuche-thanatos) and uncovered/unforgiven sins.

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.

The only way it's not "spiritual/eternal", is if we can be carried away by LUSTS but remain SAVED.

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.

So --- believers can be enticed and overcome by lust and sin, but still be saved? Do you believe this?

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.

Seems we've established "soteriological meaning" in these verses. If not, then let's hear how you answer the questions I've just asked.

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.

Two choices:
1. Sinningly-saved (not about soteriology)
2. Sin and salvation are incompatible (soteriological)

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.

"Dead-faith" is "saved"? If you say "yes", then you're asserting "non-soteriological passage". If you say "no", then you're asserting "soteriological".

What's your answer --- "dead-faith-saved"? Or "dead-faith-unsaved"?

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?'"

The "actual answer", is in response to the assertion of "ALSO GENTILES".

An "Also Gentiles" passage, does not transfer to "sovereign-election". Just the same as an "I-am-authorized" passage (John6:25-44) does not transfer to "sovereign-election".

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".

His WILL, is NOT for men to perish (2Pet3:9); both passages use "boulema" for the verb. God's DESIREOUS will, is that all who see Jesus and believe, be saved.

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.

Then you're asserting that God is the author of their sin.

Does sin exist?

How do I convince you that a perfect Creator, who HATES sin, can never CAUSE sin?

You argue that "man must follow his nature"; which is true, but not in the way you think. But you MISS the fact that "God must also follow His nature".

He cannot cause sin.

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.

Look at Rom5:17; justification is received --- volitionally.

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

Justification CAME to ALL MEN, in exactly the same measure as condemnation CAME to ALL MEN. Rom5:18.

Justification must be received. Verse 17.

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.

The "initiated-by-God", was Jesus-on-the-Cross; that "whosoever WOULD believe, be saved."

And theologically, that's passivity.

Please read Matt7:24-27; then answer two questions:

1. Does "ACT", mean "believe"?
2. Is man active or passive in Jesus' words?

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:

God never manipulates the heart; the heart decides to believe. Rom10:9-10, Rom6:17

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

You take "by the Spirit" here, to be apart from man's volition? How do you miss the rest of Rom2, where God's kindness is MEANT to lead us to repentance; but by hard unrepentant hearts we store up WRATH for ourselves?

In Rom8:12-13, we EITHER walk in the flesh (if we do, we must die!) --- OR by the Holy Spirit we put to death the deeds of the flesh, and live.

Look at what I just quoted in Rom8, Mike; by the Spirit WE put to death the flesh. It does NOT say "the SPIRIT puts to death our flesh FOR us".

This in opposition to your view that "the Spirit changes our hearts FOR us, and THEN we believe/persevere".

 

[Ben johnson]

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

And the Spirit is given after belief.

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

Hmmm; "obedient from the heart".

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

Was this before Titus believed? No.

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

And if we turn BACK to weak worthless things, after having known Him (and Him knowing US), Gal4:9, then we are SEVERED from Christ and FALLEN from grace! Gal5:4

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

Before, or after they believe? In Jeremiah 31 (which Heb8 quotes), does He forgive their sins BEFORE they repent?

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

It's the kingdom of Heaven. Soteriological, Mike.

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

It does not assert an "exclusive call". He also called those who declined (who do not love Him).

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.

I understand that; but what prevents you from accepting that "faith-is-causal", is the fact that it would THEREFORE seem "meritorious" to 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.

What direction does faith flow? God towards man (God GIFTS saving-faith to men who did not love Him before)? Or man-towards-God (men realize their sinfulness, recognize His gift and come to Him BY faith)?

Please see Heb11:6.

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

It's entirely my choice; that's why we're responsible. That's why there is a Final Judgment, where men receive the CONSEQUENCES of their choices. To those who by doing good sought for glory and honor and immortality, ETERNAL LIFE; but to those who were selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation --- in the Final Judgment. Back to Rom2:6-8; the passage (2-8) cannot be discussed by Reformed Theologians.

 

[Ben johnson]

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

"I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard that which I have entrusted to Him. Now, (you Timothy) guard, by the Holy Spirit that indwells you, the treasure entrusted to you." 2Tim1:12-14

The treasure entrusted to us, is eternal life.

We choose to guard it, by the power of the Spirit, through our faith.

