Salvation loss. Is it possible?

[Mick_Alexander]

The parable is not addressed to just one individual steward.

The parable is clearly talking about one servant even though it has application for all.
V.42 says faithful and wise manager - singular - not managers.
V.43 says "that servant" will be rewarded, not those servants.
V.45 says "the servant" will be punished, not those servants.

Jesus was addressing the public and, after Peter's question, He switched to the singular.

Again, you are using the word 'condemned' here but that is not said in this parable. I am not sure that being cut in sunder means being cut in half. It may well indicate being severed from his position. We use such terminology today don't we? Severance pay? And, if he was cut in half, then how or why would he be beaten with many stripes? (12:47)

You are being highly imaginative and haven't considered what it means to be assigned a place with the unbelievers. Can you come up with just one, only one, commentary which even hints at your interpretation? I have about 30 and none do.

Peter's question was in response to the parable. The parable was not the result of Peter's question.

Peter's question was in v.41, the parable came next and switches to the singular.


[/quote]That this parable speaks to the Second Coming of Christ[/quote]

I believe the PreTrib Rapture is a false doctrine.

God bless,
Mick

 

[Mick_Alexander]

This is what I mean.

If I quoted every verse that speaks of salvation loss then it would be far simpler and quicker to just give you a Bible. To prove our point, don't you think we have to look at one point at a time. I can easily reply to your quotes but the question in this forum is regarding the meaning of the parable in Luke 12:42-46. Let's deal with it first, how do you interpret it?

God bless,
Mick

 

[Mick_Alexander]

Well, like I said... Many are called, few are chosen. We are to be instant in season and out of season. But I don't see it as a parable that says we can lose our salvation. It shows that some are called but not all are chosen.

I simply can't isolate this parable from the rest of the Bible.

I agree that we are not to separate it from the rest of the Bible but we are to interpret all the Bible.

The parable is speaking of only one servant - manager is singular in v.42.
The servant will be rewarded for faithfulness - "that servant" in vs.43-44
The servant will be condemned for unfaithfulness - "the servant" in vs.45-46.

How can you say that you don't see this simple parable?

God bless,
Mick

 

[Stranger]

The parable is clearly talking about one servant even though it has application for all.
V.42 says faithful and wise manager - singular - not managers.
V.43 says "that servant" will be rewarded, not those servants.
V.45 says "the servant" will be punished, not those servants.

Jesus was addressing the public and, after Peter's question, He switched to the singular.




You are being highly imaginative and haven't considered what it means to be assigned a place with the unbelievers. Can you come up with just one, only one, commentary which even hints at your interpretation? I have about 30 and none do.




Peter's question was in v.41, the parable came next and switches to the singular.

My point was that Jesus gave the parable first and then Peter asked the question. Something you...missed.

(Matt.12:37) disagrees with you. The parable says, "Blessed are those servants".

If you reread my post you will see that I have considered and explained what it means to be assigned a place with the unbelievers. You are either being ignorant or deceptive in your statement. I'm thinking the later. Why? Because you only pick a sentence or two of mine to address. You only pick what you think you can defend. Deceptive.

I don't care what you believe about the pre-trib. You have failed to show that your parable in (Luke 12) speaks to a believer losing their salvation.

Perhaps you should get better commentaries.

Stranger

 

[Dcopymope]

You mentioned the lake of fire. ) :

The punishment is everlasting just like the kingdom of God will be everlasting. You are either in the book of life or you aren't when the day comes.

(Matthew 25:38-46) "When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? {39} Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? {40} And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. {41} Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: {42} For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: {43} I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. {44} Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? {45} Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. {46} And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

 

[Mick_Alexander]

My point was that Jesus gave the parable first and then Peter asked the question. Something you...missed.

If you check my opening post you will see that it talks about the parable in Luke 12:42-46 while you have latched on to the parable before it, in Luke 12:35-40.

