Aaron, when I teach my own children about the Gospel of our Lord, I would never think to teach them that a single confession of Jesus as Lord is all that is needed, thereby allowing them to live the remainder of their lives in the security that all future actions are inconsequential because all can be forgiven. Rather, I tell them to hold fast, to cling to Jesus as if their eternal life depended on it, to grow closer to Him each day, to work out their salvation (Phil 2:12) and to make their election sure (2 Pet 1:10).... Not because I think their salvation can be lost, but because the gravity of our eternal situation is simply too great to take anything for granted!!  ...And I believe this point of view was the motivation for much NT writing on the subject of salvation.

BTW, you may want to reread Josh's blog, I thought both sides were thoroughly presented.  ~mike

I have to agree with The WYATT here. Eternal Security, and that's what is being talked about, is about God's Persistance toward us. Also, I've never understood how one could be born again and then "unborn" again.

Can you explain that, maestro, trouble causer..LOL.

If you can lose your salvation then this verse ought to really scare you

I think this means something different than you probably do and would be glad to explain myself later :)

I would have a similar explanation of the 2 Peter passage.

Belief.  Faith.  Two subtly different things.  I can belive that there is a Loch Ness monster, hypothetically speaking of course, but to have FAITH in it is another issue.

 For my part I agree with Aaron on this subject.  As long as we are alive we are neither above damnation nor below salvation.  To belive that you will go to Heaven just because you are a Christian is an ignorance I cannot abide by.  Those who belive such set themselves up for a fall.

My argument against this misconception is usually thus:

Remember that even the Devil itself was once, before it became the Devil, an angel of the Lord.  In fact it was the highest ranking of all of God's angels and closest to God, but through pride, arrogance, and complacency that most holy of angels became the most vile of demons, the self-proclaimed "Prince of Darkness".  Therefore I say to you: if even the highest ranking of God's angels, who does not have free will, can fall from God's grace and enter into Hell what, therefore, does that say about us who do have free will?  Who can make any decision at any time and are free to change who and what we are as we see fit?  Truth be told, I don't think anyone here is as close or as loyal to God as one of His angels.  So, if anyone gets any ideas that they're in some kind of "safety zone" for spiritual salvation then I suggest you watch yourselves with sober judgement and hold yourselves accountable for your own actions.  Actually, everyone should do that, not just the people who are complacent.  The complacent ones should pull their heads out of their rear ends before they get blind sided by a world of trouble.

As kind of a follow up note to my argument; if you belive in Heaven and Hell then you better not act as though The Fall, or the Rebellion, or whatever you want to call it is just a myth or a fairy tale.  To me, it is a part of history.  Not human history, but history none the less.  And as with all events in history there is much to be learned from it...

The question is that who secures or has secured our salvation. The answer is Jesus. God has his elect. Not only does God elect AND his election is SURE. IOW, it is God's choice NOT ours. No one has the power to initially choose salvation. We are totally lost in sin and not even able to seek him. We are lost sheep. Once the shepherd secures us we are secure. The devil can not rip us out of God's hand AND Christ intercedes for us.

Is "our will" or the devil stronger then, than the intercession of Jesus and the election of God? No, if that is so, then God is not sovereign but He IS.

So, can we fall from salvation, clearly not if we are the elect, IOW, NOT if we are saved! No way. This is a modern concept but goes against historic Baptist, Congregational, Episcopalian, Lutheran and Reformed Creeds of ages past to name a few. 

Free will is not simply the ability to make choices.  If that were the case then all sentient beings would have free will.  The true nature of free will is something that gets into the realm of an entity's true nature.  Fallen angels live in constant denial of their true nature, bending all of their will and effort into being the exact opposite of what God made them to be.  Humans on the other hand can change their true nature as they see fit.  Although I made it sound easier than it is don't get me wrong, real change is never an easy process, nor does it happen quickly without the influence of a seriously traumatizing event.  But I have seen people truely change from the inside out.

Point of order though.  I did not say a DA** thing about undoing what God has done!  I can understand your misinterpretation of what I have said, but do NOT put words in my mouth!  You may not have meant to, but be careful to look at what the I'm intending to say and not just what you would mean if it was you who used those words.  I bring up the example of Satan's fall from grace as a counter point to the human condition.  To show that even entities that are created in grace can fall from it.  I'm not talking about Jesus dying for their sins.  He died to bring us into grace.  Angels were created in grace, so they are already there.  If they who cannot change their true nature, who are created in grace can fall from it, how much more precarious is our situation?  We who are born into sin, who must be brought into grace?

Furthermore, I am not assuming that O.S.A.S. philosophy is ignorant.  I'm basing that assessment on observation.  Too many people get it into their heads that good and evil are people, substances, or things that can be harmed or destroyed.  As though good and evil are things that are created to begin with.  Truth be told, and this is another lesson to be learned from the Fall, not even the Opposer is evil itself, but rather a fanatic of it (i.e. it decided to do what it did, which, I don't know about you, but in my mind that makes it an even more nasty SOB than if it was created to be evil).  In reality good and evil are choices, decisions, intentions, or characteristics thereof.  So, many people whom I have seen that adopt the O.S.A.S. jargin tend to get it into their heads that they are the "good guys" and they use that to justify so many wrongdoings that they perpetrate against other people.  As if they are "good" and therefore they can get away with being cruel to people that they label as "bad".  They son't even really look at who the person is inside, they just whip up some good ol' persecution.  Then they act as if it was okay that they treated another human with cruelty (let alone the fact that it is usually unjustified cruelty) because they are "saved".  I mean this even gets into the whole Christian cliq phenomenon.

If you're not like that and you adopt the O.S.A.S. philosophy then I'm sorry for getting onto you for something that you're not guilty of (intrinsic guilt, not the subjective guilty feeling).  You're right, I did make an extreme generalization.  I apologize.  And that goes to all others who adopt that philosophy and don't rationalize or excuse your wrongdoings just because you're "saved".  What I'm going on about is not an absolute truth, but it is something I observe all too frequently.

And anyone can disagree with me if they so chose, but the whole "I'm saved so it's okay if I act all stuck up, holier than thou, look down my nose at other people who aren't 'saved', and treat other 'non-saved' people with disrespect, cruelty, indecency, and sometimes outright hostility" attitude IS ignorant, and it IS wrong/sinful!  And even if someone else is living in sin it does not give you the right to commit sins of cruelty and injustice towards them.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  God does NOT call you to sin against your neighbor.  Where in the Bible does it say, "Vengance is MINE sayeth the Lord"?  Does that mean that you should accept another person's sin?  No.  But your rights end where other people's rights begin.  My right to swing my fist ends where your face begins, and that's where your right to defend yourself begins.  Metaphorically speaking.  If you don't like a person because they really are living a sinful life then find a non-sinful way to deal with it, but don't react with anger, beligerance, and bull-headed ignorance, or you WILL stumble and you WILL be in danger of falling from grace and ending up in the same boat as them. When you become obsessed with the enemy you will become the enemy, proverbially speaking of course.

