Can you lose your salvation??

[mjwhite]

Ben,

you,
The reason you cannot understand is because you want it to read favorably to your position. Or because I simply read different in the Word...

Could someone, a false professor of the faith, get baptized presumably as a believer, and presumably as in obedience to Jesus... Can someone partake of the HOLY SPIRIT and not be saved? I say "NO", you say "YES". You believe the Holy Spirit will indwell one-who-is-unsaved...


me.
Did you look up those definitions in a Bible dictionary? Do you have any evidence to show why you go so far astray from almost 2000 years of Christian doctrine? Is your only defense "I simply read different in the Word..."

Do you know what a straw man argument is? You have no integrity when you ascribe to me a position I never took. I never said that someone who partook of the Holy Spirit wasn't saved or that the Spirit indwelt someone who wasn't saved.

Why would you jump to such false conclusions? Would you want someone to say that about you? No/ Then you should repent of that sin.

you.
You knee-jerk into the "OLD-CATCH-22"---well, if they ARE unsaved NOW, then they were NEVER SAVED to beGIN with". But verses as: "Brethren, if any of you", "Watch YOURSELVES", "ELDERS! BEWARE your adversary the devil, who stalks the world as a roaring lion SEEKING WHOM HE MAY DEVOUR", "Partakers of the Holy Spirit", "truly-escaped-defilements-by-the-TRUE-knowledge-of-the-LORD-and-SAVIOR-JESUS", and "some will FALL FROM THE FAITH", "you have been SEVERED from CHRIST, you have FALLEN from GRACE", "KEEP the faith, which some have REJECTED and suffered SHIPWRECK in regard to their faith", these and many more, you cannot receive, so deeply entrenched is "OSAS" in you. "THEY WERE NEVER SAVED! they HAD the Holy Spirit but were UNSAVED! MAYBE they never became UNSAVED! They suffered SHIPWRECK but were ABSOLUTELY STILL SAVED!" If the Bible doesn't convince you, how can I?

me.
Hello Ben. Have you been listening to me? I accuse you of being unable to discern what the Word is saying in part because you have many bad definitions of key words or phrases. You appeal to a bunch of verses where you continue in your perverted definitions and just lump them together as if piling on bad apples ontop of bad apples can make good apples.

Each verse you have brought up so far, I have shown you your error. I have asked you to reconcile your bad definitions with how Christians have defined these words and phrases since the beginning. Start there Ben.

you.
Sure. Give up the idea that salvation can be lost by things you DO or DON'T DO. To "give-up" something, one first must HAVE it. We (OSNAS) have NEVER had the view that DO's save or condemn. No matter how many times we say, we still hear "BUT SALVATION IS NOT BY WORKS!" That's true, it's not. It's by JESUS-IN-YOU. Which CAUSES the works ("you will know them by their fruits"---did Jesus mean it or not?). If receiving Jesus was NOT a work, then later rejecting Jesus is NOT a work. Clearer now?

me.
Look up what salvation means ben. Your definition is incomplete. How can we discuss salvation if your definition is inadequate? But as to salvation by works, as much as you seek to deny it, in every post you reaffirm it. Words like "One must be diligent," or Thinking that 2nd Peter 1:4-12 means "if we don't DO these things we won't get into heaven." Your whole theology is simply this: God has a part, and man has a part and man fails to DO his part he will perish.Hence works salvation.

you.
They CAN mean the same thing only if you pervert their true meanings.
In Col3:24 the REWARD is the INHERITANCE. Argue with Paul, not me.

me.
Wrong again. It doesn't say that the reward IS the inheritance. It says that for SERVING the Lord [works] we will recieve rewards, rewards OF the inheritance. And not rewards IS the inheritance.

You misread Paul, you pervert Paul.

you.
You arbritarily assume that being deceived and losing salvation are one and the same. They are not.
But you believe that one can be DECEIVED BY SIN, return to WICKED LIFESTYLE, out of FELLOWSHIP THROUGH CHRIST, PTIAO-STUMBLED-WRETCHED!, BACKSLIDDEN, BUT ABSOLUTELY STILL SAVED!!! Is it me, or you who misunderstands salvation?

me.
First, you didn't deny my statement.
Second, that is a straw man argument. I never said any of that, nor implied it. You simply show your ignorance.

you.
As it plainly says, he is warning them of being decieved so that they might not lose what they have accomplished. They haven't accomplished eternal life. They were given eternal life.
they were given NOTHING, until they had the faith to RECEIVE IT. The FAITH is what has been "wrought", it is by FAITH they have been saved, and it is by FAITH they will REMAIN saved. If their faith/belief ENDS, then too will their salvation. "And though you have not seen Him, you love Him; and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with hoy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of YOUR faith the salvation of your souls" 1Pet1:9

Me.
What we wrought means what we worked for. If faith is a work [something we wrought] then salvation is by a work and not free. Your failed understanding of faith shows why you cannot understand the Word in these other passages. Faith is not a work, nor something we wrought, so salvation is a free gift. Again, if you had to wrought something to gain salvation it couldn't be free or a gift.

