Loss of salvation???

[Toknow]

2 of 2

I have read that argument before, but it misunderstands Paul's argument. Were Jacob and Esau the progenitors of two nations? Yes. And did God bless Jacob's nation and curse Esau's nation? Yes. However, this does not negate the fact that God decided what to do with each man and his nation before they were born. This clearly demonstrates that God was not reactive in his decisions but proactive.

Of course.
God had a plan from the beginning.
Also, God knew how Esau would give up his inheritance.
God works WITH MAN.
You meant it for evil....
but God meant it for good.
God's plan will always come to fruition.

You must be thinking of Romans 9:6, instead of Romans 9:14.

No Roger.
If I post Romans 9:14 that's the verse I'm addressing.

Paul’s rhetorical question in Romans 9:14 becomes clearer when it is tied directly to what he has just asserted. He has claimed that God determined the destinies of Jacob and Esau—and by extension their nations—without reference to their actions or moral performance. That raises an obvious objection: doesn’t this make God unjust? Instead of defending God by appealing to His fairness or His mercy, Paul takes the discussion to a deeper level. He grounds his answer in God’s identity as Creator—the One who has the sovereign right to shape His purposes and guide history according to His will.

God GUIDES history.
Within the free will of man.
God knew how jacob and Esau would grow and He gave the inheritance to whom God pleased,,,
according to HIs foreknoledge.

Foreknowledge just means knowing before it esxists.
PROGNOSIS

This shift is important because it reframes the issue. Paul is not arguing that God is arbitrary or capricious; he is arguing that God’s prerogative as Creator precedes human categories of merit, effort, or entitlement. The question of justice can only be understood within that larger framework of divine authorship and purpose.

I don't see this.
You'll have to use scripture to show that it's correct.
Seems you do not like using scripture.

In Romans 9:15, Paul insists that God meant exactly what He said to Moses. When Moses pleaded for the salvation of the whole nation, God granted the request—but He also made clear that the exercise of mercy remains His sovereign prerogative. He alone decides on whom He will show compassion. Paul’s point is not that God is inconsistent, but that God’s mercy is never something humans can claim as a right. It flows from His sovereign freedom, not from human effort, lineage, or entitlement.

God showed mercy to the ISRAELITES.
NOT to individual.
God's mercy is his grace.
If we cannot claim God's grace as our right....what hope have we?
God keeps His promises.
He promised to save those who believe in His Son.
He did NOT promise to save those that He arbitrarily decides to save BASED ON NOTHING AT ALL but His will.
So how do YOU know you're saved?

Jesus taught that if we follow HIM...we will be saved.

God has given conditions to salvation so that we can know that we are saved.

Paul says that the Gentiles were not pursuing righteousness, and yet they obtained it—by faith. Let that sink in for a moment. Is Paul suggesting some kind of accidental righteousness, as if a man were strolling down the beach, tripped over righteousness, and picked it up by chance? If he wasn’t even seeking it, can he really claim that God rewarded him on the basis of his own merit? That would be absurd. The whole point is that righteousness came to those who were not looking for it, precisely so that no one could boast that they earned it.

Roger, I don't have time for this.
Your above statment is silly and I'm not going to reply to it.

The point Paul was making is that EVEN HEATHEN could find faith and be right with God.

IT IS FAITH THAT SAVES.

To be saved by faith, one must first hear the gospel and respond to it. But in Romans 9:30-32, Paul argues that the Gentiles obtained righteousness even though they were not pursuing it. How can that be?

What about those that never hear the gospel?
I know the reformed think billions of persons are going to hell because they didn't hear the gospel.
The NT does not agree with you:

Romans 1:19-20
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.


No one has an excuse when they appear before God.


Hebrews 1:1
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son,
God has spoken to man in many ways....confirming Romans 1.

 

[Toknow]

I wasn't using sarcasm.

I was using sarcasm...
not you.

I said it was a serious question. God hardened Pharaoh's heart AND Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Two seemingly opposite points of view are true at the same, These are the kinds of paradoxical propositions that lead me to think deeper about a subject.

Of course.
Man always is involved in his heart condition.

Deep thought is not required here.
This is explained in Romans 1.

There comes a point when God will leave a person to himself/to his own untruths that have been accepted by him.

