Why I now believe that salvation can be lost.

[Rufus]

Anyone who truly understands that God rescued them from their pitiful, helpless state and brought them into his Kingdom of Light knows they have nothing of which to boast. Again, the problem is that most professing Christians, contrary to Calvinist assertions, do see themselves as being helpless, powerless and in need of rescuing. This is precisely how scripture portrays every sinner prior to salvation (Col 1:13; Gal 1:3-4; Rom 5:.6). When God's grace motivated by his eternal love in Christ for all people is truly apprehended in the human heart, the only true response that is evoked is humility and thanksgiving and praise.

Then why do so many make God's salvation synergistic in nature rather than monogernistic? Or why do so many exalt "free" will that they think they have and that God always treats as "sacred ground" in his image-bearers that he would never trample on? Or why all this talk about how Christians can and should boast in themselves -- no doubt for being so smart in making the right decision?

When a fireman rushes into the flames of burning building to rescue some poor trapped soul and the rescue is successfully completed does the victim normally boast about himself afterward? Of what precisely would he have to boast? Or does he boast in the hero who saved him?

Even in the Exodus narrative, do we find any of Abraham's descendants boasting of their own strength when they walked out of Egypt?

 

[HeIsHere]

Anyone who truly understands that God rescued them from their pitiful, helpless state and brought them into his Kingdom of Light knows they have nothing of which to boast. Again, the problem is that most professing Christians, contrary to Calvinist assertions, do see themselves as being helpless, powerless and in need of rescuing. This is precisely how scripture portrays every sinner prior to salvation (Col 1:13; Gal 1:3-4; Rom 5:.6). When God's grace motivated by his eternal love in Christ for all people is truly apprehended in the human heart, the only true response that is evoked is humility and thanksgiving and praise.

You mean a person was not born enslaved to sin and morally incapable to respond the the Truth and Power of the Gospel message?

You mean the all powerful Satan does not have every single person's past, present and future "will" captured?

You mean a person can recognize their own sin, exercise faith, without being regenerated first?

You mean not only has God denied each person the ability to choose truth in the womb, He also has to blind them to Truth along with having Satan take capture of their will, He must really not want anyone to respond to the Good News.

Well I'll be, the God of continual road blocks, God forbid a person become one of the elect against God's wishes.

 

[Magenta]

Anyone who truly understands that God rescued them from their pitiful, helpless state and brought them into his Kingdom of Light knows they have nothing of which to boast. Again, the problem is is that most professing Christians do not see themselves (and perhaps never have) as being helpless, powerless and in need of rescuing. Yet, this is precisely how scripture portrays the elect prior to salvation (Col 1:13; Gal 1:3-4; Rom 5:.6). When God's electing, effectual grace motivated by his eternal love for his elect in Christ is truly apprehended in the human heart, the only true response that is evoked humility and thanksgiving and praise.

They do not realize that they were wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.
They were good people, after all, and needed no help from God.
None of that depravity for them, thank you very much!
Their free will stepped in to save the day, and their souls.

 

[Musicmaster]

Truth told: I actually landed on classical preterism because advocates of other systems were doing what you accuse me of, so I went against the grain -- plus preterism is biblical and makes perfectly good sense.

Yeah, I hear that all the time from Preterists...that Preterism is biblical, which is a similar claim made by JW's and Mormons...

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

So, if nobody can come up with a good interpretation, pray tell us how those verses should be interpreted. Or, are you saying, maybe they shouldn’t have been recorded?

Good question. So, if we look at that, and know fully well that it's not in operation among those with faith, as stipulated in those verses, then it obviously wasn't TO us under the Gospel of Grace. Many have interpreted those verses ten thousands ways to Sunday, all the while trying to claim that only those with enough faith are the operators of those things, and yet they never empty out clinics and hospitals. Scripture is very clear as to why those are not operating among the faithful, with some claiming that they are.

If we dare think about it, those who claim they can do those things, they are essentially saying to those who don't, won't or can't, that they simply don't have enough faith.

That copout is so very overused and just plain stupid, blind and indifferent to what scripture teaches us. That's not to say the Lord doesn't work some miracles in the lives of some.

Let's look at the language carefully:

"...these signs shall follow them that believe..."

Notice it says THEM, speaking outwardly beyond the scope of just the disciples to whom He was speaking. The Lord spoke generally when addressing those things as being operable among THEM that believe. Do you see that?