And don't get me wrong, I have just as many qualms about the people who sychophantically worship God.  You know what I'm talking about.  Me personally I neither fear nor focus on Hell, nor do I kiss God's butt in the hopes that He'll put me on the gravy train for the rest of eternity.  That's not love.  I worship God because I love God and not because of the fear of punishment or the hope of a reward.  If my Master in Heaven would condemn me to Hell then I would apologize for the damage I have done, charge the gates of the damned, and try to beat down as many demons as I could before they took me down (yeah I know it sounds preposterous, but understand that I've done alot of "resisting the enemy" if you know what I mean, so when faced with a threat I stick to my guns).  If the Lord should welcome me into His kindgom then I would gladly enter and rejoice in His name.  Either way, it's Christ's decision, not mine.  Such is my love for my Lord that I will accept whatever decision He makes at my judgement, and I will live life being a righteous person simply for the sake of being a righteous person and not because I'm brown-nosing.

I can't STAND it when I find someone brown-nosing!  I mean, they don't really love God, they just try to adhere so freaking tightly to this cookie cutter mold of what they think a Christian is supposed to be because they are so afraid of being damned if they do something wrong that they actually try to live a perfect textbook life!  Either that or the people who just want their "crown", they don't really care about anyone else.  They just want to recive glory in God's kingdom so they step on everyone around them and hypocritically lambaste people for their sins as though they themselves are sinless (once again the whole good guy-bad guy mentality).  It's like these people wouldn't praise God without an alterior motive.  My problem with it is thus: When you try to risk nothing you risk losing everything by default.  I mean, the Bible makes it clear that you should love God and other people selflessly.  Selfish worship isn't love, it's brown-nosing.

recon77, as a counter argument to what you are saying I would like to offer 2 counter points.

1)Once again, "By the fruits of their labors ye shall know them".  The idea that you have thrown out on the table, in my own observation of people's behaviors, generally fosters attitudes of hoplessness and defeatism when people accept that idea.  Not ALL people who accept that idea, just most.  I know, it doesn't inspire hoplessness if you believe that you're one of the elect.  But you do realize that you are asking quite a few people to accept that they are condemned to eternal torment and suffering no matter what they do?  Think for a minute why that idea doesn't fly very far with most people.  I know if I believed that nothing I did really mattered then I would just sit on my parent's couch watching TV, playing video games, and eating potato chips for the rest of my life because nothing really matters, it's all going to happen the way it's going to happen and the universe can get along just fine without me.  But because I know that for every reaction there is an equal yet opposite reaction, because I logically know that my thoughts control my actions and that my actions can and have made changes in the world around me that I am not just an automaton robot whose every twitch ,move, and thought is micromanaged by someone else.  And that inspires me to evoke more changes.

Of course you could rationalize that argument to fit into your argument.  So I have a second one that I KNOW you aren't going to agree with, and will throw right out the window.  But it's the way I view things so I'm throwing it out there.

2) God loves his children too much to force them to make the right decisions, but by the same tolkien He also loves those who make the right decisions too much to leave them defenseless.  If God were to control every single twitch, movement, and brainwave of every single little thing that is capable of acting autonomously then that wouldn't be love, that would be obsessive-compulsive micro managing, which is completely selfish.

Whether that's the way things are may or not be true, but that's the way I view it.

And on that note I'd love to drop a rather apropos proverb, "The eyes with which you see God are the eyes with which God sees you."

You have answered the problem you can't explain in the text I submitted by introducing another text. That's not explaining the intent of 6:16, but trying to imply contradiction and confusion....
I'll do my best to tell you what your implication means and then you can see that there is no contradiction as you seem to think there is......

Paul is describing his life apart from the regeneration of the Spirit. He in his own flesh could not live the life he needed to live in order to be a servant of God. When he began to understand the law, he began to understand that the nature to sin against it was more powerful and he could not overcome in his flesh.

But then came Jesus' resurrection power into his life, so that he could overcome his fleshly desires.
He states that if he lives according to the flesh - he will serve the law of sin in verse 25. And to live according to the flesh is death.....

Rom 8:13
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Notice what he says right after what you've quoted....

Rom 8:1-2
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
(KJV)
There is no condemnation......to those who WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH!

Notice verse 2 - Jesus made him free from the law of sin and death. He doesn't say from the punishment, from the law! Just like being in an airplane makes you free from the law of gravity, being in Christ makes you free from the law of sin. Remain in Him and live a life not dominated by sin. Sin will be an odd thing if you are in Christ. Sin will not be your nature if you are in Christ.

If you can lose your salvation then this verse ought to really scare you

I think this means something different than you probably do and would be glad to explain myself later :)
This is a difficult verse to explain. I have trouble with it. I would have trouble with it from your point of view as well.
I think if means one of two things. (so far as I can understand it) -

#1 - That if you have been immersed into all the blessings that God intended for his children. You have experienced the best God can offer you and yet you turn from him - you will never turn back to him. You have rejected him as fully as you possibly can. You have been stubbornly adamant about not serving him in the face of all his goodness, promises and warnings.

#2 - That if you are in a backlidden state you cannot find repentance as you are in that state.

(#2 seems to me to make little to no sense admittedly - which is why I tend to think, as far as I can understand, that #1 is a better interpretation)

So - what do you think it means?

I would have a similar explanation of the 2 Peter passage.

What is your explanation of the 2 Peter passage??? I can only see 3 conclusions, and only one sensible one. Please explain further what you mean.

In your first text - you must understand that it is the one's that are believing on Jesus that will never perish. Only those that believe on him. Not those that at one time believe-d on him, but the verb is an active verb.

Look at this verse.........
John 3:36
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
According to the way you understand present verbs...anyone at the point of time that Jesus said this - that did not believe on him, would never ever believe on him. What he was saying is that anyone that believeth not AT THAT TIME would not see life. They could change their status by believing on Him, and then they would fall into the first category of those that believe on the Son (from clause 1).

So long as I am a believer in Christ and walk in the Spirit (Rom 8:1) then there is no condemnation awaiting me. But if I remove myself from that state and do not "abide in Christ" (John 15:1-6) then I can not expect to receive the promise that was directed to those that believe.