Romans 1:24
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

Another one is found in Genesis 50:20, where Joseph speaks to his brothers after their betrayal.

Joseph is reflecting on their attempt to harm him—selling him into slavery—and how God sovereignly redirected that evil act toward the preservation of many lives.

As I've said...
God USES man to achieve His plan.

 

[Toknow]

Throughout Hebrews 3, the writer consistently distinguishes between two groups:

• Those in danger of drifting away—the ones he warns not to harden their hearts, not to fall into unbelief, and not to repeat Israel’s rebellion.
• Those he calls “brothers”—the community he believes to be genuine believers, whom he urges to remain steadfast.

This distinction is crucial. The warnings are real, but they are not expressions of doubt about the entire congregation. They are pastoral exhortations aimed at those who are wavering.

So there IS a danger of drifting away.
Paul states this in all of his writings.

In Romans 11 he clearly states that even the gentiles could be broken off:

Romans 11:19-22
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.


Paul, above is teaching that we must stand by our faith - and even fear what could happen if we do not. Verse 20
God will not spare us if we do not stand by our faith. Verse 21
Verse 22 teaches what happens to those that fell and to those that CONTINUE in His kindness.
His kindness is His grace,,,which I have mentioned in a previous post.

GOD IS GRACE.
GOD IS KIND.

Divine simplicity.
GOD IS.

Hebrews 3:13 commands believers to encourage one another daily so that no one is “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” The writer assumes that the Christian community plays an active role in helping one another persevere. Hardening is a danger, but it is not inevitable; it is something the community can help prevent.

You've stated that we can be hardened by deceitfulness of sin.
That is sufficient.
No need for me to go through Hebrews 3 to disprove your point.
Hebrews 3, BTW, is chock full of warnings, you seem to ignore these:

Hebrews 3:6
6but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house—whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.


Hebrews 3:12
12Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God.

Yes sir. We should encourage each other so as to avoid the above from happening...
falling away from the living God.


Hebrews 3:17
17And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?

God was angry with those who sinned.
The warning is that we should not sin.



Hebrews 3:18
18And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient?


Paul always warned that we are to be obedient..as did Jesus.

When the writer says, “For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm to the end” (Heb. 3:14), he is not expressing uncertainty about the “brothers.” Instead, he is using a conditional statement as an exhortation, not as a threat.


The logic works like this:

• Those who truly belong to Christ will persevere.
• Therefore, the call to persevere is meant to strengthen the brothers, not unsettle them.
• The condition (“if we hold fast”) is the means God uses to keep His people faithful, not a test designed to make them doubt their standing.

I do not agree with your logic.
And logic is philosophy...thought you didn't care to discuss philosophy.


Here is what I hear and learn from the NT:

If I read the word IF and then something about holding on till the end is written...
I have to believe that IF I do NOT hold on till the end....then the consequence will ensue.

IF,,,in Hebrews 3:14 is setting a condition.
Your logic is incorrect.
There is no explaining away Heb 3:14 with grammar.

In other words, the writer is not saying, “I’m not sure you’re saved.” He is saying, “Since you belong to Christ, hold tightly to Him—don’t drift like the wilderness generation.”

OK.
I can accept this.
Paul is saying that since they belong to Christ....
DO NOT DRIFT.

Paul is saying that drifting is a possibility.
My point exactly.

Hebrews consistently blends assurance and warning:

• Assurance for the brothers who share in Christ.
• Warning for those tempted to abandon the faith.

Right.
The temptation to abandon the faith is a possibility.

Looks like we agree after all.

• Exhortation as the God‑ordained means of preserving the faithful.

This balance is exactly what gives Hebrews its pastoral power: it takes the danger seriously without undermining the confidence of genuine believers.

Here's some logic for you:

If I tell you not to cross the street at the red light...
it means there's danger.

If Paul is giving warnings...
it's because there is danger.

Also, there's no such category as GENUINE BELIEVER.

One is a believer or he is not.

 

[studier]

I agree, there is a possibility of falling away, for some believers, which is why Paul wrote the letter in the first place. However, since Paul speaks favorably about those he calls "brothers," the possibility doesn't apply to them. We know from the parable of the sower that, indeed, some believers fall away, but others persevere to the end.

