Doesn't Living Like the Devil After Being Saved Disprove Once Saved Always Saved?
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Scripture also says:
1 John 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Unfortunately, Judas didn't seek Jesus' forgiveness, but killed himself instead.
Which does not make his sin any worse than anyone else's. That was my only point.
Scripture also says:
1 John 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Unfortunately, Judas didn't seek Jesus' forgiveness, but killed himself instead.
A true believer is assumed into that statement. 1 John 5:13
But Jesus provided a way to cover those sins, except Judas didn't take Him up on that. What good is it that all sins are the same to God when you don't take His offer of salvation up for yourself to cover them?
The claim that started my comment was that Judas committed a worse sin than others, my point has nothing to di with salvation, merely that all sins are equally bad.But Jesus provided a way to cover those sins, except Judas didn't take Him up on that. What good is it that all sins are the same to God when you don't take His offer of salvation up for yourself to cover them?
And I would note that it appears that our understanding of what Paul is saying in Ephesians differs.
I am not assuming anything. James IS talking about salvation, that's the word he used. He's clearly addressing the abuse of Paul's teaching on salvation by faith alone, he's not disagreeing with it. There is a difference between saying works are the CAUSE of salvation and saying they are the RESULT of salvation. Paul only condemned the former, not the latter. Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them". That is not "works based salvation". The problem is too many people think salvation is simply uttering some prayer so they be sure they are going to heaven when they die. It's far more than that. Salvation is not just about removing the penalty of sin but also about removing the power of sin. Salvation changes a person's will and desires. Scripture is filled with references that point to works as the evidence (not the cause) of salvation.
"Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:7-9)
Note John uses the term "practices righteousness". That doesn't mean 100% perfect. It means the general practice of our life is to turn from sin and live holy lives. Yes Christians stumble and fall into sin from time to time and they don't lose their salvation. But if someone claims to have faith but their works don't match that at all then according to both James and John they are children of the Devil.
Read the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31-46). On the day of Judgment the sheep ask Jesus why they are being allowed into heaven. Notice how he answers. He doesn't say "well you accepted me" or "you prayed the sinner's prayer". He points to their works as evidence they had faith. That is not "works righteousness". Faith can not be divorced from works. If I say I have faith in some political leader, but all my actions contradict that...if I vote against him, campaign against him, then obviously my faith is just words and meaningless. It's no different with God. Genuine faith produces works.
Can you show to us how salvation plays into the quenching of the Spirit? Where is salvation loss stated in any of those contexts? Please elaborate if you wouldn't mind.
Ok, that seems to be an absolute statement.
So, His promises are circumvented by whom He wants to save? In other words, faith in His gospel isn't the means to salvation, but rather something he preconceived, akin to Calvinism? Sorry, just trying to grapple with what you're saying.
John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
So, this speaks in the present tense rather than future tense of something that will happen instantaneously in the moment, not something in the future...appart from the fact that present salvation is guaranteed against future condemnation.
This verse, among others, should serve as a modifier against extreme interpretation of other verses that state "shall be saved," as if that is speaking directly to those in HIs hearing in that moment rather than being a salvation projected for all into some future point of judgement.
I've quoted a case in point that doesn't align with this statement. Here's more:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
I fully agree with you in that it's not about works, but placing the point of salvation off into the future at some judgement, that leans in the direction of works-based salvation. Notice Paul's use of the fully present tense of ARE SAVED, not WILL BE saved at some future point.
This is confusing. You initially said it's not by works, then here above you throw in works of confession, baptism and endurance...that's all works-based salvation. I'm not sure where you stand amongst those contradictions with the no-works salvation stance you initially mentioned.
Please do clarify.
Thank you.
MM
Let's see what he said to the twelve tribes of Israel, which is to whom he was speaking:
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
So, you are seeing salvation as the foundational, most critical topic, even though he was speaking specifically about faith that has no outflow of good works, and he made no mention of salvation in that entire chapter. Do you see the problem here?
I'm just trying to see what you're saying here. That's all. If one had faith in the gospel and in Christ initially as Paul declared, and then falls away into a faith that has no lasting outflow of good works, that...what? Does that somehow nullify his salvation, thus it being lost?
Additionally, what are good works? How do you define those? If we inject salvation into that, then we end up with works-based salvation, which I don't see that James was at all even implying without one having to inject that into the text.
