5 of the more obvious passages about losing salvation

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
75
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
HOW CAN FALLEN MAN WHO IS SPIRITUALLY DEAD HAVE THE ABILITY/POWER TO ACCEPT OR NOT ACCEPT JESUS, OR HAVE A PART TO SAVE HIMSELF?

HE NEGATES THREE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES Of SCRIPTURES:

1. THAT GOD MUST DRAW AN INDIVIDUAL TO COME TO JESUS. JOHN 6:44.
2. JESUS SAID, “ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES ME WILL COME TO ME AND I WILL HAVE
LOST NONE OF THEM BUT RAISE IT UP ON THE LAST DAY. JOHN 6:39
3. THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS NO NOT ONE, THERE IS NONE THAT SEEK AFTER GOD
NO NOT ONE. ROMANS 3:10-12

Question: "Monergism vs. synergism—which view is correct?"

Answer:
This topic has been hotly debated within the church for centuries. It is not exaggerating to say that this debate concerns the very heart of the gospel itself. First, let us define the two terms. When we talk about monergism vs. synergism, theologically speaking, we’re talking about who brings about our salvation. Monergism, which comes from a compound Greek word that means “to work alone,” is the view that God alone effects our salvation. This view is held primarily by Calvinistic and Reformed traditions and is closely tied to what is known as the “doctrines of grace.” Synergism, which also comes from a compound Greek word meaning “to work together,” is the view that God works together with us in effecting salvation. While monergism is closely associated with John Calvin, synergism is associated with Jacob Arminius, and his views have greatly shaped the modern evangelical landscape. Calvin and Arminius aren’t the creators of these views, but are the best-known proponents of Calvinism and Arminianism.

These two views were heavily debated in the early 17th century when followers of Arminius published The Five Articles of the Remonstrance (FAR), a document stating where their theology differed from that of Calvin and his followers. The pivotal point in this debate is between the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election vs. the Arminian doctrine of conditional election. If one believes election is unconditional, then one will tend toward a monergistic view of salvation. Conversely, if one holds to a view that election is based on God’s foreknowledge of who would believe in Him, then one tends toward the synergistic view.

The view of unconditional election is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace”(WCF III.5, emphasis added). As we can see, unconditional election teaches that God’s choice of the elect is based on the good pleasure of His will and nothing more. Furthermore, His choice in election is not based on His foreseeing a person’s faith or any good works or that person's persevering in either faith or good works.

Two classic biblical passages support this doctrine. The first is Ephesians 1:4-5, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” According to this passage, we were chosen by God to be in Christ—holy and blameless—before the world was created, and this choice was based on the “purpose of God’s will.” The other passage is Romans 9:16, “It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.” God’s choice is not dependent on anything we do or believe in, but is made solely at the discretion of God’s mercy.

The essence of Calvinism, and the monergistic argument, is that God is in the business of actually saving people and not merely making them savable. Because all people are born in sin and because of their fallen nature (total depravity), they will always reject God; therefore, God must act in saving the elect without any pre-condition on their part such as faith. In order to bestow the blessings of salvation and eternal life to the elect, God must first atone for their sins (limited atonement). This grace and salvation must then be applied to the elect, and thus the Holy Spirit applies the effects of salvation to the elect by regenerating their spirits and drawing them into salvation (irresistible grace). Finally, those whom God has saved He will preserve to the end (perseverance of the saints). From beginning to end, salvation (in all its aspects) is a work of God and God alone—monergism! The point is that actual people are being saved—the elect. Consider Romans 8:28-30. In that passage we see that there is a group of people whom God “calls according to his purpose.” These people are identified as “those who love God.” These people are also those who in vv. 29-30 are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. God is the one who is moving this group of people (those who love God, the elect) from foreknowledge to glorification, and none are lost along the way.

In support of the synergistic argument, let’s turn our attention to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance: “That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,’ and according to other passages of Scripture also” (FAR, Article I, emphasis added). Here we see that salvation is conditional upon the faith and perseverance of the individual. What conditional election does is place the determining factor of our salvation squarely upon us, on our ability to choose Jesus and remain in Him. Now Arminians will claim that our ability to choose Jesus is the result of a universal grace that God first gives to all people that offsets the effects of the fall and allows man to choose to accept or reject Christ. In other words, God must do something to even make the choice of salvation possible, but in the end it is our choice which saves us. The Scripture reference that Article I supplies certainly affirms that those who believe have eternal life and that those who reject do not have eternal life, so it would seem there is some scriptural support for this doctrine. Thus, the synergistic argument claims that God makes salvation possible, but it is our choice that makes salvation actual.