For the first part of your argument (which was not articulated into your interpretation of the verse -I can only work on assumptions here)-

God foreknew who would be his child. I don't disagree with that - That's the basis of the whole thing. It starts off with"For whom He did foreknow" - But to foreknow is not to foreordain. He did not pick me to be saved and someone else to be lost.
WHOM HE FOREKNEW - HE PREDESINATED TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON.
That isn't predestination regardless of anything at all - that is that those that God knew would be his were preordained to become like Jesus (glorification)

....and so he "CALLED" them..

Are they the only ones that were called?? Evidently not - if so this verse (below) would seem to contradict the erroneous assumption that all that God calls will irresistably come...
Matt 22:14
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

For the last part that you underlined - where is our disagreement? I don't think any of those things can separate us from the love of God - or from salvation. I think this great promise is so often used to defend something that it wasn't intended to.

The Lord (through Paul) is writing to the Romans, as well as us, to comfort us. To allow us to understand that there is no one and nothing that is strong enough to wrestle our salvation out of the hand of God. But that salvation is based upon our faith in Christ, and our repentance of our sins....
Acts 17:30
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Acts 3:19
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

If we (for lack of a better phrase) "repent from our repentance", and once again walk according to the flesh - we have another promise - or should I say warning...


Gal 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

So we can walk away from our salvation. We can choose to no longer follow the Lord. We can walk according to the 'law of the flesh' and receive the wages of sin: death. If we do so, then the promise no longer applies to us because we aren't in the place where we are saved and need to be reassured. We are in the place where we need to come back to the Lord.

The bible tells us to repent daily, we all sin daily, so that is repentance, again not the term of being saved, I understand your argument and why you do it, I do not believe in once saved always saved, I don't think if I repent 1 time and then go back out in the world and live a ungodly life then when I die I will go to heaven, that will not happen, I might as well not repent in the first place continue to live a ungodly life, that is crazy, and shame on people that think that way.  

Oh by the way I loved the simple words of "gearshift" up above.

Your reasoning makes NO sense... Judas played a role that was predestined in prophecy, and Jesus alludes to this in the statement as he calls him the "son of perdition." Show me a "saved" devil in scripture... salvation ONLY applies to mankind. Not angels, animals, or any other creation by the Creator... Show me someone who lost their salvation - and it was a direct reference to the fact that they were saved, then lost out with God - and the scripture specifically states this. Your argument just became weaker with this assertion...

Joel,
If you'll read what I said, I didn't claim that Judas definately was saved at any point, I just said your explanation didn't prove that he wasn't. I actually kind of agree with you that he probably never was saved, but I'm not sure.

You claim that he was just simply fulfilling a role in prophecy. Yes, indeed he was, but it did not necessarily have to be him. Jesus chose 12 disciples, guided by God the Father, I'd imagine. And the Father probably knew that Judas would be a good candidate for the role he would play. The Father knew the heart of Judas, and knew that it was hard. If it wasn't - he foreknew it would be.

But when Jesus said - he was a "devil" - at that point - he was. He had been taken control of by a spirit that wanted to see Jesus destroyed. That doesn't mean he was always controlled by that. He didn't say Judas had always been motivated by this 'devil'.

Joel, I know you're a smart guy. I've seen it in your dialogue on here. And the fact that you won't clear up my alleged misconceptions makes it even clearer to me that my belief is rock solid.

I can show you scriptures of those that left their salvation, but you'll just say "they were never saved in the first place" without backing it up. It is only a convenient phrase that fits into your view.

I'll do it anyhow just to appease you, but if you're gonna tell me they were never saved, please do so exegetically.


2 Tim 4:10
10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
Demas loved the world and John tells us that if any man love the world the love of the Father is not in him (he doesn't say 'it never was in him', only that it is not currently in him)



Matt 24:9-10
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
(KJV)
Jesus warned of those that would be offended (or fall from his first confidence) and betray his brothers.


John 6:66
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
These folks were called 'disciples' - learners of Christ. They turned and walked no more with him. They once walked with him.


1 Tim 5:14-15
14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
(KJV)
They turned after Satan. They can't still be Christians and turn after Satan can they?


James 5:19-20
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
(KJV)
I can't give you the names of many of the unnamed that are spoken of in the Word of God that are said to have turned from Him, or that may turn from Him, but the examples are everywhere.
How can you explain the person that is called a "brother" (v19) that needs conversion. He says if "ANY OF YOU". That's the "brethren"!
If they err from truth and are restored, they are 'saved from death'.

How about the guys that no one wants to talk about. The A, B, C question...
These guys..
2 Pet 2:19-21
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. 
 
A - sinners who were never saved and yet.......had one "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" who had to "once again" be "entangled therein""?

or are they
B - Currently Christians who's "latter end is worse than their first" - and would have been better off "not to have known the way of righteousness" who are described as a "sow returning to her own wallowing in the mire?


C - One time Christians who have returned to their former state of sinfulness and have left their faith in Christ for a life of sinful pleasure and a deathly consequence?


I think it's abundantly clear. I don't know how it can be denied that salvation is contingent on continuing to walk in the Spirit (Rom 8:1)

"The DOC", is it?  Are you good at reading between the lines, or am I that transparent?  My arguments may be a bit confusing because I was half asleep at the time that I wrote them.  I'm not miffed at the whole world, no.  Just a part of it.  Nor am I angry with quite everyone in all churches, but that requires an explanation. 

Understand that I do not speak as one who was a victim of injustice, but rather a perpetrator of it.  I am one who has noticed the log in his own eye and I have removed it that I may see clearly.  Every grievance I have that I have put forward, and then some, are sins that I committed and see others committing.

Let me ask you something.  Do you know what it is like to wake up one day and realize that not only have you been committing sins agianst your neighbor in God's name, but you have also accidentaly beaten people screaming away from God with a stick?  For a time in my life I was one such ignorant person who believed that I was "saved" and that somehow made me special, or better than other people in such a way that I acted like I had the right to look down on people whom I didn't "think" were saved.  Of course back then I didn't "think", I believed I KNEW.  Ignorant people just don't realize that they are ignorant, and you can't tell them anything, they just rationalize, justify, and excuse their actions to the Nth degree.  When I finally humbled myself (which took some major effort on the side of my family) I realized that I had judged so many people.  When I was doing it I didn't think it was judgement, but that was because I had my head up my rear end.  "Judge and you will be judged.  Condemn and you will be condemned.  Forgive and you will be forgiven."  I won't go into a full list of things I did, but suffice to say I came to find out that not only had I convinced people that weren't already Christian that they definitely don't want to be Christian, but I had unitentionally persuaded someone who was already Christian that they didn't want to be Christian anymore!  Now don't nobody tell me that their faith was already weak or some crap like that because I KNOW what I did.  And belive me it doesn't bear repeating.  But, DOC, that is the kind of guilt that I live with.  Now I've had plenty of people (especially in church groups) try to tell me not to feel guilty, or that what I was doing was somehow right.  But this guilt is the least I deserve and I know that the things I did were wrong. I WILL hold myself accountable for my actions and I WILL try to make right what I have done wrong.  There are no prayers, hymns, or sermons that can absolve me of driving people away from Christ.  Now you know what I mean by, "If God should chose to send me to Hell then I would apologize for the damage I've done and..."

