Salvation loss. Is it possible?

[Oldmantook]

I see you don't understand the apostle Pauls message. I have NOT claimed the moral law was abolished. However, a righteousness/ justification of observing the moral law does not exist for the believer, as I can easily prove from rom ch7 if necessary, let alone numerous other scriptures.
Concerning David:
Do not bring your servant into judgement, for no one living is righteous before you
Psalms143:2

Sorry but Rom 4:6-8 is a direct reference/quote from Ps 32. For you to then quote from Ps 143 is to take it totally out of context. That's bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, are you claiming that believers are not required to obey God? - since you wrote "a righteousness/ justification of observing the moral law does not exist for the believer." If so, how do you explain Heb 5:9 which stipulates obedience as a requirement for eternal life?

 

[stuart lawrence]

Sorry but Rom 4:6-8 is a direct reference/quote from Ps 32. For you to then quote from Ps 143 is to take it totally out of context. That's bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, are you claiming that believers are not required to obey God? - since you wrote "a righteousness/ justification of observing the moral law does not exist for the believer." If so, how do you explain Heb 5:9 which stipulates obedience as a requirement for eternal life?

Well if you don't like rom4:6-8

For we maintain a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law
Rom3:28
But now a righteousness apart from law has been made known, to which the law and the prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe
Rom3:21&22

Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believeth rom10:4

We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners know that a man is not justified/ righteous by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we too have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified
Gal2:15&16

Paul didn't seem to think righteousness/ justification apart from observing the law meant you don't need to obey God did he.

In my view, Paul preached the greatest message ever preached since Christ walked this earth. But having the ability to read the Greek does not bring enlightenment concerning it

 

[Oldmantook]

BTW
Instead of just quoting the letter, consider it.
A christianity where a person has truly been born again of the Holy Spirit, loves God with all their heart, and has the law in their heart, will always result in repentance. These are the people I am referring to. Think of the person you love most in this world. When you upset them/ act imperfectly towards them, don't you always regret afterwards how you have acted? Dont you allways apologise for how you have acted? You will have no rest or peace until you do so.

If a truly born again Christian will always repent as you believe, then the onus is on you to explain Mk 11:26 where Jesus himself stated that IF we don't forgive others, God won't forgive us our sins. The word "if" makes this a conditional sentence indicating possibility - not certainty. "If" indicates that a believer might forgive or he might choose not to forgive. How do you explain Rom 8:13 where Paul warns the brethren that the consequence of living according to the flesh is spiritual death? How do you explain Heb 5:9 which stipulates that obedience is a requirement for eternal life?

 

[stuart lawrence]

If a truly born again Christian will always repent as you believe, then the onus is on you to explain Mk 11:26 where Jesus himself stated that IF we don't forgive others, God won't forgive us our sins. The word "if" makes this a conditional sentence indicating possibility - not certainty. "If" indicates that a believer might forgive or he might choose not to forgive. How do you explain Rom 8:13 where Paul warns the brethren that the consequence of living according to the flesh is spiritual death? How do you explain Heb 5:9 which stipulates that obedience is a requirement for eternal life?

First if all, you MUST read the Bible as a cohesive whole. And the Bible states:
The letter( of the law/ commandments) kills.
Let's take your example of forgiving others.
Someone once did something that for a long time I found impossible to forgive. God brought me to the place where I was willing to forgive them. God does in us what we are incapable of doing ourselves.
As an aside. I read many statements on these websites concerning:
If you love me obey my commandments.
Yet in over forty years of going to various denominational churches I have never met one person who has even tried to obey each and every literal command of Christ. Is the internet different? I very much doubt it.
Demanding of others what we don't demand of ourselves is religious hypocrisy

 

[Oldmantook]

Well if you don't like rom4:6-8

For we maintain a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law
Rom3:28
But now a righteousness apart from law has been made known, to which the law and the prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe
Rom3:21&22

Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believeth rom10:4

We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners know that a man is not justified/ righteous by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we too have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified
Gal2:15&16

Paul didn't seem to think righteousness/ justification apart from observing the law meant you don't need to obey God did he.

