The serious danger of Doctrinal error....

[heymikey80]

Can one fall from these things and not lose their salvation? One canot fall from the church and still be saved. One cannot fall from the right doctrine to error and still be saved.

You can fall from the church and still be in the same state as before -- saved or unsaved. I expect to see in glory: Tertullian, Origen, Blaise Pascal, and Peter himself (not to mention all the Twelve who scattered at Jesus' death). I expect to see my grandparents, who differed on vast points of doctrine. I expect to see you, who thinks all this stuff must be added to relying on Jesus. When Paul said no: relying on Jesus is critical -- nothing else is.

You can fall into wrong doctrine and still be saved. 1 Cor 11:18-19: "I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." You don't honestly think that the thief on the Cross was suddenly hit =wham= with an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity on belief?

Peter was plainly talking about falling from salvation (election and calling).

Actually it's nowhere near plain: "Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you are practicing these qualities you will never fall." 2 Pt 1:10 It's simply saying you'll never fall into sin while practicing these qualities he's cited. Diligence in these qualities assures people that they are elected and called. It doesn't make people elected and called.

Ever notice the similarity between OSAS and what Satan said to Eve in the garden?

Ever notice the similarity between what God said about the Tree of Life and what the serpent said about the Tree of Knowledge?

God works only in those who do His will, ie, obey Him.

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." Rom 4:5-8
​

I'll bank on the Gospel, not another.

1 Jn 3:12 Cain's works were evil and because of such he was not righteous before God. So salvation depends if one's works are evil or righteousness. [Abel's works were righteous.]

"Not everything is soteriology." John's trying to point out to believers they need to discern whether other people are real Christians. Real Christians practice righteousness. We can assure ourselves we have eternal life because we love the brothers. But we can't make ourselves love the brothers and then cite that as our eternal life. The cart's before the horse in that case.

The subject here is love of the brothers; the wider subject is identifying wisely those who are Christians. "Not everything's soteriology."

He could not save his family only Christ can save, all this man did was kill them. If his family were in a saved position when he killed them then they will be saved, yet murdering them was still a sin.

I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 1 Cor 9:22
​

"God ordains means as well as ends."

You are a means. Therefore bring your kids up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Chase after the Spirit of God. Be where He is. Do right by all you come in contact with; the Spirit may be in them. You are a means of their salvation -- a means God uses.

 

[cygnusx1]

Cyg is at least clever. He got the subject off the silly insinuations of the OP over to a OSAS debate. Good idea....

it wouldn't have been mentioned unless the murderer had insisted it was one of the reasons for his crimes , a causal link is not something one can invent.

Obviously not all who think they can lose their salvation will go to these drastic extremes , but because nationalism and darwinism was a part of the reason for Hitlers evils , and they were , then only a fool would ignore the links.

 

[Oye11]

it wouldn't have been mentioned unless the murderer had insisted it was one of the reasons for his crimes , a causal link is not something one can invent.

Obviously not all who think they can lose their salvation will go to these drastic extremes , but because nationalism and darwinism was a part of the reason for Hitlers evils , and they were , then only a fool would ignore the links.

The fool is you given this analysis, as well as desperation to slander those that disagree with your religious philosophy. The link between a man and the act of murdering his family is insanity, and in this case the most common phenomenon of religious delusion. And you seem plenty ill educated about the evils of Nazi Germany. Insanity again fueled by racism, paranoia, the desire to eliminate a race. There is really no face saving for you here but nice try...

 

[cygnusx1]

The fool is you given this analysis. The link between a man and the act of murdering his family is insanity, and in this case the phenomenon of religious delusion. And you seem plenty ill educated about the evils of Nazi Germany. Insanity again fueled by racism, paranoia, the desire to eliminate a race. There is really no face saving for you here but nice try...

oh lets not look at racism Nationalism and Darwinism ............ let's just call Hitler mad !!!

head in the sand

 

[Oye11]

oh lets not look at racism Nationalism and Darwinism ............ let's just call Hitler mad !!!

head in the sand

LOL Your method involves an agenda based false nexxus. Are you ready to diss Christian theism because the kid at Va Tech rambled off bible verses? Of course not! Nothing helps you here, no cute , nada....