Now here's the worst part of it all.  My sins are not unique to me.  I have seen them and confronted them time and time again in my life in other Christians.  And this is not a remote or isolated thing.  I have been around the country and I have seen these elietist attitudes in Christians that I encounter in real life all the time.  It's like people aren't proud of God, they're proud of the idea that what they believe is right and everyone else who doesn't believe what they believe, how they believe it, the way they believe it will burn for all eternity.  And that somehow gives them the right to treat people who aren't in their "in" groups like a piece of dirt.  I try bringing this up to people when I see it happening in real life.  I try reminding people of the parable of the Good Samaritan.  I try telling them that Christ said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and not "Love thy neighbor as thyself-unless they are not in your denomination" nor did he say "Love thy neighbor as thyself-unless they are not Christian."  I even try giving a testimony of my account and how I came to realize my own sin.  But it never made any difference.  They always rationalized, justified, and excused their actions.  I don't know, maybe I'm just not good at talking to people.  Maybe people will believe what they believe.  Perhaps no one can truely change unless they are humble.  But whatever the case I don't know what I was thinking by bringing my qualms on this blog.

Mr. Disney (if that is in fact your actual last name, no offense), I'm sorry for bringing my excess baggage into your blog.  I know you were not looking for people who already agreed with you and that I probably didn't help anything.  It was a convenient venu to bring up an issue and I did it rather than making my own bog.  Once again, I apologize.  To the people defending the O.S.A.S. idea, I don't know you individually which means that I really don't know what you have and haven't done.  I'm sorry for automatically assuming that you were like me.  Do know, however, that I once believed that "once saved, always saved" and I came closer to damnation than I thought possible.  The realization that I was actually judging people and that God condemns those who have the audacity to do so, which is to question His divinity, was a big wakeup call.  The first of many.

Here's two disclaimers:

A) I missed much of the last conversations.  I seem to remember being involved in one, but I have trouble finding things again.

B) The second point below may be argumentative, but the first is something I think we should all be concerned about.  What do we tell the new believer as an answer to this?

Here's a question I haven't seen answered in here (or elsewhere), but that I'm curious about.  How do you know if you *really* believe?  Right now, I really think I believe, tomorrow I will find doubts.  (Peter walking on water comes to mind.).  Actually Peter doing just about anything in the Gospels comes to mind.

Also regarding Judas being called a devil by Jesus and therefore unable to get to Heaven.  How does this fit in?

I think I need to rephrase the question.   I'm tempted to move it since I don't want to get involved in the C&P thing. :)

I think it has been said in one of these entries, that if someone walks away from Christ that they never really believed.  I've seen people that were strong in the faith walk away (I'm not sure references to people we don't share common knowledge of helps here).  So how does one know if they *really* believe?  And what do you say to the newcomer?  You can't say cling tight to your beliefs.

I have to agree with The WYATT but theologically and exhaustively. Just because Kurt, you and Aaron can put out a lot of copy doesn't mean that those of us "on the other side" have no arguments. I think we just find it exhausting AND really not following basic blog etiquette. You are correct though Kurt, back earlier you tried to answer 2 of my points and, of course, I and scripture heartily disagree.

Yes, Aaron you have opened a can of worms but, I, at this time, for my part don't choose any longer to get in the long, netiquetteless copy wars.

If you all actually believe that we "choose" to be saved, then of course we can "choose" to lose our salvation. However, again, that is an unbiblical concept. Read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will.

I guess I'll only say one thing more. Someone earlier mentioned something about how can I know I am saved when I disbelieve on one day, or don't feel saved, or something to that effect.

My answer is John's. I think in 1Jn5, is that it? John says, "these things are written that you might know" that you are saved, eternallly secure, etc. THIS is why John was writing to the Christians AND it was to Christians he was writing. What are we Christian and then non-Christian, born-again and then "unborn again". This is just not logical as I stated in the beginning and scripture does bear me out, again, no matter how much copy is thrown around. This argument really takes the whole Bible before we are done.

The prob. is basic underlying presuppositions and filters that people are using to filter their selected scriptures. One assumption: we have a "free will", another there is no election, no predestination, God is NOT a creator who creates according to his desires. We CHOOSE salvation (even though totally dead in sin), We, the dead somehow suddenly choose to be saved. We, the lost, wake up one day and choose God. OK, those are presuppostions.

I just ask that we all examine our deepest filters and beliefs and allow the Bible to be our filter and belief. 

perhaps "saved" is the wrong term to use if one can lose their salvation... the term strongly implies security from the moment received onward, and if the position is actually one of insecurity, then one isn't really saved at all...  make sense?

btw Aaron, when you come over for dinner, we will find far better things to discuss than this topic, cool bro? like the Cubs vs the Orioles  :-)

But why was I needing saving?  Was it because of something God did?  Or something I did?  And  what did I need to be saved from?  And does that mean that once I'm saved, my free will is gone?

i have a comment too i don't believe in that "once saved always saved" thats just in exuse to sin
theres alot more then just i was saved once and thats enough
a true christian should renew there vows with God on a daily bases being a christian is a way of life forget religion, and sunday sevices just because you step into church don't mean you serve the almighty

we all fall short from the grace of God and yes noone is perfect

so why would any one believe that they were safe from losing their salvation
i got a way to test it_ if you sin and you have no regret, your heart doesn't feel any thing
the Holy Spirit isn't with you and you have made Him sad at that moment i would say that
you are
not saved.

After all these posts and I can't find a single person to answer any of my "arguments against OSAS". This isn't a Copy/Paste thing. No one's ever once answered these things with any logical answers as I understand it. Zach tried to, and I answered his answers and Haven
t heard from him again. This is why OSAS makes no sense to me.

