Once Saved, Always Saved?

[Geralt]

nobody is saying change is a one time event, you are the only one making this statement.
i did write 'changes' not 'changed'. God initiates regeneration, and also works on them.

such is the idea of growth or christian maturity.

HOWEVER Justification (whereby a person is declare just and righteous- and therefore a member of the saved elect) is NOT on based on 'growth' but on what Christ has done made ours through union with Him by FAITH ALONE.​

If the change is complete at salvation, the saved person is completely and utterly sinless. If salvation is a one time only process, then Antinomianism is still the only logical conclusion. God doesn't have to change us.

However, this means that it is ALL God's fault. Every good deed AND sin is HIS action, not ours. When Brock raped that girl behind the dumpster, if he did so because God did not regenerate him, then it was not an action of free will, but an action imposed by God's failure to regenerate Brock.

See, taking only half of the passages that deal with Salvation, soteria in the Greek, you have a warped view of God and man. Since man is incapable of good deeds, he has no free will and is thus completely not responsible for his evil actions:

• 
  We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered
  according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For
  if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be
  blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their
  actions-whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the
  good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not
  evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for. (St. Justin Martyr

This is the problem of the Sola Grazie platform that you are pushing: it makes God the sinner. He is the one that programmed the evil to be evil. It was not their free choice. They are literally born that way and God failed to intervene, either because He was incapable, or unloving.

And again, we come back to the Antinomian requirement of your platform, because since you are now claiming that not only does God make them choose to convert, but now He reprograms them, with none of their free will being required, and thus again, the moral law is of no use. What does it matter if the law is written down if God is going to forcibly reprogram you to follow it anyways?

Moral law has no place unless there is an ability to choose to follow it and a need to do so. Since man ate of the tree of the knowledge of GOOD and evil, and not only the tree of the knowledge of evil, the whole case of Total Depravity is bunk. The tree imparts both good and evil knowledge, and then we CHOOSE which to take. If man is programmed by God to be evil, then God is the evil one, because man is simply a computer program, coded by God to do whatever He chooses. Some of us are coded as Office suites and photo and video editing software. Others are coded like the Love Bug, only designed to cause harm. The ultimate sinner is the one who coded us. So is it our decision to control the coding, or is God the Coder and therefore the responsible party that belongs in a deep dark fiery pit? For me, I could never believe in something that makes God evil. Free will, all through life from beginning to end, is the only way this works.

And we know this because even Paul demonstrates that people who have no knowledge of the law still do the things written therein, showing that the law of God is written in their hearts. And this law will EITHER condemn OR DEFEND them in the end. Now how can those who, according to Paul, are never exposed to the Truth, be DEFENDED in the final Judgment by their conscience if salvation is by some mental assent to some certain set of facts?

And how is mental assent even possible without free will AND knowledge of those facts? This is where both the Baptist and Presbyterian models fall apart, because these are people described by Paul as being separate from the Church, separate from the Jews, but still defended in the final days by their Conscience. But in the Baptist view, it is a certain "saving knowledge" that saves, and in the Presbyterian five points view it's essentially a lottery, so the person's conscience has no meaning, nor even does the moral law. At least in the Baptist point of view, the moral law or Conscience can be used to judge you unworthy, but since you are programmed by God to be worthy or unworthy, regenerate or reprobate, good or evil, there is no point for there to be any Scripture, no point to evangelism or any of it.

And so we are left with a choice:

1. Calvinism pure, where God makes you evil and is logically responsible for your actions.
2. Baptist, where God reprograms you after your depraved mind somehow makes a mental assent, even though it doesn't really make logical sense that you would assent to this since you have a depraved mind
3. Free will, where all your sins are your responsibility, and all of your good deeds are produced either through your free will, or in cooperation with God, still in free will.

