The UnScriptural concept of "no works"

[aiki]

I suggest you study the verse.

Thanks for the suggestion but I have already studied the verse. Perhaps, though, you should take your own advice.

Rom 8:13 cannot refer to a man in "general." If you look at the previous verse, v.12 it is plainly apparent that Paul is addressing believers as he refers to them as BRETHREN. So your claim that he is addressing "A man" in general is contradicted by Paul's own words.

You're right: Romans 8:13 isn't referring to people in general. I never said it was, however. I said the principle Paul outlines in the verse is a general one.

So when Paul warns that any believer who lives according to the flesh will die, what do you think that means? It cannot mean physical death because everyone experiences physical death no matter what kind of life they live - whether they live according to the flesh or according to the Spirit.

Since Scripture is very clear that a believer's salvation is not contingent upon their works but eternally secure in its being anchored to the perfect, finished, atoning work of Christ on the cross, the death Paul speaks of cannot - for born-again believers - be the eternal, second death in hell. As I said, there are many kinds of death: Death of joy, of peace, of inner stability, of relationships and even of good health. These are the sorts of things that "die" when believers adopt a fleshly mind.

Therefore Paul can only be referring to spiritual death. A believer who practices sin and lives according to the flesh will die and be eternally separated from God = NO SALVATION.

Nope. See above.

Ironically, your reference to the Galatians passage says the same thing. Notice in this verse that Paul is contrasting "corruption" with "everlasting life."

Galatians 6:7-8
7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.

Everlasting life of course signifies salvation, so what do you think Paul means by corruption? Corruption is the opposite of having eternal life meaning - not having eternal life.

Corruption doesn't have to be the precise opposite of everlasting life to be in contrast to it. In any case, it seems to me that if Paul wanted to offer a directly opposite contrast, he would have contrasted everlasting life with everlasting death. But he doesn't do this; he refers to corruption instead. I don't, then, think there is good grounds for making corruption mean "not having eternal life." That's clearly a greater degree of contrast than Paul offers in the verse. Unlike death, corruption may be of various kinds and degrees. In light of this, I don't take Paul to mean a loss of salvation when he refers to the corruption that is the harvest of sowing to the flesh.

This verse exactly parallels Rom 8:13 where it also states that living according to the flesh is spiritual death. The scriptures do not contradict each other.

Actually, Romans 8:13 doesn't say anything about spiritual death. You're reading that into the verse.

 

[Oldmantook]

You're right: Romans 8:13 isn't referring to people in general. I never said it was, however. I said the principle Paul outlines in the verse is a general one.

I quoted your words exactly. Is not Paul addressing believers in that verse? Yes or No?

Since Scripture is very clear that a believer's salvation is not contingent upon their works but eternally secure in its being anchored to the perfect, finished, atoning work of Christ on the cross, the death Paul speaks of cannot - for born-again believers - be the eternal, second death in hell. As I said, there are many kinds of death: Death of joy, of peace, of inner stability, of relationships and even of good health. These are the sorts of things that "die" when believers adopt a fleshly mind.

Of course there are all kinds of death. Problem is you fail to explain exactly what kind of death Paul is referring to in Rom 8:13. I have given my explanation. Yours is??

Nope. See above.

So what kind of death is it?

Corruption doesn't have to be the precise opposite of everlasting life to be in contrast to it. In any case, it seems to me that if Paul wanted to offer a directly opposite contrast, he would have contrasted everlasting life with everlasting death. But he doesn't do this; he refers to corruption instead. I don't then, think there is good grounds for making corruption mean "not having eternal life." That's clearly a greater degree of contrast than Paul offers in the verse. Unlike death, corruption may be of various kinds and degrees. In light of this, I don't take Paul to mean a loss of salvation when he refers to the corruption that is the harvest of sowing to the flesh.

You stated what corruption doesn't mean. What then does it mean?

Actually, Romans 8:13 doesn't say anything about spiritual death. You're reading that into the verse.

So what does "you will die mean"?
If a believer renounces Christ and turns away will he/she spiritually die? Yes or No?
If YOU take the mark of the beast, will you spiritually die? Yes or No?

 

[Blade]

"Be careful what you believe. It may just cost you your life!"... believe what? What YOU personally believe that bible is saying? Its not a private interaction. We work out our own salvation. So gee how did all those people get saved right after Jesus rose and sat at the right hand? There was no NT. There was no verse..not by works you are saved less...so forth so on. Seems they only had what He said.. believe on me and you will have ever lasting life. Want SIN got past the blood of a GOD? What SIN can you do today that HE never died for that HE never knew you would do?

So many voices in this world.. sorry which one is right? Oh we all know what GROUP we know is not of GOD and they are DUH wrong. Is that how GOD thinks...like us? There are things that are SIN for you but not others. Somes times that so called "righteous anger" is miss placed. For what God was telling you/us ..was meant for just just you/us.

You think you never sin on purpose or ever will? How then shall Christ die again for that sin? Is that really what He was saying? Jesus never died for the Christians.. nor Israel. He did for the world. This free gift was already given to all. Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Sacrifices only covered sin. Now Christs sacrifice that sin was not covered its GONE!. God said For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. He said OT I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

Were always looking at others and not our selfs. To get our own life in order 1st. To then look at others our 1st look is at the GOOD. Do we see the GOOD 1st or sin? And just who are we to see this SIN 1st? As if we are some expert in it? Because we sin miss it goof up makes us and expert? When we KNOW God does not see the flesh like man aka SIN. He sees the heart.

So.. to tell others "be careful what you believe"? Forgive me you have no say what so ever on how will live forever or not. Only HE knows. We share words of LIFE....but WHOS truth are we preaching? Baptist Pentecostal, Mormon, Catholics, Word of Faith..shall I name ALL the rest? Do we look for the Gospel? That Christ came in the flesh born by the virgin Mary. Died on the cross for the worlds sins.. was buried. Rose the 3rd day. Is the only way to the Father. WHY did Christ die? To set us free from what? THATS the gospel. Thats what saves. Not your personally believe nor mine. HE saves ...His spirit draws man to Him..not you not me. I can't convict anyone of sin..that power is not mine..never given to me. I have no power over HIS creation or HIS Children. Just ALL Power over the enemy.

My view

 

[Long Island Pilgrim]

I think God also may have different timing for different peoples. The various harvest seasons indicate a foreshadowing of several possible harvests for humanity. Some people are meant to move more quickly through the process than others and God may be revealing scripture differently to different people. And I absolutely do believe that there are some saved people who will not be in the first harvest and that why they are not being lead to pursue more advanced levels of obedience.
It's possible to believe that one is saved by faith alone without YET being lead to anything more at this time. They don't believe it because God himself has not revealed any further levels of obedience to them YET. But perhaps he will in good time.
So I think it's best to honor Gods timing and not to impose our experience with God on others. He may have something different in mind for different people.