 

[cygnusx1]

LOL Your method involves an agenda based false nexxus. Are you ready to diss Christian theism because the kid at Va Tech rambled off bible verses? Of course not! Nothing helps you here, no cute , nada....

as said before the subject would never have been raised (I am not a mean nasty person) if the killer hadn't have spoken himself of a causal link -------------- too bad it just happened to be the insecurity of salvation falsehood.

 

[cygnusx1]

You have completely taken this passage out of context.
Here Paul is making something of a metaphor between a building and the church. Paul laid the foundation and others came behind Paul and built the walls and a building is only as strong as the materials put into it. The church is the same. Paul worked to lay the foundation by making the first converts in Corinth. Others built the walls by working to make more converts. And the church is only as strong as the converts made. If they have a strong faith the church will be strong, if they have a weak faith the church will be weak.
So when it says everyman's work will be tried by fire, the word work here refers to the Corinthian converts. In 1 Cor 9:1 Paul asks "are ye not my work in the Lord?". So those Corinthians converts were his work. On judgment day fire will try everyman's work (convert). If that convert is saved, then Paul will receive a reward. But if that work (convert) is burned or lost, then Paul will suffer a sense of loss, for his work with that convert was in vain. Paul himself, as long as he remains faithful, will not be lost even though his convert is lost. Gal 4:11 Paul was afraid his work with the Galatians was in vain. If they are lost on judgment day Paul will suffer a sense of loss for his vain work, but Paul himself will be saved as long as he remains faithful.
This passage actually refutes OSAS by showing converts can be lost.

Utter rubbish!

man you really ARE into works I-OLOGY !

the text is clear if any man , build upon the foundation ; the foundation is Christ , let him be careful how he build ....... all will be judged for how they build their lives on Christ , and some will suffer loss , but certainly not loss of salvation.

 

[cygnusx1]

Do you even notice the word "if" in this verse? It is a conditional word. IF one makes their calling an election sure he will not fall, but IF one does not make sure his election and calling he will fall. If the elect cannot fall away, why did Peter use the word conditional "IF"? Why didn't Peter say "it makes no difference if you're diligent about your election and calling for you can never lose your salvation"? Why be diligent if one cannot fall and lose his salvation? What is there to be diligent about?

you are ignoring different types of fall , there are at least three.


according to you even making sure of election and calling does not prevent falling , because you think the elect can be lost !

God did not elect certain individuals, He elected a class of people called Christians, and each individual has to decide if he wants to be in this elected class or not. Those that decide to obey the gospel and become a Christian will become part of elect. Those that do not become Christian are not part of the elect.

utter compost !!

(John 15:16): “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you,that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain .” Romans 9:11-13: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated;” and verse 16: “So then, it is not of him that: willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”


A self-centred salvation?
If the Arminian Christian were to be asked, “Why are you a Christian but your neighbour isn’t?” it would most likely prompt a response along the lines of, “Because I accepted Jesus as my Saviour, and my neighbour didn’t.” However, this answer isn’t sufficient – it is incomplete, so the Arminian must be asked, “Why were you able to accept Jesus when your neighbour wasn’t?” The Arminian can only give a self-centred answer – it may be, “Because I was willing to admit I was a sinner”. But again, it is a leading answer which brings the inevitable question of, “Why were you able to admit your sin when your neighbour wasn’t?” Without embracing the doctrine of unconditional election, the Arminian is left with the answer “Because I was more humble” – a proud, self-centred answer without a shred of Biblical text in support.

if election isn't personal , then why are we commanded to personally make our calling AND ELECTION sure ? see how rediculous it all becomes when you dismiss Sovereign Grace for man's twisted inconsitant will power , it's like selling your birthright for a bowl of old stew!