And yet Paul said not one word about continuing faith being the means by which one remains saved or was saved in the first place.
In other words, what you seem to be saying is wither:
1) One who falls away into faithlessness loses his salvation, or
2) falling away is retroactive, thus nullifying initial saving faith into no faith at all.
2 Timothy 2:13
If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
How can one lapse into not believing if he had not been a believer in the first place? Also, we see here that Paul reveals a very important point, in that our salvation is based upon His faithfulness rather than our own. If that weren't the case, none of us in these forums and beyond are saved because we ALL sin daily, and our faith waxes and wanes all the time to the degree of our obedience.
Yes I agree...completely. Paul spoke much about righteous deeds and conduct in the life of believers, but that was always in reference to reward, not salvation itself.
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.
What would cause any man's work to be burned up? If one is going to inject loss of salvation into that, then please define that line for loss. Can you do that for us? What's on the one side and what's on the other? If stepping over that line is the loss of salvation, which is the inevitable conclusion to your
So, "general practice," meaning that the Lord compromises to some extent on our righteousness. So, if you would, please define where that line rests as to true, saving faith at the start versus a faith that later fails to exemplify good works as proof of its existence.
Here the rub in all this:
Galatians 6:1-2
1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
If falling away into sin were the end of proof for salvation at any point, to what are they to be restored?
MM
Folks, there's a reason good works have no effect at all upon one's salvation, nor do they prove salvation. Instead, James preached that the liveliness of one's FAITH is evidenced in good works, not salvation itself.
One may ask, "How can a dead faith ever bring about salvation in the first place?"
How many people have you ever known who lost a loved one, cast aside their faith in Christ because of the pain and anguish they suffered in the loss of a spouse, a child, or someone very close? I've counseled a number of people in that situation, and for me to tell them that their renouncing of Christ does harm only to themselves, doing further damage to their spiritual and emotional well-being. Had I sat there and told them that they were never saved to begin with by them now finding themselves in unbelief...that would have made me the worst of the worst, a tool of Satan in telling them such.
MM
One may ask, "How can a dead faith ever bring about salvation in the first place?"
How many people have you ever known who lost a loved one, cast aside their faith in Christ because of the pain and anguish they suffered in the loss of a spouse, a child, or someone very close? I've counseled a number of people in that situation, and for me to tell them that their renouncing of Christ does harm only to themselves, doing further damage to their spiritual and emotional well-being. Had I sat there and told them that they were never saved to begin with by them now finding themselves in unbelief...that would have made me the worst of the worst, a tool of Satan in telling them such.
MM
The absolute lack in your qualifying at all your accusations by quoting the relevant post and statements I made and showing the error in relation to scripture, that alone shows the real crux in all this. The axe you're grinding is an old, worn out tool that avails nothing at all.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion, then I welcome such, but baseless accusations produce nothing meaningful. So, please become meaningful in what you say.
MM
From my notes:
The primary fallacy behind the belief that the gospel preached by the twelve was allegedly a precise copy of Paul's preaching, that's treating one God-ordained administration/era as if it were the same at every point in redemptive history, thus those people reading the instructions, promises, and “how someone relates to God” from one period directly onto another—without accounting for the distinct stewardship of grace Paul describes in his epistles as a glaring distinction ignored by so many.
In practical terms for fallacy identification, these usually shows up as:
MM
The primary fallacy behind the belief that the gospel preached by the twelve was allegedly a precise copy of Paul's preaching, that's treating one God-ordained administration/era as if it were the same at every point in redemptive history, thus those people reading the instructions, promises, and “how someone relates to God” from one period directly onto another—without accounting for the distinct stewardship of grace Paul describes in his epistles as a glaring distinction ignored by so many.
In practical terms for fallacy identification, these usually shows up as:
- Category error: mixing up the message and expectations given to the “twelve/Israel-focused” ministry context with the message entrusted to Paul (a grace-centric gospel for the Gentiles and for the church’s present calling).
- Overgeneralization: assuming that because a truth is true of God in general, the exact covenantal position and procedural requirements are identical in every dispensation.
- Flattening sequence: ignoring the “until/then” kind of movement you see in passages like Romans 11, and instead reading everything as if the same people, same promises, and same program are happening simultaneously.
