Urchles,

Methinks you not only don't understand the issue theologically, but you've also misrepresented my position in what you've written.

Urch: Correct, I don't understand the issue theologically but I certainly did not intend to misrepresent your position and aplogise if I have done so.

As the topic title suggests, there is some confusion (and NOT only in my mind it seems) over whether we are 'once saved, always saved' or whether we can 'lose our salvation'.

Two points: first it isn't a case of 'once saved, always saved'. The issue, rather, is 'if saved, then saved'. The second point follows on from the first. If saved, then how could one possibly become 'un-saved'? Can you or I undo the work of the cross? Personally, I don't think so.

Urch: OK " íf saved, then saved" it is then! Could one not become 'unsaved' by (at some later stage since becoming saved)  denying what Christ did on the cross? THIS is the whole crux of the matter for me - surely their salvation is forfeited at this point?

The discussion began in the Chatbox with Ian asking me the question - and then offering the answer that 'once saved always saved'.

Actually, 'no' I didn't. "Once saved, always saved" is a parody of my position. My position is that which appears, above.

Urch: Again, I apologise that I thought that's what you were saying.

I'm still struggling with the concept that (eg) even though a believer (one who accepts Jesus Christ as their saviour) walks with Christ for a time and then 'backslides' eventually denying Jesus as their saviour, can still be saved.  I just don't see how this can be!

And I doubt that I could've been much plainer in what I stated at the 'Chatbox'. Backsliding is a T-E-M-P-O-R-A-R-Y occurrence in the life and walk of the (saved) believer. If a person denies Christ, then a person clearly isn't a Christian; consequently, such a one isn't saved. And I'd suggest that you can't 'see' how all this 'works' (boom, boom) because you fellowship in a denomination that, ultimately, teaches salvation through human striving, and not salvation by God's grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fides), in Christ alone (solus Christus), as revealed by Scripture alone (sola scriptura), to the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria). These represent the five so-called 'solas' of the Reformation. Consequently, they underpin what it is to be a Protestant Christian. Are you a Protestant Christian, Urch. Or are you something else?

Urch: Well it seems that I'm a Protestant Christian then! I do NOT believe that we are saved by works, by human striving or by anything WE can do apart from what Jesus has already done. I am not trying to be argumentative either, I'm just trying to understand the issue more clearly. You state that Edge Church believe that 'salvation is through human striving' but that is not what's preached nor what I've learnt in several of the Bible study courses I've attended -  but I will clarify further by sitting down with one of the pastors.

Last night I read Matthew 7:21-23 where "not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven". It appears that even those who ARE believers, still may not be 'saved' if they are not doing the Father's will.

That particular passage has nothing to do with saved believers. It has to do with those who believe themselves righteous by virtue of 'signs' and 'miracles'. Does any of this sound familiar?

Urch: Those who 'think' they're saved by virtue of what THEY DO may not 'be saved' at all - even though they call Him Lord?
Is that correct?

Other people have made comments in the chatbox also and it seems that I'm not the ONLY one confused - so some further clarification would be beneficial as well as input from others.

Well, you're all former Revivalists, are you not, with Pentecostal leanings? Consequently you've all been raised on a heterodox diet of semi-Pelagianism: you might outwardly confess salvation by grace, but if you don't do certain behaviours, then you think you can forfeit what you once had. In short, 'bah! Humbug!'.

Urch: Yes, all former revivalists including YOU bloke! I can't answer for others re 'pentecostal leanings' and I don't know nothin' bout " heterodox diets of semi-Pelagianism"  (but sounds like a good diet to 'lose weight')

I don't believe that a 'believing Christian' can forfeit what they once had - UNLESS they consciously CHOOSE to turn away from God - and that's the point I'm trying to clarify, people sometimes DO just that.  Can a person turn away from God and STILL expect to be saved - I don't believe so!

Assembly of God - Assembly of God Christians believe salvation can be lost. "The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost." AG.org

Baptist - Baptists do not believe salvation can be lost. "All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end." SBC

Lutheran - Lutherans believe salvation can be lost when a believer does not persist in the faith. "... it is possible for a true believer to fall from faith, as Scripture itself soberly and repeatedly warns us ... A person may be restored to faith in the same way he or she came to faith ... by repenting of his or her sin and unbelief and trusting completely in the life, death and resurrection of Christ alone for forgiveness and salvation." LCMS

Methodist - Methodists do believe salvation can be lost. "God accepts my choice ... and continues to reach out to me with the grace of repentance to bring me back to the way of salvation and sanctification." UMC

Presbyterian - With reformed theology at the core of Presbyterian beliefs, the church teaches that a person who truly has been regenerated by God, will remain in God's stead. PCUSA, Reformed.org

Roman Catholic - Catholics do believe salvation can be lost. "The first effect of mortal sin in man is to avert him from his true last end, and deprive his soul of sanctifying grace." CE Final perseverance is a gift from God, but man must cooperate with the gift. CE

Anglican/Episcopalian - "Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ's Body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble." Book of Common Prayers (BCP) 1979, p. 298.