In only one of these is God capable of being just according to the description of just in Scripture, and in only one is God capable of being loving according to I Corinthians 13. God cannot be loving if He made Brock Turner rape that girl. If Brock was free of will to choose not to rape her because he could choose to do good, then God is not responsible, but if the actions of Brock Turner are the results of God not regenerating him, then God is the one who raped that girl, using Brock as the tool. It's horrible sounding, but it's accurate if we are to follow the earliest understanding of the pure Hellenism found in the Calvinistic model. If a person is fated to be evil, then the one who fated is the responsible party.​

 

[Geralt]

its in the bible, Ephesians 1.
that is enough for everyone else to believe.

IT's also telling that you completely abandoned your accusation that the Orthodox Church's view on soteriology is a change, especially considering that if you had pressed it, the fact is that Calvinism and Sola grazie in general are the result of a late interpretation of a fifth century Christian writer, and probably not one St. Augustine intended, since we can see from even earlier that Predestination doesn't exist in the early Church fathers, with Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, and more forming a consensus on our free will choice.

Predestination is just a Christianized version of Hellenistic Fatalism. It isn't an early Christian view.

 

[Geralt]

nice words, but 'union with God' amounts to nothing. it is 'union with christ', for without christ there can be no righteousness and thus no salvation nor reconciliation with God.

you must be reading Romans 5:12 differently. look at the words one by one..

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--​

how can death spread to all men when they have not yet existed ? unless you presume God judges you because of foreseen sin, the only conclusion is that our union with adam (him being the federal head on the human race) brought as sin, and the good news is that our union with christ (as our representative) brought as life.​

Life is knowing God, union with God. Death is separation from God. Adam did not die, he was separated from God, he died spiritually. Jesus came so that we may have life, union with God.

People died because they broke the law. Because of Adam humanity became culpable, were prosecutable under God's eternal law, to love Him with all our being and love others as ourselves.

Sin has a penalty, death. Amongst God's people, the penalty is taken away by the death of another. In this case, the death of a goat. Although the blood of bulls and goats cannot take way sin, they are the symbolic payments that are encashed in the future by the blood of Christ.

That's because the text says all sin because of Adam, not IN Adam. IOW, Adam does not represent us. He was our father and his disobedience put the human family in harm's way. Just as if your father committed a terrorist act, and the entire family is deported to a war zone.

 

[sculleywr]

nobody is saying change is a one time event, you are the only one making this statement.
i did write 'changes' not 'changed'. God initiates regeneration, and also works on them.

such is the idea of growth or christian maturity.

HOWEVER Justification (whereby a person is declare just and righteous- and therefore a member of the saved elect) is NOT on based on 'growth' but on what Christ has done made ours through union with Him by FAITH ALONE.​

If it's OSAS, then it is a one time event.

And I'm sorry, but if we believe justification is by faith alone, then we must throw out James. He clearly states that the answer to the question "can faith alone save him (man who does no works)?" is "a man is justified by his works, and not by faith alone".

But like I said, for the Scripture and the Orthodox, the relationship with Christ is the salvation. Free will is the only way a relationship can exist that is not abusive. Growth is the only way a relationship can develop. Not a one time decision. And like I also said, we cannot hope for a just or loving God under a Predestination theory. It is purely a Hellenistic Fatalism theory.

 

[sculleywr]

its in the bible, Ephesians 1.
that is enough for everyone else to believe.

No. It's an interpretation of the Bible that nobody got for over 1500 years. Let's observe:

• 
  • Jesus Christ: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
  
  • Apostle Peter: The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
  
  • Apostle Paul: For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
  
  • Apostle Paul: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved.
  

So how are these statements understood by the first Christians?

Ignatius of Antioch:

• 
  • If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.

Irenaeus:

• 
  Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

• 
  Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God’s Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the
  Rebellious.

Justin Martyr

• 
  Man acts by his own free will and not by fate.
  
  We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.
  
