Salvation can be lost

[Beth_Martin]

***Hello Everyone ***and may God bless each of you; I am moving on to some other topic and i learned a little about each of you , which I am thankful and some about Catholic doctrine; most of you are pretty consistent in this belief that a Christian can lose their salvation. I must admit I was caught off guard about the surprising response to this topic and it is rather depressing to me. Thanks for all of posts and for teaching me something about your faith. I hope to see you all very soon if the Lord allows.

God bless each of you this day and the days to come!!

Beth

 

[NotWorthy]

As I said before you must understand to whom Jesus is speaking, the culture and the context of the chapter as well as salvation. If this is understood, then the phrase makes sense in the whole context of Scripture and of salvation. But from your perspective; it makes perfect sense since you believe you can lose your salvation, gain it back, lose it and all by your choice. Sounds like God is sitting back and just hoping and waiting as opposed to what He purposed before the foundation of the world.

Beth, I DO understand to whom Jesus is talking, and I DO understand the culture, and I DO understand the context of the chapter as well as Salvation.

Yes, God is hoping and waiting for all of us to repent. But, like the angels and Adam and Eve, He is giving us the choice.

Just as Moses and Joshua said. “Choose Life” or “Choose death”.

 

[Faith5]

Please note that you have failed to address the following: “In denying that I have freely to accept the gifts of God, you make both salvation and condemnation necessary in God rather than contingent upon my free actions in response to God’s grace. God then becomes a monster who refuses to grace some and thereby necessitates their eternal damnation.”
Well said.
To not be capable of participating in actions of eternal consequence could be the
theme of a Star Trek episode. A loving father would welcome, permit and value
his kids (name removed by moderator)ut on decisions of lasting value. Here’s a thought.
I’m capable of losing salvation as I am capable of losing my State of Delaware
driver license. No on can take it away from me. The license is issued to me.
Steal it from me- the judge would make sure it’s returned to me.
Conversely, if I injure someone while driving drunk my license would be taken from me.
In this case my reckless actions caused me to lose my license–I would not blame
the judge.

 

[Danno2281]

Then your objection is to your words, not Beth’s. I may be wrong, but I haven’t found where she called the son evil.

Also, the son does good, obeying all the commandments, but he’s lacking mercy and compassion. Sounds like the Pharisee’s, eh?

Danno, I’ve heard Dr. Tim Gray, who is an EXCELLENT Catholic Bible Scholar describe the older son in this exact vein… except for the “evil” word.

That’s why the son’s further actions are left unsaid. Jesus is inviting the Pharisees in to celebrate the feast, just as the Father is inviting the older son to celebrate the feast.

If you look at post #50 you will find this:". And the elder brother’s cold indifference—the real focal point of the story, as it turns out—is a vivid representation of the same evil hypocrisy Jesus was confronting " If you call the elder brother a vivid representative of evil hypocrisy you are going to have to show me either where he is evil, or where he is a hypocrite. Again, please show me any Church Father who describes the elder son as a)evil, or b) hypocritical. And for all of Dr. Gray’s erudition, he is not a Church Father, the standard set in my previous post.

 

[NotWorthy]

If you look at post #50 you will find this:". And the elder brother’s cold indifference—the real focal point of the story, as it turns out—is a vivid representation of the same evil hypocrisy Jesus was confronting " If you call the elder brother a vivid representative of evil hypocrisy you are going to have to show me either where he is evil, or where he is a hypocrite. Again, please show me any Church Father who describes the elder son as a)evil, or b) hypocritical. And for all of Dr. Gray’s erudition, he is not a Church Father, the standard set in my previous post.

Ahhhhh… my bad. I thought this entire conversation was on the 2nd page and I searched posts 51 and following and I couldn’t find it.

Although I would stop far short of calling the older son evil, I would say that he is judgmental and self-righteous.

Many people would call that hypocritical. So, if the word is not used, I most certainly feel comfortable using it.

 

[NotWorthy]

If you actually read the entire story, you will see that God did not change His mind concerning the wisdom he promised of Solomon during his lifetime. Also, it is implied that he repented because at the end it gives the account that "And Solomon slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of his father David" Just because something is not explicitly written; if the evidence is implicitly strong, which in this case it is, based in the fact that God set His love on Solomon and in the end he slept with his fathers, which would indicate other patriarchs and followed by the physical burialplace, which distinquishes the slept apart from the burial. I expect to see Solomon in heaven.

Dearest Beth, I know you’ve left this thread, but I can’t help but think you’ll come back and read over it just to see where it goes. I know it’s like looking at a train wreck, you know you shouldn’t look, but you just can’t turn away.

With that said, I think you’ve just countered your own argument on having salvation, losing it, and then regaining it.