 

[Ben johnson]

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

"I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard that which I have entrusted to Him. Now, (you Timothy) guard, by the Holy Spirit that indwells you, the treasure entrusted to you." 2Tim1:12-14

The treasure entrusted to us, is eternal life.

We choose to guard it, by the power of the Spirit, through our faith.

 

[Ben johnson]

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

"I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard that which I have entrusted to Him. Now, (you Timothy) guard, by the Holy Spirit that indwells you, the treasure entrusted to you." 2Tim1:12-14

The treasure entrusted to us, is eternal life.

We choose to guard it, by the power of the Spirit, through our faith.

 

[GenemZ]

Jesus told everyone the truth. Yet, there were always some who resisted what he said.

Did Jesus hang around and keep repeating himself?


Some people still think its up to them for being saved from the Lake of Fire. Just like it was in Jesus day. Its those who thought they could do something to be saved, were the ones who resisted Jesus words, as well.

If our obedience and morality could save us?

Jesus did not have to die on the Cross.

For if Jesus had not paid for our sins? Sins would be THE issue in salvation.

The issue the Pharissees held was nailed to the Cross. Some here do not believe that factor. They think Jesus was just trying to draw attention to himself. They may not see it that way. But their confession about propitiation makes it to be that way.

If Jesus did not pay the penalty for man's sins? Sin would remain THE issue after we are saved.

But since Jesus did do so, our sins are a point of reference as to reveal if we are choosing God's will for us, or not, after we are saved.

Sins would be THE issue in salvation if Jesus had not paid for the penalty of sin.

Those who make sins THE issue in salvation are sadly deficient in their understanding of the work of the Cross. They see it more as a publicity stunt, than the reality it is concerning man's sins. In their pride, they still want to feel that they can do something to save themselves. That's the crux of the matter in this debate.

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."
​

Every man's sins has been paid for!

The unbeliever's sins will not be what sends him to Hell. It will be his rejection of Christ that will send him to the Lake of Fire in the final judgment.

After we are saved? We can reject Jesus Christ by pride and arrogance. But, that does not cause a loss of salvation from Hell. It will cause a loss of Eternal reward, though. We reject Christ by rejecting his Word and recreate it to fit our desired way for the Christian way of life.

Do we see that here? I think so.

1 Corinthians 5:1-3 (New International Version)
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?
​

Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present."
​

Paul only speaks of congregational discipline for such a believer. If we could lose our salvation? Paul would have taken that opportunity to shout out about how we can end up going to Hell if we do not remain obedient to morality after we are saved. I guarantee we would have seen things like.. "REPENT, OR YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!!!!"

But, we do not find that. Do we? Instead, we find Paul admonishing the people to refuse this man fellowship as a form of punishment. To put him out of their social realm. They did so.

2 Corinthians 2:6-8 (New International Version)
"The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him."
​

In 2 Corinthians, Paul had to tell the Corinthians to stop being so harsh on this man for he had repented of what he had been doing. But, the threat of going to Hell was not even mentioned once. Why? Paul knew we could not lose our salvation.

John 6:39 (New International Version)
"And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."​

I ask you. Where are the moralistic Pharisees today? Who make their morality the determining factor in their salvation from Hell? They have to be amongst us. What do they believe today? The Pharisees thought it was their own morality that saved them. Do we have them here amongst us?

Where are they?





In Christ, GeneZ



.

 

[GenemZ]

"I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard that which I have entrusted to Him. Now, (you Timothy) guard, by the Holy Spirit that indwells you, the treasure entrusted to you." 2Tim1:12-14

The treasure entrusted to us, is eternal life.

We choose to guard it, by the power of the Spirit, through our faith.

Context?

What comes just before your reference?

11And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. 12That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day."


​

Now your reference!

13What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."
​

The Holy Spirit is Eternal life! He is God. He is in us to help us guard the FAITH we are to live by.

Guard FAITH that is in us! FAITH! The just shall live by FAITH! Remember? Not the just shall live by "morality."

Its faith that produces VIRTUE.

VIRTUE exceeds morality.

Any unbeliever can be moral if he chooses to be. Will an unbeliever be saved if he is moral?


Faith is what we choose to believe in regards to what we have heard presented from God's Word.

Romans 10:17 (New International Version)
"Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."
​

If we believe we can lose our salvation?

We lack FAITH for that reality!