So, while monergism claims that God is both a necessary and sufficient condition for our salvation, synergism will agree that God is a necessary condition, but will deny His sufficiency. Our free will plus God’s activity is what makes it sufficient. Logically speaking, we should be able to see the flaw in the synergistic argument—that God doesn’t actually save anyone. This places the responsibility for salvation on us, for it is we who have to make salvation real by placing our faith in Christ. If God doesn’t actually save anyone, then it is possible that no one will be saved. If God doesn’t actually save anyone, how do we explain such strong passages as Romans 8:28-30? All of the Greek verbs in that passage are aorist/indicative, meaning that the action described therein is complete; there is no potentiality implied in that passage. From God’s perspective, salvation has been effected. Further, Article IV of the Remonstrance says the grace of God is resistible, and Article V asserts that those who have chosen the grace of God can also fall from that grace and “return to this present evil world” becoming “devoid of grace.” This view contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture in regard to the eternal security of the believer.

If that is the case, how then do we respond to the biblical support for conditional election (cf. John 3:36)? There is no denying that faith is necessary to make salvation a "done deal" in our lives, but where does faith fall in the order of salvation (Ordo Salutis)? Again, if we consider Romans 8:29-30, we see a logical progression of salvation. Justification, which is typically in view when considering salvation by faith, is fourth on that list preceded by foreknowledge, predestination, and calling. Now calling can be broken down into the following: regeneration, evangelism, faith and repentance. In other words, the "call" (referred to as “effectual calling” by Reformed theologians) first must involve being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3). Next comes the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10:14-17), followed by faith and repentance. However, before any of that can take place, it must be logically preceded by foreknowledge and predestination.

This brings us to the question of foreknowledge. Arminians will claim that foreknowledge refers to God foreknowing the faith of the elect. If that is the case, then God’s electing us is no longer based on the “good purpose of his will,” but rather on our being able to choose Him, despite our fallen condition which, according to Romans 8:7 is hostile to God and incapable of doing so. The Arminian view of foreknowledge also contradicts the clear teaching of the passages mentioned above in support of unconditional election (Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 9:16). This view essentially robs God of His sovereignty and places the responsibility for salvation squarely on the shoulders of creatures who are wholly incapable of saving themselves.

In conclusion, the weight of the logical evidence and the weight of the biblical evidence supports the monergistic view of salvation—God is the author and perfector of our salvation (Hebrews 12:2). He who began a good work in us will perfect it on the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6). Monergism not only has a profound impact on how one views salvation, but on evangelism as well. If salvation is solely based on God’s saving grace, then there is no room for us to boast, and all the glory goes to Him (Ephesians 2:8-9). In addition, if God actually saves people, then our evangelistic efforts must bear fruit because God has promised to save the elect. Monergism equals greater glory to God!

Excerp taken from internet


To God Be The Glory
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jun2u, copying and pasting someone else's thoughts, means absolutely nothing to me or others who don't support your opinion, which apparently you cannot do yourself. This thread has already established that SE is not supported and that man does have the ability to know good from evil. Your inculcation into the RT perspective is just that, and doesn't mean it is fact, just brain washing.
 

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
75
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
Jun2u, copying and pasting someone else's thoughts, means absolutely nothing to me or others who don't support your opinion, which apparently you cannot do yourself. This thread has already established that SE is not supported and that man does have the ability to know good from evil. Your inculcation into the RT perspective is just that, and doesn't mean it is fact, just brain washing.

You are correct. I don't normally subscribe to other peoples' work UNLESS THEIR WORK IS FAITHFUL TO THE BIBLE!

We should be like the Bereans who searched out scriptures, or those whom God sent out to teach and edify the church (Eph 4:11-12), or those who search scriptures for themselves with the help of the Holy Spirit Pr 25:2

This thread or any other thread may support many things but it does not mean the end results are in one accord with Jesus. After all, it is only opinions as you've said.

Only a true child of God know who bears good or bad fruit by their spirits.