 

[aiki]

I quoted your words exactly. Is not Paul addressing believers in that verse? Yes or No?

Actually, I think you've confused my comments about Galatians 6:8 with my comments on Romans 8:13. Ultimately, my point was that Paul was offering a general spiritual principle, not a saved-and-lost doctrine.

Of course there are all kinds of death. Problem is you fail to explain exactly what kind of death Paul is referring to in Rom 8:13. I have given my explanation. Yours is??

I did give my explanation. Here it is again:

"Since Scripture is very clear that a believer's salvation is not contingent upon their works but eternally secure in its being anchored to the perfect, finished, atoning work of Christ on the cross, the death Paul speaks of cannot - for born-again believers - be the eternal, second death in hell. As I said, there are many kinds of death: Death of joy, of peace, of inner stability, of relationships and even of good health. These are the sorts of things that "die" when believers adopt a fleshly mind."

You stated what corruption doesn't mean. What then does it mean?

Corruption speaks of ruin, of the diminishment of well-being, of decay. Certainly, these things are evident in the lives of those who "sow to the flesh." For the believer, the first casualty of fleshly living is always the ruination of their fellowship with God. And as (or, if) this persists, the decay of moral, holy living deepens, and the fulfillment and blessing of walking well with God is lost. This is the corruption I think Paul is referring to in his letter to the Galatians.

So what does "you will die mean"?

Spiritual death, it seems to me, carries the notion of salvation lost, of the death of one's spiritual life. But this sort of death isn't possible for the lost who are already "dead in trespasses and sins," who are without spiritual life. Spiritual death can't apply to those whose eternal salvation rests upon the unchanging perfection of their Saviour, Jesus Christ, either. So, then, spiritual death is not in view, it seems to me, in Paul's words. "You will die" refers, at most, to the second death in hell, but this doesn't necessarily entail the notion of being saved-and-lost.

If a believer renounces Christ and turns away will he/she spiritually die? Yes or No?

I don't believe a genuinely saved person would ever do such a thing. It is the "tare among the wheat" who renounces his "belief" in Christ, not the person who has been made a "new creature in Christ" and in whom the Spirit of the Almighty Creator of the Universe dwells.

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

If YOU take the mark of the beast, will you spiritually die? Yes or No?

I would not take the mark. No one who is genuinely a child of God would take it.

 

[Oldmantook]

ctually, I think you've confused my comments about Galatians 6:8 with my comments on Romans 8:13. Ultimately, my point was that Paul was offering a general spiritual principle, not a saved-and-lost doctrine.

Warnings in Scripture are given for a purpose - not just a "general spiritual principle." In a narrow sense they are general spiritual principles, but they are much more as there are consequences for violating those principles. So it is with Rom 8:13 which is a warning to the brethren.

"Since Scripture is very clear that a believer's salvation is not contingent upon their works but eternally secure in its being anchored to the perfect, finished, atoning work of Christ on the cross, the death Paul speaks of cannot - for born-again believers - be the eternal, second death in hell. As I said, there are many kinds of death: Death of joy, of peace, of inner stability, of relationships and even of good health. These are the sorts of things that "die" when believers adopt a fleshly mind.

Indeed there are many kinds of death but textual context determines the meaning and that is where we disagree. A believer's salvation is indeed related to his works or lack thereof as James wrote that we are justified by works and not by faith alone and faith without works is dead. Jesus himself judges the 7 Churches in Revelation for their works or lack thereof. Rev 3:20 is a verse often taken wholly out of context as it is used to evangelize unbelievers but in proper context is addressed to believers. Jesus judges the Laodicean Church for their lukewarm works and they are instructed to repent.
When Scripture refers to being "twice-dead" (Jude 12), how do you think that comes about? Since no one physically dies twice, it can only refer to spiritual death. The only way someone is twice-dead is when a person who is spiritually dead in sin (once dead) becomes a believer and is made alive in Christ who then falls away because of unbelief and/or habitual sin without repentance and becomes spiritually dead again (twice-dead).

Corruption speaks of ruin, of the diminishment of well-being, of decay. Certainly, these things are evident in the lives of those who "sow to the flesh." For the believer, the first casualty of fleshly living is always the ruination of their fellowship with God. And as (or, if) this persists, the decay of moral, holy living deepens, and the fulfillment and blessing of walking well with God is lost. This is the corruption I think Paul is referring to in his letter to the Galatians.

In Galatians, corruption can mean those things but also much more. Corruption can not only result in "ruination of fellowship with God" but also no fellowship with God resulting in loss of eternal life. See my explanation below regarding Gal 1:6.

Spiritual death, it seems to me, carries the notion of salvation lost, of the death of one's spiritual life. But this sort of death isn't possible for the lost who are already "dead in trespasses and sins," who are without spiritual life. Spiritual death can't apply to those whose eternal salvation rests upon the unchanging perfection of their Saviour, Jesus Christ, either. So, then, spiritual death is not in view, it seems to me, in Paul's words. "You will die" refers, at most, to the second death in hell, but this doesn't necessarily entail the notion of being saved-and-lost.

Salvation requires both belief (Jn 3:16) and obedience (Heb 5:9). We must believe and also obey for eternal life. Given this, if a believer no longer believers and/or no longer obeys, eternal life is not assured of. That is precisely why Paul warned the brethren in Rom 8:13 that if they live their lives according to the flesh (disobedience), they will die (no eternal life) because they have not led lives of obedience as required by Heb 5:9.

I don't believe a genuinely saved person would ever do such a thing. It is the "tare among the wheat" who renounces his "belief" in Christ, not the person who has been made a "new creature in Christ" and in whom the Spirit of the Almighty Creator of the Universe dwells.

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

Your argument contains a logical fallacy generally referred to as an overgeneralization that results in a false conclusion. The passage in 1 John does indeed describe those who were never believers in the first place. However, logically that does not entail that all who do not continue with us were never believers in the first place. Those specifically in 1 John 2 were never believers but it is a fallacy of logic to then conclude that all who depart were never believers. That would be like saying because some chickens lay brown eggs, therefore all chickens lay brown eggs which is of course not true. Therefore one cannot justifiably conclude that because some who fall away were not really believers, all who fall away were never believers. The other possibility still exists that others who fall away are indeed genuine believers.
For example in Gal 1:6 Paul refers to those Galatian believers who are turning away to follow another gospel. He specifically refers to them as "called." In the Greek, the word for "called" in this verse is from the word "kaleō." It refers to the elect - those who are called by the Father. It is the same Greek word used in Rom 8:30: "And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified."
Despite being called which refers to those who are the elect and regenerated by the Spirit, Paul himself states that these Galatians were turning away to follow a different gospel. So for you to believe that a genuinely saved person would never do such a thing is contradicted by Paul's own testimony.