In my view, Paul preached the greatest message ever preached since Christ walked this earth. But having the ability to read the Greek does not bring enlightenment concerning it

Sorry but having an understanding of the Greek helps to understand the NT. If you choose to be ignorant of it, you're free to do so. I didn't say that I don't like Rom 4:6-8. I simply pointed out that you interpret it totally out of context - a bad habit. Your reference to Rom 3 is also irrelevant as Paul is referring to the ritualistic OT law which cannot save anyone. Curiously, you still have avoided reconciling Js 2:24 which plainly states that a believer is JUSTIFIED by WORKS and not faith alone. You quote Rom 10:4 from the KJV. You should be aware that "th" endings in the KJV translate to "ing" in modern English. Thus righteousness is only reserved for those Christians who are "believing" i.e, continuing to believe. If one ceases to believe then righteousness is no longer his. The law in Gal 2 refers the the OT ritualistic law as Gal 5 & 6 confirm = circumcision.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Sorry but having an understanding of the Greek helps to understand the NT. If you choose to be ignorant of it, you're free to do so. I didn't say that I don't like Rom 4:6-8. I simply pointed out that you interpret it totally out of context - a bad habit. Your reference to Rom 3 is also irrelevant as Paul is referring to the ritualistic OT law which cannot save anyone. Curiously, you still have avoided reconciling Js 2:24 which plainly states that a believer is JUSTIFIED by WORKS and not faith alone. You quote Rom 10:4 from the KJV. You should be aware that "th" endings in the KJV translate to "ing" in modern English. Thus righteousness is only reserved for those Christians who are "believing" i.e, continuing to believe. If one ceases to believe then righteousness is no longer his. The law in Gal 2 refers the the OT ritualistic law as Gal 5 & 6 confirm = circumcision.

It is clear to me you don't understand Pauls message, nor plain biblical facts.

To suggest Paul is referring to ritualistic OT law when he states no one will be justified/ righteous by observing the law is nonsensical. In Jesus day people who did not know God could faultlessly obey ritualistic/ non moral law. Paul stated as a pharisee he faultlessly obeyed this law( phil3:6)
So he would by lying if he is only referring to non moral law concerning no one will be declared righteous by observing that law

Furthermore. In rom7:4-6 Paul states:
The Christian must die to the law in order to live for God
Sinfull passions are aroused in you by the law if you live under it
The Christian is released from the law and serves in the new way of the Spirit, not the old way of the written code/law
WHICH LAW is Paul referring to here?
In the next five verses, he gives a personal example from his own life as to why he had to die to the law. The example he gave was: Thou shalt not covet. One of the TC and part of the moral law
The Greek isn't helping you here im afraid

 

[Oldmantook]

First if all, you MUST read the Bible as a cohesive whole. And the Bible states:
The letter( of the law/ commandments) kills.
Let's take your example of forgiving others.
Someone once did something that for a long time I found impossible to forgive. God brought me to the place where I was willing to forgive them. God does in us what we are incapable of doing ourselves.
As an aside. I read many statements on these websites concerning:
If you love me obey my commandments.
Yet in over forty years of going to various denominational churches I have never met one person who has even tried to obey each and every literal command of Christ. Is the internet different? I very much doubt it.
Demanding of others what we don't demand of ourselves is religious hypocrisy

If I take the time to respond to your comments, is it asking too much to ask of you to reply to each of my points. When I cite Rom 8:13 and Heb 5:9 as scriptural support for my beliefs why do you ignore them instead of dealing with them? After all, we both agree that WE must read the Bible as a cohesive whole. It certainly is commendable that you were able to eventually forgive others however that in no way negates Jesus' warning that IF we don't forgive others, He won't forgive us. Just because you were able to forgive, does not entail that others will forgive. That is why Jesus used the word IF.
You seem to forget that Jesus himself summed up the Commandments in his greatest two commandments in loving God with all of our heart, soul and mind and loving our neighbor as ourselves. If that were not possible, then Jesus would not expect it from us would he? While we are not perfect and still sin, it does not make it any less of a goal for all believers.