1 Corinthians 16:13 (New International Version)
"Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong."


​

I guard my FAITH with jealousy! And, that FAITH guards me! No one is going to win that FAITH away from me! Those who try, are seen as cheap low life seducers. Garbage peddlers.

1 Corinthians 16:13 (New International Version)
"Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong."
​

Are you guarding yourself by FAITH? Which is? The living in Eternal life (Holy Spirit) by means of God's truth. Which is realized in one's experience and lived?

Here's some faith...

John 6:39 (New International Version)
"And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."​

Do you have that faith? Do you guard it, because it guards you?



In Christ, GeneZ



.



​

 

[heymikey80]

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."

Have I been with you so long, Ben, and you still haven't heard? I mentioned it months ago, I've no reason to depart it, I've reiterated it a number of times. People can draw near and fall away from God's people, and never believe.

Not everything is soteriology.

Your persistence in this matter is admirable, because admitting it does force a wholesale revision in your view.

But it's also futile.

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

That's "salvational"; soteriology.

And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Rev 20:15
​

Ben, I didn't catch Revelation 20:15 stating anything about immortality. The book of life is opened to see who should live at the Last Day. The implications at the Last Day would be immortality, yes. Beyond that there is no death. The implication for other times? Nada. The book of life is simply a statement of who should live at that time, for whatever reasoning of God's.

"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".

Clearly this is not the case. This is a complete underestimate of the depth of the views you're characterizing.

 

[heymikey80]

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

Um, since you asked ...

The poster believes in a form of universal sacrifice as well as eternal security, so his viewpoint is trying to compute the effectiveness of the atonement just as yours is. You're essentially in conflict how far Scripture characterizes that effectiveness. The normal scopes governing those limits are gone, because the sacrifice is universally applied, yet the effectiveness of the Atonement is not universal.

As my view doesn't deal with a sacrifice that's universally applied, my view doesn't inject itself into the argument at this level.

 

[heymikey80]

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?

Capability is not actuality.

Good trees can also die before their season and produce no fruit.

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

Sure he did.
A believer will produce good fruit given other factors: time, feeding, and season as specified by the Spirit.

So a believer will not always produce good fruit. There are other factors involved, Ben. That's why it's called "fruit".

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

"Recognize the reality" -- there're plenty of people who recognize this, but who see egotistical advantages in it as well. Pattern: Simon.

"Believe" -- reusing the word in a definition is begging the question.

I'm back to the original question, Ben: what belief saves, according to your view?

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".

Were you answering my comment? Because you proposed an example including people who want asbestos underpants instead of relying on Jesus.

It's great to rely on the true knowledge of Jesus to escape defilement. But that's not the same as relying on Jesus the Person for your salvation.

I reiterate that not everyone is this way in Peter's description. It's a mix. Not everything is soteriology. Peter's not painting with a narrow brush. Neither am I.

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

You're reaching. the Spirit is poured out among all believers, and the Spirit regenerates us.

Same Actor. different actions.

for instance, mom gives birth to baby. Mom pours out herself into her baby in raising the child. Why would you say that mom's giving birth to her baby is the same as pouring out herself?

Similarly, I say that the Spirit works in both actions.

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

It's two actions of the Spirit.

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

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" Jn 3:3-10

Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Jn 7:39

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Jn 20:22
​

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

Isn't it obvious that if becoming begotten (which isn't what it says) is by believing -- and if believing is all out of our own wills -- then becoming begotten is NOT "all of Him"?

Projecting the rights of sons -- a legal standing in every age -- into the making of sons -- a procreational action -- isn't really a great way to build a theology. The phrases mean something distinct from one another. That's why they're used.

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

Find one baby who willed his own birth into occurring.

And if you meant the parents' wills in creating fleshly sons, who is the Father of spiritual sons -- isn't it the Spirit of God?

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.

Oh, great. So you're pointing out that UNWILLINGNESS indicates that we're not His children. I don't think anyone who denies God is His child, no.

God changes hearts.

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.
It was conviction that changed them.
By exposing them to the truth of Who they crucified.

That conviction would be from the Spirit of God.

... if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment Jn 16:7-8
​

 

[heymikey80]

No "replace", they both speak of "falling from salvation". Beloved-brother can be deceived by sin to spiritual death (thanatos) in ch1, and saved-brethren can wander from the truth to "soul-death" (psuche-thanatos) and uncovered/unforgiven sins.