But [in your view] what they wrought to gain salvation isn't even salvation from Hell. You are quite decieved.

and again you prove that:
you.
Salvation is not the gift. The provision for salvation, GRACE, JESUS-ON-THE-CROSS, THAT is the gift. Salvation is RECEIVING the gift. THROUGH OUR FAITH. This is what Scripture says, this is what I believe...

me.
Scripture doesn't say that. The Church down through the ages has not said that. You are decieved.

you.
2nd Peter 1. As I have told you many times, Peter is telling us how to have an abundant entrance into the kingdom. It's not AN abundant entrance, it's THE EISODOS-GATE-ITSELF... He is not telling us how to stay saved. "For IN THIS WAY the GATE of Heaven WILL BE PROVIDED". Do you contend there is another way to the Gate of Heaven? (Is salvation (staying out of hell and going to heaven) ---salvation is NOT "staying out of Hell". Salvation is FELLOWSHIP THROUGH CHRIST, the propitiation for our SIN. Avoiding Hell is the CONSEQUENCE of our "having-been-saved-from-our-sins"...

me.
Sorry ben you have again perverted the Scriptures. They plainly say that it is an abundant entrance:

KJV- For so an entrance shall be minisistered unto you abundantly into the everlasting Kingdom...
NIV- and you will recieve a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord...
Greek- For so richly will be supplied to you the entrance into the eternal kingdom of the Lord...


you,
a free gift? If so, then why do we have to do all these things to GET our free gift? [2pet1:5-7] What do these things do for us? Verse 8 tells us that having these things will keep us from being barren or unproductive. Is salvation (as I define it) something we must produce? No! The reward of a productive person is the wage he recieves for his efforts. If Peter didn't mean that all these things WILL accompany the saved, they why did he say it? Peter is not talking about salvation, but rewards. Deal with that concept please. It is, really, impossible for me to "deal with that concept", when Peter very plainly says: "He who LACKS these qualities is blind and shortsighted and has FORGOTTEN his PURIFICATION from former sins". You say "either they WERE NEVER SAVED (and somehow were unsaved-but-PURIFIED-FROM-SINS), or they never FELL from salvation (and an impure un-fruited person is still SAVED)".

me.
So you are saying that we must Do stuff to stay saved? Works salvation. One way or the other Ben.

you.
This passage does NOT say that "these attributes save you"---it only says "These things WILL be yours IF you are saved. If they are NO LONGER yours, then you are NO LONGER saved." "No good tree produces bad fruit, no bad tree produces good fruit. Therefore you will KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS." Jesus said it, I believe it!

me.
You can't even get your wrong scripture readings consistent. It never says you will have these things if you are saved, it commands us to ADD these things to our faith. Those who have failed to ADD these things are shortsighted, those who DO ADD these things will NOT BE UNPRODUCTIVE for Jesus and a rich welcome into heaven hey will recieve.

you.
What we have as the free gift is 'being saved' by grace through faith.
The free gift is the provision. It is God's grace. Undeserved, unearned. But salvation is by our faith, by which the PROVISION is RECEIVED. "For by grace through YOUR FAITH are you saved, and GRACE is not of yourselves, GRACE is the gift of God; GRACE IS not as a result of works lest anyone boast." GRACE-RECEIVED-IN-FAITH is NOT a work, no matter how many times it is called so...

me.
No Ben. look it up. Check the church's 2000 year understanding. The free gift is salvation.

Romans 6:23 tells us:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

hello ben, could it be plainer said then that. The free gift is eternal life, not just some provision for it. You have been decieved. wake up!!

you.
I suggest you skip the Greek and learn to use an English translation, or whatever your native tongue is. I sorry, I no speak English good please...

me.
I said whatever language your native tongue is. Do you always listen so badly?

you.
Why 'watch yourselves' is not talking about salvation, but rewards. You lose your rewards, or part of them because you walked in disobedience. Salvation is not based on our works, good or bad. Heaven is a free gift from God.
OK, then we leave your understanding as: "WATCH YOURSELVES, that you may not LOSE WHATEVER REWARDS you have in Heaven, for YOU can never be unsaved. But, now, if ONE-FROM-AMONG-YOU (but not YOU YOURSELVES of course) has GONE-TOO-FAR, well then he was never saved in the FIRST PLACE, because if he HAD been saved it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for him to have been deceived into falling"...


me.
basically correct. It is too bad you cannot understand that there is non-believers among every congregation. So that from among them one could not be a believer. John wouldn't write the letter "To the true believers and not to the unbelivers among you".

you.
Incredulous! The Pharisees did not believe because they had not believed.
You said "the Pharisees did not believe (in Christ) because they were not His sheep (not CHOSEN-BY-PREDESTINATION)". I merely read it in context, and explained that it was the FACT of His being the MESSIAH that they did not believe. And they did not believe that FACT, because they did not believe in HIM. The SHEEP are sheep BECAUSE they believe in Jesus, and the SHEEP also believe He is the Messiah. I demonstrated that this verse has NOTHING to do with "predestination"...

me.
Not true, I quoted the scripture. It says: "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." I never said anything about chosen-by-predestination. You don't listen very well Ben. You like to ascribe to me what I did not say. That is not an act with much integrity.