To God Be The Glory
 

Zachary

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
733
179
43
B.C., Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
StanJ said:
There is only ONE baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:4, 10:46, and 19:6 show the experience, which Jesus promised in John 14:16, 26, 15:26, & 16:7.
I'm not concerned about how far apart if was, only that you actually had the experience as depicted in Acts.
Apparently, you're not interested in the different baptism experiences testified to in the NT.
Baptized into the church ... by the Holy Spirit
Baptized in water (full immersion would be nice) ... by man
Baptized with the Holy Spirit ... only by Jesus Himself
Baptized by fire ... only by Jesus Himself

These are 100% guaranteed Scriptural (NT) ... but you aren't interested, right.
Do you prefer the doctrines of men over the Scriptures?
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jun2u said:
We should be like the Bereans who searched out scriptures, or those whom God sent out to teach and edify the church (Eph 4:11-12), or those who search scriptures for themselves with the help of the Holy Spirit Pr 25:2

This thread or any other thread may support many things but it does not mean the end results are in one accord with Jesus. After all, it is only opinions as you've said.

Only a true child of God know who bears good or bad fruit by their spirits.
Then do so and don't usurp others for your opinion, or can't you articulate one? I would much rather read that then opinions of others who are NOT on this site.

That's right, but sound opinion with the proper dividing of God's written word is what this site is all about.

Yes, a true believer will know and recognize the fruit. I see it all the time.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Zachary said:
Apparently, you're not interested in the different baptism experiences testified to in the NT.
Baptized into the church ... by the Holy Spirit
Baptized in water (full immersion would be nice) ... by man
Baptized with the Holy Spirit ... only by Jesus Himself
Baptized by fire ... only by Jesus Himself

These are 100% guaranteed Scriptural (NT) ... but you aren't interested, right.
Do you prefer the doctrines of men over the Scriptures?
There were two, but now there is only one that Eph 4:5 refers to, and that is the Holy Spirit. Paul told us about the two different ones in Acts 19:4, but that doesn't mean they still exist, or at least should.

I would suggest you're the one not interested in anything but your own POV. Maybe once you studied God's word long enough, with the help of the Holy Spirit, you'll have something of worth to contribute to discussions like this, other than innuendo and ad hominem.
 

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
75
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
Then do so and don't usurp others for your opinion, or can't you articulate one? I would much rather read that then opinions of others who are NOT on this site.
.
We’ve already discussed my lack of the English language command on another thread and it seems this is the only way you can get back at me when you’re frustrated. I’ve copied and pasted the article, “Monergism vs. Synergism” yes, because the writer articulated the subject better than I could. The contents of the article was not only were my sentiments exactly, but because the writer was Biblically correct. Besides, the article was intended for WW.

There are many scholars out there who copy each other’s work. Take yourself for instance, if you were really smart as you said you were, then you wouldn’t have been swayed by a wrong doctrine like Synergism.

That's right, but sound opinion with the proper dividing of God's written word is what this site is all about.

It is not sound opinion that’s important rather what “thus sayeth God”!
Yes, a true believer will know and recognize the fruit. I see it all the time.
How can you know and recognize the fruit while you are still blind?

To God Be The Glory
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jun2u said:
We’ve already discussed my lack of the English language command on another thread and it seems this is the only way you can get back at me when you’re frustrated. I’ve copied and pasted the article, “Monergism vs. Synergism” yes, because the writer articulated the subject better than I could. The contents of the article was not only were my sentiments exactly, but because the writer was Biblically correct. Besides, the article was intended for WW.

There are many scholars out there who copy each other’s work. Take yourself for instance, if you were really smart as you said you were, then you wouldn’t have been swayed by a wrong doctrine like Synergism.



It is not sound opinion that’s important rather what “thus sayeth God”!

How can you know and recognize the fruit while you are still blind?
As I said, if you can't articulate it yourself how can you possibly shows others it is factual. As you have never articulated yourself as to WHAT your mother tongue is I was left to my own assumptions based on your bad English. Maybe I was wrong, maybe you're just lacking in grammatical knowledge. FYI, ANY writer who holds up monergism over synergism is already starting from a negative position, and I'm not going to go over the same old ground with someone who is obviously is swayed by the doctrine and NOT the Bible. Soteriology is the heading these fall under, and as such, the words themselves don't even find their applicability in scripture. God through Jesus is the one who provides salvation, and we as sinners either choose to accept who Jesus is and make Him our saviour, or we choose not to. It is as simple as that and does not require words that don't really depict the reality of the issue.

Yes, scholars do so, for peer review, not in order to teach those who have no understanding of their work. I never said I was smart, I said I know scripture. As you don't seem to be able to exegete scripture that supports your POV, I can only conclude you don't know scripture.