Yeah, it is a replacement, as one doesn't specifically point out salvation, so it isn't directly speaking to salvation.

The only way it's not "spiritual/eternal", is if we can be carried away by LUSTS but remain SAVED. So --- believers can be enticed and overcome by lust and sin, but still be saved? Do you believe this?

Sure, yes, I believe this. That seems obvious to me, if the thief on the Cross (or the centurion at Christ's crucifixion) has any hope. Certainly something overcame them both at some point.

 

[GenemZ]

That's "salvational"; soteriology.
"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".

Unbelievers NEVER had their name written in the book of life!



The Greek word for 'name' was interchangable with 'title.'


Only those who are saved can have their "title" blotted out if they fail to please the Lord after they were saved. For only their name/title was written in!

Revelation 2:17 (New International Version)​

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it."


​

​

The name/title written in the book, has to do with the *new name* we are to be given that will reveal what we will be granted in authority to reign with Christ! Only those who "overcome" will be given their name/title. But, those who choose what's false, will have their title/name blotted out. At the evaluation!

All those who believe in Christ had their name/title written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. When believers enter Heaven their name is still there. Its at the evaluation of the saints will be when we are shown we either produced -wood, hay, stubble - or - gold, silver, precious stones - that will determine if we lose our title/name - a name that will be associated with our authority granted in Eternal rewards.


To lose rewards includes to have our 'title' blotted out at the evaluation! Yet, all believers enter into Heaven having their name/title yet written in the book. Unbelievers were NEVER written in to begin with. They can not enter Heaven.

Revelation 13:8 (New American Standard Bible)​

"All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain."


​

​

Unbelievers name/title can not be blotted out!


For? It was never entered to begin with!


But, believers can lose their rewards! Our rewards will also reflect the authority we will be granted to reign with Christ. To reign? We will be given our royal TITLE! It will not be blotted out. It will remain.



Who are the loser of rewards and the privilege to reign with Christ? Losers are those who now lust after false doctrines that satisfy their flesh. These will be the losers! They now live by wood, hay, and straw! To be burned UP! Lost!

But? Their soul will be saved from the Lake of Fire!

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (New International Version)​

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. ​

It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."​

​

Please, read that last sentence in that passage until what it says can no longer be denied.





.

 

[Rightglory]

Genez,

"All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain."

it might help your view if it said, "before the foundations" but it does not. All it is saying that all those who believe from Adam to the last man living when He comes again, have been recorded in the Book of Life.
As to blotting them out, you seem to think God was kidding in Ex 32:32, Rev 3:5, Ps 69:27-28.
Blott out means to remove one's name in this context. If ones name is blotted out, is it still on the list?
Your use of I Cor 3:11-15 has no application to those who are alive in this life. It applies to those who have overcome, to those who are saved, who endured. But their works will be tested, refined. We, as believers, are not pefect. All of our works were not done in faith. Not all of them contributed to the foundation once laid. We will be purified.

Who are the loser of rewards and the privilege to reign with Christ? Losers are those who now lust after false doctrines that satisfy their flesh. Yes, which corresponds perfectly with those that are called unbelievers. Why be saved through faith, when one can live like the devil, in the flesh and still be saved which again is the definition of an unbeliever.

 

[Rightglory]

Genez,

"All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain."

it might help your view if it said, "before the foundations" but it does not. All it is saying that all those who believe from Adam to the last man living when He comes again, have been recorded in the Book of Life.
As to blotting them out, you seem to think God was kidding in Ex 32:32, Rev 3:5, Ps 69:27-28.
Blott out means to remove one's name in this context. If ones name is blotted out, is it still on the list?
Your use of I Cor 3:11-15 has no application to those who are alive in this life. It applies to those who have overcome, to those who are saved, who endured. But their works will be tested, refined. We, as believers, are not pefect. All of our works were not done in faith. Not all of them contributed to the foundation once laid. We will be purified.

Who are the loser of rewards and the privilege to reign with Christ? Losers are those who now lust after false doctrines that satisfy their flesh.

Yes, which corresponds perfectly with those that are called unbelievers. Why be saved through faith, when one can live like the devil, in the flesh and still be saved which again is the definition of an unbeliever.