Believing that fact and believing in Him are the same ben. The pharisees wouldn't believe in Him if they didn't think he was the messiah, so your reasoning is circular and without any merit. Like i said, a cup of air has more substance.

you.
And why do they choose to enter but because they believe! Eternal life is defined as life with God never ending. You contradict yourself when you say you will always be with God but then maybe not. If maybe not then why do you boast you have eternal life NOW? You agree you might go to hell and have eternal damnation.
]Eternal life is the inheritance, which is reserved in Heaven for you. Salvation is our grasp of that eternal life, which is comprised of our fellowship with/in/through Jesus. If we HAVE Jesus, we (at-this-time) HAVE THE ETERNAL LIFE.

me.
Salvation is eternal life since we are saved from Hell. Eternal life is the free gift as Romans 6:23 plainly tells us. You do not understand the Word because you have wrong definitiond for its words and ideas. Your own arguement above contradicts itself because you fail to see that eternal life is the free gift. You fail to see that salvation is eternal life. You remain decieved.

I asked you:
What then can keep you from eternal damnation?

you replied: [excerpts]
I can KEEP MYSELF
I can be diligent
I can FIGHT the GOOD FIGHT
I can CONTINUE
I can ENDURE
I can ENDURE TO THE END
I can ABIDE IN HIM...

God, nope he can't help you, Jesus, nope, he has done all he can for you. As you look towards the future where does the hope for heaven lay? Why in yourself, in what you DO or don't Do. Your faith is in you.
Your bosat is clearly not in what Jesus has done for you, but in yourself, how Ben can save himself by Ben doingthis or that. Your misunderstaning of basic scripture terms and definitions leaves you badly decieved.

end part one

 

[mjwhite]

Ben,

part two

you.
Mat 7:21. Were these people saved?
Mat 18:3-4. There is no mention of God damning His children here.
Luke 13:3 There is again no mention of God damning his own in this verse
]I never said they were saved. These verses place severe qualifications on salvation. Each verses carries "UNLESS ____, you WILL NOT go to Heaven!" There is no contradiction available here. And yet, there also is no "salvation-by-works" here. I strove to illustrate the nature of salvation, which is CHRIST IN US. Jesus said, "Unless you are BORN AGAIN, you CANNOT enter Heaven". It is on "BORN AGAIN", that all the others are founded.

me.
Ben, striving to define salvation incomplete is nothing to keep bragging about. Look up Romans 6:23 and 2000 years of church doctrine.

Each verse does not carry
"UNLESS ____, you WILL NOT go to Heaven!"

You simply make that up. Read 2nd John 8-9 about going too far and not staying in the Word. Apply it to yourself.

The rest of your words make no sense.

you.
He simply is praying that they will be obedient in the Lord.
"And this I pray, ______, in order you may be sincere and blameless FOR the day of Christ". Paul was NOT praying for their continued salvation? Then we will just have to disagree...

me.
You haven't even bothered to understand what 'salvation' means. You don't know what the free gift is. How could we ever agree?

you.
Your defintions are not keeping with the definitions used by Christians since the beginning and all down through history. I suggest you get some good books on Doctrine and the History of Doctrine and acquaint yourself with the basic terms and ideas of Christianity.
Can we not discern the truth from the Bible? Did not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, men who WALKED WITH JESUS, and Paul (undeniably God-led), did they not provide us with enough information to rightly divide "the nature of salvation"? Do we need additional writings because they-couldn't-or-didn't-tell-us-enough?

me.
That is just the point ben. Your definitions and ideas stand in sharp contrast to all these years of church belief. Now who should I believe? My own interpretation which agrees with church history, or yours which disagrees with church history and doctrine? sINCE YOU AND i DISAGREE, I APPEALED TO CHURCH DOCTRINE THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY. You seem ignorant of our brothers and sisters struggles over these very ideas. That is why I asked you to broaden your reading. What teachers of the Word agree with you? Did Augustine? Did Luther? Did Calvin? Did Wesley? Did Thomas? Did any of the early church fathers? Does Graham? Does Moody? Does CSLewis? Does Schaeffer?

No to all. None agree with you. You are like a cult, gone off into your own doctrine fueled by your own errant definitions and false interpretations. You are decieved.
Many good men of God have gone on before us and have left us a heritage of knowledge and understanding from which to draw from. Your BASIC understandings of faith, slavation, and the free gift follow NONE of them. I suggest you read alot and learn more.

mike

 

[eldermike]

Mj,

The Lord has called me to teach freedom, and the truth of the cross. I enjoy reading your post.