In Acts 2, it says the Lord added daily to His church. No one is added to His church without the Lord knowing about it. Jude is speaking of false teachers, possibly apostates, that came in and were teaching a false doctrine. Jude knew about them and was warning them. Do you think God did not know about them?

did i say God added false brethren , no ....... i said they "sneaked in " , try and keep up

1 Cor 5:5 says that his spirit may be saved. This is in the subjunctive mood which does not show a guarantee. It shows that the action described possibly or potentially may or may not happen. He may be saved, he may not be saved. They were to use discipline and remove him from their fellowship which might cause him to repent. If he did not repent, he will not be saved. From 2 Cor 2:6-8, it appears he did repent. The punishment was inflicted of many, they withdrew their fellowship from him and thus he repented and they were to forgive him, verse 7.

more reading you I-ology into the text !

handed over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh , that ; in order that , his spirit may be SAVED ........ not lost , capeche !

 

[jmacvols]

You can fall from the church and still be in the same state as before -- saved or unsaved. I expect to see in glory: Tertullian, Origen, Blaise Pascal, and Peter himself (not to mention all the Twelve who scattered at Jesus' death). I expect to see my grandparents, who differed on vast points of doctrine. I expect to see you, who thinks all this stuff must be added to relying on Jesus. When Paul said no: relying on Jesus is critical -- nothing else is.

No one can fall from the church and be saved. The church is the body and from Eph 5:23, Christ is the Saviour of the body (church). Since Christ saves the body (church), no one outside the body (church) will be saved.
Paul shows one must obey to be saved, Rom 6:17,18: Rom 10:1-9.

You can fall into wrong doctrine and still be saved. 1 Cor 11:18-19: "I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." You don't honestly think that the thief on the Cross was suddenly hit =wham= with an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity on belief?

The Corinthians were being condemned for the division.
One cannot follow wrong doctrine and be saved, example, Rev 2:14-16.

Actually it's nowhere near plain: "Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you are practicing these qualities you will never fall." 2 Pt 1:10 It's simply saying you'll never fall into sin while practicing these qualities he's cited. Diligence in these qualities assures people that they are elected and called. It doesn't make people elected and called.

THe phrase "ye shall never fall" begins with the conditional word 'if'. This implies one may fall.

Ever notice the similarity between what God said about the Tree of Life and what the serpent said about the Tree of Knowledge?

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:​

"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,​

and whose sins are covered;​

blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." Rom 4:5-8​

I'll bank on the Gospel, not another.

Don't know what you're saying here.
My point was that Satan said "ye shall not surely die" when God plainly said they would. Much like OSAS says you shall not surely be lost, when God never said such.

"Not everything is soteriology." John's trying to point out to believers they need to discern whether other people are real Christians. Real Christians practice righteousness. We can assure ourselves we have eternal life because we love the brothers. But we can't make ourselves love the brothers and then cite that as our eternal life. The cart's before the horse in that case.

No. you're overlooking the obvious. John is not talking about love your brother in 1 Jn 3:12. One cannot be saved unless they are righteous, the evil will not be saved. WORKS are what determines if one is righteous (saved) or not (lost). In this same chapter, verse 7, John says he that doeth righteousness is righteous. And in v 10 he that DOETH not righteousness is not of God.

The subject here is love of the brothers; the wider subject is identifying wisely those who are Christians. "Not everything's soteriology."

Why was Cain "evil" and Abel "righteous"? WORKS they did determined what they were.

 

[jmacvols]

Utter rubbish!

man you really ARE into works I-OLOGY !

Translation: I cannot refute what you posted jmacvols.

the text is clear if any man , build upon the foundation ; the foundation is Christ , let him be careful how he build ....... all will be judged for how they build their lives on Christ , and some will suffer loss , but certainly not loss of salvation.