 

[stuart lawrence]

If I take the time to respond to your comments, is it asking too much to ask of you to reply to each of my points. When I cite Rom 8:13 and Heb 5:9 as scriptural support for my beliefs why do you ignore them instead of dealing with them? After all, we both agree that WE must read the Bible as a cohesive whole. It certainly is commendable that you were able to eventually forgive others however that in no way negates Jesus' warning that IF we don't forgive others, He won't forgive us. Just because you were able to forgive, does not entail that others will forgive. That is why Jesus used the word IF.
You seem to forget that Jesus himself summed up the Commandments in his greatest two commandments in loving God with all of our heart, soul and mind and loving our neighbor as ourselves. If that were not possible, then Jesus would not expect it from us would he? While we are not perfect and still sin, it does not make it any less of a goal for all believers.

And hopefully you would agree. It is not loving others to demand of them what you do not demand if yourself.
Regarding rom8:13&heb5:9.
You have to understand Pauls core message. The little grey cells won't reveal it to you. Neither will reliance on the Greek:

Do we then nullify the law by this faith( a righteousness of faith in Christ not observing the law) Not at all! Rather we uphold the law
Rom3:31

As we don't have to uphold ritualistic/ ot law, that proves the law Paul is referring to.

For sin shall no longer be your master, for you are not under law( of righteousness) but under grace rom6:14

Again, cannot refer to ritualistic law

Why are the above verses true?

The power of sin is the law
1cor15:56

Pauls message makes no sense to the logical mind. Die to a righteousness of observing the law and sin shall not be your master.
The opposite of your belief

 

[Oldmantook]

It is clear to me you don't understand Pauls message, nor plain biblical facts.

To suggest Paul is referring to ritualistic OT law when he states no one will be justified/ righteous by observing the law is nonsensical. In Jesus day people who did not know God could faultlessly obey ritualistic/ non moral law. Paul stated as a pharisee he faultlessly obeyed this law( phil3:6)
So he would by lying if he is only referring to non moral law concerning no one will be declared righteous by observing that law

Furthermore. In rom7:4-6 Paul states:
The Christian must die to the law in order to live for God
Sinfull passions are aroused in you by the law if you live under it
The Christian is released from the law and serves in the new way of the Spirit, not the old way of the written code/law
WHICH LAW is Paul referring to here?
In the next five verses, he gives a personal example from his own life as to why he had to die to the law. The example he gave was: Thou shalt not covet. One of the TC and part of the moral law
The Greek isn't helping you here im afraid

Again, why do you ignore Galatians which I pointed out that Paul was referring to circumcision?? If you continue to ignore my counterpoints that's your choice but it is a waste of my time to have a discussion with you as it's not a productive use of my time.
Contrary to your assertion, Paul is only referring to the ritualistic observance of the law as it does not save anyone. The moral law is still binding. If the moral law is no longer binding then why are we commanded to keep God's commandments? "Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them" (Jn 14:21).

 

[stuart lawrence]

Again, why do you ignore Galatians which I pointed out that Paul was referring to circumcision?? If you continue to ignore my counterpoints that's your choice but it is a waste of my time to have a discussion with you as it's not a productive use of my time.
Contrary to your assertion, Paul is only referring to the ritualistic observance of the law as it does not save anyone. The moral law is still binding. If the moral law is no longer binding then why are we commanded to keep God's commandments? "Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them" (Jn 14:21).

Conversation with you is futile. You have clearly been shown your error but refuse to admit it.
The idea the Christian must die to ritualistic law in order for sin not to be their master, is frankly absurd.
The idea sinfull passions are aroused in you by ritualistic law if you live under it us equally absurd. You are not properly addressing the points placed before you, for you do not understand Pauls message.

 

[stuart lawrence]

For the enlightened. The TC are an inflexible law. there is no pass mark of obedience to them that can make you righteous before God. Perfectly obey them or stand guilty before them.
Paul referred to the law written on stone as: the letter that kills & the ministry of death and condemnation. The only law written on stone was the TC.

The problem was always in obeying the moral law, not the legalistic/ ritualistic law

 

[stuart lawrence]

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse. For it is written: cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the law. Clearly no one is justified by observing the law
Gal3:10&11.

Now if the above only referred to ritualistic/legalistic law/ circumcision, Paul made an incorrect statement. For that law could be faultlessly obeyed. Therefore you wouldn't be cursed by relying on observing it to be justified would you.
But alas. People will reason anything rather than admit to error

 

[Oldmantook]

And hopefully you would agree. It is not loving others to demand of them what you do not demand if yourself.

Yes certainly correct as I'm not exempt. Why do you take the liberty of presuming otherwise?