Recon said that John wrote John so that we might know that we're saved. That doesn't prove anything at all. If we can lose our salvation, then we have to be saved to lose it. If we are once saved, then we can have it proven to us that we are saved. He didn't say he wanted to show them that they were saved for ever, just that they were saved.

Do you see that I am interacting with the scriptures posed to me?

I am honestly looking to dialogue about the scriptures I brought up and no one wants to do it. This is why I can't believe OSAS, because there are no good answers, in my opinion. I really want to be challenged on this though. Thanks for the responses so far, guys.

I believe Jesus saved us all so we are all saved but i do not believe once saved always saved i believe it is up to us to stay saved. some one pointed out to me a long time ago if once saved always saved was true then it wouldn't matter how much a person sinned after they were saved because they would always be saved. and on another point if Jesus death wasn't to save us then why did he die? but this is just my faith each person has their own way of thinking.

Point, counterpoint, point, ounterpoint...talk about going on and on with "endless genealogies"....

Why is it so hard for so many to recognize that fighting amongst each other -- and that's exactly what this is...fighting...not debating, not "casually discussing", not even "searching for doctrinal correctness" -- will do nothing but continue to fracture and divide the Body?!  I mean seriously.

To the "OSAS" -- Jesus said if you don't abide in Him, it's no bueno for you.  Sorry to burst your bubble.

To the "constantly losing" -- Jesus is bigger than you...and your sin, too.  Is Jesus a liar for saying that in Him you would find rest?  Well, if you believe you have to keep getting re-saved everytime you sin, that ain't rest, and you just called Jesus a liar.

I really hate to come across "un-P.C." here on MyChurch, but as lovingly and such as I can possibly say this, could y'all just shut up about it already and get back to work?

There are millions of people outside the four edges of your computer screens, literally dying without Jesus, and you think the best use of your time is to sit here and bicker about "well if I do this big sin here, hypothetically speaking, am I still saved?"  Get real!  If a person's own personal version of Christianity consists of "how much can I do and still be saved", then they still have yet to have a heart-to-heart with the Lord.  When we come in contact with Him, the response is always going to be "Have mercy upon me, a sinner".

If I was an unbeliever (or even a new believer), and all I knew of how you walked your walk was what I read here, I'd leave.  It's obvious this is your pet doctrine, and your passion is admirable, but it more likely than not could be better placed elsewhere.

I love you guys, I really do, but this stuff here isn't helping anyone with anything.  It's just endless circular bickering -- no matter what "nice" name is put on it -- and since it's still being approached as an 'either-extreme-A-or-extreme-B' debate (when the truth is actually in between), both sides continue to be fueled by the shortcomings of the other side.

We're all (supposedly) Family here!  Now hug and make nice...we have company over.  ;)

In His service, and yours,
jason

And this happens all the time in theological debate, Mike. I totally agree. Define the terms first and then we can discuss. I think, though, problems will occur even in the defining of terms. I have to say to Keep the F, above. Did you really mean what you said????

"I believe Jesus saved us all so we are all saved but i do not believe once saved always saved i believe it is up to us to stay saved"

It is up to Us????? I think we need some basic primers around here!!! 

I've also seen the same problem when discussing covenant, kingdom, dominion...we need to define the basic terms first and then operate from there.

The best and really only definition I've seen for Covenant or Covenental structure is in a book called,  That you May Prosper, by Ray Sutton. Usually those discussing the Kingdom have made the Kingdom way too small, such as David Hunt and company. The problem usually is in what I call reductionism...thinking waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy smaller than God and His Word.  

We also get snookered (like on Kathy's list) by con-artists like Tony Campolo (a sociologist or rather social fomenter) by not knowing what God's word says about economics, one remedy is the book by David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt manipulators which will change your life, if you read it. 

You know the reason I like myChurch?

I like discussion on these type of things.  But there's a difficulty here.  There's very little chance you are going to win a large argument here.  There's just not mechanism enough to have that happen.  I'm not going to convince anyone they are wrong.  Except maybe myself.  And so over the years I *hope* I've become better about not trying to win an argument, but refine mine.  See if the arguments stand up.  And understand why people think what they think.  (But occasionally I'm a jerk, and needle someone.)

The problem usually is in what I call reductionism...thinking waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy smaller than God and His Word. 

And then there's the other side, who completely ignores Occam's Razor and try to "out think" God.  There's a balance.

We also get snookered (like on Kathy's list) by con-artists like Tony Campolo (a sociologist or rather social fomenter) by not knowing what God's word says about economics, one remedy is the book by David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt manipulators which will change your life, if you read it.  

What good is naming names here?  We need to learn to watch out for messages and understand what God's word says.  That seems as though it's best done in the Bible, not a different book.  Books may help us think consider something differently than we have in the past, but they still need to be held up to what the Bible says.

I think the problem that recon had was that you said we are to maintain or keep our salvation. I didn't look for his exact wording, but I think he was bewildered by you saying it was up to "us" to keep our salvation. But I agree with your assessment for sure, KTF. It looks like the Bible does too, but if recon would like to explain what these verse mean in his understanding - he'd be more than welcome....


Heb 3:12
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

Heb 3:14
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Heb 3:6
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Heb 10:38
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Rom 11:20-21
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

also - recon said earlier (which somehow I missed, sorry, recon)

I have to agree with The WYATT here. Eternal Security, and that's what is being talked about, is about God's Persistance toward us. Also, I've never understood how one could be born again and then "unborn" again.

Can you explain that, maestro, trouble causer..LOL.

Well, I'll explain it the best I can. I think that you guys think that I think we are on the list, off the list, on the list, off the list, etc.etc.etc. You have got me wrong if you think that. But there does seem to come a time, when God sees that you've yielded yourself to sin and allowed sin to be your master (Romans 6:16) when he will no longer consider you part of him and you will be cast off as a branch (John 15) - Now - when that is, I cannot tell. But it is at such a point in time when your belief in God is not faith unto salvation.

I've heard the whole argument that once we're born, we aren't unborn, so it's impossible to be unborn after being born again. In my mind, you're taking the illustration Jesus offered too far. He's simply saying - you'll have a new life. A different life. You were born once and began your natural life, you will be born again through the Spirit, and begin your Godly life.

I think you've taken it too far to say, you can't lose it since it's called a rebirth. After all, I could take the analogy too far as well if I wanted to. Everyone that's ever been born (up to now) has eventually died, right? And it was their natural life that ceased and so that must mean (taking the illustration as strictly as possible) that every one that is a Christian, must eventually lose their spiritual life...I don't think you agree with that.

To me, the argument that recon puts forth is just an example of taking an illustration to unintended extremes.