Mark 16:16-18
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So, the question that remains is this...IF that were spoken TO us today who are the recipients of the great mystery revealed only to Paul by Christ Jesus, then are YOU, and ME, and all others here who are of the faith, not truly men and women of salvific faith? Are we somehow lacking in our faith? Who among us will be the accuser of his brethren, leveling that charge against the others here and all across the West, over into Europe, Asia, and beyond?

So, there MUST be a difference in how the Lord did things THEN, and how He began to do things AFTER the coming of the mystery revelation. Pointing at Wigglesworth, Brandt and others who were strange bedfellows in that regard, with no real evidence recorded for others to see beyond making a leg longer to match, which is easily faked, and yammering about in some alleged unknown tongue...et al, no. Satan himself parades as an angel of light, and deceived men by many means. The non-operation of those things, powered only by the claim for the lack of faith, leads only to the idea that none of us are saved.

What about you? Are you saved right now? Then why aren't you doing those things? How about now...now? On and on that dizzying merry-go-round spins about, never really going anywhere...with the same old bland scenery spinning across the eyes of those who are riding that wheel to nowhere...

MM

 

[Sipsey]

Good question. So, if we look at that, and know fully well that it's not in operation among those with faith, as stipulated in those verses, then it obviously wasn't TO us under the Gospel of Grace. Many have interpreted those verses ten thousands ways to Sunday, all the while trying to claim that only those with enough faith are the operators of those things, and yet they never empty out clinics and hospitals. Scripture is very clear as to why those are not operating among the faithful, with some claiming that they are.

If we dare think about it, those who claim they can do those things, they are essentially saying to those who don't, won't or can't, that they simply don't have enough faith.

That copout is so very overused and just plain stupid, blind and indifferent to what scripture teaches us. That's not to say the Lord doesn't work some miracles in the lives of some.

Let's look at the language carefully:

"...these signs shall follow them that believe..."

Notice it says THEM, speaking outwardly beyond the scope of just the disciples to whom He was speaking. The Lord spoke generally when addressing those things as being operable among THEM that believe. Do you see that?

Mark 16:16-18
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So, the question that remains is this...IF that were spoken TO us today who are the recipients of the great mystery revealed only to Paul by Christ Jesus, then are YOU, and ME, and all others here who are of the faith, not truly men and women of salvific faith? Are we somehow lacking in our faith? Who among us will be the accuser of his brethren, leveling that charge against the others here and all across the West, over into Europe, Asia, and beyond?

So, there MUST be a difference in how the Lord did things THEN, and how He began to do things AFTER the coming of the mystery revelation. Pointing at Wigglesworth, Brandt and others who were strange bedfellows in that regard, with no real evidence recorded for others to see beyond making a leg longer to match, which is easily faked, and yammering about in some alleged unknown tongue...et al, no. Satan himself parades as an angel of light, and deceived men by many means. The non-operation of those things, powered only by the claim for the lack of faith, leads only to the idea that none of us are saved.

What about you? Are you saved right now? Then why aren't you doing those things? How about now...now? On and on that dizzying merry-go-round spins about, never really going anywhere...with the same old bland scenery spinning across the eyes of those who are riding that wheel to nowhere...

MM

Thanks for your response. Do you agree with this summation?

Even though Irenaeus mentions it, the fact that this section does not appear in the two oldest Greek manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) from the 4th century, as well as in other early manuscripts, suggests that the Longer Ending was not universally accepted or included in all early copies of the Gospel of Mark. Additionally, the early church historian Eusebius (early 4th century) and Jerome (late 4th century) both noted that the Longer Ending was absent from many manuscripts available in their time.

 

[Rufus]

Yeah, I hear that all the time from Preterists...that Preterism is biblical, which is a similar claim made by JW's and Mormons...

MM

Hey...even blind squirrels manage to find an occasional chestnut.

 

[Rufus]

They do not realize that they were wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.
They were good people, after all, and needed no help from God.
None of that depravity for them, thank you very much!
Their free will stepped in to save the day, and their souls.

Exactly! They just needed God to point the way -- to give them a leg up so that could do the rest. And they'll maintain until their dying breath that they were in total control of their eternal destiny. In a synergistic salvation scheme, the sinner is always the pilot and God is his co-pilot.