  But that you may not have a pretext for saying that Christ must have been crucified, and that those who transgressed must have been among your nation, and that the matter could not have been otherwise, I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so.

According to you, it took people 1500 years to see TULIP Predestination. Was Calvin somehow more intelligent than the people who knew the Apostles firsthand? Was he somehow more intelligent than the many thousands of martyrs and millions of Christians before him?

No he wasn't. TULIP is an interpretation of Scripture. It is a tradition of men, invented by men more than a millennium after Christ's ascension. It is new. It isn't in Scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

nice words, but 'union with God' amounts to nothing. it is 'union with christ', for without christ there can be no righteousness and thus no salvation nor reconciliation with God.

you must be reading Romans 5:12 differently. look at the words one by one..

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--​

how can death spread to all men when they have not yet existed ? unless you presume God judges you because of foreseen sin, the only conclusion is that our union with adam (him being the federal head on the human race) brought as sin, and the good news is that our union with christ (as our representative) brought as life.​

Because the set of all men was Adam and Eve at that time. This is a simple Mathematical equation:

The Set of all humans at T=1 year: {Adam, Eve}
The Set of all humans who sinned at T=1 year: {Adam, Eve}

And how is union to God different from union with Christ if Christ is God? Union with God presumes Christ because:

The Set of God: {Father, Son, Holy Spirit}

 

[Geralt]

too many conspiracy theories in your head.

just read the words plainly.

Eph 1:4-5 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ​

No. It's an interpretation of the Bible that nobody got for over 1500 years. Let's observe:

• 
  • Jesus Christ: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
  
  • Apostle Peter: The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
  
  • Apostle Paul: For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
  
  • Apostle Paul: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved.

So how are these statements understood by the first Christians?

Ignatius of Antioch:

• 
  • If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.

Irenaeus:

• 
  Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

• 
  Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God’s Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the
  Rebellious.

Justin Martyr

• 
  Man acts by his own free will and not by fate.
  
  We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.
  
  But that you may not have a pretext for saying that Christ must have been crucified, and that those who transgressed must have been among your nation, and that the matter could not have been otherwise, I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so.

According to you, it took people 1500 years to see TULIP Predestination. Was Calvin somehow more intelligent than the people who knew the Apostles firsthand? Was he somehow more intelligent than the many thousands of martyrs and millions of Christians before him?

No he wasn't. TULIP is an interpretation of Scripture. It is a tradition of men, invented by men more than a millennium after Christ's ascension. It is new. It isn't in Scripture.

 

[Geralt]

obviously you missed the point and try to play with equations.
its the 'in christ' in many parts of the NT.

Because the set of all men was Adam and Eve at that time. This is a simple Mathematical equation:

The Set of all humans at T=1 year: {Adam, Eve}
The Set of all humans who sinned at T=1 year: {Adam, Eve}

And how is union to God different from union with Christ if Christ is God? Union with God presumes Christ because:

The Set of God: {Father, Son, Holy Spirit}

 

[Wordkeeper]

nice words, but 'union with God' amounts to nothing. it is 'union with christ', for without christ there can be no righteousness and thus no salvation nor reconciliation with God.

Everyday in the cool of the evening, God would meet with Adam. Only the pure can meet with God. This amounts to nothing? Then why did God say everything He had made so far was good?

Genesis 1
31God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

And why did God say Adam would die if he ate of the forbidden fruit, and what really resulted was the separation from God? Don't you know that Adam could subdue creation, including his creaturely drives, only in union with God?

you must be reading Romans 5:12 differently. look at the words one by one..
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
how can death spread to all men when they have not yet existed ? unless you presume God judges you because of foreseen sin, the only conclusion is that our union with adam (him being the federal head on the human race) brought as sin, and the good news is that our union with christ (as our representative) brought as life.

