ChristiansUnite Forums

Vote, and then explain.[/size]

We can't lose what is not ours. Salvation is of the Lord as we are competely incapable of either saving, or keeping ourselves saved. It is God's grace alone from start to finish- not by the will of man, nor of flesh, but of God.

aw

Christians can never lose the gift of God, becausae; the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (Rom 11:29)


Blessings,
Petro

Dear Mr 5020

       No, we cannot lose our salvation.  In the Bible, Jesus made a promise that He would never lose us.  If we can somehow walk away from our salvation, then Jesus failed and if He denied us, then He lied.
       Eternal security is eternal life, a free gift to us bought for by blood.  He died once and for all, for our sins so that we can have this gift in which previously there was no grace but by the Law of Moses that must be kept perfectly and not fall once.  In John 1:17, it says it all:

"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

agur

Absolutely true and not only did He pray in John 17, "Holy Father KEEP them...," but also He ever liveth to make intercession for us. I think the Son of God has His prayers answered.

aw

There are many, many reasons that a believer cannot lose their salvation.  But for me, the most comforting one of all is...


I used this passage to explain the same concept to my newly regenerated five year old daughter when she asked this question.  I took one of her toy people and held it in my hand.  I told her to try and take it from me, which she could not, obviously do.  Then I read "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand." Then I took my other hand, and put it over the one holding the toy person.  I told her to try now.  And again, she was unable to take the toy.  Then I read "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." To me, this is the picture that passage portrays.  Now, if no one can take us out of that hold...can I?  This brings new life to Paul's message at the end of Romans chapter 8...


 :)

That is assurance enough and I fail to see how anyone could honestly accept the Arminian view of CONDITIONAL salvation or that we cna VOLUNTARILY reject Him and forfeit salvation.

A person would have to be totally insane and God would either cure him or bring him home prematurely. IMHO.

aw

Hebrews 6:4-6 is an old Arminian view that fails in its attempts at refuting eternal security. There are several facts that illuminate this, but the most obvious is verse 9 which related to "better things" and SALVATION. It is not speaking OF or TO believers who have received eternal life.

aw

Absolutely not. God is the saver and God is the keeper.

(EPH-2:8, 9)8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

First of all, I agree that the passage you posted deals directly with the believer.  I do not however, believe that it is in reference to salvific repentance or salvation.  Explain to me how the writer of Hebrews would spend the entire book expressing the complete and sufficient sacrifice of Christ "once for all" and throw in the middle that regardless of how sufficient and complete that sacrifice is, one can still lose the salvation such a sacrifice provided?  Let's look at this contextually for a minute:


Preceded by this passage is:


Many equate this to a salvific sense.  However, to do so, you must throw dispensational theology out the door, and apply New Testament theology to Old Testament revelation.  Not to mention, you must spiritualize the rest spoken of here.  Contextually, that rest was the rest of victoriously possessing the land God had given the Hebrew people.  It was as direct promise of possession, not position.  The Hebrews weren't saved once they inhabited, possessed and conquered the land.  Simply put, the author of Hebrews uses this example for the New Testament Hebrew believer to understand.  They died in the wilderness, defeated by their own disbelief.  They did not die unsaved, or at least that is not what the Old Testament shows us.  It was about the land - not our Lord.

Now that I've ranted for awhile, perhaps I can tie it in with my point.  The author goes on after setting the illustrative groundwork in chapter 3 of a defeated people, not lost, defeated, by stating:


He reiterates his point, by using the Old Testament illustration ("these things were written for our ensample...") to apply the New Testament understanding.  If you are struggling with disbelief - SIN, because disbelief is at the heart of every sin - then do not be hardened when?  When God gives repentance (Hebrews 6:4-6).

CONTINUED

CONTINUED

Remember, the author is writing to Hebrews, using a direct passage in the Old Testament to illustrate a specific circumstance, by which he might bring them to understand the necessity of living victoriously.  He goes on in Hebrews 4...


It amazes me how often we miss the latter part of this chapter.  If this speaks of salvation, and how we, as lost sinners, can come boldly to God to find grace and obtain mercy to help us get saved...why does God say "Repentance is of the Lord"?  To say that this is in regards to salvation is to say that we can freely come to God whenever we chose, and is in direct disagreement with what God has already said.  "Repentance is of the Lord."

However, if this does not speak of salvation, but rather of living victoriously over the sins we involve ourselves in, which at their very heart lies disbelief, then how much more applicable is this passage?  Consider, "Let us labor to enter into that rest...", as the rest of victorious belief, what might we need to help us in that labor?  "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."  Moreover, "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.  Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."  We have a High Priest in Jesus Who not only knows what the struggle is like, but also endured the same struggle..."yet without sin."  So come!  Come boldly to find the grace and get the mercy needed to live such a life as the One Who died in our place.

So then we come to the passage in Hebrews 6.  If a believer refuses to repent - remember "harden not your hearts as in the day of provocation" - then he basically says that Jesus isn't good enough for him!  He wants his way, not God's.  

Now, is this even possible?  Step out of the boundaries of scripture to the realm of observation for a minute.  How many of us can name people we swore were saved, who have left church, home and God to pursue their own desires?  We automatically call them lost!  But what if they aren't?  I have a personal understanding of this as I was just such a person.  I wasn't lost.  I didn't get saved again.  I know, as I knew Whom I have believed and am, as was, persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that day!  I am saved.  By Him, not by me, my obedience to His commands, or any other thing.  I am saved by the blood of the High Priest Who gave it for my atonement, once, for all.  For me!  I don't normally use such illustrations, but I don't believe this illustration to be in disagreement with God's word.  I'll be happy to explain further if need be.

If such a believer refuses to follow Jesus, then it is impossible to call him to repentance again.  How so?  If Jesus isn't good enough for him now, the only way He would be is for him to come to that same moment when Jesus was good enough for him.  Jesus died once for all.  He'll not be crucified again for such a believer.  He's lost his chance for repentance - not his salvation.  What might not be good enough for him, IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOD as the rest of the book of Hebrews teaches.  Praise God!

I agree, God is the keeper.

The Crusader

Yes, we are saved by grace, a free gift of God.  How?  Through our faith, a free will choice we make to believe in Jesus in all His roles.  That means not just as sacrificial lamb but as shepherd too, to name just a few.  But what type of faith is acceptable as a means to accept the free gift.  A living faith, one that is accompanied by works.  Not the dead type of faith the demons have which is a faith alone.  Now we could get into the chicken and the egg argumennt about which comes first, faith or works, but it is clear that faith alone cannot save it must be perfected and made alive through works.  So tell me if faith comes first how long can it exist without works before it is a dead faith?  A day, and hour, a microsecond?  I contend that works actually preceed faith because before you can believe you must repent and repentance (which comes from a military term meaning about-face) is a turning of your life around.  So how does this relate to losing your salvation?  It is because you must hold on to the free gift by keeping your faith alive through all the trials and temptations of life.  Else when God ask you what you did with that free gift you will have to answer  - I threw it away.

If you don't interpret Eph 2:8-9 correctly you don't understand how salvation is obtained and so of course you won't be able to interpret correctly the idea of assurance of salvation.

What is this strange doctrine? Are you a Roman Catholic?
I hope not.


The Crusader

Why do you believe that?  Not that I am opposed to throwing out dispensational theology if it doesn’t fit with scripture.


But that rest was not never-ending and they could certainly lose that rest as they eventually did, just as we can lose ours.


But a people who are defeated are lost as long as they remain defeated.  Israel was not lost because although they were defeated many times they always came back to the Lord.  I am not saying you cannot get your salvation back (except in a specific, extreme case which I have not brought up yet).  God doesn’t give up on us even after we give up on Him, but we must repent and come back like the prodigal son or we will be lost.

END OF PART1 (please note that I may not have split my response in the same place your posts were split - hope this doesn't confuse too much)

PART 2

There is a lot here but here goes.  These verses start out by warning that although the gift/promise is there for the taking we can come short of getting that rest. They go on to show the necessity of faith claiming that a rest awaits those who have faith.  But this of course means not a dead faith but a true living faith, one that must be accompanied by works.  So the rest spoken of here is a rest from trying to fulfill the letter of the law as an attempt to merit salvation.  It then ends with the encouragement to labor/work to enter into that rest.  All along we see the importance of works in unison with faith to accept the promised gift of salvation and that means the gift is only finally assured after we have endured.


Yes and man still sins even after accepting the free gift.  So if disbelief is at the heart of all sin then man still struggles with disbelief, and a lack of a perfect faith even after initial acceptance of the free gift.  If he does good works he trys to perfect that faith, if he does not, he risks losing that faith or letting it die and thus loses his salvation.


Here too we see the verses end with a reminder that we have a source of grace to help us through our times of trial and temptation, which would be completely unnecessary if we could not lose our salvation.


And why do you believe we cannot come to God whenever we choose, once the first gift of sufficient grace is offered.  I agree that initially man cannot seek God, but once the gift of grace has been offered we can.



But if we interpret these passages this way we must also interpret the earlier verse to be saying it is possible to be once enlightened, and to have tasted of the heavenly gift, and to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and to have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and still not have been saved!  Or at the very least to be a true believer and that true belief (as I think you claim below) is not enough for salvation.  I cannot agree with either position, they just don't make sense.  Am I misunderstanding you?


I appreciate your observation but I do not accept personal experience for a basis to build a doctrine on.  We are too easily fooled by our environment.  This is a philosophical position I am taking and not a comment on your own story.

Be that as it may I need to ask the following question.  As I alluded to above, how does this approach NOT require more than true belief to accept the gift of salvation and if more is needed what is it?  If it is works (not to merit salvation but to keep faith alive) then we are back to risking losing our salvation when our works fail and thus faith dies.

michael, of course!

free will + works = salvation - sin = loss of salvation + repent = salvation - sin = loss of salvation + repent = saved again ,

and round and round we go....where we stop nobody knows.

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Eternal life implys precisely that.

Jesus said;

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

michael are you one of HIS sheep??

Petro

Yes, I am a Roman Catholic and it is far from a strange doctrine.  It is the doctrine taught throughout all of Christendom for the first 1500 years of Christianity.  That is why you find the very same belief among the Christians evangelized in India by the Apostle who went there as you find among the Greek Orthodox as you find in the Catholic Church.  But the true test of any doctrine is how well it agrees with scripture and there is not one verse that cannot be reconciled to this doctrine once you interpret it correctly in light of all other scriptures.  You claim it is strange show me, because I claim your simple interpretation of Eph 2:8-9 is wrong in light of the rest of scripture.

Your crude formulas show you to be as innumerate, as your poor understanding of grammar, has shown you to be illiterate.  The proper formulation should be grace + freewill = faith + works = salvation etc.

I will admit that even though you got the formula wrong (after all this time discussing it) you still see the underlying issue.  Yes salvation is a process, one that we must endure to maintain to the end and I have shown you plenty of scripture to make this clear.  Scripture you have had no answer for except to fall back to dragging up your standard verses.  With these verses you have attempted to show my interpretation cannot be the right one as it disagrees with your interpretation of the view verses which appear to deny freewill.  Your failing comes from the fact that you never offer an alternative interpretation for mine.  In affect you revert to verse slinging, because you cannot reconcile the verses I present with the ones you rely upon.  I hope someday you can see that interpretations that cannot be made to fit all scripture are incomplete.  No incomplete theology can possibly be correct.


Yes, faith does need to hear the word of God to come into existence.  But, please for a moment, think like an adult,  ask yourself why is this required.  If God was simply forcing Himself on us we would not have to hear the word of God to have faith.  We must hear the word of God because we judge what truth is for ourselves.  Not always rightly judging, but we judge none the less.  This judgment is our freewill in action.  Without freewill and with faith as the gift as you propose, there is no need to hear the word of God.    Again a verse of your own choosing has betrayed you.  But if your past behavior is any indicator, I know you will simply ignore it and fail to offer an alternative interpretation because it can’t be made to fit in with the 20 or so verses you build your doctrine around.


Yes once we have endured and achieved salvation we will have life eternally.  But we don’t achieve salvation with one simple decision at an altar call and it isn’t forced on us, we gain salvation through a proper acceptance of the gift through a living faith.


I am one of His sheep.  Does that mean that I never stray?  No.

Petro, are you one of His sheep – do you follow Him?  Do you obey the Gospel? Have you ever strayed?  Do you yet sin?  If you do not have freewill doesn’t that sin make God the author of that sin?  

michael,


Jesus said;

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.



Why do you not believe HIS WORD, then??


Stray from what?

If you do not believe Jesus, you do not belong to Him
according to the Word.

Only those who possess His Spirit belong to Him;

Rom 8
9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Do you possess HIS Spirit??,

Does His Spirit DWELL in you??  

You are hard pressed to prove this, since you deny His own WORDS spoken in obedience to the Father, He is that prophet spoken of at Deut 18:17-19.  God will judge you for what you did with His Words spoken by Jesus that prophet.

If you do have His Spirit;

WHY DON"T YOU BELIEVE HIM??  As you say proof is in the pudding of what one believes in relation to doctrine taught by scripture??




YES, and YES.


You mean, have I obeyed the Gospel,

(see Isa 45:21-22, God Commands all ,to look upon Him, and be saved because He is the only God that saves.)

I declare to you that I am SAVED, and I possess His Spirit.


Define your word strayed??


I am resigned to being a sinner the rest of my days because I know that I am made from the dust of this sin cursed earth, and I do transgress Gods law...


You would have me believe this, is the truth, but it isn't,  aside from the verse I have shared with you, above many times; the word assures me that inspite of many ( a multitude of sins) offenses  I will be Justified in the because He keeps me in His hand, not having my own righteousness but that which is imputed, so as you can see I do not trust in what I do, but what He has done and will continue to do for me.


For it He who Works in me, to Will and to do of His good pleasure...

Can you say this about your Savior??

Blessings,
Petro

No Petro it is you in who I cannot place my trust.  You come up with doctrines that can only be derived by implication from such bizarre interpretations that you yourself are afraid to utter them.  That is what I use logic to test and prove faulty.  That is not placing logic above all - it is placing logic above you.  I am sorry if that offends your pride.

As for your question I have answered it a number of times but you never read the posts carefully enough to see it.  Yes, I have the spirit of Christ in me.  I claim that Jesus is the Lord and no one can do that without the Spirit (1 Cor 12:3)  I do not claim as you do.  But we both know that is just another red herring of yours ducking the real issue between us because you have no answer to support your doctrine.  just because someone has the spirit now doesnot mean they will always have it.

It is not things of God i cannot accept without logic, it is your doctrine, which is not the things of God.  I cannot, and no one should, accept men's interpretation or doctrines unless they make sense from scripture.  Since your doctrine has failed that time and time again you attack a strawman (logic) to avoid the real accuser the scriptures themselves.  

Even these past few posts by you have been nothing but ad hominem attacks because you have used up your few verses that support your position and each have been shown to be lacking.  Having nothing left you had to admit defeat or attack people personally, so you choose the latter.

michael,

I am praying for you, it is important for you to pray for yopurself and wisdom from above, and not trust in the wisdom of this world.

Claiming to know god, won't get known by God.

Blessings,
petro

Michael,

Upon who does my salvation depend?

It depends first and foremost on God offering the free gift of salvation, through His death on the cross and the message of the Gospel removing the requirement of fulfilling the letter of the law unto death, allowing us instead to respond with love fulfilling the spirit of the law unto life.  If He did not love us first and offer the gift nothing we could do would save us.

But it also depends on us cooperating with that grace through our freewill choice to have a living faith comprised of believing in Jesus as the Son of God in His role as sacrificial lamb and equally important His role as shepherd, so that we take up our cross and follow Him.  Through following Him and obeying the Gospel we add works of love to our faith keeping it alive and perfecting it.  Without those works our faith is nothing more than that mental ascent the demons possess and tremble over.

So then my salvation is dependent upon me to some degree?

Yes, Crusader, Michael is a Roman Catholic and so provides us with the Catholic interpretation of saving faith.

Michael:

You are partly right and partly wrong, which means the Catholic interpretation of being saved by grace is wholly wrong.

Here's what the Bible actually teaches in Eph. 2:8-9:

1. All are sinners and all need to be saved.
2. All sinners need to (1) believe (2) repent and (3) receive, none of which is a "good work" but simply an honest response to the Gospel
3. Saving faith comes by [spiritual] "hearing" and hearing by the Word of God -- when the genuine Gospel is preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, men and women believe that (1) they are sinners (2) Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and that Christ died for their sins (3) Christ rose again for their justification (4) if they repent of their sins and "call upon the name of the Lord" they shall be saved.
4. When a sinner receives Christ as both Lord and Saviour, God saves that sinner by His grace, and gives him or her the gift of eternal life, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the gift of Christ within, the gift of God within!
5. Good works follow as a result of the new birth, but no good works whatsoever and no penance can merit our salvation. The ultimate "good work" was done by Christ Himself and that is sufficient for God the Father.
6. Our redemption was purchased on the cross by the blood of Christ, by the offering up of His body and His soul "an offering for sin", and therefore His righteousness is given to us as a gift --"the robe of righteousness".
7. This is imputed righteousness, and therefore God can justly declare us "NOT GUILTY" and "RIGHTEOUS -- AS PERFECT AS CHRIST". It was on the basis of imputed righteousness that the repentant criminal on the cross beside Christ went to "Paradise" with Christ.
8. It is not for us to "keep our faith alive" but simply believe that "Christ in us is the hope of glory", and that it is "God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure".
9. We cannot "lose" our salvation because "GOD IS OUR SALVATION" (that is what the name "Jesus" means) and we become His children for all eternity. That's what the "gift of eternal life" means (Jn. 3:16).

Yes, man plays a role in his own salvation.  We are not under deterministic predestination, we have a free will we can choose not to be saved.  We can reject the free gift.  The Israelites missed it when Christ came and they failed to see their Messiah.

I agree with all of the scriptures you quote, but I am sure I don't agree with your man's intepretation of them.  

Please provide your interpretation so we can see your doctrine in the light of day and we will see which interpretation fits with these and all scriptures better.

I had the courage to provide my doctrine for open examination, I only ask the same courage of you.

I think that's what they all wanted you to say.[/size]

Then we must through out, or spiritualize...


The role I play is one of obedience to God's calling.  I do believe that I play that role.  


We are under predestination, or we must through out or spiritualize...


But we do have the choice to obey that call.  If we chose not to obey, then we have said no to the repentance that comes from God.  When God says "Repent," we have said "No."


Yup!


Yuuuuup!   ;D

Michael:

Since you ask, let's revisit Ephesians 2:8,9 comparing Scripture with Scripture, and interpret this important verse:

1. WE ARE SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE
"For by GRACE are ye saved..." This corresponds to Titus 3:4-7, where:
a) Grace is defined as "THE KINDNESS AND LOVE OF GOD OUR SAVIOUR TOWARD MAN" (Tit. 3:4).
b) Grace is also defined as "HIS MERCY" --- "ACCORDING TO HIS MERCY HE SAVED US" (Tit. 3:5)
c) Grace is also given as the basis of our justification (Tit.3:7) "THAT BEING JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE WE SHOULD BE MADE HEIRS"

2. WE ARE SAVED THROUGH FAITH
"...through faith...not of works lest any man should boast"
This again corresponds to Titus 3:4-7 where:
NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE HAVE DONE (Tit. 3:5) explains the contrast between salvation through faith and salvation by good works. Saving faith is (1) believing God (2) believing what God has said about His Son (3) believing that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Son of God (4) belieiving that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures for our justification (5) belieivng that when God says we are all sinners on our way to hell, it is absolutely true (6) believing that all our "righteousnesses" [good works] are as filthy rags in God's sight (7) believing that the Lamb of God did indeed take away all of my sins through the offering of Himself and the shedding of His blood (8) believing that God will give us the gift of eternal life -- (the gift of his Son, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the gift of Himself) if we will only repent [turn from our sins and idols and turn to the living God] and simply "call upon His name" -- "Lord Jesus, be merciful to me a sinner and save my soul from hell. I receive you as my Lord and Saviour right now.  Thank you Lord for saving my soul, thank you Lord for making me whole, thank you Lord for giving to me thy great salvation -- so rich and free!".

3. WE ARE SAVED BY GOD SUPERNATURALLY
..."and that not of yourselves..."
Again, we learn from Titus 3:4-7 is that salvation is a supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit in bringing about the new birth [regeneration]: "BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION AND THE RENEWING OF THE HOLY GHOST" (Tit. 3:5). Water cannot wash our souls, only cleansing by the blood of Christ and the "washing" or experience of the new birth, without which we cannot see or enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:1-12).

4. SALVATION IS TOTALLY GOD'S GIFT
"...it is the gift of God..."
Again this corresponds to Titus 3:4-7, where we read:
"WHICH HE SHED ON US ABUNDANTLY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR...[THAT] WE SHOULD BE MADE HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE HOPE [PROMISE] OF ETERNAL LIFE" (Tit. 3:6,7).  We know that eternal life is both a hope and a promise since we are still in our mortal bodies awaiting the resurrection or the rapture of the saints [believers]. God could give us sinners the gift of eternal life because Christ cancelled the sin-debt and abolished the enmity between God and mankind through Calvary. That is why He has "sealed" each one of His saints with the indwelling Holy Spirit of promise(Eph.1:13).

Now please confirm that this is exactly what Scripture teaches throughout, and therefore you will believe it regardless of what you have been indoctrinated with.

I believe that we will not be snatched from the Father's hand, but if we speak blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the Bible says that we will not be forgiven, which ultimately means no salvation.

I agree.

The Crusader

Wouldn't that be like then saying that by works you are saved? Because you aren't saved by works.

Thats what michael, believes he is one of those Roman Catholics, he believes free will + works = salvation - sin = loss of salvation + repent = salvation - sin = loss of salvation + repent = saved again ,

Petro and myself dont.

The Crusader

If you have read the posts between Petro and I you know this not to be true and that makes you out to be a liar!

I corrected Petro when he presented his little formula and have made it clear through my posts that I do not hold to earning your salvation through works and the Catholic Church does not teach that.

I am willing to assume you just haven't kept up with the posts between Petro and I and so this is an innocent mistake.  But you need to be careful repeating things from one person and then crediting them to another.  That formula came from Petro and was corrected by me.  The correct formula if you want to try to put the process of salvation into one is
grace + freewill = faith + works = salvation - sin = loss of salvation + repentance = salvation etc. as long as you remain man and therefore sin and as long as you endure and therefore continue to repent.  

Show me a scripture that when properly interpreted disagrees with that doctrine.

Hi there!

Once you are redeemed, you might break the fellowship, but you can't break the relationship.




John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:  
John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  


When you are born "of God" and as "sons of God"; if, for whatever reason you break your fellowship with God, it doesn't change the fact that God is still your spiritual parent, as you remain eternally "of God".


~serapha~

michael,

You never corrected anything.

According to your formula, you say men can will themselves to be born of God.

Of course if they sin, they then unwill themselves to be sons of God.

I just wonder what seed is it the produces this, the bible makes it clear the seed which is the word of God, is what produces the will of God concerning the new birth of His elect.


Sorry charlie......no cigar for you...


Blessings anyhow,

Petro

Forgive me - I’m a newbie – but I must interject.
You guys argue WAY too much, and you make this WAY too hard.  Jesus said His yoke is easy!  If you really (really, really REALLY) believe that Jesus is who He says he is – that he was born of a virgin, that He is God incarnate, and if you believe in Him and have invited Him into your heart, - then you are saved!  Salvation is a GIFT.  If God gives us something – Is he going to take it back?  
Jesus died for ALL sins – including ours – us – who are by man’s calendar WAY in the future of His incarnate being and His crucifixion.  He died for sins that were in the future as well as in the past.  ALL is ALL.  He died for ALL of our sins.
Boys and girls (I can say that - I'm old) – I don’t care if you are Baptist, Methodist, Catholic or “decline to state” – if Jesus is REALLY in your heart, then you ARE saved.  HE says so!  That is His promise!  How wonderful is that???!  Do I have to list scores of Bible verses?  NO!  If you believe, you know it is true!
Period.  The end.  Amen.  Praise be to the Lord!

Praise you Jesus – for You said whoever believes you are Lord and publicly acknowledges You, they will not die but receive everlasting life…

paquita, You say
“I believe that we will not be snatched from the Father's hand, but if we speak blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the Bible says that we will not be forgiven, which ultimately means no salvation.”

Paquita – please study more closely who Jesus was speaking to.  In context, that is a burden impossible for sinful man (you and me and Billy Graham and the pope) to endure!  That was spoken by Jesus in an entirely different context!  Jesus was speaking to and about the Pharisees who spoke against Him while He was in their midst and REFUSED to believe.  They saw the Lord, they saw his miracles, they heard Him teach and they still had a cold heart – THAT was the blasphemy about which Jesus spoke – not the person who, in a drunken or angry stupor curses the spirit of the Lord!  

Hey - Even Thomas didn’t believe until he felt the holes in the Lord’s hands!

Bottom line?  The Lord will judge who is and isn’t saved – we can debate it until He comes for us – it is still His call.

I love all of you – each and every one.  Happy New Year!  

I agree we are predestine, I just disagree with some people's understanding of predestination.  It is not a deterministic predestination which requires a loss of free will as some claim or a predestination that is in some way limiting on the mercy of God, as He wants all to come to the knowledge and be saved.  Predestination says more about God and His infinite knowledge than it says about us and our inability to respond to grace.

No it is not like saying you are saved by works.

Salvation is a free gift.  There is no amount of works or faith that can save us.  If the gift is not offered freely by God through His grace we cannot be saved.  So we are saved by6 grace.

We must accept the free gift though, God does not force Himself on us.  The scriptures tell us that we accept the gift through a living faith, not a dead on like the demons have.  What is the difference between a living faith and a dead one?  One is accompanied by works and the other is not.  Faith alone is without works, so it is dead.  Works perfect and enliven our faith and perfect it, so they are mandatory for proper acceptance of the gift.  

Every place in scripture that speaks against works, speaks against using works to attempt to fulfill the letter of the law to make God owe us salvation.  That is not possible.  But Jesus showed us that we can fulfill the spirit of the law.  Love fulfills the law, so works of love fulfill the spirit of the law and thus lead to life.  Even then we do not merit salvation, faith to move mountains and works that completely fulfill the spirit of the law stillwould not merit us salvation because they are so puny in comparison to what God deserves.  Salvation is a free gift and faith and works are just our way of accepting, cherishing and holding on to it.

The prodigal son was still the son of the Father but he had squndered His inheritance.  If He had not repented and turned his life around returning to the Father he would have been lost to the family.  

Yes if we break the fellowship with God we are still His son's but we will be missed.

Sorry but you make it way to simple.  The Gospel makes it clear that to truly beleive in Jesus we must do more than accept Christ as our sacrificial lamb.  We must also accept Him
in all His roles, including shepherd, we must take up our cross and follow Him, we must obey the Gospel.  The simplistic altar call approach to Christianity is what is being debated here and I hope if you follow along you will learn the error of it.


No He won't take it back but we can throw it away.


But He is not in your heart unless you believe the right things, that implies understanding and that is only achieved through knowledge of the scriptures.  He who is ignorant of the Gospel is ignorant of Christ.

I most certainly did.  You presented a formula you claimed represented my position.  I provided a different formula that more correctly presented my position.  That is what it means to be corrected Petro.  You should be more careful when you tell untruths as anyone who is interested can go back through the posts and see that is what happened.

I agree with your assessment of Grace, for this aspect of salvation though Grace is more than this.  The term grace is also used to express the power of God within us and we can grow in Grace, meaning we can have more grace available to us as God chooses to use us more completely as a vessel of honor.  But these ideas are not relevant to this discussion.


This is the error all Protestants make and your own grammar betrays you.  Ephesians isn’t contrasting works and faith it is contrasting works and grace.  See the use of BY and THROUGH.  Ephesians says - We are “saved by grace”, “not of works” (OF here means BY) and I agree.   It also says we are saved “through faith”, but the verse does not say that we are not saved through works.  OF means BY not THROUGH, that is the mistake in grammar Protestants have always made using this verse to support faith alone.   Ephesians doesn’t teach that faith saves us alone, Ephesians teaches that grace saves us alone.  James supports this when he says in James 2:14  14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?  James is showing us that having pride in faith is no better than having pride in our works as if we could make God owe us salvation because our faith is so strong.  It doesn’t work that way.  We are saved by grace.

Once you catch that distinction you see that faith and works could be operating together to accept the free gift.  The last piece of the puzzle is to see that when Ephesians is talking about being saved THROUGH faith it is certainly talking about a living faith not a dead one, as discussed in James.  James 2:19-20  19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?  Then you see that faith and works are inseparable.  

Even Titus shows this if you go far enough (just a couple more verses)  Titus 3:8 8This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.


First we need to be clear on the term.  Saving faith is just that form of faith which is of the proper type to accept the free gift.  Faith does not save, grace saves.  Secondly, what you laided out above is an incomplete picture of what is necessary for a true "saving faith" or true set of beliefs.
 
It is also, believing everything Christ taught us in the Gospel, the whole Gospel not just the easy parts. (2 Cor 4:3)

It is also accepting/believing in Christ in all His roles including His role as shepherd and so following Him. (Jn 10:27)

It is also obeying the Gospel.  (2 Th 1:8 and 1 Pt 4:17)

Without these and other items I could delineate you are not saved, because you have not accepted the gift properly.

Also you need to recognize that your point 6 is referring to our works in an attempt to merit salvation through adherence to the letter of the law.  Christ showed us that, that was impossible, but He also showed us that fulfilling the spirit of the law was not impossible.  By cooperating with the free grace from God we can love God and one another and do works of God that are pleasing to Him and fulfill the spirit of the law.


I agree that Grace is given to us supernaturally, that it must occur first and outside of any agency of man for us to be saved.  I also believe that salvation is totally God’s gift.  But we must accept it, we have a free will choice in this and God does not force Himself on us.  Nothing in Titus 3:4-7 or Ephesians 2:8-9 teach anything different.


I do confirm that scriptures teach most of what you interpret them to be saying but not all of your interpretation was correct as I showed above.  But the scriptures teach a lot more than that too.  Salvation is not a simple one time decision, it is a process as the rest of scripture shows.  Otherwise the Gospel could have been written on a 3 by 5 card.

I am sorry to say that JudgeNot had it correct entirely.

Salvation is a gift freely given by God.  Once accepted it cannot be given back.  

Salvation:
Source:
Eph 2:5 "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)"
Eph 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"

So we see that salvation is a free gift given by the grace of God.

Rom 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord"

Again reitterance that salvation is not only a free gift but it is eternal life.

Eph 1:13 "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation - having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise"

Here Paul states that once we have believed in the gosple of salvation we are sealed in God...sealed meaning to not be opened...thus we are not leaving.

It has also been quoted what Jesus had to say about being in the hands of God...and that no man (and we are mere men) can pluck us from Gods hands.

I am reminded of the parable of the house built on sand in which Jesus is warning of false prophets who come judgement day would say  "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" (Matt 7:22)  And Jesus replies (Matt 7:23) "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity"

Again obviously a statement that no matter how good the works are if there is not belief and faith in Jesus they do not get salvation.

It is teached throughout the Bible that we are saved through the grace of God.  That Salvation is a gift freely given upon the asking.  And it is also taught that we cannot lose our salvation.  What is also taught is that our rewards in heaven will be based upon our works.
Matt 16:27 "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

We are taught that as children of God our works and deeds should be for His glory and not our own.  This is as Jesus had done and is told in John 10:25 "I told you, and ye believed not the works that I do in my Fathers name, they bear witness of me"
And the parables of how we, as followers of Christ, are to be a beacon of light on the hill for all to see.  The works we do should glorify God and our actions should show that we have faith in God.  And with faith good works shall follow.  However there is much more evidence in the Bible to suggest that once saved, always saved and that our salvation is sealed with God.  That does not mean that we cannot or will no longer sin, for we are men and Satan tempts us continually.  But as Jesus said himself we shall be rewarded in heaven based upon our works on earth.

No one is arguing that.


This is that part that cannot be defended without interpreting verses so they end up contrary to other scriptures.


Yes, but that is not all it says.  We have been all over this verse, read some of the other posts for the full analysis, but the main thrust is that this verse says salvation is a free gift, offered by God's grace not due to any works we have completed in an effort to fulfill the law and thus merit salvation.  It goes on in the middle clause to say that this free gift is accepted through faith, but of course to be consistent with James this must be refering to a living faith not a dead one such as the demons have and that living faith must have works inherently linked to it.  Works of love fulfilling the law, not works of the letter of the law which onlyu lead to death but works of the spirit of the law that lead to life.


But notice even here the gift is in Christ, meaning we must beleive in Him to accept the gift.  So it is not without an act on our part, that act being a true faith in Jesus.  But what does that mean?  If you truly believe in Jesus Christ you must do more than accept him as sacrificial lamb.  You must accept Him as shepherd and follow Him.  You must accept all His teachings.  You must obey the Gospel.  See it is impossible to believe in Jesus Christ without works.  Again these are works of the spirit of the law not the letter, works of love as He commanded us.  Finally you must look to when that salvation is attained by man.  It is not at the moment of initial acceptance of the idea of Christ as savior it is once we have endured.  neither you or I are saved now, we are saved ionce we have endured.  Then and only then are we given eternal life and yes then it is eternal.