In his letters, Paul explains why some fall away while others do not. Contrary to what we might expect, the reason for perseverance is not innate human strength of character, willpower, tenacity, or resiliency. The basis for perseverance is God-given qualities and attributes.

Do you think that the conditional statements are meant to apply to everyone?

To answer your question: When you look at those conditional statements, what do you think in regard to yourself?

Also, to clarify your view - when you ask if they apply to 'everyone,' do you mean do they apply to the elect?"

 

[Mem]

And the answer is: God forbid!

Romans 6:1,7
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

So obviously willingly and knowingly living in sin is NOT actually covered by God's grace

Paul sufficiently demonstrated the absurdity of the question. So why do people insist on asserting such an absurdity?

 

[Toknow]

Stopping us from falling away is part and parcel to being saved.

You believe this because of your theology.
God will NOT stop us from falling away if that is our desire.
God respects our free will.

The lost sheep wandered away.
The Prodigal son wandered away.


They became LOST.
The Prodigal son became lost AGAIN.
Which means that he was saved before he left his father.

As I argued before, freedom of the will is not a meaningful concept unless, in my freedom, I am allowed to manifest MY likes, preferences, desires, goals etc. When God saves me, he isn't taking away my freedom, he is changing Me on the inside. He is changing what I like, what I prefer, what I want, my goals, my worldview, my theological orientation etc.

I'll repeat that compatibilist free will is not in line with NT teaching.
Libertarian free will is.

Jeremiah 7:23-26
23“But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’
24“Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward.
25“Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early and sending them.
26“Yet they did not listen to Me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck; they did more evil than their fathers.


Why would God have to send prophets if He changes our heart?
Why would God complain about those not obeying Him?
Did He not change their heart?

The only way Jeremiah (and many many other passages) make any sense at all
is the fact that man has libertarian free will.


In Ephesians 4:30 we're told not t grieve the Holy Spirit.
Paul is speaking to believers...as you've stated elsewhere that Paul is, in fact, speaking to believers....


So if believers can grieve the Holy Spirit....
did God not change their heart?



Hebrews 4:30
30Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.


Compatibilist free will removes responsibility from the believer
and causes God to be the cause of sin when one sins.
The responsibility for sinning is transferred to God instead of the believer.

God does not need to use force to get his way. He speaks things into existence.

Compatibilist free will uses coercion.

God speaking into existence has nothing to do with this converssation.
Unless you can make the connection.

We also have motives.

What does a motive have to do with man having free will?

i am.

It would be appreciated if you would use scripture.

 

[Toknow]

Paul sufficiently demonstrated the absurdity of the question. So why do people insist on asserting such an absurdity?

Becausse they insist on the question and not on the reply.

 

[Mem]

Becausse they insist on the question and not on the reply.

The question is in regard to the treatment of abounding grace, which is set aside (by those insisting) for the secondary point in question.

 

[Mem]

Why would anyone insist that the abounding grace be set aside to focus on the secondary point that abounding grace is the primary enabler which sets us free to continue in any pursuance of holiness at all?

 

[Musicmaster]

Really? So people can live in sin and still be saved?

You should accept the entire Word of the Lord.

He has put warnings in His Word that we can actually lose our salvation.

Sounds like somebody needs a better pastor

If you wouldn't mind, please define "living in sin." What does that mean? Are you now living sinless perfection? If not, then are you not "living in sin"?

If not, then where is that line of demarcation between saved and unsaved? What sins are on the one side and what sins are on the other? Surely someone can define that, otherwise new converts have no basis of reference, so how do you witness to others and define that fine line that I can't find in scriptures anywhere? Apart from defining that line, one would leave new converts to wallow around and accepting only the usual fodder of churchianity and its many, many variations as to where that line rests given that none of the denominations see capable of agreeing on where it rests.

Thanks

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

This is what you stated in post no. 8462:

Anyone who knows the scriptures knows the Law was never abolished. Jesus Himself said that, wo what Jesus are you following?
So MM,,,,was the law abolished or not?
You said it was NOT aboished in post 8462.
But now it seems that you're agreeing with me that the Law WAS abolished?
Which is it?

This is a poor tactic. Why are you pretending your reading comprehension skills are not of the caliber that you can understand that I was NOT saying the Law was abolished. It was not and I never said otherwise. I quoted scripture where it states that we of the body of Christ are DEAD to the Law. I clearly stated in my most recent post to you that the Law is still in force as an indictment authority against unbelievers. This tiring game of yours in misrepresenting what another has said is getting old.

