How easy is it to lose your salvation?

[Near]

if you were saved then how could you loose salvation for then it would cease to be salvation would it not? Salvation given and then taken is not salvation.

If you were were saved from a literal fire, that doesn't mean you can't be in danger of fire again.

When people get saved from a volcanic island by rescuers they can choose to go back.

Salvation is from the danger of hellfire in this life. It's still possible to go back to sin, like going back to a volcanic island. That's why Jesus said the following about sinMatthew 5:29-30 NASB

If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I chose the second one. I do believe people can walk away from God. It's unthinkable to me, and I don't think it happens often to true believers, but I believe it's possible.

 

[TheApostleJohn]

Saying that you can lose your salvation implies that there are sins God won't forgive. That's obviously not the case.

I think some people get confused when they see someone who claims to be a Christian do something awful. We "act out" our salvation not in the sense that we "earn" it, but in the sense that if we're truly saved there things that we will and won't do.

 

[TheDag]

Saying that you can lose your salvation implies that there are sins God won't forgive. That's obviously not the case.

I think some people get confused when they see someone who claims to be a Christian do something awful. We "act out" our salvation not in the sense that we "earn" it, but in the sense that if we're truly saved there things that we will and won't do.

and how does this address the theory in the post before yours? Many believe that you can not lose your salvation but you can throw it away. In other words the choice is yours to throw it away.

 

[salamacum]

The thing I have problems with (and I think Dan Corner) has this is that he believes there is a special category of sin which is fatal to salvation. Don't see this.
More biblical (at least OT) is the category of sin which is deliberate, rather than omission or accident. ("Venial")
Still don't see this as Jesus' teaching - are not all sins in some way deliberate?
It is instructive that Jesus did not separate (as far as acceptance by God is concerned) thoughts and deeds.

 

[Albion]

The thing I have problems with (and I think Dan Corner) has this is that he believes there is a special category of sin which is fatal to salvation. Don't see this.
More biblical (at least OT) is the category of sin which is deliberate, rather than omission or accident. ("Venial")
Still don't see this as Jesus' teaching - are not all sins in some way deliberate?
It is instructive that Jesus did not separate (as far as acceptance by God is concerned) thoughts and deeds.

Just a quick comment that may or may not help. "Venial" refers to "minor" sins, not to ones categorized by how deliberate they were or if committed by omission, etc.

 

[walkinginthelightnow]

Hebrews 6:4 Hebrews 10:26

Lose of salvation?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I belong to a Southern Baptist church, and they teach OSAS. The explanation for someone falling away later, possibly renouncing their beliefs entirely, is that "they were never saved to begin with." I for one don't feel qualified to make that call. I know a lot of atheists and agnostics who once professed Christianity, and I know it would hurt them very much if someone were to tell them they were never Christian in the first place if they are not one now.

Yet God is not fickle. He's not going to disown His children so easily. Being human, we're still going to fall into sin even after Jesus Christ is Lord of our lives. That's the old adage about how we're not perfect, only forgiven. It's not about what we do, it's what He did, and all that. I acknowledge the concern I've seen voiced, that taken to the extreme, OSAS means a person can ask Jesus Christ into his or her life, become saved, then go out and commit a mass murder, or some other heinous crime, and still be saved. My response would be that most likely, someone who has taken Jesus Christ as Lord of his/her life would do no such thing afterward, except possibly in the case of severe dementia. Then it's God's call.

Do I agree with my church teaching that once saved, we can never lose it? Sorta. I don't believe God is going to disown me if I am confessing my sins to Him, and one slips my mind and I forget to mention it. I don't believe God is going to turn me away if I'm still struggling with a particular sin when I die. For example, I'm an alcoholic who has been sober since 2008. That was a relapse. I had come to sobriety long before then. Let's say I happen to relapse again, as any alcoholic could, and my intoxication results in an accident that kills me. Is God going to turn me away because He cares more about "going by the book," so to speak, than about my relationship with Him? I don't think so. Do we disown our children when they do something bad? No, they're still our children.

But I do believe it's possible--not likely, but possible--for someone who once believed to stop doing so, and to renounce his or her salvation. It that situation, I'd say it's less a case of "losing" your salvation, and more case of deliberately giving it up. My pastor would probably say the person who did so was not saved in the first place. I don't know one way or the other.

 

[SeekerOfChrist94]

Hebrews 10:26-27 ESV

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries."

I believe you can lose your salvation if you repeatedly sin on purpose, knowing that you are doing it, and do not repent of those sins.

 

[Albion]

Hebrews 10:26-27 ESV

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries."

I believe you can lose your salvation if you repeatedly sin on purpose, knowing that you are doing it, and do not repent of those sins.