 

[GenemZ]

As to blotting them out, you seem to think God was kidding in Ex 32:32, Rev 3:5, Ps 69:27-28.
Blott out means to remove one's name in this context. If ones name is blotted out, is it still on the list?

Well? Your Exodus 32:32, reference?

31 So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. 32 But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written." ​

33 The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. 34 Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin."



​

That speaks of punishment, alright. Not, Eternal damnation, though.

And, Paul had a similar prayer, but in reverse. A prayer that God would not oblidge!

Romans 9:3 (New International Version)​

"For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race."



​

Not all we read in the Bible is to be taken literally!
Paul could not become accursed in their place. It was Paul expressing his personal feelings. We witness to Paul's sentiments in what he wrote.


All believers who are punished will be found to have wood, hay, and stubble to show for their lives. Burned up! Destruction by fire!


Their punishment will very painful. They will be denied eternal rewards. That is punishment that will hurt deeply. For part of the rewards will involve special closenesses to Christ in Eternity.

That passage does not say they will burn in the Lake of Fire. If it did? Then you would have made your case.



Now? Rev 3:5, you referred to?

5He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels."


​

Again! It speaks of a loss of rewards! he will retain his name/title! His reward is connected with his title that will be blotted out if he fails to overcome. There is no mention of these people being thrown into the Lake of Fire. If it did? You would have made your case.​

And? Your last reference? Ps 69:27-28?

27 Charge them with crime upon crime;
do not let them share in your salvation.
28 May they be blotted out of the book of life
and not be listed with the righteous.​

David was doing the same type of thing Paul did. But, David was taking an opposite tact. Simply expressing his sentiments.

In Psalm 69, David was under painful discipline from God. He was being punished for his own sin. Men around David were kicking him when he was down. David was pouring out his hatred for these men.

But! Today, we the Church are now told to pray for those who curse us. To bless, not curse. David as an OT saint, did not have that command given him.

David was venting his rage towards thoughtless cruel people who took delight in his suffering while under the discipline from the hand of God.

Your use of I Cor 3:11-15 has no application to those who are alive in this life. It applies to those who have overcome, to those who are saved, who endured.

Did you read the last sentence in that passage? Verse 15? Not all will overcome.

These who do not overcome, lose all rewards!

But! They were saved.

Read it again. Possibly, for the first time? For it appears you did not read it.

Verse 15!

"If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."​

In Christ, GeneZ





.

 

[GenemZ]

Genez,

it might help your view if it said, "before the foundations" but it does not. All it is saying that all those who believe from Adam to the last man living when He comes again, have been recorded in the Book of Life.

I can not see the logic to your otherwise dogmatic appearing remark. What difference should it make if it were written before? Your name was written in before you were born. I have a strong inkling that the Greek would reveal something a bit different than we see in rather generic (when it comes to Greek tenses) English translations.

Here is why I say that...

Ephesians 1:4a (New International Version)
"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight."
​

Myhunch is...

According to what I have witnessed to when the Word of God had been exegeted from the Greek... That when it says we were written in the book of Life from the Foundation of the world? It might be saying (in the Greek tense) that our name was existing as being written when the foundation of the world came into being. For? How can we be chosen in Christ before the creation of the world? We had to be in the book of life when we were chosen.​

And, not all have been chosen in Christ. Therefore? If God is truly omnscient? Why chose to lose?

Now, if we could lose our salvation? Why save us to begin with if he knew we would lose it? He should only save those who would be saved.

And? Because no one would be saved until after they died being saved?

The Bible would keep on using phrases like...

"For those who believe in him, have been given the chance to be saved." ​

Or? ​

"Those who believe in me enter into the opportunity to be saved." ​

Yet, no such thing is ever indicated in the Word of God. It would have, if we could lose our salvation.

And, we would see written many warnings plainly worded about ending up in the lake of Fire if the believer did not "do this, or that."

The Bible would not beat around the bush about such a serious life and death matter!

Also, we must consider another reality...

The last person on earth able to perceive spiritual insight from Scriptural correlation, would be the carnal Christian! The vert same carnal Christians who are often times the target of the "lose your salvation" messages. They, being not spiritual, would be required to be spiritual, if Scriptural correlation (insight) would be required to see how they could lose their salvation. I call that dumb on God's part if that were the case!

No. The Bible would be up front about it.

