Why I Don't Bother With The Losing Salvation Debate

[Cow Poke]

Don't forget Ravi Zacharias.

I have serious doubts on where he is spending eternity.

Kinda like the wheat and the tares -- maybe he was just really really good at looking like wheat. "but at the end of the age...."

[KingsGambit]

I'm closer to Classical Arminian than anything else. But that carries the unhappy conclusion that a decision to apostatize is irrevocable.

I'm assuming this is based on Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 12:16-17. I don't think it's so cut and dry because of a few other passages, like James 5:19-20, 1 Timothy 1:20, and the parable of the lost sheep, which suggest that return is possible. I have another interpretation of the Hebrews passages that I think makes better sense of all Scripture, but that would require its own thread.

[Cow Poke]

I think, sometimes in our desire and/or need to understand things, we define them too narrowly, not allowing for the fact that God is sovereign and can do what He wants when He wants.

Since the Holy Spirit, in my opinion, is crucial to the drawing of men, it goes back to "share Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit and leave the results to God."

I think discussions like this are fine - and I enjoy them - but sometimes we just try to stuff things in boxes in which they don't belong.

[KingsGambit]

I think, sometimes in our desire and/or need to understand things, we define them too narrowly, not allowing for the fact that God is sovereign and can do what He wants when He wants.

Since the Holy Spirit, in my opinion, is crucial to the drawing of men, it goes back to "share Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit and leave the results to God."

I think discussions like this are fine - and I enjoy them - but sometimes we just try to stuff things in boxes in which they don't belong.

And that's what the popular idea of "eternal security" is an example of. And I think it's leading people right to hell. That's why I push back against it so strongly.

[mossrose]

And that's what the popular idea of "eternal security" is an example of. And I think it's leading people right to hell. That's why I push back against it so strongly.

It's only leading people to hell if they think it gives them license to sin, which shows a very incorrect understanding of it.

[Cow Poke]

And that's what the popular idea of "eternal security" is an example of. And I think it's leading people right to hell. That's why I push back against it so strongly.

It's only leading people to hell if they think it gives them license to sin, which shows a very incorrect understanding of it.

That's why, pretty much ANY time I refer to eternal security, I try to go into the caveats --- that some people see it as a license to sin, and when we see somebody who was saved fall way from the Lord, we have a hard time seeing that they "lost their salvation", and just declare "they weren't saved in the first place".

I believe in eternal security, yes, but I acknowledge it introduces a lot of problems if not taught properly.

[3 Resurrections]

This whole issue is more about CHRIST'S ability to preserve us, rather than OUR OWN ability to persevere in a state of continual righteousness ourselves. It's HIS reputation that is at stake - not ours. "I am the Lord; I CHANGE NOT; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed", God once testified about His own faithfulness to keep His promises.

When a believer becomes a child of God, they are adopted into the family of God. God doesn't ever send his adopted children back to the orphanage, as a foster program might do for an incorrigible child. We are ADOPTED children - not FOSTER children. God disciplines His adopted child in time when necessary - sometimes even with death, as in the case of the many who were "sleeping" because of their sin in I Cor 11:30-31. However, that final "chastening" for the Corinthian believers was not to be confused with their being "condemned with the world".

When a believer becomes a child of God, John 4:14 says that the Holy Spirit is implanted as a SPRING of living water within them (a "pege" in that verse being by definition an inexhaustible source of living water - not a "phrear", which is only a well dug by man's hands, and which might dry up at any time). Can we litter that inexhaustible, implanted spring of living water with sinful clutter that fouls the water and makes it unpalatable to drink from? Of course. But the Everlasting Source supplying that living water never disappears or dries up. That Holy Spirit can be, and often is, "offended" or "grieved". But the promise of Christ to the disciples was that the "Holy Spirit shall remain with you forever" (John 14:16-17) - whether grieved or pleased is our responsibility.