Gosh, I thought it was only 'pentes' that were wrong - it seems that many other denominations are wrong also! 


Anglicans: if baptised by water and the Holy Spirit then the bond which God establishes is indissoluble
Presbyterians: a person who truly has been regenerated by God, will remain in God's stead.
Baptists: All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end."

Catholics: man must cooperate with the gift of final perserverance
Methodists: God accepts our choice but continues to offer the grace of repentance to bring us back to salvation.
Lutherans: possible for a true believer to fall from faith, as Scripture warns us ..but may be restored to faith 
AOG: disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost.

Three denominations state that salvation cannot be lost, the Anglicans, Baptists and Presbyterians - two of them (B & P) speak of believers that REMAIN in the faith but doesn't mention those that may turn away as it is presumed that all will remain true believers and endure to the end.

More research to do... Urch

I'm praying for more understanding

God be in my head,
and in my understanding.
God be in mine eyes,
and in my looking.
God be in my mouth,
and in my speaking.
God be in my heart,
and in my thinking.
God be at my end,
and at my departing.

Urch

Arminianism is a school of soteriological thought within Protestant Christianity based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609)^[1] and his historic followers, the Remonstrants. The doctrines' acceptance stretches through much of mainstream, evangelical Protestantism.

Arminianism holds to the following tenets:

• Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation (see also prevenient grace).
• Salvation is possible only by God's grace, which cannot be merited.
• No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation.
• God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
• Christ's atonement was made on behalf of all people.
• God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
• Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith.

Arminianism is most accurately used to define those who affirm the original beliefs of Jacobus Arminius himself, but the term can also be understood as an umbrella for a larger grouping of ideas including those of Hugo Grotius, John and Charles Wesley, and others. There are two primary perspectives on how the system is applied in detail: Classical Arminianism, which sees Arminius as its figurehead, and Wesleyan Arminianism, which sees John Wesley as its figurehead. Wesleyan Arminianism is sometimes synonymous with Methodism. In addition, Arminianism is understood by some of its critics to also include Semipelagianism or even Pelagianism, though proponents of both primary perspectives vehemently deny these claims.

Within the broad scope of Church history, Arminianism is closely related to Calvinism (or Reformed theology), and the two systems share both history and many doctrines in common. Nonetheless, they are often viewed as rivals within Evangelicalism because of their disagreement over details of the doctrines of divine predestination and salvation

Time to study history for me it seems,

Urch

The issue is that a regenerate person can't lose his/her salvation, irrespective of personal striving or the lack thereof. ("If we are believing and walking by faith in Jesus, how can we lose our salvation?")

 I was going to edit (howbeit the ‘action’ box doesn’t function again) and write it as “We can’t lose our salvation when it is not ours to lose; it is of God, a gift to us”.

   ______________________________________________________________________________

Yes Brolgs, I understand that we cannot lose our salvation IF as you said 'we ARE believing and walking by faith in Jesus'.  The point I struggle with is that EVEN IF we turn away from God we are still saved -do you see the difference?

Guess it's just too big for this little urchin brain to understand! Just have to keep asking the Lord to help me to understand.

Urch 

Thanks Paul for taking the time to respond.

You said that "those that are saved cannot fully turn away - as the grace of God is irresistable".

OK, so everyone who comes to the Lord 'remains' in the Lord even if they turn away?

Also you said "You just seem to be stuck on the ones that turn away.  They are either saved or never have been, regardless of works or lack thereof".

I'm 'stuck' on this because if one believes that 'once saved always saved' then this means that EVEN IF a person turns away from God they're still saved. However, I see scriptures that indicate that this is not the case though. And I also see lots of exhortation to remain in the faith and to continue to the end etc
Verse 38 indicates that some WILL turn away?