I would not take the mark. No one who is genuinely a child of God would take it.

The Galatians example above is but one example of genuine believers falling away from the faith. How do you know what you will do in the future? Peter who walked with Jesus daily was self-assured and adamantly believed and proclaimed he would never deny Jesus and we know what happened to him. Realistically, the most anyone can believe is that we hope we will not take the mark under extreme duress. No one can say with absolute certainty that they will not take the mark. And if you (or I) take the mark, we will no longer be saved will we?

Your claim that a genuine believer cannot take the mark is not supported by Scripture as Scripture is replete with examples and warnings of apostasy. To apostatize from the faith to depart from it. It is impossible for unbelievers to apostatize because unbelievers cannot depart from something that they were never a part of. Thus only genuine believers are capable of apostasy. For example in 1 Tim 5, there are several example to the condemnation and spiritual death of believers.
v.5 She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives.
v.8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
v.12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith.
v.15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
In this one chapter, these are but a few examples referencing believers who depart from the faith. Thus for you to claim that a genuine child of God would not take the mark and in so doing depart from the faith is not a credible assertion in my opinion.

 

[aiki]

Warnings in Scripture are given for a purpose - not just a "general spiritual principle."

I have not suggested that Paul's description of a general spiritual principle means he intended only to describe the principle.

In a narrow sense they are general spiritual principles, but they are much more as there are consequences for violating those principles. So it is with Rom 8:13 which is a warning to the brethren.

All this appears to ignore my point about your confusing my statements about the two verses. That's okay, I guess. But it suggests you aren't very open to acknowledging when you've made a mistake.

A believer's salvation is indeed related to his works or lack thereof as James wrote that we are justified by works and not by faith alone and faith without works is dead.

A believer's salvation is reflected or expressed in works, but that salvation is in no way obtained by works (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5) or sustained by them. One who claims a faith in Christ but does not manifest that belief in corresponding works shows, thereby, a faith that is inactive or "dead." If one truly believes in Christ as Saviour and Lord, that belief is perfected, or completed, by the living out of that belief. This is what James is saying. He is NOT saying that works have a salvific power.

Rev 3:20 is a verse often taken wholly out of context as it is used to evangelize unbelievers but in proper context is addressed to believers.

Why bring this verse up? I've never mentioned it. In any case, I don't agree with you. The verse reads:

Revelation 3:20
20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

"If anyone" does not appear to be as restricted a phrase as you assert that it is.

When Scripture refers to being "twice-dead" (Jude 12), how do you think that comes about? Since no one physically dies twice, it can only refer to spiritual death. The only way someone is twice-dead is when a person who is spiritually dead in sin (once dead) becomes a believer and is made alive in Christ who then falls away because of unbelief and/or habitual sin without repentance and becomes spiritually dead again (twice-dead).

Here's how Jude describes those he calls "twice dead":

Jude 1:4
4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Doesn't sound to me like Jude was speaking of one-time believers. How you think you can parlay "ungodly men" who "deny the only Lord God" into meaning born-again people is beyond me. Clearly, Jude is not referring to saved people when he writes of these ungodly men who were twice dead. He is not, then, indicating that they were saved and then lost.

What does "twice dead" mean? Well, Jude explains, doesn't he?

Jude 1:12
12...late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots...

"Twice dead" is connected to a "late autumn tree," that is, a tree without leaves, that is also "without fruit" that is then "pulled up by the roots." By analogy, Jude means men who have not borne good spiritual fruit, who are spiritually dead, and who will be "pulled up by the roots" and cast into "the blackness of darkness forever" (vs. 13). They are twice dead in that they are spiritually dead and destined also for the eternal "second death" in hell.

Salvation requires both belief (Jn 3:16) and obedience (Heb 5:9). We must believe and also obey for eternal life.

This is works-salvation which the Bible clearly and explicitly denies (see above). Hebrews 5:9 refers to the obedience commanded in John 3:16 (and many other verses). To believe in Christ as Saviour is to obey his Gospel. And this obedience brings the lost person to salvation. Is believing on Jesus as one's Saviour a work? Not in the normal sense, if Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5 are correct. If a man has inherited a million dollars, does he earn it by believing that
the money is his? Obviously not.

That is precisely why Paul warned the brethren in Rom 8:13 that if they live their lives according to the flesh (disobedience), they will die (no eternal life) because they have not led lives of obedience as required by Heb 5:9.

Nope. See above.

The passage in 1 John does indeed describe those who were never believers in the first place. However, logically that does not entail that all who do not continue with us were never believers in the first place.

Not by itself, no. But I don't ground the idea of a genuinely saved person being unable to walk away from the faith solely on this one verse.

For example in Gal 1:6 Paul refers to those Galatian believers who are turning away to follow another gospel.

Paul doesn't say that their "turning away" was tantamount to rejecting the faith. They were being misled about the nature of the Gospel (which was why Paul was writing to them), not abandoning the faith. Surely, you can see the difference.

Despite being called which refers to those who are the elect and regenerated by the Spirit, Paul himself states that these Galatians were turning away to follow a different gospel. So for you to believe that a genuinely saved person would never do such a thing is contradicted by Paul's own testimony.

I don't think that being deceived into following a corrupt version of the Gospel is the same as a willful, wholesale rejection of Christ and the Christian faith.

The Galatians example above is but one example of genuine believers falling away from the faith. How do you know what you will do in the future?

There are many things I know I will never do in the future. For example, I will never have breakfast on the surface of Jupiter; I will also never be a woman; I will never be dog, either; I will never be an NBA player, or play Beethoven's fifth symphony on a ukelele in Carnegie Hall. Your question, then, seems a bit...peculiar.

Peter who walked with Jesus daily was self-assured and adamantly believed and proclaimed he would never deny Jesus and we know what happened to him.

Now who's overgeneralizing? I am not Peter; just because he betrayed Christ doesn't mean I will.

Realistically, the most anyone can believe is that we hope we will not take the mark under extreme duress.

I think God would recognize if we did and respond accordingly.

No one can say with absolute certainty that they will not take the mark.

No one can say anything with absolute certainty, really. Can you prove that we aren't all just living in a Matrix-like circumstance, where everything is entirely illusory? You hope that you aren't and behave like you aren't, but you have no absolute certainty that you aren't. Such certainty, outside of God Himself, is impossible.

Your claim that a genuine believer cannot take the mark is not supported by Scripture as Scripture is replete with examples and warnings of apostasy. To apostatize from the faith to depart from it. It is impossible for unbelievers to apostatize because unbelievers cannot depart from something that they were never a part of. Thus only genuine believers are capable of apostasy.