THe text is clear. It about building the church at Corinth. Since the church is not a material building but made up of people, one must work to convert people to build the church. Therefore making converts is the work one must do to build the church....converts = works, 1 Cor 9:1.

 

[jmacvols]

you are ignoring different types of fall , there are at least three.


according to you even making sure of election and calling does not prevent falling , because you think the elect can be lost !

I don't think, I know.
The word "IF" plainly makes it conditional.

utter compost !!

(John 15:16): “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you,that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain .” Romans 9:11-13: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated;” and verse 16: “So then, it is not of him that: willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

Jn 15:16 is about choosing the apostles, not the elect.
Rom 9:11-13 is not about salvation, it is about choosing thru whom Israel will be brought into the world.

A self-centred salvation?

If the Arminian Christian were to be asked, “Why are you a Christian but your neighbour isn’t?” it would most likely prompt a response along the lines of, “Because I accepted Jesus as my Saviour, and my neighbour didn’t.” However, this answer isn’t sufficient – it is incomplete, so the Arminian must be asked, “Why were you able to accept Jesus when your neighbour wasn’t?” The Arminian can only give a self-centred answer – it may be, “Because I was willing to admit I was a sinner”. But again, it is a leading answer which brings the inevitable question of, “Why were you able to admit your sin when your neighbour wasn’t?” Without embracing the doctrine of unconditional election, the Arminian is left with the answer “Because I was more humble” – a proud, self-centred answer without a shred of Biblical text in support.

I'm not "Arminian" so this does not apply to me.
How about this:
Calvinist to a lost sinner- "I am part of the elect and you are not"
Sinner- "Why am I not part of the elect?"
Calvinist- "Because the coin landed on heads for me and tails for you."

if election isn't personal , then why are we commanded to personally make our calling AND ELECTION sure ? see how rediculous it all becomes when you dismiss Sovereign Grace for man's twisted inconsitant will power , it's like selling your birthright for a bowl of old stew!

Back up here. If salvation cannot be lost, then what reason is there to make sure your election and calling is sure? It would make no difference. The BIG little word 'IF' in 2 Pet 1:10 kills your theory.

did i say God added false brethren , no ....... i said they "sneaked in " , try and keep up

If God did not ever add them to His church then they were never a part of it. It could have been that they one time obeyed the gospel and were added to the church but later became apostates and fell away from the church.

more reading you I-ology into the text !

handed over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh , that ; in order that , his spirit may be SAVED ........ not lost , capeche !

It says MAY be saved, it does not guarantee salvation.

 

[heymikey80]

No one can fall from the church and be saved. The church is the body and from Eph 5:23, Christ is the Saviour of the body (church). Since Christ saves the body (church), no one outside the body (church) will be saved.

Why is Jesus saying differently? Or what do you mean by "church"? Lk 9:49-50.

Paul shows one must obey to be saved, Rom 6:17,18: Rom 10:1-9.

Well, Romans 6 simply states this as usual (and that of the Romans). I agree with that. Faith normally causes obedient works (and imperfectly, 1 Cor 13). But those works don't save. The faith does.

In Rom 10 "Obedience to the Gospel" here is not actually performing works. Here the term is for credulous submission to the message: "believe". It does typically result in actions that are obedient, yes. But that's not specifically what the word demands. Obedience is not always works.

If you obey a summons to rest, is that work?

The Corinthians were being condemned for the division.

Paul isn't condemning them for having divisions, Paul is condemning them for pressing their divisions into breaking up the congregation. "You must have divisions to tell who's approved among you." If that's the condemnation: you're condemned. So am I.

One cannot follow wrong doctrine and be saved, example, Rev 2:14-16.

I would say the verse is talking about specific doctrines that destroy faith. Faith is critical. Doctrines that destroy faith, they are also critical. But they are few: monotheism, Lordship, Salvation by the Messiah through faith, not works.

Unfortunately, that last doctrine ....

THe phrase "ye shall never fall" begins with the conditional word 'if'. This implies one may fall.