Blesssings

 

[Ben johnson]

Each verse does not carry "UNLESS ____, you WILL NOT go to Heaven!" You simply make that up

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord', will go to Heaven, but he who DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER
"Truly I say to you, unless you are turned and become (humble) like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven"
"I tell you, unless you REPENT, you will perish".
"Truly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God".
It seems I did not "make it up"…

Not true, I quoted the scripture. It says: "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." I never said anything about chosen-by-predestination. You don't listen very well Ben. You like to ascribe to me what I did not say. That is not an act with much integrity

Many OSAS proponents use this Scripture as proof that "only His sheep believe in Him". This seemed to be your usage. I simply explained, contextually, that it wasn't believing in HIM that they failed, it was believing His MESSIAH-ship. Had they believed in Him, ("been of His sheep), they would have recognized His position. But I fail to see how I merit "non-integrity"…

Believing that fact and believing in Him are the same, Ben

Then you severely misunderstand salvation. Recognition of facts is a world away from "believing in Jesus". As James struggles to convey in his letter (see 2:19).

I asked you: What then can keep you from eternal damnation? you replied: [excerpts]
I can KEEP MYSELF in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of Christ to eternal life
I can be diligent to make certain of our calling and election, that we do not stumble
I can FIGHT the GOOD FIGHT KEEPING the faith WHICH SOME HAVE REJECTED and suffered SHIPWRECK
I can CONTINUE in the faith firm and steadfast and NOT BE MOVED AWAY FROM JESUS
I can ENDURE and REIGN WITH HIM, OR deny Him and He will deny ME
I can ENDURE TO THE END AND BE SAVED
I can ABIDE IN HIM.

Why were you loathe to quote them fully? Is it because that would have contradicted your "preconceived OSAS"?
You first reject Jude's affirmation.
You reject Peter's admonishment.
You reject Paul.
You reject Paul again.
And again.
Then you reject words of Jesus. Twice.

You contend that Jude supported the idea that "if you do NOT keep yourselves in the love of God, you nevertheless would still go to Heaven". That "if you are NOT diligent in your fellowship with/in/through Jesus, Peter shares your confidence that you are still SAVED. You seem to really believe that "Jesus can DENY YOU BEFORE GOD but you are STILL SAVED" Is that really what you think Paul was saying? You accept that a "CHRISTIAN" (quote-unquote) can be "removed from Jesus, NOT continuing in the faith, NOT firm NOR steadfast, BUT ABSOLUTELY STILL SAVED! If I am wrong about you, in this paragraph, then we are in perfect agreement. But if I have it right, then "saved" is nothing more than hearing the Gospel, how Jesus died for us, and then nodding your head in recognition (belief?) and going your merry way with no heart-change or lifestyle change whatsoever!

I do not think I will be able to read anything from the Bible to you, if it crosses your "steeped OSAS". You will reject it.

And then you impugn my integrity, my spirituality, my ability to simply read the Bible.

That is just the point, Ben. Your definitions and ideas stand in sharp contrast to all these yearsof church belief. Now who should I believe? My own interpretation which agrees with church history, or yours which disagrees with church history and doctrine? sINCE YOU AND i DISAGREE, I APPEALED TO CHURCH DOCTRINE THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY. You seem ignorant of our brothers and sisters struggles over these very ideas. That is why I asked you to broaden your reading. What teachers of the Word agree with you? Did Augustine? Did Luther? Did Calvin? Did Wesley? Did Thomas? Did any of the early church fathers? Does Graham? Does Moody? Does CSLewis? Does Schaeffer?

This is actually a device. Although more sophisticated in presentation than some, it remains the same. When the position taken by one side of a debate cannot be refuted, then "impugn the reputation of the debater himself". It is not a very honest approach. For the record, my thoughts harmonize with many of theirs (although, of course, you would not expect much correlation with Calvin and other "OSAS"…)

But behind this "device", is the question: CAN the Bible be understood by ordinary readers? Was it WRITTEN by ordinary people? Is it INTENDED to be understood by ordinary people? Are the principles and concepts clearly presented? Did not the "early church fathers" also simply read the Bible? Was that not the SOURCE of the 95 Theses nailed to the church door by Luther???

Can foundational truths be discerned from the Bible alone, without the assistance of "subsequent interpretations"?

So steeped are you in OSAS, that you cannot even hear the words I speak. Uh, er, type. For instance:

So you are saying that we must Do stuff to stay saved? Works salvation. One way or the other

I am afraid, I shall have to start charging a nickel for each time this is repeated. But, once again, and it's still free.
You have it backwards. We do not do stuff to stay saved, if we stay saved we do stuff. "You will know them by their works." Will you be angry with me if I believe the words of Jesus, over yours? "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has no works? That faith can NOT save him, CAN it! ("Me Dunamai", can NOT, CAN it!) If a brother or sister is in need of clothes or food, and you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so, faith, if it (produces) no works, is DEAD (not-real, unsaved)." (James 2:14-17)

You can't even get your wrong scripture readings consistent. It never says you will have these things if you are saved, it commands us to ADD these things to our faith. Those who have failed to ADD these things are shortsighted, those who DO ADD these things will NOT BE UNPRODUCTIVE for Jesus and a rich welcome into heaven hey will receive.

