How can a person stay saved?

[DrBubbaLove]

A truly born-again person fits in with the world like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. People of the world do sense when there is a barrier between them and the born-again people. I believe this barrier is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Even if His influence is being quenched.

So by your indirect answer to my direct question let me see if I understand. You are saying that anyone that is "truly" saved and then turns completely away from God, that God would never allow such a one to die until they had the opportunity to turn back. Sort of like a free get of jail before you die card. Is that right?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Once a person accepts the oath to bring Jesus into their heart, they are saved. As I said before they may walk away from their faith and might even denounce that God exists, but they are still saved in the eyes of God.

How does this verse fit in here?

Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.
But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.

 

[LLC3GUYS]

How does this verse fit in here?

Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.
But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.

Kind of reinstates the old, but pertinent, point of whether one who professes to be saved, to later reject, not the teachings, but Jesus Himself, was ever truly saved to begin with. Professing Jesus is one thing, enacting and experiencing an active personal relationship with the Father (through Jesus), is another. Many false messiahs, wolves, idealists, and the religious, profess Jesus and do not know Him. The choice can be given and addressed many times, accepting can be only once. Otherwise, you would be putting Him on the cross anew ( which cannot be done). So, to say that your "salvation" can be lost and regained goes against His own reasoning. I think it more exact to say, if truly saved, and you walk away, your salvation is intact (God is yours and you are His), but your "fruit" will be adversely affected as He has abundantly stated many times, in many ways. You, most definitely, will incur the chastisement of your Loving Father. The "prodigal son" was never disinherited or rejected by the "father", even when away. The true, and telling, question is whether, or not, we are truly His. We know the litmus test, because He told us. We do not have the ability to judge another's relationship, if there is one, with God. Even discernment is His knowledge being shared. Only He can do this with truth and finality.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You get all that out of those two verses? Wow!

One of the early heresies in the Church involved what to do with people that under pain of death had denied Christ. Some used this verse as an absolute indication that once you did this you were damned and there was nothing that could be done about that. Certainly a literal reading of Christ's Words suggests the damnation part was true, but was it really true that nothing could be done about it? Naturally under the circumstances with them often in hiding and leaders dying for their faith, this was a heated and very touchy issue. Would you want in a secret meeting, where your very attendance risked death, someone that had previously betrayed his own faith? Especially if they had done it repeatedly which apparently also happened.

I bring this up because the issue was not whether or not these believers were damned. Both sides were in agreement on that. The issue and argument was what if anything could be done about it. The side backing baring these people for life as lost/damned forever was the losing side. One of the principle arguments against that attitude was Peter's very public denial and obvious recovery from that.

Only bring this up because that issue in the early Church was a main driver of the whole concept, the development of what to do, what if anything needed to be done about ongoing sin in a believers life, even serious sin. It is how we got to what today is called the sacrament of reconciliation. Making it right with God and His Church.

If Jesus taught the Apostles and the Apostles taught 1st, 2nd and maybe even a few 3rd generation Christians directly, and those Christians debating this believed a believer could lose salvation and that Peter’s denial was a model for that, then when did we learn differently about this? If this was not the Apostles teachings and not the understanding of those words from Jesus, then where did the proper teaching on this go for almost 1300 years (or so I think)? And if this is not what Christ taught then who changed this teaching between the Apostles and these later Christians and where is the debate on that? Lord knows they debated and we have documents of lesser matters fcol (kosher wienies!)

 

[Van]

I bring this up because the issue was not whether or not these believers were damned. Both sides were in agreement on that.

Born again believers are not damned. The idea of "if you deny me before others, I will deny you before my Father" Matthew 10:32-33) does not necessarily apply to those under duress. The idea, instead is that if you deny that Jesus is Lord, you will not obtain mercy. See Titus 1:16.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Born again believers are not damned. The idea of "if you deny me before others, I will deny you before my Father" Matthew 10:32-33 does not necessarily apply to those under duress. The idea, instead is that if you deny that Jesus is Lord, you will not obtain mercy. See Titus 1:16.