Anyway, thanks for trying to help Paul

God bless, Urch

Now - you have created this person above.  Let's call him Billy. Now let's say that unsaved Billy represents being a Goat, and a saved Billy represents being a Sheep.  Billy needs to be either a goat or a sheep, ok? Because you seem to have created Billy half sheep and half goat; ie, was saved but became unsaved.   We all know that there is no such an animal as a half sheep and half goat.  So although there are many people out there that claim to be christians, they are either sheep or goats.  Saved or unsaved.
So Billy either attended church for a while but never came to saving faith ( probably because he was a pente) and therefore as he had no root in faith to endure any further RCI nonsense, left,  or Billy IS saved and has left the pente's to worship at a proper church. Does that help?
          ____________________________________________________________________________________

Hello Paul, does the above explanation help - sorry but no it doesn't!

Billy is just Billy, neither goat nor sheep to start with. Let me see if I understand this correctly then;

1) Billy comes to a saving faith in a 'proper' church - cos apparently that's the only way that poor old Billy can get saved,  doesn't matter how much he loves Jesus and lives for Him, unless he's in a 'proper' (which I take it means Anglican/Catholic/Baptist/Presb etc) church he's NOT SAVED?  Hope you can back that up with scripture for me?)

2) Billy is in the 'proper' church so all is going well, he is saved and walking with God for 10 years.

3) 'Silly' Billy gives in to temptation to have a love affair with the pastor's wife and they move in together (just a random example).

4) But it's all OK cos Billy is saved and he cannot 'forfeit' or lose his salvation? He decides that he wants to continue living with her and of course justifies it all in his own mind (as people do) so they go to another 'proper' church to fellowship. But it's all OK cos he cannot lose his salvation so he remains saved. And after all, he's not a pente, he's in another 'proper' church so it's all OK.

5) The only explanation is that Silly Billy was NEVER saved?

Therefore how does anyone KNOW 100% that they ARE saved when they may make bad decisions at some stage in the future and turn away from God?   hmmm....

Urch

Paul, to clarify further, is an 'unrepentant' Billy still saved or only if he repents? Is he saved regardless of any of his actions or sins? Does he still have salvation but have less 'rewards'? 
Urch

Didaktikon: Ralph. By the way, you were rather mistaken with what you had to share in the "OSAS" thread. Ian

Ian,

I had intentions to finish up and not go further, but I feel this is one of most serious issues that needs be clarified.

I for one am not convinced that one cannot, according to you, forfeit their salvation even though having once been saved.

It is plain to see that “if you are saved, you are saved” but I haven’t seen in scripture, (not for the lack of much searching and let us stick to scripture, not what the church, scholars or man’s philosophy, may or may not have “conceived” outside of that, over the years) anything to suggest one can now do what one wishes contrary to God’s commandments, i.e. stop believing and deny Christ, regardless of the frailty of the flesh or otherwise and NOT lose salvation.

I am aware that God will not relent on the thing he has accomplished for us, but if we believe we are saved now no matter what, why bother to continue in the Gospel and fellowship etc., when we could go out and serve the world instead.

Also I am aware that many of the scriptures on the subject are contextually different message but the implication of losing salvation is apparent even eschatological matters of salvation.

Ian, I am not trying to prove you are wrong, but where are the scriptures and explanations to confirm what you are saying is correct? Do I need to have more of an understanding of what salvation is about, do I not comprehend or something like so?  Unless you explain in scripture something to the contrary, I am not convinced you are correct.

Ralph.

Ian,

Thanks for responding, I thought you had given me up as a lost cause. (Lol)

As I said, I feel this is too serious an issue to brush under the mat and not need to have proper understanding.
My work load at the school has diminished now holidays ended and can devote more time in the RTh library and study this particular subject.
Some recommended book/s on the matter would be appreciated, even an author would help. Again thanks.

Ralph

Ian,

Thanks for responding, I thought you had given me up as a lost cause.
Not at all. It's simply the case that I find no joy in having to repeat myself time after time. I suppose it's my aversion to 'spoon-feeding' people again.

I know what you mean.

As I said, I feel this is too serious an issue to brush under the mat and not need to have proper understanding.
And who has been attempting to 'brush' this issue 'under the mat', so to speak?.......

My comment here was solely directed at myself to drop the subject, but why should I? It only gives meat to the adversary!

My work load at the school has diminished now holidays ended and can devote more time in the RTh library and study this particular subject.
Sure. You do understand, don't you, that the position that I've presented here is the Reformed understanding on the subject?

Absolutely

Some recommended book/s on the matter would be appreciated, even an author would help. Again thanks.
I'd begin by suggesting that you first approach the librarian at RTC, and ask for a list of recommended works on the 'Ordo Salutis' generally, and on the subject of 'assurance' more specifically.

WILCO and thank you

Do you accept what you've claimed or don't you?

It is not settled in my mind as yet, is why I am contending on this issue only, in next few weeks or until it “clicks”.

Sincerely

Ralph H.