That is your definition of sealed but I will provide a list of scriptures that this definition of sealed is going to be in direct contradiction to.  Feel free to provide me with alternative interpretations if you can to fit them in your once saved always saved doctrine.  Based on how long this reply is getting look for this list of scriptures in my next 3 posts.


We are not plucking ourselves from His hand we are jumping clear.  God is not going to force us to love Him.  If we want to leave we will be able to.  If we cannot accept God prior to the offering of Grace, then satan cannot deceive us at that time since we are already deceived.  If once we accept Grace and are saved right then and there and can never lose that salvation then satan cannot deceive us then either.  Yet satan is called the great deceiver, I wonder why that is under your interpretation?


You are of course telling only half the story because the other half taken together with this disproves your point and proves mine.  He is speaking to those who tried to merit salvation by doing works of the letter of the law.  No matter hwo great those works are they do not fulfill the law.  But those who did works of love, kindness and mercy were acknowledged and acheived salvation.  Notice to when it (salvation) was given to them.  in that day refers to the judgement day, that is when we are saved - not at some altar call or one time decision point.  it is at the end after we have endured.


Actually it is also a statement that no matter how great thier faith was with out works of mercy and love they do not get salvation.  Notice that those who were condemned did things requiring great faith, casting out demons and prophesying.  no without works to keep faith alive it becomes a dead thing unacceptable to God as mode of our acceptance of the free gift.  


I agree with the first part but the last part is only your interpretation.  I will show is my next post where it is taught all over the Bible that we can lose our salvation and none of the verses you have choosen so far prove that we cannot.


Yes, good works will follow but they must also precede faith.  Repentance must occur before we can have faith and repentance is a turning around of ones life that is kindled by the free gift of grace.  That turning around accomplished by cooperating with God's grace is a work of man.


Show me these verses.  I am going to show you ones that prove the contrary.

The idea that you can not lose your salvation doesn’t seem to jive with the following scriptures.

Heb 6:3-6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

In this first case we see where someone who was once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift (saved) falls away  - and crucifies the Son of God afresh (loses their salvation)  may not be saved again.

and

James 5:19-20

19Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; 20Let 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.

In this second verse we see one brother (someone saved) saving another brother (who is also saved) from a minor error and saves his souls from death (the loss of salvation)

Even Peter was subject to being led astray away from the truth to his demise as seen in:

Luke 22:31-32   31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

This was after Peter’s famous confession of the identity of Jesus as the Christ so one must assume he was saved at this point, and yet her Christ is concerned enough to pray for him that his faith would not fail.  

In fact Christ makes a point of saying that not one of those given to Him were lost for example in:

John 17:11-15  11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

Well if there was no chance of losing salvation this would be much of an accomplishment now would it?  He goes on to ask that they be not be taken out of the world but be kept from evil.

and what about the case of:

Matt 12:31 "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men"

It also seems clear that you could lose your salvation through blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; as it is an unforgivable sin.  If you are not already saved before you blaspheme, then not being able to be forgiven for it, places a limit on the redemptive power of Christ’s sacrifice, something most Christians are unwilling to do.  So this must apply to someone already saved and then blaspheming thereby losing their salvation.

But even in cases less radical than that, I believe you can lose you salvation through sinning unrepentantly such as in:

2 Peter 2:20-21 20For 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. 21For 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.

In fact people find themselves in a worse state to have been saved and fallen again, then to not have been saved yet at all as in:

Mt 12:43-45 says "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation."

END OF PART 1

PART 2

and consider:

Romans 11
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 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.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Here we see the warning to the Church that has been grafted in (given the gift of salvation as heirs with His chosen people) that we can be cut off as well (just as the natural branches were not spared) if we do not continue in His goodness.


More over there are so many references to Christians being exhorted to keep the faith that directly relate to salvation as I will outline below:

first see:

1 Corinthians 15:1-2
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;  2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Here we see we are saved IF we keep in memory the gospel.

consider also:

1 John 2:24 "Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father."

This makes it clear that if you hold the Word truely in your heart you are saved. But it must remain there! - for it not to remain there means there is the possibility of losing it and your salvation along with it.

and similarly we see the need to hold fast to our faith in:

2 Peter 3:17,18 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

and

Heb. 2:1-3 1Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.  2For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; 3How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

This verse clearly states that our salvation must not be neglected, something that would not be a requirement if we could not lose our salvation.

and

Colossians 1:21-23
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled  22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:  23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard,...

Here we see an exhortation to remain in the faith and not move away from the gospel.

and

Hebrews 3
1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,...
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;

Here the holy brethern are warned against departing from the living God and promised that we will be partakers of Christ IF we hold stedfast – clearly meaning that it is possible to not hold steadfastly and thus lose our salvation.

and

Heb. 10:23-31 23Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) 24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.  

There should be no need to worry about holding fast and exhorting each other if we are certain of our salvation because of “Once Saved Always Saved” and yet the early disciples were concerned.  We see in the above verse those saved under the blood covenant of Christ turning to consider it an unholy thing and thus losing their salvation.

John 15:1-7 1I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.  6If 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. 7If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

Here we see Christ referring to His followers (branches in me) that do not remain in Him and bear fruit will be taken away and His followers are exhorted to once again remain in Him, an exhortation that would be unnecessary if “OSAS” was the rule.

Just as believing the gospel is required to receive salvation, continuing to believe the gospel is required for continued salvation. Faith is something that must be cherished, not abused or neglected.  Unbelief is what separates the ungodly from fellowship with the Creator, and unbelief can separate a once-believing Christian from his Lord.

The Scriptures teach that the believer has security in Christ, and that nothing can separate us from Him. God is entirely faithful to keep His end of the covenant. However, the Word of God also makes it perfectly clear that the believer still has a free choice to continue in Christ, or to abandon Him and void his covenant with God.

END OF PART 2

PART 3

Looking at the message to four of the Churches in the book of Revelation one can see that they risked losing their salvation because their works were not found to be in continuance of their faith.

Rev 2:5 Ephesus
5Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

The church is threatened with having its light put out because the works of its members have slipped from where they were at the time of their salvation.  They must repent and do the first works to maintain their salvation.

Rev 2:16 Pergamum
16Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Those in this church must repent of their works or Christ will convict them with the Gospel.  This type of conviction is certain loss of salvation if they were saved to begin with which it is clear the members of these churches were.

Rev 3:5 Sardis
5He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Here we see those discussed have not lost their salvation as they have overcome, but it is clear that they are being saved from the threat of salvation loss by the mention of being blotted out of the book of life.  You cannot be blotted out of something you were not written into and Christ would not have promised something so meaningless as to not blot them out if it wasn’t even possible to do so.

Rev3:15 Laodicians
15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Here the member of this Church are being spewed out of the body of Christ.  They must have been part of the body as a true church is or they could not be spewed out and yet being spewed out is obvious loss of salvation.

END

You are saying that God gives a free gift if we accept it, but you are also saying that God can also take away the free gift, so we have to be good to maintain it.  That is by works.  First you accept God, then, you think, by works you maintain salvation.  Which works do not maintain salvation, but by works and obedience we glorify God.

No I did not say that.  I said we are given a free gift, we accept it through a living faith, one that James shows us must be accompanied by works or it becomes nothing more than the type of faith that the demons have.  If we don't do our works of love, fulfilling the law, as Christ taught us, we throw our free gift away.  God does not take it from us, if He did then you would be right we would be meriting our salvation and that we can never do.  But that is not what I said, I clearly stated that we lose our salvation through rejecting it, by rejecting Christ's teachings through disobedience.  Let me repeat, the only way we can lose our salvation is to throw it away.


Yes works and obedience play a role in sanctification, our setting ourselves apart for God's use and glory, but santification is part of the process of salvation.  Scripture has been misinterpreted by some to seperate sanctification from justification and salvation but no scripture truly supports this idea.  If you think there is one I would be glad to see it.

You can lose your religion.

Once Saved Always Saved.

The Crusader

Ok let me preface this by stating that I have gone back and read the entire posting again Michael.  And I have some comments concerning some things posted a while back.  And my reply is not complete at this time either.  I felt I should go ahead and post some now and then finish it up tonight or tomorrow.  I have also broken it down a little bit as well.   So anyway here we go.  :)

I.
Heb 6:4-6
A while back you had referenced these verses as a means to show how one could fall away.  You stated, "Here we have those clearly saved and yet fall away."  And Allinall was getting close in their reply but missed it by just a hair.
Now one thing that comes to mind when reading the whole of Hebrews is who this is written to and the underlying tone of the whole epistle.  The author is writing to Judiac converts, those that were once of the Jewish faith but have converted to Christianity.  So the Author goes to lengths to show how Jesus was greater than the phrophets, the Law, and more.
The Author starts to set the stage for our discussion in Heb 3:12 "Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the Living God."  A warning to be wary of those that could be professing the faith but actually not a true believer.  To be wary of someone who could be amongst them, or near them, that has fallen away from the Living God and failed to see the truth of the Christ.   Remember the Jews were "with" the Living God before the Messiah came, and those that did not accept Him when He came had fallen away from God.
The author moves on to explain they are partakers of Christ and that it was the Hebrews who provoked Him, and that it was the Hebrews whom angered God for 40 years.  Then the author states "And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but thos who were disobedient?  And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief."  This unbelief is talking of the Hebrews in not believing that Jesus was the Messiah they were waiting for.
When we move into chapter 4 we are again talking of the Hebrews and of "the rest" mentioned above.  In verse 6 the author states, "Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience."  Before Christ the Hebrews had the "good news" preached to them.  Even news of the coming Messiah, but hen do not enter because they do not believe.  Thus at that tim they too fell away from God.
When we move into chapter 6, which you discuss, we are again talking of the Hebrews who once had the Holy Spirit.  They once tasted the Heavenly gift, but failed to believe in the Messiah that God had sent.  Remember the Jews are still waiting for the first coming of the Messiah.  They are still waiting for the fulfillment of the Law.  And what would need to be done for that to happen?  "Crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put him to open shame."  Yep Jesus came and fulfilled the Law they had been looking for and in order for them to get what they are waiting for then Jesus would have to come again and be born again and crucified again.  Is that going to happen?  I dont think so :)
So with true reading and study of the verse you quoted in full context you can see that it is not referring to a "saved" Christian falling from God but the Jews who had fallen from God.

II
Eph 2:8-9
There was much banter and mention of these verses throughout the first part of this thread.  And when I got to Sowers comments on it...quite honestly he read a great deal more into it than is there. :)
But after that  you had made the comment "Ephesians isn't contrasting works and faith it is contrasting works and grace."  This is however not true.  These verses say a couple of things actually....and one of us protestants are going to have show you  ;)
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Now lets look into this sentence gramatically.  In essence what this sentence is stating is that we are saved by grace through faith and not as a result of works, so that none may boast.  We actually have two seperate related independant clauses here, as shown by the use of the semi-colons.  A semi-colon can be used to imply a because or other word that would allow the reader to actually be involved in the development of an idea.  So what we have is in the first part could read similar to this "For by grace (grace not of yourselves but as a gift from God) you have been saved."  We know that the second portion, in the semi-colons, is referring to grace by the structure of how it is worded.  We see that it is through grace we have been saved through faith.  So it is from someone else that we have this grace, and the second portion lets us know that the grace that has been given is not of our own but that of Gods.  
The last part of the sentence after the second semi-colon finishes up the thought of the first part before the first semi-colon. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."  
Those two verses show to us that salvation is achieved through faith alone and not of any consequences to actions taken to try and achieve salvation.  In other words Mother Theresa could help a billion people in her life and do deeds unfathomable by the rest of the masses but without faith she cannot be saved.

III
You had stated earlier:
And all I can say to that the last line of that is completely false.  The Gentiles of the 1st century would have barely knows the Laws, let alone a scripture of the Gospels that had not even been written yet.  Paul is another example who did not come to know Jesus until a revelation.
One does not have to know the NT like the back of their hand to have belief in Jesus.  One does not even ever to have heard of the Bible in order to believe in Jesus.  A further understanding of the Gospel and the Bible comes after one has accepted the gift of Salvation.  I could go to up to someone in the most remote part of the world that has never heard of a Christian and tell him "Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior", and if that person truly believes that and accepts that then God will save that person.

There are a couple of others that I will be continuing a little later today or tomorrow.  But I did not want you to think I had forgotten about you ;).  In my next post I will discuss James, Luke (you mentioned 22:31-32), John 17, Matt , and the rest of your verses and such.  It may take a post or two but I will get there ;)

But this should give you a little to chew on for a bit while I write up the information on the other stuff.  (yes I said write...I still use my trusty pencil/pen and paper first :)  )

Can you provide any scripture that says that?  I can and have produced a lot of verses that preach a different understanding.

Can you provide any scripture that says that?  I can and have produced a lot of verses that preach a different understanding.


Ephesians 1:13-14 " In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.  Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."

Ephesians 5:30 "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."

Romans 8:38-39 " For I am persaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principatlities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall (be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.") (which I looked up the side bar for this meaning in my bible and it gave me John 10:28)

John 10:28" And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them our of my hand.

John 10:29" My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

hello folks:

I voted NO, "cannot lose salvation," but would prefer the answer: "do not care!"   ;)

Permit me to explain BEFORE you brand me a heretic or infidel!   8) ;D

While I believe the Bible says that I cannot "lose my salvation," I find I am really not very concerned about the subject.  [should I be: :-[  ?]

Many good Christian folks that I know who are serious about "cannot lose it" seem to want to use this position as an excuse to continue in a "secret sin."  Functionally, they really are hoping they cannot lose their salvation, because they really like ________.  (fill in the blank with any sin: sex, anger, malice, greed, hypocracy, fear, et.al.)  

However, many folks who are very serious about "might slip up and lose it" are using this as a goad to control their attraction to sin.  they are forgetting that Jesus said, "if you lust after a woman in your heart, you have already..."  and "if you hate your brother, you are guilty of murder..."

I find the debate to be badly focused.  my focus ought to be on how to increase the clarity, intensity and closeness of my relationship with Christ, not on some theoretical limit to HIS power or on the result of some potential weakness in my character.  the reality is 1) My character is W*E*A*K!  2) Christ is ALL POWERFUL! and 3) He wants to spend the rest of eternity with me!  4) He has guaranteed that If I "endure to the end," He will show/give me the fullness of the salvation He has set in store for me!   That's all I need!

If everybody would use the time and energy spent on this subject working on their intimacy with Christ, their brokenness before Him and their love for Him, their lives might be enriched far beyond their dreams...  

Even if there is nothing in store after this life, Serving Him here is far better than any other optional way to live.  

remember the commandment concerning questions the engender more questions?

 :)

I agree but the key here is they ARE converts, all ready Christians, already on their way to salvation if they endure.


No, this warning is to each of the listeners individually to search their own hearts.  You cannot know another’s heart.  It is also a warning to avoid falling away in the future since we have already agreed these are converts, true Christians.   But in case you might want to change your mind on that look at Hebrews 6:1-3 where the writer talks of moving on from milk to meat.  This letter is addressed to young Christians ready to move on to understanding more complex issues of the Faith.

1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,  2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3And this will we do, if God permit.



Yes that is their history but the author is bringing it up only to show that this falling away happened in the past and can happen again.  History is used throughout the Bible as a warning that people fall into the same old errors again and again.  It is where we get the idea that history repeats itself.


That is an interesting approach, but in general I am always reticent to accept the idea that any scripture is applicable only to a certain group.  True it can be, being addressed to a certain group, or culture, and this needs to be taken into account, but your interpretation goes further than that requiring all others to not see it as applicable to them at all.  

I don’t accept this idea that the falling away the scripture speaks of is referring to the Israelites in general falling away, nor do I think it is talking about Israelites in their midst not having truly converted because of the discussion of Baptism and Laying on of hands (which the audience has gone through) that precedes the warning.  This is not something that the Israelites would have done nor would someone who was not a true believer.

But even if we accept your position for the moment we are left with a bigger more theological problem, that of the Israelites being filled with the Holy Spirit prior to the sending of the comforter on Pentecost and without being saved.  Is there any support in scripture for either of these ideas?  Not support for individuals Prophets but the nation at large, they are the ones we must consider since they are who rebelled against God.

In light of these problems this interpretation appears to me to be one of last resort forced on the verses in question.  Did you come up with it on your own or is it from a commentary.  I checked a few of my Protestant commentaries and could find nothing like it.


I agree.

END OF PART 1

I agree


I agree, but so far nothing about faith and works being contrasted – only grace being the source of salvation and works not being that source.  How does this show that grace and works are not being contrasted as you claim at the top?  I am sorry you’re grammatical analysis doesn’t appear to be contrary to my analysis.  In fact it appears to show exactly what I claimed is the proper interpretation of Eph 2:8.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding you or missing your emphasis.  Could you provide a summary or repost and bold the sentence in your analysis that you feel shows grace and works are not being contrasted in Eph 2:8 and then tell me what you feel are being contrasted.

Let me see if by rewording what I hear you saying we can see where we still disagree.  

The semi-colon is used to separate the first clause from the second.  Thus by using NOT it is contrasting the subject of the first clause and the second.  The subject of the first clause is “grace” the subject of the second clause is “yourselves”.  So we are in agreement that we are saved by grace not by anything we do.  (By the way faith is something we decide to have or not – faith is of ourselves).  The second part of the second clause is linked for comparison to the subject of the first clause by the IT IS showing how grace is a gift.  This is in agreement with the fact that grace is not of ourselves.  Faith has been left entirely out of this discussion so far in terms of relating the two clauses.  Now look at the last or third clause as it related back to the subject of the first.  Once again by using NOT it is contrasting the subject of the first clause and the subject of the third clause.  The subject of the first clause is “grace” the subject of the second clause is “works”.  So we are in agreement that we are saved by grace not by works.  So my whole point that Eph 2:8 is about grace and works being contrasted still seems to stand.  

I still contend that it is saying that works cannot be used to merit what is freely given.  Nowhere does it contrast Faith and works, and it does not restrict works from playing a part in a true living faith.  Additionally, any attempt to claim faith alone through this verse is mistaken since it does not specifically say faith is alone, or even imply it.  In fact it doesn’t even say faith saves.  It says grace saves and that grace is accepted through faith.  The question one must ask is what type of faith is useful to accept grace and James is clear on this that it can only be a living faith.

In summary - The logical jump that is the error most Faith Alone adherents fall into is that if works can’t be used to merit salvation that they have no role to play at all.  But this verse does not say that.  It only says works cannot merit salvation – period.  By the way I hope you also believe that faith cannot merit salvation either.


I agree that without faith Mother teresa or anybody could not be saved regardless of how many good works they do.  But that is not what I claimed.  I claim that for you to have a true living faith it must be accompanied by works.  The flip side of your example is also true.  If someone had the faith to move mountains and heal everyone they touched and cast out the worst demons they could not be saved without works of mercy and love added to keep that faith alive.  I will even go you one better than that.  If someone had the kind of faith I just mentioned and the kind of works you mentioned, they still couldn’t be saved if God had not first offered the free gift for them to accept through this faith and works.


If you will note - the quote (which is from St. Jerome) doesn’t say ignorant of the scriptures, it says ignorant of the Gospel.  The early Church was taught not by written scripture (since as you point out the New Testament scriptures had not been written), but by oral tradition just as the Catholic Church teaches is acceptable today.   Additionally, the early Church consisting of mostly Israelites knew the Old Testament not by access to scrolls (as few could afford them), but through the teachings of the Church leadership, the Magisterium of the day, just like the Catholic Church teaches is acceptable today.   Paul was of course a special case and does not affect the manner in which most Christians come to know God, or else there would be no need to witness.


No this makes no sense at all.  That person could be believing that Jesus is an alien, that He is the son of God but not God Himself, that person could believe that Jesus was not really man, or that he was man until the Spirit entered into Him and then He became divine.   All of these heresies were held by people who claimed to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but did not, because they did not understand the Gospel.  You cannot truly believe something you do not truly understand the scope of what it is you are believing.

END OF PART 2
END

But that is just the point you must "endure to the end".  What do you think happens if you don't "endure to the end" - you throw your salvation away - that is what happens.


I don't remember even a verse that says that, (though I think I know the one you are so badly paraphrasing so as to lose it's true meaning) and I certainly don't remember a commandment that says anything like that.

P.S. Based on your name I have to ask - Do you play chess?  I love the game myself.

Of course this doesn't say anything about faith alone.  It does say we need to believe after Him, and if you just look at the surface of this verse you could fall into that false interpretation.  But if you stop for just a moment and ask yourself what you must believe about Christ you come up with a much different interpretation.  If all you do is believe in Christ in His role as sacrificial lamb you can come to the conclusion that salvation is by faith alone since it requires nothing of us.  But Christ was so much more.  He is also the shepherd, whom we must follow, that does require something of us.  It requires us to obey the Gospel (2 Th 1:8 and 1 Pt 4:17) (all of it not just the easy parts) and pick up our cross and follow Him (Mt 16:24, Mk 8:34, Mk 10:21 and Lk 9:23)and love one another (there are 19 different verses that teach this but they all can be summed up pretty well in Jn 13:34-35).

 34A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

This is so clear that we are not His disciples if we do not love one another, no matter how much we say we believe in Him.  

The point is you cannot truly believe in someone unless you are putting their teachings into action.  Faith without works is dead and a dead faith will not save you.


Actually this is Eph 4:30.  This says nothing at all about saved by faith alone.  I suspect you included it because you think it proves you can't lose salvation.  But a seal is God's mark on us, this verse does not say that seal cannot be broken by us.  In fact the verse warns us not to risk breaking that seal by grieving the Holy Spirit by our actions (our works).

Interesting if you read just ahead of where you reference you see that we are not truly saved by faith alone because we cannot truly be taught or learned of Him if we have not put off the former life.

Eph 4:20-23
20But ye have not so learned Christ; 21If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;


This says God will always love us, it does not say we will always love Him.  If we leave Him (as the prodigal son left and lost his inheritance) God will still love us and He will miss us.  But we will be gone.

Before we continue this further I would ask you interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son.  If it does not address the issue of losing and regaining salvation what is it talking about.  Also what is Christ talking about in Luke 15:3 in the parable of the lost sheep.  Where the shepherd loses a sheep that is already in His fold and goes to find it and bring it back.  What is this addressing if not loss and regaining of salvation.


Yes we have covered both of these earlier in the thread, it says we cannot be plucked from His hand it does not say that we cannot jump from His hand or leave voluntarily.

michael,

Only when you interpret Heb 6:4-6, as you do, can you teach what you wnat, unfortunately the text does not stand up to the scrutiny when one looks at it biblically.

This verse is a bedrock verse for those who teach what you are pressing, but a close examination of them, prove these being spoken of where never save dto begin with, the point being mad eherein is, that;  "if any who are saved, turn away, they  can never be brought back to repentance"

You don't believe this since you would teach that anyone who sins can repent and be forgiven, in order to be made right with God again.

In your church it would involve confession of sin/s to a priest, doing penance, and receiving holy communion, none of which are substantiated in scripture.

Petro

IV
The book of James
On several occasions you have mentioned the book of James, and used it as a reference to trying to show how a lack of works in faith will cost you your salvation.  
I would advise a rereading of James, and when you do look for the words "salvation", "saved", "saves", "eternal life".  You will not find those words anywhere in James.  What James is talking about is faith.
James discusses growing closer to God through our faith.  James teaches that through our faith we shall grow closer to God, by letting our faith be the driving force for our works.  James informs us that we have to develop our faith by...works.  By doing that which God has directed we can develop our faith.  our works shall grow glory for Jesus because our works should be for the Glory of God.  All things we do in Jesus name.  
What James shows us is the directly proportional relationship between faith and works.  When we do more things in God's glory then our faith shall build, and as our faith builds then we shall be able to do more things for God.  But no where in James does it state that if you do nothing then your salvation is "revoked".  

V
Luke 22:31-32
You had quoted this verse as an example of losing salvation as well.  However you have failed to show how Peter lost his salvation.  Jesus did not tell Peter that he was to be lost, Jesus only told Peter that Satan would be working in Peter's heart and that Peter would deny Jesus 3 times.
Peter's faith wold be tested and he allowed his fear of persecution to rule over his trust of the Lord.  He did not lose his salvation nor does Jesus state he did, nor that he would.
And we can plainly see that Peter becomes one of the primary cornerstones of the church, something he could not have done if he was not saved.  And no where after the point of the rooster crowing do we see it stated that Peter received salvation again, or that he re-earned acceptance back into heaven.

VI
John 17:11-15
You had quoted these verses and stated that "if there was no chance of losing salvation this would no be much of an accomplishment now would it?"  And how very untue is that.  If we also add in more of the prayer we can see that Jesus is praying that God will keep them from evil and we see the purpose for it.  "As thou has sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." and  "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" It was not for their salvation Jesus was praying for.  He could have asked to take his disciples out of the world to save them from the persecutions and anger they would face.  But then that would not have helped out us to much would it?  No instead Jesus prayed for their protection and prayed for the Father to uplift them and keep them from evil, so that they may continue to spread the word of Jesus.  And Jesus even went on to pray for those that would be spreading the word of God after the disciples (like you and me).

VII
2 Peter 2:20-21
And you had used these verses as well attempting to show a lost salvation.  And once again no where does it state a loss of salvation.  But what it is talking about is that 1) a saved person can still sin and get caught up in sin, and 2) that things will be much worse for a saved person who is caught up in sin, because they will not be an effective tool for God.  They will have shut God out and not allowed God to grow in them and around them.  Our great commandment is to trust God and with that trust He will grow us spiritually and through us He will allow others to grow.  And if we are not setting an effective example of Christ then how could others come to know Christ.  We may all remember Swaggart, the Bakers, and other evangelists of the modern era.  Swaggart mired in adultry, the Bakers mired with greed, what sorts of examples do these people set for those that do not know Christ yet?  Poor.  If we are to be the beacon of light on the hill for the rest of the world to see and see clearly how can they do it if we mire our shining light with sin?  
Again this verse in Peter is not talking about losing our salvation but allowing sin to interfere in Gods work, and explains how much worse it can be for a person who is saved to do that which God has commanded if they are mired down with the bondage of sin.

I will continue on with some of the others after a bit.  I have a mens conference this weekend so it may be short.  I will respond to your reply to me in the next post.  But then that will be about it for the day...have to get back to the conference....wrote this out the other night and just clipping and pasting.  :)

Once again Petro just because you say it, that does not make it so.  Provide some scripture to back up your position if you want to deny some doctrine and propose another in it's place.

I have answered and continue to answer ALL of the critiques of my position and no one has of yet shown it to be contrary to a single verse.

speaking of which your attempted attack based on logic fails as well.  Similar arguments were made by the Novatian heretics and the Montanist heretics, but they were shown to be wrong as follows.  The verse does not say that anyone who sins cannot be renewed.  It says only those who do so unrepentantly.  So your attempt to show the Church's doctrine on this issue as inconsistent fails for two reasons.  First you think you understand the Catholic Churches position and you don't; and secondly because you naively assume that there is a simple rebuttal to a position that has been held and discussed and defended for 2000 years.

Now on to your typical 'thrown in" accusations (done again, as is typical, without any support except your word).

Confession is directly supported in the Bible - look at John 20:22-23 where Christ gives the Apostles (as the first bishops of the Church) the power to forgive sins on earth.  This power was passed on from the Apostles to their successors and continued uncontested for 1500 years until certain men came along with their own earthly doctrines to oppose the idea.

Doing Penance is supported as well from John the Baptist recommending works meet for repentance (Mt 3:8) and Paul suggesting he adds his works to fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ (Col 1:24).

Holy Communion is obviously of importance in our progress toward salvation as John 6:54 shows by saying if you eat His body and drink His blood you shall have eternal life.

These are just quick defenses to these doctrines and of course much more detailed support can be provided but they should suffice to counter the limited amount of effort you put into your flimsy attack.

You are so wrong.  James is all about salvation and those terms or related ones appear through out the book.

James 1:12 shows that eternal life awaits the man who endures temptation.

Look also at James 1:21 where it talks about saving our souls by the laying aside bad works and receiving the word into our hearts, as long as we are doers and not just hearers of the word.

James 2:13 shows that God will show no mercy to those who have no works of mercy.  It goes on to say that mercy is exalted above judgement, showing that our works of mercy (in this new economy of salvation) is what keeps us above a rigorous judgement under the letter of the law.  These ideas are contrary to the Protestant interpretation that mercy from God (the overlooking of our sins) comes strictly from the sacrifice of Jesus.  Jesus sacrifice makes this attitude of God possible it does not take man’s part in his own salvation out of the process.

Look at James 2:14 which says if we have faith but no works to accompany it, that that type of faith cannot save us.  

James 2:19 talks about damnation the opposite of salvation saying that belief alone is held even by the demons and they tremble because of that belief.  Why do they tremble?  For fear of eternal damnation – showing that believing in Christ, which the demons do, is not enough to save us.

James 2:24 says we are justified by works of mercy and not by faith alone.  In fact the only place that faith and alone appear together anywhere in scripture is here and it says we cannot be saved by faith alone.  This does not contradict Paul in Romans as Paul is talking about works of the law, works intended to merit salvation by fulfilling the letter of the law.  James is talking about works of love fulfilling the spirit of the law.

James 4:12 teaches that we should not judge one another as there is one who can judge and it is He who also is able to save, referring of course to God and true salvation.

James 5:15 teaches that our prayers play a role in salvation of others as we can save the sick, not only from their physical infirmity but also from their sins as it is made clear that God will raise them up and forgive their sins, something that would not be necessary if all forgiveness came through Christ’s one redeeming act that we could take advantage of through faith alone.

James 5:20 continues this theme showing that our intercession by correcting a brother can be effective in saving a soul from death and covering a multitude of sins.  This too would not be necessary or even possible if all forgiveness came through Christ’s one redeeming act that we could take advantage of through faith alone.

See the book of James has a lot to say about salvation.



I did not say that Peter lost his salvation I said that the possibility was expressed through the concern that Christ showed by praying for him.  What was Christ was concerned about?  What evil could befall Peter that was so bad Christ would pray to the father over it?  What does it mean to be sifted as wheat by satan?  I think it is a clear reference to salvation.  If we cannot lose our salvation what is there to worry about at all?


No you miss the point of the prayer.  Jesus is praying that God keep them in His name, not like Judas who was lost.  Judas was not saved, we will not be saved if we are not kept in His name.  Jesus specifically says He is not asking for the Father to remove them from this world (because that is one sure way to ensure salvation as it takes away the need to endure).  Instead Jesus ask for protection for these individuals to keep them from evil, to help them endure.  It is clear this is a prayer about these individuals being saved.


Oh but it does, if you read the whole section and not just focus on those two verses.  It is clear these individuals are saved by the reference in 2 Peter 2:20 to coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and the reference in 2:22 of the sow that was once washed, referring to being washed in the blood of Christ.  Then we see that the person can loose that salvation because they can end up worse than before as is stated in the last phrase of 2:20.  What was their original state, it was unwashed and not knowing of Jesus Christ.  That is the state of the unsaved.  What state could be worse than that?  Now they have multiple demons inhabiting them as well, making any repentance even harder to move to.


Can you provide a scripture that says that?  I know our great commandment to be love God and love your neighbor as in Matt 22:37-40 or in Mark 12:30-31 or John 15:12.

As I was reading some of this thread the following thught occurred to me

For whatever it's worth-----

Adam and Eve were created perfectly and to live eternally as long as they didn't eat from the tree of knowledge.  If THEY could fall and lose eternal life, why couldn't we?  

cris

We couldn't loose our salvation because when we accept Jesus, He says that He takes away our sins from our past, present and future.  The difference from us and Adam and Eve is when they were on earth Jesus didn't die on the cross yet.  That is why I believe that we can't loose our salvation.  If He didn't wipe away all our sins and sacrifice His own life then we would still be giving alter offerings for our sins to be forgiven.  

Kris777 is correct, he said;



This is exactly the point made by the Scripture , note;

Heb 10
11  And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13  From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15  Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18  Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

There is no more sacrifice because He shed ALL of His blood at the CROSS, ONCE AND FOR ALL (see verses 12-14)


Catholic priests are still offering sacrifices for sin at their altar, the RCC even teaches this;

 Notice;(from The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, p. 244, Q. 1212).

"The center of the whole Catholic liturgy is the Eucharist. The Eucharist is most important in the life of the Church because it is Jesus Christ. It is the Incarnation continued in space and time. The other sacraments and all the Church's ministries...are directed toward the Eucharist." and

Q. 1214. "The Eucharist is a sacrament which really, truly, and substantially contains the body and blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. It is the great sacrament of God's love in which Christ is eaten..."

Transubstantiation "That teaching of the Church which signifies the conversion or complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood." (Dictionary of the Liturgy, p. 624).


It Is A Sacrifice Q. 1265 (p. 254)

"The Sacrifice of the Mass is the true and properly called Sacrifice of the New Law. It is the Sacrifice in which Christ is offered under the species of bread and wine in an *unbloody manner*. Sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ true and proper act of sacrifice. Christ, the eternal High Priest, in an UNBLOODY way offers himself a most acceptable VICTIM to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross."

VICTIM?

? What Does Jesus Say About This.

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." - John 10:17-18 KJV

Since Roman Catholic doctrine claims that "Christ, the eternal High Priest, in an UNBLOODY way offers himself a most acceptable VICTIM"  then the Mass is absolutely ineffectual in regards to anyone's salvation or justification much less forgiveness for SIN, for only the BLOOD of Christ cleanses us from sin.

Heb 9:12  "by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."


Since Catholics for the most part ignore what the Bible teaches because they place more faith on the churches teachings and tradition, they blindly follow erroneous teachings, taught by this institution.  

but The Word of God is clear;

"all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb 9:22)

The Catholic church cannot reconcile their teachings of their unbloody sacrifice and practice of offering it up as a "True and Proper Sacrifice for SIN", with Holy Writ.

There is still time to repent, and trust the Word of God.

Petro

My point was they had no sin and sinned.  They weren't in need yet for Jesus to take away their sin.  We're born in sin and have need of Jesus.  

Your mistake is to assume that His sacrifice applies regardless of our attitude toward it.  That it covers our sins so they cannot be seen.  That model of salvation comes from Luther and is wrong.  Luther described salvation as us being dung hills and the blood of Christ covering us like a layer of fresh fallen snow.  That way anyone looking at the dung hill would be fooled into thinking it was a pure pile of snow.  What nonsense we do not fool the Father.  We are truly changed by the washing by Christ's blood.  We are converted, our lives are transformed and through our repentance we turn them around.

By the fact that scripture tells us we will continue to sin, even after accepting Christ as our savior AND that we MUST repent of those sins, tells us that the sacrifice of Jesus is not applied regardless of our behavior.  If we sin unrepentantly we can lose our salvation.

If we fail to endure we can turn those sames lives back around and go back down the same path of sin.  This is backsliding and if that is all we do then our attitude toward Christ has not changed and we can repent.  If we do this unrepentantly, the conversion we underwent is tossed aside by us and we are not going to be saved.

Petro we have been over this before, the sacrifice is once and for all, but that doesn’t mean that we cannot sin unrepentantly such that we no longer have the sacrifice apply to us.  You even alluded to the idea in our discussion over Heb 6:6 where it talks about those who fall away, completely unrepentant, that they cannot be saved because there is no chance of Christ being sacrificed again.  Through their attitude toward Christ the conversion that occurred when they first accepted Him has been lost.  They have turned their life back around to the path of sin, in essence they have repented of their decision to accept Christ (since repentance is from a military term meaning to turn ones life around).  That is the danger that awaits all Christians who continue to sin and backslide, as we all do.  If we do backslide the scriptures make it clear we must repent, if we are saved regardless of what we do there would be no need to repent when we backslide.


You know that is not true, the Mass is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice for sins.


Yes in John 6 Christ said this is my body, the Jews took him literally, didn’t believe Him and went away.  Jesus didn’t stop them, saying wait I was only speaking symbolically.  No He let them go and waited to see if His disciples would also balk at the idea.  You have taken the side of the Jewish unbelievers and the Catholic Church sides with the Apostles.


This does not say what you try to make it say through extrapolation.  As I said above, the Mass is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice for sins.  When Christ told us to do this in remembrance of Him, He choose the term for remembrance that is used to denote sacrificial reminder.   Jesus commands the apostles to "do this," that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.   The translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin."  The Greek word "anamnesis" means to really or actually make present the offering.  It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.   Jesus changes bread and wine into His body and blood.  The Catholic Church does not teach the Mass as a re-sacrificing of Jesus, that is just your poor understanding of it.


I have shown you this error before too Petro, yet you insist on holding on to it rather than search out the truth.  This just shows the limit of your vocabulary.  A victim can be a willing victim.  A fireman rushes into a burning house to save a family, he does so willingly but he can still be a victim of the fire.


Christ doesn’t think it is ineffectual, because He said without eating and drinking His body and blood we cannot have eternal life.

John 6:53
53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Paul didn’t think eating and drinking His body and blood had no effect.  He warned that if we ate the bread and drank the wine without discerning the body and blood we ate and drank damnation upon outselves.  

1 Cor 11:27-29
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Sounds to me like there is an effect.


So now you know how much scripture the majority of 2 billion Catholics throughout the world know?  Is there no end to the amazing abilities of Petro the magnificent?  That last statement of yours Petro is known as arguing from an unknowable fact and it is a fallacious form of debate.


Once again your error comes from interpreting verses in isolation.  Chris Himself gave the Apostles power to remit sins, without the shedding of blood (because they were given the power to apply the shedding of blood of Christ’s sacrifice) in John 20:22-23

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

How is that possible if your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 is correct.  The answer is that your simplistic interpretation is wrong.

michael

you said;


Re-representation is your word not the RCC's.

They even teach anyone says;

"If any man shall say that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, let him be accursed." [/b


You are not telling the truth, I have shown you using the RCC's own teachings on this matter,

You have shown me,  this is not true.

Note;

http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm

The Mass

In the most uncompromising language the Roman Catholic Church deliberately teaches, despite the statement of Scripture to the contrary, that in the sacrifice of the MASS the priest makes a PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE FOR THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE. The Scripture says:-

"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many" (Heb. 9: 28) ; "But this Man after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God" (Heb. 10: 12) ; "For by one offering He hath perfected for ever those that are sanctified" (v. 14)--see also Hebrews 7: 26, 27.

The tremendous significance of these passages is, if possible, strengthened when we remember that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the one and only book in Scripture that unfolds the glorious work of Christ, as our Great High Priest, in the heavenlies.

Now let us see what Rome teaches:-

The Council of Trent at its twenty-second session in A.D. 1562 had the Mass for its subject of consideration, and passed a decree containing nine explanatory chapters, and nine canons.

Pope Pius IV confirmed the decree of the Council of Trent at the conclusion of their sessions, and in these words he summed up the doctrine of the Mass:-

"I profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead"!

This same Pope was the author of The Tridentine Canons, which contain the following:

"If any man shall say that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, let him be accursed."
(From The Advent Witness).

Surely such language brings its own curse on the head of him who dares to utter it. For Paul the Apostle, who was made a minister "to fulfil the Word of God" (Col. 1: 25)) wrote to the Galatians: "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1: 9).

Petro

Petro you can't even read my posts without making mistakes.  I said re-presentation as in representation, not re-representation.  And yes the Mass as a re-presentation of the sacrifice on the cross is exactly what the Church teaches.


Yes the Mass is a true sacrifice, just as the sacrifice on the cross was a true sacrifice, since the Mass is a re-presenting of that same sacrifice.


And each time I have shown you how you have misinterpreted the statements because you take those statements in isolation with only a partial knowledge of the teachings as a whole.  It is the same error that runs throughout your doctrine which relies on verses taken in isolation while ignoring other verses you can't fit into your doctrine.


I warned you before about taking outsiders rephrasing of what the Church actually teaches and trying to pass it off as real statements of the Church.  The website you quote from is a biased anti-catholic source and the statement they put forward is not what the Church teaches.  Really Petro if you want to debate the position of the Catholic Church why go to third parties to get your targets when the Catechism is readily available to your to pick targets from.  I will tell you why you do it.  It is because these strawmen they provide are easier to attack than the true position of the Church.


You just don't know your Bible very well do you Petro.  Christ's priesthood is discussed in John 19:24 when they fail to rend His garment and again in Revelation 1:13 and throughout the Book of Revelation, where He is serving as a Priest and of course Psalm 110 and Gen 14:18 where Melchizedek first appears.  Hebrews does offer a wealth of information on His priesthood but none of the Catholic Church's teachings are contrary to anything in Hebrews.


Since it is a representation (as instructed by Christ Himself) of the one same sacrifice that occurred on the cross it must be a true, proper sacrifice.

Petro, once again I see that rather than address my points and correct or defend your errors you choose to just throw out other attacks.  Why no mention of the verses I quote showing Christ approving of, no even suggesting this interpretation.  If my statements and quoted verses and the associated interpretations are wrong why do you avoid addressing them?  Maybe you think by presenting a moving target your errors won't be so obvious but let me assure you that tactic just makes the weakness of your position all that more apparent.

michael,

The teaching is either a true and proper sacrifice for present sin, or it isn't , anything which is representative is not "true or proper"

The Chruch claims and teaches, that in The Mass, is the real thing, not a re-representation.

Rerepresentation is not a word used  by the RC church to describe this teaching at all, this is your own inserted word.

And by your own definition of it, could be seen as heresy, and you rightly should be excomunnicated for denying this..

If it was a mere re representation of the real thing, then they would not be hard pressed to teach the doctrine of transubsantition (that of bread & wine being turned into flesh & blood), for which there is absolutely no biblical support.


Petro

Wrong again Petro.  You just don't know very much about the Catholic Church do you?  If you would just restrict your arguments against the Church to items you find in the Catechism as I cautioned you to, you wouldn't be caught in these gross errors.  The following is quoted from the Official Catechism of the Catholic Church.  You will notice that re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ is exactly what the Church teaches.

"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit."  (Paragraph 1366)


Again you get the word wrong it is not a re-representation, or even a representation.  It is a re-presentation, as in presenting again of the one true sacrifice.

Transubstantiation is a technical term refering to the fact that the subtance of the bread and wine are replaced by the substance of Christ's body and blood.  The accidents of the bread and wine remain however.  As far as biblical evidence for transubstantiation all we have to go on is Christ's words.  In Mark 14:22 He says 22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.  The Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou."  This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.  No symbolism here.

If it were just a symbolic representation you would be accusing Paul of idolatry since he warns us not to be disrespectful to that mere symbol or we bring down damnation upon ourselves.

1 Cor 11:29
 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

There is no way I can imagine one would bring damnation upon themselves by treating anything other than the almighty God with unworthy intentions, so Paul must have thought God was truly present in the bread and wine.

michael

You silver tongued devil you, only you undertand what you are saying it makes no sense to those familiar with scripture becauise it is not found anywhere in scripture.


Again you get the word wrong it is not a re-representation, or even a representation.  It is a re-presentation, as in presenting again of the one true sacrifice.

Transubstantiation is a technical term refering to the fact that the subtance of the bread and wine are replaced by the substance of Christ's body and blood.  The accidents of the bread and wine remain however.  As far as biblical evidence for transubstantiation all we have to go on is Christ's words.  In Mark 14:22 He says 22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.  The Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou."  This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.  No symbolism here.

If it were just a symbolic representation you would be accusing Paul of idolatry since he warns us not to be disrespectful to that mere symbol or we bring down damnation upon ourselves.

1 Cor 11:29
 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

There is no way I can imagine one would bring damnation upon themselves by treating anything other than the almighty God with unworthy intentions, so Paul must have thought God was truly present in the bread and wine.

Gobble di gook...........I say.

Know you want to say I introduced your word re-represention of the re-presentation of the mass,

hah .........that is a good one...

michael yoooouuuu  arrree soooooo cooonffusssed.

Wrong again, my friend....

Petro

I think you mean to say "Now you want to say..."  But no that is not what I said.  It is all very simple but I will lay it out in small words for you.  

You claimed in a prior post that I introduced the idea of re-presenting and that the RCC didn't teach it.  Based on this claim of yours, you concluded I didn't even know what the RCC taught.  I showed you in my last post that the RCC did use the term re-presented by quoting from the Catechism.  Therefore proving your claim to be wrong and showing that I did know what the RCC taught and you did not.

So yes, your current post does seem to be gobble di gook in your words.


I show you to be wrong and you reply with a post so badly worded one can barely make sense of it, claiming I am trying to do something I am not and you claim I am confused.  What utter nonsense.

What do you believe happens when you sin and don't know that you have sinned.  In saying this, if this was the way it is, then you would never know if you are saved or not.

I think that you must repent when you become saved.  After that if you sin and forget to repent or don't repent then you are still saved. I believe then when you get to Heaven the rewards that you could have gotten will be less because of your sins, and that you will also get punished for your actions on earth but still make it into Heaven.  

Michael,
This reply is in 2 parts.  It is a reply in reference to only a specific group we had been talking about....have not branched out yet.

Guess again.  No where in James will you find salvation, saved, saves, or eternal life.  But yet in other books those words are explicitly used in reference to salvation.  But that being beside the point.  James is fully discussing works and faith and not works and salvation, or works and faith.  James discusses  topics such as how the purpose of tests and how they are to test our faith, how faith obeys the Word, how faith proves itself through works, how through faith we control our tongue, how faith produces wisdom and humility, and more.

The thing to note is that James is talking about how faith produces this...not salvation.  James a great book to reflect on what we can do with our faith, and what our faith can do for us.  James is the book that shows us that through works of faith our faith shall grow.

You had gone in and talked about James chapter 1.  Specifically mentioned verse 12 and 21.  But lets look at what James is talking about throughout so that we can paint the picture properly.  In the beginning of James we see that james is talking about how tests and trials in our life will test our faith (1:3) and how this testing will produce endurance.  What endurance is he talking about?  Our faith enduring.  The more trials we may encounter and overcome the more wisdom we shall gain...we learn from experience.  James even states that if you lack wisdom then ask of God for God gives to all men without reproach (1:5).  What is God giving here?  We are talking about wisdom as setup by the beginning of this verse.  So basically if you do not know what to do then one should pray to God and God will provide the answer.  James even provides how we should ask for help.  We should ask in faith (1:6) and without doubt.  But doubt of what?  Doubt of God, God's ability, and our own faith.  This is further shown in the following verse where a doubter is like the waves of the sea tossed by the wind.

And in 1:12 James explains that "Blessed is the man that perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him."  Again two seperate related independant thoughts again seperated by the ';'.  Bessed is the man who perseveres under trial as the first and the second is Blessed is the man that has been approved for he will receive the crown of life which the Lord promised.  So once a man (person) has accepted Christ and been saved then he will receive the crown of life that the Lord had promised to all who love Him.  As far as the first though of being blessed for persevering under tiral.  This goes along with what James had touched upon earlier in that trials test our faith and build our faith.  Through trials and tests we are able to build wisdom.  

James goes in to warn us not to "blame" temptations on God, because God is not tempted by evil, nor would God use evil to test our faith.  But that our temptations and trials are produced by our own lusts.

When we move into 1:19 we see that faith obeys the Word.  James shows us that we should control our emotions and specifically anger.  We see that we should humble ourselves to receive the Word implanted in us.  And James explains that we should not be simple hearers of the Word but doers.  This discussing that we should act upon our faith.  We should let our faith be shown in our actions.  This is expressed further later in the book.  James even expresses a difference between religion and faith.  By siting example of those that think themselves to be religious appear to be doers and not hearers.  I read from someone elses commentary at one time referring to the people James is writing to as Antinomians (antinomianism - doctorine that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained soley through faith and the gift of divine grace).  And James goes through great lengths to show that they are not exempt from obedience and works in faith.

When we move into chapter 2 we are first shown that faith removes all discrimination.  James teaches that we are not to feel superior because we have accepted Jesus.  When we get down to 2:14 we see the start of how faith is proven through works.  We are givent he example of how one may simply say to the needy "go in peace, be warmed and be filled" but does nothing for them their faith is use.  James uses the example to show that our faith should produce works of faith.  And through our works our faith should be shown.  To expand upon that example put yourself in the shoes of the brother or
sister James is talking about being with out clothing or daily food.  If you were approached by two people professing to be Christians and the first came to you and told you to "go in peace, be warmed and be filled" and then walked off, what would you think of them and thier "religion"?  Not much, and here we thought this Jesus was a professor of the meek and lifter up of the poor, one who taught to love thy neighbor.  But then you get approached by a different person professing to be a Christian and instead of just telling you to go and be warm they offer you their coat and invite you to the local diner to provide a meal, maybe even going further to provide work or to take you in and supply your needs until you can provide for yourself.  Who would you think was the true Christian?  A show of our faith be shown through our works.

And James goes on an on showing how our faith should be manifest in the works we do.  Even to the point of simple everyday life.  That our faith should briddle the tongue, thus we should let our faith in Jesus show even in how we talk.  James talks about how our faith should produce humbleness, wisdom, humility, and a dependance upon God.  Yes our faith should produce a dependance on God, James shows this in 2:13-17.  James shows that our faith will produce patience, in dealing with people and waiting for Jesus' return.

Specifically you had mentioned 2:14 and stated
While not completely incorrect it is not completely correct either.  One that would profess to have faith in Jesus but is not acting accordingly more than likely never had a true faith to begin with.  We are taught not only by James but others that once we are saved we are born anew and given a new life.  And filled with the Spririt.  And this should produce good works within us.  Make certain you read it correctly because 2:14 states "if a man says he has faith..." which indicates that whomever this is is professing to have faith.  But for everyone else who sees them they see no works to prove his faith, thus the conclusion would be that he truly does not have faith.  James stated that back in 1:22.

You also mentioned 2:19 stating
Again while not completely incorrect it is not completely correct either.  If you read the verse again is states "You believe that God is one." or that there is one God.  Yes even the demons believe that there is one God.  They do not shudder because of eternal damnation which they also already know they have, but they shudder in fear of that one God.  Something else to note is that James states that the demons believe that there is one God, but it does not state that the demons believe in that one God.  Subtle but distinct differences.  Also to note is that James uses the word belief/believe and not faith.  Another subtle difference but one that is different...belief is a part of faith and not vice versa.

You then went into 2:24
But take a look at what James was talking about here.  He was talking about Moses offering Isaac as a sacrafice.  And states in 5:21 "Was Abraham our father not justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?"  James is asking to make the point and correlation that Abraham was not justfied simply because he was going to do the sacrafice.  He even states "You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was
perfected;"  So a shining example of how our works should be glorifying God.  Everything we do should be for His glory.  And if we do works in His name then our faith will be perfected.


Moving on to Part 2

Pt 2


You mentione James 5:15 and state
So what you are saying is that if I pray for everyone in the world to be saved then they will?  James is not saying that.  The verse after this even talks of confessing your sins to one another and to pray for one another.  And that the effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.  And this is a true statement.  James is showing us that we should do a couple of things, fellowship and praise together, pray together, and also that we should confess our sins with one another....keeping the honest, honest.  Do you think that we should not pray for one another?  Jesus prayed for you and I.  Of course we should pray for each other, we should pray for the sick and the lost.  But one thing James comments on before is that we should keep in mind that if the Lord will.  James 4:15 "Instead, you ought to say, 'If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that' "

Luke 22:31-32
The possibility was not even expressed in those verses.  Why would Jesus pray for him?  Even as saved people we are suseptible to Satans influence.  Even more so, not at the risk of our own salvation but that of others.  Keeping a non-believer is easy...just keep them from believing.  But a believer, who is tasked with spreading the Gospel and trying to make believers of the non-believers.  Someone like that is taking away from Satan, and in Satan's eyes must be stopped.  Satan cannot take us from the Father but he can sure try his darndest to prevent us from bringing any more to the Father.  Peter was the rock which Jesus was to start the church.  Of course Jesus prayed for him, it would not be a very good church to start off on if Satan had worked his works and Peter did not spread the Gospel of Jesus would it?

John 17:11-15
No I did not miss the point of the prayer.  Jesus was praying for protection for his followers.  So that Satan could not influence them.  Jesus was playing the part of a faithful follower here and doing as any of us should do.  We should pray not just for those that are lost but also for those that are found.  We are directed to spread the Gospel and in our life be effective representatives of Christ.  James teaches us many of this.  Our actions should be exemplifying God...glorifying God.  We cannot know what our actions may cause down the road, directly or indirectly so in every walk of life we should be walking as Christians.  Satan can affect that by trying to interject sin into our lives.  If I do not talk of God at work there could be a person here who I do not even know that may never come to know Jesus because today at a specific time I did not proclaim "praise Jesus".  And because of my action that person is lost.  The prayer is not about the individuals being saved but protection just as it states Jesus sent them into the world and that Jesus is not praying for these alone but those that believe in Him through their word...in otherwords Jesus is praying for those that hear the Gospel through them as well, and that athey will be protected from Evil.

2 Peter 2:20-21
Again it does not state we lose our salvation.  It does refer to a saved person falling back into a sinful life...as you stated the sow that had been washed going back to wallow in the mud.  Our salvation does not guarantee that we will never sin again.  And it is stated in the Bible that we are all sinners even those of us that are saved.  But with salvation comes the cleansing of our past sins and accompanying our salvation should be a new resolution to avoid our sinful ways and to walk in the light of Jesus.  Sure the verses state that we would be worse off being saved and living a sinful life than if we were just living a sinful life and not saved.  Why would you think that was...if we can gain and lose our salvation repeatedly then we really would not be worse off would we?  One could argue that we would be worse off because we have been there and lost it and thus now have to face the loss.  But what if someone did not care?  would they truly be worse off?  No.  I mean even the old adage :"Better to have loved and lost, than to have never tasted love."  We would be worse off because of many reasons.  A saved person is relentlessy attacked by Satan and his minions.  We are the tool of God to spread the Gospel to the world.  If we are a tool that does not work then God cannot use us.  He does not throw us out of the tool box however, but he just cannot use us.  

My response to your two parts will be in three parts.

PART 1


The terms you supply are not the only terms used to discuss salvation.  Inheritance, redemption, sacrifice, kingdom of heaven, save, justification and many others are all used to discuss salvation.  A simple word search based on a purposefully limited list of terms does not prove anything.


Could you clarify your position?  First you say he is talking about works and faith, then you say at the end of the same sentence that he is not.


So when James asks “Can that faith save him?” what is he discussing if not salvation?   When he says the demons tremble he is discussing what?  How cold it is in hell perhaps?  When James says we are justified by our works and not our faith alone he is saying what?  Are you going to redefine justification so it no longer refers to salvation just so it will fit your doctrine?


Works don’t only come from faith.  Faith can’t even come until we have repented and repentance is a work, since it is a turning around of ones life.  For that matter faith itself is a work (1 Th 1:3 and 2 Th 1:11).  Works perfect and keep faith alive.  If works are just the fruits of faith, and faith comes before works, then how far in advance does faith come?  How long can faith exist alone before it is dead?


How far does our faith have to grow before it is a faith that saves?  If our faith can grow from works, can it die due to lack of works?


What if our faith doesn’t endure?  Without faith we are not saved.  I thought we weren’t talking about salvation in James?


Once again we talk about the crown of life, another reference to salvation.  And how does he get this crown of life, through perseverance, which is a work.  Make up your mind is James talking about salvation or not?


Obedience is a work.  So from the last two references, we see us begin linking faith to works after the first part of the book discusses salvation and enduring.  So far no problem as long as you don’t skim over the parts that show why there is a concern over wisdom and trials.  The only reason one would be concerned over either is if and how they affect salvation.


Once again the link appears – those who have a true saving faith will be doers of the law.  If you do not do the works of the law (fulfilling the law through love) you will not keep faith alive.  Without faith you have no salvation.  You may not be able to see the discussion of salvation in James but it is there right in front of you.


So what happens if we ignore James advice?  If we are not exempt from obedience that means that works are required along with faith for salvation.  If the Gospel doesn’t free us from obedience to some laws, then we would lose our salvation by not obeying those laws because it would indirectly be a refusal to obey the Gospel.  And those who do not obey the Gospel are not saved as it says in 2 Th 1:8 and 1 Peter 4:17.

END OF PART 1

START OF PART 2


It is not “what would you think of thier “religion”?”  It is what would you think of their faith.  You can’t change the scriptures to conceal your doctrinal weaknesses.  The verses you refer to are addressing the persons faith.  That is why James asks “can faith save him?” just the verse before and follows this example with “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”  James is making a point here contrasting a living faith that is acceptable towards salvation with a dead faith which is not.  The difference is that the living faith has works accompanying it.  The dead faith does not.  The demons know just as we do that Jesus Christ is the savior.  They are just not willing to act on it.  That is why they tremble for fear of damnation as they have chosen to serve another, rather than serve the Lord.


Actually you are going backward here.  The example you bring up in the preceding paragraph, concerning being clothed and filled, occurs in verse 14 and 15.    Yes but look again at the last verse where it says God will show no mercy to those who show no mercy.  Said more plainly God is threatening damnation on those who do no works of love.  Once again we have a discussion of salvation and its requirements, in a book you claimed never mentions the topic.


Finally we get to it.  This is the standard Protestant understanding of James.  It is partly true but mostly wrong.   Works are the fruits of faith some times.  But sometimes works precede faith.  Works as you yourself pointed out precede a deepened faith as they serve to perfect and strengthen our faith.  Works also must always be present for faith to be alive.  So works cannot be absent even after the very first millisecond of faith or what you have is a dead faith, the kind the demons have.  But works also precede initial faith.  The process of initial salvation is grace, repentance (repenting and being converted - works), faith, and confessing.

Acts 3:19
19Repent 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;

Acts 26:20
20But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Romans 10:9
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.  


That would be an accurate interpretation if it were not for the fact that James is specifically comparing that individual to the demons who James acknowledge have faith it is just the wrong kind of faith.  What is the difference between the individual’s faith and a saving faith.  The same thing that is the difference between the demon’s faith and a saving faith.  The demons only believe, they do no works of love.  They chose to serve themselves or someone other than the Lord.  So though they truly believe that Jesus is the Messiah they only have faith alone.  So you see it all comes back to proper works done with a proper attitude making faith a proper faith.


Actually is was Abraham.  LOL   Moses was the one that built the ark.  LOL


I agree and have never tried to say that works could go it alone.  Works must be accompanied by faith, my point is that faith as James is saying cannot go it alone either.  Faith must be accompanied by works.  That is why (and I notice you ignored this verse last time) James says that we are not saved by faith alone, and this is the only place in all of scripture where these two words appear together.

END OF PART 2

PART 3


That is the problem with the Protestant approach to hermeneutics they think every verse is a complete doctrine.  No, there are over 20 different verses in the New Testament that say very simply do this and you are saved.  Now if we take your approach they are either all contradicting each other by offering alternative ways to salvation or they are all wrong but one.  The Catholic approach is to see them each as true but only telling part of the story.  Yes praying plays a role, so does faith, so does works, so does obeying the Gospel, so does eating His body and drinking His blood, etc.  A simple example might make it clearer.  Often people point out that the we do the work of God by believing on Jesus.  They support this by referring to John 6:29 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.  This is of course true but it is only a part of the story.  If we look at 1 John 3:23 23And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. we see the rest of the story.  Both verses are true but to get the whole story we must interpret them together.  God’s work is to both believe in Jesus and to love one another.  Our role in our own salvation is not just by any one thing it is by many things if you believe the scriptures.

This really all goes back to the error of letting the clear verses interpret the difficult that people rely on when trying to interpret the Bible for themselves.  That is like saying let your understanding of Newton’s laws of gravity explain General Relativity.  When in reality you find that you cannot truly understand Newton’s laws of gravity until you understand General Relativity.  No – the logical way is that you must learn by studying the easy issues first, moving up to more difficult issues as you are ready for them, with the help of an instructor leading the way.  But you must always be ready to reassess your understanding of those easy issues by what you have come to understand of the difficult ones, as you grew.  So you end up interpreting the easy verses in light of the difficult ones.  The end result is that you can never really understand any topic in part until you understand it in whole.  In other words you ideally should never attempt to interpret any verses from scripture until you can commit all of them to memory in such a way that you can recall them without effort.  Of course this is impossible for most, if not all men.  That is why no verse is plain or simple.  I have learned to rely less on a inflated view of my own mental capabilities and more on all of the writings of the past 2000 years of effort of Christians before me.  Systematic thoughts accumulated from some of the greatest theological minds of all time that I can call on through their writings to get a consistent systematic view of the Word of God.  Something one person studying alone can never accomplish.  That is why Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep and He never told the sheep to try to feed themselves.


No, the verse does not say that “we would be worse off being saved and living a sinful life than if we were just living a sinful life and not saved.” It states that we will be worse off than if we had never had the house swept clean, which is the metaphor this verse uses for salvation.  What is worse than going back to a state before our salvation?  It is going back to a state where we are living an even more sinful life than before and we lose our salvation.   Just going back to living a sinful life but not losing our salvation is not worse than when we were not saved now is it?


Think of what you are saying.  You want me to believe that is it better to have been saved and then lose that salvation than never to have been saved at all?  Either way in your scenario you face damnation.  No, one is not better than the other.  So that cannot be what the verse is saying.

The message of the parable is that if you are saved and then lose it you are then pulled into an even more sinful life thus making it harder to repent and be put back on the road to salvation again.  So be saved and lost is worse than never having been saved at all because we are harder to reach.


Sorry I would rather be saved and attacked by satan and unused by God, rather than never to be saved at all.  Your interpretation just doesn’t fit the idea of a worse state.  This parable cannot be talking about someone who is still saved.

END OF PART 3

OK we can go round and round on this and we agree on some point and disagree on others that we have discussed.  We both agree that as Christians we should have a "living faith" as you put it.  I take that as referring also to my comments of how we as Christians should be doing works based in our faith...with love and compassion.  I believe we pretty much agree on that.  

But I want to look at some other things that relate to the topic of if a person can lose their salvation.  ANd you had asked me (and others) to provide scripture which supports the stand point of once saved always saved.

I think we have to first take a look at what salvation is and what it is represented by in the Bible.

We can look at John and find some answers to that.  All of the verse below are what Jesus has to say about it directly.
John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life."
John 6:47 "He who believes has eternal life."
John 8:24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins."
John 11:25-26 "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die."

There are but 4 quotes from Jesus that say a good bit.  We see that if we believe in Jesus we shall have eternal life...and this is expanded upn that if we shall believe in Jesus we shall live, even we physically die.  And that if we believe in Him we shall never die.

There are a few verses in which Jesus uses some analogies to represent salvation.
References to being born
John 3:3 "Verily, verily, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 3:5 "Verily, verily, I say to you unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

These two are referencing being born again.  This being representative of showing that we are born into sin and through Jesus we can have another birth.  One that is born of the Spirit.

Some other verses we can see Jesus refering to salvation include
John 4:13-14 "Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life."
John 6:27 "Do not work for the food which  perishes, but the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man shall give to you..." And when asked "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus replied:
John 6:29 "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
John 6:35 "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."
Jesus mentions the bread bit again in
John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever"
John 8:35 "And the slave does not remain in the house forever, the Son does remain forever."
John 10:26-28 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.  My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me, and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."

Now these are just verses pulled from John.  And they are also only verses the Jesus Himself spoke.  From Jesus' own words we can see that by being born again, saved, we shall see the kingdom of God.  And upon the rebirth we are born of the Spirit...something we are not born of on our fleshly birth.  We can see that Jesus states that everyone who drinks of the water that He gives will never thirst.  This does not state that we will not be thirsty as long as we keep drinking.  But that we will never thirst.  We see Jesus refer to Himself as the bread of life and if anyone eats of that bread then they shall live forever.  Not until they quit nibbling or get hungry again...we shall live forever and never hunger.
We also see that Jesus will remain with us forever, unlike the slave who leaves the house.  And as the Great Shepherd, Jesus protects us and gives us eternal life, and that protects us so that we shall never perish.

Now being a good little Protestant and approaching hermeneutics we would first look at what Jesus had to say about things and the see what the apostles and other authors would state concerning that.  And if we look at James for example we see that he is discussing faith and works and not salvation and works or salvation and faith.  And discusses as I had mentioned how we should show our faith through our works and how our faith will be perfected through our works.  We see this also reference in Pauls letter to the Corinthians, 2 Cor 5:20 "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us."

We could go on and I could pull more verses and quotes from Jesus from the other Gospels that support and say similar to what is written in John.  That the life Jesus gives is eternal, and once we eat of the bread of life we shall not hunger, and if we drink of the water Jesus gives us we shall never thirst.  And to date you have provided no scripture to state contrary that I have not been able to show you scripturally that it did not reflect upon a lost salvation.

One cannot argue with what Jesus has said about our salvation and that is that it is forever.  No matter how it is cut forever means forever.  

Matt. 25: 1-15  Parable of the 10 virgins.

All 10 were saved, right?  Only 5 of them prepared enough oil.  The remaining 5 went to purchase oil and when they were gone the bridegroom came.  The first 5 went into the marriage feast with the bridegroom.  When the second set of 5 virgins returned and knocked at the door, the bridegroom told them that He never knew them and wouldn't let them in.

This parable tells me one can lose their salvation.  There are others as well, ie. Matt. 25: 34-46.

Really??!!  That parable tells you all that?  Where does it say they started out as 10 saved virgins?

Where does it say they weren't?  

The kingdom of heaven will be like 10 virgins.  Who IN the kingdom of heaven is unsaved?  There is a reason the parable is about "virgins" and not about "men" or women".  Virgins are not defiled - they're "pure".

All of these virgins WERE prepared but some more so than others.  5 planned for His tarrying and 5 did not (the wise and the foolish).  Not all saved people are wise but they're saved.  (Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.)  

My intupritation in blue or my words.

I read some pretty interesting verses in John that are about salvation that I think you all will like.

John 3:27 "John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven."

This is when Jesus is in Samaria and tells this women to give Him a drink of water.
John 4:13 -14 " Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

The water that Jesus is talking about is believeing in Him it is the water springing up into everlasting life.  So when Jesus says that you must be born again by water and of the spirit He is saying that you must believe in Him and have the Holy Spirit to be saved.  He is not talking about a literal water baptism, but a spiritual one.


John 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

John 6:33-35 " For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.  Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

John 6:40 " And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47-51 " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.  I am that bread of life. Your father did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.  This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.  I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

 Jesus is not talking about literally eating bread and drinking wine.  He is talking about spiritualy eating Him, or accepting Him.  When we eat bread and drink wine in church that is in remembrance of Him.  We don't literally have to eat bread and drink wine and say that this becomes his body to become saved.

 My favorite one. This is after many of the people that were following Jesus left.
John 6:67-69 " Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.  And we believe and are sure that thou are that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Isn't the above verse awesome?! I think that it answers micheal_legna's question if a christain can loose salvation, he wanted a bible verse to prove that you can't and God showed me one.  The people that left were the ones that followed Jesus and then left Him.  They were the ones that were not saved and were only interested in Him for the miracles that He could do.  God then asked His deciples if they would leave Him.  Simon Peter replied that we are saved and have eternal life and that we will not leave you, because we are sure that you are our salvation.  So once you become saved you DO NOT leave God. :)

A BIG AMEN!

This means we have to be given salvation as a gift we cannot earn it>  I never said we could earn it I only said after being given it we could throw it away.


Once again we get to the meaning of what it is to believe in Christ.  If you read all of the New Testament you see that it is not a mere mental ascent to the knowledge that Christ served as sacrificial lamb.  We must also accept Him as shepherd and door, we must take up our cross and follow Him.  If we stop following Him we stop believing in Him and we lose our salvation.  

We are warned if we put our hands to the plow and look back we are not worthy of the Kingdom of God.  

Luke 9:62
62And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

This is clearly talking about someone who decides to follow Christ and even begins following Him, yet does turn away.  Some who is saved and yet loses that salvation.


Again we must hear the Word and that is not just listening but understanding and taking those words into our heart making them part of our life, which all involve works in combination with faith to make it a living faith.  But we all know works can cease and so faith can die and we thus lose our salvation.



We have to come to Him and believe on Him, both coming and believing include works on our part.  Where works are they can cease and we can throw away the gift of salvation.  The choice of these verses by you indicates you have fallen into the standard Protestant error of interpreting believing on someone as merely discussing faith alone.  It takes so much more than just faith to believe on someone.  James clearly makes the point that faith alone is dead, you must be willing to put that faith into action to make it a living faith.  But how long can a faith be inactive before it is not a real faith?  How long can a faith live without works before it is a dead faith as James describes that of the demons?  A day?  A minute?  A microsecond?  Additionally, other works must even precede faith such as repentance, which is more than just a mental decision it is a turning around of ones life.  

Whether faith and works come together, or one comes first and the other must inherently follow; it is clear that faith that exists alone is not a real faith and so it is not a saving faith.  So faith alone does not save.  In fact faith alone is an oxymoron.


Here we have to “believe on” again and “eat of this bread”, both - or else you have two ways to be saved.  But both are again works we must do to accept the gift.  The point that there are two different things we must do in this one verse should not be skimmed over to lightly as there are dozens of similar verses in the New Testament which make it clear there is a lot expected of us in a proper acceptance of the free gift of salvation.

The following is a partial list of things required of us to be saved.

We have to follow Jesus to be saved.  (Matthew 10:38, John 10:27-28, Hebrews 5:9
We have to obey the Gospel to be saved.  (James 1:21-22, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 1 Peter 4:17)
We have to do works of mercy to be saved.  (Matthew 25:31-46)
We have to be Baptized by the water and the spirit to be saved.  (John 3:5)
We have to do the will of the Father to be saved.  (Matthew 7:21)
We have to love one another to be saved.  (2 John 5-6, 1 John 4:7-21)
We have to obey the commandments to be saved.  (John 14:15-24, John 15:9-10, 1 John 5:2-3)
We have to repent to be saved.  (James 5:20, Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19)
We have to discern Christ in the bread and wine to have eternal life.  (John 6:54, 1 Cor 11:29)
We have to do good works to be saved.  (Romans 2:6-7, 1 Timothy 6:18-19)
We need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.  (Philippians 2:12)
We have to continue in the proper doctrine to be saved.  (1 Tim 4:16)


This is wrong but we can get into the true presence in another thread if you want.


This doesn’t prove we can’t leave it just proves it doesn’t make any sense to leave.  Peter doesn’t say he can’t leave – he is just incredulous at the thought of leaving.

My response will be in two parts.


It is more than “Christians should be doing works based in our faith”  it is that without those works the faith is not real and is not a saving faith so faith alone cannot save.


This is a good start but to have a true understanding of salvation you must include every verse that refers to it so that you know your interpretation is consistent with them all.  


If one looks at these verses only you might be tempted to come to this conclusion.  However, this is just the type of quick rush to judgment we must avoid when we interpret scripture and which I warned about just above.  It does not cover all the scriptures that say we must do certain works which when joined to our faith as to properly accept the free gift.  I can provide them if you would like to see these verses but I will first move on to show how the verse you provide should be interpreted to allow for a works and faith based acceptance of the gift.

First we must realize that a single verse can contain the truth but not the whole truth about a subject.  Take for instance your first verse.  John 6:40 would indicate that all we have to do is believe in Him to do the Father’s will.  But John 6:40 certainly cannot be contrary to 1 John 3:23.
23And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.  which seems to add the additional requirement that we love one another.  They do not disagree as long as you interpret the first in light of the second.  A doctrine based on John 6:40 is incomplete, it must be based on both and therefore all scripture.

Similar issues can be addressed with relation to the other verse you offer but another problem also exists and that is what does it mean to believe in Christ.  If we accept belief as a mere mental ascent to the fact that Jesus in His role as sacrificial lamb died for our sins, then we might be tempted to interpret these verses to support a doctrine of simple faith.  But scripture never tells us to limit our belief to just that one role.  We must also accept Christ in His other roles which have more active requirements.  His role as shepherd requires that we follow Him.  His role as advocate requires us to appeal to Him.  His role as chief cornerstone requires us to build our life on His teachings.  His role as King and Lord requires us to obey Him.  And there are many more.  All of these require works to be part of the response to the free gift of grace to truly believe in Him.

END OF PART 1

Here is part 2


Note that it says spirit and water, we must be baptized to be born again.  That is an act of man, a work.  Where there are works, works can cease.  Just as circumcision can be made uncircumcision so we can deny our baptism and rebirth.


Again if we were to interpret these verses in isolation we might jump to that conclusion but we must make certain that our interpretation of these verses can be made consistent with our interpretation of all verses.  You can see a partial list of verses that show we must do certain works to properly accept the gift of salvation in my posted response to Kris777 above.


I agree that we should always make certain that any doctrine we espouse should be visible in the words in red so to speak, but so far the doctrine of eternal salvation is not.  So lets look at a few more of Christ’s discussions of salvation.

What did Christ say when He was specifically asked what we had to do to be saved?

Obey the Commandments.  Matthew 19:16 and Mark 10:17

Jesus makes it clear that He requires us to obey the commandments.  (We see in other verses this is not to the letter of the law but by the spirit of the law).  We know He is not being sarcastic here as some Protestant commentaries insinuate because He goes on to say that it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.  If we are saved by faith alone that must mean that it is harder for a rich man to have faith than it is for a poor man.  That makes no sense at all.  What is harder for a rich man is to give up the pleasures of this world as his god and accept Christ in their place.  He needs to turn away from this world and follow Christ.  This repenting of greed is a work.  Where there are works there can be a failure of those works and a resultant loss of salvation.

Parable of the Prodigal Son  Luke 15:11-32

This is clearly a case where a son, an heir (someone already saved) left the Father.  Turned his back and choose the world over his family (cast aside the free gift).  But later repented and was welcomed back with a fine robe 9like the one we will be given in heaven).  He was dead (lost/damned) and is now alive (saved/reborn).  Jesus tells this story of searching for those who are lost a number of times, the lost sheep, the lost coin, etc.  You cannot lose what you did not already have.  These items all represent people who were saved and lost and yet were found again, showing we can lose our salvation and be saved again.

The Parable of the Vine John 15:6

Here we have a branch that is a member of the vine (saved), which even though it is purged by the Father to bear fruit (given grace), when it does not bear fruit (produce works) it is cut off (loses salvation) and cast into the fire (condemned to hell).  And notice why it is condemned to hell, for lack of works.


You can keep saying that James is not about salvation but I have plainly showed you that it is and you turned the discussion away from it rather than address the points I made so I am not going to let you just say this uncontested.


I haven’t seen one instance where you DID show that a verse I provided was not about the possibility of losing salvation.

END OF PART 2

PART 1
Michael
and
This is why I had stated in the beginning of my last post that we could go round and round about it.  And we agree on some points and disagree on others.

I have shown you what James is referring to and discussing on several posts.  And it was you who did not accept that.  That is what you want to believe and that is fine.  I may think you are wrong, and that is fine as well.  We can argue the point until we are blue in the finger tips from typing.  And if you want to go back and limit the scope of the discussion to James we can do that as well.  May be in a different thread.

But the discussion is about if a Christian can lose their salvation.  And quite honestly you have failed to provide 1 verse the implicitly states that a Christian can be saved, then lost, then saved again, again, and again, and again.  Instead you have provided other scripture that "may" elude to that but may also refer to something else (and so far has when reading the verse and putting it in the light of God through His Word).  

Now as to your other responses.
Let me start by your comments about John 6:40 if interpreted "my" way would be contrary to  1 John 3:23.  Which if you read 1 John you will see that it is not contrary.
1 John 3:22-24 "and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.  And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.  And the one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him, And we know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us."
Now earlier in 1 John 2:3-6 "And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.  The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected.  By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked."

We see that John states that if we have the truth in us, the truth being the Truth of Christ, then we should be doing things accordingly.  That we ougth to walk as Jesus walked.  And that as we do things that are pleasing to God then God will grow in us.  Again there is no reference to losing salvation here.  These verses show what Jesus had said that we are to be born again.  And with this new birth John states that we should be righteous (1 John 2:29 "If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousnessis born of Him.")  John also toward the end of Chapter 2 is warning that there are antichrists already arisen.  And that they have gone out from even among the "Christians" but they are liars.  And we know from some of the previous verses some of the lying that John is talking about, talking the talk but not walking the walk.

You are correct.  However in order to accept Christ as his role as Savior and thus be saved, we must only believe.  And once we have accepted Christ in the role of Savior can we then even acknowledge Christ as King, Advocate, Teacher, Shepherd.  And as I pointed out Christ himself told us all that we need to do to accept Him as Savior is to believe.  And Christ Himself tells us that His role of Savior is a one time deal.  One that we will never thirst for again.  

In reference to the young rich man Matt 19, Mark 10, Luke 18

"That makes no sense at all" how untrue.  If our faith is putting trust in God alone then it very well could be harder
for a person who has their trust in the riches of the world to give it up.  This trust is shown in Mark 10:24 "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!"  Here we see that Jesus is contrasting the trust of the rich young ruler in riches and worldly goods, to that of trusting in God.  

END PT 1

PART 2

James 1:21 - Put aside all filthiness and wickedness, in humility received the word that is implanted in use.  Be doers of the word and not just hearers who delude themselves.  Receive the word as is listen to it, believe it, accept it, receive it.  Once we receive it we should let it show in our actions...be doers of the word...because the word should then direct our actions.  If we have received it then we will desire to walk according to Jesus.

2 Thes 1:8 - God will deal out retribution to those who do not know Him and those that who do not obey the gospel.  But read on a bit.
2 Thes 1:10-12"wehn He comes to be glorified in His sains on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed-for our testimony to you was believed.  To this end also we pray for you always that our God may count you worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith with power, in order that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ"

Hmmm so who do you think Paul is talking about here?  Once Jesus came there are but 3 catagories of people in the world.  There are Christians that follow Jesus.  Those that do not know God, the Gentiles and other Pagans.  Those that know God but are not following/believing the gospel of Jesus, in other words the Jews.  Paul even goes on to show somehting that James hits upon, he mentions work of faith and then also that Jesus should be glorified in us.  Again our works should be for the glorification of Jesus, and not for ourselves...which is what you are trying to state in that we can lose our salvation if we dont keep our faith up through works.  

1 Peter 4:17
what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
But read some more
1 Peter 4:14-19 "If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.  By no means let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesom meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God.  For it is time for judgement to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel fo God? And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner? Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust thier souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right."
AMEN.  Let all that suffer in the name of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right and what is God's will.  A faithful Creator who sent His Son and His Son said that if I, a lowly sinner, believe in Him and drink of the water which He gives I shall never thirst again.
Again the word is that we must glorify God in all that we do.  Again the word states we must trust in God and do things to glorify God.  We as righteous people will go through hard times, we may be persecuted, we could be stoned even as Paul was, but if we believe in what God has told us, and we are doing God's will, then we can put our Trust in God to allow us to percevere and rise up and above it all, and be comfortable in our seat next to Him.

You said this to Kris
Although true it is not complete.  It is true that salvation is a free gift, freely given by God.  There is but one thing we must do in order to receive that gift however.  And that is to believe, and accept it.  God's will is that then use that gift to glorify His name.  To use our salvation to proclaim to the world the truth.  And we should do that by letting our faith show in our works.  Let God be glorified in everything we do.  However not one verse specificly states that we can lose our salvation, when there is a host of verses that stated our salvation is forever and will never go away.

I provided you a list from just John of what Jesus Himself said about it.  We can continue on and go into the other books as well.  And we can find others that would state that our salvation is forever.  But we will not find any that state it can be "revoked".

And I am sorry Michael but you have not provided any verse that has shown specifically that our salvation is dependant upon the works we do.  Jesus used the reference of being born again for a reason.  You can only be born once in the physical sense just as you can only be born once in the spiritual sense as well.  


If we can lose and then regain our salvation through works of faith or the lack there of, the our works are not for the glorification of Jesus but for ourselves.  There is no unit of measure or balancing act to warrant any degree of salvation.  Jesus does not state that you have to believe and then say 12 Hail Mary's to accomidate for the past sins.  Nor is there any reference that to attone for the sin of say lying you have to go and tell 8 truths.  If our salvation was dependant upon works in any fashion then Jesus would have said that and there would have to be some "unit of measure".  But there is none and Jesus does not state there is.  

END

but we aren't going around and around.  You showed me verses that you said showed James wasn't talking about salvation and I addressed them offering alternative interpretations.  Then I offered verses showing that James was talking about salvation and rather than address them you decide we have to change the subject.  I don't see the circle in that at all.   All I see is you unable to support the contention you made about an error in my interpretation.


I did not accept it because all you ever discussed was your side of the argument refusing to even consider or address my counter points.


I am focusing the discussion on James with you because as the discussion developed it was because I claimed that James is discussing salvation and there is a point to be made for losing salvation based on James.  You denied my point that James is about salvation and so we are discussing it to determine if it is or not and then we can see where the link is to loss of salvation.  There is no need to move on until you respond to the points I made rather than avoid them in hopes of finding an easier point for your position.


The issue of salvation being by faith alone or not is central to whether a person can lose their salvation so we are still on the topic.


But that is the proper way to interpret God's word.  You should never accept a single verse no matter how clear or implicit it may appear on an issue.  You must interpret all scripture in light of all other scripture and then see what scripture in it's entirety "alludes to" as you put it.

You missed my point about John 6:40 and 1 John 3:23.   my point was that if you rely on just John 6:40 you would assume all we have to do is believe in Jesus, but John clearly says we must believe in Him aND love one another.  So you cannot try to build doctrine on the idea of finding one verse that "implicitly says" something as you berate me for not doing.  You must always compare those verses to more complete descriptions found in other verses or in groups of other verse that may "allude" to a different interpretation.  I know this idea may seem foriegn to you but it is the underlying error to all of Protestantism, and the idea of sola scriptura and the interpretation of scripture by individuals and has ultimately led to the confusion we see in the 30,000 different denominations of today.


That is just burying the question.  Once again we have to ask believe in what?  No where does scripture tell us that we only have to believe in Christ as sacrificial lamb and that is all.  If that were true all of the New Testament could have been put in one or two short verses.  Instead there is verse after verse which say we have to do this and that in order to be saved.  Why is it you have not addressed the list I have directed you to which contains these verses?  How do you make these requirements all from scripture fit in with a faith alone doctrine?

And I responded to those verse already - time for you to repsond to my interpretations of those verses showing where they are wrong and to the verses I have offered, rather than ignoring them because you cannot make them fit into the faith alone doctrine.



That is mixing apples and oranges, the rich man is not trusting in riches to save him.  The love man feels for riches and the love man feels for God are two different things.  One does not fill the same need as the other but man sometimes picks the immediate gratification of the world over the long term good of his being.  He is not trusting nor does he have faith in his riches; he merely loves them more than God.  You cannot compare the love man had for this world with the faith we are to have in God.  Love and faith are two entirely different types of things and the parable is contrasting man's love for riches with his love for God, not his faith in God.

DITTO ;D

Yah, me too. DITTO, kind of.


  I think that people that are saved will stick with God and when they do wonder away they will come close to Him again.  But I believe that you can't loose salvation and what micheal_legna is saying about faith and works I think that if you are saved faith and works should go hand and hand.

That is really my only point - that faith and works go hand in hand.  That those people who teach salvation by faith alone don't even believe it themselves.  

Faith cannot exist alone, at least not a true saving faith.  Because when it is alone it is no different that what the demons have and that type of faith isn't a proper acceptance of the free gift.  So the doctrine of salvation through faith alone is inconsistent with a deep understanding of scripture and revealed as a man made error.

PART 2


Don’t you see that you want works to be just fruits of our faith but to get there you first have to have us perform works.  We have to repent or as James puts it “put aside” our old way, receive the Word which is implanted through use, in other words we don’t fully accept the Word until we put it into use through works.  

All of your terms  - “listen to it, believe it, accept it, receive it” are all acts of man – they show we must actively do works before we even have a true faith.


You equate following with believing when you say “following/believing” but they are not the same thing.  Following is obedience, believing is faith.  Both are required to be a true disciple of Jesus and that discipleship is required for a true acceptance of the free gift but you have been arguing against this all along.  


But I do not claim that our works are for anything other than the glorification of Jesus.  If you are doing works just to retain your salvation then you are doing them for the wrong reason and they are not works of love.  It is like the old argument that you should believe in God because if you are right then you God will be pleased with you and you will go to heaven.  But if you are wrong and there is no God then you didn’t lose anything.  That type of logic is in error as God would see right through it and that type of belief (hedging your bets) would not get you into heaven.  That is not what I am espousing.  I am saying that if we respond with a loving acceptance of the free gift we will do good works.  The reason for these works is not for the individuals those works are directed towards, otherwise anyone who did those works would be saved.  But we do them to glorify Christ, that is what makes them a loving response.  Now in regards to losing our salvation – if we continue to do these works with the right intention, we continue to glorify Jesus.  If for some reason we stop doing them we stop glorifying Christ, we stop confessing Him in our actions and so we lose our salvation.  I realize this does not show we can stop doing those works, it is only to show that proper light to see them in so you cannot claim that the works or lack of them in and of itself is attempting to glorify ourselves and thus maintain salvation.


But don’t get the grammar wrong here!  We are not reviled because God’s spirit rests upon us.  It is the reverse.  God’s spirit rests upon us because we accept the reviling.  That is why it is a blessing.  Later we also see it is not God who is doing what is right.  It is us, doing what is right by cooperating with God’s grace.  So often Calvinist twist the grammar to try to show that the doing right is a sign of our faith.  This verse makes it clear that we are doing right by suffering willingly accepting it as God’s will, submitting our own will to His.  This submission in and of itself is a work.  If it was God doing all these things where would judgment come into play?  On what basis would God be judging us if not on our submission to His will and the faithful acceptance of the trials associated with declaring ourselves to be one of His.


Can't you hear yourself?  We must glorify God, that is us acting – works.  We must do God’s will.  We must persevere.  All works.  Then you imply the consequences if we don’t.  If we don’t do these things we cannot put our trust in God.  This does not say to you that we can lose our salvation?
 

You provided verses from John and I showed you alternate interpretations for them.  We have already seen verses that say it can be "revoked", in fact every verse we have discussed can be seen when properly interpreted in the light of other scripture to support the idea, we just disagree on the interpretation.  

You interpret them one verse at a time, in isolation, ignoring the verses about works role in accepting the gift, so that your literal interpretation of a few verses can stand against the verses that clearly state we can lose our salvation.  

I interpret the verses that say we can lose our salvation literally, based on that interpretations agreement with the role of works in accepting the free gift and I do not take your verses literally.  

It is up to each of us to decide which approach is the more consistent.  But since you don’t want to even address the verses I offered up to interpretation while I addressed all of yours the answer is clear to me.

END OF PART 2

Quote from Michael,

"All of your terms  - “listen to it, believe it, accept it, receive it” are all acts of man – they show we must actively do works before we even have a true faith."

Our believing is God's work.

Joh 6:28  "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29  Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

pilgrim,


Christians believe this, but michael doesn't, this is why he keeps goping around in circles with his arguments.

The Roman Catholic church does not teach this, they teach salvation is not the work God does, it is the result of what man does for God.

This is why, he fails to see, the error of the RC church in killing Christians for disagreeing with his church.

Beware of men who speak with a cloven tongue.


Blessings,

Petro

This is the type of erroneous thinking that comes from building doctrine on one verses in isolation from the rest of scripture.

All you have to do is look at one more verse to see that your interpretation is wrong.

1John 3:23  And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

See, this verse cannot be contrary to the verse you quote so the only possible explanation is that the verse you quote (though fully true) is only telling part of the story.  We get more of the story in 1 John 3:23 where is says we must believe AND love.  

But even that is not the whole story.  We can go throughout scripture showing more and more things we MUST do to properly accept the free gift.  Evetually it all comes down to the proper acceptance of the gift, as determined by God, is for us to repsond with a true living faith and that requires works to keep it alive and perfect it.  Without a proper acceptance of the gift we are not saved.

This is another in your long string of lies Petro.  You know that is not the Church's position.  You just state it is so you can more easily attack it.  The Church teaches that salvation is the work of God, but that man does have to accept the gift.  You and your doctrine of deterministic predestination and stripping away man's free will remove love from the relationship between man and God and replace it with force and slavery.

Petro, do you know anythign about the RCC?  The RCC does not teach that you have to be under the authority of the Pope to be saved.  You probably got this from a quote you read that said something like there is no salvation outsid eof the Church and you immediately jumped to your legalistic intepretation of everything and came to a conclusion only you believe.  The Church has a far more subtle mind than you do and its meanings are more complex than a simple approach like yours can account for.  I could explain the nuances to you but I am sure you have already made up your mind and do not want to be confused by facts.

Your statement is funny actually because half of Protestantism accuses the Church of saying even the Moslems are saved and the other half say that the Church claims only Roman Catholics are saved.  It is just that type of simplistic interpretation, you exhibit, of the Church's teachings that cause this type of confusion, bigoty and hate.


You too call anything that disagrees with your doctrines heresy so we are not so different in that respect.


You can have any opinion of the man you want the issue is he did a corrupt translation of the Bible with heretical teachings in the margins.  Hardly a faithful servant of God in my mind.


Where do you get this opinion of me Petro?  You don't know me and in fact we have never even met yet you feel you know I would kill.  I guess I should not be suprised, your so called knowledge of the Catholic Church is generally built on even less hard evidence.

Just so you know, I will tell you something about myself.  I would never kill, even in self defense, because unlike you I think we have to decide to be save, and to kill someone, any one, takes away there last chance to choose to believe and follow Christ.

Ok Michael we will go back to James for a bit.  And I did address the verse you had pointed out in James.  But here let me go back and address them some more.  Specifically addressing some of the replies to that you had mentioned.

Typo more than anything....the second bit of "or works and faith" was a clip and paste from a different paragraph that did not get edited out.  The postion is that James is discussing works and faith and not works and salvation.

This being in reference to James 2:14.  And my reply to that was
While not completely incorrect it is not completely correct either.  One that would profess to have faith in Jesus but is not acting accordingly more than likely never had a true faith to begin with.  We are taught not only by James but others that once we are saved we are born anew and given a new life.  And filled with the Spririt.  And this should produce good works within us.  Make certain you read it correctly because 2:14 states "if a man says he has faith..." which indicates that whomever this is is professing to have faith.  But for everyone else who sees them they see no works to prove his faith, thus the conclusion would be that he truly does not have faith.  James stated that back in 1:22.

And I had replied in reference to 2:19
Again while not completely incorrect it is not completely correct either.  If you read the verse again is states "You believe that God is one." or that there is one God.  Yes even the demons believe that there is one God.  They do not shudder because of eternal damnation which they also already know they have, but they shudder in fear of that one God.  Something else to note is that James states that the demons believe that there is one God, but it does not state that the demons believe in that one God.  Subtle but distinct differences.  Also to note is that James uses the word belief/believe and not faith.  Another subtle difference but one that is different...belief is a part of faith and not vice versa.

Works are not only a fruit of faith, but faith is a fruit of works.  These two are directly proportional and James (as well as others) shows this sort of relationship.  As you said our works help perfect our faith, and as our faith grows so does the relevance of our works.  Agreed that our salvation requires an act on our part.  We have to accept the gift, never argued that point.  The point of discussion is if we can lose our salvation.

Our faith does not grow to a point of salvation.  Our faith is based in our salvation.  Can it (faith) die due to a lack of works?  No I do not believe that it can completely.  Since faith is belief in God as well as a trusting acceptance of God's will, I do not believe that anyone can no longer believe in the Truth once they have received it.  I do believe that we can stop trusting in God's will, and we do so everytime we sin, but we cannot truly no longer believe in the Truth.  We may profess that we do not, but just as James and others point out that one who professes to know Christ but does not "walk the walk", does not truly know Christ, the sort of inverse is possible as well and that one who has known the truth but professes not too, is a liar.  Can a Christian's faith die?  It can appear to in every aspect of their life, but it is often said that one cannot hide from the truth, and that is doubly so if one has already known the truth.  And to even toy with the idea of a dead faith that does not change what scripture says about salvation being a one time deal.

We are not talking about salvation in James, we are talking about faith.  See above for some expansion on faith.  And if faith does not endure the Christian is still not lost. 1 Cor 3:14-15 "if any man's work which he has built upon remains, he shall receive a reward.  If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire."  We may suffer loss if our faith does not endure and we begin to sin.  God will not allow blessings to be born of sin, but will rain His blessings upon the righteous.  One thing religious history has shown us, is that which Paul teaches to the Corinthians, if you build your house of cards it will eventually come crashing down.  Those that build themselves up in sin will eventually fall, there are many examples of that in recent history both Catholic and Protestant to show that.

So apparently you had missed the grammar lesson we had talked about with the ';'  Two seperate related independant thoughts "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial" and "Blessed is the man that has been approved"

Not disagreeing that obedience is a work.  And also not disagreeing that faith and works are linked...matter of fact have explained that one a couple of times.  And no the only reason one would be concerned is not how they affect salvation, but how they affect ones walk with Jesus.  And up and to this point (1:19) James has not stated that there could be a loss of salvation (not that he does anywhere else either ;)  ).  

Not being exempt does not mean that works are required along with faith for salvation.  As far as your reference to 2 Th 1:8 read the verses before it and you will see we are talking of the second coming and that retribution will be dealt to those that do not know God (everyone that is not Christian or Jew - they are the ones who 'know' God) and those that do not obey the Gospel of Jesus (the Jews - they know God but did not listen to Christ).  Paul further shows this when talking about "that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed".  And 1 Peter 4:17 take a look at that verse again...During this time who would be considered the house of God?  We are still infancy of Christianity so the house of God being referenced would also include the Jews.  But Peter says that if the judgement begins with us (Christians) first then what would become of those that were in the house of God but not Christians (the Jews)?  Peter shows this more back in verse 14 where he mentions that if "you are reviled for the name of Christ"  Who would be reviling a Christian?  The answer would be a Jew.  

END PART 1

BEGINNING PART 2
Close.  James is contrasting a living faith with works to one without.  But without he is referencing the example between one who proclaims to be a Christian but does nothing.

What James is talking about when stating “can faith save him?” is re-iterating what is said in 1:22 “But prove your selves doer of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.”  How are they deluding themselves?  They believe that by claiming to believe or professing to have faith that they are done.  What James put forth throughout his book is that a saved person will do works.  We as Christians will desire to do works to the will of God.  See the explanation of faith in previous post.  James is talking about those that believe in God but have not accepted God’s will.

No.  James tells us that the demons believe that God is one, there is one God.  James says no more.  This is why James talks about a dead faith in that faith without doing the will of God is only belief in God.  The demons know Jesus is the saviour of men, and they tremble in fear of God, they already know for a fact they are damned.

Actually typo there.  Should have been Chapter 4 and not Chapter 2

I don t disagree with your statements in that one would have works to accompany their faith.  As discussed earlier faith is also the acceptance to do God’s will.  But nothing so far discussed states we shall/can lose our salvation.

There truly appears to be an issue here, and I do not know if it is a simple lack of understanding on your part or your Catholic doctrine.  But once again not only do you state, but you say that James states, that the demons have faith.  James uses the words believe.  Even in English there is a difference and in the Greek there is as well.  The Greek for faith is pistis which means: conviction of the truth of anything; in the NT of conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith.  Pistis contains a conviction and not simple belief.  The word for believe that James uses is pisteuo which means: to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in.  This is what the demons have.  They know it to be true there is but one God.  James states that simple belief such as that is not only not enough but he shows that is not even true faith.  Faith must have with it a conviction.  A fervour.  

DOH!!!  

END PART 2

BEGINNING PART 3

Now some of the replies from above are clip and pastes from the previous posts and you can come back and re-iterate that which you have already said.  Thus going round and round.  

And as I have stated before we as Christians will have a living faith or one that is not only the convicted belief in Jesus as the Savior but one that lets our convictions show through the works we do.  

You had made some comments in reference to as to a proper evaluation of the gospels.  While correct in the concept that one must look at all of the texts there is a slight issue in your statement when stating that each is pretty much only a smaller part of the bigger picture.  The Bible we study is first and foremost the word of God.  We do not look at the Bible with a predisposition of trying to find something to prove our “theory”.  Say for example the discussion at hand.  Pretend you are new to the Christian family.  You want to find out more about your salvation, what does it mean, is it permanent, am I free from sin, etc, etc.  Where would you start?  There is a reason the original compilers put things in the order of the Gospels first.  Because we should start at the beginning…at the source.  And the life of Jesus and what He had to say was the source.  So we must start with what Jesus had to say.  Then we look into what the other writers had to say.  Since it is all the inspired word of God and thus cannot contradict itself then the other writers must fall in line with what Jesus had to say.  

And I have already provided several verses just from John alone that provided what Jesus had to say about our salvation as it relates to this topic.   And what we find is very clear cut and very understandable that once we have been saved we are saved forever.  Jesus explains that once we drink of the water He provides we shall never thirst, nor will we hunger…you can read it all in John.  And as we read we find others support this as well.  Yes they do talk of works and how our faith should show in our works.  And they show how we even as Christians can fall into sin again.  If we could lose our salvation then Jesus would have said so and He would have done it in as clear of words as He did when stating we cannot.

END PART 3

BEGINNING PART 4

Back in reference to the Rich young Ruler
Mark 10:23 in direct reference to the Ruler "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! "  Jesus says explicitly that the ruler is trusting in his riches.  I agree it is not to save him…but we are not to trust in God just for salvation but for all things.

Incorrect.  James and others tells us that not only are works fruits of faith but they then also that faith is perfected through works.  They are directly proportional as long as the works are in accordance to God’s will.  But yes we must perform an act in order to receive salvation, we must repent and such as you stated.  But you are incorrect in the statement that works are just fruits of our faith, they are much more than the product of our faith.


No I was not stating that following and believing are always used in the same sense (although at times people do use them that way).  But again you have it wrong in your statement that believing is faith, believing is only part of faith…see the discussion above.  By me stating ‘following/believing’ I am referring to having faith in Jesus, because both following (obedience) and believing are part of faith.  But in reference to the verses discussed in 2 Th 1 we see Paul state “…marveled at among all who have believed – for our testimony to you was believed.”  Paul here states that the people in the church of Thessalonia believed the testimony which Paul had already come to preach the Gospel to them.  And it would appear that they have believed what Paul had come before to say about Jesus.  Paul already set things up in preceding verses by stating that the people there had been imitators of himself, thus doing things in accordance to God’s will.  And Paul mentions that they became examples among all the believers.  This shows that Paul is using the term believers to mean Christians or those of faith or professing faith.  

We are reviled because we are proclaiming Christ.  If you are reviled for the name of Christ”  This states that the people Peter was talking to would be hated because of the name of Christ…in other words because they were doing what Christians should do… they were out professing the glory of Jesus and proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah.  And yes if we are reviled because of that then we are blessed because God will send His Spirit to rest upon us.  And it is not so much that we accept the reviling as it is that because we have been doing the will of God and thus been reviled.  And I agree it does not state that God is doing right, but us.  But it is not us doing right by cooperating with God’s grace…it is cooperating with God’s will.  As far as the comment on the Calvinists…well there is no twist in grammar or anything in that we should be doing the right things, that which God has directed us to do, and it is a sign of our faith.  Since our faith is accepting of God’s will then we know that it is God’s will that we do things like love our neighbors, control our anger, and such as is directed.  It is not just a sign of our faith but sign of good living.  And the bit about suffering willingly and such make it sound like in order to get a blessing from God we must fist have had a life where we had to walk to school in the freezing cold of Minnesota with 4 feet of snow and blasting winds, uphill both ways.  God does not say any of that.  God says that if we love Him and trust Him and do things that are pleasing to Him then He will bless us.  God does not say that if we do those things then He will send a plague upon us.  We are also told that we will encounter trials and tribulations in our life.  And James tells us to hold fast to our faith.  We are told that we will encounter temptations in our life.  Temptations to sin, to not listen to the judgement of God, and James tells us these temptation are not from God, for God cannot be tempted by evil.

END PART 4

BEGINNING PART 5

And this is not true.  You did provide “alternative interpretations” but I would not claim them to be in the light.  As already shown in early part of post the light you would refer to starts with Jesus.  Jesus is the foundation that all others must be built upon.  And what I showed you in John is the start of that foundation.  You are correct in that we disagree on the interpretation and you may believe what you do and I what I do.  And either we are sitting here discussing this simply for the sake of doing it or we are trying to alter the other persons point of view.

No I don’t interpret one at a time or in isolation.  I like you may quote them one at a time but you can see from replies made to your single verse quotes that I will generally reference verses before, after, or in other areas to support my stance.

That cannot be true because not once is there a verse that states we can literally lose our salvation.  But yet several that state our salvation is forever.  The reason you do not take other verses as literally is because it goes against your doctrinal thoughts.  BTW they are not “my” verses but they are the words of Jesus.

It is clear to me in several of your comments throughout these discussions that you are not earnestly discussing things in order to expand your knowledge.  Knowledge not only of your own faith but knowledge of scripture as well.  Comments such as these:
Thus implying if any view is not the Catholic view then it must be wrong
2000 years of Catholic doctrine and nothing else as implied by above statement
Again all the same Catholic doctrine.  Ne’er a thought that what happens if that doctrine become stagnant, as the accumulated thoughts of men can become.  
Oh and a Catholic cannot or does not?  

These sorts of slight jabs along with others that appeared to try and state that I as well as others are ignorant of the scriptures or do not know how to read I find personally offensive.  I personally do not hold claim to any “tag” such as a denomination.  I find them to provide dividing lines and divisions among Gods children.  I consider myself a Christian first and foremost.  And at one time you made comment to Sola Scriptura.  Well honestly there is but one word of God.  All else is the word of man.  And to find my answers I check with what God had written before I find out what anyone else had to say about it.  And being of a logical mind I also do not follow a single author or even doctrinal thought process if I cannot get my clarification from the scripture.  If I have to read outside of the source I read several different authors and then formulate an opinion or stance upon which I was looking.    As far as relying strictly on your 2000 years of Catholic theologians…is this the same 2000 years of theologians that have changed their mind on evolution?  And although I will admit my ignorance on the fineries of the Catholic doctrine and revisions of the Catholic handbook, I do know the word of God has remained unchanged in over 2000 years.  

END

Quote from Michael,

“This is the type of erroneous thinking that comes from building doctrine on one verses in isolation from the rest of scripture.

All you have to do is look at one more verse to see that your interpretation is wrong.

1John 3:23  And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

See, this verse cannot be contrary to the verse you quote so the only possible explanation is that the verse you quote (though fully true) is only telling part of the story.  We get more of the story in 1 John 3:23 where is says we must believe AND love. “

Actually, this demonstrates your lack of understanding of 1 John 3:23. You are reading into the verse that these things are conditions of salvation, but nowhere in the context does it state such a thing. This verse is simply stating commands of Christ which by the way are more than these two. Now it is true that if you obey the first command then a s a result one would be saved. Also, it is true that if one is truly saved He will obey Jesus and love one. The only condition the Bible places for salvation is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ regardless the words used to describe this action.

PART 1 OF 4 PARTS


I did not think your responses address the issue of whether James was discussing salvation or not, that is why I thought you had ignored the following verses: James 1:3, 1:12, 1:19, 2:14-15, 5:15.  Maybe it was all the “although not completely incorrect it is not completely correct either” that threw me.  You need to decide is James talking about salvation or not?


I will agree they did not have a true faith if by that you mean a faith necessary for salvation.  But faith is just a deep sense of belief, so under that definition I think the demons have a true faith, it is just the wrong kind.  The issue is what makes a faith, turn out to be a faith that is necessary for salvation?  James answer is of course that it cannot exist independent of works.

Once we can establish or agree on that then we can have the chicken and the egg argument, not that it matters because either one, faith or works alone, even for an instant is valueless with regards to salvation.


But you focus too narrowly, the context is broader than just the verses behind.  James is next going to show that the demons have faith and are not saved.  This shows that faith alone cannot save and James even says that here leading up to his argument.


That subtle difference is exactly what separates a true living, saving faith from a dead faith which cannot save.  I agree it is not enough to believe there is a God or that Christ was the Messiah, we have to believe in them.  When you believe in someone you become their follower, you put there teachings to work in your life.  Until these things happen you only believe they exist you are in the same position you say the demons are in.  It is not until works begin to accompany faith that faith is alive.

We are talking throughout James about two kinds of faith, and how they relate to salvation.  One type of faith that demons have, which is shared by those who have faith without works, a dead faith; verses a perfect faith which the saved have through the accompanying works.  Any faith that is alone falls into the first type and so you cannot be saved by faith alone.


Now there!  See I missed that point of agreement all along, so this rehashing of James was not wasted.  I thought I was starting at having to prove that salvation by faith alone was wrong.  I am sorry for assuming incorrectly on that point.

But now we do need to discuss whether salvation can be lost.  I contend that where works are required, works can cease.  If works cease faith dies and salvation is lost.  I am going to assume (and correct me right away if I am wrong) that you are going to agree with that but claim that a true living faith is not going to let works cease.  I also think we agree on the fact that we cannot do any good works on our own without the infusion of the free gift of grace.

If we are to assume that works cannot cease I feel that means that works are only the fruit of faith.  That good works have no origination within ourselves or our nature, not even from within our cooperation with grace.  I do not accept that approach for several reasons.

First it strips away man’s free will after we respond to the free gift.

Second it denies the idea that man can sin accepting the free gift, since our works are fruits of a true, living, saving faith and that would not bear bad fruit.

Third if works were only fruit of faith, and works perfect faith, then faith would be self perfecting.  The whole process seems too convoluted to me.

But before I go further let me know we agree this far.


I would like to see some scripture referenced to show that faith cannot die.  I will try to provide some that show it does.  The verse below (James 1:3) sure seems to support the idea that our faith can die.

END OF PART 1

PART 2


See this is where I get confused.  If salvation is dependent on faith, then any discussion of faith is a discussion of salvation.  Especially if that discussion is about whether that faith continues to exist.


1 Cor 3:15 is talking about our works enduring the trial of fire not our faith.  Those mentioned in that verse are saved, we know that because they choose to built upon the foundation of Christ.  But the actual act of building refers to works.  The fact that they chose to build on that particular foundation is because of faith.  The trial by fire does not affect the foundation or their choice of it but it does affect the works.


No, I think you are misremembering the lesson.  Just because the ‘;’  means two separate related independent clauses does not mean that the subject of the first clause it separate from the subject of the second as I pointed out in my comments to your grammatical analysis linking grace to works and faith both (though in different ways) though faith and works existed in separate clauses.  You never disagreed so I assumed you accepted that separate independent clauses could share the same subject.

But in this case we are discussing James 1:12 and there is no semicolon, it uses a colon.  Therefore it is even clearer that the subject for both enduring temptation and receiving the crown of life are the same man, as is clear from the reading.  Anyway it is clear that this verse in James is about salvation unless you want to claim “the crown of life that God promises to those who love Him” is something else.  

 
I see that we are in agreement now on the works and faith issue, though it did take me too long probably.  I still wonder though if we agree on all aspects of the faith and works relationship.  I get the feeling that your contention is that the relation between faith and works changes once we accept the gift of salvation.  That prior to that they work together to accept the gift, but then after that they only work together to produce our walk.  Is that a fair assessment of your position?  If so we still disagree on some points.

However, with regards to losing salvation I think James has alluded to it just above in James 1:12 where he says if we endure we get the crown of life.  Enduring requires us to be in a specific state and though pressured to change states we do not.  To endure trials we must first be saved, then when tempted to disobey God’s will we refuse or at least if we fail we repent.  If we both fail and refuse to repent then we do not endure.  But if we fail and refuse to repent we cannot be saved, because repentance is required to accept the gift properly.  If this last option is not possible, i.e. those who are saved cannot lose their salvation, then it makes no sense to discuss endurance at all, since all who are tried will endure, so even the trial is not real.


So you claim this lesson is not applicable to us?  Then there is another issue we will have to discuss at some point, that of dispensationalism.  The idea that God’s word can be completely non-applicable to us is foreign to me and I cannot accept it.  Don’t get me wrong I understand that we must understand the context of a book, such as Matthew was written to the Hebrews of the era, specifically to reach them, but I would never neglect the teachings of that book because of that.  To me a truth is a truth is a truth, applicable to all men at all times.  Perhaps it is my experience clouding my judgment because I have seen lots of uses of dispensationalism to deny the application of clear teachings in scripture and they always seem to be avoidance techniques.  Still, I see no evidence for this idea in any of the scriptures that use the word dispensation and so I need to better understand the argument for it before I could accept that explanation for he above verses.  Just because they refer to Jews does not mean that it does not apply to others who do not obey the Gospel.

END OF PART 2

PART 3


How does that differ?  A living faith with works is a faith that is acceptable towards salvation, is it not?   A faith without works, or a claimed faith without works is not acceptable towards salvation.  The only difference we seem to have here is whether the person who claims to be a Christian has any faith at all.  This is probably more semantics than anything, as I am defining faith as belief and you are defining faith as a living active belief.  Your definition makes faith and works inseparable and keeps the demons from having faith.  I am referring to faith and works as separate concepts as they are distinguished by Paul so that he can emphasize the difference between works of the law and works of love.  But my separation allows the demons to have faith, since it is merely belief.  If this is an accurate portrayal of our positions I would ask you how do you emphasize the difference between the works Paul says cannot participate in our salvation and the works that accompany belief (though Paul calls it faith) to make it a real faith?


I agree that James is saying that a saved person will do works, but he is also saying that the person is not saved until he does those works.  Some of the works (like repentance) precede faith, others accompany faith and perfect it, others are fruits of the grace we accept.


If faith without doing the will of God is the dead faith and the demons don’t have faith merely belief, then why is James contrasting or comparing the two in verses 2:14 through 2:20.  There is no change of subject at verse 2:19 as you need to have to separate the “dead faith without works” and mere “belief” of the demons.  We know that these verses should be taken together because of the single idea of a “dead faith without works” that shows up explicitly in verses 14, 17, and 20.


I agree this is the issue.  Is there three types of believing?  Is there a living saving faith with works, a dead faith without works and mere belief such as the demons have, and perhaps there is an additional idea that you can truly know with certainty.  Perhaps this is the position of the demons since their knowledge and power exceed ours.  I think though that as I laid out above James is grouping them together in his discussion for comparisons sake.


I think we covered new ground here, at least I learned something of your positions that had not come through clearly to me before.  I also feel that I was able to show in a slightly new light some of the issues I feel you have not addressed fully, thus giving you a chance to respond to them more satisfactorily.  There is an old adage about a teacher explaining something to a student.  I explained it to him once and he didn’t understand, I explained it to him again and he seemed to understand and when I found a third way to explain it I finally understood it!


But it is not just a showing through that works do, they also perfect or strengthen our faith.  The more we do the will of God the more graces we receive and the more our faith is strengthened.  I contend the converse is true as well if you neglect your gifts and do not do the works of love we are called to, we will have taken from us even that which we had.  Not to the point of taking away our salvation but to the point where we eventually have neglected it to the point where our faith is weakened to be deceived.

END OF PART 3

PART 4


No I did not mean to imply that, I was only saying that I expected you to eventually get around to redefining faith in that way.  As it is I don’t think you hold to that definition actually since you accept the idea of faith and works being necessary for salvation.


Gee and I thought I was being humble.  But don’t you see there is value in that 2000 year history.  The review of doctrine by the best minds in the world both inside the Church defending it and outside of the Church attacking it have served to temper the resulting theology and insure it is at the very least self consistent and comprehensive.  I would add that it has been shown to be in agreement with scripture as well or at least not so obviously contrary that the billions of its members have not left the Church in large number.


God and His will doesn’t change and so the Church doesn’t change in its doctrinal issues.  Issues outside of these the Church has been careful and slow and deliberate to avoid errors but hardly stagnate.


An individual Catholic maybe but we get back to the fact that the Church has developed its doctrine over 2000 years with some of the best minds to have ever lived checking and rechecking each others work.  (This is not even considering the claimed protection granted it by the Holy Spirit)  This process surely would have uncovered these types of theological, philosophical, linguistic and even grammatical errors long ago.  So if the individual Catholic sticks to what the Church teaches they can be assured not to fall into these types of errors.  The individual Protestant has to try to duplicate this effort alone and in less than 80 years on average.  Even if they are part of a denomination there resources are only increased slightly by comparison.  It is a daunting task and results I feel in the variety, confusion and divisions you acknowledge later in your post.  As a child I was always upset when my father told me (when ever I came up with some crazy idea) that if it could have been done that way someone a lot smarter than me would have thought of it a long time ago.  It drove me crazy, but as I have gotten older and I see how big the issues are I welcome all the help I can get.  As Newton said, “If I have seen further it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants.”


Looking back I understand how you might be offended by what I have posted and am sorry for that, but I was merely stating what I had seen in verse after verse with others who to support the doctrine of no free will interpret phrases to say that what is really a stated requirement is no more than a resultant or sign.  This type of mangling of the scriptures bothers me but I shouldn’t have let it lead me into suspecting you of attempting it.  I am sorry.  


This is a great mistake in my mind.  I would not encourage anyone to belong to a denomination just to belong, but the Church was established on earth as the final authority in appeals (Mt 18:17) for a reason.  The ability to appeal to the Church requires a visible, physical entity, as does the hierarchy of Bishops and elders.  Since I believe Christ’s Church continues to exist on earth I believe it must be possible to see it.  So if you belong to some denomination you can at least point to a physical presence.  If you do not belong to a denomination you have no physical visible entity to appeal to, in order to resolve disputes.  It is the only way I know to be a Christian and be absolutely sure you do not belong to the true Church on earth.   I consider myself a Christian first and foremost as well, but I also believe that the Catholic Church is that one true Church based on doctrine and the unbroken string of laying on of hands that is required for true succession of ministry.


I will have to disagree with you here as well.  Yes there is only one word of God but nowhere, not even in scripture does it say that that word is fully contained in just the writings of the Old and New Testament.  I believe the word of God is available through Tradition and the protected teachings of the Magisterium and there is scripture to support both points, though since scripture comes from the Church not the Church from scripture I rely on it to tell me what is an is not the word of God.


You need to decide which would be the error for the Church to fluctuate in opinion or stagnate as you accuse them above.

Since evolution is only a scientific theory and not a doctrinal issue I can’t see what bearing it has on the Church’s change of mind concerning it.  I know that in issues of doctrine the Church has not changed, other than to come to a deeper understanding of certain issues, but certainly no change of direction on any doctrinal statement.

Sorry this whole thing is so long and took so long but I think we know where we agree and disagree.  Hopefully we can pare this down now and either discuss whether what the demons have is faith or decide that it has no bearing on loss of salvation and move on.  If we move on I would suggest we cover the idea that if salvation depends on faith and works, then we must show that works either can stop and ask what happens to salvation then, or show that works cannot cease.  Of course I am open to continuing this part some more if you think we have more to clear up.

END OF PART 4

's probably the same half - consistancy isn't some people's strong suit.  :-\

PART 1
Michael

Have already expressed that James is discussing faith and not salvation.
But here is where you get it wrong.  Faith is not just a deep sense of belief.  Faith is also an accepted willingness to do God's will.  The demons do not have a true faith because they are unwilling to do God's will.  They believe that there is one God as James states it.  James does not even go into detail to state that there is but one Savior or anything else other than to state that if you believe there is but one God then you have the same belief the demons have.  
And we must be reading and replying to things way far back.  I had expanded upon the demons/faith thing in my last post.  But by your previous statements a moment ago I can see where the confusion may come in.  You feel that faith is just a "deep sense of belief" but faith is more than that.  As I said in previous post above faith is also an acceptance to do the will of God.  
Actually James is talking about faith and faith alone.  When you realize that belief is a part of faith and only a part of faith then you will see that when James makes a comment such as "if a man says he has faith" then you can see that what James is talking about in trying to contrast those that claim to have faith and those that show they have faith.  And that claiming you have faith is only claiming and not doing.  As James also points out we should be doers, meaning that we should be doing God's will.  If we have faith then we have accepted to do God's will.  What James is basically saying in his letter is that "You have claimed to have faith and claim to be willing to do God's will, then by gollly get out there and do it!"
I would claim that faith will not let works cease.  However, since works are done by man then man can always find ways to screw them up.  But I will say that if man were to continue to do things in accordance to God's will then their faith will be bolstered.  God will bless them and allow the fruit of their works to add to their faith.  I would agree with you up to the point of where you stated that salvation is lost.  Our blessings here on earth may cease, our rewards in heaven may cease, but our salvation is not lost.  And James does not say that it is.  And Jesus states that we will drink of His water but once.
END PART 1

PART 2
This next part let me break it down just a little.
Works in accordance to Gods will, in the Spirit of God, or for the Glory of God are fruits of faith.  If a man goes to church every Sunday, goes on visitation every chance they can, etc, etc but does not have an acceptance that he is doing God's will, or believes that there is one God, then he is just going through the motions.  Doing the works but no "meaning" behind them.  So our works should be a willing acceptance of God's will.
Yes and no.  We are to be submissive and submit our will to that of God.  However we still have free will in that we can always ignore the will of God and do as we desire.
If we continue to do God's will then we will not sin.  However we are still free to ingore God's will and can then fall into a sin or sinning.
James 2:22 "You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;"  This being in the example of Abraham.  If we allow our faith to be the guide of our works then God will provide us with things to build our faith, thus allowing it to be perfected.  
I guess we dont.....should I read further?
Save your breath/typing :) Faith being 2 parts, belief of the One true God, and an acceptance to do His will.  As I said I do not believe that faith can truly "die", can we no longer do God's will?  Yes.  But how can one no longer believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the truth?  I do not believe anyone can.  One can attempt to cover that belief but they would be lying to themselves.  That is why I say I do not believe that faith can truly die.
No any discussion of faith is not automatically a discussion of salvation.  They are two seperate items.  If we are talking about apples that does not automatically mean we are talking about apple trees.  Our salvation is dependant upon 2 things, Gods grace first and foremost, and then our faith.  And our faith is 2 fold as well, one in that we believe and two that we are willing to do Gods will.  If that is the case then God will give us the gift of salvation.  One that cannot be taken away.  Once we eat of that bread Jesus says we shall never again hunger.  The Bible never states that our salvation must be sustained, but that our faith does.
It is talking about much more than simple works.  Read 1 Cor 3 and you will see that Paul is talking to the Corinths about the seed that he had planted and Apollos had come in after him and watered.  Paul mentions that he left them basically as babes.  They have not matured in their faith.  He left them with the foundation and Paul states that foundation is Christ.  And that faith should be built upon.  We know that Paul is not just talking about works because Jesus Christ is not a work and that is the foundation that Paul is talking about.  Paul is talking about their whole spiritual walk, their whole life.  And during that whole time Paul tells us to build upon that foundation of Christ.  This building could be not only from someone else such as Paul describes Apollos doing but ones own selves as he moves into explaining the outcome of building upon the foundation.  It is clear that Paul is not simply talking about works in this section but a relationship with God.

END PART 2

PART 3

Just happened to miss the analysis.  My apologies.  But here is what you said
Incorrect.  The first part of the statement is that by grace we are saved through faith.  We see that the "by grace" is a preposition and is not the subject of the sentence.  "you" is the subject of the sentence and "been saved" is the verb.  "Through faith" is the adverb adding to being saved.  The preposition is used to show that only because of grace can you be saved through faith.  The second section 'and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God' is an adjective statement expanding upon grace.  In that it is a gift from God that he would allow his grace to be the binding between you being saved through your faith.  Then the third section is 'not as a result of works, that no one should boast' is a continuation of the first section.  So it is by grace that you are saved through faith, not as a result of works, that no one should boast.
  Now this is interesting.  My Bible has a semi-colon.  You say yours has a colon.  I check www.bible.com under the KJV and theirs has a comma.  I look at my Sword Project Bible with 3 parallel translations and there is the colon, semi-colon, and comma as well.
I made comment to "alluding" and the like earlier.  And that is backwards thinking.  First go to the source which is Jesus who says a saved person will never thirst again and then come to James.  And even in 1:12 James only "alludes" to it if you desire to think of it that way.  Otherwise James said that one who perseveres trials is blessed.  And as far as the crown of life James says a man will receive the crown of life under one condition, that being approved by God.  
Nope not at all.  Just clarifying who is being talked about here.  Those mentioned as not following the Gospel is a reference to Jews, who know God but do not follow the Gospel of Jesus.

END PART 3

PART 4

Reading this one and some of the other replies it appears we come to the need to define faith and what it is.  We both know what each of us defines faith as and we begin to get confused on reading because our definitions are different.
Faith is shown/defined very well in Hebrews Chapt 11.  “Faith is assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”  We are shown by the author some examples of faith from Abel on up to Joshua and Rahab.
Abel – Offered a better sacrafice
Noah – In reverence prepared an ark
Abraham – obeyed by going out
Etc, etc
As we read these examples we get a clear understanding that faith involves a willingness to do God’s will. Heb 11:6 “And without faith it is impossible to please Him”  This statement as well states there is more to faith than belief.  Without faith there is no willingness to do God’s will or to trust God’s judgement, thus it is not pleasing to God.  This also does not deter from Paul’s teachings either.
And faith is separate from our works.  Faith is only the willingness to do God’s will.  Go back to Hebrews 11 and look at the examples again.  They all start with “by faith.”  By their willingness to do God’s will these people acted.  And acted in a way that was pleasing to God.
See faith is more than simple belief or different degrees of faith as you had tried to define it.  But yet it remains separate from works because it is ‘by faith’ we should be doing works.  And works that are pleasing to God.

James starts by stating if a man says he has faith but has no works of faith to show for it can he truly be saved?  James shows an example and then goes on to basically clarify what the man who says he has faith really means, ‘I believe in God.’  And he is doing well to get that but even the demons believe in God, and they tremble in fear of God.  But to have faith means you need to recognize, ‘you foolish fellow’, that you have to be willing to put your faith and willingness to do God’s work into actions.  
James is stating that if a man professes to have faith and there is no fruit of that faith then they never had a true faith to begin with and only give lip service.  

EXACTLY!  We let our faith show in our works and thus God blesses us which in turn strengthens our faith.  Directly proportional.  
But have you flip-flopped here.  In stating that if we neglect our gifts we may lose our blessings but not our salvation?  That is what I have been saying all along.  That even if we stop building our faith and stop doing works that we still maintain our salvation.

But I am not redefining faith.  Faith is defined well in the Bible, and there are even examples :)

And I do not mean this durgatorily either, but the same process could be used on a cult as well.  But this refining and tempering is a process in which men are involved. The Jews thought they had it right by law as well, but they lost the Spirit.  This can happen with anything man tries to do.  Man can get complacent in their actions, can take for granted that God is with them and stop thanking God, stop asking God for advice. And start relying more on the works they have accumulated as being more trustworthy than what God has already provided.  
As far as billions leaving the church.  I don’t want to split hairs or ruffle feathers but the fact that there is a plethora of denomination out there shows that there are billions who have issues with the RCC doctrine.  And the vice versa may be said of Baptists, Anglicans, etc, etc, etc.
Accepted and understood.

END PART 4

PART 5

I did not say that I do not belong to a denomination.  As a matter of fact I attend a Baptist church.  What I meant was more than anything is that I do not lay claim to a denomination before laying claim to being a Christian.  And if I find a denomination that has doctrine/traditions/ideas that do not follow scripture then I would not attend their church.  As well as look at teachings from them as possible suspect.

You had made comments referring to the living magisterium and similar and I would like to discuss them more sometime as well.  Since they concern oral traditions and things of that nature not found in the Bible but held onto as inspired and such.  As well as some other concepts that I ran across when reading more of the Magisterium from the Catholic Encyclopedia.  But right now we need to stick to this topic and not stray…When I have read some more of this I will post another thread concerning it and we can discuss it there.

END

PART 1 OF 3

I am going to do something in response to your post that I normally try to avoid but I think it will help pare it down and join some points closer together for discussion and make it more logically connected.  If this bothers you let me know or if you feel I didn’t cover a point let me know too and I will be glad to go back over a topic.  I will try not to misrepresent your intentions in your answers by moving them around but if I do forgive me and let me know where I have erred.

We seem to be discussing two issues.  The first I will cover is the definition of faith.  The second is losing salvation appears later in the post.


I see under your definition of faith how this would be the interpretation one would come away with from the book of James.  I think my interpretation based on my definition of faith is not far off from yours except when it comes to the extrapolation of lack of works to loss of salvation.  I think this difference between us is mostly semantic in nature, but not entirely.

So bear with me as I try something.  In James we have someone who believes and has an acceptance to do the will of God and does it (a living faith) VS someone who says that they believe and accepts to do the will of God but you claim doesn’t really accept to do the will of God as evidenced by their lack of works (a dead faith).  One is saved, the one who does the works, the other is not saved but not because they didn’t do the works but because there is no true acceptance to do the will of God, if I follow your definition properly.  This leaves 6 other combinations for someone to fall into.  

I decided to lay them out in a truth table format to make it clearer (I hope).

The first column is Believes, the second column is Accepts to do the will of God, the third column is Works

B    A   W
T    T    T (living faith)
T    T    F (I place the people without works here – dead faith)
                (I suspect you say these type of people cannot exist, because they would be saved by
                 faith alone without works and you don’t believe that is possible)
T    F    T (accidentally compliant Christians?)
T    F    F (I would place the demons here because they believe/know Christ is the savior)
                (I think you place the people with out works here – dead faith)
F    F    F (I think you place the demons here but it depends on what you feel we have to believe
                 Maybe you put them in the category above)
F    F    T (nice humans)
F    T    F (well intentioned humans)
F    T    T (well intentioned humans who are nice)

Of course this is all based on your definition of faith.

For my definition of faith we get the following.

B   W
T    T  (living faith)
T    F  (dead faith – demons end up here too)
F    F  (atheists)
F    T  (nice atheists)

The big difference is that it is immediately apparent in my set that if works cease you lose your salvation.  It is not so obvious in yours but I think that the same is true there as well.  We already know that it your set if works never are there the person is not saved because you would claim that the mere absence of works proves they were really in group 4, because group 2 cannot exist.  Here is the problem with group 2 not existing.  It makes works a non-voluntary reaction to faith.  Works become only the fruits of faith.  But I got the impression along the way that you did not hold to that position.  Am I wrong on that, do you believe man loses his free will with regards to good works once he accepts Christ?

END OF PART 1

PART 2


This response is why I assume that you would put the demons in group 5 because you hold it is not enough to believe in God, you must also believe in Christ and His sacrifice.  This gets into another issue of faith (that is what do we have to believe to have true belief) but we can cover that later.


No, he doesn’t say that he never had faith he goes on to call that state of the man a “dead faith”.  So it is a faith.  If it is a dead faith for someone to believe and not do the works because they did not accept to do the will of God then based on the truth table it is exactly like the demons have (unless you extend belief to believing in Christ and His sacrifice – but I would suggest the demons know that too).  That is why James is comparing the demons to the man with dead faith.  Your response does not seem really clear to me on your analysis of this section.  Do you think James is comparing the man with no works to the demons?  Does the man with no works have a dead faith?  Do the demons have a dead faith?  If not what is the difference?


Gee I don’t think I flip-flopped, notice I said it is not just a showing through – indicating that works does many things.  It perfects faith, it is a fruit of faith, it is a sign of faith and in the beginning it is the first response to grace in that repentance is kindle by grace and repentance is a work.
 
I think both are end results of loss of works.  Some reduction in works will result in loss of crowns, but at some point further loss of works does more than merely “stop building our faith” it begins to weaken our faith to the point where we no longer even accept the idea of doing God’s will.  At that point (using your definition of faith) we no longer have a faith that is acceptable toward salvation.


Oh I agree that the three, relationship with God, faith and works are intertwined and that all man sees is the works.  From God’s perspective He can and will judge all three but the most important will be the relationship.  That does not mean that when the non-applicable works are burnt away that we will not suffer loss from our perspective, it also does not preclude our receiving rewards for those works which are applicable.  I do not see that verse supporting the idea even with the lead in that faith itself can be burnt away.  This approach of yours actually makes more sense under my definition of faith as I see forms of faith that are insufficient and could fail under a trial by fire and be burnt away.   But under your definition of faith (to be both belief and acceptance to do the will of God), there can be no non-applicable form of faith (you either have it or you don’t). So what form of faith are you saying is getting burnt away when tried by fire?

But now we are getting into loss of salvation.

END OF PART 2

PART 3


I agree that man can always find a way to screw things up.  I also agree that if we continue to do the will of God our faith will be bolstered or as James puts it perfected.  I hold that the converse is true though.  If we find a way to screw things up we will do less works, our faith will become less strong and we will be led less and less to do good works, further reducing the strength of our faith, spiraling in to our death.

Mar 4:24  And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.
Mar 4:25  For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath. (see also Mt 13:12, Mt 25:29, Lk 8:18 and Lk 19:26)


I think we need to look at these verses more closely because I agree at first glance they seem to support your idea I am just not sure how to reconcile that interpretation with all the other verses that show we can lose our way.


Oh I agree absolutely that proper intentions are vital to works being efficacious.  


But if we can ignore God’s will then we can end up without works to show as fruits of the belief and acceptance to do God’s will.  Then we would appears as those with dead faith in James, or worse yet eventually become as those with dead faith and lose our salvation.  If you contend that it is impossible for us to ever fall that far, then it is more than just us submitting to God’s will it is a loss of free will.


But at some point you must hold that there is a limit to how sinful we can become, how devoid of good works we become, else those fruits of faith are no longer present at all and we are just like those in James who have a dead faith, one you insist is not a true faith (merely belief) and so we have lost our salvation.


Perhaps you want to reword some of this or explain it to me because first you claim you do not believe that faith can truly die but then you say that The Bible never states that our salvation must be sustained, but that our faith does.  What does sustaining our faith do if not keep it from dying?


Yes, we definitely disagree on this point of exegesis.  I feel that you cannot interpret scripture by understanding the complex verses based on the the clear verses.  That you must consider all verses and what they allude to.  You seem to want to find verses that plainly state something and interpret everything else in light of them.  That to me is forcing the majority to conform to the minority.  I do agree with you that we should go to the source as you put it.  Even though all of the scriptures are divinely inspired it is still legitimate in my mind to hold that if a doctrine is sound we should see it taught by Christ, so it should appear in the Words in Red.  If it doesn’t we need to reconsider our interpretation.

I hope my jumping around and reorganizing the paragraphs was not too confusing.

END OF PART 3

PART 1

And I will first reply with the end of yours
Nope not at all.  But I am going to mix it up a little bit more....I feel something must be addressed before moving into your table.

Besides Hebrews defining faith and showing examples lets see if we can find some more
1 Sam 2:35 "And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind..."
- Faithful being one that will do the will of another.
II Chron 19:9 "And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the LORD, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.
- Again we see action from faithfulness.
Neh 7:2 "That I gave my brother Hanani, and Hananiah the ruler of the palace, charge over Jerusalem: for he was a faithful man, and feared God above many."
- An indication that being faithful will produce action.  They were given charge because they would be good rulers, because they were faithful (willing to do God's work)
Ps 5:9 "For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre;they flatter with their tongue"
- If we are faithful then our tongue will be controlled, James teaches this as well.  
Ps 31:23 "O love the LORD, all ye his saints: for the LORD preserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer"  
- Here again we see to be faithful is to be a doer.  And if we are a doer then the Lord will reward us.  This is also shown in James as being a doer and not just a hearer.  To be faithful is to do that which is pleasing to God.
Ps 89:33 "Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail"
- Speaking of his will to do that which God desires.
Ps 14:5 "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies"
- Action driven by faith again.  
Jer 23:28 "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully."
- Action driven again by faith. Actions that would be pleasing to God.
Hab 2:4 "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith"
- we should live by our faith
Matt 9:2 "And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of palsy; 'Son be of good cheer, they sins are forgiven thee"
- Here we see that Jesus forgave this person upon seeing their faith.  Sure Jesus being God could have seen all of the good works they may have done in their past, but it does not say that, it says that He saw their faith (their belief and willingness to do Gods will).  And thus He forgave them.  Faith alone saved here.
Matt 9:22 "But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, 'Daughter, be of good comfort; they faith hath made thee whole.' And the woman was made whole from that hour."
- Again faith alone made her whole.  And it states from that hour, implying from that hour on.  Since it is not stating up until she stops doing works...it is not even showing her doing works only touching His garment.  She had belief and Jesus saw her desire to do God's will so she was made whole.
Matt 25:21 "His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord."
- A servant is faith how? by doing the will of the Master.
Acts 16:15 "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there."
- Faithful to the Lord as in obedient to the Lord, doing the Lords bidding.
Rom 1:5 "By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name."
- Faith is obedience...doing the will of another.
Rom 1:8 "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world."
- If faith were simply a deep belief and nothing more then what would people be speaking of?  He implies that they their actions, being faith driven, are being spoken of.
I Cor 2:5 "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God"
- trust in God.
And there are more that reference faith as the driving force for actions.  And there are verses that are used to describe faith as sounding as belief or a deep beleif as well.  But as you have said we have to look at the big picture and we do that we see faith encompasses not only the belief of God and all that He is, but faith is a willingness to do the will of God, the desire to be obedient to God.  
So we can see that it is not simply "my" definition of faith but it is a Biblical definition of faith as well.

