Loss of salvation???

[Beckworth]

You have failed the test because you teach salvation by works.

ALL works-salvationists interpret the parable of the sower and the parable of the Prodigal Son the same way you do, including Roman Catholics and Mormons. There is a reason why works-salvationists cannot properly interpret scripture. 1 Corinthians 2:14 - But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The present tense of the word "justified" implies that these Galatians were contemplating justification by the law. They were getting side tracked by legalistic teachers. "You who are trying to be justified by the law have fallen away from grace," but had they fully come to that place yet? Galatians 3:3 reads: Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? The middle voice implies "making yourselves perfect" by means of self effort. The present tense indicates that the action is in progress and that there is still time to correct the error.

If these Galatians lost their salvation and it was a done deal, then why didn't Paul simply say you "lost your salvation" and I'm done with you? Instead, in verse 10, he said - I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is. Why would Paul have confidence in these Galatians if they lost their salvation and it's all over for them? In verse 12, Paul uses hyperbole, As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Those who "permanently" fall away fit 1 John 2:19. Paul did not say these Galatians lost their salvation and it's all over for them.

Did you mean Revelation 2:5? You seem to have trouble getting get your verses straight. Ephesians 2:5 actually says - even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), which is a good verse for you to take to heart. In regard to the church in Ephesus in Revelation 2, clearly the Lord wanted the church at Ephesus to repent, to change their minds regarding their works. "You have left your first love" (verse 4). "Repent and do the first works" (verse 5). Works of love no longer characterized the church as a whole in Ephesus.

In verses 2 and 6, we see that the church in Ephesus was not totally displeasing to the Lord, yet hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans and standing up for doctrinal purity still cannot be a substitute for the depth of love it once had for the Lord. So what did the Lord mean when He spoke of removing the church's lamp stand if the church in Ephesus did not repent? The removal of the lampstand is clearly figurative language. This does not mean that individuals in the church at Ephesus will lose their salvation, but that the church there can forfeit its place of light bearing and witness, which apparently it did. Ephesus (located in modern day Turkey) is now dominated by Islam.

When Jesus was arrested, the 11 remaining disciples were said to "fall away" in Matthew 26:31-35. Did they lose their salvation? Are the remaining 11 disciples including Peter in hell today? If not, why not according to your logic? In Proverbs 24:16, we read - For a righteous man may fall seven times and rise again, But the wicked shall fall by calamity. So, a righteous man may fall and rise again and the wicked fall. Does that answer your question?

More eisegesis on your part. In regard to Exodus 32:33, whoever sins covers everyone. Romans 3:23 - ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So, according to your logic here, everyone will get blotted out His book. How about a little CONTEXT. Exodus 32:31 - So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. 32 But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” So, it was not just any sin and not all of these Israelites were saved. Jude 1:5 - Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. I already covered crowns with you and there are multiple crowns mentioned in scripture. In regard to Lamentations 5:16, God’s blessing and authority, symbolized by a crown, had departed from the head of the nation of Israel. Nothing here about individuals losing salvation.

Revelation 3:5 - He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

1 John 5:4 - For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Eternal IN-securists read Revelation 3:5 as if God’s pen is poised and He is ready to strike out the name of any Christian who does not overcome in life according to their standards. They read into it like this: "If you don't overcome every struggle in life and maintain your salvation by works, then you’re going to lose your salvation! But that is not what the verse says. Jesus is giving a promise here, not a warning.

For a further study on the book of life these Q&A posts from these Christian sites may help you:

What is the Book of Life and the Book of the Living? | NeverThirsty
Is it possible for a person’s name to be erased from the Book of Life? | GotQuestions.org

If the explanations on these sites you are offering are as complicated and confusing and far fetched as the answers you are giving on this post—no thank you. I will just stick to what the Bible says. I don’t need to try to “explain it away”. Obviously, you do.

 

[Beckworth]

@Beckworth

what about now?

are you still saved...?

i hope so!
good luck!

Yes, thank you. I’m still being faithful to God.

 

[mailmandan]

You do not have the ability to read “hearts”.

I have the ability to interpret Acts 8:19-24 and in verse 21, Peter clearly said to Simon, "your heart is not right with God." Peter's rebuke was crystal clear. Why can't you see it?

In Mark 16:16, Jesus says that “HE WHO BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED.” I know you do not believe that- even though Jesus the Son of God said it—but I DO.

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then we would expect Jesus to mention it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the 1 requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. *John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. I believe Jesus. You believe your eisegesis.

That is exactly what Simon did. So, I know he was saved. I trust what Jesus said. YOU do not.

Oh, the irony and Acts 8:18-24 clearly refutes your argument about Simon. Once again, when Simon offers the apostles money to have their ability to impart the Holy Spirit (verses 18–19), he is rebuked by Peter. Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent therefore of this your wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. (verses 20-24) Yet you call that saved?

As we see in John 2:23-25, in which their belief was superficial in nature and Jesus would not entrust/commit Himself to them. The object of Simon's belief revolved around the miracles and signs which were done and laying on of hands which led him to his misguided belief that he could buy the gift of God with money. That falls short of saving belief in Christ.