Quote
the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

http://gentlewisdom.italiapa.com/2007/08/11/augustines-mistake-about-sin/

Augustine used Romans 5:12 to prove the theory of Original Sin was true. He said we all sinned in Adam, claiming the text said "in whom (Adam) all sinned". However, we know he made a mistake, because the Greek actually says, "because all sinned".

You claim that the phrase "death spread to all men" means Adam had the power to represent all men, including those not yet born. So when he sinned, death came into his life and in turn the lives of all those yet to be born.

I'll tell you how else it can be interpreted. When Adam sinned he gained the knowledge of good and evil. This made him prosecutable under God's eternal law, to love Him with all your being and to love others as yourself.

Are your children prosecutable? No. Because they do not have the knowledge of good and evil. A person is said to be mentally competent only after adulthood, 18 being the agreed age. He can't even participate in contracts.

If Adam had waited (Talmud says till the Sabbath) God would have helped him subdue his creaturely drives, put to death the deeds of the body. Then God would have given him the knowledge of good and evil. What's the use of having knowledge, when the body is not obedient?

When the human family was separated from God, it made it impossible to put to death the deeds of the body. That's how death spread to all men, even those who did not yet exist. That's why the arrival of Jesus is GOOD NEWS.

Romans 7
21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Matthew 1
21She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.

 

[spiritman]

I've heard that the branches being burnt is actually referring to the man destroying our testimonies. Seeing as how men wouldn't throw us in hell, because only God can do that.

Do you believe it?

 

[spiritman]

A few words from Jesus on this subject.

Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Mt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mr 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

 

[Albion]

For some people, these ^ and other verses like them are assumed to "prove" something about the possibility of losing one's faith. In reality what they do is affirm the obvious. These verses, IOW, do not address the question, "CAN you lose your faith?" They simply testify to the eternal security of those who will endure.

 

[Geralt]

you seemed to be trapped in the Augustine view on the assumption i support augustine at this point, i do not.
i'm exiting this thread as its quite obvious you cannot form an understanding besides the cut and paste routine from pro-websites. truly there is no gospel in the eastern orthodox, just the usual semi-pelagian arguments.​

Everyday in the cool of the evening, God would meet with Adam. Only the pure can meet with God. This amounts to nothing? Then why did God say everything He had made so far was good?

Genesis 1
31God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

And why did God say Adam would die if he ate of the forbidden fruit, and what really resulted was the separation from God? Don't you know that Adam could subdue creation, including his creaturely drives, only in union with God?



Quote
the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

http://gentlewisdom.italiapa.com/2007/08/11/augustines-mistake-about-sin/

Augustine used Romans 5:12 to prove the theory of Original Sin was true. He said we all sinned in Adam, claiming the text said "in whom (Adam) all sinned". However, we know he made a mistake, because the Greek actually says, "because all sinned".

You claim that the phrase "death spread to all men" means Adam had the power to represent all men, including those not yet born. So when he sinned, death came into his life and in turn the lives of all those yet to be born.

I'll tell you how else it can be interpreted. When Adam sinned he gained the knowledge of good and evil. This made him prosecutable under God's eternal law, to love Him with all your being and to love others as yourself.

Are your children prosecutable? No. Because they do not have the knowledge of good and evil. A person is said to be mentally competent only after adulthood, 18 being the agreed age. He can't even participate in contracts.

If Adam had waited (Talmud says till the Sabbath) God would have helped him subdue his creaturely drives, put to death the deeds of the body. Then God would have given him the knowledge of good and evil. What's the use of having knowledge, when the body is not obedient?

When the human family was separated from God, it made it impossible to put to death the deeds of the body. That's how death spread to all men, even those who did not yet exist. That's why the arrival of Jesus is GOOD NEWS.

Romans 7
21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Matthew 1
21She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.

 

[spiritman]

A few words from Jesus on this subject.

Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Mt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mr 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

These verses provide assurance of salvation if we endure to the end. We are required to live the new life that we received in faithfulness to Christ. Those that are not faithful to the end will not enter into heaven.