The rest of your post is rather convoluted and insulting so I will not be replying to it.
Also, the very verse you posted above is teaching thsoe of the Christian faith that we are to bring forth good fruit.

Where is YOUR good fruit MM?
Where is YOUR newness of spirit?

YOUR verse posted above:

Rom 7:4, 6
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. ...
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Please note: you even highlighted WE SHOULD BRING FORTH FRUIT UNTO GOD.
WE SHOULD SERVE IN NEWNESS OF SPIRIT.



You're one confused dude.

What's insulting about acknowledging your freedom to believe as you wish? Ellen G. White was a sick-in-the-head woman and very full of herself.

MM

 

[Toknow]

If you wouldn't mind, please define "living in sin." What does that mean? Are you now living sinless perfection? If not, then are you not "living in sin"?

Pretty sad when a CHRISTIAN does not know the difference between a sin and living in sin.

And yet John taught the difference in his first letter...
only chapters 1, 2 and 3 would have to be read.

If not, then where is that line of demarcation between saved and unsaved? What sins are on the one side and what sins are on the other? Surely someone can define that, otherwise new converts have no basis of reference, so how do you witness to others and define that fine line that I can't find in scriptures anywhere? Apart from defining that line, one would leave new converts to wallow around and accepting only the usual fodder of churchianity and its many, many variations as to where that line rests given that none of the denominations see capable of agreeing on where it rests.

Thanks

MM

Some look for the line of demarcation because they want to sin as much as possible and yet still be saved.

No other reasons for trying to find this elusive line of demarcation.

Those that love Jesus and wish to follow Him
obey Him and do not worry about any lines.

 

[Toknow]

This is a poor tactic. Why are you pretending your reading comprehension skills are not of the caliber that you can understand that I was NOT saying the Law was abolished. It was not and I never said otherwise. I quoted scripture where it states that we of the body of Christ are DEAD to the Law. I clearly stated in my most recent post to you that the Law is still in force as an indictment authority against unbelievers. This tiring game of yours in misrepresenting what another has said is getting old.



What's insulting about acknowledging your freedom to believe as you wish? Ellen G. White was a sick-in-the-head woman and very full of herself.

MM

Jesus didn't die so a person could BELIEVE AS THEY WISH.

What we need to BELIEVE is what jesus taught.
NOT what we WISH to believe.

I believe Ellen White began the SDA movement.

I don't belong to ANY MOVEMENT.

I belong to the Christian faith as it was taught in the NT times.

 

[Roger316]

God created.
That is not speaking to the free will of man.

It answers why man's free will isn't the deciding factor in salvation.

Ephesians 2:10
God created us for good works.

Ephesians 2:10

You skipped over an important point Paul is making. He is comparing and contrasting those who were once dead in sins but have now been made alive. Speaking of THEM, the ones having made alive, he says that they are the workmanship of God. In case you might not know, workmanship is the product of an artisan, such as a statue, a painting, a clay pot, or other handcrafted work of art. His focus is not on the good works per se, his focus is on the artisan, God, who fashions those in Christ to manifest goodness. Paul isn't making a generalized point, as you seem to suggest. He is speaking exclusively and specifically about those in Christ.

 

[Toknow]

It answers why man's free will isn't the deciding factor in salvation.

What IS the deciding factor in salvation?

Ephesians 2:10

You skipped over an important point Paul is making. He is comparing and contrasting those who were once dead in sins but have now been made alive. Speaking of THEM, the ones having made alive, he says that they are the workmanship of God.

We are the workmanship of God....
made to to do good works.

Both are true.
No need to choose.

Ephesians 2:10
10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
God created everything and it was good.
When He created man He said it was very good.

And what does Paul say made those that are born again alive?

Let's see:

Ephesians 2:1-3
1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,

2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.


We formerly WALKED in accordance to this world.
Walking is an action that we take.
As we wish to.

We were following the Prince of the Air.

So are you now saying that it was God who made us to walk according to the desires of the Prince of the Air?

So you're agreeing that God is the author of sin in man since it is God that predestinates everything?

We all were lost....until we came to believe in God.
We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH.