Matt 26:30-35,69-75 .....

a person need to look at these verses on peter before deducting ideas

john 21:15-17

 

[Van]

BIC, Matthew 26:31-35 records the foretelling of Jesus that what had been prophesied would come about, even though Peter did not believe he would stumble. This test strengthed Peter, so that he would be willing to face death rather than deny his Lord, just as John records in John chapter 21.

I certainly agree we should read the whole bible and study all the revelant verses and passages before we form a considered opinion on the meaning of a text.

The bottom line is that even though Peter stumbled and verbally denied Jesus before men, Jesus had compassion on him and fixed him breakfast and reconciled him. Therefore to apply Matthew 10:32-33 to Peter for a one time (ok three time) event is clearly mistaken. As I said, to deny Jesus is to be an unbeliever and Peter was not an unbeliever.

Rather than close with John 21:15-17, we should look to John 21:18-19.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Born again believers are not damned. The idea of "if you deny me before others, I will deny you before my Father" Matthew 10:32-33) does not necessarily apply to those under duress. The idea, instead is that if you deny that Jesus is Lord, you will not obtain mercy. See Titus 1:16.

And that is ok for you to believe that. But that leads to the obvious question I already asked.


If these early Christians got this all wrong and they got it directly from the Apostles who got it from Jesus, then you must think either all the Apostles got it all wrong or someone figured it out over a twelve hundred years later? So which is it for you?



Since Peter obviously felt very very badly about his public denial, I will assume you think they got it all wrong and the "early" (do yal call them that?) Protesting Fathers got it right.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jesus had compassion on him and fixed him breakfast and reconciled him.

HEY that's our point. Why would peter need fixing and reconciling if he was already "saved".

 

[sojourner]

DrBubbaLove,

HEY that's our point. Why would peter need fixing and reconciling if he was already "saved".

Touche'

 

[Van]

If these early Christians got this all wrong and they got it directly from the Apostles who got it from Jesus, then you must think either all the Apostles got it all wrong or someone figured it out over a twelve hundred years later? So which is it for you?

Many times advocates of a particular doctrine claim their view represents the early church fathers view, and often provide selective quotes, but at its core, it is just an argument from authority, a means to bolster an argument that is weak in its scriptural basis.

I have explained how Peter's life proves your assertion is without merit. Even though he denied Jesus several times before others, he still loved Jesus like a brother. Your position does not do well in the light of scripture.

And I said Jesus fixed Peter breakfast, but now two posts openly distort my position and indicate that I said Peter needed fixing. The reconciling I was referring to was that Peter was discourated and had left the ministry, he had gone back to fishing. But Jesus restored him, and encouraged him, and he was reconciled and led the early church.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But Jesus restored him, and encouraged him, and he was reconciled and led the early church.

Ok, but why would Peter need restoring and reconciling if he had not lost anything by denying Christ? We agree he would and was, but am interested in what it is you Jesus restoring and reconciling Peter to.

For me to say history and the reasons people say they did what they did, the arguements they had, records they kept...etc, for me to say to say that and then say just because it is not "scriptural" (which you can only mean "not in scripture") does not mean it is not true.

So you are still left with the problem of proving either that these things did not happen the way we say it did in the early Church, so we are then lying about the development of the sacrament of Reconcilation. Which since it is well documented publically in orginal copies of the documents, some even online it is a little difficult to just say that is not what happened. These things did not get recorded in scripture, but you cannot just say that means it did not happen.

Either the Apostles got it all wrong and it took about 1500 years for someone to get it right or the Apostles themselves failed to correct what would be a major heresy for some odd reason and/or some great conspiriacy by an evil organize "group" formed in the 1st century covered up all the changes, forever obsecuring what the Apostles really taught and also erasing all traces of thier own existence since we have no records that any such group existed. It would be over 300 years before anything started that is approaching something we could call organized on any scale, and that was only the start.