II Pet 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

 

[SeventyOne]

These verses provide assurance of salvation if we endure to the end. We are required to live the new life that we received in faithfulness to Christ. Those that are not faithful to the end will not enter into heaven.

II Pet 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

The subject here is false teachers among the believers (v1), not the believers themselves. You are falling into the same trap as those who claim Hebrews 10:26 indicate a loss of salvation as well.

All these verses cite are people falling away after gaining "knowledge of" Jesus. You can't be saved by intellectually understanding something or someone. You even contradicted the verses you quoted, stating, "We are required to live the new life that we received", which is no where in these verses, or any of the surrounding verses of 2 Peter 2.

 

[sculleywr]

too many conspiracy theories in your head.

just read the words plainly.

Eph 1:4-5 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ​

Just read the words plainly sounds like something you should be told when you read Matthew 25, Romans 2, James 2, John 3:16.... The fact is that we have two options:

1. You have the correct interpretation of Scripture and people were just too stupid to recognize the Truth, even when they had the Apostles themselves directly teaching them,

2. You do not have the correct interpretation, but an innovation created by a lawyer in the fifteenth century.

His yoke is EASY and His burden is LIGHT. The Calvinistic yoke is partial favoritism, as for some, it is impossible and unbearable, and for others it is literally nonexistent.

 

[sculleywr]

obviously you missed the point and try to play with equations.
its the 'in christ' in many parts of the NT.

No. It is simple. Sin passed to all men at the time because all men had sinned at that time.

As to the rest, you never answered how union with God is different from union with Christ. Can a person be united with Christ, but not united to the Father? How is that possible?

 

[sculleywr]

you seemed to be trapped in the Augustine view on the assumption i support augustine at this point, i do not.
i'm exiting this thread as its quite obvious you cannot form an understanding besides the cut and paste routine from pro-websites. truly there is no gospel in the eastern orthodox, just the usual semi-pelagian arguments.​

Truly there is a violation of the rules here. The gospel of the Orthodox is promise of real righteousness. I do love how you refer to something that literally doesn't exist, like Semi-Pelagianism. You may as well refer to the Orthodox Church of Twinkly Fairies while you're at it. Make the false accusations more colorful. If you're going to pull a Donald Trump, at least go out with some style.

 

[sculleywr]

The subject here is false teachers among the believers (v1), not the believers themselves. You are falling into the same trap as those who claim Hebrews 10:26 indicate a loss of salvation as well.

All these verses cite are people falling away after gaining "knowledge of" Jesus. You can't be saved by intellectually understanding something or someone. You even contradicted the verses you quoted, stating, "We are required to live the new life that we received", which is no where in these verses, or any of the surrounding verses of 2 Peter 2.

Question: if you can't give up salvation, either because you couldn't choose to give it up, or it was forced on you regardless of your choice, do you have free will?

Salvation is not heaven for me. I would live in hell forever if that meant being close to Christ. That is what salvation looks like. Not some destination. Salvation is a person. There is no life outside of a relationship with Christ. A person can be in the most heavenly place and have nothing because he rejects Christ.

 

[Wordkeeper]

you seemed to be trapped in the Augustine view on the assumption i support augustine at this point, i do not.
i'm exiting this thread as its quite obvious you cannot form an understanding besides the cut and paste routine from pro-websites. truly there is no gospel in the eastern orthodox, just the usual semi-pelagian arguments.​

Let it not be said that I am biased and post quotes only from pro websites. Here is an excellent post from an anti website, different from other anti articles in the sense that he takes on the views of new scholars like N T Wright. However, we have the truth on our side, and that's why we can be confident of persevering even against great scholars. In doing so we will be able to point out the instances where they try to hide the faults in their argumentation.

It's good to defend your views with meaty answers rather than one liners. But then it takes a bit of scholarship to do that. In that respect the following is a good response by a reformed scholar, to recent attacks on the views held by the denomination.