You see that Solomon turned away from the Lord, even after he had the veil lifted from his eyes. 1st Kings 11 says,

9 ****** The LORD, therefore, became angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice*** 10 ****** (for though the LORD had forbidden him this very act of following strange gods, Solomon had not obeyed him***).*** 11 ****** So the LORD said to Solomon: "Since this is what you want, and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes which I enjoined on you***, I will deprive you of the kingdom and give it to your servant.

And yet, you claim (and I heartily agree!) that Solomon repented and returned to his favor with God.P.S. Beth, I must admit that I admire your patience with us on this thread and I would love to continue this conversation. You can PM me if you’d like.

God Bless!!!

 

[Danno2281]

Ahhhhh… my bad. I thought this entire conversation was on the 2nd page and I searched posts 51 and following and I couldn’t find it.

Although I would stop far short of calling the older son evil, I would say that he is judgmental and self-righteous.

Many people would call that hypocritical. So, if the word is not used, I most certainly feel comfortable using it.

What “many people would call” it is irrelevent. Hypocrite is defined as: Date: 13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Again I maintain that the elder son is neither a hypocrite nor evil and nothing in the parable leads me to any other conclusion. He is greatly loved by his father and will inherit all that the father has. This is not promised to evil hypocrites.

 

[NotWorthy]

What “many people would call” it is irrelevent. Hypocrite is defined as: Date: 13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Again I maintain that the elder son is neither a hypocrite nor evil and nothing in the parable leads me to any other conclusion. He is greatly loved by his father and will inherit all that the father has. This is not promised to evil hypocrites.

Danno, I didn’t know we were going into a grammar lesson.

The elder son acts self-righteous, arrogant, and he lacks compassion. I would have called that hypocritical, but I’m open to any suggestions for a better term.

You see, the son is due to inherit his father’s land. But the Father wants more from his son. Just as Jesus wants more from the Pharisees. Even though the Pharisees were… well, Pharisees, Jesus is still inviting them into the celebration. As we see in Acts, some of them did bear fruit in the new Covenant Church.

If you think that we need to act more like the older son in our dealings with sinners, then so be it. I don’t ever want to find myself on that bus.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno, I didn’t know we were going into a grammar lesson.

The elder son acts self-righteous, arrogant, and he lacks compassion. I would have called that hypocritical, but I’m open to any suggestions for a better term.

You see, the son is due to inherit his father’s land. But the Father wants more from his son. Just as Jesus wants more from the Pharisees. Even though the Pharisees were… well, Pharisees, Jesus is still inviting them into the celebration. As we see in Acts, some of them did bear fruit in the new Covenant Church.

If you think that we need to act more like the older son in our dealings with sinners, then so be it. I don’t ever want to find myself on that bus.

Words have meaning and when they are used wrongly, wrong meanings result. Did I say that the elder son should be emulated? Now you read the posts from 51 on and so you see that in post #66 I said:“He has not himself felt the need for mercy, and now he is given an opportunity see how mercy brings justice to joy.”
And I should like to know what difference you find in the terms ‘righteous’ and 'self-righteous". Is his righteousness found in his perception of self or in his obrdience?

 

[NotWorthy]

Words have meaning and when they are used wrongly, wrong meanings result. Did I say that the elder son should be emulated? Now you read the posts from 51 on and so you see that in post #66 I said:“He has not himself felt the need for mercy, and now he is given an opportunity see how mercy brings justice to joy.”

And is this not the lesson that Jesus is trying to give to the Pharisees? In that way, the son represents the Pharisees, although to a lesser degree.

And I should like to know what difference you find in the terms ‘righteous’ and 'self-righteous". Is his righteousness found in his perception of self or in his obrdience?

Some acts “Self Righteous”. Some is (or isn’t) righteous.

 

[Danno2281]

And is this not the lesson that Jesus is trying to give to the Pharisees? In that way, the son represents the Pharisees, although to a lesser degree.

Some acts “Self Righteous”. Some is (or isn’t) righteous.

Why the insistence on seeing this as primarily for the Pharisees rather than for His disciples? He taught the Pharisees in parables “that seeing they might not see and hearing they might not hear,” but the instruction was primarily for His disciples.

 

[peary]

Hello everybody,

I see that losing your salvation must be a doctrine taught by the Catholic church, correct me if I am wrong, as I see every Catholic here feels they can lose it. I canot dismiss where you are coming from because if this is what you are taught and thus what you beleive, then that is how it is.

I will tell you that God doesn’t play tricks like that; you are in, now your out, now your in, nope now your out. You have the HS, no you don’t, you have Him, now you don’t. See a Christian can turn away from God, only for a time if he/she is truly Christian, but since the Christian has the Holy Spirit, when they run away, they take Him with them because He dwells inside. You may forsake Him at times as a Christian, but He never forsakes His own.