 

[Van]

Ok, but why would Peter need restoring and reconciling if he had not lost anything by denying Christ?

I answered this question is my prior post. Here is what I said, with some spelling corrections.

The reconciling I was referring to was that Peter was discouraged and had left the ministry, he had gone back to fishing. But Jesus restored him, and encouraged him, and he was reconciled and led the early church.

Right, stuff can be non-scriptural and be true. But stuff that conflicts with scripture is questionable. My views are based on my understanding of scripture. I can provide the references. I may be mistaken, but as best I can determine, they are scriptural. When you make assertions based on what others have said, and what you think is right, that is fine for you. My effort is to indicate what scripture says.

Drbubbalove, as I have said, I am not interested in trying to disprove whatever your tradition says is true. If your doctrine conflicts with my understanding of scripture, just like the Bereans, I will not accept it. If you want to idenify one doctrine that you claim was held by the early church and is in conflict with my understanding, please explicity state your position. General statements do not afford the opportunity for rebuttal.

Either the Apostles got it all wrong and it took about 1500 years for someone to get it right or the Apostles themselves failed to correct what would be a major heresy for some odd reason and/or some great conspiriacy by an evil organize "group" formed in the 1st century covered up all the changes, forever obsecuring what the Apostles really taught and also erasing all traces of thier own existence since we have no records that any such group existed. It would be over 300 years before anything started that is approaching something we could call organized on any scale, and that was only the start.

I have no response to the above, other than to say I do not think this reflects the RCC nor do I think it is true.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Ok, but why would Peter need restoring and reconciling if he had not lost anything by denying Christ?

I answered this question is my prior post. Here is what I said, with some spelling corrections.

The reconciling I was referring to was that Peter was discouraged and had left the ministry, he had gone back to fishing. But Jesus restored him, and encouraged him, and he was reconciled and led the early church.

Ok call me dense. I can see where someone “discouraged” needs encouraging. But unless you are implying a lot more by that word than what is normally used, it is hard for me to see the need for “reconciling” and “restoring”. I was surprised at your choice of words as it is exactly what we say Peter did need after doing what he did. And knowing that he needed “reconciling and restoring”, it was either that or he could be “denied before the Father”, I think Peter may have been a little more than “discouraged”.

Drbubbalove, as I have said, I am not interested in trying to disprove whatever your tradition says is true. If your doctrine conflicts with my understanding of scripture, just like the Bereans, I will not accept it. If you want to idenify one doctrine that you claim was held by the early church and is in conflict with my understanding, please explicity state your position. General statements do not afford the opportunity for rebuttal.

Would St Paul be early enough for you?1 Cor. 9:27

"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified"

Or Hemas maybe 80 AD
"And as many as do not repent at all, but abide in their deeds, shall utterly perish. . . . But if any one relapse into strife, he will be cast out of the tower, and will lose his life. Life is the possession of all who keep the commandments of the Lord" The Shepherd 3:8:7.

Or Justin Martyr mid 2nd century

"[E]ternal fire was prepared for him who voluntarily departed from God and for all who, without repentance, persevere in apostasy" partial quote from Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:26

The Didache - probably written latter part of the 1st century indicating some common beliefs of the early Church probably even before St John died;


"Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time" Didache 16

Would that be the early Church you meant I was claiming, or do you speak of some other early Church that does not look and speak so much like the RCC as the one shown by those statements?

 

[Van]

Drbubbalove, please provide a statement of the RCC doctrine you believe these cites support. Based on what you have posted it appears to be loss of salvation or we are not saved until we die. Give me a clear statement link. Thanks.

 

[frumanchu]

If Peter truly and fully rejected Christ at his denial, and moved from a position of belief to a position of unbelief...why did he weep bitterly? If he no longer believed in Christ, why did he care at all?