Here is one of the more blatant inconsistencies of your belief. Apparently, you contend that "he who lacks these qualities, he who is blind and shortsighted and FORGOTTEN his PURIFICATION from former sins", that one is STILL HEAVEN-BOUND. Oh, he may not have an ABUNDANT entry to Heaven provided, but he will STILL HAVE AN entry provided." Yet in the Greek, it says: "Thus for richly shall-be-supplied to-you THE entrance into the eternal kingdom of-our-Lord." But for you, there is either more than one entrance, or more than one way into the entrance…

Am I wrong about you saying, "salvation is mere head-belief"?

 

[jrmorganjr]

This means of discussion is going nowhere. Mjwhite and Ben, I appreciate your tenacity, but we've sort of degenerated to "Scripture says this." "Does not!" "Does to!" "Does not!"

Now I'm completely at a loss to understand your position and explanations, Ben, but I sense an equal frustration on your part in conveying your message. I respect your sincere belief and state of mind, though I think its hopelessly flawed. The only reason I persevere on this thread is that I think its damaging to younger Christians to think that there's a possibility that they could "do something bad enough" and throw away or be tricked into throwing away their salvation. This thought is so abhorrent and counter-scriptural in my understanding, that I hate to have to admit that we're not making progress. But we're not.

Perhaps a different format for the question could be thought of so we can look at this from a different viewpoint. Dueling dualing scripture doesn't seem to be impacting the outcome, it seems to me we need to define our terms and arguments very clearly and then summarize where and why we disagree, and then leave it there.

 

[Ben johnson]

Now I'm completely at a loss to understand your position and explanations, Ben, but I sense an equal frustration on your part in conveying your message. I respect your sincere belief and state of mind, though I think its hopelessly flawed. The only reason I persevere on this thread is that I think its damaging to younger Christians to think that there's a possibility that they could "do something bad enough" and throw away or be tricked into throwing away their salvation. This thought is so abhorrent and counter-scriptural in my understanding, that I hate to have to admit that we're not making progress. But we're not.

Hi JrMorgan. I thought I made my position very clear. Which is why I find myself so puzzled at how it could not be understood. There are, in essence, 3 separate beliefs in "OSAS". First, that it is God that HELKUO-DRAGS and SAVES those whom He CHOSE, for reasons only HE knows, and it is GOD that keeps them saved (no free will at all).

Then there are those who say, "IT's HEAD-belief, no heart-change-necessary, you can fornicate or get drunk or steal or whatever---Jesus will deny you before God BUT YOU'LL STILL GO TO HEAVEN.

Then there is: "It's YOUR responsibility, but once IN, God will change your heart that you WILL NEVER LEAVE".

Rather than the "debate being dangerous", I think the real danger is in not-believing that salvation can be forfeit. For if it CAN, then the danger is nothing less than eternity.

For me, from Scripture (and other writings), salvation is IN CHRIST. It is "RECEIVING Him, in my heart, that 'it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me'". It is never, repeat never, what I do. Therefore it CAN NEVER be LOST by doing bad. Jesus died on the Cross as "the propitiation for our sins" (just as the Levitican priests did in their sacrifices) (Heb2:17, 1Jn2:2&4:10). He did not die to "save us from Hell", He died to "save us from sin". In that, we receive "the gift of eternal life".

Alas, you are correct that we seem to not be making progress. I try to pin down "OSAS" proponents on specific verses, and those Scriptures are side-stepped. My previous post asked about 2Pet1. We have two types of people in this passage. One, does NOT exhibit the listed qualities, HAS forgotten his purification from former sins; The OTHER person HAS the qualities and WILL never stumble. Mike just said that BOTH people will enter Heaven. Here then is a key to the difference between our beliefs.

Is Mike right, that the FIRST man may not get an ABUNDANT entrance to Heaven, but he will still get IN?

Simple question, yes or no answer.

it seems to me we need to define our terms and arguments very clearly and then summarize where and why we disagree, and then leave it there.

Good idea. ...and, I think I just did that.

 

[Lion Heart]

Ben,

At least I agree with you on this one, "Salvation is abiding in Christ" Jhn 15:4


Good Night.


Richard

 

[Ben johnson]

At least I agree with you on this one, "Salvation is abiding in Christ" Jhn 15:4

Exactly. I'm glad we agree.

Good Night.

And to all of you!

 

[Julie]

Colossians 1:27
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you , the hope of glory:

Romans 3
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus :
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood , to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[Ben johnson]

Excellent post, Julie! Sums it up rather well! "Justified through redemption IN Jesus", "propitiation through OUR faith in His blood", "forgiveness of our sins through God's forbearance" (1Jn1:9), "justifier of he-who-believes"...

 

[jrmorganjr]

Lion Heart, Ben,

At least I agree with you on this one, "Salvation is abiding in Christ" Jhn 15:4

I cry foul. The word salvation is not in the quote, and yet you put it in quotes.
John 15:4 -

"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me."