In my discussions on this head, the "warnings of apostasy" you mentioned are more perceived than real. Typically, people like yourself read into the passages you're likely thinking of their saved-and-lost presuppositions.

v.5 She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives.

"Dead" in what sense? Why must "dead" in this instance mean saved-and-lost? Couldn't it mean she is living a useless, superficial life? Nothing in the verse or passage prohibits such a reading.

v.8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Every time a believer sins they are, in a sense, "denying the faith." Does this mean every time a believer sins their salvation is forfeit? I think not.

v.12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith.

What "faith" is meant here? In what sense is "faith" meant? Bible commentators don't agree that by "faith" what is meant is "Christian faith." It could refer to a commitment to serve Christ as a single woman. This certainly coincides well with the context.

v.15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

Does "turned away to follow Satan" mean "forsaken the faith"? Or does it mean only that they have been caught up in sin (sexual passions, gossip, idleness, etc.)? One can certainly be guilty of sin without being utterly apostate (Hebrews 12:1; Romans 7:15-19; Galatians 5:17; 1 John 1:8-10).

 

[Oldmantook]

It seems that we have strayed away from the topic of works in this thread so rather than continue along the same lines I will truncate my responses and summarize instead of continuing on - especially since it is unlikely that we will agree.
We fundamentally disagree on what it means to die. You deny that it means spiritual death for the believer since a believer is forever secure in Christ. I on the other hand believe that a believer can spiritually die - lose his salvation if he no longer believes and/or practices sin/habitual sin evidencing no repentance. James wrote the following:
My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. 5:19-20
In this passage James refers to the brethren - in particular a believer who strays from the truth. If another turns this "sinner" from the error of his way, his soul will be saved from death. You have claimed all along that the verses I pointed out referring to death cannot refer to spiritual death for the believer since you believe that a genuine believer is eternally secure. This verse contradicts your view since the death referred to in this verse is the death of one's soul, i.e., spiritual death.

Returning to the subject of works, you wrote:

This is works-salvation which the Bible clearly and explicitly denies (see above). Hebrews 5:9 refers to the obedience commanded in John 3:16 (and many other verses). To believe in Christ as Saviour is to obey his Gospel. And this obedience brings the lost person to salvation. Is believing on Jesus as one's Saviour a work? Not in the normal sense, if Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5 are correct. If a man has inherited a million dollars, does he earn it by believing that the money is his? Obviously not.

Your claim that Heb 5:9 refers to the obedience necessary to believe in Christ when a lost person is brought to salvation is not supported by the Greek text. The word for "obey" in this verse is hypakouousin which is a present tense participle. This word is more accurately translated as "obeying." Thus the verse should read "and having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all those obeying Him," In order to have eternal life, the believer must continue obeying God. The verb tense does not allow for a past moment of obedience as when one first believed in Christ for salvation as you claim but instead refers to the necessity of ongoing obedience in the life of the believer. No where in the entire Scripture is obedience done unto God condemned as works. No obedience = no salvation.

 

[aiki]

My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. 5:19-20
In this passage James refers to the brethren - in particular a believer who strays from the truth. If another turns this "sinner" from the error of his way, his soul will be saved from death. You have claimed all along that the verses I pointed out referring to death cannot refer to spiritual death for the believer since you believe that a genuine believer is eternally secure. This verse contradicts your view since the death referred to in this verse is the death of one's soul, i.e., spiritual death.

James 5:19-20
19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back,
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

You see, this is just another example of how differently we understand Scripture. You believe someone can be saved and then lost and I don't. When we come to passages like the one above from James, we understand what is said through our various lenses of belief and end up just confirming our view.

So, I come to the passage you've cited and ask myself, "Who is the 'anyone' James is speaking of?" He calls this "anyone" a "sinner" who is among the brethren but has "wandered from the truth." Sounds to me like this "anyone" is at least familiar with the Christian faith and has attached himself to the community of believers. I wonder, though, why James says, "if anyone among you," rather than "if one of you." The former phrase suggests to me, at least, that James may not mean an actual member of the faith but a non-believer who is associated in some regular way with the community of believers - perhaps like the tares among the wheat Jesus spoke of (Matt. 13). Certainly, if James had meant one of the brethren, he could easily have said so very directly by use of the latter phrase.

I think there is room, then, to think that James may not have been referring to an actually saved person. Their wandering from the truth and living so as to be called a sinner by James suggests that this is likely the case. But even if James does mean a believer who is wandering into sin, is the death he warns will be the reward of this believer's sinful wandering eternal death in hell? Well, as I've explained in earlier posts, I don't think what Scripture tells us of the basis for our salvation allows such a reading. If I am "accepted in the Beloved" as Paul wrote (Ephesians 1:6), if my acceptance with God is entirely contingent upon my being justified by faith in Christ and thus clothed in his perfect righteousness as Scripture says (Romans 3:21-22; Romans 4:5; Romans 5:1; Romans 5:20; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 4:24, etc), then even waywardness and sin cannot undo my salvation. For more on this:

Osas: God Saves Us And He Keeps Us. | Christian Forums

As I've explained already in earlier posts, "death" does not always in Scripture mean "eternal death in hell." A believer who sins suffers the death of fellowship with God, the death of his joy, and peace, the death of spiritual stability, the death of intimate, holy fellowship with other believers, and so on. In light of what other passages in Scripture say concerning a believer's eternal security in Christ, I am constrained to think that James does not by "death" mean "eternal death in hell" but the sort of death I've just described (and perhaps even a premature physical death - 1 Corinthians 11:29-30; Acts 5:1-11). Of course, it may be also worth noting the obvious here, which is that James does not actually say, "eternal death in hell."

Your claim that Heb 5:9 refers to the obedience necessary to believe in Christ when a lost person is brought to salvation is not supported by the Greek text. The word for "obey" in this verse is hypakouousin which is a present tense participle. This word is more accurately translated as "obeying." Thus the verse should read "and having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all those obeying Him," In order to have eternal life, the believer must continue obeying God. The verb tense does not allow for a past moment of obedience as when one first believed in Christ for salvation as you claim but instead refers to the necessity of ongoing obedience in the life of the believer.

I don't know about you, but I never stop believing in Christ as my Saviour. I hold this belief in an on-going way and so am always obeying verses like John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10. Nothing you've observed, then, about the present continuous nature of the word "obey" in Hebrews 5:9 effectively rebuts my understanding of it.

 

[Oldmantook]

James 5:19-20
19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back,
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

You see, this is just another example of how differently we understand Scripture. You believe someone can be saved and then lost and I don't. When we come to passages like the one above from James, we understand what is said through our various lenses of belief and end up just confirming our view.

