Why I now believe that salvation can be lost.

amen, there is no difference.

One could easily write a book on that passage to unpack all its eschatological and ecclesiastical implications pertaining to Israel-Christ-Church. What Jesus truly said is that He is the redemptive-historical story line of the Jewish scriptures, which in turn implies that he is the antitype to numerous OT themes -- themes that point forward to Him as the escalated, heightened fulfillment of those shadowy themes. And these truths in turn would make Christ the True Israel.

You nailed it perfectly. The flip side to God's gift of faith is faithfulness. Two different sides of the same coin. Paul's focus on justification was primarily theological (looking at it from the vertical level); while James' perspective is practical as he views justification from a horizontal level -- how others see God's saints and even how saints see each other.

Mark 16:15-18
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
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.

If it's all the same Gospel, the same dispensation, then why are you not able to do all those things...without hyper-spiritualizing what Jesus clearly commanded and stated as the resulting outcome? If you were saved by believing AND water baptism (because the text says nothing about being filled with Holy Spirit as a justification for trying to spiritualize the Greek term "baptizo," which clearly means "immersed" when not coupled with fire or Holy Spirit), then why are you not healing physical ailments by laying on of hands and prayer and fasting, et al?

You people keep dancing around this or explaining it away with parablism and/or hyper-spiritualism tactics that simply don't work. There's no standing for that in the text. It's a cop-out and a sham of parlor tricks.

MM

It proves that synergy is a biblical concept, since sunergeO is in the Bible. Momergism (monergeO) is not in the Bible. Jusr saying that the thing you reject as a concept is in the Bible, and the thing you advocate as a concept is not in the Bible.

No, the text you cite does not teach teach a synergistic salvation. Just because God employs all the means to the ends (in this case, faithful evangelists) does not mean that the evangelists share in God's glory when He saves people through their ministry. Have you never read:

1 Cor 3:5-9
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building?
NIV

The saints of God are indeed his fellow workers, but as you can see from v. 7, the one who plants or waters the Gospel is nothing -- only God who MAKES things grow.

I didn't say that text teaches a synergistic salvation. I said the text validates that the concept of synergism is biblical: God working with humans in the experiences of humans. The idea of God working without humans in the experiences of humans is not in the Bible. It is an idea brought by some people from philosophical speculation into the Bible. We don't have to take it seriously just because you take it seriously, if it is not in the Bible.

Humans plant the seeds and water, and God builds the plant from one form of glory to another. God is not doing the whole thing alone. He has chosen to work with (synergeO) humans to achieve the growth to maturity of His new creation.

No, he's not doing it alone; but the growth is totally dependent on his sovereign will. Also, just because God uses his saints for gospel ministry does not mean that he has to. He can raise up spiritual descendants of Abraham from stones if he wanted to.

So...now that you admit that the text isn't teaching synergistic salvation, you need to get busy to find one that actually does. And good luck with that.

OK, I see that was addressed to me. I am saying what I said in the post. Humans find all kinds of reasons to boast, even if their boasting is hollow and meaningless. Anyone can ascribe the potential for boasting to anyone else. A Non-LOUPI can ascribe to LOUPIs the potential to boast just as easily as a LOUPI can ascribe to non-LOUPIs the potential to boast. In both cases, the ascription of potential boasting does not ascertain that boasting is actually happening. The Calvinist ploy of accusing non-Calvinists of boasting is a fallacious moralistic argument. It has no logical force. It is purely a rhetorical device: an attempt to shame people into conceding to Calvinist assertions. It's a spurious groundless rhetorical claim that Calvinists are inherently more humble and non-Calvinists are inherently more prideful, intended to emotionally manipulate people away from resistible grace and perhaps towards Calvinism.

I clearly said that no non-Calvinists have boasted that they saved themselves. It is only that Calvinists have misrepresented the non-Calvinists' admission that they use their own God-given faculties to believe in Christ and so be saved by Him.

You say: "... but I have to conclude that if I'm making the assertion that we get NO credit for salvation, deserve NO glory for it at all and have NO reason to boast. I have to assume you are arguing that we DO deserve, at least a little credit for salvation, that we DO deserve some glory for it, and that we DO have something to boast about in ourselves."