Well, that "if" wasn't there when Peter wrote it. A closer translation clarifies what's going on here:

be diligent to ensure your calling and choice, for these things doing, ye may never stumble
​

I suspect you can see what the position is, taking the sentence down to its actual grammar. Peter's telling people: ensure your calling and choice: if you are doing these things you're not stumbling [so that ensures that you have a calling and choice].

This verse actually points up the clear distinction of Calvinism: "God ordains means as well as ends". By doing these things the Christian comes into conformity with his calling and choice just as Calvin said.

Don't know what you're saying here.

I'm saying that the Gospel isn't founded on our works. Works are not faith, nor part of faith. "not of works" Ep 2:9. "the one who does not work" Rom 4:4.

The Gospel results in "for works", as a result of our rescue, not a cause. The paramedic doesn't demand the fire victim walk out of the fire on their own two feet. But the therapist will later, at the right time.

My point was that Satan said "ye shall not surely die" when God plainly said they would. Much like OSAS says you shall not surely be lost, when God never said such.

And my point was that the reality of the situation is not nearly as far different as you want it to be. Satan often twists truths into a lie.

No. you're overlooking the obvious. John is not talking about love your brother in 1 Jn 3:12. One cannot be saved unless they are righteous, the evil will not be saved. WORKS are what determines if one is righteous (saved) or not (lost). In this same chapter, verse 7, John says he that doeth righteousness is righteous. And in v 10 he that DOETH not righteousness is not of God.

John didn't contradict himself. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." 1 John 1:8-10

"you have been saved ... not of yourselves ... not out of works" Ep 2:8-9

John is not defining righteousness as doing righteousness. Paul flatly attacked such a position, John isn't reintroducing it, and John would contradict himself to even attempt such a statement.

John is saying the people who are doing righteousness externally can be considered the people who are righteous internally; and vice versa. There's no "doing right makes him right". No, the one who is righteous has a pattern (and not a complete pattern) of doing right things.

John's using a continuous sense of the verbs in 1 John. "The one who's doing righteousness, he's being righteous."

Here's a quick test to show whether you've caught this continuous sense. John isn't contradicting himself by saying these two things. Do you recognize why?

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 Jn 1:8
No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 Jn 3:9
​

ESV adds the continuing sense to 1 John 3:9:

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 1 Jn 3:9
​

Why was Cain "evil" and Abel "righteous"? WORKS they did determined what they were.

According to Scripture, the first part's right; the second part's wrong. We're judged unrighteous by our works; but we're judged righteous through faith in God. Faith causes works; but works don't cause righteousness or faith.

By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead. Heb 11:4

Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. 1 Jn 3:12-13

​

 

[cygnusx1]

I don't think, I know.
The word "IF" plainly makes it conditional.

Sure , the condition is mentioned in the word IN ORDER TO MAKE OUR WALK SECURE ;
I see you must avoid my question , you think the elect can be lost , so why make our calling and election sure ?

Jn 15:16 is about choosing the apostles, not the elect.
Rom 9:11-13 is not about salvation, it is about choosing thru whom Israel will be brought into the world.

no !

EPH 1 , we are chosen in him , there are several scriptures that vspeak of election towards salvation not least Rom 9. but you have swallowed one of the Arminian interpretations.

I'm not "Arminian" so this does not apply to me.

your doctrine is Arminian through and through!

How about this:
Calvinist to a lost sinner- "I am part of the elect and you are not"
Sinner- "Why am I not part of the elect?"
Calvinist- "Because the coin landed on heads for me and tails for you."

that is about the worst understanding and misrepresentation I have seen yet!

Back up here. If salvation cannot be lost, then what reason is there to make sure your election and calling is sure? It would make no difference. The BIG little word 'IF' in 2 Pet 1:10 kills your theory.

Not at all , we are to use means , God uses means and we are to use the means He provides ...... you are turning these God appointed means into salvation by works !