No where does it state that we are saved because God chose us to be saved.
The NT teaches that we are saved BY FAITH.

In case you might not know, workmanship is the product of an artisan, such as a statue, a painting, a clay pot, or other handcrafted work of art.

Well, actually a painting is not the work of an artisan...unless he's a really good forger.
A clay pot can be the work of an artisan
or
it could be the work of an artist.

Maybe you could find out the difference between an artisan and an artist.

I'd say God is an artist.

His focus is not on the good works per se, his focus is on the artisan, God, who fashions those in Christ to manifest goodness. Paul isn't making a generalized point, as you seem to suggest. He is speaking exclusively and specifically about those in Christ.

Sure.
But you really need to post scripture and then explain it.
I do this all the time.
It's not difficult.

Where is Paul speaking about those in Christ?
What generalized point is he NOT making?

 

[Roger316]

2 of 2


Of course.
God had a plan from the beginning.
Also, God knew how Esau would give up his inheritance.

Paul's statement is stronger than that. God decided the fate of two boys before they had a chance to do right or wrong. You seem to be saying that God based his decision on foreknowledge of Esau's choice, which undercuts Paul's argument. I'm not saying you wanted to defeat Paul's argument, but you did.

No Roger.
If I post Romans 9:14 that's the verse I'm addressing.

Well, you argued as if you were looking at Romans 9:6. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying?

God GUIDES history.

He creates history. There is a difference. Hebrews 1:2 (The English word "world" translates the Greek word for "ages."

He promised to save those who believe in His Son.

He sanctifies them, then they believe. Titus 3:5

 

[Roger316]

To answer your question: When you look at those conditional statements, what do you think in regard to yourself?

Also, to clarify your view - when you ask if they apply to 'everyone,' do you mean do they apply to the elect?"

I am reacting to the widespread confusion between what a man CAN do and what he WILL do. When you say that it remains possible for a man to fall away, you seem to strongly suggest that his salvation status is always in peril. After all, a man CAN fall away any time he wants. I argue that the conditional statements are not meant to add contingency to God's free gift of eternal life.

Whereas, the apostles argue that if certain conditions exist in the man, he WON'T fall away. If God is saving someone, he removes all contingency when he blesses the man with those qualities.

 

[Roger316]

You believe this because of your theology.

We all do that. The question is whether our theology is scripturally sound.

God will NOT stop us from falling away if that is our desire.
God respects our free will.

I would call your statement philosophical — a presupposed worldview that doesn't stand on its own. You need to prove, show, or demonstrate from scripture that God respects our free will.

I'll repeat that compatibilist free will is not in line with NT teaching.

I would argue that it is.

Libertarian free will is.

Jeremiah 7:23-26
23“But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’
24“Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward.
25“Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early and sending them.
26“Yet they did not listen to Me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck; they did more evil than their fathers.

Why would God have to send prophets if He changes our heart?
Why would God complain about those not obeying Him?
Did He not change their heart?

God’s pattern is that when he chooses to reveal himself, he often begins with what looks like ordinary, natural processes—and then lets those very limits become the stage for his power. Abraham and Sarah are the clearest example. They spent years trying to conceive in the normal way, and nothing happened. Only when their bodies were far past the point of natural possibility did God step in and give Sarah a son—a son who still came from Abraham’s own body, but by God’s initiative rather than human ability.

The Jeremiah passage records God's challenge to Israel to obey him "in the normal way." Only when they realize that they can't, then God will step in and supernaturally make it possible for Israel to obey him always.

Moses frames the whole story of Israel’s obedience around the heart. In Deuteronomy 10:16, he commands the people to “circumcise” their hearts—to remove the inner stubbornness that keeps them from loving and trusting God. But Moses also knows that Israel cannot accomplish this transformation on their own. So later, in Deuteronomy 30:6, he promises that the Lord himself will one day “circumcise” their hearts so they can truly love him and live. Deuteronomy holds these two truths together: God calls his people to an inward loyalty that goes beyond ritual or outward conformity, and God himself must ultimately perform the deep inner work that makes such loyalty possible.

The obvious difference between Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6 is that only when God circumcises the heart is obedience possible.

The only way Jeremiah (and many many other passages) make any sense at all
is the fact that man has libertarian free will.

There is another way to understand them.

