Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?

[JudgeNot]

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?

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.)  

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

Welsome to c-unite!

[The Crusader]

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).

[Everyday Newborn]

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
 

[Pilgrim]

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

[Pilgrim]

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

[Contender]

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.

[Tog_Neve]

PART 1

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.

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.  

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.

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.  

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.

1 Cor 13:2 in a bit.  But see above for further on what James is saying here in these verses.

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?

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

[Tog_Neve]

PART 2

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?

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.

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.

 I see James 5:19-20 with its reference to saving a soul from death as speaking plainly.

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.

 I see Matt 12:31 as speaking plainly about an unforgivable sin, only committable by those already saved, which must then preclude their salvation.

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

[Tog_Neve]

PART 3

I see Rev 22:19 as speaking clearly about individuals being removed from the Book of Life.

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 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.  

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.

There are hundreds more.

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)

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.

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  ).

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.

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.
 

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 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

[Tog_Neve]

PART 4

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.

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.

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.

However what you have stated was:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Tog_Neve]

PART 5

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.

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.  

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.

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”

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.

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.”

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 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.

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”.

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.  

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.

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

[Tog_Neve]

PART 6

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.

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 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.

Yes and the Spirit is what we receive at salvation.  Once saved we are in Christ and Christ is in us.  Forever.

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.

Church History - A discussion for another time and place.

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

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?  

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.

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.  

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

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

[michael_legna]

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.

But again you fail to bring up what James says of this man.  This man professes to have faith.  But he did not.  

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.  

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.

1 Cor 13:2 in a bit.  But see above for further on what James is saying here in these verses.

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.

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

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.

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?  

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 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.

What is the difference between considering to have lost salvation and losing salvation.  Is it just a state of confusion in our own minds?

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.  

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).

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.  

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.

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

[michael_legna]

PART 2

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.

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.

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.

 
I see James 5:19-20 with its reference to saving a soul from death as speaking plainly.

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.

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.

I see Matt 12:31 as speaking plainly about an unforgivable sin, only committable by those already saved, which must then preclude their salvation.

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

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 see Rev 22:19 as speaking clearly about individuals being removed from the Book of Life.

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 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.

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.  

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.

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.

There are hundreds more.

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)

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

[michael_legna]

PART 3

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  ).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

However what you have stated was:

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.

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.

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