Let me ask you this: If Christ said that He prayed for Peter, that his faith may not fail, and Peter's faith failed to the point of being unsaved, then what are we to make of the verses speaking of prayers according to the will of the Father? Was Christ praying for something that was not His Father's will? Why was it God's will that Peter's faith fail?

You see, Christ shew forth brightly His work as Mediator in His interaction with Peter at this point. He petitioned the Father on Peter's behalf that Peter be preserved in faith (and was confident in it, saying "when you have turned" and not "if hopefully you turn"). And not only that, but He actively worked to restore Peter to his walk...something which He does with all His sheep.

Though we may stumble and fall for a season, we never fall fully or finally into apostasy.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

frumanchu

God does not call the qualified ...God qualifies the called

to go with this .....

Matt 9:13b For I am not come to call the [self] righteous but sinners

 

[frumanchu]

[bible]1 John 2:19[/bible]

 

[sojourner]

To all OSAS proponents:

It would not be so bad if once in a while a proponent of OSAS would actually understand correctly the opposite position of their own view.
Just because you (OSAS proponents) have interpreted certain passages thus set presuppositions that compels you to say that man, when he believes is saved, does not of necessity mean that the opposite, is unsaved, is correct or even opposite.

I'm not going to speak for DrBubbaLove, but so far, for me I cannot disagree with Him.
However, never in scripture when referring to redemption, or the end result, does the past tense "saved" ever mean that man can lose that status. It is an impossibility.
Why is that so?
First, in reference to the redemptive work of Christ, which has been completed 2000 years ago, it is past tense to be sure. However, the work He accomplished on the Cross was to SAVE MANKIND from the fall. The Bible is quite clear, for me anyway, that Christ saved mankind from death and sin. Actually, it says, He freed us from the bondage to death and sin. Man had nothing to do with either decreeing it from the foundation of the world, nor that he would be a recipient. It is objective. Mankind is given this blessing whether he wants it or not, Christ saved all sinners as in Adam we all became sinners.

When the Bible speaks of the salvation of man, it is referencing the response of a man to that work. Christ's saving work made it possible for man to leave that bondage to death and sin, and freely accept, believe on the Lord.

The belief is the only place any man has a participatory role to play in God's sovereign plan.
This phase, if you will, is man being saved. This is not salvation he is losing or any state of saved. He can and does lose faith, lose his belief, become an unbeliever. When one loses faith, one is no longer being saved. He has not lost anything yet, as he has a whole lifetime to repent, as did Peter in the above post's example. Peter in no way lost salvation because he does not possess it. ( He has a surity, an inheritance but he has not received it as yet)If one loses faith for the remaining of his life, never repents, he is not only not being saved, he will not be saved. At the Judgement, Christ will honor that persons choice to not stay, abide, not to persevere, etc. If one is not IN Christ, you are OUT of Christ. There is no middle ground here. At that point, if one was being saved, he will become saved at that same judgement. That is, the judgement will determine if man is saved or unsaved respective of his UNION, his walk, his journey of salvation throughout his life.
There are several places that the context will indicate that a believer, as long as he endures, abides, his eternal state began with that first belief. But being man, and the Bible is quite clear, that man is fully capable of leaving that first faith. Adam would be your first example.
If you support OSAS, that is your choice, I do not. But at least when you are debating, put forth the correct opposite understanding. From our (my) understanding, man cannot ever lose His salvation.

Just some food for thought.....

 

[Van]

Sojourner, your use of the term "saved" is not how scripture uses the term. Saved means to obtain positional sanctification. It means set apart, spiritually baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. It means to be personnally saved from the penality of sin. Thus to be saved refers to something applied to an individual believer. Now, on the other hand, to be redeemed applies to everyone.

To misuse the term saved when you mean redeemed just adds confusion to the discussion.

Bottom line, in the phrase Once Saved, Always Saved, the word Saved refers to being spiritually baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. God puts us in Christ, we do not put ourselves in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30.