Why would there even need to be a high priesthood role for Christ to be constantly fulfilling if His advocacy for God's sinning CHILDREN was not a necessity? This was spoken to believers: "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the FATHER, Jesus Christ the righteous". God remains our Father, even though sin breaks our communion, and we need restoration of FELLOWSHIP (not another adoption) to continue fellowship within that indissoluble bond.

Not to provide encouragement for Christians to continue committing sinful actions, but do we have scripture examples of blatant sinners that remained children of God in spite of that? Yes, we do. We even have examples of those who committed those sins and DIED in that condition that were still considered saints. Try Gideon mentioned in Hebrew's hall of faith, who ended up sinfully making an ephod of gold in Ophrah that Israel went whoring after (Judges 8:27). Try Saul, who committed suicide after His last battle on Mount Gilboa after all the years of trying to kill King David, but that the prophet Samuel said was going to be WITH HIM on the day of Saul's death. Try even Judas who betrayed Christ and committed suicide after his repenting of that sin, but that was actually given a promise by Christ to sit on one of the 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the regeneration. Try Lot, who was called a "Just man", even though the last we see of him he was living in a cave and fathering children by his daughters.

Are these scripture examples given just so that believers can be encouraged to presumptuously continue to sin? Of course not. II Timothy 2:19 said it best.; "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth SURE, having THIS SEAL, 'The Lord knoweth them that are his.' And let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." That "SEAL" of the Lord is inviolate and sure. God has His stamped seal of identity on His children that is never removed. The injunction is for us to then live out that entrusted identity by departing from iniquity. How we build upon that sure, established foundation is our responsibility, whether gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or stubble (I Cor. 3:12-15). Our building materials stacked on top of Christ the foundation stone determine our REWARDS in the next life - not our IDENTITY.

[NorrinRadd]

"the unpardonable sin"?

If you want to call it that. I get a bit uncomfortable with that terminology, because of its apparent origins. It seems to come from accounts in the Synoptics, and in the first two at least -- Matt. 12 and Mark 3 -- the context could easily support using to declare ultimate damnation on, e.g., anyone who carelessly condemns works of the Holy Spirit that don't meet their preconceived standards. As critical as I am of various Heresy Hunters, I don't want to think they're damned, but honestly, I have to somewhat force myself to see those verses differently.

I'm talking about the passages in Hebrews, and the "sin that leads to death" in 1 John 5.

[NorrinRadd]

I have this thing about musicians - or "Christian artists"..... I'm rather skeptical, because it seems like so many times, they need a place to "perform", and many performers get (or did in the old days) their "start" in Church. The "gospel community" is so open to talent like that, and I've seen SO MANY "Christian artists" who "get their start" in church or gospel or religious settings, then they get some fame and notoriety, and the next thing you know they "cross over" into the worldly music.

I have to wonder if some of them "went out from among us because they were never with us".

I remember the kerfuffle when the Blessed Virgin Amy crossed over decades ago.

And Stryper.

There was always hope and excitement that they'd have big evangelistic outreach that way. I haven't heard about it. Maybe the MSM is concealing it with fake news.

We have two churches in our area that have very 'professional' 'praise bands' - one of them is the Cowboy Church, and the same "praise team" you see there on Sunday mornings, you can find at the local watering hole on Saturday night - and they don't seem to see any problem with that.

I know local Christian artists that, pre-pandemic at least, played in churches and at festivals, and also at bars. In their case, I think they really did consider it an outreach opportunity.

[Cow Poke]

If you want to call it that. I get a bit uncomfortable with that terminology, because of its apparent origins. It seems to come from accounts in the Synoptics, and in the first two at least -- Matt. 12 and Mark 3 -- the context could easily support using to declare ultimate damnation on, e.g., anyone who carelessly condemns works of the Holy Spirit that don't meet their preconceived standards. As critical as I am of various Heresy Hunters, I don't want to think they're damned, but honestly, I have to somewhat force myself to see those verses differently.