If God did not ever add them to His church then they were never a part of it. It could have been that they one time obeyed the gospel and were added to the church but later became apostates and fell away from the church.

Sure they were never part of it , who said they were ?

Apostates are "believers" they have faith , tempory faith which is none saving and dead.

It says MAY be saved, it does not guarantee salvation.

compare scripture with scripture ;
look at 1 Cor.15:28: "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all".
The word "may" in this verse does not mean, maybe God will be all in all or maybe He won't. It means He will be all in all, just as the rebellious Christian is saved even thought his body should be destroyed by Satan .

God secures all His blood bought people.

 

[StTherese]

God secures all His blood bought people.

Who are His blood bought people?

Doesn't the Bible say Jesus died for ALL?

The price He paid was for the salvation of the whole world....so how is it then that some can be lost?

 

[DeaconDean]

The price He paid was for the salvation of the whole world....so how is it then that some can be lost?

That is the same type of argument the "universalists" use.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Who are His blood bought people?

Doesn't the Bible say Jesus died for ALL?

The price He paid was for the salvation of the whole world....so how is it then that some can be lost?

If you give someone a gift and they reject it...how can they then possess it?

the same applies to salvation...it's a gift that must be accepted.

 

[cygnusx1]

If you give someone a gift and they reject it...how can they then possess it?

the same applies to salvation...it's a gift that must be accepted.

not all gifts are alike .

tell me does God love in word or deed ?

Is His love unconditional ?


and lastly , have you read Augustine on the gift of Perseverance ?

 

[Bob L]

They attended church each week with List's mother, a strict Lutheran who lived with them.

Jacob, you picked a bad example for this thread. You realize that this murderer was originally trained in RT, a theology that, as you pointed out makes people very unsure of their standing with God. In his desperation about his family's stance in regards to salvation, a desperation that stems from the teaching that God unilaterally decrees who will be saved and who won't, that the only way to know if you are among the saved is by good works, but that those good works come from Him not you, and that even at the last day He will say 'away form me I never knew you' to some who appreared to be among the saved by their works, this murderer decided to take matter into his own hands and try to secure their salvation if he could.


What a shame he had to rebel from such a doctrine in the first place. RT is indeed very bad Jacob, thanks for pointing it out for us.

 

[AndOne]

Post Deleted by BB...

 

[cygnusx1]

Jacob, you picked a bad example for this thread. You realize that this murderer was originally trained in RT, a theology that, as you pointed out makes people very unsure of their standing with God. In his desperation about his family's stance in regards to salvation, a desperation that stems from the teaching that God unilaterally decrees who will be saved and who won't, that the only way to know if you are among the saved is by good works, but that those good works come from Him not you, and that even at the last day He will say 'away form me I never knew you' to some who appreared to be among the saved by their works, this murderer decided to take matter into his own hands and try to secure their salvation if he could.


What a shame he had to rebel from such a doctrine in the first place. RT is indeed very bad Jacob, thanks for pointing it out for us.

what makes you think he was trained in RT ?

he was


lutheran !


have you inquired what Lutheran's believe concerning security of salvation?

Lutheran view
Like both Calvinist camps, confessional Lutherans view the work of salvation as monergistic in that "the natural [that is, corrupted and divinely unrenewed] powers of man cannot do anything or help towards salvation" (Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration, art. ii, par. 71), and Lutherans go further along the same lines as the non-traditional Calvinists to say that the recipient of saving grace need not cooperate with it. Hence, Lutherans believe that a true Christian (that is, a genuine recipient of saving grace) can lose his or her salvation, "ut the cause is not as though God were unwilling to grant grace for perseverance to those in whom He has begun the good work... [but that these persons] wilfully turn away..." (Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration, art. xi, par. 42).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints


how very different is the

REORMED VIEW OF PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

it seems you are happy to brandish RT on everyone who descended from the Reformers , in which case Jacob Arminius makes you a REFORMED PERSON !