I don't see anything in that which tells us Saving Faith was present in the first place and then "lost." It looks like you are telling us that we won't qualify for salvation if we don't repent and live right.

 

[TheDag]

I don't see anything in that which tells us Saving Faith was present in the first place and then "lost." It looks like you are telling us that we won't qualify for salvation if we don't repent and live right.

I don't think your reading what is there then. While I don't believe in building doctrine around one or two words the phrase 'no longer remains' indicates it was there and no longer is.

 

[Albion]

I don't think your reading what is there then. While I don't believe in building doctrine around one or two words the phrase 'no longer remains' indicates it was there and no longer is.

You're entitled to your own judgment, but I do not see it that way.

For one thing, there is, in fact, no mention of the person in question having been saved.

There is only a comment about sinning after having received "knowledge of the truth." Knowledge is not what saves us and we do not lose salvation by committing sin. There is in that verse no mention of Faith or of being Saved.

 

[TheDag]

You're entitled to your own judgment, but I do not see it that way.

However one should be able to look at the passage and see how a person can come to that conclusion. It doesn't mean you agree just like I don't agree with the understanding seeker of christ appears to have. I do however have enough integrity to admit I can at least see how that understanding comes from the passage. As opposed to your claim that there is no way it could say that.

For one thing, there is, in fact, no mention of the person in question having been saved.

So what? Wouldn't be the only verse this applies to yet other verses are accepted as talking about salvation.

There is only a comment about sinning after having received "knowledge of the truth." Knowledge is not what saves us and we do not lose salvation by committing sin. There is in that verse no mention of Faith or of being Saved.

in modern definitions correct it is not knowledge that saves. Although one should not use the modern definition.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

or to put it another way (the thread title)

how easy it is to lose $100,000,000.00 ???

 

[Albion]

However one should be able to look at the passage and see how a person can come to that conclusion.

I said that I don't agree with your conclusion and I've already explained why I reached the conclusion I did.

So what? Wouldn't be the only verse this applies to yet other verses are accepted as talking about salvation.

But you and those who agree with you have tried to use the verse to PROVE something that isn't in the verse! I am not the one who did that, and if the verse is neutral--as you may be suggesting--it's your side that has made a mistake.

 

[TheDag]

I said that I don't agree with your conclusion and I've already explained why I reached the conclusion I did.


But you and those who agree with you have tried to use the verse to PROVE something that isn't in the verse! I am not the one who did that, and if the verse is neutral--as you may be suggesting--it's your side that has made a mistake.

Dude you really need to learn to read more carefully. I do not agree with it. I just have integrity so can at least see how a person can draw that conclusion. I already said that but it obviously needs repeating since you missed it. Or perhaps your one of these people who think if someone doesn't say Your right then they must have a different view and must be arguing. That is not the case.


You also did not address the fact that there are verses that deal with salvation that do not mention what you say is missing from this verse. So it is not a valid argument anyway.

 

[Albion]

Dude you really need to learn to read more carefully. I do not agree with it. I just have integrity so can at least see how a person can draw that conclusion.

So you're making something out of nothing. OK, if you must.

Am I allowed to say that they are mistaken in their interpretation?

 

[TheDag]

So you're making something out of nothing. OK, if you must.

Am I allowed to say that they are mistaken in their interpretation?

Of course your entitled to your opinion. By all means if you want to say their interpretation is wrong then say so with justifiable reasons. That is not what you did however so your claim that I am making something out of nothing is not correct. I have already pointed out why part of your reasoning is nothing but assumption on your part.

Ok yeah I am an unusual person in that if I see dodgy logic and assumptions by a person then I will point it out even if I agree with the end statement. It is important to get things right. The amount of times I have been having discussions about God with people and run into a huge stumbling block because people didn't explain things properly or worse still they didn't know the answer so they made something up I can tell you it is a problem when people don't get these things right or are too proud to say "I don't know"

 

[SeekerOfChrist94]

My views on this have changed recently. I don't know if our salvation can be lost, only God knows. I think - key word being 'think' here - that you can fall away and lose your salvation, especially if you despise God and want nothing to do with Him, but that you could also regain it by returning to Him. Again, this is just what I think, not what I know.

 

[Albion]

Of course your entitled to your opinion. By all means if you want to say their interpretation is wrong then say so with justifiable reasons. That is not what you did however so your claim that I am making something out of nothing is not correct. I have already pointed out why part of your reasoning is nothing but assumption on your part.

Let's go back to 'I'm entitled to my opinion.' You can't admit to that and still say I'm not--merely because you think your way of looking at the matter is obviously correct.