Regarding rom8:13&heb5:9.
You have to understand Pauls core message. The little grey cells won't reveal it to you. Neither will reliance on the Greek:

Still waiting for your explanation.

Do we then nullify the law by this faith( a righteousness of faith in Christ not observing the law) Not at all! Rather we uphold the law
Rom3:31

Yes, we uphold the moral law.

For sin shall no longer be your master, for you are not under law( of righteousness) but under grace rom6:14

You insert your parenthesis into the text which is not there to try to prove your belief. That is adding to the Word of God - not a good habit to practice.

Pauls message makes no sense to the logical mind. Die to a righteousness of observing the law and sin shall not be your master.
The opposite of your belief

If we are no longer required to observe the moral law, then what commandments if any, are we to observe? After all, didn't Jesus say? "If ye love Me, keep My commandments" (Jn 14:15).

 

[stuart lawrence]

Yes certainly correct as I'm not exempt. Why do you take the liberty of presuming otherwise?


Still waiting for your explanation.


Yes, we uphold the moral law.


You insert your parenthesis into the text which is not there to try to prove your belief. That is adding to the Word of God - not a good habit to practice.


If we are no longer required to observe the moral law, then what commandments if any, are we to observe? After all, didn't Jesus say? "If ye love Me, keep My commandments" (Jn 14:15).

You've had the explanation. Obedience comes by faith( rom1:5) sin shall not be your master for you are not under righteousness of observing the law. This is what you cannot comprehend.

Do you even try to obey each and every literal command of Christ? If you do not, does that prove you do not love him according to your quote?

 

[Oldmantook]

Conversation with you is futile. You have clearly been shown your error but refuse to admit it.
The idea the Christian must die to ritualistic law in order for sin not to be their master, is frankly absurd.
The idea sinfull passions are aroused in you by ritualistic law if you live under it us equally absurd. You are not properly addressing the points placed before you, for you do not understand Pauls message.

Likewise I've come to the conclusion that discussion with you is futile. The Christian must die to sin - not to the ceremonial law as you mistakenly claim that I assert. That has always been my position. You have stated that a true Christian will always obey and repent. I assert that that is not always the case as believers have the ability to choose to sin or not to sin; to repent or not repent. That is the daily battle between our flesh and spirit. I have asked you repeatedly to reconcile Rom 8:13 and Heb 5:9 with your belief but you have neglected to do so. Therefore, my time spent discussing this with you ends here. We can simply agree to disagree.

 

[stuart lawrence]

The law comes in two parts. The law itself that is to be obeyed and the attached penalty for disobedience. The law itself, God desires the Christian to obey was transferred from tablets of stone to tablets of human hearts (2cor3:3) At the very moment this happens you have a saviour from your sin/ transgression of the law. The NC comes in two core parts. One without the other equals no NC.
The law is placed on your heart, your sins and lawless deeds will be remembered no more.
Jesus will only be your saviour from sin if you in your heart want to obey his Father. The truly born again christian does want to obey in their heart, for that is where the law has been placed.
By God removing the law of righteousness from the believer, the power of sin has been removed from their life. For:
The power of sin is the law 1cor15:56

The born again Christians heartfelt desire to obey can now come to fruition, for what opposes obedience(sin) was dealt a crushing blow by its true power being removed from the Christians life.
Hence:
For sin shall no longer be your master, for you are not under law but under grace
Rom6:14
However:

Many after drinking the old wine don't want the new. For they say: The old is better
Luke5:39

 

[stuart lawrence]

Likewise I've come to the conclusion that discussion with you is futile. The Christian must die to sin - not to the ceremonial law as you mistakenly claim that I assert. That has always been my position. You have stated that a true Christian will always obey and repent. I assert that that is not always the case as believers have the ability to choose to sin or not to sin; to repent or not repent. That is the daily battle between our flesh and spirit. I have asked you repeatedly to reconcile Rom 8:13 and Heb 5:9 with your belief but you have neglected to do so. Therefore, my time spent discussing this with you ends here. We can simply agree to disagree.

You may have the last word, I don't need it

 

[JoeP222w]

I believe it is possible for a heaven bound Christian to end up condemned. There are many passages describing this but I believe the parable in Luke 12:42-46 is one of the clearest.