So, I come to the passage you've cited and ask myself, "Who is the 'anyone' James is speaking of?" He calls this "anyone" a "sinner" who is among the brethren but has "wandered from the truth." Sounds to me like this "anyone" is at least familiar with the Christian faith and has attached himself to the community of believers. I wonder, though, why James says, "if anyone among you," rather than "if one of you." The former phrase suggests to me, at least, that James may not mean an actual member of the faith but a non-believer who is associated in some regular way with the community of believers - perhaps like the tares among the wheat Jesus spoke of (Matt. 13). Certainly, if James had meant one of the brethren, he could easily have said so very directly by use of the latter phrase.

I think there is room, then, to think that James may not have been referring to an actually saved person. Their wandering from the truth and living so as to be called a sinner by James suggests that this is likely the case. But even if James does mean a believer who is wandering into sin, is the death he warns will be the reward of this believer's sinful wandering eternal death in hell? Well, as I've explained in earlier posts, I don't think what Scripture tells us of the basis for our salvation allows such a reading. If I am "accepted in the Beloved" as Paul wrote (Ephesians 1:6), if my acceptance with God is entirely contingent upon my being justified by faith in Christ and thus clothed in his perfect righteousness as Scripture says (Romans 3:21-22; Romans 4:5; Romans 5:1; Romans 5:20; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 4:24, etc), then even waywardness and sin cannot undo my salvation. For more on this:

Osas: God Saves Us And He Keeps Us. | Christian Forums

As I've explained already in earlier posts, "death" does not always in Scripture mean "eternal death in hell." A believer who sins suffers the death of fellowship with God, the death of his joy, and peace, the death of spiritual stability, the death of intimate, holy fellowship with other believers, and so on. In light of what other passages in Scripture say concerning a believer's eternal security in Christ, I am constrained to think that James does not by "death" mean "eternal death in hell" but the sort of death I've just described (and perhaps even a premature physical death - 1 Corinthians 11:29-30; Acts 5:1-11). Of course, it may be also worth noting the obvious here, which is that James does not actually say, "eternal death in hell."



I don't know about you, but I never stop believing in Christ as my Saviour. I hold this belief in an on-going way and so am always obeying verses like John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10. Nothing you've observed, then, about the present continuous nature of the word "obey" in Hebrews 5:9 effectively rebuts my understanding of it.

It seems to me that you go to great lengths to explain away the plain meaning of the passage in James. If I say to you: "If anyone among you...." would you not understand that among you modifies anyone? James is not just referring to anyone in the world as he specifies that it is someone among you. Secondly, you claim that it is possible for the "anyone" to be someone who "is at least familiar with the Christian faith and has attached himself to the community of believers" and "may not mean an actual member of the faith but a non-believer who is associated in some regular way with the community of believers." If that is so, how can such a person wander from the truth? A person can only wander from the truth if he was attached to, or believed the truth in the first place. It is impossible for an unbeliever to wander from the truth since he cannot wander from something that he was never a part of. Only believers can wander from the truth, therefore I find your attempt to reconcile this passage with your view to be inadequate. Given that this passage applies to believers only, then the death of the soul awaits those who wander from the truth and who do not repent. Death of the soul refers to spiritual death; not physical death. To believe otherwise strains its very meaning.

I never claimed that you never stopped believing in Christ as Savior. However Heb 5:9 clearly states that eternal life is given to those who are obeying. Do you disagree with the Greek verb parsing? A believer has the daily choice whether to obey or disobey as we battle with saying no to our flesh and yielding to the Spirit. A believer who then ceases obeying is not assured of the promise of eternal life in Heb 5:9. Therefore if you ceased being obedient to God, would you still consider yourself saved?

 

[aiki]

It seems to me that you go to great lengths to explain away the plain meaning of the passage in James.

"Explain away"? No, clarify. Of course, since I don't agree with you, it seems like "explaining away" to you. But it isn't.

If I say to you: "If anyone among you...." would you not understand that among you modifies anyone?

It seems you haven't actually read what I wrote...

James is not just referring to anyone in the world as he specifies that it is someone among you.

Yes, I already addressed this in my explanation of the passage - which you haven't read, apparently.

If that is so, how can such a person wander from the truth? A person can only wander from the truth if he was attached to, or believed the truth in the first place.

Or is at least familiar with it and perhaps even gives intellectual (but not heart-level) assent to it. A tare among the wheat could be very familiar with the truth of the Gospel and the various doctrines of the faith, assenting to them freely (but only intellectually), and participating in the community of genuine believers as one of them (but in actuality not). Why couldn't such a person wander away from the truths of the faith they know and agree to? They certainly don't have the same spiritual anchor to these truths that the genuine believer does. In such a condition, wandering and sin seem inevitable.

It is impossible for an unbeliever to wander from the truth since he cannot wander from something that he was never a part of.

Not so. The Church is filled with folk who know the truth of Scripture and even agree that it is truth but have no intention of ever letting that truth fundamentally shape and order their living. Such people wander from the truth they know on a fairly regular basis, never having been regenerated by the Spirit of that truth.

Only believers can wander from the truth, therefore I find your attempt to reconcile this passage with your view to be inadequate.

Well, as I've explained, this isn't so. People may be connected to divine truth in various ways and so may wander from it without ever having come to a saving faith in Christ.

Given that this passage applies to believers only, then the death of the soul awaits those who wander from the truth and who do not repent.

Here you're just reading the passage in accord with your preconceived ideas about it. I'm doing the same. So far, you haven't offered anything that excludes my reading in the slightest. I have, though, pointed out that James never actually defines "death" in the way you are. Nor does he explicitly and directly refer to born-again believers, only those who are among them. Your interpretation, then, seems seriously weak and more a reflection of your saved-and-lost view than of anything clearly laid out in James' words.

I never claimed that you never stopped believing in Christ as Savior. However Heb 5:9 clearly states that eternal life is given to those who are obeying.

And I pointed out that the obeying in view in Hebrews 5:9 is to the command given in the verse you cited (John 3:16), among others. That obedience cannot be of the kind you suggest, however, since Scripture is crystal clear that salvation cannot and does not come to a person by way of their works. My understanding creates a positive synthesis of the teaching of Scripture; it does not pit Scripture against itself as your position does. We obey the truth of the Gospel (and its Author) by believing it and in so doing are saved, but this is not working for our salvation in the sense I think you believe is necessary to salvation. As I said, a man who inherits a million dollars does not earn the money, he does not work for it, when he simply believes it is his. In the same way, a man may obey God by believing His truth (ie the Gospel) and being saved thereby without being able to claim that in doing so he has worked to earn his salvation as you seem to want to assert.

Therefore if you ceased being obedient to God, would you still consider yourself saved?