You are adding your interpretation to the scripture. Abiding cannot occur without salvation, but they are not at all the same thing. This verse is talking about what truly good works are and where they come from, not salvation.

Salvation is being saved from something.

Abiding is spiritual residency.

They are not the same thing, or even the same concept!

This is why I say we need clear sets of definitions. We keep using the same words, but we load the meaning of the words differently, to the point where we're not talking about the same things anymore.

*sigh*

 

[Ben johnson]

Abiding cannot occur without salvation

Is not "SALVATION", identically RECEIVING CHRIST? (Jn1:12, Col2:6) Surrendering OUR wills to HIS? (Gal2:20, Rom10:9 {"LORD!"})

If not, then what? And if SO, then are not, "receiving Christ (as Savior and Lord)", and "abiding in Him", the same thing? "If anyone be in Christ He is a new creation..." "Abide in Me, and I in you"...

Isn't that verse I just quoted, "Col2:6", saying just that? "As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him...

Isn't "so walk in Him", really identically the same as "abide in Him"???

Salvation is being saved from something.

What are we saved from? Or, to ask in other words: "Did Jesus die as our protitiation from Hell? Or did Jesus died as the propitiation for our sins?"

 

[jrmorganjr]

Is not "SALVATION", identically RECEIVING CHRIST? (Jn1:12, Col2:6) Surrendering OUR wills to HIS?

No it is not. Salvation is what happens when we receive Christ, it is not the receiving itself.

What are we saved from?

We are saved from the penalty of our sins, by Christ's taking on of our sins and our taking on of his life. But salvation is the being saved part, not the results/life/works that follow from being saved.

Salvation can also be said to be becoming right with God by having our sin debt paid for. It marks the end of our spirit being at war with God. It is most certainly not abiding. The abiding co-spiritual existence is now possible because the sin issue has been dealt with, but it is a different concept. It is the concept of the now enabled spiritual walk with God.

Isn't "so walk in Him", really identically the same as "abide in Him"???

Yes, these are the same. But that's not salvation, it's the sanctifying life of being in Christ, as we are conformed to his image.

 

[Lion Heart]

jr,

I don't know; I still believe that was you.


Richard

 

[Ben johnson]

No it is not. Salvation is what happens when we receive Christ, it is not the receiving itself.

Scripture please?

We are saved from the penalty of our sins, by Christ's taking on of our sins and our taking on of his life.

Exactly...

But salvation is the being saved part, not the results/life/works that follow from being saved.

Exactly that. What works follow, do so as the consequence of the "saved heart"

Salvation can also be said to be becoming right with God by having our sin debt paid for.

OK, we just agreed that "salvation is NOT what we do". So, how do we "become right with God by having our sin debt paid-for" Is it not, by "receiving Jesus"?

It marks the end of our spirit being at war with God.

But Paul says it is not the end, for the "old-sin-nature" is NOT gone---only DEAD. Thus the "Christian walk", is a matter of "abiding in Him", to the point, "walking in the Spirit"; "There is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in ('abiding?') Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh to set their minds on things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit". If the "old-sin-nature" is GONE forever, then we are SINLESS. Do you believe this? (1Jn3:6 "No one who abides in Him sins, and no one who sins (continually) has seen Him or knows Him". 3:9-10 "No one who is born of God practices sin (continually), because His (God's) seed abides in him ('Abide in Me, and I in you' Jn15:4); and he CANNOT sin because he is born of GOd. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious..."

It is most certainly not abiding.

Well then---what is it? (With Scriptural references, please...)

 

[mjwhite]

Dear all,

This page has more examples of Ben's wrong-headed definitions.

He claims all we need is a bible and anyone can plainly read it, so he is right in his reading. As I asked him repeatedly to check his reading against alomost 2000 years of christian doctrine to see how far he was off.

The truth is, every 'christian' cult has their 'own' reading of the bible which they claim is legimate. Ben is acting no different than a cult would as pertaining to how he defines key words and phrases. These false definitions color his reading of almost every other passage he brings up in this forum.

He claims since I cannot 'beat' him in debate, I am trying to 'beat' him. That is not true. I am trying to point out to him the error of his ways.

Examples.
He claims the free gift is NOT eternal life but a provision for it. I showed him Romans 6:23. He simply fails to respond.

On page 44, Jrmorgan cried foul. Why? Because Ben goes beyond what is written, writting in his own beliefs and then giving a scripture reference as if that proves it.
His theology is messed up and inconsistent with his own definitions. That is why he can't understand why we accuse him of works salvation. He says it is by grace but he makes etrnal life dependent on what man does or doesn't do.

I am sure he is sincere but he being sincere is not a substitute for truth. It was said the Jews were zealous for God but without knowledge. It was these same Jews that Paul earlier said that to them was trusted the oracles of God. Having a bible in front of you and knowing the truth are two seperate things.

You are mixed up Ben. I pray God will open your eyes.

in Christ,
mike

 

[Lion Heart]

Originally posted by jrmorganjr

No it is not. Salvation is what happens when we receive Christ, it is not the receiving itself.


