Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?

[michael_legna]

Heb 6:4-6
A while back you had referenced these verses as a means to show how one could fall away.  You stated, "Here we have those clearly saved and yet fall away."  

Now one thing that comes to mind when reading the whole of Hebrews is who this is written to and the underlying tone of the whole epistle.  The author is writing to Judiac converts, those that were once of the Jewish faith but have converted to Christianity.  So the Author goes to lengths to show how Jesus was greater than the phrophets, the Law, and more.

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

The Author starts to set the stage for our discussion in Heb 3:12 "Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the Living God."  A warning to be wary of those that could be professing the faith but actually not a true believer.  To be wary of someone who could be amongst them, or near them, that has fallen away from the Living God and failed to see the truth of the Christ.  Remember the Jews were "with" the Living God before the Messiah came, and those that did not accept Him when He came had fallen away from God.

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

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

The author moves on to explain they are partakers of Christ and that it was the Hebrews who provoked Him, and that it was the Hebrews whom angered God for 40 years.  Then the author states "And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but thos who were disobedient?  And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief."  This unbelief is talking of the Hebrews in not believing that Jesus was the Messiah they were waiting for.
When we move into chapter 4 we are again talking of the Hebrews and of "the rest" mentioned above.  In verse 6 the author states, "Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience."  Before Christ the Hebrews had the "good news" preached to them.  Even news of the coming Messiah, but hen do not enter because they do not believe.  Thus at that tim they too fell away from God.

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

When we move into chapter 6, which you discuss, we are again talking of the Hebrews who once had the Holy Spirit.  They once tasted the Heavenly gift, but failed to believe in the Messiah that God had sent.  Remember the Jews are still waiting for the first coming of the Messiah.  They are still waiting for the fulfillment of the Law.  And what would need to be done for that to happen?  "Crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put him to open shame."  Yep Jesus came and fulfilled the Law they had been looking for and in order for them to get what they are waiting for then Jesus would have to come again and be born again and crucified again.  Is that going to happen?  I dont think so  
So with true reading and study of the verse you quoted in full context you can see that it is not referring to a "saved" Christian falling from God but the Jews who had fallen from God.

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

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

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

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

Eph 2:8-9
There was much banter and mention of these verses throughout the first part of this thread.  And when I got to Sowers comments on it...quite honestly he read a great deal more into it than is there.  
But after that  you had made the comment "Ephesians isn't contrasting works and faith it is contrasting works and grace."  This is however not true.  These verses say a couple of things actually....and one of us protestants are going to have show you  
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Now lets look into this sentence gramatically.  In essence what this sentence is stating is that we are saved by grace through faith and not as a result of works, so that none may boast.  

I agree.

END OF PART 1

[michael_legna]

We actually have two seperate related independant clauses here, as shown by the use of the semi-colons.  A semi-colon can be used to imply a because or other word that would allow the reader to actually be involved in the development of an idea.  So what we have is in the first part could read similar to this "For by grace (grace not of yourselves but as a gift from God) you have been saved."  We know that the second portion, in the semi-colons, is referring to grace by the structure of how it is worded.  We see that it is through grace we have been saved through faith.  So it is from someone else that we have this grace, and the second portion lets us know that the grace that has been given is not of our own but that of Gods.

I agree

The last part of the sentence after the second semi-colon finishes up the thought of the first part before the first semi-colon. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."  

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

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

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

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

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

Those two verses show to us that salvation is achieved through faith alone and not of any consequences to actions taken to try and achieve salvation.  In other words Mother Theresa could help a billion people in her life and do deeds unfathomable by the rest of the masses but without faith she cannot be saved.

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

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

And all I can say to that the last line of that is completely false.  The Gentiles of the 1st century would have barely knows the Laws, let alone a scripture of the Gospels that had not even been written yet.  Paul is another example who did not come to know Jesus until a revelation.

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

One does not have to know the NT like the back of their hand to have belief in Jesus.  One does not even ever to have heard of the Bible in order to believe in Jesus.  A further understanding of the Gospel and the Bible comes after one has accepted the gift of Salvation.  I could go to up to someone in the most remote part of the world that has never heard of a Christian and tell him "Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior", and if that person truly believes that and accepts that then God will save that person.

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

END OF PART 2
END

[michael_legna]

He has guaranteed that If I "endure to the end," He will show/give me the fullness of the salvation He has set in store for me!   That's all I need!

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

remember the commandment concerning questions the engender more questions?

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

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

[michael_legna]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Petro]

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

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

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

michael,

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

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

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

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

Petro

[Tog_Neve]

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

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

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

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

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

[michael_legna]

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

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

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

michael,

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

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

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

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

Petro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[michael_legna]

On several occasions you have mentioned the book of James, and used it as a reference to trying to show how a lack of works in faith will cost you your salvation.  
I would advise a rereading of James, and when you do look for the words "salvation", "saved", "saves", "eternal life".  You will not find those words anywhere in James.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Peter 2:20-21
And you had used these verses as well attempting to show a lost salvation.  And once again no where does it state a loss of salvation.

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

Our great commandment is to trust God and with that trust He will grow us spiritually and through us He will allow others to grow.  

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

[cris]

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

For whatever it's worth-----

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

cris

[Kris777]

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

[Petro]

Kris777 is correct, he said;

If He didn't wipe away all our sins and sacrifice His own life then we would still be giving alter offerings for our sins to be forgiven.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

VICTIM?

? What Does Jesus Say About This.

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

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

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


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

but The Word of God is clear;

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

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

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

Petro

[cris]

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

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

[michael_legna]

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

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

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

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

[michael_legna]

Kris777 is correct, he said;

If He didn't wipe away all our sins and sacrifice His own life then we would still be giving alter offerings for our sins to be forgiven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VICTIM?

? What Does Jesus Say About This.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds to me like there is an effect.

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

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

but The Word of God is clear;

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

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

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

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

[Petro]

michael

you said;

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

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

They even teach anyone says;

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


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

You have shown me,  this is not true.

Note;

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

The Mass

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

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

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

Now let us see what Rome teaches:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petro