Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?

[michael_legna]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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:-

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

"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.

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

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).

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

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

[Petro]

Petro 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.

michael responds;

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


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

michael,

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

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

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

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

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


Petro

[michael_legna]

michael,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Petro]

michael,

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

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

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

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

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

michael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

michael yoooouuuu  arrree soooooo cooonffusssed.

Wrong again, my friend....

Petro

[michael_legna]

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

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

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

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

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

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

michael yoooouuuu  arrree soooooo cooonffusssed.

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

[Kris777]

 If we sin unrepentantly we can lose our salvation.

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

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

[michael_legna]

 If we sin unrepentantly we can lose our salvation.

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

First you cannot sin without knowing that you sin.  For an action to be a sin it must be a willful disobeying of God's will.  That means you must know it is against God's will and do it anyway.

But as far as knowing if you are saved, that is not possible.  Only God knows if we will ultimately be saved.  Salvation is not determined by some one time decision at some altar call.  It is determined at the end.  We can be on the right path but who knows what the future brings.  We may not endure, continue or remain abiding in Christ, so we could lose our salvation by giving into temptation and choosing the world over Christ.

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

I understand alot of people believe that and there is some truth to some of it.  But if you knowingly sin and knowingly refuse to repent of those sins you will throw away the free gift of salvation.

[Tog_Neve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically you had mentioned 2:14 and stated

which says that we have faith but no works to accompany it, that that type of faith cannot save us.

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

You also mentioned 2:19 stating

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 believing in Christ, which the demons do, is not enough to save us.

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

You then went into 2:24

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.

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


Moving on to Part 2

[Tog_Neve]

Pt 2


You mentione James 5:15 and state

teaches 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.

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

Luke 22:31-32

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?

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

John 17:11-15

No 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.

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

2 Peter 2:20-21

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.

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

[michael_legna]

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

PART 1

Guess again.  No where in James will you find salvation, saved, saves, or eternal life.  But yet in other books those words are explicitly used in reference to salvation.  

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

James is fully discussing works and faith and not works and salvation, or works and faith.  

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

James discusses  topics such as how the purpose of tests and how they are to test our faith, how faith obeys the Word, how faith proves itself through works, how through faith we control our tongue, how faith produces wisdom and humility, and more.

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

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

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

James is the book that shows us that through works of faith our faith shall grow.

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

You had gone in and talked about James chapter 1.  Specifically mentioned verse 12 and 21.  But lets look at what James is talking about throughout so that we can paint the picture properly.  In the beginning of James we see that james is talking about how tests and trials in our life will test our faith (1:3) and how this testing will produce endurance.  What endurance is he talking about?  Our faith enduring.  The more trials we may encounter and overcome the more wisdom we shall gain...we learn from experience.  

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

And in 1:12 James explains that "Blessed is the man that perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him."  Again two seperate related independant thoughts again seperated by the ';'.  Bessed is the man who perseveres under trial as the first and the second is Blessed is the man that has been approved for he will receive the crown of life which the Lord promised.  So once a man (person) has accepted Christ and been saved then he will receive the crown of life that the Lord had promised to all who love Him.  

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

When we move into 1:19 we see that faith obeys the Word.  

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

James shows us that we should control our emotions and specifically anger.  We see that we should humble ourselves to receive the Word implanted in us.  And James explains that we should not be simple hearers of the Word but doers.  This discussing that we should act upon our faith.  We should let our faith be shown in our actions.  This is expressed further later in the book.  James even expresses a difference between religion and faith.  By siting example of those that think themselves to be religious appear to be doers and not hearers.  

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

I read from someone elses commentary at one time referring to the people James is writing to as Antinomians (antinomianism - doctorine that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained soley through faith and the gift of divine grace).  And James goes through great lengths to show that they are not exempt from obedience and works in faith.

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

END OF PART 1

[michael_legna]

START OF PART 2

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

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

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

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

Specifically you had mentioned 2:14 and stated

which says that we have faith but no works to accompany it, that that type of faith cannot save us.

While not completely incorrect it is not completely correct either.  One that would profess to have faith in Jesus but is not acting accordingly more than likely never had a true faith to begin with.  

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

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

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

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

We are taught not only by James but others that once we are saved we are born anew and given a new life.  And filled with the Spririt.  And this should produce good works within us.  Make certain you read it correctly because 2:14 states "if a man says he has faith..." which indicates that whomever this is is professing to have faith.  But for everyone else who sees them they see no works to prove his faith, thus the conclusion would be that he truly does not have faith.  James stated that back in 1:22.

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

Discussing James 2:19-24
But take a look at what James was talking about here.  He was talking about Moses offering Isaac as a sacrafice.  

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

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

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

END OF PART 2

[michael_legna]

PART 3

You mentione James 5:15 and state

teaches 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.

So what you are saying is that if I pray for everyone in the world to be saved then they will?  

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

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

2 Peter 2:20-21
Again it does not state we lose our salvation.  It does refer to a saved person falling back into a sinful life...as you stated the sow that had been washed going back to wallow in the mud.  Our salvation does not guarantee that we will never sin again.  And it is stated in the Bible that we are all sinners even those of us that are saved.  But with salvation comes the cleansing of our past sins and accompanying our salvation should be a new resolution to avoid our sinful ways and to walk in the light of Jesus.  Sure the verses state that we would be worse off being saved and living a sinful life than if we were just living a sinful life and not saved.  

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

Why would you think that was...if we can gain and lose our salvation repeatedly then we really would not be worse off would we?  One could argue that we would be worse off because we have been there and lost it and thus now have to face the loss.  But what if someone did not care?  would they truly be worse off?  No.  I mean even the old adage :"Better to have loved and lost, than to have never tasted love."

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

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

We would be worse off because of many reasons.  A saved person is relentlessy attacked by Satan and his minions.  We are the tool of God to spread the Gospel to the world.  If we are a tool that does not work then God cannot use us.  He does not throw us out of the tool box however, but he just cannot use us.  

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

END OF PART 3

[Tog_Neve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cris]

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

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

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

[JudgeNot]

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