Firstly, you are merely asserting that "we [Calvinists] get NO credit for salvation, deserve NO glory for it at all and have NO reason to boast." However, you claim God chose you for some unknown reason and passed over others for an unknown reason, so even though you assert that you have no reason to boast, that God chose you above others is a reason you could boast. Who would find it easier to find a reason to boast? A. Someone randomly chosen, invited and appointed by a king to attend a party at his palace, or B. someone chosen to attend a birthday party for some unknown old man in a rest home. You claim the Almighty God chose you from eternity past to attend His celebrations. You have much more reason to boast than either A or B. That does not mean you have to boast, but you would have a very strong reason to do so, if you chose to.

Secondly, you assert that I must be asserting the contrary. You say "I have to assume you are arguing: that we DO deserve, at least a little credit for salvation, that we DO deserve some glory for it, and that we DO have something to boast about in ourselves." There is no reason why it should follow from scripture that it is unrighteous or prideful to accept any credit for believing in Christ than to reject all credit for believing, when God Himself credits to us our believing as righteousness.

"3 Abraham believed God and it [believing God] was credited to him [to Abraham] as righteousness." ...
And, 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. ... "20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed/credited to him for righteousness.

Certainly, we are being changed from glory to glory as we by faith are beholding the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. S, our faith dies acquire glory for us.

But we do not agree that we are boasting about putting faith in Christ, any more than you would agree that you are boasting in being desirable to God above others not chosen (according to your system) for salvation.

Rom. 4

I'm not arguing for synergistic salvation. You are aguing for monergistic salvation, but you have no scriptures that mention monergistic salvation.

I am just pointing out that at least the word synergism (sunergeO) is mentioned in the Bible in a positive light. Your invented word monergism is not mentioned in the Bible, either positively or negatively, so there is less reason to believe that monergism is biblical than there is that synergism is biblical. Do you have a scripture that you believe teaches monergism?

I can answer... it is God's sovereignty, did you forget?

Sovereignty = Monergism

Sovereignty is pretty much the answer to everything.

As I said earlier. mark 16: 16 - 18 is questionable that it is even scripture. Nothing here is said anyplace else. So why are you trying tp use a passage that is most likely not even scripture to support your view of James.

James is not written to a different dispensation.

It is written to a different group of people who have taken grace and turned it to licentiousness..

Jude spoke of the same people. only Jude called out the teachers

But the concept is everywhere in scripture:

1. God represents himself as being the only Savior
2. God never represents himself as being only a possible or potential Savior
3. God predestined in eternity all whom he will save
4. God begins the good work in all his elect and will complete it.
5. By God's doing the saints are in Christ Jesus.
6. Salvation does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs.
7. Being born of God does not depend being born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God.
8. God is committed to fulfilling the conditions he stipulated in the unilateral New Covenant.

Well...it's either the sovereignty of God or the sovereignty of man's "free will". I know which concept is biblical; do you?

This is a false dichotomy you have set up.
Since God is sovereign it is His plan not yours and he can set up conditions if that is His pleasure.

For by conditions are you saved through faith, and this of yourself, so that you might boast.
Doesn't have the same ring to it.

I see you have presented no scriptures to support your assertions above.
Of your eight points, only 5 and 7 are scripturally accurate and unambiguous, and scripturally verifiable statements.

I had to do a double-take on this to make sure I read it correctly. Not even the liberal versions call that verse into question, which means that it's contained in not only the majority of the Textus Receptus manuscripts, but also the Alexandrian texts.

Wow. This is so bizarre. I had no idea there was anyone here who harbored this level of subjectivity to thus call into question a verse he doesn't personally like, but a verse that enjoys an entire spectrum of support from manuscript evidence.

This is a huge WOW!

After you having said what you stated above, and your not knowing when he wrote that epistle in relation to the revelation of the mystery that was revealed ONLY to Paul by Christ, I'm not at all surprised.

I would love to see you try to pull that off in Theology 101 class. Those kids would intellectually tear you to pieces in a debate...

MM

Another interesting fact that some remain completely unaware:

Before the cross, Christ and His disciples preached a Gospel that was devoid of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, obviously because it had not yet happened. The Gospel of the Kingdom is what was preached, to believe and be water baptized, and STILL there are those who claim that the Gospel has been the same throughout.

This demonstrates the lack of knowledge of the scriptures in this regard by some...

MM

Okay...le'ts go with point number 1. What other Savior is there in this universe besides God?