 

[Musicmaster]

Thanks for your response. Do you agree with this summation?

Even though Irenaeus mentions it, the fact that this section does not appear in the two oldest Greek manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) from the 4th century, as well as in other early manuscripts, suggests that the Longer Ending was not universally accepted or included in all early copies of the Gospel of Mark. Additionally, the early church historian Eusebius (early 4th century) and Jerome (late 4th century) both noted that the Longer Ending was absent from many manuscripts available in their time.

An appeal to antiquity doesn't prove anything in and of itself, with which I would hope we can both agree. Additionally, I don't accept the Gnostic manipulated manuscripts from Alexandria called the Vaticanus nor the Siniaticus, Aleph, B, C, et al, given that they all disagree with one another in more places combined than the array of Textus Receptus manuscripts. That so many liberal scholars have so eagerly given those manuscripts their approval, which are known very well to have been altered as many as five times in places, they clearly doesn't do anything for us today other than to shine a glaring light upon a a very strong appeal to antiquity, just as you yourself indicated.

I also have little to no regard for the "early church fathers" given the known, strong influences of Platonic and Aristotelianism in their beliefs and overall analysis and theologies. Lots of young Seminary students are so very excited because of the stars they had/have in their eyes for those men who have all kinds of letters attached to their names, but given that those scholars all have disagreements in various points of theology clearly plants them squarely into the same seats of fallibility right along with all the rest of us. So, we are all stuck with reliance upon 1 John 2:27 as the final source for authority.

MM

 

[Magenta]

Exactly! They just needed God to point the way -- to give them a leg up so that could do the rest. And they'll maintain until their dying breath that they were in total control of their eternal destiny. In a synergistic salvation scheme, the sinner is always the pilot and God is his co-pilot.

Oh? Well, I have it on the authority of certain ear ticklers that people have the capability to hear and perceive the message without divine intervention. They needed no help from God at all despite everything the Bibe says to the contrary! The fact that none are righteous, that all are blinded, that the preaching of the gospel is foolishness to them, that they cannot accept the things of God, are hostile in their minds toward Him, a lover of darkness, enslaved to sin and captive to the will of the devil, etc etc? Well, that means absolutely nothing to them! They needed no help from God whatsoever. So your leg up? Eh? What in the world are you talking about, man?

Man's depravity vs God's Grace

 

[Sipsey]

An appeal to antiquity doesn't prove anything in and of itself, with which I would hope we can both agree. Additionally, I don't accept the Gnostic manipulated manuscripts from Alexandria called the Vaticanus nor the Siniaticus, Aleph, B, C, et al, given that they all disagree with one another in more places combined than the array of Textus Receptus manuscripts. That so many liberal scholars have so eagerly given those manuscripts their approval, which are known very well to have been altered as many as five times in places, they clearly doesn't do anything for us today other than to shine a glaring light upon a a very strong appeal to antiquity, just as you yourself indicated.

I also have little to no regard for the "early church fathers" given the known, strong influences of Platonic and Aristotelianism in their beliefs and overall analysis and theologies. Lots of young Seminary students are so very excited because of the stars they had/have in their eyes for those men who have all kinds of letters attached to their names, but given that those scholars all have disagreements in various points of theology clearly plants them squarely into the same seats of fallibility right along with all the rest of us. So, we are all stuck with reliance upon 1 John 2:27 as the final source for authority.

MM

Just checking to see which boat you’re on.

 

[PaulThomson]

Then why do so many make God's salvation synergistic in nature rather than monogernistic? Or why do so many exalt "free" will that they think they have and that God always treats as "sacred ground" in his image-bearers that he would never trample on? Or why all this talk about how Christians can and should boast in themselves -- no doubt for being so smart in making the right decision?

When a fireman rushes into the flames of burning building to rescue some poor trapped soul and the rescue is successfully completed does the victim normally boast about himself afterward? Of what precisely would he have to boast? Or does he boast in the hero who saved him?

Even in the Exodus narrative, do we find any of Abraham's descendants boasting of their own strength when they walked out of Egypt?

Where is the term monergism to be found in the Bible?

The only ones introducing the biblical term synergism (sunergeO is in scripture) and the unbiblical term monergism are Calvinists. They introduced the word synergism into theology, demonised it, and then plaster the label on anyone who rejects their LOUPI doctrines of grease. Calvinist love to philosophise about their many invented theological categories, but they are highly averse to focussing for any length of time on actual scriptures read in their context.