In this parable, the word "manager" is singular, showing that there is only one faithful and wise manager being spoken of. Looking at the verses, we have:

a) V.42 tells us of a faithful and wise manager (obviously a saved man) who is put in charge while the master (Jesus) is away.

b) Vs. 43-44 say that the servant will be rewarded and put in charge of all the master's possessions if the master returns and finds that the servant has remained faithful.

c) Vs. 45-46 then tells us that the same servant will be condemned and assigned a place with the unbelievers (in hell) if the master returns and finds that he is sinning and mistreating the other servants etc.

To say that the servant will be assigned a place with unbelievers makes it obvious that he was a believer initially.

To me, this is one of several parables and passages which clearly show that a Christian can be rewarded or condemned, depending on his actions.

Loss of salvation is a vitally important issue.

What do you think of this parable?

In Luke 12:42, Jesus is showing that the faithful and wise manager will be obedient to the Master's will. His faithfulness is demonstrated by His obedience. His obedience does not earn him faithfulness.

Conversely, the disobedient servant demonstrates his unfaithfulness. This passage is demonstrating that if you claim faithfulness to Christ, and then are disobedient to him, you are demonstrating you are a hypocrite and not saved.

Salvation is of the Lord. To say that one can be a "heaven bound Christian" and then "end up condemned" is to say that God is not sovereign, that God tries to save someone, but because of the creature's sovereign will, God fails to save them. This is not a Biblical concept and points to works based salvation.

John 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (28) I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (29) My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.


God is sovereign, not man. Man does not have libertarian autonomous free will.

 

[aiki]

If you wish to argue with Jesus' explanation, that is certainly your prerogative. I'll take him at his word.

I'm not arguing with Jesus' explanation but with your interpretation of his words. You've engaged in some serious eisegesis in your handling of his words. I have not.

 

[Hillsage]

It is obvious that your understanding of the Greek language is lacking. Metanoias in reference to the obedient 99 is a noun - not a participle.

I'm sorry, but it was you who said;

Apparently you are unaware of the verb tense in Lk 15:7 as metanoounti translated as "repent" is a present tense participle which more accurately translates as "repenting." Therefore one must continue repenting (reflecting lifestyle of repentance) and not a 'one time only' seek/saving as you claim.

And why is it that no 'bible version' agrees with YOUR literally correct "repenting" translation of the Greek word? I'd say it's because yours, is not an accurate interpretation of the word for scripture? So maybe you need a bit less 'Greek translation study' and a better 'English interpretation' for a more correct theological understanding.

And then your logic for a 'continuous repentance' understanding simply fails at the end of the verse when it says those 99 who are already 'just or justified' don't even have need of your understanding of "continual repenting". So if the "just" don't need it , why does the one who's lost need it? Your logic isn't logical.

Your theology simply fails to understand the difference between our 'FIRST' one time repentance to receive 'imputed righteousness/justification/spirit OSAS salvation, from the 'SECOND' lifestyle of repentance which is necessary for the receiving of 'imparted righteousness/sanctification/soul being saved. A soul whose saving gains, can also be reversed in backsliding losses.

We do 'nothing' but receive the 'work' of Jesus to GO TO heaven. All of our subsequent soulish 'works' are for the purpose of rewards to be RECEIVED IN heaven. Your theology does nothing with the understanding of the difference between our ETERNAL safety based upon "you in Christ" versus the precarious TEMPORALNESS of "Christ in you".

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the Greek so you can correctly understand the scriptures. FYI I raise cattle and if one of my cows had a habit of jumping/breaking my fences, it would be shot and end up in the freezer.
The obedient ones have eternal life. The disobedient ones end up in the lake of fire. Rom 8:36 is irrelevant. The verse you're looking for is Rom 8:13.

Perhaps you should deal with the issues I presented concerning sheep raising, from the book written by a shepherd. As well as the purpose of sheep period. You testify you'll live eternal because you're a sheep, I understand that I will live and die A SHEEP. And if I get lost on the way I'll still be A SHEEP in need of the saving Shepherd, to whom I give the glory.


As for the irrelevance of my Rom 8:36, I'd say that might just depend upon your misunderstanding of Rom 8:13. You think sheep are to live forever, scripture is pretty plain our savior was a "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world", before He later become a shepherd. So my 8:36 fits hand in glove with 8:32.

ACT 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: