Lose Your Salvation in Two Easy Steps

[Bronzesnake]

AVBunnyan quote...

"Bronze – I’m trying to be gracious here while you are treating me like a kid.  I think I’ve seen the “rapture” verses before."

I apologize, I guess I was getting carried away with myself wasn't I?

You know, it's very hard to judge a person's demeanour through reading some text, and sometimes we mistake a person as having a boastful attitude. That seems to be what I did when you said things such as...

 "I’ve decided to boil it down to 2 simple steps to make it easy for you."

or...

"Undo all that God did at your salvation.  
See how easy it is! Now, let’s go down a simple list of things that God did and all you have to do is make this list your check list and mark them all as you undo them.  OK put your tennis shoes on and let’s go!!!"

or...

"very easy to handle if you know how to rightly divide the scriptures - II Tim. 2:17"

That implies that I am beneath your standard of understanding doesn't it? It implies that you have all the right answers doesn't it?

then there's ...

"Why not take the plain sense of the scriptures Paul presents for your eternal security instead of fleeing into the tribulation in order to try and lose your salvation?"


 All very patronizing, and almost self righteous my friend, you will probably concede that?

I do believe you are an honest Christian and most likely a really nice person. If we actually ever met, we would no doubt become friends and all these childish barbs that we callously toss around would be shelved.

I do however, believe in pre-Trib Rapture. I honestly feel that your position and explanation of some of the scriptures in Revelation are some-what weak.

It's senseless for us to keep going at one another verse vs verse, but I will give a few quick examples.

 For starters you referred to ...

just because we see the word “church” doesn’t mean it is the church, which is His body. How about the church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38)

Your point is well taken, however, we must take these verses in their proper context. The church in the wilderness was not the "Jewish church" that you believe it was. It was a direct reference to John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness about Jesus.

Then there's this comment about not being able to find the church (Christians) in Revelation....

"Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.  The church, which is His body (Eph. 5:30; 1:22,23, etc.), is not an earthly people in God’s eyes but a heavenly people seated in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 2:6, etc.).

Without trying to sound brash, I must say that is just convoluted thinking. It appears that you are playing word games to try and side step the truth... semantics.

 Believers of Jesus are the church, on earth or in Heaven...period.

You took a single verse..."Eph 2:6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:  " ...

and tried to use it to suggest we are not considered His church until we are in Heaven. Of course you are forced into it, other-wise you would have to concede that the church is all over Revelations.

 Christ’s body suddenly comes down from heaven to go through the tribulation?

Who said that?... We get Raptured before the Tribulation, and we return with Jesus after the Tribulation as is clearly described in Rev 19:14 at that point the game is over, if you read on that's when Jesus kicks some serious bum.

 That is not the purpose of the church!  The purpose of Revelation is the consummation of God’s plan regarding the nations and Israel.  Paul revealed the completed plan for the church in Ephesians and Colossians – Col. 1:25 and Eph. 3:10."

Here, again you are totally ignoring what Jesus said in the opening verses of Revelations.

Please read it out loud to yourself...honestly, and listen to what Jesus says.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:  

God gave Jesus Christ the Revelation of Christ to show His servants ( that's us, no matter how you slice it my brother) what is about to happen. It's so plain and simple, but if you refuse to believe that the church (Christians) are the servants which is spoken of here, then you will be hopelessly confused as to what's going on.

 The seven churches that Jesus warns are Christian churches. It is a matter of historical reality that those churches have been identified by historians as the very first Christian churches, and they are located (or were located) in the exact locations that the Bible places them.

Jesus is warning us to be ready for His imminent return.

Like I said it makes no sense going back and forth, so I will finish my part of this debate with the following...

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  


Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,  


 Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Think about it. God says the coming of the son of man is near when the conditions on earth are as they were in the days of Noah. Everyone of the non believers were carry on in their lascivious lifestyles with no cares or worries. They laughed at the crazy man who was building a huge boat!

That's right, God supplied a way of escape for the believers, and He says it will be the same this time also, only this time our escape is when Jesus calls us to "come up hither"

Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

The church is found in Revelations. What do you think those seven churches are?... remember, they are historically proven to be the first Christian churches, but you seem to believe that when they are mentioned in Revelations, that by some mystical power-flip, they are no longer Christian churches.

Your brother in Jesus...
Bronzesnake

[AVBunyan]

Part I - got long-winded

Thanks Bronze for you reply and putting up with me - I know it is rough - I have to put up with me everyday

You said (in quotes):

“I apologize, I guess I was getting carried away with myself wasn't I? “

Fine, brother – this is a forum.  I have been guilty of being smart-mouthed; misjudgments, and just flat out ungracious, and worse.  I have to watch myself and others, such as you, have helped me watch also and I thank your for the mild rebuke.  I do apologize if I came across with a wrong attitude that is not becoming the gospel of Christ.

I see you did have a problem with some of my statements – please allow me to explain some and then we’ll get on with the meat.  Overall my purpose of this thread was aimed at two groups:
1. “Salvation stealers” – those people who believe they can lose and seek with all zeal and power to rob saints of their position in Christ.  To them I’m a bit cynical and maybe have gone to far but I grow weary with these people who seek to rob saints of their blessings in Christ.
2. To encourage those who may be wrestling with just how secure they are in Christ.

Now, let’s look at what you are concerned about and move on.

 "I’ve decided to boil it down to 2 simple steps to make it easy for you."
Yes, a touch of sarcasm for the #1 group. I admit not real spiritual but an attention-getter for them.

"Undo all that God did at your salvation.”  
Being serious here – again trying to create an attention-getter (I used to be in advertising for 10 years).

“See how easy it is! Now, let’s go down a simple list of things that God did and all you have to do is make this list your check list and mark them all as you undo them.”
Again applies to #1

“OK put your tennis shoes on and let’s go!!!"
Just trying to be light – no sarcasms or cuteness intended here.  

"very easy to handle if you know how to rightly divide the scriptures - II Tim. 2:17 -
That implies that I am beneath your standard of understanding doesn't it? It implies that you have all the right answers doesn't it?”

I’m sorry if you took it that way – borderline sarcasm – frustration here – wasn’t trying to be smart here.  But I was trying to be truthful.  The issue is easy once one understands right division.

"Why not take the plain sense of the scriptures Paul presents for your eternal security instead of fleeing into the tribulation in order to try and lose your salvation?"
Being serious as a heart attack.  Again may apply to #1 a bit.

”All very patronizing, and almost self righteous my friend, you will probably concede that?”

Let’s look at Webster:
PAT'RONIZING, ppr. Defending; supporting; favoring; promoting.
Yes, I was defending according to the word you used – I don’t’ see anything wrong with this.  Self-righteous? No.  Pride – probably – I’ll concede that.

”I do believe you are an honest Christian and most likely a really nice person. If we actually ever met, we would no doubt become friends and all these childish barbs that we callously toss around would be shelved.”

I thank you for those kind words.  I seek to be gracious but sometimes the flesh wins out – bummer!!! I believe we are friends and if you are saved (as you say you are) we are brothers in Christ – and you will have to spend eternity with me – sorry!!! Just kidding.

”I do however, believe in pre-Trib Rapture.”

I also believe the church is getting out – how, I’m not sure – I lean towards Col. 3:1-4 not I Thess. 4 and I Cor. 15 which I believe are end of tribulation rapture verses dealing with tribulation saints.

“I honestly feel that your position and explanation of some of the scriptures in Revelation are some-what weak.”

Fine, I can deal with that – I told you it goes against the flow of modern Christianity.  

“The church in the wilderness was not the "Jewish church" that you believe it was. It was a direct reference to John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness about Jesus.”
 
Really then what do these verses mean?

Acts 7:36  He brought them out, after that he had showed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.
Acts 7:37  This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
Acts 7:38  This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Brother – the church there is the Jewish congregation, which came out of Egypt.  Please show me where it is John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness about Jesus.  What am I missing here – I’m trying to see you point – maybe we are just not communicating.

Then there's this comment about not being able to find the church (Christians) in Revelation....

"The church, which is His body (Eph. 5:30; 1:22,23, etc.), is not an earthly people in God’s eyes but a heavenly people seated in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 2:6, etc.)…I must say that is just convoluted thinking. It appears that you are playing word games to try and side step the truth... semantics.”

I am not and will seek to explain.

”Believers of Jesus are the church, on earth or in Heaven...period. “

Yes, your body is here but the real you that God sees in Christ is in heaven where Christ is because you are in Christ – that is your position – you state is down here.

You took a single verse..."Eph 2:6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:  " ...and tried to use it to suggest we are not considered His church until we are in Heaven.”

You misunderstand my position – I understand – not upset – please allow me to explain.
We are considered His church right this minute.  When a person is regenerated by the work of the Sprit – Col. 2:9-11; Tit. 3:5 he is placed into Christ’s body and he becomes a member of the body of Christ.  

Here is the mystery:
Christ in you - Col 1:27  To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
And…You in Christ – Eph. 1:1; II Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:13, etc.  

Remember what our Lord said?  John 3:13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.  
Good picture of you – you are here but in heaven at the same time because you are literally in Christ – yes, strange but that is why the body of Christ is so unique and different than anything before.  This was not revealed until the Lord revealed to Paul during his prison stay after Acts 28.

”Christ’s body suddenly comes down from heaven to go through the tribulation?
Who said that?... We get Raptured before the Tribulation, and we return with Jesus after the Tribulation as is clearly described in Rev 19:14 at that point the game is over, if you read on that's when Jesus kicks some serious bum.”

Ok, I see what you are saying – what I am saying is “if” (and I’m not sure) we come down to do battle at the end of Rev. 19 it is still at the end.  The church is not in Revelation until that time if we agree on Rev. 19 as being the body of Christ.

”Here, again you are totally ignoring what Jesus said in the opening verses of Revelations. Please read it out loud to yourself...honestly, and listen to what Jesus says.
Rev 1:1…God gave Jesus Christ the Revelation of Christ to show His servants ( that's us, no matter how you slice it my brother) what is about to happen.”

II Tim. 3:16 – it is written for us but not to us doctrinally.  Yes, we are servants but not those servants – we don’t need to know what is going to go on in the Tribulation like those people will need to know. If we are raptured as you say then why would we be concerned about an earthly event except for the sake of knowing the scriptures for now while we are here reading God’s revealed word?

It is a matter of historical reality that those churches have been identified by historians as the very first Christian churches...”

Fine – have you considered that after the rapture takes place that there could be a transitional period (likes Acts was) until the tribulation comes in and this gives time for the raising up of these churches again?  You say I’m grasping at straws.  OK then if they are body of Christ churches then we are going through the tribulation for Rev. 4 is not a rapture – it is John being caught up with Jesus not a church.

See part II

[AVBunyan]

Part II

”Jesus is warning us to be ready for His imminent return.”

He is warning some but not us – we are involved with the Second Advent – you are assuming His return:” refers to the rapture of or Second Advent? I say advent for in the catching away Christ does not return to earth – the advent he physically returns and puts his feet down.

”Like I said it makes no sense going back and forth, so I will finish my part of this debate with the following...”

Makes sense to me – it is just time consuming – Rom. 10:17

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,  
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

These verses put you slab dab in the midst of a Jewish tribulation.  When Jesus expounded these truths there was no such thing as the body of Christ at that time – not until Christ chose to reveal it to Paul after Acts 28 – though it was forming from the middle of Acts onward.

”Think about it. God says the coming of the son of man is near when the conditions on earth are as they were in the days of Noah.”

Yes, but don’t confuse these Second Advent verses with rapture verses – makes exciting preaching but poor doctrine.

”That's right, God supplied a way of escape for the believers, and He says it will be the same this time also, only this time our escape is when Jesus calls us to "come up hither"”

I believe that our “out” is Col. 3:1-4 and the come up hither I’ve mentioned my view already.

”The church is found in Revelations.”

Yes, a church and some local churches but not the body of Christ – we just disagree.

I’ll say once again.  The church today does not understand the uniqueness of Paul and the mystery that Paul revealed regarding the unique place and purpose God has for the body of Christ.  You say my thinking is convoluted (Rolled together) but I can say the same for your thinking.  You have run the body of Christ doctrine in on Kingdom age doctrine and tribulation truths thus missing the purpose of the body of Christ for eternity (Eph. 3:10).

Well, I’ve gotta go.  I enjoyed the chat and appreciate the time and effort you have put in your post.  

[AVBunyan]

Response for Micahel_legna

Thanks Michael for your long response – you put some time into this and I thought it would only right to respond in some way.

You used this verse to show Paul was not saved:
“I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”

Paul was pressing towards the mark – not salvation.  Paul already said he was saved and was confident of whom he was trusting:

2 Tim 1:12  For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
Phil 1:6  Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

“He did, but he discusses it in terms of failing to complete the process not in the sense that one is already saved and one loses that final decision.  You just aren’t looking the in the right spots, hopefully the ones I have shown you above will make it clear.”

I just showed you where Paul was pressing towards a mark not salvation.

“How do we get God to unforgive us?  Simply stop repenting and confessing your sins.  
1 John 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

So, your salvation is based upon our forgiveness?  Mine is based upon Christ.
Eph 1:7  In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Also, if your salvation is based upon your confessing your sins then you will be confessing forever.  I’m not sure that you understand the full magnitude of what sin and sins are for if you knew then you know you would be hopeless in trying to confess all of them.  Read Rom. 7.  

If you believe Christ died for your sins 2000 yrs ago then which ones did he die for?

“To be unjustified all one has to do is again not do the works that perfect and keep alive our faith.”

Maybe a good study on justification, propitiation, sanctification, glorification, reconciliation and redemption would be a good study for you.  Look at the definition of justification from Webster’s:

4.  In theology, remission of sin and absolution from guilt and punishment; or an act of free grace by which God pardons the sinner and accepts him as righteous, on account of the atonement of Christ.

“All you have to do to become uncircumcised is break the law”

Really – since this was a spiritual circumcision then if you break the law then God does the work of uncircumcism again and then when you get right he spiritually uncircumcises you and the when you mess up….never ending it appears!!!  

My friend let’s not go any further – I was planning on responding to every line you wrote out but we have to stop here.  Now I am really burdened for you.  I respectfully suggest you live a sinless life for that is your only chance and guess what you can’t so you are in a mess – so…flee to Christ!  It appears you are not counting on Christ to save you.  Let’s review and see what you are counting on to save you – below is taken from your remarks on the three posts regarding your duty:

a. You not breaking the law.
b. You keeping the law.
c. You repenting of your sins.
d. You asking forgiveness.
e. You confessing your sins.
f. Picking up the cross and following Christ.
g. Preparing your self to be a vessel of honor
h. Mortifying the deeds of your flesh.
i. Faith which is one perfected and kept alive by works - we are not justified by faith. alone but by our works as well.  
j. The requirement for baptism.
k. Not to sin unrepentantly.
l. Making sure you don’t remove yourself from Him by not keeping His word.

Now, review what you have here.  The above is a pure works salvation.  It appears you are not counting on Christ to save you according to your own remarks.  It appears you are counting on you either doing or not doing something.  According to your own remarks it appears that you believe that Christ opened the door and it is up to you to get through it wit confessions, repentance, holy living, etc.  It doesn’t work that way.  

If I am misrepresenting you then please clear me up.  If anybody else out there thinks I am misrepresenting Michael then please clear me up on this matter for this is improatant and I do not want to come across hard.

Conclusion
I believe you are confusing the saints standing in Christ with the saint’s practical walk down here.  You are seeking to count on your practical sate down here to give you a sinless standing before God.  Get your standing in Christ settled and the practical will come.  You are confusing your practical thinking it is your standing.

May God bless.

Mat 11:28  Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

[michael_legna]

PART 1

Thanks Michael for your long response; you put some time into this and I thought it would only right to respond in some way.

But yet you did not respond with any real effort.  At first you looked like you were going to put in some effort, but that didn't last long.  When you saw how hard it would be to defend your position and not be forced into disagreeing with scripture you decided to ignore my individual points and resort to offering advice as if you were my teacher.  This type of demeaning behavior is not going to do anything to strengthen your doctrines appeal or prove its validity which I assume was your goal when you made the initial bold claims you now seem so unready to actually defend.

You used this verse to show Paul was not saved:
"I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."

Paul was pressing towards the mark, not salvation.

Interesting how you pull this one reference out of the verse and ignore the rest of it which speaks so much more forcefully to the issue.

Phi 3:12-14 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Note too the surrounding discussion (taking the scripture in context) is about salvation.  In Phi 3:8 Paul talks about winning Christ (a clear reference to salvation), in 3:9 he talks about righteousness through faith (a clear reference to salvation), in 3:10 Paul goes on to discuss knowing the power of His resurrection (a clear reference to salvation), and finally 3:11 he comes right out and says he hopes by any means he might attain the resurrection of the dead (another clear reference to salvation).  The fact that miss this and you don't even bother to offer  another explanation or interpretation of what this "mark for the prize" might be shows just how weak your doctrine is with regard to this verse.

Paul already said he was saved and was confident of whom he was trusting:

2 Tim 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

How do you get from this that Paul is claiming he is saved?

Paul is saying that for a cause (what cause - the teaching of the Gentiles as is mentioned in the verse just before 1 Tim 2:11) that he is suffering.  Paul goes on to say that he trusts Christ and His ability to keep that which Paul has committed to Him, but Paul does not say that he is absolutely assured that he will be able to persevere or continue to the end.

Phil 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Again we have Paul expressing confidence in Christ not failing us but this is not saying that Paul has confidence that he will not fail Christ.  There is nothing in this statement that says Paul already considers himself saved.

But the real point you need to recognize here is that simply throwing other verses at an issue without offering an alternative interpretation for the ones offered by others as relevant is simply putting scripture at odds with itself and we both no it does not contradict itself.  That is why I have put out the effort and offered an alternative interpretation for all the verses you offered as relevant showing they are not saying what you think they do.

He did, but he discusses it in terms of failing to complete the process not in the sense that one is already saved and one loses that final decision. You just aren't looking the in the right spots, hopefully the ones I have shown you above will make it clear.

I just showed you where Paul was pressing towards a mark not salvation.

No the verses you offer did not show this.  

Additionally, the fact that you offered them without an accompanying interpretation is also displaying the weakness of your doctrine.  If you don't care enough to show how the verse you claim is relevant is to be properly interpreted I guess I should not be surprised that you did not put out the effort to address the verses I offered (with interpretations).

How do we get God to unforgive us? Simply stop repenting and confessing your sins.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So, your salvation is based upon our forgiveness? Mine is based upon Christ.

Yes, in fact the whole reason Christ became man and died on the cross was to make the forgiveness of our sins possible.  He established a new covenant, a new economy of salvation, where God can judge us not as a legalistic literal Judge who has fatherly tendencies, but because we are now co-heirs with Christ, so God becomes our father who is just.  The difference is subtle but is similar to the change we see in our relationship to the law.  Before Christ's sacrifice we were required to satisfy the letter of the law, which we could not do.  That is why Paul teaches that the letter of the law kills, but the spirit brings life.  Christ did not do away with the law He came to fulfill it, and to teach us how to as well.  We needed to understand that God desires mercy not sacrifice, so we can fulfill the spirit of the law through love.

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

This of course is just saying that the forgiveness we need for salvation (a forgiveness you belittled above) is due to Christ's blood (or by implication His sacrifice).  Granted we could not be forgiven if not for Christ, but the point you miss is that if Christ had not gained that forgiveness for us we would still be under the old covenant and salvation would be impossible.

Also, if your salvation is based upon your confessing your sins then you will be confessing forever. I'm not sure that you understand the full magnitude of what sin and sins are for if you knew then you know you would be hopeless in trying to confess all of them. Read Rom. 7.

Baptism covers the sins of mankind (original sin).  Beyond that sins are only applicaple to us if we know of them.  You cannot sin unintentionally, so you cannot sin unknowingly.  

But within my own life and my own actions - Yes, I try to repent and admit my sins everytime they occur.  If I don't it is pretty clear that I do not really see them as hurtful toward a loving relationship with God.

1Cor 8:3  But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

Here we see that if I do not love God then I am not known of Him.  I feel I have to point out that this is a clear reference to salvation, since you show yourself to miss them so frequently.  The reasons is that God does not save those He does not know, He sends them away.  

Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

END OF PART 1

[michael_legna]

PART 2

If you believe Christ died for your sins 2000 yrs ago then which ones did he die for?

He died to pay the eternal punishment for our sins.  This propitiation is offered to us through God's grace as a gift.  But it is a gift we must accept.  How we are to accept it is told to us in His instructions to us throughout the Gospel.  Those instructions make it clear we are under a new economy of salvation as I stated above.

To be unjustified all one has to do is again not do the works that perfect and keep alive our faith.

Maybe a good study on justification, propitiation, sanctification, glorification, reconciliation and redemption would be a good study for you.

This approach is merely offensive rather than informative and does nothing to support your doctrine nor does it address the issues I raised and supported with scriptures.  To insinuate that I need to do such a study and by implication that you don't or already have is arrogant.  It is in short a cop out and shows you did not put any effort into considering the issues I raised.

The logic is simple.  If we accept the free gift of grace through faith, as Paul says.  And that faith must be living faith not a dead one as James teaches.  Then that means works must accompany that faith to properly accept the free gift.  If works are required then if they cease then the faith dies and the grace is no longer accepted by us.  Without holding onto the free gift we lose our justification.

Look at the definition of justification from Webster's:

4. In theology, remission of sin and absolution from guilt and punishment; or an act of free grace by which God pardons the sinner and accepts him as righteous, on account of the atonement of Christ.

Webster's definition of justification is biased toward a Protestant understanding of the term since he was a Protestant working in a Protestant country.  As such it is of course unreliable as an objective definition.

So maybe we should look to the scriptures for a definition of who is justified.

Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

This seems to fly right in the face of Webster's claim that all that is needed is God's grace.  True without His grace we would not be able to respond to the free gift in a manner that is acceptable.  But we still have to respond, it is not as Webster would have us believe that we play no role in our own salvation.

The atonement of Christ's is not imputed to us, it is infused into us, and so is the justification that goes along with it.  We are not merely hidden, we must be converted.  His atonement makes possible a new relationship with the Father and our cooperation with grace allows our justification and sanctification to increase until final justification and glorification in heaven.

All you have to do to become uncircumcised is break the law

Really, since this was a spiritual circumcision then if you break the law then God does the work of uncircumcism again and then when you get right he spiritually uncircumcises you and the when you mess up, never ending it appears!!!

Yes, until we die and are judged it is a never ending process.  As long as you are sincere in your repentance and not merely taking advantage of the system.  You cannot be thinking to yourself - you can sin and repent when ever you feel like it with no real intention to try to stop sinning.  This would not be acceptable but any other sins can and will be forgiven if you truly repent.

Why is it you attack my interpretation but ignore the verse I base it on?  

Rom 2:25 ... but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Seems to me that Paul is clearly saying that physical circumcision can be undone through our sin.  And if physical circumcision can be undone then it must be true of spiritual circumcision since it is certainly easier for spiritual circumcision to be undone than physical.

You not only don't offer an alternative interpretation, you don't even offer a reason why my interpretation is wrong.  One would be tempted to think it is because you can offer no better interpretation.

My friend let's not go any further. I was planning on responding to every line you wrote out but we have to stop here. Now I am really burdened for you.

I was hoping you would try to respond to every line I wrote because your failure to come up with acceptable rebuttals would show you the fallacy of your doctrine.  But since you are apparently not "burdened" enough for me, to actually expend any effort, you have decided to avoid the inherent questioning of your ideas that would occur.

I respectfully suggest you live a sinless life for that is your only chance and guess what you can't so you are in a mess, flee to Christ!

You error on two counts.  First you assume that we are being judged as in the old testament with respect to the law.  But Christ has taught us not to try to fulfill the letter of the law (which we could never even come close to) but fulfill the spirit of the law instead and we do that easily (though admittedly not perfectly) by loving God and loving one another.

The second mistake you make is that if we fail we have no recourse and are as you put it in a mess.  But doctrine denies the merciful nature of God.  As I showed you in referencing 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  Another verse you fail to respond to, or to specifically critique my interpretation or even to offer your own.  Funny how "burden" affects some people into action and others into hiding.

It appears you are not counting on Christ to save you.

I am counting on Christ sacrifice to make the new economy of salvation a possibility.  But I am also relying on His teachings to show me how to respond to this new covenant as I know he expects me to open the door when He stands at it and knocks.  I accept Christ in all His roles including shepherd, while you appear to focus on Him in just His role as sacrificial lamb.  You cannot truly believe in Him unless you believe in His teachings too.

Let's review and see what you are counting on to save you, below is taken from your remarks on the three posts regarding your duty:

a. You not breaking the law.
b. You keeping the law.
c. You repenting of your sins.
d. You asking forgiveness.
e. You confessing your sins.
f. Picking up the cross and following Christ.
g. Preparing your self to be a vessel of honor
h. Mortifying the deeds of your flesh.
i. Faith which is one perfected and kept alive by works - we are not justified by faith. alone but by our works as well.
k. Not to sin unrepentantly.
l. Making sure you don't remove yourself from Him by not keeping His word.

But of course you quote my interpretations but for some reason fail to quote the scripture these interpretations are based on.  I know why you do this - you don't your doctrine to be compared directly to scripture as it would appear to contradict the word of the God.  

Now, review what you have here. The above is a pure works salvation.

No not pure works.  Salvation is from grace.  It is a free gift accepted through faith, a living faith.  A living faith cannot exist independent of works or it becomes dead.  I focused on this last aspect of the process of salvation because I knew we both agreed on the importance of grace and faith.  Our differences lie in the role our works play in our salvation and so that is why I showed these applicable verses and of course offered my interpretations (as is only proper), since I do not fear my doctrine being compared to scripture.

END OF PART 2

[michael_legna]

PART 3

It appears you are not counting on Christ to save you according to your own remarks. It appears you are counting on you either doing or not doing something. According to your own remarks it appears that you believe that Christ opened the door and it is up to you to get through it wit confessions, repentance, holy living, etc. It doesn't work that way.

Your doctrine says it doesn't work that way, but your doctrine is wrong.  I have shown (and you have ignored or avoided) scripture that says we do have a role to play in our own salvation.  But to avoid any future misunderstanding I will add right now that these works do not merit our salvation, they are merely loving obedience as we are instructed to do in the Gospel as the proper means to accept the gift.

If I am misrepresenting you then please clear me up. If anybody else out there thinks I am misrepresenting Michael then please clear me up on this matter for this is improatant and I do not want to come across hard.

You did misunderstand a few minor points (such as why I focused just on the works aspect of salvation) but in general you did not misrepresent my position.  What you did do was ignore the scriptures it is based on and avoided holding your own doctrine up to the light of scripture by offering interpretations to the scriptures provided by yourself or in answer to the ones I provided.

Conclusion
I believe you are confusing the saints standing in Christ with the saint's practical walk down here. You are seeking to count on your practical sate down here to give you a sinless standing before God. Get your standing in Christ settled and the practical will come. You are confusing your practical thinking it is your standing.

No I am not confusing them.  Works do play a role in our walk but they also play a role in our salvation as well.  If works were just the fruits of faith they would not be able to perfect our faith.  Work affect our faith, faith affects our acceptance of the free gift of salvation, thus works affect our salvation.

I would like to see your response to all the verses I base my posts on.  But this time if you want to prove your point offer more than arrogant advice as if your were my elder.  Try offering scripture with interpretations to support your doctrine and stop hiding from the ones I have offered.

END OF PART 3
END

[AVBunyan]

Michael said:

"But yet you did not respond with any real effort.  At first you looked like you were going to put in some effort, but that didn't last long.  When you saw how hard it would be to defend your position and not be forced into disagreeing with scripture you decided to ignore my individual points and resort to offering advice as if you were my teacher."

Michael, I read every word of your 3 posts and as I indicated I planned on responding to each and every word but after getting started I realized where it was going.  After dealing with this subject for over 22 years I immediatedly assessed your stand based upon what you presented and stopped and summarized.

To assume that I quit because I felt it was to hard to defend my position is wrong thinking on your part.  I'm been on 4 forums now defending eternal security and there is nothing I haven't seen or have not responded to.  Just go check out the other big forums and see if I'm afraid to tackle your type of posts. Out of respect for the time you put in I felt you deserved a response but after a while I deemed it necessary to stop and deal with the real issue - salvation - not eternal secrurity.  To even read your posts takes time and to respond takes even longer but I was willing to do so until it dawned on me what was going on and then I stopped for I assessed where you were real quick.

If you couldn't see what I posted orginally then seeking to explain your verses would serve no purpose - a man has to redeem the time.  When I choose to sit down to respond I take the posts seriously for souls are at stake but yours I felt I could get the heart of the matter more quickly and with more impact by dealling immediately with salvation and not argue over eternal security.

To explain my postion in light of your lack of understanding of Paul's ministry would not have been profitable to you or me at this time - this can only be done by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Now, I am going to read your second set of 3 parts again and if I think I can bring light to you by way of the scriptures then I will but if you have rejected grace based upon what I've previously posted then why would I think I could persuade you now?

If you still want me to respond more fully then let me know and I will pary about the matter and see what the Lord gives me from His word.

Again, thanks for your time and may God show you our Lord Jesus Christ and his saving grace.

[michael_legna]

Michael, I read every word of your 3 posts and as I indicated I planned on responding to each and every word but after getting started I realized where it was going.  After dealing with this subject for over 22 years I immediatedly assessed your stand based upon what you presented and stopped and summarized.

I expected and I think most here will expect you to do more than just read their posts.  If you are going to throw down a challenge one would expect you to be willing to respond to those who wish to discuss it with you.  

Your long background means nothing to me.  There are many on this forum with as long or longer experience in apologetics, yet we don’t claim to have seen and know everything as you do.  In fact there is a long thread on this site about the error of sola scriptura based on this very issue that one man cannot on his own know enough of the scriptures to glean a correct doctrine from them alone.  The job is just too big and the errors and division of Protestantism prove it.  

To assume that I quit because I felt it was to hard to defend my position is wrong thinking on your part.  

That may or may not be the case, but since you have offered no evidence to the contrary I will stick with my “immediate assessment of your stand” as well.  Perhaps if you ever take the time to defend the position you put out there I might change my mind.

I'm been on 4 forums now defending eternal security and there is nothing I haven't seen or have not responded to.  

Are you omniscient now too?  This type of arrogant and dismissive attitude, that you have nothing to learn from any of us and everything to teach is hardly Christian.  I seriously doubt in your short life time you have seen and responded to every issue the Church has reviewed and considered in 2000 years.  In fact I seriously doubt that all the members of your denomination in the entire 300 years of its existence have seen and considered all of the issues regarding this topic.  But this goes back to the problem of the size of the material being too great for anyone other than Christ’s Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Just go check out the other big forums and see if I'm afraid to tackle your type of posts.

It is not my job to prop up your character or verify your arguments for you – if you want to do apologetics you have to be willing to do the work of defending the faith yourself.  Don’t expect others to bow to your experience or do your job for you.  Just the expression of this attitude leads me to believe you are less experienced than you claim, not more.

Out of respect for the time you put in I felt you deserved a response but after a while I deemed it necessary to stop and deal with the real issue - salvation - not eternal secrurity.  

So you respected the effort I put in, but only for a while!   I see, respect is something you grant until it becomes tiresome for you.  The issue of salvation and eternal security are inherently linked.  They do not need to be separated in a discussion as the relevant scriptures and proofs for both are used to form a cohesive harmonious interpretation where one supports the other to strengthen the doctrine developed regard each.

To even read your posts takes time and to respond takes even longer but I was willing to do so until it dawned on me what was going on and then I stopped for I assessed where you were real quick.

So once you assessed where I was going you stopped responding?  Funny I try not to start responding until I know where the person is going.  That way I don’t respond to the wrong issues.  To be willing to respond when you don’t know where the debate is going and then only decide to stop responding once you know where the discussion is leading can only be seen as fear to continue.

After 22 years of apologetics I would assume you had texts prepared after having seen and responded to everything.  It should have been easy to develop a response from your vast experience.  I know it gets easier for me all the time, and I am 48 and have been doing apologetics since high school.  

Let me tell you something about apologetics and teaching in general.  There are two things you need to reach people with your message.  First the message must be correct or at least appear correct to those you are presenting it to or they will see inconsistencies and not accept it.  Second you must be accepted as an authority or they simply will turn away.  When you walk in fresh to an new environment you cannot assume you have either of these.  That is why your past experience and your wanting to start in the middle on an issue and ignore the basics of it are unacceptable.

If you are tired of doing apologetics, by starting from the basics with each person you meet, then you should give it up and go back to preaching to the choir, as they are the only ones you are going to reach anyway.

If you couldn't see what I posted orginally then seeking to explain your verses would serve no purpose - a man has to redeem the time.  When I choose to sit down to respond I take the posts seriously for souls are at stake but yours I felt I could get the heart of the matter more quickly and with more impact by dealling immediately with salvation and not argue over eternal security.

Then you do not understand scripture or the proper development of doctrine as these two issues must agree with and support each other or one of them is wrong.  They do not need to be separate artificially to make your job easier.

To explain my postion in light of your lack of understanding of Paul's ministry would not have been profitable to you or me at this time - this can only be done by the work of the Holy Spirit.

I am familiar with this cop out as well.  I cannot win this argument because the basics in our two positions are so different so I am giving up rather than have an answer for any man as to the hope is in you.  But worse than that, those who typically take up this approach fire a parting shot implying that the person, whose doctrine they refuse to face, is so lost that only the Holy Spirit can reach them.  This type of judgmentalism fit well with the rest of your arrogant approach so it did not surprise me.

Now, I am going to read your second set of 3 parts again and if I think I can bring light to you by way of the scriptures then I will but if you have rejected grace based upon what I've previously posted then why would I think I could persuade you now?

My acceptance of grace has nothing to do with your post, that occurred long ago.  If you stop thinking so highly of yourself for a moment and not assume that everyone who has come to Christ was due to your inspirational arguments you might learn something yourself.

If you still want me to respond more fully then let me know and I will pary about the matter and see what the Lord gives me from His word.

Yes, if you are going to post here one would hope that you would do more than merely speak from on high with the idea than no one should question you.  

I would like you to respond to the verses and interpretations I have offered, as I have done with yours.  I understand it takes time, I had to write my six posts and was willing to put in the time.  I am asking no more of you.

This is a discussion forum, if you want to preach without being questioned I guess you will just have to ignore those who point out errors in your doctrines, but don’t complain when your silence is viewed as the inability to have an answer and certainly don’t expect people to assume your vast experience proves you know more than they and so they should just accept everything you say.

[AVBunyan]

Michael:

I expected and I think most here will expect you to do more than just read their posts.  If you are going to throw down a challenge one would expect you to be willing to respond to those who wish to discuss it with you.  

Yes, I started a thread for people to examine - you call it a challenge - I don't think of them as challenges - more for self-examination -  there is no law saying that I have to respond to a post - you are allowed the same priviledge. I do not have to prove anything to you if I chose that after careful consideration it would be futile trying. I tried and realized I was "flogging a dead horse" (as the old saying goes).

I did respond to you and gave my reasons why I would not go anymore.  After re-considereing my last post I am going to change my original thought.  I said I would pray about how I could respond.  I do not feel led to carry this on anymore with you.  If you want to hammer me using any reason you come up with then post your dissatification of my response for all to see and be done with it - that is your desicion.

You do not dictate to me to whom I respond to or how I am to respond.  That is my choice - you have the same choices.  I gave my reasons for cutting off the "verse by verse" analysis in my first response to you and that should be enough.  You can question and assume my motives all day along if you like.  As for me I see trying to answer your response or accusations of me as being futile and non-productive at this point in time.  

Now, with that  I trust you will have a pleasant day.

[michael_legna]

I expected and I think most here will expect you to do more than just read their posts.  If you are going to throw down a challenge one would expect you to be willing to respond to those who wish to discuss it with you.  

Yes, I started a thread for people to examine - you call it a challenge - I don't think of them as challenges - more for self-examination

Well since in your first post you said - "Until you can show me how a blood-bought, redeemed, regenerated saint in this age can lose all that God has done for him then I might give you a listen."  I think it was a challenge for someone to show you, not just a self-examination.  That is all I tried to do and you choose to ignore my response to your challenge.

There is no law saying that I have to respond to a post - you are allowed the same priviledge.

That is true there is no law, but there is a concept of common decency and manners.  Where I come from if you start a conversation and then refuse to respond to someone who joins you in it, that is rude.  But you are right you don't have to respond, that is your perogative, though it makes no sense on a discussion forum, nor does it do much to defend the faith which is what apologetics is and which was the name of the thread you posted in.

I do not have to prove anything to you if I chose that after careful consideration it would be futile trying. I tried and realized I was "flogging a dead horse" (as the old saying goes).

I would hardly consider your once reading and then partially responding to one post "careful consideration" nor would I consider that you "tried".  But I don't care I was merely pointing out that you had not addressed the proofs from scripture I offered and if you don't want to continue I understand and am sure the others who will read these posts will understand your reasons for avoiding the discussion of details.

I did respond to you and gave my reasons why I would not go anymore.  

You responded by telling me why you would not respond.  You can count that as a response if you like, but I cannot imagine living with myself if I treated others with such disdain.

You do not dictate to me to whom I respond to or how I am to respond.  That is my choice - you have the same choices.  

No, we should be dictated to by love, honor and manners.  I feel bound by love of my brother to respect others and duty bound to defend the faith, that is how we differ apparently.  I would never make bold claims and then run off refusing to defend them.  My word means something.  I do not say things I am not ready and willing to defend.

I gave my reasons for cutting off the "verse by verse" analysis in my first response to you and that should be enough.  

It should be enough because you say it should be enough?  Do you ever listen to yourself to get a sense of your arrogance?

You can question and assume my motives all day along if you like.  

Without anything to provide an explanation for your behavior that is all any of us are left with to do.

As for me I see trying to answer your response or accusations of me as being futile and non-productive at this point in time.  

That is too bad as you never gave the discussion a chance.  If you could provide answers to the issue I raised I would have thought you would be eager to share the truth as you see it with someone you obvious see as needing it.  But I doubt you ever considered them long enough to determine anything let alone the futility of the discussion.  

The bottom line is you have no idea how I would have responded to your arguments in support of your doctrine as you never even gave it a try.

[Shylynne]

This thread would be more properly titled "How to lose your salvation by not taking any steps."

Real faith produces action (works)

See if you were standing in the middle of the train track, and I tell you a train is coming, and you say "I believe" but remain standing there, you do not have real faith. Real faith in this instance would spur you into action, for obviously if you do not do more than "believe", you will die. So it is with salvation, faith without works is DEAD, unfruitful, a branch that is cut off.  

Luk 13:23  Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Luk 13:24  Strive [labor fervently]to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Why shall they not be able to enter in? Christs words here clearly indicated a desire to enter, so why? Why does He place so much emphasis on laboring fervently here? Because simply saying "I believe"  is not enough, He requires action to back our profession of faith.

Then He continues:

Luk 13:26  Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
Luk 13:27  But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all [ye] workers of iniquity.

After having known Christ, sat in His presence, listened to his teachings, they turned back to iniquity, and then He tells us what His response to this will be, that He never knew these who were once followers of Him.

I truly dont understand how anyone who considers themselves a  bible scholar can adhere to by faith alone, and once saved always saved doctrines. They do not tie in to the Bible message as a whole, tho I must say they certianly seem plausable when you take a scripture here and and another one there and leave the rest of the message out.
Regardless, I think our redeemer is worthy of more than my accepting such belittling of His sacrifice by my or anyone else`s preaching of  how little we can get away with doing for Him and still be saved.  It is no wonder, after the agony of calvary, God  penned these words: "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."  
I don`t know about the rest of you, but I grew up on a farm, and plough to me dont indicate sitting back and saying theres nothing I have to do, and in doing nothing but trusting Him  to provide, I`ll be fit to sit at His table when harvest time comes.  And harvest time is almost upon us! Those who are so busy wasting time trying to convince others of these doctrines, would be better off trying to make up for lost time, and convince lost souls of Christ.  I may be well criticized for saying so, but it tears at my heart, to see Christians working harder on broadening the road for the lost, than giving them direction to the narrow road that leads to eternal life.

[sincereheart]

What works can we do to earn our salvation? How much is enough? Which works are good enough? If I do more than someone else, am I more saved than they are?  

[AVBunyan]

Real faith produces action (works)

I truly dont understand how anyone who considers themselves a  bible scholar can adhere to by faith alone, and once saved always saved doctrines.

Where in my post did you get the idea that I believe a man gets saved and then sits there like a bump on a log?  Where did you get the idea that people who believe they are eternally secure believe that all they had to do was get saved and then live like the world?

I believe:
1 Tim 6:18  That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

2 Tim 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Titus 2:7  In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,

Titus 2:14  Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Eph 4:1  I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

According to the above verses and many more a man who is truely redeemed will have good works but......not to justify himself before God but to please God because he is saved!

According to:
Titus 2:11  For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Titus 2:12  Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

It is grace that teaches a man to live - when a man realzies what Christ did for him at Calvary out of pure grace then the saved man will want to serve out of love and debt for what God has done for him.

Regarding your statement:
"I truly dont understand how anyone who considers themselves a  bible scholar can adhere to by faith alone"

The greatest Christian writers who effected the Christian world for good, missions, and a holy zeal for God were men who believed in grace and the eternal security of the believer - these men primarily came out of Scotland and England in the 1600's.  

If you want a list then I will be glad to provide you one.  You are more than welcome to provide me your lsit of men who believe in works salvation and what they contributed.

The majority of the missionary movement that did anything for God were men who believed in grace alone.

Now, I believe you stand to be wrong. Yes, there have been abusers of grace - they are wrong.  But when God does a work in a man he is a changed man:

2 Cor 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Finally:
"Those who are so busy wasting time trying to convince others of these doctrines, would be better off trying to make up for lost time, and convince lost souls of Christ."

I believe those who believe in grace alone are the most zealous for souls and have confidence in their message because it is scriptural.  I can tell a man that Christ died for his sins and because of that he is saved - a comforting message that produces joy and confidence in the man because the message is centered on Christ. This message produces results in the sinner.

Works message - "Believe on Christ but you have to do your part and then hope you don't blow it!"  No comfort of joy from that - bondage and legalism with little power.

The missionaries throughout history that had the greatest success for God preached a message of grace because that is where the power is - in Christ.

I don't run around trying to convice people of eternal security out in the fields but his is a forum. Out inthe fields I preach Christ crucified only - no debates or arguemnts over doctrine.  If God draws them and they truly get regenerated then they won't have any trouble with eternal security or works.

That is why I make a big deal out of etenral se3curity for the real issue is justification.  When I deal with the issue of etenral security I am realy dealing with justification before God while using OSAS as the tool to bring the man to a fuller understanding of the great doctrine of justification.

May God bless.

[michael_legna]

What works can we do to earn our salvation? How much is enough? Which works are good enough? If I do more than someone else, am I more saved than they are?  

Works don't earn you salvation, they are a loving repsonse to the gift just as faith is, but they are required none the less.  No amount of works are enough; God only requires that we don't stop (just as he requires that we not stop believing) and if we do that we repent of it.  

One could ask you - How much faith is enough?  How long can faith be alone before it dies?  If my faith is strong than yours am I more saved then you?