Yes, the parable in Luke 12:35-40 is speaking to the public just as you say but then ...
In Luke 12:41 Peter asked his question and then ...
In Luke 12:42-46 Jesus responded with the parable about a single servant who can face reward or wrath.

It is the parable in Luke 12:42-46 that is in discussion.

God bless,
Mick

 

[Sword]

You are a shining example of a christian who would rather not tell a long time believer that they are going off of a cliff who is full of deceit, wickedness, fornication, covetousness, the list goes on. THATS speaking life into them, not telling them that their wordly ways are in good standing with God. And if that "believer" be a homosexual, you bet I certainly will keep telling them to turn away from it if they don't want to get tossed into the fire.

You are a shining example of a christian who would rather not tell a long time believer that they are going off of a cliff who is full of deceit, wickedness, fornication, covetousness, the list goes on. THATS speaking life into them, not telling them that their wordly ways are in good standing with God. And if that "believer" be a homosexual, you bet I certainly will keep telling them to turn away from it if they don't want to get tossed into the fire.

Oh really and how wrong are you have a read and catch up. If I dont tell it like it is no one does.
This section shows exactly how much you love God

 

[ScottA]

I believe it is possible for a heaven bound Christian to end up condemned. There are many passages describing this but I believe the parable in Luke 12:42-46 is one of the clearest.

In this parable, the word "manager" is singular, showing that there is only one faithful and wise manager being spoken of. Looking at the verses, we have:

a) V.42 tells us of a faithful and wise manager (obviously a saved man) who is put in charge while the master (Jesus) is away.

b) Vs. 43-44 say that the servant will be rewarded and put in charge of all the master's possessions if the master returns and finds that the servant has remained faithful.

c) Vs. 45-46 then tells us that the same servant will be condemned and assigned a place with the unbelievers (in hell) if the master returns and finds that he is sinning and mistreating the other servants etc.

To say that the servant will be assigned a place with unbelievers makes it obvious that he was a believer initially.

To me, this is one of several parables and passages which clearly show that a Christian can be rewarded or condemned, depending on his actions.

Loss of salvation is a vitally important issue.

What do you think of this parable?

You say that it was obvious that the servant was a believer. But the parable does not, only that he was a "servant."

No...a person cannot loose salvation. If they could, "salvation" is the wrong word. You confuse "promise" with "salvation." It is the "promise" of God's provision of salvation that one can loose. But not salvation.

 

[Mick_Alexander]

You say that it was obvious that the servant was a believer. But the parable does not, only that he was a "servant."

The parable says that the servant was faithful and wise. What is every Christian's wish? ... that Jesus will say to him, "Well done, good and faithful servant". The unsaved are never said to be faithful servants.

Also, Jesus said that if the servant remained faithful, He would "put him in charge of all His possessions". We all know that Jesus is not going to put an unsaved man in charge of His possessions.

God bless,
Mick

 

[FHII]

How can you say that you don't see this simple parable?

Did I say I don't see the parable? No I didn't! I just don't agree with you.

Do not misquote me. I don't put up with that. Do it again and I won't bother with you.

 

[Mick_Alexander]

Did I say I don't see the parable? No I didn't! I just don't agree with you.

Do not misquote me. I don't put up with that. Do it again and I won't bother with you.

It's fine to disagree but what is your interpretation?

God bless,
Mick

Edit: By "see" I mean "understand".

 

[FHII]

It's fine to disagree but what is your interpretation?

God bless,
Mick

Edit: By "see" I mean "understand".

I see it and understand it and have given my "interpretation" of it.

Twice.

 

[ScottA]

The parable says that the servant was faithful and wise. What is every Christian's wish? ... that Jesus will say to him, "Well done, good and faithful servant". The unsaved are never said to be faithful servants.

Also, Jesus said that if the servant remained faithful, He would "put him in charge of all His possessions". We all know that Jesus is not going to put an unsaved man in charge of His possessions.