Here he posits the problem as a persistent sin nature which requires borrowed righteousness to correct. I wonder why he forgot about faith. The fact is God accepts a confession of weakness as a righteous act and responds with power. Grace, not imputed righteousness is the answer.

Quote
The traditional Reformed position (using the Westminster Confession of Faith as representative) holds that God's "covenant of works" with Adam and the stipulations of the Mosaic Law itself require not just forgiveness of sins, but also a positive righteousness in order for God to declare someone to be righteous. Since all have fallen short of God's perfect standard and are in a sinful state unable to produce the righteousness that God requires, salvation is possible only by an external righteousness being reckoned or imputed to sinful human beings. Where Adam fell, Christ, the second Adam, succeeded in perfectly obeying the commands of God. Furthermore, any denial of the necessity of the imputation of Christ's righteousness is inherently "works righteousness." If we do not stand before God in Christ's righteousness, we necessarily must present to him our own (hence, Machen's "no hope without it"). But is there a biblical basis for the imputation of Christ's righteousness?
_______________________


Here he claims the central theme of his next text is forgiveness. Crazy. The first few chapters of Romans deals with explaining to the church in Rome the absence of any advantage to the Jew as far as righteousness is concerned. Abraham was not a Jew, yet he was inducted as a member of God's community, justified, even before circumcision was given.

Quote
Vickers' study of the Pauline texts is carefully nuanced, allowing the emphases of each passage to emerge. Romans 4:1-8 is especially significant because here we find explicitly the language of righteousness being "reckoned," or imputed. Yet there is no explicit mention of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Instead, we read of faith being reckoned as righteousness and of the non-reckoning of sin. In fact, Vickers argues, Paul's quoting of Psalm 32 clarifies his earlier use of Genesis 15:6, indicating that Paul's primary concern in this passage is forgiveness.

_____________________


Next he emphasises the nature of the transaction. He may have a point here when he claims that righteousness is a gift not earned. However we know that Paul is comparing the situation of the Jew versus the Gentile. Jews in the Church were insisting on conversion to Judaism for the purpose of justification. Torah observance consists of moral, ceremonial and civil precepts, miztvots.

Now hear this. It was not only the Jews who were a problem in the church. Gentiles considered themselves as the new Jews. Their reasoning was that since they had been included in the group known as God's people, they must have performed better, or the Jews had failed morally, since both parties had morality, as a requirement, in common.

So Paul is emphasising that it was neither civil (circumcision) nor moral (works) requirements which were the criteria for justification, but faith! You can see Paul attacking both assertions throughout the letter to the Roman church, disabusing Jews of the need for conversion and Gentiles of their assumption of better morality. I fail to understand the link between imputation and performance. Paul is not saying justification is by imputation, borrowing, because it can't be earned. He is saying justification can be earned by criteria other than conversion or by moral rectitude, he is emphasising it can only be earned by faith, and even if faith can be demonstrated by works, faith starts out as a mindset, belief.

In fact, the bolded text is wrong, the assumption totally unjustified. Abraham's action is a righteous act. He is actually credited with righteousness. It's not borrowed, imputed, it's his own. Everywhere in Scripture, the word reckoned signifies a credit in the sin vs righteousness ledger, account book, by צְדָקָה tsedaqah in the Hebrew and logizomai in the Greek. The only reason it's a gift, not earned, is because it has not been accompanied by an outworking of that faith mindset. Faith is sufficient for justification, but works, manifestations of that faith, are required for sanctification. Also Abraham can hardly be used as an example of the ungodly.

Quote
At the same time, this passage teaches us much about the imputation of a positive righteousness. It makes clear, for instance, that righteousness is a gift--it is reckoned, not earned. Furthermore, it is "the ungodly," (v. 5), including Abraham himself, whom God justifies.