That's right, it is what God's written word says, and it says CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY. Just as it says ASK, SEEK, KNOCK.
Our confession of Christ, based on Rom 10:8-11, and our walk of faith based on Heb 10:36, is based on OUR will and obedience. We are NOT puppets.

Blind people cannot tell who is blind themselves Jun2u, so why even try?
You are simply inculcated into a belief you can't even articulate from scripture, so the old adage applies, that those living in glass houses should not throw stones.
 

Zachary

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
733
179
43
B.C., Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
StanJ said:
There were two, but now there is only one that Eph 4:5 refers to, and that is the Holy Spirit.
Paul told us about the two different ones in Acts 19:4, but that doesn't mean they still exist, or at least should.
Aaaaaah, I'm dealing with a cessationist ... wonderful, just great.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1. THAT GOD MUST DRAW AN INDIVIDUAL TO COME TO JESUS. JOHN 6:44.
Jesus said through the cross he would "draw all men" to himself (John 12:32).
2. JESUS SAID, “ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES ME WILL COME TO ME AND I WILL HAVE
LOST NONE OF THEM BUT RAISE IT UP ON THE LAST DAY. JOHN 6:39
This verse teaches God's grace in drawing people and Jesus' power to preserve those who trust him. It does not teach limited atonement.

3. THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS NO NOT ONE, THERE IS NONE THAT SEEK AFTER GOD
NO NOT ONE. ROMANS 3:10-12
The point of this verse (and the entire first three chapters of Romans) is to show the necessity of the Gospel. Man cannot save himself through works of the law but can be saved by grace through faith. If anything, this section teaches the opposite.

“Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.” (Romans 3:27, ESV)

According to the doctrine of limited atonement, those who are "chosen" can boast because they have been hand-selected by God prior to the creation of the world. They are the privledged few. This section does not teach that. It teaches that all who have faith can be saved apart from works. There is nothing in this section that would lead someone to the view of monergism.

As I have shown in previous posts, Ephesians 1 and Romans 9 have nothing to do with pan-determinism or double predestination of some to heaven and others to hell. That is not Paul's point in these passages and to try to make them teach this is contextually inaccurate and biblically irresponsible, imo.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Wormwood said:
This verse teaches God's grace in drawing people and Jesus' power to preserve those who trust him. It does not teach limited atonement.
We also need to read IN context, to see that John 6:37-39 applies to the Apostles specifically.
 

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
75
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
We also need to read IN context, to see that John 6:37-39 applies to the Apostles specifically.
I’m not denying we are to read scriptures in its’ context but if our interpretation is incorrect, it does not matter, it is still flawed.

If indeed John 6:37-39 applies to the Apostles only, as you claim, then you are making Jesus to be a liar!

BECAUSE…

In His Priestly Prayer to His Father in John 17, Jesus said ALL that the Father gave Him had He kept and lost none, except the son of perdition, which was Judas, also an Apostle.

Yes, I agree, context in understanding or interpreting of scriptures is very essential.

To God Be The Glory
 

Zachary

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
733
179
43
B.C., Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
StanJ said:
Nope....try again. The day the Holy Spirit ceases to be here is the day the great tribulation starts.
The Holy Spirit is here ... whether cessationism is correct, or not.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jun2u said:
I’m not denying we are to read scriptures in its’ context but if our interpretation is incorrect, it does not matter, it is still flawed.

If indeed John 6:37-39 applies to the Apostles only, as you claim, then you are making Jesus to be a liar!

BECAUSE…

In His Priestly Prayer to His Father in John 17, Jesus said ALL that the Father gave Him had He kept and lost none, except the son of perdition, which was Judas, also an Apostle.

Yes, I agree, context in understanding or interpreting of scriptures is very essential.

To God Be The Glory
That's right, and it's less likely to be erroneous if we maintain the context. Both verses you quote are about the Apostles, so in that regard Jesus' comments are not transferable to ALL.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Zachary said:
The Holy Spirit is here ... whether cessationism is correct, or not.
That's right, and so I can't be one if I believe He is here and will only leave when Jesus returns. Same with His gifts, so I have no idea how you arrived at your erroneous conclusion.
 

Zachary

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
733
179
43
B.C., Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
StanJ said:
That's right, and so I can't be one if I believe He is here and will only leave when Jesus returns.
Same with His gifts, so I have no idea how you arrived at your erroneous conclusion.
Sorry, you lost me ... what erroneous conclusion?