Now on to your table

Need to clarify a couple of things here.  B=belief in God, belief in Jesus in who He is and what He represents.  Believe He died on the cross to save all of mankind.  
Also lets understand works as being those that God would find pleasing from a believer (not necessarily or limited to preaching the Gospel), charitable works, selfless works, etc.
Let me also state this before going into these, and that is that I am looking at these as the A being a defining point of which also seperates those that have asked Christ into their lives and those that have not.  Since this step of asking God to save you is the defining point when a person is giving himself to God.

Group 7 and 8 could not exist.  How could one be willing to do God's will if one does not believe in God?  They couldn't.  There is a little dependancy between the B and the A.  
Group 6 like you say..basically nice athiest.
Group 5 bad athiest.
Group 4 is where Demons would go.  They know who God is, they know who Jesus is.  They know why Jesus was crucified as well.  They also know Jesus came to save all of man kind.
Group 3 Dont know if I would call them accidentally compliant or just good natured to begin with.  Or maybe not even Christians.  I have known many people who do lots of good things and when asked they say "yeah yeah I believe in God and that Jesus came and died for me"  I think they have heard but did not listen.  They may fit into the people that have not done the preceding work we talked about as far as being repentive.  I was this way before being saved...I believed in God and knew who Jesus was, but never truly accepted it because I was never repentive, nor had I ever got down on my knees and prayed.  I had only stepped into church on a handful of occasions and those were special occasions (wedding, etc).  I think there is a large number of people in the world that would fit into this catagory.
Group 2 And you are correct I do not believe this group could exist, but not for the reasons you stated.  If one is willing to do Gods will but does not do as God would like, then they really were not willing to begin with were they?  
Group 1 is where all Christians should be 100% of the time.  That is pretty much impossible but what we should desire.  However we can fall into letting our works slide...we opt to stay home and sleep in versus going to church, we dont make it to visitation, or other activities.  A person can be saved, baptised, have gone to church many times over then suddenly or even slowly stop going to church, stop talking about God, let dust collect on their Bible, etc, etc.  They have stopped doing works that are pleasing to God.  They can even deny God as Peter did.  Peter wanted to do right, but let his fear run his actions, and not his trust in God.  But as with Peter God does not let His children go, and He finds ways to remind them...cock-a-doodle-doooo.  

END PART 1

PART 2

You are neglecting the initial statements and that is that the man 'says'.  We are talking about a person who is claiming to have faith.  It is not stating that the person is saved but only that they are claiming to be saved.  And what James is stating is that since they are not acting upon their faith and doing works becoming of God then the 'faith' they profess to have is useless and dead.  James brings in the statement of the demons believing to illustrate that even the demons believe so we must do more, we must act on our faith.  Faith without actions is only belief and not a true faith.

Wew...had me worried there ;)  You had made that comment about not losing salvation and you had me worried.

Faith is not being burnt away by fire.  But the works a person had done shall.  Those that were used to build on the foundation of Christ and done in faith shall remain, those not shall be burnt away.  And as far as faith...yes you have it or you dont.  You are either saved or you are not.  Some more in a bit.

However God will let nothing take us from His hands.  Just as Satan can influence us to commit sins he cannot cause us to lose our power over sin, which is what our new birth has provided.  With Jesus within us we have the power to overcome sin.  And God shall also influence us to recongize/realize what it is that we are doing.  Remember Peter and the rooster.  

I contend that a person can be saved say at age 18 (just as example), do works according to God's desire for 10 years and then start to falter and stop listening to God.  That person will lose blessing given in this life, and that persons rewards will stop growing in the next life.  But they are guaranteed by Jesus himself a place in heaven.  Our expression of faith can be dead...we can cease to do Gods work but we if saved will still conquer death and have eternal life.  As far as it being impossible to fall to a point of even possibly losing our salvation...yes I think it possible, but I feel it would be very very very difficult.  God would not let us go without trying to help us.  He would do anything for us and it is not beneath Him to send an influence our way to try and steer us back to the path of righteousness.  

If we were to fall into a state the could be compared to a dead faith, the Bible teaches us that we would still be saved.  From the time of salvation we are given a new life in Jesus.  A clean slate if you will.  And from there we are to build upon the foundation of Christ which He has engraved into us.  We are taught that our works (good or bad) are basically marked for our rewards.  If we are doing right the God will reward us.  At the time of our judgement our life will be judged (from the time of salvation because all before that is already gone).  The works we have done that are not of faith will be burned away.  And what remains will be the measure of our rewards.  We are told that once we drink of the water that Christ offers we shall never thirst again.  We are also told that when we are saved we become children of God, we are born again in the Spirit of the Father.  Can any man no longer be the father of his child?  No.  But like an eartly father to his child we desire the child to do right, we desire to be proud of the child in their actions, we reward the child for doing well, and yes we punish the child for doing wrong.  But even with a child if they continue to do well and receive rewards they will continue to try and make the father proud and are joyful at the blessings the father provides the child.


You are correct a poor choice.  My meaning was that the Bible never states that our salvation must be sustained, but that our faith should be built upon, perfected.

END PART 2

PART 3

And we agree that we disagree.  And I have to say that I feel if you interpret first the complex verse without understanding the clearer verses then you are only guessing.  Look at a math formula... P=I^2 * R.  A simple formula really and we shall make it a given that you would know that the '^' is indicationg I to the power of 2 (I squared), also what that means.  As well as the '*' is multiplication.  But what is P,I, and R represent?  If you are just 'alluding' then they could mean anything you want.  But as with pretty much any formula there is meaning behind not only the structure of the formula but also the individual variable.  In this case it is the formula for calculating power in electronics, in watts.  Ew, thats neat but what about the rest?  You have to know the foundation first and then move up to the more complex.  In school they did not teach you calculus in 1st grade.  They build a foundation first of the things which are 'clear', 1+1=2.  Then they moved to more complex with the understanding of the basics.
 
We must first understand that which is clear, and then through the power of God and prayer that which is harder to understand will be made clear.  The Bible teaches us this as well.  When we start with the simple foundation which is Christ we see clearly that Christ states that once we are saved we are never to thirst again, never to hunger again, we are born again in the Spirit of God as one of His children.  We have that foundation and that is where we start.  From there the other authors, through inspiration, have expanded upon that simple concept, salvation is the gift of God by His grace (P= power in watts).  They have expanded upon the idea and explained what faith consists of (I = current in Amps).  The others have provided one disciplines, examples, instruction, ways to make our relationship with God better (R=resistance in Ohms).  And when we have the understanding of what individual simple ideas are we can then build upon them to know our formula is solid being built upon the simple foundation of Christ.  

Being the word of God there can be no conflict in its writings...it is deemed perfect and thus has no flaws.  So one author cannot contradict another.  And when you build upon the simple foundation of Christ it is clear that no author conflicts.  Paul expresses the same as James, James the same as Peter, etc, etc.  And none conflict with Jesus.  And when you apply to the complex what it is you desire then you can run across conflictions with what is simply there.  You have not shown me yet that when Jesus said we shall never thirst that he really did not mean "never" or that "never" does not mean never, that it means only until next time you are thirsty.  BY your implication that we can lose our salvation is in direct conflict with what Jesus had to say, and it is only through your "alluding" or implying that which you believe to the meaning of some verses do you even come close to trying to prove that point.  However when shown in the light of what Jesus had to say it is clear that what you try to "allude" to falls flat on its face.  If you know the answer already and the questions you ask do not quite get you to the correct answer then you must not be asking the right questions.  Jesus tells us that we shall never be lost from God, we are saved forever.  From that point on if an author appears to be in direct conflict with that then is it the writers fault?  Say it is not so, for this the perfect word of God and there is no fault.  So it must be in the readers fault, thus in the readers interpretation.  

You talk about how you must consider all verses.  But you can read the Bible and not understand any of it.  By looking at all of the pieces at once you only have confusion and chaos.  You have to start somewhere.  Take a 1000 piece puzzle and dump it on the table.  There is your 1000 verses that talk about salvation.  Does the puzzle make sense?  No it is mass of confusion and disarray.  You have to start somewhere... build a foundation.  We are told in the Bible to build our foundation in Christ.  With the puzzle most would build the borders first.  Once we have our foundation we then expand upon it and we see what other writers say about that which Christ has spoken.  And like a puzzle the pieces will all fit into place.  There is no "alluding", no guess work, only re-inforcement of that which Jesus had already spoken of.

How do you reconcile that Jesus said we would never thirst?  Was He not speaking the whole truth?  Did Jesus need James or Paul to come in and re-define what "never" means?  Are you saying that Jesus spoke clearly so that we have to read more into what He said than what is written?  Jesus said "never" what do you propose that actually means?

END

PART 1 OF 4

I did not mean to imply that you had come up with the definition of faith out the blue, just that your understanding of the definition of faith and mine were different.

I see where you think scripture defines faith as including the acceptance to do the will of God and you make a very strong case for acceptance to do the will of God being part of a true faith, but as I point out below I do not think the verses are intended to define and thus limit faith to this one type.

Webster defines faith as follows:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF

As you can see there is no reference to acceptance to doing the works of God and in fact the dictionary sees belief as a synonym, which you do not.  So the common usage and meaning for faith (which is the meaning the translators of the scriptures were required to use) is different from your meaning.  

If every place the translators use faith is to mean what you mean by faith it is clear they should have used a different word (even making up a new term if they needed to, to create a literal translation) or through dynamic equivalence added surrounding text to express this difference through verbiage.  But they did not.  So the question becomes is the definition of faith you see in scripture a redefining of the English word “faith” or did the translators get it right all along and you are applying verses incorrectly.

I contend that the latter is the correct answer, not because the verses you quote don’t relate to faith, they do.  But because they are each talking about a saving faith, they are not talking about the concept of faith in general.  If a saving faith inherently includes acceptance to do the will of God, then a definition we derive from discussion of that type of faith does not preclude other forms of faith that do not include an acceptance to do the will of God.  Thus enters James discussion of faith in both its living and dead forms and we see a much closer link with the synonymous term of belief.


“How could one be willing to do God's will if one does not believe in God?”  I think you find the answer in Rom 2:14  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

This gets into the concept of a conscience.  Group 7 are bad Gentiles since they know in their hearts what to do but don’t and Group 8 are the good Gentiles who do what they know in their heart to be good.  They know the will of God without knowing the one true God.


I agree


Again I agree.


Ok but then you have the demons believing but not having faith, which is completely understandable using your definition of faith.  But I hope you can see that if we use my and Websters definition of the general concept of faith, where faith and belief are synonymous they end up merged with the bad atheists.  I contend this makes James discussion and Paul’s continued statements separating faith and works make a lot more sense.

Also I tried to put the people with no works (those with a dead faith) in Group 2 which you say doesn’t exist and I thought you would put them here in Group 4 but you put the demons here even though you said earlier that James is not comparing the demon to those without works who only say they have faith.  My question is in your opinion what Group do those people belong in?


Yeah this is the broad path, not the straight and narrow.


I think we can be willing and yet not do God’s will, maybe not exclusively but some more than others.  Even Paul talks about his problem with the spirit being willing but the flesh being weak.  

Rom 7:18-19  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.


I think most Christians spend the vast majority of their time bouncing between Groups 1 and 2 depending on where they are in their faith.  To put it another way I don’t drop someone irrevocably into Group 1 after one good work that conforms them to the will of God.  In fact anytime you sin you for that moment are not in Group 1 by definition, so where do you go if not to Group 2.  Where we probably differ is I believe you stay in Group 2 until you repent.

END OF PART 1

PART 2

In reference to James 2:18-20

Yes it is the man who ‘says’ he has faith and is saved – when clearly he is not; however it is James who says that same man has a dead faith.  So it is James who is identifying that system of belief the man has (whatever it is) without work is still some form of faith in the sense of Webster as a synonym of belief.  I agree it is not a true saving faith, but it is a faith in the general use of the word just as the belief of the demons is a faith of sorts.  

Also consider

1 Cor 13:2  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Here we see it is possible to have great faith (such as to move mountains) but not have charity, so I would think that this individual has not accepted to do the will of God so would not have faith in your definition, but yet is referred to by the scriptures as having great faith.


I agree that we cannot be taken from God’s hand but we can leave willingly.  Through asking Jesus into our lives we do have the power to overcome sin, but we have to cooperate with that power, we don’t always do that.  Yes Peter did recognize what he did was wrong and he repented over it, but he did not have to repent.  Judas repented over what he did too, but he never brought forth works meat for repentance, his solution does not lend itself to one having confidence in his end result.


Wait a minute did you just flip-flop?  Do you admit the possibility of losing one’s salvation?  I never said it was easy to lose your salvation but I do believe it is possible, otherwise we play no role in our own salvation.


Yes our works do apply to rewards (and that is what this verse is talking about) but that is not all they are for.  They also perfect our faith.  If our works fall into a state that could be compared to a dead faith I have yet to see that the Bible teaches we are still saved.  I still see to many verses and parables that indicate we can lose our salvation.


But then what is the consequence if we do not do works to perfect our faith?

END OF PART 2

PART 3


I did not mean to imply that we don’t learn by interpreting the easy first working our way up from milk to meat.  But we must always be willing to re-evaluate our understanding of the verses we took as clear when we were babes in the faith, as we gain a deeper understanding merging more and more of the complex verses into our understanding.

As to alluding allowing you to have things mean anything you want, that is not true.  Your choices must be made in light of all of the surrounding text.  It is the consistency of the text that forces the allusions to their proper understanding regardless of what a seemingly clear verse may say on the surface.  In your example if I was reading an electronics text I would soon see that P was power, I was current and R was resistance.  As much as I might want them to be Principal, Interest and Reserve if I were an accountant I would not be allowed to make that interpretation by the text.  I would be shown to be inconsistent.


Unfortunately we see that that method doesn’t work for the vast majority of Christians as they all come up with radically different interpretations from the same spirit.  Added to that there is no way to know when the spirit has directed you or when you have had some flash of inspiration on your own that was not guided and that this method is of man made design appearing nowhere in scripture leaves little to recommend its use.


But that is just one example and it is the easiest case at that.  But even here you are again supporting a supposedly clear verse with allusions to the correctness of your interpretation from more vague and complex verses.  The support just isn’t obvious because there is no disagreement between the seemingly clear and the seemingly complex.  What if you found the additional texts were contrary to your interpretation of the seemingly clear verse, would you not then revise your interpretation of the seemingly clear verse?


Yes they don’t contradict each other but our understanding of one of them can contradict our understanding of another.  That is why we need a way to judge which of our understandings is correct.  This in now way reflects on the correctness of a verse but only on our fallible understanding of it.


Yes and that conflict is what we use to determine what the proper interpretation of any verse is.  Once we have systematically interpreted all verses such that no conflict arises then we know we have properly interpreted all scripture.  If someone goes back and says wait a minute this seemingly clear verse seems to be interpreted all out of whack, we say too bad!


You are merely putting more weight on your interpretation of one clear verse from Christ, than the weight you would give to your interpretations of more subtle implications of many verses by other authors inspired by the Holy Spirit.  It is a completely understandable position, however it is not proper or acceptable otherwise the whole of scripture could be a page long.

END OF PART 3

PART 4


I agree that is where you are if you follow sola scriptura, the job is just too big for one man alone.  That is the advantage to having a Church who has done all this research and defended the Bible from attacks for 2000 years.  I can learn from them.  That is why God decided to have a Church to feed His sheep, He never told the sheep to feed themselves.


And Christ built His Church to be the ground and pillar of truth.


Your analogy only works if the border has flat edges, that the seemingly clear verses really are as simple and clear as they first appear.  Otherwise you may get even the border wrong and the only way you will know is when you try to fit the more complex pieces in the center in and their refusal to fit will allude to the fact that you got the border wrong.


I have looked through a lot of commentaries and have not found a single reference by any Church Father that indicates this verse is to be interpreted literally.  Even the Protestant, Matthew Henry does not hold that this verse means what you say it means.  The only commentary I found that hints at agreeing with your simple straightforward interpretation is the Wycliffe Commentary.

Most identify the living or running water as the Holy Spirit.  That once we accept the gift of grace it is always available to us.  They do not conclude from this that we can never lose our salvation.

Let’s look at the following verses.  John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

This is referring to anyone who drinks of the living water, (receives the Holy Spirit through accepting Christ as savior) will never thirst (need to seek the Holy Spirit) again.  That this water (Spirit) will spring up (flow or grow) into everlasting life (salvation).   We see this as an ongoing process not a final event.  The individual who drinks will have a spring within them growing and filling them to eventual salvation.  Anything that is not complete can change or end another way.  Salvation is not assured unless we continue to believe and accept to do the will of God.  The spring within us will continue to provide us with the Spirit but we still do not have to fully cooperate with it.

It is similar to this verse is John 6:35  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.  Where we see explicitly that we must continue to believe to never thirst.  So yes never doesn’t necessarily mean never regardless of changes we go through.

PART 1

Then you bring out Webster :)
1a allegiance to duty or a person
- allegiance - obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord
- - the action of obligating oneself to a course of action
- - something that obligates one to a course of action
- - a condition or feeling of being obligate
- - something one is bound to do
- allegiance - fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or gment
- - fidelity - the quality or state of being faithful
- allegiance - devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause
- - devotion - religious fervor
- - devotion - the act of devoting
- - loyalty - quality or state or an instance of being loyal
- - - loyal - unswerving in allegiance
- - - loyal - showing loyalty
* Ok so definition 1 of faith being allegiance to duty or person.  We see that allegiance indicates that we would be obligated ourselves to a course of action (willingness to act).  We would have fidelity (being faithful) towards that person.  We would show devotion to that person (a religious fervor, which generally involves actions).
1b(1) fidelity to one's promises
- fidelity - the quality or state of being faithful
- - faithful - full of faith
- - faithful - steadfast in affection or allegiance
- - faithful - firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty
* So definition 1b(1) of faith.  We should be faithful to one's promises (either our promise to God, or God's promise to us), we see that we should be firm in our allegiance to God, and we already went over allegiance and how it shows putting into action our belief or obligations.  And we also see that we should be firm in our observance of our duty (duty being actions as well).
1b(2) sincerity of intentions
* Pretty self explanatory.  But we should be genuin in our intentions...intentions to act.  A willingness to act, free from dissimulation, adulteration, etc.
2a(1) belief and trust in and loyalty to God.
- Belief - a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in someone or thing
- Belief - conviction of the truth of some statement of the rality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
- Trust - to place confidence
- Trust - to be confident
- Trust - to commit or place in one's care or keeping
- Trust - to permit to stay or go or to do something without fear or misgiving
- Trust - to rely on the truthfulness or accuracy of
*2a(1) indicates that faith would mean we should be confident in God, and convicted to the truth.  We should place ourselves into God's care.  If we have our trust in God then we are going without fear...going is an action.  
2a(2)belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
* IMO not applicable definition for what we are looking for as applied to God and not to religion.
2b(1)firm belief in something for which there is no proof
* The authors that talk of it had proof, from Adam on through to Paul, they had proof.  Thomas even with sticking his fingers into the side of Jesus had proof.  So again not as applicable here IMO.  Although you and I without "first hand" proof we are believing firmly we still consider the testimonies as proof for us, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
2b(2) complete trust
* see above for definitions on trust and how it applies.

Remember that synonyms are words that have the same meaning or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.  So belief and faith can go hand in hand but one could have more or less meaning than the others.  As I have stated faith encompasses belief but also includes the willingness to do Gods will.  
So no the meaning of faith is not different from what I use.  The definitions you provided that are in the dictionary (and one I used www.dictionary.com has willingness to do God's will in it) do support that faith is a willingness to do an action...worded as obligation, allegiance, loyalty, fidelity, intentions, etc.  Most all of the definitions discussed are not the actions but the driving force behind the actions.  And they are more than belief but also include belief.  This is also expressed in that you will find belief (or dirivitave of belief) in the definition of faith but you will not find faith in the definition of belief.

But they did.  Like in Hebrews they say "by faith" thus indicating that they are talking about more than belief because belief itself does not drive actions, but a faith does, since faith has things like trust, obligation, allegiance as a driving factor.  Belief does not encompass those attributes.  
And the definition of faith that is provided in scripture is not redefining the English word.  Your "definition" is limiting what faith is truly defined as by stating it is merely belief.  I have show both through language as well as scripturally what faith is not only defined as but what it represents.

This is what James is talking about.  There is a difference between faith, a true saving faith, and simple belief that some would call faith.  That is why in the verses we have discussed James states that man "says" he has faith.  The man does not, he only professes to have faith.  But what he lacks is the feeling of obligation to God, allegiance to God, Loyalty to God, willingness to obey God.  All of these things the demons lack as well and have belief only.  Belief being only a part of faith and not truly faith.

Yes that does get into a whole different discussoin concerning conscience and such.  Not that I disagree with you there but I was not looking at the more philosophical aspect.  But one thing to note here is that the Gentiles were not necissarily ignorant of God.  many could be found outside of the synagogues and such trying to learn has much as they could about God.  Gentiles does not automatically mean Pagan, but is reference to anyone not circumcised.

Not just I, but James as well.  Not only have I shown you in our English versions, where James uses the words belief/believe but also shown where there is a difference in the Greek words used at these points as well.  This only adds to show that there is a distinct difference between faith and belief.  James extensively uses 'faith' throughout his work.  But here he states simply belief.  If there was no difference

between the two then why would James have switched words?  Why not state "You have faith that God is one. You do well; the demons also have faith, and shudder"  He doesn't because there is a difference between the two.

END PART 1

PART 2

And no one is disputing that faith and works are seperate.  I have been stating that all along as well.

Yes even Paul struggled, but he prevailed.  I do not dispute that even those willing may deny God.  But I looked at the classifications of your table in a more broader sense.  Those willing would generally do.  Those that say they are but very rarely ever do or never do, do not sound to willing does it?

Agreed but see note above on looking very broadly at the catagories.

But there is nothing in the Bible that states we can even walk away from God once we have been saved, thus losing our salvation.  It is only in your doctrine that you get an idea that since we have to do a work to be saved (repent) then we can perform a work (leave) to be "unsaved."  Let me ask you this Michael.  Do you believe that someone could walk out of Heaven and head to Hell?  Do you believe that we can commit sin in Heaven?  If we are not saved but once then what is stopping us from leaving at anytime during eternity?

:)  Nope not a loss of salvation, but a loss of one's self.  We play a key role in our salvation, we have to accept it as a gift.  And as with any gift we should cherish it.  Once accepted though it is accepted and God will not take it back.  We then play a role in the blessings we receive while here on earth as well as the rewards we receive in heaven.  When we work with God then God will work with us.  He wants that relationship of Father/child.  He loves us and wants us to see that love by allowing Him to work with us and bless us.  That is our role after accepting the Gift.  It is not a continuous gift that we have to keep taking, it is accepted only once.

Agreed works perfect our faith.  Stated that long ago as well.  No arguement.
I have shown verses that use pretty plain straight forward words such as 'never' and on the reverse of that I have yet to see a verse provided that states we can lose our salvation in the same sort of simple manner as expressed.  I have shown you the verses you have provided as not referencing a loss of salvation.  What I have to stand on is the solemn words of Jesus when he stated I shall 'never' thirst again.  And whith that all else comes into place. You have provided nothing as solid as 'never' yet.

No rewards today or tomorrow.

But that does not mean that the verses that were clear as babes are less clear as we mature in our faith.  They are still just as clear.  But other verses may provide a deeper meaning but will not provide different definitions or meanings.  IE 'never' is never.  If a more complex verse is unclear then it needs to be made clear by using what you already know.

Somewhat correct, however you have to start with what is clear and simple and makes for a strong foundation.  And then you build upon that.  No matter what you run acroos it will not change your foundation.  When we look at the NT we start with the simple, and what would Jesus say.  This ithe base and no one should conflict with that.  As I mentioned before Jesus speaking of salvation says we will never thirst again.  Your doctrine directly conflicts with that which it must not.  And you still have nto shown how you reconcile with that fact.

But is this not what your Magisterium is all about.  Maintaingin that which is not in scripture (traditions).  If you can so off the cuff disregard possible inspiration from prayer as only man made inspiration then I contend that Sola Scriptura is the only way it should be.  The fervorent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.  We are guaranteed answers from God when we pray.

NO.  you re-evaluate your interpretations of that which is more difficult.  That which is clear is not in any need of re-evaluation....it is already clear.

Yes and through study and prayer an understanding will come.  We are pomised that.  

WHAT!!!!
So if A=1, B=1, C=1 then (A+B+C)*5=15 correct.  But if you find out A is not equal to 1 but 2 you would still say that the answer is 15!?!  Now that is bad logic.  You must first build upon what is clear, for they are givens, knowns, in programming they are constants.  Then there are variables.  And we know the answer because it is given as well.  You have to start with what is known...what is a given...that which is clear, and then evaluate that which does not appear clear or is not in as simple terms and determine what the variable is and what it should be.  If you have two recordings of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, recorded at the same place and time but maybe slightly different locations in the area.  One has a cabbie honking his horn so all you hear is "I have HONK HONKeam" but the other is crystal clear.  Are you going to interpret what MLK said based on the one with the cab?  So you get "I have to Clean"...yeah that is what MLK said...oh you have a recording that is clear as a bell and it says "I have a dream"...well to bad is what you would say?!  Very bad logic and interpretational process.

END PART 2

PART 3

No what I am doing is starting with the simple basics of the scripture and that which is clear and ensuring that when I read through the rest of the scripture, things that appear to alter the simplistic nature of that are also now as clear as the first.  I get just as much information and more when I read other verse such as the ones in Eph.  And they say more, but they do not alter the meaning of the clear verses.

But you yourself stated earlier that there is no way of knowing if a person was inspired by God or just their own "flash" of inspiration.  So thus without sticking to strictly the Bible you have no way of knowing that even the discussions of 2000 years are correct since they could be the inspiration of man and not God.  And I do not wish to enter into a debate here concerning churches and their correctness or any such thing.  Not the topic for it.  But one thing to note on you first sentence is that God also told us that once we were saved the mysteries of God and His word would be made clear.  And God also directs us that if we ever have questions we should pray to Him for answers.  James 1:5 "And if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God..."  John 15:7 "...ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you"

There are many many clear directives and verses...."Thou shalt not murder" is one.  Clear and simple and a good edge piece.  One to be built upon.  "Thou shalt have no other Gods"  Another good one.  One that gets expanded upon several times in reference to idol worship, praying to no one other than God, etc, etc.   The clear verses such as that make for good foundations to build upon and nothing further along in study should conflict with that.  And they do not when built upon the foundations God has set forth.

Hmmm strange when I look into Henry's notes:
"Christ shows that the water of Jacob's well yielded a very short satisfaction.  Of whatever waters of comfort we drink, we shall thirst again.  But whoever partakes of the Spirit of grace, and the comforts of the gospel, shall never want that which will abundantly satisfy the soul."
Even Henry uses the words never...those that drink will never want for that which satisfies.
Adam Clarke states in his commentary
"On this account he can never thirst:-for how can he lack water who has in himself a living, eternal spring? "
indicating as well the word never.  Why?  because the Spirit that is the well is now within us, eternally (forever).
Jameison-Faussett-Brown commentary says
"whereas the "water" that Christ gives--spiritual life--is struck out of the very depths of our being, making the soul not a cistern, for holding water poured into it from without, but a fountain (the word had been better so rendered, to distinguish it from the word rendered "well" in Joh 4:11), springing, gushing, bubbling up and flowing forth within us, ever fresh, ever living. The indwelling of the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of Christ is the secret of this life with all its enduring energies and satisfactions, as is expressly said (Joh 7:37-39). "Never thirsting," then, means simply that such souls have the supplies at home. "
We see words like ever fresh, ever living, thus also stating it is always there.  
Notes from John Calvin
"That which quickens the soul cannot but be eternal. Again, the words of Christ are not at variance with the fact, that believers, to the very end of life, burn with desire of more abundant grace. For he does not say that, from the very first day, we drink so as to be fully satisfied, but only means that the Holy Spirit is a continually flowing fountain; and that, therefore, there is no danger that they who have been renewed by spiritual grace shall be dried up."
That which quickens the soul is eternal.  No danger of being dried up.
So I am not sure what commentaries you were looking into but the ones that I have looked into express that once we drink of the water that Christ is to provide we shall never be thirsty again.  We shall be born of the Spirit and the Spirit will be within us providing a river of living water for us to drink, which allowing the Spirit to reside in us is and give us new birth is the instant of being saved, this indicates that no matter what (even if one could stop drinking from the river within) that the river is still there, we cannot shut it off.  The metaphor used is that the well of Jacob can satisfy a worldly thirst, but cannot satisfy the thirst of the soul...and the soul is what is eternal.  But when receiving Christ our soul is satisfied forever.

Very much incorrect.  The thirst that Christ is talking about that He satisfies is an eternal thirst.  One of the soul.  So one that drinks of the water that Jesus provides (accepts the Spirit) will no longer thirst.  Why?  Because the Spirit will now be in that person and be as a well of water.  This well of water is to satisfy the thirst of our soul, which is eternal, and provides life for eternity.  And it is complete.  The well is placed in us on acceptance of the Gift.  The Spirit now dwells in us.  Jesus does not indicate that no matter what changes we make the well will go away.  NO he says just the opposite in that it will always be there, it will never go away.  It will spring up into everlasting quenching of the thirst of the soul.

Let me state this and I am making this on an assumption by your name.  You will never be a natually born woman.  So can any changes you make in your life affect that statement?  No.  Sure I can say that I will never sky dive.  But I can tell you right now that my feelings of jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft are that it is completely ludicrous, however I also know that when I say never I am also expressing my feelings and not a known truth (ie a figure of speech).  I have said never often in my life and quite regularly my wife proves me wrong :) (I will never change the wax ring on a toilet, I will never do my own plumbing, etc).  There is a very distinct difference here.  We have man speaking and God speaking.  When God says never do you think it only means until He decides to change his mind?  Do you believe that God will flood the earth again?  Things could change could they not and we could become as wicked as the people of Noah's time...does that mean that God would then flood the earth again?  
I do not disagree that we should continue to drink of the Spirit, we should be near drowning in the river of eternal life.  But the continued dipping of the cup into the river of eternal life that is within a saved person (forever) is not a process to follow to be saved....one only needs to have the river of the Spirit placed in them to be saved.  The continued drinking is symbollic of a continued building of ones faith in God.  God at that point has already saved us by putting in us the well that springs to eternal life.  Even if we quit drinking it does not turn the well off...God does not come in and remove it, if He did then Jesus would have not said Never.

END

Yes, a person can lose their salvation.  All we have to do is look at Judas.  He was counted among the twelve before he betrayed Jesus.  He, like the others, was sent out by Jesus.  Which we can see in Mark 6:12,13 And they went out, and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.

If Judas was not saved, could he have done these miracles.  Jesus told us that if devils cast out devils their kingdom should fall. I cannot imagine any devil wanting their kingdom to fall.  So if a devil didn't do it, that must mean that Judas did it.  Remember, it says "they" so that has to include Judas.  

We know that Judas is called the son of perdition.  Which means "one that is hopelessly lost".  

I believe we have enough evidence to show that Judas lost his salvation.

John 17:12

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
KJV


Ex 7:10-13

10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.

11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.

12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
KJV

The scriptures you shared in your response gives me the impression that not everyone has an equal chance to be a part of God's kingdom.  That kind of mentality is not consistent with the God that I have come to know.

2 Pet 3:9  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
KJV

What God did to Pharaoh is consistent with what we read in Romans.

Romans 1:29-32  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, UNMERCIFUL: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God will use us to glorify His name, just as He used Pharaoh.  It is we who decide whether the results will be positive or negative for us.

Salvation is not by chance but by grace...

Rom 9:20-23

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
KJV

Ephesians 1:1  
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 5:3-5
 For let fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness not be once named among you, as becomes saints, neither baseness, foolish talking, jesting, which are not becoming, but rather giving of thanks. For you know this, that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous one (who is an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.


Galatians 1:6  
I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,

Galatians 5:19-21  
Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Since Paul was addressing Born-again, spirit-filled Christians, why do you think he felt it necessary to remind them that if they practiced such things, they would not inherit the kingdom of God?

PART 1 OF 5


I don’t have a problem with this definition of faith except to ask what it means for James to then ask “can faith save him?” in verse 2 :14  James is referring to someone who under your definition does not really have faith, he only claims he does.  But James seems to indicate that the individual does have faith, but it is in a form that will not be satisfactory towards accepting salvation.  It would seem if the definition you propose was to be applied at all times and in all cases then James should have more properly said “can belief save him?” but he didn’t.  So James at least is using a different definition of faith than you are.


I agree with your assessment of the man but have a problem, not with him identifying what he has as faith, but by the fact that James identifies what the man has as faith in James 2:14.

Also I noticed you did not address the following verse later in my post.

1 Cor 13:2  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Here we see it is possible to have great faith (such as to move mountains) but not have charity, so I would think that this individual has not accepted to do the will of God so would not have faith in your definition, but yet is referred to by the scriptures as having great faith.


But we have yet to determine finally that James uses your definition of faith, we won’t be sure (or I won’t be convinced anyway) until we can come up with a reason James says the man with no works has faith.  I also would really like to complete the consideration with an explanation of 1 Cor 13:2 as well.  I am not saying that faith and belief are not ever different, just that sometimes they are used interchangeably especially and that James did precisely that when discussing the man with no works so he could compare his dead faith to the belief of demons.