Was the Prodigal Son ever not his father's son, though he was profligate in his living and in rebellion to the will of his father? Of course not. Even at his worst, the Prodigal was still the son of his father and not even death could have reversed this fact. The fellowship between father and son was broken by the sinful living of the Prodigal, but their relationship as child and parent could not be dissolved whatever the Prodigal did. The same is true of every genuine child of God who falls into sin. Like the father in the parable of the Prodigal, God waits for the return of His prodigal children with open arms, eager to enter again into fellowship with them.

 

[Marco70]

How many good works must one do, to be sure of attaining to Heaven?

 

[gomerian]

Seems, some Christians do not see that it was the same Godly Jesus Christ who gave Moses the Law/Word of God at EXODUS.3:14

I think yes and no about that.

The root of the problem:
Exodus 20:19 And they said unto Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die."

Hard-hearted people had different rules:
Matthew 19:7 He saith unto them, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

In OT, your entire flock could be used up to cleanse you. Poor people would've had to be more godly or they'd've starved to death in a month. There's a motto in there, somewhere, I think.

 

[Oldmantook]

"Explain away"? No, clarify. Of course, since I don't agree with you, it seems like "explaining away" to you. But it isn't.

The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics - If the meaning of a passage makes plain sense, seek no other sense....I think my interpretation makes plain sense. You of course are free to disagree.

It seems you haven't actually read what I wrote...

I read what you wrote and your interpretation is very strained in my opinion.

Yes, I already addressed this in my explanation of the passage - which you haven't read, apparently.

I read it but disagree with you as James is addressing genuine believers. You can choose to believe otherwise.

Or is at least familiar with it and perhaps even gives intellectual (but not heart-level) assent to it. A tare among the wheat could be very familiar with the truth of the Gospel and the various doctrines of the faith, assenting to them freely (but only intellectually), and participating in the community of genuine believers as one of them (but in actuality not). Why couldn't such a person wander away from the truths of the faith they know and agree to? They certainly don't have the same spiritual anchor to these truths that the genuine believer does. In such a condition, wandering and sin seem inevitable.

Like I wrote how can one wander away from the truth of the gospel if one never accepted it in the first place. Your logic is quite illogical. To wander away from the path, one has to be on the path if the first place. The early believers were referred to as followers of the Way. One cannot wander unless one was first a follower. Your explanation is exceedingly strained in my opinion but you can believe whatever you want.

Not so. The Church is filled with folk who know the truth of Scripture and even agree that it is truth but have no intention of ever letting that truth fundamentally shape and order their living. Such people wander from the truth they know on a fairly regular basis, never having been regenerated by the Spirit of that truth.

How can they wander from the truth when they never lived it out? In order to wander away from the truth, one has to first be following the truth. Your view is very problematic.

Well, as I've explained, this isn't so. People may be connected to divine truth in various ways and so may wander from it without ever having come to a saving faith in Christ.

It is impossible to wander from something that one never belonged to. You can choose to believe otherwise in order for you to support your belief.

Here you're just reading the passage in accord with your preconceived ideas about it. I'm doing the same. So far, you haven't offered anything that excludes my reading in the slightest. I have, though, pointed out that James never actually defines "death" in the way you are. Nor does he explicitly and directly refer to born-again believers, only those who are among them. Your interpretation, then, seems seriously weak and more a reflection of your saved-and-lost view than of anything clearly laid out in James' words.

So death of the soul means still saved?? i find no scriptural support whatsoever for your claim.

Was the Prodigal Son ever not his father's son, though he was profligate in his living and in rebellion to the will of his father? Of course not. Even at his worst, the Prodigal was still the son of his father and not even death could have reversed this fact. The fellowship between father and son was broken by the sinful living of the Prodigal, but their relationship as child and parent could not be dissolved whatever the Prodigal did. The same is true of every genuine child of God who falls into sin. Like the father in the parable of the Prodigal, God waits for the return of His prodigal children with open arms, eager to enter again into fellowship with them.

Jesus repeats himself twice in this parable and we know that when Jesus repeats something, we ought to take heed because he is making a point of emphasis and could even be the main point of the story. In verses 24 & 32, the father describes the prodigal as "dead and is alive again." Since the prodigal did not physically die, we know that "dead" cannot refer to physical death so spiritual death is being referred to. The germane question is how can someone be made alive AGAIN? The only way I know of is for a unsaved person to be regenerated in the Spirit and thus made alive in Christ (1st time). That believer then, like the prodigal son chooses to waste his inheritance and engage in a lifestyle of sin showing no repentance thus becoming spiritually dead. Upon repentance and returning to the Father seeking his forgiveness, the prodigal was made spiritually alive AGAIN. Likewise believers who like the prodigal choose to engage in habitual sin have no assurance of salvation as they become spiritually dead and separated from God. If they genuinely repent and seek forgiveness they are made alive again.

 

[aiki]

The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics - If the meaning of a passage makes plain sense, seek no other sense....I think my interpretation makes plain sense. You of course are free to disagree.

Yes, I am free to disagree. And I do. If you are plain, it is in the eisegetical nature of your understanding of James' words.

I read it but disagree with you as James is addressing genuine believers. You can choose to believe otherwise.

Oh, James is addressing believers, but he is not addressing them about believers.

Like I wrote how can one wander away from the truth of the gospel if one never accepted it in the first place. Your logic is quite illogical.

One can wander from an intellectual assent to the Gospel. It happens all the time. What is illogical is to assert that only if one has a particular kind or level of agreement with the Gospel that only then can one wander from it. This is a restriction or qualification you are making; it is not found in James' words - or in the realm of good sense.

To wander away from the path, one has to be on the path if the first place

I don't have to be on a path to wander from it. I have only to be in proximity to it to do so. This is true of many things. I can, for instance, wander away from a landmark, say, a statue or monument, without being on the statue or monument. I can wander away from my wife without having been on her. This seems very obvious to me...

One cannot wander unless one was first a follower. Your explanation is exceedingly strained in my opinion but you can believe whatever you want.

Yes, I know I can believe what I like.

Your ideas about wandering aren't working out very well. Now one has to be a follower to be a wanderer. Where is this written? I can wander from a tree but I cannot follow a tree.

So death of the soul means still saved??

I don't, as I already said, believe James is speaking of the death of which you're thinking. In fact, no soul truly dies. Whether in heaven or hell, every soul continues on after the death of the body.

By the way, I never said "the death of the soul
means still saved."

In verses 24 & 32, the father describes the prodigal as "dead and is alive again." Since the prodigal did not physically die, we know that "dead" cannot refer to physical death so spiritual death is being referred to.