God bless,

Beth

Beth - I don’t think you understand it the way we do. Salvation is a GIFT. Do you know what that means? It means once we have received it, it becomes ours, like a gift that is given to you by someone. You can place it on a shelf, you can throw it out, you can put in on display, you can ignore it, etc. The same with salvation: we can ignore the gift, we can place it in our hearts and keep it there, we can display it, but, as with all gifts, we can also ‘lose’ it through negligence in our spiritual life by choosing sin over grace. This is what it’s all about. I know many good people who, a year ago they were supposedly ‘saved’ and now are part of a broken marriage, or engaged in behaviors that affect those around them. This is serious, and I think St. Paul knew exactly what he was talking about when he said that he works out his own salvation with fear and trembling. And he also chastised those who believed that, once they accepted Christ, they could continue sinning.

 

[NotWorthy]

Why the insistence on seeing this as primarily for the Pharisees rather than for His disciples? He taught the Pharisees in parables “that seeing they might not see and hearing they might not hear,” but the instruction was primarily for His disciples.

Ok, let’s back up and make sure we’re both on the same page.

The parable is, first and foremost, about Salvation. There is a secondary lesson that is directed at the Pharisees. Why, you ask, is this directed at the Pharisees? Because Jesus addresses the parable to them.

2but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."*** 3 ****** So to them he addressed this parable***.

 

[NotWorthy]

Beth - I don’t think you understand it the way we do. Salvation is a GIFT. Do you know what that means? It means once we have received it, it becomes ours, like a gift that is given to you by someone. You can place it on a shelf, you can throw it out, you can put in on display, you can ignore it, etc. The same with salvation: we can ignore the gift, we can place it in our hearts and keep it there, we can display it, but, as with all gifts, we can also ‘lose’ it through negligence in our spiritual life by choosing sin over grace. This is what it’s all about. I know many good people who, a year ago they were supposedly ‘saved’ and now are part of a broken marriage, or engaged in behaviors that affect those around them. This is serious, and I think St. Paul knew exactly what he was talking about when he said that he works out his own salvation with fear and trembling. And he also chastised those who believed that, once they accepted Christ, they could continue sinning.

By George, I think you’ve just described the Parable of the Sower!

 

[rdscheirer]

Phillipians 2:12-13

Work on your salvation - it is not certain.

 

[Danno2281]

Ok, let’s back up and make sure we’re both on the same page.

The parable is, first and foremost, about Salvation. There is a secondary lesson that is directed at the Pharisees. Why, you ask, is this directed at the Pharisees? Because Jesus addresses the parable to them.

You might note that this parable is not addressed “to them” as are the two previous, but is introduced by “And He said…” (v.11)followed by “And He also said to His disciples…” (ch16:1).There is no more textuial reason to believe that it is addressed to the pharasees than that it is addressed to His disciples.

 

[NotWorthy]

You might note that this parable is not addressed “to them” as are the two previous, but is introduced by “And He said…” (v.11)followed by “And He also said to His disciples…” (ch16:1).There is no more textuial reason to believe that it is addressed to the pharasees than that it is addressed to His disciples.

I’m sorry, but all this is one episode. Three - Three parables in one. The parables are addressed to the Pharisees.

 

[Danno2281]

I’m sorry, but all this is one episode. Three - Three parables in one. The parables are addressed to the Pharisees.

Luke did not divide his gospel into chapters. Why can’t you connect this parable with the one addressed to the disciples that folows immediately in ch. 16? The text does not demand that this parable be addressed to the Pharisees, and your assertion does not change the text.

 

[NotWorthy]

Luke did not divide his gospel into chapters. Why can’t you connect this parable with the one addressed to the disciples that folows immediately in ch. 16? The text does not demand that this parable be addressed to the Pharisees, and your assertion does not change the text.

Brother what do you mean? I could care less about chapters. But go to Luke 15 and read the first 3 verses. The three parables are in direct response to the Pharisees statement in verse 2.

The 4th parable in chapter 16 could be during the same episode or another day entirely. I’m not referring to that at all.

 

[Danno2281]

Brother what do you mean? I could care less about chapters. But go to Luke 15 and read the first 3 verses. The three parables are in direct response to the Pharisees statement in verse 2.

The only nexus is that they appear in the same chapter…The text does not indicate that this parable was in response to the Pharisees any more than the following one. The first two are addressed to them - the first directly, and the second linked by “or”, indicating a continuation. That the ‘prodigal son’ is addressed to the disciples is indicated by the ‘also’ of ch16, v.1. Think outside the box!