I think you also missed the following question as you wrote your response.

Also I tried to put the people with no works (those with a dead faith) in Group 2 which you say doesn’t exist and I thought you would put them here in Group 4 but you put the demons here even though you said earlier that James is not comparing the demon to those without works who only say they have faith.  My question is in your opinion what Group do those people belong in?


There are a lot of verses in the Bible that say we can walk away.  All of the verses that reference abiding and perseverance and working out our salvation all point to our ability to stop carrying the cross and following Him.  

Of course we can walk away from heaven, Lucifer did!  Let me ask you (since I referenced Judas last time) do you think Judas was saved?  If not was he never saved?  Even as an Apostle? Even having received the Holy Spirit and been given the power to remit sins?  If he was saved then was not his betrayal of Christ a walking away or denial which will lead Christ to deny him before the Father?  Was his suicide not a sin which he could not repent of, and therefore not one that can be forgiven?


I asked the above because you had said in your previous post   “As far as it being impossible to fall to a point of even possibly losing our salvation...yes I think it possible, but I feel it would be very very very difficult.”    That doesn’t sound like a lose of self to me.  Do you want to retract that statement of explain it?

END OF PART 1

PART 2


I agree it is not a gift we have to keep on accepting, and I do not think God will take the gift away, nor can anyone rob us of it, but we can throw it away.  We can waste our inheritance as the prodigal son did, we can return to our wallowing after having been washed, we can return to our own vomit if we do not work our own salvation with fear and trembling.


I see the verse in Hebrews 6:4-6 with its references to falling away and renewing to repentance and crucifying afresh speaking as plainly as the never in John 4:14.  I see the parable of the prodigal son with the son taking his inheritance and losing it becoming dead but then made alive again as speaking as plainly as the never in John 4:14.  I see James 5:19-20 with its reference to saving a soul from death as speaking plainly.  I see Matt 12:31 as speaking plainly about an unforgivable sin, only committable by those already saved, which must then preclude their salvation.   I see Rev 22:19 as speaking clearly about individuals being removed from the Book of Life.  I see 2 Pt 3:15-17 speaking plainly about the possibility of trying our Lords long suffering and eventually falling from out own steadfastness to the loss of our salvation.  There are hundreds more.

I don’t expect you to be swayed by these arguments though because I have come to understand  our difference is in the interpretation method we use to glean truth from the scriptures.  Have you been following my posts in the Hermeneutics thread?  We have discussed the issues briefly between ourselves but it appears we may need to do more than that to progress.


So an imperfect faith is good enough to accept the gift of salvation?  Then it appears you are saying we don’t need works to go along with our faith; either that or we only need a one time belief along with one example of works and we’re in.  I am not buying it.


No a more complex verse once properly understood can make a verse we only thought was clear, truly clear in a different light.  Never doesn’t even have to mean something other than never, it could be that the meaning of thirst is explained more precisely, so that it becomes apparent it is not referring to a lack of salvation.  There are many ways in which a supposedly clear verse can be unclear.


That proposition, that the clear and simple provide a good foundation is not a fact as you would have me take it, it is merely a preposition of your position, something you take for granted with no proof to support it.  I agree that there should be no conflict between what we interpret Christ and the seemingly clear verses to be saying.  But it is always our interpretation we are dealing with here, we never have an absolute in either of those class of statements as we never are told to take anything strictly literally in any of the scriptures.  Interpreting scripture literally unless there is a good reason to do otherwise is just another man made guideline and has led to countless errors in and of itself.


No my doctrine conflicts with your interpretation of that verse and I have shown how it can be interpreted such that the doctrine of the Catholic Church and all the scripture verses it is based on does not conflict with it.


I am not sure I understand what you are trying to claim here, but the Magisterium of the Church was established by Christ to bind and loose on earth.  That includes determining the Canon, providing interpretation of the Canon, determining the acceptance of other sources of the Word of God (such as Tradition, decisions of Councils and Ex Cathedra statement) and resolving conflicts over doctrinal issues between Christians.

As for disregarding inspiration from prayer I am only saying that there is no support for it in scripture as a means for interpreting scripture and that individuals relying on it has only resulted in massive division and over 30,000 denominations all claiming the others are wrong.

END OF PART 2

PART 3


First, you are using clear in an absolute sense again.  Things are not clear or unclear they are only relatively clear.  You cannot know when something is clear in an absolute sense, you can only know when it appears clear to you.  The only thing that is absolute in interpretation is consistency.  That is why a large number of verses which allude to a truth are more significant than one in isolation that seems to say something plainly.  The chance of finding verses that must be interpreted differently than your “plain” verse is much greater than finding verses that must be interpreted differently than another whole group of verses.

Second, your method of re-evaluating the more difficult does not work, because it is possible to arrive at a point where there are too many unclear/complex verses to re-evaluate in a consistent manner and you have to give up on your interpretation of the clear verse.  All it takes is one case of this and the method or approach of doing it this way cannot be trusted.  That is why we must evaluate the simple in light of the complex.


Where in scripture are we promised that?  The only time I know of promises of infallible interpretation in scripture they are given to the Church not to individuals.


No you either misunderstand my point or are using a bad analogy.  The example should be if we think A=1 and we think B=1 and we think C=1 then we find out that (A+B+C)*5 =18 then we know we got one of the simple substitutions wrong.  This would be a proper analogy for a complex or obscure interpretation driving a simple or clear interpretation.  In your example you have the simple substitution driving the complex result and that I do not agree with.  Sola scriptura wants us to note that A=1, B=1, and C=1 and when we find a complex verse that seems to say that (A+B+C)*5=18 we must redefine what + and * mean to make it fit.


Ok Lets use this analogy too, because once again you have applied it wrongly to the argument.  Your application of the analogy is unfair because by using an accurate option for your side of the argument it presupposes your approach to be right.  Here is a more fair analogy.  If we have two recordings of the speech; one which clearly says I have a cream and one that says I have a HONK drHONKeam.  One would be justified in taking the seemingly clear one to be correct.  But later when you have evaluated the entire speech you recognize it is not a commercial for the dairy association and cream but for freedom and dreams.  It is only when analyzing the entire text that you can be sure of any of it.  That is why computer speech recognition is so difficult.  They need to take the entire context of a discussion into account, something we humans do without even realizing it.  That is why we can discern “wreck a nice beach”, from “recognize speech”.


I have learned the meaning scripture in just that same way, I think we all do.  But I have seen that the more complex verse do indeed change the meanings of the simple verses (some of which at first glance seem clear), and Eph 2:8 is a prime example.  I once thought it to be saying the following four things.

We are saved by grace
We accept grace through faith
We do not accept grace through works.
Therefore we cannot boast.

But I later saw (only by comparing that interpretation to other scripture and trying to force interpretations on that other scripture to match) that Eph 2:8 is really saying the following four things:

We are saved by grace
We accept grace through faith
We are not saved by works
Therefore we cannot boast.

The difference is in item 3.  The verse is not contrasting faith and works it is contrasting grace and works.  Faith and works as we both know are inherently linked (though we disagree on the details).  So the standard Protestant interpretation of Eph 2:8, that was arrived at through sola scriptura and letting the simple illuminate the complex, gets it wrong.  This results in them having to jump through all kinds of hoops later to make all the complex verses match the idea of faith and works being at odds with each other.

END OF PART 3

PART 4


I don’t want to get into that debate either but it is the answer to this.  God granted protection to His Church on earth to resolve these issues and that is what we must rely on ultimately.


There is an access we all have to His guidance in interpreting scripture as we study but it is not all encompassing or we would not be told to go to the Church to resolve differences and Paul would not have gone to the Council of Jerusalem to resolve his dispute.  If Paul didn’t have access to all understanding of all the mysteries you and I surely don’t.


Many clear (or seemingly clear) directives and verses are not enough.  You have to know and show that there are enough to complete the flat border of the puzzle and that is an unknowable fact until you know what the entire puzzle looks like.


Yes note Henry says that the water here represents the Spirit just as I said it did.  Not salvation as you say it does.


Again Clarke says the same – water is Spirit not salvation.


These two commentaries are ones I do not have, and they do seem to more closely fit your interpretation (not that I doubted you could find one – only that I could not).  I even mentioned that Wycliffe was close to yours.  But I was reviewing the Early Church Fathers and found nothing like this which doesn’t surprise me as the idea of once saved always saved is found nowhere in the Church until the reformation.


And yet Hebrews 3 makes it plain that although this spring of the Spirit is available so we never need to thirst we can (once having tasted of this water) can fall away and need if it were possible to crucify the Lord afresh.  So it seems that the never ending supply is not sufficient to guarantee salvation.  You can fill a sinner with water but you can’t make him drink.

END OF PART 4

PART 5


No I don’t accept that literal legalistic view of the verse, it conflicts with too many other verses to allow for a consistent interpretation of scripture as a whole.


I don’t see that we have this separation of building our life and acceptance to do the will of God for salvation.  There are too many verses that discuss abiding and remaining etc. to accept that after some limited time (perhaps just one event) of acceptance of doing the will of God that we can stop.  Perhaps it is time I provided the verses that I feel your simple interpretation of John 4:14 needs to be shown as consistent with.  But I don’t want to be accused of flooding you with verses.  It is just that the way my view of proper hermeneutics works requires us to consider a wide range of scripture to determine anything.  Let me know what you think.

By the way is your name a reference to Got Even?

END OF PART 5
END

I have read through all 10 pages, and although there has been many good points and many bad points, I must say I am dissappointed at the personal attacks and the attacks on others denomination, (not so much in the later pages).  So please, lets keep this a discussion where we are trying to understand the other person's view, and do so in love.
Amen?

I find this topic very fascinating, and it's always interesting to learn what others believe.  So here are my two cents.

The question of whether or not we could lose our salvation depends greatly upon how we view God.  We could start a whole new thread on that, but for the sake of time I'll start by asking a couple questions.

1.  Does God lie?
(I think we all agree he doesn't)
2.  Is a person God considers righteous saved?
(Again, I think we can all agree they are)
3.  Is a person God considers wicked saved?
(Again, I think we can all agree they're not)

Then consider for a moment Ezekiel 33:12-20
"Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, `The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.' 13 If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done. 14 And if I say to the wicked man, `You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right-- 15 if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. 16 None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live.

    EZE 33:17 "Yet your countrymen say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' But it is their way that is not just. 18 If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, he will die for it. 19 And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by doing so. 20 Yet, O house of Israel, you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' But I will judge each of you according to his own ways."

Okay, so lets break that down and see if we come up with the same conclusion.
v12- "Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, `The righteousness (faith, belief, works, all those combined) of the righteous man (saved man) will not save him (save him from what?  Spiritual death) when he disobeys (this meaning knowingly and willingly, with aforethought), and the wickedness (sins) of the wicked man (not saved) will not cause him to fall (be cast into eternal damnation) when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live (*) because of his former righteousness (faith, belief, works he had/did when he was saved).'
*- I've had a couple people actually try to argue that the word 'live' didn't mean eternal life.  But if that were so, why don't we see men and women from 2000 or more years ago still alive today and walking around?  According to that definition if you were rightetous you'd never physically die???  Obviously the term 'live' means eternal life with God, and death meaning eternal seperation from God.  We will see this makes more sense in the verses to follow.  So what can we conclude from the last part of it, if a saved person decides to turn from his righteous ways, he won't be able to have eternal life with God.
v.13-  If I (God) tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but (very important word) then he (indicating a choice made of his own free will) trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die (eternal death, not physical) for the evil he has done.
Here we see someone who God considers righteous and it is God saying to this person that he will surely be with him in paradise (remembering that God doesn't lie, if he says it's going to be so then it will), BUT then the person decides to turn away from God and make it his own righteousness and not one that came from God as a result of his obedience, faith, belief, etc.  It sounds as if this person in their own eyes became their own god, and no longer saw God as their Lord and Savior.
v14-16- And if I say to the wicked man, `You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right-- if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die.None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live.
Here we see the opposite happening.  Here an unsaved person turns from his ways and does what is right, thus saves himself from eternal death.
v17-Yet your countrymen say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' But it is their way that is not just.
Here is a view many people take that can't accept God being someone who allows people to fall away.  The Lord's way is not taking salvation away and being unjust, it is 'their' way that is not right and suffers the consequences.  I'll repeat that, it's not God taking away anything, his way is not unjust!
v18- If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, he will die for it.
Repeating what he said earlier.  Back in the biblical days when something was repeated, for example like Jesus saying 'Verily, verily', it basically meant pay attention this is important.
v19- And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by doing so.
Again, the second point is repeated.
v20- Yet, O house of Israel, you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' But I will judge each of you according to his own ways."
Repeated again that it's not God's choice, but ours.

Of this, I see one strong point made very clear.  No matter what position you're in (saved or unsaved), you can turn from it.  It's easy for people to accept the fact that unsaved people can turn and receive life (of their own free will).  Yet they do not think a saved person can exercise the same free will and choose to turn from God.  At what point do we lose our free will?  If we have a free will to choose God, but then lose our free will once we do, that means we become like puppets.  We can no longer make decisions, and I have two problems with that.  1.) Is that what God wants, a bunch of puppets doing his will, or living beings with a choice and choosing to love him and follow him?  Which would be more rewarding to him?  2.) If we lose our ability to choose, then that means God makes the decisions for us, and I don't see God (since we sin everyday) being the puppiteer when we sin.

There are extremist that say 'once saved always saved, therefore it doesn't matter what I do because I asked Jesus into my heart.'  I am NOT saying anyone on this thread shares in this same line of thinking, because in earlier comments there's been talk about doing works that grow and perfect our faith after we've received the free gift.  So we don't need to go into that.

I ran out of time, but I will continue this later.  Please consider what I've wrote, I have more to elaborate on so please if you have questions, feel free to ask.

God bless!
 :)

Amen, EN.
But good luck with your plea.  I've been following the thread but posting in it is "dangerous".  (That may not be totally accurate - but it's not far off.)  ;D

Actually - a lot of the threads get somewhat "personal" - but I really think everyone here loves one another - whether they admit it or not!  ;D

Welsome to c-unite!

Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?

NO!!!!

ETERNAL SECURITY

All the saved are eternally secure in Christ (Col. 3:1-4; Phil. 1:6; Rom. 8:1; 8:29-34; 8:38, 39; Eph. 1:13,14; 4:30).

Hold on, before I continue I want to clarify my position on this question.  Hopefully it'll help others understand where I'm coming from.

I believe in Eternal Security, up to a point.  I believe the scriptures throughout teach that if an unsaved person repents and asks God's forgiveness and mercy, and asks God to be their Lord and Savior, then at that moment that person is saved.  Now if that person continues to follow God, who continues to take up their cross daily and follow him, who remains in him, then yes there is nothing that can seperate him from God.  That is not to say that the person will never sin again, or that they might not have all the right convictions right away.  That is where God's grace comes in to cover the sins because God knows that person's heart and knows the person wants to do God's will but isn't perfect.

But if a person asks God to come into their life, walks with God, tastes the heavenly gifts, yet somewhere along the line decides they are purposly and willingly not going to follow God in a specific area in their lives that is against God's will, or decide to not follow God at all or have a change in attitude, they will have no place in the kingdom of God (as presented in Ezekiel 33).

One thing I keep in mind when I'm reading the scriptures, is that as the saying goes 'to every action there is a reaction'.  In other words, there are two sides to things.  And a very, very important thing to look for is words like 'if', and 'must'.  When you look at a scripture like John 15, from verse 1-11 the word 'if' is used four times.  Statements like, 'If a man remains in me and I in him', 'If anyone does not remain in me...', If you remain in me and my words remain in you', 'If you obey my commands'.  You have to ask yourself, well what if you don't remain in him?  What if you don't obey his commands?  Some of those he addresses within the same verses.  Just simply using the word 'if' indicates that there is two possibilities, either you do remain in him, or you don't.  Either you obey him or you don't.  He is very clear in this section in the answer to those questions.  Verse 4 is God's promise to us, that if we remain in him he will remain in us, but the decision is ours.  In order to remain in something, you have to be a part of it to begin with.  Yet he does tell us what our fate is should we chose to become apart from him in verses 2 and 6.

Please re-read Ezekiel 33, and John 15 with the thought in mind if there are two possibilities being presented, and is there a choice involved.  Please let me know what you think.

Now Crusader, can you unfold your statement a little?  And do you have any thoughts on the scriptures I've presented?  I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.  ;)

More to follow....

God bless
 :)

Eternal Life

Hebrews 6:4 “For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,  5  And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,  6  If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.”

The book of Hebrews is a contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. To properly understand the book of Hebrews this must be kept in mind. One of the main keywords in Hebrews is “better” which is used in reference to the New Covenant. The writer of Hebrew is dealing with converts under the New Covenant who are going back to the things of the old covenant for whatever reason. There are about five different explanations for the five warning passages in Hebrews such as the verses above. Some teach that this is speaking about a false professor, one who came close to being saved even partaking of spiritual things. I reject this explanation because the writer uses the strongest possible words to describe one who is truly a Christian. Also in chapter 10 we read:

Hebrews 10:26 “ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,  27  But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.  28  He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:  29  Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

Notice that the person mentioned here cannot be a false professor because verse 29 says he was sanctified by the blood of the covenant or in other words he was set apart by the blood of Jesus. This cannot happen to anyone but a child of God. The unsaved are not sanctified by the blood of Jesus.

Another very popular explanation for these passages is that the person was truly a child of God but lost his salvation. I reject this explanation as well. First, there are to many Scriptures that teach that a child of God is granted eternal life at his conversion in Christ. If a person could lose their salvation then we have to redefine many words. For example “forever” would not mean forever, “eternal” would not mean eternal, “everlasting” would not mean everlasting, “never perish” would not mean never perish. Now if we change the meanings for these words in relation to salvation then we ought to be honest with ourselves and apply the same meaning wherever we see the words. So when Scripture teach that those who are thrown into the lake of fire and the smoke of their burning ascendeth forever then we must conclude that this might not br forever seeing the same word is used in relation to salvation. Look at the problems you would have if you are consistent in applying the same definitions to word concerning other issues as you do concerning salvation. Below is a small sample.  

Rom. 16:26 “But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God.”

If salvation is not everlasting then a honest person would have to ask is God everlasting seeing the same word is used to describe both.

2 Cor. 9:9 “(As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.”

If salvation is not forever how can God’s righteousness be forever seeing the same words are used to describe both?

Rev 4:9 “And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, 10  The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever , and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,”

If salvation is not forever then does the Lord live forever seeing the same words are used to describe both?

Hebrews 9:12 “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].”

Was it eternal redemption or was is temporary in some cases?

Heb. 10:14 “For  by one offering he hath perfected  for ever them that are sanctified.  15  [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us:  for after that he had said before,  16  This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;  17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.  18  Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin”

Did the Lord perfect forever those that are sanctified or in some cases only temporary?  

Rev. 1:6 “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever . Amen”

If salvation is not forever then is the Lord’s glory and dominion for ever and ever, seeing the same words are used to describe both?

Matt. 25:41 “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:”

If salvation is not forever then is the fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels forever, seeing the same words are used to describe both?

Matt. 25:46 “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal”

If salvation is not forever then is the everlasting punishment of unbelievers forever, seeing the same words are used to describe both?

Continued

Continued

2 Thes. 1:9 “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”

Jude 1:7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Jude 1:13 “Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.”
 
Mark 3:29 “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal  damnation:”

I hope you can see the danger in redefining words with set meanings in order to accommodate a doctrine. This boils down to letting your doctrine define the Word of God instead of letting the Word of God define your doctrine. Here are the set meaning of some of the words, what right do we have in redefining them?

Forever
165 aion {ahee-ohn'}
from the same as 104; TDNT - 1:197,31; n m
AV - ever 71, world 38, never + 3364 + 1519 + 3588 6, evermore 4,
age 2, eternal 2, misc 5; 128
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age

Eternal life, Everlasting
166 aionios {ahee-o'-nee-os}
from 165; TDNT - 1:208,31; adj
AV - eternal 42, everlasting 25, the world began + 5550 2,
since the world began + 5550 1, for ever 1; 71
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and
always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting
For Synonyms see entry 5801

Dwelleth
3306 meno {men'-o}
a root word; TDNT - 4:574,581; v
AV - abide 61, remain 16, dwell 15, continue 11, tarry 9, endure 3,
misc 5; 120
1) to remain, abide
1a) in reference to place
1a1) to sojourn, tarry
1a2) not to depart
1a2a) to continue to be present
1a2b) to be held, kept, continually
1b) in reference to time
1b1) to continue to be, not to perish, to last, endure
1b1a) of persons, to survive, live
1c) in reference to state or condition
1c1) to remain as one, not to become another or different
2) to wait for, await one

Everlasting
126 aidios {ah-id'-ee-os}
from 104; TDNT - 1:168,25; adj
AV - eternal 1, everlasting 1; 2
1) eternal, everlasting
For Synonyms see entry 5801

Perish
622 apollumi {ap-ol'-loo-mee}
from 575 and the base of 3639; TDNT - 1:394,67; v
AV - perish 33, destroy 26, lose 22, be lost 5, lost 4, misc 2; 92
1) to destroy
1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
1b) render useless
1c) to kill
1d) to declare that one must be put to death
1e) metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
2a) to lose    

that never shall be quenched
BDB/Thayers # 762
762 asbestos as'-bes-tos}
from 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of 4570;; adj
AV - unquenchable 2, never shall be quenched 2; 4
1) unquenched, unquenchable
1a) of eternal hell fire to punish the damned
Another explanation which I believe is the correct one is that the writer of Hebrews is using a hypothetical situation to make a point. This is the only explanation that I am aware of the does not violate other Scriptures. The writer of Hebrews is concerned that some are turning back to the Old Covenant ways so he sets out to prove how foolish this is in light of how much better the New Covenant is. His argument would amount to something like this for Hebrews 6:4-6 (the verses at the top of this post).

If it were possible for someone who is truly saved (verses 4-5) to fall away and abandon the salvation he has received by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus (verse 6). It would be impossible for him to be renewed to repentance (salvation) because in order for him to be renewed he would have to crucify the Son of God again, and put him to an open shame which will never happen (verse 6). The point being that outside of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus in the New Covenant there is no salvation.

I believe this explains Hebrews 10 as well.

Hebrews 10:26 “ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,  27  But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.  28  He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:  29  Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

The argument is something like this. If it were possible for a true Christian to sin willfully after receiving the gospel truth by rejecting it, there would be no hope of him ever getting saved again. The only thing awaiting him is the fiery indignation of God seeing that he has trodden under foot the Lord Jesus and counted His blood by which he was saved an unholy thing. The only way of salvation is through the blood of Jesus and if a Christian could reject that there is no hope for him seeing he rejected the only thing that could save his soul.

The hypothetical is the only way I know of that allows these verses to fall in perfect harmony with the rest of Scriptures. I hope this may help some. May God open all of our eyes of understanding.

Saint Pilgrim

Hebrews 6:4-6  For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

I had a huge problem with this passage a few years ago.  I thank God that he has put in a church that has men and women who understands the Bible better than I do.  I have learned a great deal from them.  

The author of Hebrews is warning the readers the dangers of renouncing their newfound Savior because persecution.  It has been noted that this is only a hypothesis.  But the question that  I have is would you warn someone about the danger of falling down the steps if there was no danger?  

The answer is no, unless you are twisted in some way.  

When I was trying to understand verse 6, I read several different versions and it only confused me more.  Each version seemed to have its only take.  My assistant pastor finally was able to point me in the right direction when he explained that "seeing" should be taken as "as long as."

So, to get the correct meaning of verse 6, it should be read as:

 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; as long as they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

If they were to repent, God is faithful to forgive.  If they don't repent, God has no choice but to pour His wrath upon them.

PART 1


But again you fail to bring up what James says of this man.  This man professes to have faith.  But he did not.  If he had faith then he would be putting that faith into actions.  God calls for us to produce fruit of our faith and if we are not willing to do that then we really do not have faith to begin with, we can say we do until the cows come home, but saying so does not make it so.  Since faith is an allegiance to God, a willingness to obey God, if God calls upon us to do something and we do not do it then we really were not willing to obey God then were we.  


James does not state that the man has faith but a professed faith.  By 2:14 James is still talking about what the man “says” he has.  The man “says” he has faith, then James shows the difference between those with faith and those without, then states can the faith the man “says” he has save him?  Why no it cannot because he does not have faith, but only belief, and James shows us that as well in the next verses by showing the man is no better off than the demons, because they believe.  James does this to show that the man only has belief, but does not have an allegiance to God, does not have an obligation to God, is not willing to obey God.  


1 Cor 13:2 in a bit.  But see above for further on what James is saying here in these verses.


WOW.  So you do not believe that eternal life is eternal?  That even upon death if God accepts you into heaven it is not forever?  This would be a topic for further discussion perhaps upon a different thread.  If one can leave Heaven they why could one not enter Heaven from Hell?  This would be true under your concepts.  For is one can turn from their salvation and “throw it away” even after physical death and into the eternal life then one could turn to salvation and receive it after physical death and into the eternal death.   Would that not be true?  If you say no then why?  

END PART 1

PART 2


What I was referring to that I think it would be possible to fall to a point that at which you would consider to have lost salvation (although I do not believe one would lose salvation), but that to get to that point would be very very difficult.


Sure we can waste what is given, and wallow in sinful nature after receiving the gift, but God does not keep giving the gift.  It is given once.  And nowhere does it state it is given, or could be given, repeatedly.  So what do you believe the word eternal means?  And am I gathering that your concept of when we receive eternal life is upon our physical death.  In that if we have received the gift while living and have to continue to build upon it until death and that at that point we have our salvation.  So that it is given only at the point of the physical death, if a person remained faithful and produced fruitful works of faith.  Am I correct so far?  This doctrine would allow for the gift to only be given once.  However it does not take into account the references and examples of people being born again into eternal life at an instantaneous moment.  


Have discussed that one already and I have shown you how this is referencing the Jews/Hebrews(thus the name) and how they were once the enlightened of God, they were the partakers of the Spirit.  But when their promise from God was fulfilled they turned from God.  


Man is not born with salvation/inheritance as the prodigal son was.  So your analogy of a saved person falling does not quite fit here.  But man was created with an inheritance.  God gave man all of peace and it was man who took what he could and left God.  But God is more than willing to take us back with open arms.


James states that if one errs from the truth of the Gospel of Christ.  What truth could that be that James is referring to.  One in which he states that we should reclaim him from his error.  Well verse 20 lets us know that we should tell him that erred (not him who reclaimed) that those that convert a sinner from the error of their way will save a soul from death.  So the error in leaving the truth of the Gospel is not spreading the true word of Christ in that He is the Savior, He is the Redeemer, the Truth, the Light, the Way.


Where in that do you see where it is only committable by those who are saved?  Read Mark 3:28-30 which is the same bit of teaching and you will see what the blaspheme against the Holy Ghost is… Mark 3:30 “because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.”  The blaspheme against the Holy Ghost is to say that Jesus was a devil and the miracles performed were of Satan

END PART 2

PART 3


So far the only instance of someone being shown as “losing” their salvation you have provided.   And it is shown with very specific circumstances as well.  And I would carefully add a supposition to this as well in that alteration of the Word so that it would have a “lasting” affect.  For that has potential to lead generations astray.


I have read that one several times in and am still trying to find where it says that we will lose our salvation.  Sure falling from our own steadfastness…steadfastness from what though…our firm faith in the grace of God.  With our steadfastness in grace and our knowledge of Jesus we know before hand to watch for the error of the lawless.  As the verse states.  Again sure we could fall into lawless but it does not state we would fall into eternal damnation.


Having only provided one there in which God takes away the salvation of someone (also note that it is not the person doing it but God doing it)


Yes I have read through them but have not had the time or opportunity as of yet to reply to them.  My internet is only available at my place of work so often I print out what I can and then work on hand written replies and have to type them in again here at work (floppy drive died in home PC..LOL  ).


Of course you don’t.  However you fail to view the entire picture of what salvation is and what it does for the recipient of the gift.  The recipient becomes born again of the Spirit.  They are given a new life.  And with that new life comes new motivations, new desires, new priorities.  They have accepted the Holy Ghost and are alive.  There is no “Yes I believe and want to obey God, I went down the street that very same day and gave $0.25 to the Salvation Army, my salvation is secure”  Works that are pleasing to God are not only doing works of love for the public to see, but are changes in actions, changes in personality, and even as simple as reading the Bible, or praying.  A person filled with the eternal river of the Holy Ghost will also hear God, and will know (even without memorizing the Bible) what is displeasing to God.  Always present is that little thing WWJD concept.
 

That can be true, sometimes.  But if you have several clearer verses that state the same concept and the more complex verse you interpret to mean differently then more than likely the

END PART 3

PART 4


You are right, I have no proof that anything written in the Bible is true.  I have but my faith to drive my conviction that from cover to cover it is all true.  We are told that the Bible is the inspired word of God, thus it is of God, thus it is perfect.  Being perfect it can contain no errors, thus it must also be true.
As far as taking for granted.  No I study and interpret just as any of the Apostles would have.  And they started with what Jesus had said to them, and the people.  They, as shown, would have worked from the simple and moved to the more complex (milk to meat).  Peter would not have started a sermon like “And the Lord Jesus said that if anyone drinks of the water that He provides then they shall never thirst…oh and by the way Jesus did not mean never, we should not listen to the words of Jesus to mean what they say but He actually meant that we shall not thirst as long as we continue to be thirsty.”
And be careful.  Yes we are not to literally interpret that Jesus is a piece of bread.  He spoke metaphorically.  However we should take the meaning literally.  And when Jesus explains that upon receiving the Holy Ghost and it is within us, our soul will never thirst or want again.  Then we interpret that literally that our soul shall never again want or lack anything.


However what you have stated was:

What we see here is that once we accept the Gift from God the Holy Spirit takes up residence within us.  That is what happens at the point of being saved.  We are in Christ as Christ is in us.  This is expressed by Paul many times when he talks he states things like “I in Christ” or “Christ in me” or similar.  Once Christ is in us we are born anew in the Spirit and that new birth cannot be done more than once.  So the Holy Spirit takes up residence in us permanently.  Thus we will never thirst again.  Our soul shall never hunger or want again.


We can go into some of this in a different discussion as well.  My point being though was that you stated there was no way of knowing if inspiration was of God or man.  I was stating that your Magiserium is an organization of men that together or independently are as you say, determining traditions, acceptance of sources outside of the Word as being the Word of God, resolving conflicts over doctrine.  And if you have no way of knowing Godly inspiration from manly inspiration, then you have no way of knowing if what comes out of the Magisterium is Godly or not.


No support in scripture?!
Our favorite book
James 1:5 ”But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him”
Mark 11:24 “Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they shall be granted you.”
Luke 11:9-10 “And I say to you , ask, and it shall be given to you, seek and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you.  For everyone who asks, receives’ and he who seeks, finds’; and to him who knocks, it shall be opened.”
Matt 21:22 “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive.”
I could go on because there are more verses that state prayers are answered, as well as verses that state once we are saved the scriptures become clear.
Luke 24:27-32 shows Jesus “explaining the scriptures” to Cleopas and another on the road to Emmaus.  If God can inspire the writing do you think it beneath Him to explain it to us if we have a problem understanding?

END PART 4

PART 5


I will agree to a point.  There are verses in any piece of literature which are perfectly clear and no further meaning can be obtained.  They start, they state, they close.  I will also agree that in interpretation a key is to ensure consistency throughout.  But your statement of the large number being more significant than the one is not always true.  


And the same can be said of your approach.  However it is really more apt to err because right off the bat you are imparting your own (or churches) interpretation and making the rest fit.  And wen you get to a clear verse that does not fit into your preconceived notions then as you yourself said “too bad”  Because you can ignore that which is already clear this can allow for contradiction in your own interpretations.  “Jesus said never but did not mean it, oh well too bad”


See above and add
2 Tim 2:7 “Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.”
Matt 13:11 “ And He answered and said to them ‘To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but to them it has not been granted’ “
1 Cor 2:10 “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searched all things, even the depths of God.”
1 Cor 2:12 ”Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God.”


Ok first off you are putting to much into Sola Scriptura.  Sola Scriptura is not an interpretational method it is a belief that there is no other authority, or the final authority, other than the Bible.


However by appearance your “honking” speech is still present and audible.  It just has extra stuff tossed in of no relevance.  I note this because you still spelled out ‘dream’.  And the statement about my application being incorrect?  Hardly.  If you did not hear ‘I have a dream’ then it was not crystal clear was it.  Your approach is to place a possible alternate meaning to every verse, start the interpretation process with a presupposed stance gleamed from the first complex verse viewed, and work from there.  Mine does not take a stance with myself but one which is founded in God.  


But you do have it incorrect.  And I have shown you grammatically what it states.  It is because of God’s grace that he offers us salvation.  We do accept salvation through our faith and not of works so that no one may boast.  Boasting as in “I have done this and I obtained salvation, what you did is not enough, blah, blah, blah”  Faith is established as the platform of acceptance because everyone is equal in that.  There is no “bar” for faith, you have it or you don’t.  Since there is no “degrees” of faith no one can boast that they have more than anyone else.