John has portrayed people who "believe" (at least to some extent) but are clearly not saved. There is a stage in the progress of belief in Jesus that "falls short of firmly rooted and established belief resulting in salvation." In James 2:19, we see that the demons believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" but they do not believe in/on the Lord Jesus Christ and are not saved. (Acts 16:31)

Also, in John 8:31-59, where the Jews who were said to have "believed in him" turn out to be slaves to sin, indifferent to the words of Jesus’, children of the devil, liars, accused Jesus of having a demon and were guilty of setting out to stone and kill the one they have professed to believe in. We can see at best, these Jews believed in Him (based on their own misconceptions and expectations) of Jesus, yet upon gaining further knowledge about Jesus through His words, we see they did not believe unto salvation and become children of God (John 1:12; 3:18) but were instead children of the devil.

I trust in what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 (the whole verse) and also what He said in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26. I just don't trust in your eisegesis. I also trust what Peter said in Acts 8:20-24. You do not. You simply isolate pet verses that tell you what your itching ears want to hear, build doctrine on them and then ignore the rest. That's called "flawed hermeneutics."

As for Simon, the miracles and signs which it says he saw were there JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE—to convince people to obey God. Mark 16:20 says those “miracles” and “signs”. Were what God used to CONFIRM the preaching of the apostles.

I understand what miracles and signs are for. I also understand Peter's rebuke of Simon in Acts 8:20-24.

Hebrews 2:3-4. This is why most of the people in the first century obeyed the gospel.

Salvation is by grace through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9) Do not neglect it. We obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel. Romans 10:16 - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” So, we obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel by trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) Those who trust in works for salvation have not obeyed the gospel and do not believe the gospel.

In verse 6 (Acts 8) the MULTITUDES “ HEEDED THE THINGS SPOKEN BY PHILLIP, HEARING AND SEEING THE MIRACLES HE DID.” Did that make them UNSAVED people, too? If that were true, then none of the believers in Samaria were really saved! And yet, the Holy Spirit says there was great JOY in that city (verse 8) because of all the conversions to Christ that were made. In Verse 19 the HOLY SPIRIT writes that “ SAMARIA HAD RECEIVED THE WORD OF GOD.” But I guess YOU know better than the Holy Spirit.

In regard to the Samaritans, they received the Holy Spirit, so their conversion was not bogus like Simon's alleged conversion. Where does scripture say that Simon received the Holy Spirit? Instead, Simon received strong rebuke from Peter in Acts 8:20-24!

It’s SO TYPICAL of all John Calvinists followers to say that.

John Calvinist? LOL! I am not a Calvinist.

This is what they rely on anytime they cannot explain scripture that plainly shows their doctrine to be false.

I properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine.

They are following a MAN, and they cannot accept the PlAIN words of God in the Bible, so their only defense is to say “they were not saved in the first place.” To any who might be reading this post—look for it , every time.

Proper Biblical hermeneutics is not about following a man. Scripture makes it clear there are folks who were never saved in the first place but since that does not accommodate your preconceived beliefs, you simply dismiss it.

God’s word is simple and plain. He says just what He means.

Peter stated in 2 Peter 3:16 that in Paul's epistles, some things are hard to understand. Not everything is plain and simple or else Peter would have never said that and there would not be so many disagreements by genuine Christians and "nominal" Christians on certain passages of scripture. God says what He means but man does not always take the time to read what God says in context and properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching a conclusion on doctrine.

2 Peter 3:16 Peter said that “untaught and unstable people “wrest” the scriptures to their own destruction.”

Why do you think we have so many false religions and cults? What is the main false doctrine that they all teach?

I have not “wrested” Mark 16:16-simply quoted EXACTLY what Jesus said. I believe EXACTLY. What Jesus said.

You believe your eisegesis. You simply isolated the first half of Mark 16:16, built doctrine on it, then ignored the second half of the verse, along with ignoring John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25-26. That's called flawed hermeneutics.

I did not misquote what Acts 8 said. I believe exactly what the Holy Spirit wrote.

You obviously don't believe Peter in Acts 8:20-24. You simply isolated verse 13 and ran with it before considering the context. More flawed hermeneutics.

But you have tried to put a “Twist” on it to make it mean something OTHER than what the Holy Spirit said.

Your twist disregards what Peter clearly stated in Acts 8:20-24. All you read is verse 13 and ignore the rest.

I am not writing this for you, but for the ones who might read this post. Let them decide what the scriptures say.

Sure, let them decide. So, where do you attend church?

 

[mailmandan]

If the explanations on these sites you are offering are as complicated and confusing and far fetched as the answers you are giving on this post—no thank you. I will just stick to what the Bible says. I don’t need to try to “explain it away”. Obviously, you do.

What a cop out. You are obviously very satisfied with what you already believe and don't want to be confused with the facts. You can just stick with your eisegesis and refuse to be sharpened if you choose.

Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, So one person sharpens another.

 

[timemeddler]

Have you considered Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8? He had just “believed” and was “baptized” (verse 18) and then sinned (verse 19-20). He was told to “repent” and “pray”.
The parable of the prodigal son is about a child of God falling away, repenting, and returning to his Father.

yeah that was a typo on my part.

 

[NilsForChrist]

the doctrine of eternal security is right here in Genesis 3

Absolutely is. The doctrine of unconditional eternal security however is not. See Romans 2.

 

[posthuman]

Absolutely is. The doctrine of unconditional eternal security however is not. See Romans 2.

Romans 2 is not about people who are saved through the gospel; it concerns those whose hope is in their works and in the Law: see Romans 3:21 and onward, "but now.."