When Chirst says things like:

this is the Law. This is a command of God. To drive us to Christ. Who when reading this is not crushed saying "Lord, I can not forgive on my own. Help me to forgive." We should not see the Law as the Jews did (And many of us do) and say, "I have to try harder. I will make myself forgive. I will change myself. I will fulfill the Law." By no means!! The Law crushes. None of us can do what Jesus just said. But there is one who has done it for us. That is Jesus Christ!! Now we live a life of gratitude asking God to help us forgive when we can't on our own. But we need not fear being cast out of the family for we have been adopted (Galatians 4:5). If one goes around practicing sin they have not been transformed, born anew. Yes the Law is preached to both the Christian and the non-Christian. To drive them both to the cross that they might not rest in their self righteousness. This applies to both Matthew 6 and 18.

 As for Romans 6:12-16,

This is a case of not looking at the context. Read verse 17:

They were slaves to sin. Once one is in Christ they are slaves to righteousness! Paul here has just preached salvation by grace alone. Anticipating someone saying, "Sweet!! I can do whatever I want and God will forgive me." He reminds them that this is no longer who they are. Will they sin? Yes! Is there life a pattern of sin any more? No! They have to be reminded to live as new citizens, citizens of heaven. New creations. 

Hebrews

2 Tim 2:11-13

Who are those who deny Christ? Those who were not saved! The other statements must be considered too. "If we died with Him, we will also live with Him." If one has been saved they WILL live with him. Those who endure and are faithful will show the evidence that they have been transformed by the Holy Spirit. If one denies Christ it is evidence that they were never born again in the first place. 

John 15

As for this passage I preached a sermon on it Here. Again, context. What does verse 16 say:

Without commenting on who chose whom, Jesus states what those he is talking to will do. They will "go and bear fruit." And their fruit will abide. Jesus is contrasting here those who are not attached to Jesus and those that are. Then he comments on His readers and their condition. They will abide. It is possible, though not for certain, that Jesus may have been alluding to Judas as to own who was not abiding. 

2 Peter 2:19-21

Peter here is speaking of false teachers in the church. He calls them "Springs without water." They are spiritually dead. The water they offer is not the true and living water. All that knowing Christ did for them was to escaped "the corruption of the WORLD" that is all. But they would return to their vomit for they did not know him savingly. He says they are "Slaves to depravity." If they are slaves to sin they have not known Christ savingly. So I would choose "A" as your closest answer.

Key to all of this is knowing that we contribute nothing to our salvation in the first place. God causes us to be born again (1 Peter 1:3) and gives us the faith to believe (Ephesians 2:8-9). God wanted us we did not what him (Romans 5:6-10.) We did not want him in the first place yet he saved us. If we believe that we can do something to loose our salvation we are resting in our righteousness not His. Believing one can lose their salvation also underestimates the severity and magnitude of our sin. Everything we do is tainted with sin. We do nothing pure. There is never a moment that we love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. So that would mean that we are sinning.....all the time. This would also mean that no one is saved (If we hold to your view). Of course not. Jesus is both our justification and our sanctification. The Gospel both saves us and sanctifies us. Not the Law. Trying harder, obeying the law does not sanctify us or make us righteous, rather it is evidence of our being righteous in Christ. At this very moment you are more wretched than you could ever imagine and at the same time more loved and cherished than you could ever imagine. That is the Gospel!

When Chirst says things like:

this is the Law. This is a command of God. To drive us to Christ. Who when reading this is not crushed saying "Lord, I can not forgive on my own. Help me to forgive." We should not see the Law as the Jews did (And many of us do) and say, "I have to try harder. I will make myself forgive. I will change myself. I will fulfill the Law." By no means!! The Law crushes. None of us can do what Jesus just said. But there is one who has done it for us. That is Jesus Christ!! Now we live a life of gratitude asking God to help us forgive when we can't on our own. But we need not fear being cast out of the family for we have been adopted (Galatians 4:5). If one goes around practicing sin they have not been transformed, born anew. Yes the Law is preached to both the Christian and the non-Christian. To drive them both to the cross that they might not rest in their self righteousness. This applies to both Matthew 6 and 18.
First of all, the quote I gave comes from the Sermon on the Mount. This is Jesus telling those that would follow him how he expected them to live, this isn't Jesus explaining to them how they couldn't live.

To call the Sermon on the Mount part of the Old Testament law is an opinion I've never heard before. So we should just toss out the Beatitudes application to us. The whole "Judge not lest ye be judged" is also no longer applicable? All that talk about being the light on a hill and the salt of the earth is also not for us to attend to, other than to realize we can't do it??

I have a real problem with this thinking. First of all, Jesus never indicated in the least little bit that he didn't really expect his followers to live by the precepts he was clarifying. Any part of the Old Testament Law that he quoted here (in the Sermon on the Mount) or elsewhere, he re-emphasised and clarified and didn't once denounce it as non-applicable.

But you claim that his teachings were for nothing but letting us know we can't faithfully follow his teachings?? You're gonna need a little more than a drive-by claim like that to convince me. It's my understanding that the sermon on the mount was taught to educated his disciples in the life he expected them to live.

 As for Romans 6:12-16,

This is a case of not looking at the context. Read verse 17:

They were slaves to sin. Once one is in Christ they are slaves to righteousness! Paul here has just preached salvation by grace alone. Anticipating someone saying, "Sweet!! I can do whatever I want and God will forgive me." He reminds them that this is no longer who they are. Will they sin? Yes! Is there life a pattern of sin any more? No! They have to be reminded to live as new citizens, citizens of heaven. New creations. 

Right, they WERE slaves to sin, but NOW they are slaves to righteousness. This is not to say that they can't turn back and become slaves of sin again. Paul warns them against yielding to sin, because if they yield to it, they are, in effect, making themselves the servants of sin. At this time they have been redeemed from it, and are slaves of rightousness. He never mentions the impossibility of their no longer being servants of righteousness, but he warns them against the very real possibility of it in the previous verse......
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
So am I to assume that you also think that this was just Paul wishing to use up his ink? This is only an empty warning? I don't think it is, I think it's a warning for us to take seriously.

Your argument did not prove what you claimed it did. It didn't prove that once we are servants of righteousness, we are always servants of righteousness.

Look at this passage....
John 3:36
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Now - if you're consistent with your thought that once a statement was made about someone's status salvically, you must conclude from this passage that everyone that was unsaved at the point that Jesus said this would stay unsaved forever, because that was their condition at that time and Jesus said that they SHALL not see life. But undoubtably, some who were lost at that point changed direction and were in fact saved eventually and they DID see life.