We are saved from the penalty of our sins, by Christ's taking on of our sins and our taking on of his life. But salvation is the being saved part, not the results/life/works that follow from being saved.

Salvation can also be said to be becoming right with God by having our sin debt paid for. It marks the end of our spirit being at war with God. It is most certainly not abiding. The abiding co-spiritual existence is now possible because the sin issue has been dealt with, but it is a different concept. It is the concept of the now enabled spiritual walk with God.


Yes, these are the same. But that's not salvation, it's the sanctifying life of being in Christ, as we are conformed to his image.

Jr,

Only the saved can abide in Christ, I am not aware HE abides in anyone that is not saved.


If HE abides in you the matter is sealed, since your name is written in heaven.


Well then again; it depends who you want to;

believe.





Richard

 

[mjwhite]

Ben,

you said

quote:
Not true, I quoted the scripture. It says: "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." I never said anything about chosen-by-predestination. You don't listen very well Ben. You like to ascribe to me what I did not say. That is not an act with much integrity
Many OSAS proponents use this Scripture as proof that "only His sheep believe in Him". This seemed to be your usage. I simply explained, contextually, that it wasn't believing in HIM that they failed, it was believing His MESSIAH-ship. Had they believed in Him, ("been of His sheep), they would have recognized His position. But I fail to see how I merit "non-integrity"…

You lack integrity because you ascribed to me a position I never stated.

One cannot believe in Jesus without believing in His ‘Messiah-ship’. Your argument above is fallacious. First you say they failed in believing in His ‘Messiah-ship’, and their failure wasn’t believing in Him. Then you reverse it and say they would’ve believed in His position [His Messiah-ship] if they had believed in Him. That is a lot of empty air.
First, it isn’t logical in the least, but contradictory.
Second… You have NO basis for making either assumption based on Scripture. Belief in Jesus INCLUDES who He is, and what He does for us. There is no difference.

So contextually, as you mentioned, let the Scripture stand as it reads. They weren’t His and that’s why they didn’t believe. If they were His they would believe. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.


quote:
Believing that fact and believing in Him are the same, Ben

Then you severely misunderstand salvation. Recognition of facts is a world away from "believing in Jesus". As James struggles to convey in his letter (see 2:19).

You again lack integrity in your answer. I never said anything about just ‘recognition’ of facts’. I said believing the fact. Belief is more than recognition, as you also seem to agree. Are you just trying to be argumentative?


quote:
I asked you: What then can keep you from eternal damnation? you replied: [excerpts]
I can KEEP MYSELF in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of Christ to eternal life
I can be diligent to make certain of our calling and election, that we do not stumble
I can FIGHT the GOOD FIGHT KEEPING the faith WHICH SOME HAVE REJECTED and suffered SHIPWRECK
I can CONTINUE in the faith firm and steadfast and NOT BE MOVED AWAY FROM JESUS
I can ENDURE and REIGN WITH HIM, OR deny Him and He will deny ME
I can ENDURE TO THE END AND BE SAVED
I can ABIDE IN HIM.

Why were you loathe to quote them fully? Is it because that would have contradicted your "preconceived OSAS"?
You first reject Jude's affirmation.
You reject Peter's admonishment.
You reject Paul.
You reject Paul again.
And again.

I didn’t quote them fully for brevity and time. The point I was trying to make didn’t need the full quotes anyhow. The point you also failed to address: that your doctrine of eternal life is based on how well you perform.

You contend that Jude supported the idea that "if you do NOT keep yourselves in the love of God, you nevertheless would still go to Heaven". That "if you are NOT diligent in your fellowship with/in/through Jesus, Peter shares your confidence that you are still SAVED. You seem to really believe that "Jesus can DENY YOU BEFORE GOD but you are STILL SAVED" Is that really what you think Paul was saying? You accept that a "CHRISTIAN" (quote-unquote) can be "removed from Jesus, NOT continuing in the faith, NOT firm NOR steadfast, BUT ABSOLUTELY STILL SAVED! If I am wrong about you, in this paragraph, then we are in perfect agreement. But if I have it right, then "saved" is nothing more than hearing the Gospel, how Jesus died for us, and then nodding your head in recognition (belief?) and going your merry way with no heart-change or lifestyle change whatsoever!

No I didn’t support any of those things. You read the wrong things out of each of those scriptures, and from my answers.
For example, Jude wasn’t even talking about how to stay saved. It is your wrong-headedness that perverts each of the scriptures.

But if I have it right, then "saved" is nothing more than hearing the Gospel, how Jesus died for us, and then nodding your head in recognition (belief?) and going your merry way with no heart-change or lifestyle change whatsoever!

I understand your desire to stand against those who think they can mouth some words of profession and then go on their merry way in this world as they wait for a heaven that will never come. That is not me. You are at a extreme of Lordship salvation which is properly called works salvation. Could you go farther to that extreme? Yes, and there are those that do. But nevertheless, that is where you are. At the other end of that line are those who believe in just say the words and no lifestyle change is necessary to get to heaven. BUT Ben, there is a real place in between, one that is closer to the TRUTH of the Word than you or them.