END PART 5

PART 6


Do you discuss Paul going to Jerusalem as talked about in Acts 15?  If so please take note that it is not Paul’s dispute.  Nor was it Paul who thought he needed to go to the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem, but it was the brethren (the others of the congregation there) that asked Paul and Barnabas to go.  Paul knew what he was preaching was correct but there were others that were “claiming” to be Christians that were stating falsehoods.  The letter sent out explains “that some our number (claiming Christianity) to whom we have gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words…”  This is not Paul’s dispute.  And those that are disturbing do not appear to be “known” missionaries either.  They claim the title and profess to know, but they appear to not be true teachers for their doctrine is wrong.  
And by what you imply in your statement is that God has limits?  God may reveal what He desires to whom He desires.  And in a way He deems necessary.  But no matter what, the answer will be provided.  We just must be willing to wait for it as well as be prepared to get an answer we did not want.


Yes and the Spirit is what we receive at salvation.  Once saved we are in Christ and Christ is in us.  Forever.


Church History - A discussion for another time and place.


Did you mean Hebrews 6?
And again although there are lessons to be learned, Hebrews was written to and for Jews.  We know it is not possible to crucify Jesus again.  Why would we need to?  To fulfill the prophecies.  We see reference in these verses of people who have been enlightened (of God), that would the Jews or Christians.  Then we go into talking about those that have fallen away (from God).  We see it is impossible to renew them again, because it would mean that the Messiah would have to come and be sacrificed again.  To accept Christ now for anyone what has to be done?  Accept that He was the Messiah.  What would have to be done for a Jew to today to have their prophecies fulfilled?  Messiah to come back and be crucified again.  

You tried to state that this verse is showing how a person call lose their salvation and fall away from God.  But if you accept this verse as that then it would also read that once you fall from salvation you can never get it back.  It says that it would be impossible to be renewed.  How does that play into your doctrine of falling away?  If I were to believe that I can lose my salvation and based on this verse I could never get it back again if lost.  Does God only give you one shot at it and if you get it and lose it you are lost forever?  Or will you come back and state because of other verses “impossible” does not mean impossible?  



There are no other verse that conflict with this.  Is it that you cannot accept this view because it speaks of the truth and that it does not allow for a consistent manipulation of the scripture.  Throughout Scripture we see references of the Spirit residing in us.  Paul often states that we are in Christ and that Christ is in us.  There are several verses that state the Ghost comes into us.  On accepting Christ as our Saviour the well of the Holy Ghost is in us.  
John 17:21 “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”
Eph 3:20 “Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us.
2 Tim 1:14 “That good things which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.”
James 4:5 “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?”
1 John 3:24 “And he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him.  And hereby we know that He abideth in us, by the Spirit which He hath given us”
1 John 4:12 “No man hath seen God at any time.  If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and His love is perfected in us.”
1 John 4:13 “Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit”
2 John 1:2 “For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us forever
It is very clear that when we are saved the Spirit dwells within us.  It is this dwelling of the Spirit which Jesus refers to as the well that is within us that is the source of our lack of thirst.  Jesus says we will never thirst for the Spirit and in 2 John we see that the Spirit, which is truth, shall be with us forever.
There is no literal legalistic view about any of it.  It is the pure unadulterated word of Godi
To deny that the Spirit dwells in us is to deny what the Gospel says.  When we accept Christ, Christ gives us the Holy Ghost to reside in us.  


In all actuality.  Yes.  It is a pseudonym that I have used for online gaming, role-playing games, and such for a very very long time (even before finding Christ).  It has stuck.  Don’t know why I keep it….primarily I guess because it is something I remember….it is a username I will remember when I do not want to use my name (email lists, and other such spamination sites)….I keep a few email accounts with the name as well and use them as buffers for junk mail.

END

PART 1 OF 6

Sorry this took so long but it is getting quite lengthy.  Perhaps we need to focus again on specific root issues.  I notice that the idea of levels of faith is becoming important, so I might suggest that.  But feel free to pick and choose from the paragraphs as you see fit to reduce the length – I did not want to this time as I did not want you to feel I was ignoring a point you made.  Know that if on the next go around you decide to pare this down I will not think you are purposely ignoring my points.  I would hope that you cover 1 Cor 13:2 as I have yet to see an interpretation from you on how this form of faith fits your definition.


No, I cannot agree with that interpretation, it reads something into what James is clearly saying when it is not needed.  James literally identifies the man as having faith in James 2:14 as he asks “can faith save him?”   Under your definition you have to have James saying “can that claim to faith save him?”, but that is not what James says.


You said that you would address this verse in a little bit but I don’t see it below.  Did I miss it as I edited my response?  I really want to see how you explain this issue of faith existing in someone who is not saved under your definition of faith.


Yes I believe in eternal life but it does not mean what most Protestants think it means.  That we are with God forever with no chance or possibility of leaving Him.  I do not think we lose our free will when we are saved.  On earth we do not have an eternal life, the inherent property of our life on earth is such that it must end, we will die.  Our souls can live on and do until the final judgment.  At that time all who have rebelled up to that time, including satan, all the fallen angels, and all humans who did not accept Christ and His message through faith and works will be cast into the lake of fire the eternal death for eternal punishment.  The life the saved are given at that time is eternal, the inherent property of that life is that of its own it will never end.  But there is an interplay between that eternal life and other properties of our existence.  That interplay can have us lose that eternal life without changing the property of the eternal life itself.  An analogy might help to make clear what I mean (though I am not intending this to be a proof just to help you see what I mean).  If someone gives you a diamond that he guarantees will always sparkle and you put it in a dark room with no light the diamond stops sparkling but that does not mean that the diamond has lost its inherent property.  But I agree this is probably best left to another thread.


I think that once we die we await the final judgment and during that time which may be just an instant in our view we don’t make further decisions.  After the final judgment I suspect you cannot enter heaven from hell because God will not let you.   After the final judgment, I suspect you can leave heaven to go to hell because you choose not to love God anymore.  This has to be from pride (as what happened to satan), because the deceiver is cast into the lake of fire and so the rebellion must come from within.   God does not want to force us to love Him so if we stop loving Him or begin to love ourselves more, He lets us leave, or maybe even forces us out like He did through Michael the archangel’s battle with Lucifer.  I suspect this is next to impossible as we will be so in awe of God.  Lucifer was far above us when he succumbed to the temptation to think himself a god.

I will say after all this that I am not certain this understanding of mine expresses the teachings of the Catholic Church as I do not have a perfect understanding of the whole process, but this is how it makes sense to me.


What is the difference between considering to have lost salvation and losing salvation.  Is it just a state of confusion in our own minds?


This gets into the whole issue of initial and final salvation.  The gift is given once as you say.  We then accept it through faith and works together (or belief and works together to use your terms).  Initial Salvation But those two must continue throughout our lives and as you know I contend either or both can cease.  Then we die and at the final judgment we are asked by God – do you still have that gift I gave you?  If we have held onto it through our faith and works or at least picked it back up through repentance when we dropped it for awhile we can say yes here it is. Final Salvation If we say no we no longer have the free gift He says goodbye to us.  The parable of the Kings wedding in Matt 22 expresses it best I think.  In those times it was custom for the giver of the wedding feast to provide robes for the guests to wear.  Everyone who came was given one.  The man who refused to put his on was asked why he was not wearing the wedding garment and had no good reason so he was cast out into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (a clear reference to hell).


Yes, that is your position but there is nothing to support the idea that these verses (or any and all verses) of scripture are limited in their relevance to select group.  I understand that is a linch pin upon which dispensationalism hangs or falls but it is not one I accept.  I believe that all of scripture is relevant to all of mankind.  So to ignore the message of a verse by saying it doesn’t apply to you is unacceptable to me.

END OF PART 1

PART 2


Remember this is a parable so one has to be careful pushing it too hard such as going back to a period prior to the one the parable covers, like when the son was born, or assuming he was and was not adopted.  These extension should not be used to invalidate the message of the parable.  But if your approach is accepted you still have a lot of symbolism to fit into the idea.  Such as if this is just talking about our inheritance of peace then how do we explain the meaning of being dead and now being alive again?  No, I am going to stick with the interpretation of the Early Church Fathers rather than yours and they all felt it was about loss and regaining of initial salvation.


No any bad work that leads one not to obey the Gospel is an error of this type.  The Gospel is more than just the good news that Christ died for our sins.  It is also the good news that by following Him and heeding His message we are not under the letter of the law but that we can fulfill the spirit of the law through love.  If we do not do these works of love we err from the truth and must be converted so as to save our soul.  Your secondary point (about who is being told) is not significant, because the soul that is being saved is clearly the one who is in error (the one doing the converting is not saving his own soul).  And that saving of the soul occurs in one who was already saved, since they were following the Gospel, as is clear from the fact that they erred from the truth, which is not possible if one was not initially following it.


Where do you see that this sin cannot be committed by those who are already saved?  Yes those who committed it in that case might not have been saved, but if a saved person commits the sin they would lose their salvation as the sin is unpardonable.


I am unclear as to what you mean about “alteration of the Word so that it would have a “lasting” affect” but it does seem that you are admitting the possibility of losing salvation at least in some specific instances.


The reference to salvation coming through the long suffering of Jesus (meaning He can put up with a lot from us – not that He suffered a long time) and the reference to others who wrest (twist and misinterpret) scripture to their own destruction (damnation) shows I think that if we fall from our own steadfastness and begin to twist and misinterpret scripture to cover our sins or convince ourselves that we have security we will try even the long suffering of Jesus to the point of losing our salvation.  We cannot hold onto the free gift if we do not repent of our sins.


Do you want me to provide more?  I am always reluctant to do that initially because some many here are ready to accuse people of flooding them with scripture to prove a point, they seem more content with a few “proof verses” rather than seeing the weight of scripture come down on one side or anther of an debate.  As to God taking away the salvation in the verse from Revelation I don’t agree.  True He scratches the name out of the Book of Life (as would be the case for anyone who loses their salvation) but it was due to our actions.  God never abandons us we always walk away from Him.

END OF PART 2

PART 3


You still use a floppy?!  LOL.  Get yourself one of those 128 MB memory sticks (about $40 right now) they pop right in a USB port and work great I carry one everywhere with lots of junk on it.  At home I have a Mac and the thing works in PCs or Mac with no reformatting issues or anything, which is good since Mac’s don’t come with floppy drives anymore.


What you are referring to is the conversion we must undergo.  Catholics believe it is not enough just to have our sins hidden beneath His blood, we believe that the Bible speaks of a true conversion of the sinner, that we become holy through our cooperation with grace.   I know this is going to open another whole can of worms but that conversion doesn’t occur in a one shot deal when the Holy Spirit enters us, nor does it happen when we first believe or do our first good work.  Conversion is a process, that is why sanctification is part of salvation not just evidence of our faith.  That is what Paul means by telling us we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling.


I think I agree with how you were going to finish that statement, but then you are not choosing clear over complex you are going with the majority of verses, which is fine as long as you can be sure you have a majority and that would still require knowing all the scriptures in such a way that you can balance them against themselves in your mind to make that determination, otherwise you never know when you might find another set of verse to toss on the scale for the other side of the argument and you would end up with a doctrine that wavers.


I am not questioning the Bible as I have faith in it too, but the idea that “the clear and simple provide a good foundation” is not in the Bible it is man made.


What you are expressing in going from milk to meat is how we learn it is not how we establish doctrine.  The two are different.  The doctrines that Christ taught the Apostles were already established, those same doctrines were taught by the Apostles to those who graduated from milk to meat.  But when you go off on your own and try to rely on sola scriptura you have to not only learn but develop doctrine simultaneously and the methods for doing those two things is different.  The method used to learn a subject is not the proper one to establish the truths of that subject.  That is why sola scriptura and the methods inherent in using it must lead to error.


Yes we are in Christ and Christ is in us but we are warned repeatedly in the New Testament that we must continue to abide in Him or we will not be saved.  (for example John 15:4-10 and 1 John 2:24-28 )  So we see that it is not a permanent residence.  True He will stay as long as we want Him to so in that way the promise is one of permanence but we can always reject the gift until we die.  We do that by sinning unrepentantly.

END OF PART 3

PART 4


I do not deny that God will answer our prayers and we can glean much from scripture in this way, but that does not say we will all interpret scripture perfectly forming proper doctrine from our efforts.  If that interpretation was correct we would still be one big Church all in communion with each other and no divisions.  We both know that is not the way the world is.  The funny thing about inspiration is that God tends to only tell you what you need to know at the time, other wise we would be omnificent.  

My point was and I probably did not state it precisely enough is that scripture does not promise that we will get a perfect understanding of scripture even from inspirational prayer.  That is why the Church was established to feed his sheep, when the sheep try to feed themselves even when done prayerfully they are telling God they know a better way to do this than He does.


I agree it is not always true but you can never know when it is or is not true until you understand the entire system in its entirety.  Only then can you look back and decide which verses were perfectly clear and no further meaning can be obtained and which you only thought were that way.


There are two reasons this idea is wrong.  First has to do with the Church being protected from error and that is a topic you and I have decide to wait on.  But second is that you are applying my method to learning and it does not apply to learning, it applies to formulating doctrine.  That is the whole crux of the situation.  Adherents to sola scriptura must formulate their doctrine as they learn it and thus apply a tool for learning to a task (formulating doctrine) that it was never intended for and is ill equipped to handle.  Those who rely on the Church to have already formulated doctrine need only compare their learning to it, to verify they have a correct understanding.  This does however require them to accept the systematic theology already developed (to include all the verses of scripture in a consistent manner) over their view that some verses are obviously clear.

The Church does not start right of the bat imparting its own interpretation.  The Church was given the proper interpretation by Christ.  That is the advantage of having a teacher over having a text.  The Church in the form of the Apostles could ask questions of Jesus and get clarifications.  Those who do not avail themselves of this resource, must as t you point out, right off the bat begin interpreting, as they do not start out with any understanding of the message.   That is not the position the Church is in.  You learn by reading and interpreting and/or relying on a teacher, the Church never had to learn.


None of these say that we are granted an infallible understanding of all of scripture.  If it does then you are the only one who is a true Christian, because I would bet that you do not agree on every single point of interpretation with anyone else in the world.  Since they don’t agree with you the Holy Spirit cannot be at work in them so they are not a true Christian.  No the promises of protection of proper interpretation in scripture belong to the Church alone.


I know what you mean, you are right it is not an interpretational method and I have tried to be careful to say the adherents of sola scriptura, but I have not always done so.  But my point is the approach of sola scriptura requires an interpretational method that is inherently flawed.  It may be that there is an interpretational method consistent with sola scriptura that can be proven logically to result in proper hermeneutics from a sola scriptura approach but I have not seen it put forward.  It certainly is not the one of letting the clear interpret the obscure.

END OF PART 4

PART 5


No my approach is to not start interpreting anything until one has all the verses in ones head at once.  Then based on the consistency of all of the verses interpret them all.  So every verse is interpreted based on every other one.  The clear thus being interpreted by the obscure as well as the other clear verses.  The obscure being interpreted by the clear and the other obscure verses.  My method is fail proof, it is also impossible for an individual.  Any interpretation method applied to a text that holds the mystery of our eternal existence had better be fail proof.  The method used by sola scriptura adherents is definitely not, but it is workable.  It would be better if it was not workable as then we would not have so many who have come up with wrong interpretations to their own destruction.  So we are left with one fail proof and unworkable approach and one workable but failed approach.  What are we to do?  All this analysis has only gone to show us that we cannot interpret scripture on our own.  The answer lies in the Church and we see support for it in this role in Tradition, the Scriptures themselves and history.


No I did not accept your grammatical analysis of that verse.  If you remember we got off subject on another verse that had a colon in one translation, a comma in another, and a semi-colon in a third and never really finished the conversation.  I still contend that Eph 2:8 is not contrasting faith and works it is contrasting grace and works.

There are not degrees of mere mental ascent but there are degrees of faith!  Faith as we have already seen is perfected, it grows.  Faith can be a small as a mustard seed to start but can become a great tree.  Faith can be powerful enough to move mountains and call down fire upon others or to make us whole, or it can so weak that it wavers.  That is what perfecting our faith through works is all about, strengthening our faith.


Oh but it was Paul’s dispute, not because he started it but because those who were in dispute turned to him.  I am sure he at first tried to resolve this himself, stating the proper doctrine and siding with one or the other disputers in the issue, but he was not seen as an authority by one of the two sides (or maybe even both), so he had to go to Jerusalem to get an authoritative statement from those who were seen as leading the Church.


I do not mean to imply that God has limits (except those He imposes on Himself by giving us the gift of free will for example).  And while God does indeed give us what He deems is necessary the key is as you pointed out we must be patient to wait for it.  That is what is lacking in most hermeneutics by those who interpret the Bible for themselves.  They want an answer now and will not wait, so they come up with one on their own they claim to be spirit driven (since when a spirit driven one does come it is not evidently distinguishable from the man made ones).  Then based on the certainty they associated with a spirit driven interpretation they go on to interpret more and more building error on top of error.


But it is an unwarranted jump to go from the Spirit is always available to us to the idea that we can never lose our salvation.  I admit that God will never abandon us, that grace and the Holy Spirit will always be available to us.  But that is not to say that we cannot ignore them and walk away.

END OF PART 5

PART 6


Yes, Hebrews 6 of course.  I think interpreting this verse as prophetic is stretching it too far.  This verse and all verses of scripture have a message for all men at all times.  The problem of falling away and not being able to be saved again is seen I think in the issue of the special circumstances of this salvation.  We know the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, so that is what this falling away must entail.  So we are not talking about the typical person who is saved but by one who is outstanding in their faith.  One who has been blessed by gifts, “tasted of the heavenly gift”.  This requires an understanding of faith as having levels which above you stated you disagree with but I see these individuals as having an experience of the Holy Spirit that is different, that is why for them to sin it becomes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.


There are plenty of other verses that conflict with this interpretation of yours.  Every verse that tells the Church to lead, to feed the sheep, that tell us to submit to those responsible for our souls all conflict with your interpretation.


But a literal interpretation of them leads us to a world view we know is contrary to reality as I have shown above.  Yes the spirit dwells in us, but it does not lead us all, to all knowledge, at all times and thus yield perfect interpretations of all scriptures for everyone.  If it did, we would all agree and we don’t.

END

Along the lines of the thread title; and nothing to do with the debate:

BIBLE MEDITATION: “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” 2 Peter 1:4

DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: Some people distort the doctrine that when a man is saved he is always saved. They get the idea that if that is true, then they will sin all they want to. Friend, I sin all I want to. I don’t want to! If the only thing that keeps you from sinning is fear of losing your salvation, I wonder if you have really surrendered yourself to God and asked Him to save you. Peter tells us that we have become “partakers of the divine nature.” Does that mean that you don’t sin any more? No. Before I was saved, I was running to sin. Now, I’m running from it. I may slip, but I’m saved. I have a desire to live pure and clean to the glory of God.

ACTION POINT: What about you? Do you have a desire to be holy? Or do you treat the doctrine of assurance as a license to live a sinful life?

Love Worth Finding~

Amen! sincereheart

Sorry for delay.  Been busy at work and was thinking on what to trim out and such.

PART 1


Understood on the length.  Lets see what we can trim out LOL


Ok lets look at 2:14, I am sure that you can agree that in the beginning of verse 14 James clearly indicates that the man is professing faith.  James does not state implicitly that he has it but only that the man says he has faith.  But lets look also at what some various translations state concerning the end of that verse:
NASB – “Can that faith save him?”
Green’s Literal – “Is faith able to save him?”
Young’s Leteral – “Is that faith able to save him?”
KJV – “Can faith save him?”
We have a couple of different translations which emphasis that faith as in the faith the man professes and that is it.  James further expands upon him referencing the faith the man has is being talked about a few verses later in verse 20 when James states comments as though talking to the man himself that his faith is useless.  If that man says he has faith and has no works supporting that then the man is not doing the will of God, thus he is basing what he calls faith strictly on saying he believes in God.  And James even emphasizes this when stating that the demons believe in God as well.  
It is not reading anything into what James is saying but it is reading James for exactly what he is saying.  It does not take a theologian to read and to understand what is written, it only takes an understanding and language and sentence structures and such.  James sets up his dissertation here by stating that the man says he has faith.  Thus the implication is that the man only professes faith but in reality he does not.
You may not be able to agree with that interpretation and for that I am sorry.  But it is translated there in plain English, and with very little interpretation needed the meaning comes clear.  There is no deeper meaning or alternate meaning there.  Just as you say I am reading something into “can faith save him?”, you are reading something out of James when James says that the man “says he has faith.”  However in every translation I have read the ending differs little in the wording, but the meaning comes across clear.  But none differ on the beginning and what is said in that the man is professing to have faith.


My apologies, I had moved over it to come back to it later and forgot all about it.  Hmmmm Lets read back through what it all has to say here.  We can see what the gifts are referenced as in the previous chapter.  They are spiritual gifts, that is gifts given by God, they are “bonus” gifts for participating.  They could be things like the gift of music, speech, art, preaching, wisdom, or pretty much anything God desires.  We see that Paul mentions that each gift has it’s place in Christ’s Body.  Then when we move into Chapter 13 we are shown how we should use these gifts, they should be used in love (charity).
The verse in question reinforces what James had to say.  We could have all the willingness to do God’s will but if we do nothing, we are useless.  We should use (putting our faith into action) our gifts, why? For our own benefit? NO! because it is God’s desire that we do it.  How should we use our gifts?  Anyway we want to?  Again a resounding NO.  We should use our gifts with love, for love.  God wants us to love one another as well as to love Him.  When you love someone you would want to do things for that person.  What could be more pleasant to God than to see us using the gifts He provided in a manner of love to all we come in contact with?  I would gather nothing would be more pleasing.
So the verse shows nothing of a lost salvation, or even comes close to it.  But it shows that we each have gifts from God and we should be using those gifts for further glorification of God by using them in love for Him and from Him.  The verse in question even only implies that the person would be nothing, which is a neither saved or not.  So to imply they would have lost salvation is implying more than what is said.  


So by this God would allow you to leave heaven because you no longer love Him.  But then if you repent while in Hell and wish to seek Him again, then God will ignore you because you turned from Him while in Heaven?  So God will accept our repentance unless we were already in Heaven, then if we leave He would no longer accept our repentance?  So when Jesus says that we shall live even if we die He really does not mean it.  We could face another death of the spirit if we leave heaven.  Also in that since Jesus abides in us and with us forever and does not leave…then your doctrine here would state that if we leave heaven then Jesus will go to Hell with us.
I am sorry but I cannot accept that doctrine.  There is nothing Biblical about it.  If this is what your tradition preaches then I pray you re-evaluate your position and dive into some deep study and prayer.  And pray to God and not Mary or anyone else.  Pray that He will provide you with wisdom.  Pray that He will open your eyes to what He has plainly had written.  There is a reason why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and it is because they allowed their tradition to cloud the written word.  They put more trust in their traditions of men than what God had to say.  There is also a reason why Jesus quoted from the OT so much, and that being that it was the Word of God as God wanted it and not the traditions of men.  When Satan tempted Jesus what did He do?  He quoted from the OT.  Reliance upon the Word and only the Word and nothing else for inspiration and knowledge

END PART 1

PART 2


Should I coin a new term and call it Sola Catholica?  LOL a Catholics adherence to interpretation of Scripture and manly traditions ad proposed by Catholic doctrine.  LOL sorry could not resist.


I was stating from my point of view that one would not lose their salvation, but from your point of view they could have.  


No no no.  You still do not even get that correct.  My terms are not belief and works together. My statement is faith. Period.  Faith being defined Biblically and through our own language as being belief and an allegiance/willingness to obey God.  I know you probably will not accept that definition even though I have shown you in several instances where your “belief” that faith is just a deeper form of belief is incorrect.


Hold on there now.  There is wisdom to be gained, knowledge to be learned from all of Scripture.  However you have to understand where, what, who, and why the authors were inspired to write what they did.  You have to look at not only the context of a verse in relation to verses around it but also context of the verse in relation to the author and where he was, who he was writing to, when he wrote it, etc.  

If you do not accept that parts of the Bible were directed at certain people then why is there so many references as far as talking directly to Jews, or Gentiles, or Pharasee’s, etc.  There are many direct comments throughout the OT as well as the NT that speak directly to a type of person or group of people.  Do you think the OT was written strictly for Christians, or perhaps it was written just for the Jews and is not applicable to us?

I am not stating that some verses are not relevant or only relevant to select groups.  But there are verses/chapters/books which are speaking to/about a certain group of people.  And they must be taken in that context.  You have to understand the surroundings in which the verse was spoken/written.  This does not reduce the importance of the verse but places it in the context it was written.

Look at Matt 23.  “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees” Now to whom was Jesus talking to?  There is no one today called Pharisees.  And I do not claim it to be irrelevant as for a set of verses to learn from.  But you have to understand who it was Jesus was talking to.  You have to understand the context of the time and the people of the time.  There are those like the scribes and Pharisees today, but they are not called that.  The Bible then goes in at certain spots and helps to create an image of what the scribes were like and what the Pharisees were like as well so that we know the statement is not an empty one and allows us to understand what Jesus was saying in these verse.  When someone is speaking to the Jews then they are speaking to the Jews, it can be applied to Jews of today or people of like mind.  Not irrelevant but in the context of the writing.  And Hebrews was written to the Jews so the author was speaking in terms they would understand and referencing things associated with their belief, traditions, etc, etc.  Hebrews was not written to Christians but to Jews.


But you are reading far more into the verse than what it says.  Again it does not state anything about losing our salvation.  Be careful.  You say that twisting and misinterpreting verse can lead to this.  Well if that is true then you have done it here by putting much more into that verse than what is stated.


Provide as many as you like as far as I am concerned.  But so far the ones you have provided have not shown a loss of salvation.

 
Unless of course we walk out of Heaven then as you said God would not let us back in.
 

Yeah I know.  Just have not gone out to get one.  And I like my good ole floppy…RORL.


We are converted to children of God as soon as we ask to become that.  When we ask Jesus to come into our lives and accept Him into our lives He immediately does.  At that point we are “Christians”.  Yes there is a true conversion of the sinner, the washing away of the sins by the blood of Jesus gives us a new birth in the Spirit.  Sins of the past are cleansed.  I agree this does not mean that a new child of God will magically no longer sin in his or her life.  Sure there is a conversion of lifestyle that takes place.  But that is not a conversion of the soul but a conversion of the person outwardly.


Which is why I study often and regularly.  Not only reading the Bible normally (pick a book and read it..usually in order), but also I study topically and search through for other verses that are related and such.  And also why I take notes.  I have 2 notebooks full of notes from just the first 8 books of Genesis alone.  Maybe one day before I die I will compile everything and put it into a nice concordance type of thing...LOL

END PART 2

PART 3


In a way you are correct.  The Bible does not tell us one way or another how to interpret verses.  But then it is also written so that anyone should be able to read it and understand it.  God inspired it so that anyone can understand what is written.  And the idea to complex provides foundation is also man made.  But one thing that God did make was our nature and our process of thought, our learning process, our growth in maturity, etc, etc.  And throughout we start with what is simple and build our way up to more complex.  We start with milk and work our way to meat.  Our knowledge is not an imparted intelligence it is learned.  Our wisdom is not imparted but is learned as well.  And we learn from simple to complex.  


No through using the Bible only you are using the doctrine that Jesus taught the Apostles and the Apostles in turn taught the other Christians of the time.  You are not relying on anyone else’s word for it but that of God.  Your reliance on the doctrine of your church fathers is just that…a doctrine of people before you, by men before you.  Those that adhere to the concept of Sola Scriptura pull their doctrine from that of what is said in the Bible.


Lets take a look at John 15.  This is the statement of Jesus that he is the true vine.  I would recommend looking into some other verses that talk about the vine that is God and Jesus.
Ps 80 in which we see the vine was brought out of Egypt and planted and spread.  This being in reference to the Exodus and the Israelites.  It says they were praised for the vines shadow, the boughs and branches.  But yet it does not mention the fruit.  And the calling out for God to help and to have the face of God shine again.  But the vine is the plant of Israel, the seed of God’s people.  They spread but as usual did not bear good fruits.  Their branches being plucked and devoured.  It is burned with fire and cut down.
And Isaiah 27:6 shows that Israel “shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit.”  So they did not.  They filled it with branches but not bearing fruit.
The Parable of the Landowner in Matt 21 can be shown in Isaiah 5.  And here we see that the vine is planted the vineyard and states what more could be done than that which God had done.  And when it should produce good fruit it brings fourth wild grapes.
And we can see in II King 4:39-40 what the wild vine’s produce can cause, death.  The wild vine is deception and leads to death.  But it grows amongst the good vine of God and yet even looks good to eat.
Hosea 10 shows us that Israel was an empty vine.  Reaping for themselves, but appearing to do so in God’s name.  They were clinging to the vine of God but not a true branch of God’s vine.  It goes on to show that because of their wickedness they shall be cut off.  Because they were not of the true vine and a branch of the true vine but only clinging to it and “acting” as a branch they would be cut off.
Judges 9:13 shows us that the fruit which comes from the branches of the vine, which a true branch of a vine is the only to produce fruit, is pleasing to God.
Luke 8:18 shows some insight as to a branch that clings to the vine thus appears to be part of the plant but is not.  “for him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.” Implying that even if they seemed to have religion outwardly if they do not have their branch springing fourth from the vine of Christ then they will have their religion stripped from them.

And to say that it is not a permanent residence?!  You are changing the definitions of eternal, forever, never, and others that go on to state that the Holy Spirit will be in us and us in Him eternally, forever, and never leave.  How utterly untrue and unBiblical.  God used words meaning never, eternal, forever for a reason and it was to stated never, eternal, and forever.


But if we all did that and did it earnestly and believingly then we would be all of the same opinion, it is because people do not seek answers from God that we have divisions.  It is because people put more trust in creations of man or from men that we have divisions.  I do not dispute the importance of the church for believers and the mission of God.  You use a good word there at the end of your last sentence.  “world”.  That is exactly what the problem is and that is the world.  We should not be bothered with the way the world is but should be centered on the way God is.  We should remember we are not of this world anymore, we may be in it but it is not in us.  The world should not be dictating how our church should run.  But even in the early days of the Apostles the world entered into the church and they had to fight it off.  

My point was and I probably did not state it precisely enough is that scripture does not promise that we will get a perfect understanding of scripture even from inspirational prayer.  That is why the Church was established to feed his sheep, when the sheep try to feed themselves even when done prayerfully they are telling God they know a better way to do this than He does.


And the Apostles are shown to have asked questions of Jesus and they are shown in the Bible.  Jesus teachings are printed in the Word.  We all have a teacher in Christ and His teachings were recorded for us.  We were all given the proper interpretation by Christ because it is written in the Bible.  There is no support for the idea that there are “other” sources of interpretation other than that of God.  We are told many fold to not rely on the teaching of men for men are folly and that God will make the man who says he is wise, to be a fool.

END PART 3

PART 4 (wew down to 4 parts..LOL)


If our understanding comes from God then it is infallible.  And no I do not agree with everyone else in the world (I believe you meant everyone and not anyone), on every piece of Scripture.  But I also do not judge them nor myself in the manner and I consider their interpretation on the point and go back into study and prayer and ask believingly, as directed by God, for the answer.  God promises an answer.  God tells us that we will have an understanding that non-believers will not.  God tells us that if we seek an earnest answer in Him then He will provide it.  To state otherwise you would again claim that what the Bible says is not true…that it means something else.  You put your church above the authority of God and the Bible.


Then I contend you go back to school and learn you grammar better.  Eph clearly states that it is because of God’s grace that salvation is offered and we saved through faith and not of works, so that no one can boast.  The only thing in that entire set of verses that anyone would be able to boast about is works.  Grace is shown to be the reason God offers the gift of salvation.  Faith is something that has no outward provable metric to boast upon.  Salvation is the gift offered by God.  So the only two items in there that relate to man is faith and works.  And since no man can boast about faith then man must no boast about works.  Thus it is not works that saves but faith.  Thus it contrasts works and faith.  Not grace and faith.  How could that even contrast grace and works since grace is by God and works are by man?  It could not.  


I do not argue that faith grows.  And have said so all along.  We start with a desire to do God’s will and as we do God’s will our trust, love, allegiance to Him grows.  He will ask more of us, but never more than we can handle.  Have explained many times how they are directly proportional or directly related.  But it is only the desire to do God’s will that is faith and it is not the works that are faith.  They are works and are a separate entity…they are our faith in action.  They are doing what God desires.  They are showing we have more than belief as the demons have.  They are showing we have a true faith and not just a professed faith as the man in James 2.


And that may be true with some, but is not true with all.  And the inverse can be said as well in that those that seek an answer do not wait for the answer from God but instead seek an answer from something else that is man made.  A man who attends a church that is not rooted in God and they go there to seek the answer to their question will get an answer alright, but not one of God.  (and I do not say that in reference to you or anyone, but showing that a church can be ungodly as well but still claim to be Christian).


Yes it is unwarranted to jump from saying the Spirit never leaves us as the Bible says and saying that it is just always available.  I would be interested in seeing how you, or your church have made that jump.
 

Then you have completely read Hebrews out of context.


Exactly.  We do not because we do not let the Spirit lead us, as we are supposed to.  And we let the world interfere with our relationship to God.  We know we cannot live without the world being around us but we should not let the world interfere with our relationship to God.  Look at prayer.  Look at the fathers throughout the Bible and their prayer.  Jesus had prayed for hours on end without ceasing.  Today most people consider it good enough to say a blessing at the meal

END