So, you see, you can't just say that since someone in the Bible said that a condition was in a particular state at the moment, that it would always remain in that state. It's not a provable point and there are many verses (such as the one above) that disprove it.

Hebrews

Please just take the verses I gave and explain your understanding of them. I do appreciate your taking time to comment on as many as you did, but you've ignored a few things. First off, what in the world is the author of Hebrews warning against? Who is he talking to?

He's talking to Jewish Christians to warn them not to return to the Old Jewish system that was about to fade away. Let me just recopy the text ...
Heb 3:12-14
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

First, he calls them "brethren" - Then in verse 12 he tells them "take heed......lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in DEPARTING from the Living God"
* I would love to see someone depart from something they've never been attached to, but I've never seen it yet. I have never departed from Hawaii, because I've never been to Hawaii.  These folks can't DEPART from the Living God, if they were never involved with the Living God.

In verse 14 he claims that we are made partakers of Christ "IF" we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast to the end! IF is not a long word, but it is the one that jumps out at me. If it said "because" instead of "if" - it would more or less solidify the O.S.A.S. point, but the fact is that it rest on the individual to continue in their confidence in Christ. If you don't - you are no longer in the condition that meets the requirements for His grace.

Now as far as your verse that you copied out from 1 John 2:19. This is not proof that everyone that leaves a group of Christians never were Christians. Let's look at this a little more closely though...

This is an example of a group within a particular group that were not Christians, in fact, they were opposed to Christ in their hearts. They separated from the true Church....How this came about is not said, but likely God stirred things up and they got out and took their doctrine bending teachings with them. They weren't part of the church to begin with and God removed them to show that they were not of them.

This, compared to the warnings of Hebrews, does not compare very well.
The writer of Hebrews warned the people NOT TO DEPART from the living God. The people discussed in 1 John were driven out, by God or some other means and were by no means instructed NOT TO DEPART.

Also, it would be insensible to ask them not to depart from God, since they had never run to God, but evidently the Hebrews had come to God, since they were asked not to depart from him. This seems awfully simple to me. If you are with someone, it is possible to turn and depart from that one. If you are not attached to that person, then you can't depart from what you've never approached in the first place. I still haven't heard anyone give any reasonable response to this.


2 Tim 2:11-13

Who are those who deny Christ? Those who were not saved! The other statements must be considered too. "If we died with Him, we will also live with Him." If one has been saved they WILL live with him. Those who endure and are faithful will show the evidence that they have been transformed by the Holy Spirit. If one denies Christ it is evidence that they were never born again in the first place. 

Once again - I must assume - if you are consistent, with your "wills" and "shalls" that you believe that everyone that was lost at the time that Jesus said this:  and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him, had no hope of ever being saved, since he said the "shall not see life".
By saying that if one denies Christ, it is evidence that they were never saved in the first place. (another assessment I've often heard and never seen verified). But if that's the case, you must assume that Paul considered it possible that he was never saved in the first place, and that he considered it possible that Timothy was never saved in the first place, because he said "we". Now that could include all that ever read this epistle. And I don't say that it doesn't. But, by saying 'we', it must include Paul and Timothy at the very least.


John 15

As for this passage I preached a sermon on it Here. Again, context. What does verse 16 say:

Without commenting on who chose whom, Jesus states what those he is talking to will do. They will "go and bear fruit." And their fruit will abide. Jesus is contrasting here those who are not attached to Jesus and those that are. Then he comments on His readers and their condition. They will abide. It is possible, though not for certain, that Jesus may have been alluding to Judas as to own who was not abiding. 

I know you didn't comment on "who chose whom" and that's fine, but I know where you are getting at. But just remember who he's talking to. He's talking to his 12 disciples. They are alone that this time. This is still the same conversation that began with Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ. It's still a small party.

When he says - you didn't choose me, I chose you - he's talking about his choosing of these disciples.

Now, once again, you are making a point that seems impossible to me. Jesus tells his disciples, and us as well, to abide in him (or to remain in him). You are making the assertion, that Jesus is telling them to do something that they have no choice but to do anyway. You say - once you are in Christ, you will always be in Christ - but Jesus seems to think differently, since he urges them to remain in him.

Not only that - he talks about the person that DOESN'T REMAIN in Him.
15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.
Now I know you think you can "Not remain in (Him)" and yet have never been in Him, but just the amount of mind numbing logic contortion this demands to arrive at this conclusion baffles me to see how anyone can ascribe to it.


2 Peter 2:19-21

Peter here is speaking of false teachers in the church. He calls them "Springs without water." They are spiritually dead. The water they offer is not the true and living water. All that knowing Christ did for them was to escaped "the corruption of the WORLD" that is all. But they would return to their vomit for they did not know him savingly. He says they are "Slaves to depravity." If they are slaves to sin they have not known Christ savingly. So I would choose "A" as your closest answer.

I seriously don't know how you can honestly get around this one. These indeed are false teachers, they are bringing nothing but wicked, perverse teachings to anyone that would listen. But they started out on the right track.

How can you say that a person who has never been saved has "escaped the pollutions of the world". They are described as a dog returning to his own vomit. Once we come to Christ to be renewed - he removes the old useless garbage from within us. But some choose to return to it. Remember the Hebrew slaves (incidentally, they were referred back to as an illustration of the author of Hebrews point in Hebrews 3^), how they longed for Egypt after God delivered them from slavery. That's what these people are. They went back to their vomit. They were like pigs that had been cleansed, (they weren't still dirty) but they ran right back to the mud puddle after they'd been cleansed....and now they are even worse off than before.

There is a clear illustration in the dog and the pig, but you've made it say that they were never actually cleansed and purified. Then what in the world is the meaning behind their being called 'cleansed' and how can it be said they 'escaped' the pollutions of the world?

Key to all of this is knowing that we contribute nothing to our salvation in the first place.
Christ paid the debt. We could never pay for our salvation, we could never merit our salvation by our deeds. But I disagree when you say that we do nothing to obtain our salvation. We believe and trust in Christ for our salvation. He's our only way. We can't do it, He does it for us, and asks only that we repent and follow him.
John 6:29
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

God causes us to be born again (1 Peter 1:3)
Here's the whole thing.......
1 Pet 1:3-9
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
We are kept by God's power to salvation, but our part is to continue in faith. God saves us, but our job is to believe on Him. Our faith in him is sometimes tested...(verse 7) but the final result of faith is salvation of our souls (verse 9)

and gives us the faith to believe (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Now frankly - I don't know diddly squat about Greek and so forth - so I'll let Adam Clarke answer this one for me..