In Ephesians 4:30 we're told not t grieve the Holy Spirit.
Paul is speaking to believers...as you've stated elsewhere that Paul is, in fact, speaking to believers....


So if believers can grieve the Holy Spirit....
did God not change their heart?

As we see from the parable of the sower, not all believers are alike.

Compatibilist free will removes responsibility from the believer

Not every theory of compatibilism removes responsibility.

What does a motive have to do with man having free will?

My will is free, if and only if, it allows me to manifest my motives.

It would be appreciated if you would use scripture.

You quoted it before. Romans 2:28-29. God is saving those who have the proper inwardness. Let's look at another passage that is near at hand. Romans 2:5-8

Here Paul closely associates our will with our motives. Why are we doing good deeds? We are seeking glory, honor and immortality.

 

[Roger316]

What IS the deciding factor in salvation?

God's choice. And God marks his choice with his Spirit, who sanctifies us.

No where does it state that we are saved because God chose us to be saved.
The NT teaches that we are saved BY FAITH.

THROUGH Faith.

Well, actually a painting is not the work of an artisan...

was it made by hands?

 

[studier]

It's not a false dichotomy when seen in context. You implied the tense doesn't guarantee ownership forever. As the verse gives no conditions of non-ownership the logical assumption is ownership remains. Over here yours is yours until you sell it or give it away.

I didn't imply, I clearly stated it doesn't. It's not logical if a person retains choice. We're not talking about a car.

Besides, all souls are mine says the Lord, no-one ever truly belongs to themself.

All souls are His and He allows them to choose their fate - at least this is the non-Determinist view.

I think you make an assumption that God will allow man's will to trump His because of that Lewis saying you shared earlier.

You seem to be making contradictory statements. As I understood you, you earlier stated that we must choose to believe and we must continue to choose to believe. Lewis's statement takes at least that first choice as choosing one's end. Yes, I agree with him.

I can assure you, no-one wills themself to go to the lake of fire, that's why everything that goes in is thrown in.

But they have willed themselves there by choosing the path that leads there. They may well kick and scream at the end, but they're there because they chose to be there.

The problem with your "letting go" analogy is the actual opposite happens if God lets us go. We are not set free but go back into a slavery we cannot escape. Being a slave to the Lord is freedom, even for a disobedient slave.

If we're not free to leave, then we're not free to choose and the conditional clauses and warnings have no teeth. So I'd rather analyze them than speculate via theories.

It also fails to address His promise He would lose none. Saying He lets us go of His own free will is inserting a condition on the promise Christ never made.

Please quote the Scripture where Jesus promises He would lose none. If you have more than one, let's look at them one at a time.

Suggesting He doesn't let us go of our own free will may be inserting a condition Jesus never made - and it seems to contradict your previous agreement that we must 'continue to choose to believe.'

I agree we need to continue to believe but from what are we being saved?

What's the need to continue to believe if salvation is complete in a moment? Isn't this what we're ultimately discussing? Why the commands, the warnings, the conditional clauses, instruction that speaks of falling from grace and Christ becoming of no benefit to you, instruction re: going timid and withdrawing oneself into destruction - which seems to be where were were, instruction that disobedience is parallel with unbelief, etc? Some of us seem to take such Scriptures more seriously than others."

It is not death for we have already passed from death to life in being reborn.

Same questions back to you that I just asked. And one [unidentified John5] verse about going from death to life is far from the only discussion in the Text about death and life.

If that person "walks away" they must die again which means Christ's death and resurrection was insufficient to save them in the first place.

Several fallacies here. What we choose to do does not affect the sufficiency of what Christ accomplished.

I believe in free will but I think you give man's volition more power than it has or deserves.

IMO God gives man's will the dignity and power He created it to have. I agree with what Lewis said.

No-one can undo what God has done in Christ and if you are in Christ you share in that, both His death and His life

My highlighting of your statement takes us back to where we started - do we choose to believe? - do we choose to continue to believe?

Remaining in Christ is commanded and thus volitional. Obedience to Christ is mandatory - it's a MUST as was debated earlier on this thread.

If we proceed, let's both try to keep these discussions over theories briefer and get back to actual Scripture that we can analyze succinctly. Honestly, I think we both know the theories. My concern is that we don't always know the Scriptures.