I'm talking about the passages in Hebrews, and the "sin that leads to death" in 1 John 5.

I'm a bit odd - I don't think that Jesus was saying that they had committed the unpardonable sin, but they were "this close" (finger and thumb a micron apart) for having seen His miracles, and attributing them to Satan.

[Cow Poke]

I remember the kerfuffle when the Blessed Virgin Amy crossed over decades ago.

And Stryper.

There was always hope and excitement that they'd have big evangelistic outreach that way. I haven't heard about it. Maybe the MSM is concealing it with fake news.

I know local Christian artists that, pre-pandemic at least, played in churches and at festivals, and also at bars. In their case, I think they really did consider it an outreach opportunity.

Yeah, I'd FAR rather have an "ok" music leader who led a godly life than a "professional" one who was... um... questionable.

[KingsGambit]

It's only leading people to hell if they think it gives them license to sin, which shows a very incorrect understanding of it.

To be clear, that's why I meant "the popular idea of". The average person on the street who maybe grew up in the church doesn't truly understand Christianity. So I agree with everyone else who said this goes back to proper teaching of just what the gospel is.

[37818]

Thank you Nick.

Personally, it was the notion that I could know for sure about salvation that got me to hear the gospel and trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. [1962]

My take on this matter. One cannot know for sure, if God who saves does not keep those whom He saves.

It is my understanding to have eternal life is to know God, John 17:3.

Now if one knows a person, how can one come to the notion that person does not exist? [Ex-Christians becoming Atheists.]

One of the first things, I think, new Christians need to be taught, is to first learn how to add virtue to one's faith. 2 Peter 1:3-10.

So with that last sentence, I think, Nick's advise here is probably best.

[Rushing Jaws]

but then that would nullify all of the verses that say things like:


1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life.”

It talks about HAVING eternal life NOW, in the present. But if you can lose it in the future, then those people don't even have it now. You can't have eternal life and then NOT have eternal life. Eternal life is eternal. If you can have it now but ultimately not have it when you die, then you really never had it. You just thought you did. Which would be fine, except for the fact that God KNOWS the future so he knows that many who truly believe in him and ask for eternal life are just fooling themselves and it makes his word a lie, saying that if they believe in him they HAVE eternal life, when they really don't.

I am beginning to think that different NT writers disagreed on certain doctrines. I have no difficulty believing that some may have held to doctrines of salvation that are, intellectually at least, irreconcilable. St Paul thought he was right on certain matters - the "Judaisers" disagreed with him. And why not ? Vigorous, often fierce, principled disagreements have been part of Church life for centuries - why should the Apostolic churches have been any different ? Why should the NT not record some of these disagreements, without reconciling them ?

I have enormous difficulty believing that people can be justified more than once - I see no evidence in the NT of any doctrine of repeatable justification - so I believe that justification is permanent and (probably) unrepeatable, and therefore, not capable of being lost, no matter what. I would like to know what those who believe that salvation can be lost make of passages like St John 10.27-29:


22At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me,^a is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

[NorrinRadd]

I am beginning to think that different NT writers disagreed on certain doctrines. I have no difficulty believing that some may have held to doctrines of salvation that are, intellectually at least, irreconcilable. St Paul thought he was right on certain matters - the "Judaisers" disagreed with him. And why not ? Vigorous, often fierce, principled disagreements have been part of Church life for centuries - why should the Apostolic churches have been any different ? Why should the NT not record some of these disagreements, without reconciling them ?

I have enormous difficulty believing that people can be justified more than once - I see no evidence in the NT of any doctrine of repeatable justification - so I believe that justification is permanent and (probably) unrepeatable, and therefore, not capable of being lost, no matter what. I would like to know what those who believe that salvation can be lost make of passages like St John 10.27-29:


22At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me,^a is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

We see nothing in that to prevent one from voluntarily "jumping" out of His hand.

And I agree with you otherwise: If a believer does make that choice, it is irrevocable.