Ephesians 2:8  PP1

 But whether are we to understand, faith or salvation as being the gift of God? This question is answered by the Greek text: tee gar chariti este sesoosmenoi dia tees pisteoos; kai touto ouk ex humoon; Theou to dooron, ouk ex ergoon; hina mee tis kaucheeseetai. By this grace ye are saved through faith; and THIS (touto  (grk 5124), this salvation) not of you; it is the gift of God, not of works: so that no one can boast." "The relative touto  (grk 5124), this, which is in the neuter gender, cannot stand for pistis  (grk 4102), faith, which is the feminine; but it has the whole sentence that goes before for its antecedent." But it may be asked: Is not faith the gift of God? Yes, as to the grace by which it is produced; but the grace or power to believe, and the act of believing, are two different things. Without the grace or power to believe no man ever did or can believe; but with that power the act of faith is a man's own.
Eph 2:8
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Just to briefly comment though. If you read it plainly in English, it's hard to tell whether he's saying that the salvation is not of ourselves or the faith is not of ourselves. Adam Clarke seems to think that since the gender of the words don't match up well for faith and that (which is not of ourselves) he speaks of the word: "saved". I have no problem saying that salvation is not of myself. I can't work hard enough and do enough to undo any sin I've commited that damns me, but I can choose to have faith in Christ, and He is my salvation.


God wanted us we did not what him (Romans 5:6-10.) We did not want him in the first place yet he saved us.
Right, He sent Jesus to die for our sinse while we were still sinners and enemies of His. But Jesus draws all men to Him from the Cross.
John 12:32
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
And when we hear this gospel, it is the power to awake us from the dead. It is the gospel that is the power of God to salvation....
Rom 1:16-18
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
It isn't God forcing us to follow Him, it's the goodness of God that leads us to repentance (Rom 2:4). We can accept or reject the Gospel. We can accept or reject God's calling...if we could not reject his call, what sense does this verse make...
Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
If everyone that God called were irresistably drawn to his grace, then there would be no discrpency in the amount called and the amount chosen.

 This would also mean that no one is saved (If we hold to your view).
You obviously don't know my view very well then. When we sin, we are turning down a wrong road. God deals with us to get it right. If we don't then we have yielded to sin. John said that he wrote his letter that we would not sin (1 John 2:1) but that if we did sin, we have an advocate. You are telling me that we have to sin all the time. That we are in sin every second. I don't believe that at all. I believe we can live above it. I don't think we'll be sin free until we are glorified. But I certainly don't think it has to be our master as you seem to think.

Aaron and all, 

I'm a little uneasy about jumping into this conversation at this point because of my own history in "Christian" forums when it comes down to discussing doctrine. In the past, my attitude has not always been gracious, and perhaps I will join this conversation in an effort to see how much work God has done in me since my last excursion into the forums of MySpace.

Now, I will defend my position. Aaron, I agree with you that Salvation is conditional. There is no other position that could faithfully be taken from Scripture.  The verses you mentioned use very conditional language.

That being said however, I believe from the depth of my soul that my eternity is secured in Heaven. You see, that is the Glory of the Gospel. The very conditions that God requires of us, both in the Old and New Testament, He works in His people to fulfill. Where the Ten Commandments said "Do these and live" we have now, through the imputation (transfer, reckoning) of Christ's perfect righteousness fulfilled these requirements. There really is no other way of looking at the entire Bible as one story of redemption. Any other way of approaching the Law, whether as the means of justification for the Israelites or a stepping stone for making us more fit for grace, dissolves the unity of Scripture.

The Gospel is the Righteousness that God demands from you, He gives to you to be received by faith. Even better, the faith that is required to receive it, He gives to you through regeneration (the new birth). Then, the conditions of final salvation, He preserves and works in you until the final day of your life, preserving you in the power of His Spirit.

"He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (ESV)

"For those whom He foreknew...He also glorified." (ESV) (I can take out the steps in between because that is the chain that Paul shows)

This may seem a contradiction with what I said earlier about final salvation/damnation being conditional, but that could be because there is a great disconnect between two camps on the Nature of Faith. I stand in the camp that says that faith is a gift, unconditionally granted by God on whoever He wills.

Does this mean that I don't need to believe? On the contrary! Now, I have the power and strength to take hold of my salvation, confident that it is not I that must produce faith, but the Spirit within me producing it. I take hold of that which has taken hold of me. Peter tells us to "be all the more diligent to make our calling and election sure..." (2Pet 1:10, ESV)  Paul says to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12-13; ESV) He says elsewhere that he "worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me." (1Cor 15:10)

Ultimately, Once Saved Always Saved (or I prefer, Final Preservation of the Saints), is not a call towards laziness. Quite the opposite! It is a call towards selflessly giving of yourself, giving your life towards others instead of being paralyzed into thinking that your own life is forfeit at any moment. And Unconditional Election is not a license for an unbeliever to live the way they want to, and imagine they won't be accountable for their sins. While it is the believer's gift to know their Election in this life, it is not granted to anyone to know whether or not they are Elected for Damnation. The thief on the cross, in his last breath, confirmed his own election. While there is still breath in your lungs, believe! And by believing, you confirm it was God working in you.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8)

 P.S. As with most posts, I'm sure that we are not that far off from each other. Unfortunately, our sin prevents us from using the correct words and tone to describe what we really mean. So, I look forward to your responses as a fellow partaker of grace, and ask that no one, reader or writer, forget Who brought us to the place we are in.

Peace

Barrett Young

reformedone.blogspot.com

P.S.S. Sorry, I too am in Maryland... I'm from California, if it makes you feel better.

P.S.S.S - I recommend John Piper. He is very targeted on the conditionality of salvation and the urgency of believing today.

www.desiringGod.org 

GOD'S WORD is clear on the subject of once saved always saved when we are truely opened to the Truth.  When Jesus is completely in control of our lives we can see clearly that once saved always saved is not true.  The HOLY GHOST  is our comforter and guide. As we are led by the SPIRIT,  we seek to please the LORD and not ourselves.  No longer do we seek to please ourselves.  It is so easy to make excuses and use scripture  out of context to suit your belief.  We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling according to Philippians 2:12.   James 2:14-24 is clear on faith and works.  If we have true, obedient faith in JESUS  it will produce fruitful works for GOD'S KINGDOM .  As long as we are walking in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.  The word "if' is so important.  If we are walking in the light all is well,  but what if we're not.  GOD does not have a double standard.  He expects obedience.  It is not something that is impossible,  but is very much possible to those who truly love GOD.