"You keep on sinning? You will lose your salvation and be thrown into the Lake of Fire!" ​

That is what the carnal, unspiritual, mind needs to see written. No such passages exist in Scripture. And, they would be written if we could lose our salvation.



Enuf said...




.

 

[Ben johnson]

No. The Bible would be up front about it.

"You keep on sinning? You will lose your salvation and be thrown into the Lake of Fire!"

That is what the carnal, unspiritual, mind needs to see written. No such passages exist in Scripture. And, they would be written if we could lose our salvation.

Heb10:26: "If we continue sinning willfully after having received EPIGNOSIS-TRUE-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 aversaries."

That's almost word-for-word what you said "does not exist".

Are you convinced yet? Then read further; verse 29 is a man who is the consequence of the warning in verse 26. No one can say "he wasn't saved", because he was sanctified by Jesus' BLOOD. Nor can they say "he's still saved", because he tramples Jesus, scorns the blood, and insults the Spirit. All that's left, is "hypothetical-can't-REALLY-happen". Doesn't read like it can't; "if WE continue sinning willfully ...fury of FIRE".

Undeniable, isn't it?

 

[Ben johnson]

Yeah, it is a replacement, as one doesn't specifically point out salvation, so it isn't directly speaking to salvation.

"Thanatos", per Strong's Greek Lexicon, is "physical death with implication of eternity in Hell".

Sure, yes, I believe this. That seems obvious to me, if the thief on the Cross (or the centurion at Christ's crucifixion) has any hope. Certainly something overcame them both at some point.

The thief, repented; so did the Centurion.

The view of "sinningly-saved", is in full conflict with all of Jesus' Gospel; Jesus came to destroy sin. He who sins, is a slave to sin --- so whom the Son sets free, is free indeed.

Paul said in Rom6, we are EITHER slaves to sin, OR slaves to righteousness and God. "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Never! How shall we who have DIED to sin, still live in it?"

If we never come to agreement on "OSAS", I pray we can at least agree that we cannot walk in sin, while Jesus and the Spirit indwell us salvationally.

...for that would make them participators in our sin...

 

[GenemZ]

Deleted.... placed out of sequence. Corrected myself.

 

[GenemZ]

Originally Posted by Ben johnson
Heb10:26: "If we continue sinning willfully after having received EPIGNOSIS-TRUE-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 aversaries."

That's almost word-for-word what you said "does not exist".

Are you convinced yet? Then read further; verse 29 is a man who is the consequence of the warning in verse 26. No one can say "he wasn't saved", because he was sanctified by Jesus' BLOOD. Nor can they say "he's still saved", because he tramples Jesus, scorns the blood, and insults the Spirit. All that's left, is "hypothetical-can't-REALLY-happen". Doesn't read like it can't; "if WE continue sinning willfully ...fury of FIRE".

Undeniable, isn't it?

OK., I see your problem in understanding what was going on.

Here!

"11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. 15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." 17Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more." 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. 19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"
​

In a nut shell?

The author was explaining that animal sacrifices will no longer cut it.

18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.


​

Why was he saying this? Because, he was writing to Jews! Jews who lived under the Mosiac Law. The unbelieving Jews (and some who believed) yet believed that animal sacrifices were for taking care of their sins. But?

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,"


​

The author did not say they had salvation itself. He is saying that these Jews he was targeting had undeniably heard, and UNDERSTOOD fully, the issue of salvation. He said they had a "full knowledge"(epignosis) about salvation. But, not salvation! He does not say they were saved.

Now if these ones deliberately kept on sinning after having a full knowledge of the truth? What does that mean? It means that they INSIST upon animal sacrifices for their sins. They sin by knowingly rejecting the knowledge about the sacrifice of Christ. And, they kept on sinning. For there were no more sacrifices for sin.

What are they to expect? The Lake of Fire. For they refused to believe in the saving work of Christ, even after having full knowledge (epignosis) of God's plan for salvation by means of the Cross.


Now? If that passage said this?

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received salvation in Christ, no sacrifice for sins is left,"


​

But, it does not say that. It only says they received a full knowledge of the truth about Jesus being the final sacrifice.

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,"
​

They refused to believe it. They kept sinning deliberately by offering animal sacrifices instead of placing their belief in the saving work of Christ. Sure! They will be going to the Lake of Fire for that reason. They rejected Christ.




In Christ, GeneZ