This last point is especially striking when we look at the Old Testament background of righteousness. In the Old Testament, righteousness is typically connected to actions one should do. But, as in Isa. 61:10, it can also refer to a granted status. At times, righteousness is reckoned in accordance with actions. For instance, Phinehas's righteous zeal was reckoned as righteousness.

The reckoning of Abraham's faith as righteousness, however, falls into the category of those instances where one thing is reckoned as something it is not (cf. Laban's reckoning of his own daughters as foreigners; Gen. 31:5). God's declaration of Abraham as righteous, in other words, "means that a declaration that would normally be declared on the basis of what one does has been granted on the basis of faith" (85-86). To put it differently, "by faith, Abraham stands before God as one who has fulfilled every standard and condition expected by God" (86). Ungodly Abraham, through faith, is granted the status of righteousness. At the same time, a comparison of 4:1-8 and 3:21-26 indicates that the righteousness from God given to believers is based on Christ's work on our behalf.

__________________

Here is where the scholar claims Christ's righteousness is imputed.

This is where he is plain wrong. The status of righteousness is SECURED for the believer by being in Christ, 'in Christ' being an umbrella phrase for following him in his life, death and resurrection, made possible by union with God, in turn made possible by Christ being made a sin offering. A sin offering is such by virtuecof it's being unblemished and by being killed. It takes away sin only when these two conditions are met. That's how God's covenantal faithfulness, the righteousness of God, is actualised. That's how we can also be part of the righteousness of God, by being in Christ, through faith. Then we do not borrow Christ's righteousness, but are heirs, co-inheritors. Because faith is manifested in living the life that Christ lived, died and was resurrected from.

Quote
In Romans 5:12-21, Paul takes a step back in redemptive history and looks at "the foundation of righteousness." Here Paul deals with the status of individuals as a result of what their representative, Adam or Christ, has done. The status of righteousness, appropriated in chapter 4 through faith, is secured for the believer through the obedience of Jesus Christ. As Vickers puts it, "If Romans 4 is about the appropriation of righteousness, then Romans 5 is about the very foundation of righteousness" (114).

In other words, Romans 4 and 5 both deal with the issue of righteousness. Romans 4 says that faith is reckoned as righteousness. Romans 5:19 asserts that through the obedience of Christ many are "made righteous." Christ's obedience, then, must logically be a more fundamental redemptive act that serves as the basis for God's reckoning righteousness to individuals. Christ's obedience, or righteousness (5:18), is the ground upon which God views sinners as righteous.

There has been discussion (even consternation) over the verb that Paul uses in 5:19, typically translated "made" righteous. Does this connote some kind of infused or transformational righteousness? Vickers' study shows that the verb used typically does not refer to the actions of a person. Rather, the emphasis is on status. To be "made righteous," then, means to be put in a righteous state. And believers can be in this state because of the obedience of Christ.

We will return to Vickers' interpretation of Romans 5 momentarily, because it contains some of the most potentially problematic parts of his work. Looking at this will require careful attention. For now, however, it will be helpful to continue to give a quick overview of the whole.

The third and final key text that Vickers examines is 2 Corinthians 5:21: "God made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him." This passage was crucial for Luther's description of the "great exchange" that takes place in Christ--he takes our sin, we receive his righteousness.

According to Vickers, with this text we move from the appropriation of righteousness (by faith) in Romans 4 and the foundation of righteousness (in Christ's obedience) in Romans 5 to the provision of righteousness. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, we have the means by which it is possible for God to count people as righteous, namely, Christ's perfect life and his sacrificial death on the cross. This passage also highlights the critical idea of the believer's union with Christ. It is on the basis of this union that Christ can "be sin" for believers and that they can "become the righteousness of God in him."