God bless,
Mick

There is much there to be considered...all hinging on a very big "if." All worth study and understanding.

But, none of those "servants" have yet to receive their salvation...for the Master had not yet returned. Salvation is the gift of rebirth in the spirit of God - we must be born again. This is His return.

So, it is not until the Master comes again [in spirit] that salvation may be lost.

 

[Mick_Alexander]

There is much there to be considered...all hinging on a very big "if." All worth study and understanding.

But, none of those "servants" have yet to receive their salvation...for the Master had not yet returned. Salvation is the gift of rebirth in the spirit of God - we must be born again. This is His return.

So, it is not until the Master comes again [in spirit] that salvation may be lost.

Those whom Jesus left in charge of the church were certainly saved. Peter for example. Reward or condemnation comes with Jesus' return.

God bless,
Mick

 

[Mick_Alexander]

I see it and understand it and have given my "interpretation" of it.

Twice.

I went through the entire thread, twice, and you didn't go even close to giving an interpretation of the parable. You made the statement that many were called, few chosen which I can't see as being of any relevance to whether or not the servant in the parable can lose his salvation.

God bless,
Mick

 

[ScottA]

Those whom Jesus left in charge of the church were certainly saved. Peter for example. Reward or condemnation comes with Jesus' return.

God bless,
Mick

There is a greater complexity with Peter, than simply referring to the parable for general salvation points. Jesus "washed" Peter personally, but most of the disciples and believers would have to wait until He sent the Holy Spirit with the saving spirit of God.

The point is, that salvation only happens when we are born again of the spirit of God. And, by definition, "salvation" means "saved." If God says we are saved, he is true.

 

[Mick_Alexander]

There is a greater complexity with Peter, than simply referring to the parable for general salvation points. Jesus "washed" Peter personally, but most of the disciples and believers would have to wait until He sent the Holy Spirit with the saving spirit of God.

The point is, that salvation only happens when we are born again of the spirit of God. And, by definition, "salvation" means "saved." If God says we are saved, he is true.

The parable is not about "most of the disciples and believers". It is about one faithful servant.

Jesus gave the parable in response to Peter's question and it is about a saved servant who would be put in charge of the church while He was away. Peter was one of those men. Jesus was speaking directly to the likes of Peter telling him that he would be either rewarded for remaining faithful or condemned if he became unfaithful. That, to me, is the plain reading of the parable.

God bless,
Mick

 

[FHII]

I went through the entire thread, twice, and you didn't go even close to giving an interpretation of the parable. You made the statement that many were called, few chosen which I can't see as being of any relevance to whether or not the servant in the parable can lose his salvation.

God bless,
Mick

I perceive that's because you are assuming he had it in the first place.

He didn't. He had the opportunity as he was called. But he never had it. If he had it, he would've no doubt continued to walk accordingly. But he never had it to begin with.

 

[Mick_Alexander]

I perceive that's because you are assuming he had it in the first place.

He didn't. He had the opportunity as he was called. But he never had it. If he had it, he would've no doubt continued to walk accordingly. But he never had it to begin with.

If "he never had it" (salvation) then you are telling me that Jesus was referring to an unsaved man when He said the servant was wise and faithful. Then, on top of that, Jesus put this unsaved man in charge of the church and would put him in charge of all His possessions if he continued to be unsaved until Jesus returns.

Are you sure about this?

God bless,
Mick

 

[FHII]

If "he never had it" (salvation) then you are telling me that Jesus was referring to an unsaved man when He said the servant was wise and faithful. Then, on top of that, Jesus put this unsaved man in charge of the church and would put him in charge of all His possessions if he continued to be unsaved until Jesus returns.

Are you sure about this?

God bless,
Mick

Yes I am. Not sure about your interpretation because Jesus never called the neglectful, drunkard and servant beater wise.

Was he given control? Absolutely. Thus the main lession that to whom much is given, much is required.

Got no problem with that at all.