MM
Another issue that gets ignored far too often is that while Peter established that the gentiles were acceptable to God (ignoring that in the DSS this issue was already settled, safely before the birth of Jesus, including the issue of circumcision although this was still debated until at least 64 CE) Paul had to get his version of the gospel approved. So, what was unique about Paul's gospel that it needed approval. In Acts, Paul sounds a lot like Peter and vice versa.
I'd be interested in quotes where Paul had to get approval from the twelve for His Gospel that he had received directly from Christ. Would you also explain the specific wording in your quotes where that approval was claimed, required, or anything else leading to such an understanding?
Thanks
MM
In Galatians 2:1-2, Paul claims to have gone to Jerusalem to present the gospel to those deemed leaders he was teaching among the gentiles as the result of a revelation because he "wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain". Now the issue of circumcision is a separate one from his gospel, and it was on this separate issue that he did not yield, but regarding the gospel he preached, the message was approved. Now if I would have sufficient space, 40 or so 8 1/2x11 pages, I could spell out both the specifics of what Paul was preaching in my opinion, and why I think that the gospel of John was written in support of Paul's gospel, although it was later rewritten by a lesser writer.
No mention of salvation?
"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?" (James 2:14)
The word "save" is talking about salvation. One is the root word of the other.
And no I am not saying salvation can be nullified or lost. James is talking about a person who never had genuine faith to begin with. That's not "losing" salvation it's saying it was never there at all. The problem is that you seem to embrace a faulty view of faith that defines it as simply believing some set of facts about God and the gospel itself. James' argument was that even the Devil believes in the truth of the facts of the gospel but obviously He is not saved. Then he points to Abraham's works as evidence that his faith was real. Good works are the natural outflow of a regenerated heart. Yes, these good works are still tainted by sin which is what Paul is talking about 1 Corinthians 3 and our works being burned. Yes, those who do more good works will receive more rewards but none of that negates the fact that works will flow from faith. In the parable of the sower Jesus explained that some will produce thirty fold, some sixty fold, etc. In other words, there are varying degrees of faithfulness that will be rewarded. But this idea that someone can have faith and continue to live in unrepentant sin with no desire or attempt to live a holy life is heresy. I presented Scripture to you from 1 John 3 that underscores that truth which you did not address.
When we look at his target audience stated in the very first verse, we see that his audience is us Jews under the Kingdom Gospel, not Gentiles under the Gospel of Grace.
You do, however, make a good point. Given that James was speaking to us of Israel, his background authority for understanding the definition for the good works of which he was speaking is defined within the Mosaic Law. The Gentiles had not that Law, and so could not be held to the same. Given that it is by the Law that we know what sin is, it follows that also by the Law we know what good works are by definition. I have an outline on this very topic I posted in another thread.
So, dare we consider this more deeply, are you saying, then, that one must turn out a good work at the point of faith for salvation before that one can be saved? If so, how does that work? How does that escape the charge of being a works-based salvational model?
MM
There is no such thing as a "kingdom gospel" that is different than the "gospel of grace". I know there are hyper-dispensationalists who teach this but it is utterly unbiblical. Yes, the Jews were under the old covenant law. But that was never the means of their salvation. The point of the law was to help them understand their need for salvation. Paul taught that Abraham was saved by faith just like Gentiles today. James did not preach a different gospel than that. He was addressing people that claimed to believe and have faith, yet he wanted to make it clear to them that even the Devil "believes" in God and his Son. He was trying to correct their understanding of what it really means to "believe". When the Bible talks about "believing" it is always referring to the "gospel of grace" not the Law. Paul and James believed and preached the same gospel, they were just viewing it from two different angles. Paul was addressing the heresy that our good works are what merit our salvation. James was addressing the heresy that "believing" the gospel is nothing more than intellectual assent and has no effect on human behavior.
As to your question to me whether "one must turn out a good work at the point of faith" to be saved, no I would NOT say one must turn out a good work at the very point in time when faith is exercised. The thief on the Cross responded in faith in the last hour of his life. He had no opportunity to do any good works. He had no opportunity to live a post conversion holy life. But he was saved because good works do not CAUSE salvation, only faith does. But if the thief had miraculously survived and lived longer, he certainly would have produced good works and sought to live a holy life. Because genuine faith involves a change in heart and will, not just a change in one's theological beliefs about salvation. We don't change, and then God grants us salvation as a reward for that. That's not how it works. He saves us first and then gives us a new heart that will manifest in good works:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do" (Eph 2:8-10)
"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh" (Ezek 36:26)