Hang on. You've jumped to an unwarranted conclusion here. It does not follow that if the death the father of the Prodigal son spoke of was not physical then it must be spiritual. He could be referring to the death of his fellowship with his son. This certainly accords better with the parable itself, in my view. There is no reason to think the father was spiritualizing his son's departure and return in the way you are. In fact, the father explains what he means when he says his son was lost (to him) and is found. The idea of spiritual death is not in view but rather the loss and restoration of his fellowship with his son.

 

[Open Heart]

Anyone who says things aren't more complicated than 'faith alone' simply hasn't read the whole Bible. In Luke 10, when Jesus was asked how we obtain eternal life, he replied that we are to love God and love our neighbor. That's actions.

 

[Oldmantook]

One can wander from an intellectual assent to the Gospel. It happens all the time. What is illogical is to assert that only if one has a particular kind or level of agreement with the Gospel that only then can one wander from it. This is a restriction or qualification you are making; it is not found in James' words - or in the realm of good sense.

The problem is you have to add "intellectual assent" to faith when all of the applicable verses state no such a thing. You are adding to the Word. Even the demons have intellectual assent but you never see in Scripture describe demons as wandering from the faith do you?

I don't have to be on a path to wander from it. I have only to be in proximity to it to do so. This is true of many things. I can, for instance, wander away from a landmark, say, a statue or monument, without being on the statue or monument. I can wander away from my wife without having been on her. This seems very obvious to me...

It's obvious only to you. Based on you rationale, we can be in the proximity of faith and wander from the faith. Any scriptural warrant for your personal belief? Any specific examples in the NT that people were in the proximity of faith?

Your ideas about wandering aren't working out very well. Now one has to be a follower to be a wanderer. Where is this written? I can wander from a tree but I cannot follow a tree.[/QUOTE]
You can wander from a tree but did the tree tell you to follow it? Jesus commanded his disciples to follow Him. Those who don't follow Him wander away.

I don't, as I already said, believe James is speaking of the death of which you're thinking. In fact, no soul truly dies. Whether in heaven or hell, every soul continues on after the death of the body.

By the way, I never said "the death of the soul
means still saved."

James said it so exactly, what is death of the soul??

Hang on. You've jumped to an unwarranted conclusion here. It does not follow that if the death the father of the Prodigal son spoke of was not physical then it must be spiritual. He could be referring to the death of his fellowship with his son. This certainly accords better with the parable itself, in my view. There is no reason to think the father was spiritualizing his son's departure and return in the way you are. In fact, the father explains what he means when he says his son was lost (to him) and is found. The idea of spiritual death is not in view but rather the loss and restoration of his fellowship with his son.

So let me get this straight. According to you, a son of the Father, i.e. a believer, can live a wanton life of sin like the prodigal and lose fellowship but not his salvation?? So in other words the cleansing blood of Christ is still efficacious for a believer who lives a life of habitual sin and no repentance? The prodigal was still spiritually alive when he engaged in wanton sin and rebellion? I find that hard to believe.
If so, perhaps you ought to read 1 John 1:7. "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." Notice the little word "IF." "If" indicates that a condition must first be met in order for it's fulfillment to result. If the condition of walking in the light is met by us, then we can be assured that the result is fellowship with each other and cleansing from all sin. It is obvious that the prodigal did not walk in the light when he departed from his father's house so it cannot be said that his sins were forgiven/cleansed according to this verse. So not only do believers lose fellowship with God when they live like a prodigal and do not walk in the light but they also lose forgiveness of their sins and the assurance that their sins are purified by Jesus' blood. Salvation results in the forgiveness from all sin. Not being forgiven of sins results in spiritual death. If believers forsake their sinning ways, return to the Father, seek forgiveness and begin walking in light, then like the prodigal, God forgives and the cleansing blood of Jesus is efficacious. Those believers who instead choose to walk in darkness by living according to the flesh do not have their sins forgiven resulting in separation from God and spiritual death.

 

[aiki]

Even the demons have intellectual assent but you never see in Scripture describe demons as wandering from the faith do you?

Demons have a good deal more than an intellectual assent to God and the truth of the Gospel! They know the truth of these things far better than you or I! They dwell in the spiritual realm in a way you and I don't and this gives them access to the truths of that realm in a measure and kind that you and I don't possess.

Based on you rationale, we can be in the proximity of faith and wander from the faith.

Exactly.

Any scriptural warrant for your personal belief?

Scriptural warrant? This is an interesting demand. I have no scriptural warrant for the Law of Gravity or the Periodic Table, but these are real and true things regardless. I have observed personally a wandering from an intellectual grasp of the truth in many "tares" within the Church! But, I read about such people in the Gospel of Matthew when Jesus quoted the prophet Isaiah:

Matthew 15:8
8 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.

And/or,

Titus 1:16
16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

You can wander from a tree but did the tree tell you to follow it? Jesus commanded his disciples to follow Him. Those who don't follow Him wander away.

And what happens then? Jesus explains:

Luke 15:3-7
3 So He spoke this parable to them, saying:
4 "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?
5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'
7 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.

It isn't just anyone's sheep the parable is about. The Shepherd's sheep has wandered off into the wilderness and needs to be retrieved. Does the Shepherd wait 'til the sheep finds its way back to him to receive it into the fold? No. He goes out and finds the sheep and brings it home. Likewise, when Christ's "sheep" wander into sin, the Good Shepherd does not disown them but goes out and retrieves them from the wilderness into which they've ventured! How good my Saviour is!

So let me get this straight. According to you, a son of the Father, i.e. a believer, can live a wanton life of sin like the prodigal and lose fellowship but not his salvation??

Theoretically, yes. But I don't believe a truly born-again person would live this way - not comfortably and persistently, anyway.

So in other words the cleansing blood of Christ is still efficacious for a believer who lives a life of habitual sin and no repentance?

Well, of course.

Romans 5:20
20...But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,

But, as I said, no truly born-again disciple of Christ will live in habitual and unrepentant sin.

The prodigal was still spiritually alive when he engaged in wanton sin and rebellion? I find that hard to believe.

Where does the parable make any comment on the spiritual state of the Prodigal? Christ had not yet died in atonement for sin when he offered the parable. The idea of being "spiritually alive" had not yet become a reality for anyone (save Christ himself). What would have really hit Christ's audience was the scandalous way the father behaved. The father's tender, generous and patient
interactions with his prodigal son would have been astonishing to Christ's audience, to say the least. Really, it is the father, not his son, who is at the center of the parable. And what the parable tells us about the father is that he is stunningly merciful, gracious and forgiving. He did not spurn his wayward child, cutting him off and despising him, but waited expectantly for his son's return and the restoration of their fellowship. How sad it is that you think the waywardness of the Prodigal could exceed the love and grace of the father.