Vickers begins by showing that Paul uses sacrificial language in this verse. A number of phrases point to this. The notion that Christ "knew no sin" brings to mind that Old Testament sacrifices were to be "without defect." The prominence of "reconciliation" in the larger context of 5:14-21 also reflects the Old Testament context that sin has made a breach with God. Sacrifices were the way God's people were restored to right relationship with him. Furthermore, in v. 14, the phrase "one died for all" points to the vicarious nature of Christ's death. He died in the place of "all," just as the animals offered in sacrifice were killed in place of God's people who had sinned.

Vickers then examines the second part of v. 21, "that we might become the righteousness of God in him." Vickers points out that it is critical to recognize the forensic nature of this passage as a whole. Christ was made sin, but did not become actually sinful. God did not "reckon" our trespasses against us. The prominent idea of reconciliation is also described as a forensic reality--God's people are in a restored relationship with him through the forgiveness of sins.

The forensic context points away from understanding "the righteousness of God" as transformative righteousness and covenant faithfulness (the two most prominent alternatives to the traditional reading). Vickers' critique of N. T. Wright's position (namely, that Paul, as a minister of the new covenant, is "an incarnation of the covenant faithfulness of God") is devastating and worth the price of the book. He also effectively refutes the now commonly held position that God's "righteousness" in Paul's letters is his "covenant faithfulness." As Vickers puts it, "How does one become God's faithfulness to his covenant?" (182, emphasis his) Furthermore, the emphasis in this passage on the believer's union with Christ in the sense of a representational participation, in which what is legally ours becomes his and his becomes ours, rules out any notion of a "legal fiction."

Thus, while the focus of 2 Corinthians 5:14-21 is on the sacrificial death of Christ as the ground for becoming the righteousness of God, "the basic idea of something 'counting' for righteousness is...unavoidable" (189). Christ's death becomes our death (v. 14). Our sins are not "reckoned" against us, but they are reckoned to Christ, without Christ becoming actually sinful. Furthermore, though not the focus of this passage, Christ's perfect life in obedience to God is undoubtedly in view.

Thus, the best way to read 2 Corinthians 5:21 in context is the traditional Reformed interpretation of the exchange that takes place between Christ and those who are "in him." He takes our sin. His righteousness is imputed to us.

The final major chapter includes a synthesis of the findings in the key texts, a brief examination of three other relevant texts in Paul and answers to common objections to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. According to Vickers, the key texts have common threads which, when connected, flow in the following way: There is "(1) an external act, which is specifically (2) God acting in Christ, (3) on behalf of sinners [who cannot be righteous before God on the basis of their own actions or moral standing], and is, thus, (4) an act of grace, and is affected or applied in (5) union with Christ" (195). Vickers recognizes that these themes do not prove imputation. They do show that there can be no justifying righteousness apart from Christ.

A more narrow synthesis of Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5, however, does show the significance of both the "passive" and the "active" obedience of Christ as the second Adam. 2 Corinthians 5 describes Christ's representative, sacrificial death "for all," that they might live. Romans 5 emphasizes his representative death as a positive act of obedience that overturns the disobedience of the first man Adam. Vickers states, "This leads to the conclusion that Christ's role as the second Adam does, in fact, include the provision for the forgiveness of sins and a positive standing before God on the basis of Christ's obedience" (197, emphasis his).

Furthermore, Vickers argues, Christ's obedience cannot be limited to understanding it only as that which qualified him to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. His obedience "was an assertive, freely taken, act of will" (198). When we combine this with the biblical picture that Adam was not created in a glorified state, but was "moving to some sort of confirmed state of existence..., then the 'positive' element of imputation is nearly a given" (198). When Adam sinned, he fell short of attaining was God had intended for humanity. What we need, then, is not simply the forgiveness of sins, but also a positive standing before God. The witness of other Pauline texts confirms this, especially 1 Cor. 1:30 where Christ is said to be "our righteousness," and Phil. 3:9, which contrasts Paul's own righteousness with an external righteousness found only in Christ.

__________________

- See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/jesus-blood-and-righteousness.php#sthash.Flr0w56c.dpuf