Those saved by Christ WILL have a lifestyle change that reflects their change of heart, mind and soul. The difference between you and me is that I believe such a lifestyle change will occur as the result of the indwelling of the Spirit as well as the result of a new heart and mind. The things we do after that [being born again] SHOW we are saved and have eternal life. Not that eternal life hinges on the things we do after being born again. First we are saved and that means eternally, then we do work that shows it.


And then you impugn my integrity, my spirituality, my ability to simply read the Bible.

quote:
That is just the point, Ben. Your definitions and ideas stand in sharp contrast to all these yearsof church belief. Now who should I believe? My own interpretation which agrees with church history, or yours which disagrees with church history and doctrine? sINCE YOU AND i DISAGREE, I APPEALED TO CHURCH DOCTRINE THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY. You seem ignorant of our brothers and sisters struggles over these very ideas. That is why I asked you to broaden your reading. What teachers of the Word agree with you? Did Augustine? Did Luther? Did Calvin? Did Wesley? Did Thomas? Did any of the early church fathers? Does Graham? Does Moody? Does CSLewis? Does Schaeffer?
This is actually a device. Although more sophisticated in presentation than some, it remains the same. When the position taken by one side of a debate cannot be refuted, then "impugn the reputation of the debater himself". It is not a very honest approach. For the record, my thoughts harmonize with many of theirs (although, of course, you would not expect much correlation with Calvin and other "OSAS"…)

I agree that some of your thoughts harmonize with some of theirs. But so did david Koresh's of Waco. The point I was making was not that every thought of yours was wrong, but on certain key issues, like the definition, the complete definition of salvation and if eternal life is the free gift or not, that your definitions were skewered and wrong. And that leads you to error in reading other scripture passages.
It is no device as you hope, but the plain truth.

But behind this "device", is the question: CAN the Bible be understood by ordinary readers? Was it WRITTEN by ordinary people? Is it INTENDED to be understood by ordinary people? Are the principles and concepts clearly presented? Did not the "early church fathers" also simply read the Bible? Was that not the SOURCE of the 95 Theses nailed to the church door by Luther???

Can foundational truths be discerned from the Bible alone, without the assistance of "subsequent interpretations"?

Can error be made by those who try to discern the Bible alone? How can one know if they are in error or in truth? We are a body of believers. We are to draw on one another for help even as we help others. Discounting others interpretations is prideful and dangerous. Especially when these people have seved the Lord all down through the years. When you get in a car for the first time, you have a driver’s aide to help. You have teachers at school to guide. You have the saints of old to help you and guide you into truth. Don’t ignore them for your own personal interps.

The rest later.
mike

 

[Lion Heart]

Originally posted by mjwhite
Dear all,

Examples.
He claims the free gift is NOT eternal life but a provision for it. I showed him Romans 6:23. He simply fails to respond.

Under Liberal Protestantism, this position;

IS known as Neo-orthodoxy (New orthodoxy), which is nothing more than a heretical teaching that has permeated the church in these last decades, the root of which began in the early heretical teachings in the first centuries ; I will explian if I have time in another thread, later.

But in a nut shell, this teaching in the area of God's revelation to man declares that the final authority for faith and practice is not the Bible. In fact, it goes to teach that "God never has given divine revelation through declared statements of truth, whether spoken or written."

Furhtermore, according neo-orthodoxy the final authority is the revelation of Himself that God gives to an individual when he encounters him personally.

Thus , if God speaks to a person through a passage of the Bible, then that passage becomes the Word of God for that person. But, if God never speaks to a person through the Bible, then the Bible never is the Word of God for him.

This is the reason why, verses are taken by themselves to try and prove certain positions, instead of using the entire WORD of God as the measuring stick to see whether the position is Biblical in the light of ALL Scripture.

On page 44, Jrmorgan cried foul. Why? Because Ben goes beyond what is written, writting in his own beliefs and then giving a scripture reference as if that proves it.

mike

As for the above, I have no dispute with Ben.

Noone that is, none of His can ABIDE in Him , nor can HE abide in any other than ALL those that the FATHER has given HIM; the fate of ALL those who ABIDE in HIM by faith is sealed.

PRAISE GOD; this is HIS doing; "For He works in us to will and do of his good pleasure."


IT'S CALLED SALVATION.




RICHARD

 

[jrmorganjr]

Hi Lion Heart,

I have a hard time following your train of thought, but I think we, in the main, agree. We're both OSAS, totally God given grace to faith unto salvation. I think we have a mild disagreement on the degree of difference between abiding and salvation, but perhaps not, as I can't make out your position. I have said repeatedly that abiding in Christ cannot take place until salvation has taken place, but that salvation and abiding aren't the same thing. I think you agree with that.

As for the "Salvation is a process", which I disagree with unless an instantaneous process is indicated, which I would call an "event" rather than a process - I went back through this dreadfully long thread. isshinwhat is the person who made the statement, after which you mistook me for saying that.

God bless you,
In Christ,