If so, perhaps you ought to read 1 John 1:7. "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." Notice the little word "IF." "If" indicates that a condition must first be met in order for it's fulfillment to result. If the condition of walking in the light is met by us, then we can be assured that the result is fellowship with each other and cleansing from all sin. It is obvious that the prodigal did not walk in the light when he departed from his father's house so it cannot be said that his sins were forgiven/cleansed according to this verse.

The first condition of "walking in the light" is met by the confession of one's sins (1 John 1:9) Does the Prodigal admit his wrong? Yes, he does. (Luke 15:21) And his confession restores his fellowship - not his relationship - with his father. Apart from the things I've already mentioned, it is evident that their relationship was never broken by the way the father and son both think and behave toward each other throughout the parable. Always, the son thinks of his father as his father. At no time in the parable does the son ever think this familial link is dissolved. And the father appears to have the same mind toward his boy. He is waiting, looking, not for a stranger to appear, but for his son's return. And before his son ever makes an apology, the father is running out to meet him, hugging and kissing him! This is not the conduct of a man who has cut all ties with his boy.

So not only do believers lose fellowship with God when they live like a prodigal and do not walk in the light but they also lose forgiveness of their sins and the assurance that their sins are purified by Jesus' blood.

This is not what the parable indicates - at all. You're having to go all the way over to the letters of the apostle John whose words had nothing to do with Christ's parable and who stood on the far side of Calvary from the telling of the parable and make a horribly strained connection, reading John's words as though they are commentary on the parable of the Prodigal. In contrast, I have not left the confines of the parable in making my case for its meaning. I have let the parable speak for itself in coming to my views.

Does the parable ever say anything like you are about its meaning? Nope. Does the profligate living of the Prodigal dissolve all past good relations between he and his father? Nope. Is the son counted anathema by the father? Nope.

Those believers who instead choose to walk in darkness by living according to the flesh do not have their sins forgiven resulting in separation from God and spiritual death.

This thinking is not taught in the parable. The story of the Prodigal indicates quite the opposite, in fact. At no time - no matter how profligate his living - was the Prodigal not a son to his father.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Your analogy does not work because it supposes a gift of money from God. It is not analogous to being given the gift of Faith.

Is there any perfect analogy that we can't poke holes in? Aren't they all inevitably imperfect in accurately representing the point?

And, I did not say God gives a gift of money. I was comparing the gift of faith to material gifts that could be lost. There are plenty of Scriptures that support a gift from God being lost. Jesus, Himself, used an analogy comparing what God gives us to money--talents. And the one who buried theirs lost it and the one who buried his was cast out into outer darkness. That sure sounds like he not only didn't get "rewarded" but actually lost his place in the kingdom. Paul is talking to believers in Romans 8 and Galatians 6 when he talks about walking in the Spirit or walking in the flesh. Each path reaps its own fruit, according to Paul, and the fruit of walking in the flesh is death. Paul wouldn't be talking to unbelievers, since they could only walk in the flesh. So, Paul was clearly warning "believers" about the danger of choosing to follow the wrong voice and what the cost was to them.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

"Be careful what you believe. It may just cost you your life!"... believe what? What YOU personally believe that bible is saying? Its not a private interaction. We work out our own salvation. So gee how did all those people get saved right after Jesus rose and sat at the right hand? There was no NT. There was no verse..not by works you are saved less...so forth so on. Seems they only had what He said.. believe on me and you will have ever lasting life. Want SIN got past the blood of a GOD? What SIN can you do today that HE never died for that HE never knew you would do?

So many voices in this world.. sorry which one is right? Oh we all know what GROUP we know is not of GOD and they are DUH wrong. Is that how GOD thinks...like us? There are things that are SIN for you but not others. Somes times that so called "righteous anger" is miss placed. For what God was telling you/us ..was meant for just just you/us.

You think you never sin on purpose or ever will? How then shall Christ die again for that sin? Is that really what He was saying? Jesus never died for the Christians.. nor Israel. He did for the world. This free gift was already given to all. Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Sacrifices only covered sin. Now Christs sacrifice that sin was not covered its GONE!. God said For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. He said OT I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

Were always looking at others and not our selfs. To get our own life in order 1st. To then look at others our 1st look is at the GOOD. Do we see the GOOD 1st or sin? And just who are we to see this SIN 1st? As if we are some expert in it? Because we sin miss it goof up makes us and expert? When we KNOW God does not see the flesh like man aka SIN. He sees the heart.

So.. to tell others "be careful what you believe"? Forgive me you have no say what so ever on how will live forever or not. Only HE knows. We share words of LIFE....but WHOS truth are we preaching? Baptist Pentecostal, Mormon, Catholics, Word of Faith..shall I name ALL the rest? Do we look for the Gospel? That Christ came in the flesh born by the virgin Mary. Died on the cross for the worlds sins.. was buried. Rose the 3rd day. Is the only way to the Father. WHY did Christ die? To set us free from what? THATS the gospel. Thats what saves. Not your personally believe nor mine. HE saves ...His spirit draws man to Him..not you not me. I can't convict anyone of sin..that power is not mine..never given to me. I have no power over HIS creation or HIS Children. Just ALL Power over the enemy.

My view

God sees the heart. I agree. And, Jesus said that it is "But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander.…" (Matt 15:18-19). So, the works we see reflect the condition of someone's heart. But, God knows the heart, so He knows what's in there, even if we don't see a blatant example rise to the surface.

When most of the New Testament writers warn against deception, by the power of the Holy Spirit, I don't see where they didn't want believers to intervene to protect the flock. Even Paul in his final address to the Ephesian elders, Paul warns about "perverse wolves" and those "speaking perverse things" in Acts 20:29-31. Jesus warned against the leaven of the pharisees...a little leaven leavens.... James closes his letter with this: "Brethren, if any of you do err from the Truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converts the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20).

What sin "gets past the blood of Jesus"? Well, for starters "blaspheming the Holy Spirit"--since Jesus Himself said that is an unforgiveable sin (Matt 12:31-32). John reiterated that there was sin that leads to death and that we shouldn't even pray for someone who did that in 1 John 5:16: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." When Ananias and Sapphira died at the feet of Paul, did they just suffer natural death but retain spiritual life when their last act on this earth was lying to the Holy Spirit, according to Peter? (Acts 5) According to Paul's discussion in Romans 8, people can be given the Holy Spirit and choose to walk in the flesh (rather than the Holy Spirit) and reap death. I know someone claimed that you don't reap spiritual death only natural death, but the whole discussion contrasts "eternal life" with this death. It doesn't contrast health and long life with pre-mature death. And, the understanding that it is talking about spiritual death is certainly well-grounded in Scripture, going all the way back to Genesis. And, in that light, Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-30 become very serious warnings instead of the impossible hypothetical that some claim they are.