Who here and outside of Calvinism talks about boasting in themselves in regard to their salvation? Name someone and cite their boasting post. You appear to be living in a fantasy world if you think those outside of LOUPI have been boasting in themselves.

 

[Musicmaster]

Just checking to see which boat you’re on.

Actually, 1 John 2:27 keeps us from having to rely upon all the fallible men throughout the past. Those who rely on the Nicene and Ante Nicene "father," and who shamefully take pride in that, and thus never looking to the Author Himself as the final Authority, as John wrote, that's a tragedy of religious proportions.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

It's indeed a blessing today that we do not have to do works to produce fruits...although it is advisable that we do so, but that requirement is not laid upon us as it was for those of the Kingdom Gospel:

Matthre 3:9-10
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

The mystery revealed to Paul only by Christ, said this to us today who are under grace:

1 Corinthians 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

So, yes, the Kingdom dispensation for how the Lord dealt with the people of that time, were required to be fruitful. The Gospel of Grace, on the other hand, has no such requirements laid upon it, for it would not be grace if works were required.

So, yes, they could lose their salvation if they produced no fruit for justification. They will be cast into the fire who did not produce fruit.

Please keep in mind that I said it's best that we too produce fruit for reward and to keep from losing inheritance, those will still be saved, "...so as by fire." I absolutely advise against that, because being in Heaven without reward or inheritance, the shame of that will be great.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

As quoted in the above post, the power of God's Grace unto us is further exemplified:

2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

This was not available under the Kingdom program, but only under grace.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

As we can see, Jesus was not speaking only about the apostles, but about ALL believers...THEM that believe.

So, how many of YOU are doing this if it applies to us today? Jesus spoke of no end to these abilities worked through those who believe? Have we ALL become unbelievers by our not doing these things? Have we all lost our salvation?

It's high time more people start being consistent with what's written and what they claim to believe. If you believe you are under the Kingdom program, then you better be able to do these things. Let's see the "lost salvation" people do these things.

Come on...demonstration please...

MM

 

[rogerg]

If you take no credit for God choosing you, and you were chosen by God for some reason only God knows but others were not, you too have a reason to boast. God chose you and not them for some reason.

God selects individuals for salvation based solely on His divine will and good pleasure to do so, choosing those He desires, independent of any actions they have taken or will take.

 

[Rufus]

Where is the term monergism to be found in the Bible?

The only ones introducing the biblical term synergism (sunergeO is in scripture) and the unbiblical term monergism are Calvinists. They introduced the word synergism into theology, demonised it, and then plaster the label on anyone who rejects their LOUPI doctrines of grease. Calvinist love to philosophise about their many invented theological categories, but they are highly averse to focussing for any length of time on actual scriptures read in their context.

Who here and outside of Calvinism talks about boasting in themselves in regard to their salvation? Name someone and cite their boasting post. You appear to be living in a fantasy world if you think those outside of LOUPI have been boasting in themselves.

You don't pay attention very well. All non-Reformed who esteem their God-given "free" will above the Giver of all his good and perfect gifts in grace, implicitly elevate themselves above God. Such say, "God would never trample on my free will. Nor would he violate my God-given right to determine my own eternal destiny", yada, yada, yada.

Synergism is not in scripture, which is why the Reformers came up with a suitable theological antonym. Salvation is not a business or contractual agreement between God and all sinners. Salvation is not a quid pro quo arrangement. If this were true, then scripture could not state that there is only one Savior in this universe by which men must be saved. Scripture knows nothing about multiple saviors, which sinners would be when they think they can partner up with God to save themselves.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

If Paul scolded the Jews who rejected the Lord as Messiah for proving themselves unworthy of aeonous life, what does that make those who accepted Jesus Christ as Messiah? What made them worthy of aeonous life?

No one, God saved them, Welcome to Grace

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I am not affected by your moralistic arguments, because moralistic arguments are logically fallacious. A position is not true just because you feel like it is morally superior. We both believe God knows all truth. We disagree on what "all truth" includes. Your believing that "all truth" includes the future exhaustively does not make your belief that God knows all truth morally superior to someone else who believes that the future is not yet true, and is therefore not something that exists to be known as truth.

Yama Yada Yada