Can you lose your salvation?

[Pallida Mors]

The 'Requirements necessary to be a Christian' thread got me thinking about what some may think about losing your salvation. Is it possible? I've been to several churches in my life, from conservative non-denominational, catholic, lutheran taught by women, to charismatic Pentecostal. It seems that each has different views on this topic but never has much biblical support for either argument. I've looked and am interested on the opinions of everyone.

[David Deas]

Not having much Biblical support for their assertions has never stopped the Church before. Hell, there are cases where they've had *no* Biblical support. Certainly, however, you may lose your Salvation. I'm pretty sure if you turn into murderous athiest, you probably lose it.

[Turbo]

The 'Requirements necessary to be a Christian' thread got me thinking about what some may think about losing your salvation. Is it possible? I've been to several churches in my life, from conservative non-denominational, catholic, lutheran taught by women, to charismatic Pentecostal. It seems that each has different views on this topic but never has much biblical support for either argument. I've looked and am interested on the opinions of everyone.

There is no such thing as guaranteed salvation. You can lose it through becoming hardened of heart or you can lose it by being excommunicated by the church or the christian community. Hebrews 6 and 2nd Peter make it clear that even the gift of the holy spirit does not guarantee salvation.

Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

2 Peter 2:20-21
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

[Pallida Mors]

So, when Jesus died for your sins, he didn't die for all of them? Including future ones? What does this passage mean then? "Matthew 12:31 NIV
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

Does blasphemy of the holy spirit simply mean rejecting God? What are the implications on someone who is poorly witnessed to then?

[Turbo]

So, when Jesus died for your sins, he didn't die for all of them? Including future ones? What does this passage mean then? "Matthew 12:31 NIV
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

Does blasphemy of the holy spirit simply mean rejecting God? What are the implications on someone who is poorly witnessed to then?

The blasphemy of the holy spirit is apostasy such as that which Judas did. The nature of sin is twofold. The first part concerns the sin between the individual and God, the second concerns the sin against the body of Christ, your community of Christians. In my faith, to sin against your fellow believers is to sin against the Holy Church.

[Gaidin]

The blasphemy of the holy spirit is apostasy such as that which Judas did. The nature of sin is twofold. The first part concerns the sin between the individual and God, the second concerns the sin against the body of Christ, your community of Christians. In my faith, to sin against your fellow believers is to sin against the Holy Church.

Funny thing. Peter did the same thing, in the eyes of Jesus and God that Judas did. THREE TIMES...IN ONE NIGHT. He betrayed his faith and beliefs. The difference is he handled his situation differently and he sought forgiveness and repented insted of killing himself out of guilt.

You take apostasy and its consequences way too damned literally.

[MaximiIian]

The blasphemy of the holy spirit is apostasy such as that which Judas did.

But, since what Judas did led to the crucifixtion, and thus to the supposed "dying for sins", wouldn't what Judas did be a necessary link in the chain of events that led to mankind's salvation?

This is why I'm not a christian- to avoid the logical failings.

[Gaidin]

Continuing this line of questioning regarding excommunications. What business is it of man(church/christian community) to determine what is blasphemy against the Spirit and what isn't?

[Mathias]

Continuing this line of questioning regarding excommunications. What business is it of man(church/christian community) to determine what is blasphemy against the Spirit and what isn't?

Good point, according to the bible only god is allowed to judge someone.

[Pallida Mors]

Thank you for posting that? I wanted to ask but was waiting. I thought salvation was God's gift to man. And men couldn't determine who attained it.

[Pallida Mors]

The Hebrews verses can be explained a number of ways. Some think the passage is again referring to people who finally reject a salvation they professed but never possessed. Others interpret it as a warning to believers who might be inclined to think that a person who falls into sin needs to be saved again. Still others believe it refers to the kind of severe loss that a sinning Christian can incur. Not only this, but what of the numerous verses that describe eternal security and the contradiction between these verses then?

Not having much Biblical support for their assertions has never stopped the Church before. Hell, there are cases where they've had *no* Biblical support. Certainly, however, you may lose your Salvation. I'm pretty sure if you turn into murderous athiest, you probably lose it.

What about when David killed Uriah, and also commited adultery with his wife? But yet he was after God's own heart? How does David become this if you can permanantly fall out of grace with the almighty? What about the prodigal son? Is it a matter of how far is too far? Does belief in a loss of salvation minimize what Christ did where his sacrifice was 'perfect'?

[Clibby]

Many protastants, especially the more Calvanistic ones believe that your salvation is predetermined, pre-destination. From birth you will either be destined for heaven or hell and the only way to express where you are going is through your actions. A life of evil is charateristic of a destiny in hell, though not it is not definate; and vice versa. Most other Christians on the other hand believe that your deeds, sacraments you recieve, sins, and the strength of your faith determine where you will end up.

[Chiron202]

Many protastants, especially the more Calvanistic ones believe that your salvation is predetermined, pre-destination. From birth you will either be destined for heaven or hell and the only way to express where you are going is through your actions. A life of evil is charateristic of a destiny in hell, though not it is not definate; and vice versa. Most other Christians on the other hand believe that your deeds, sacraments you recieve, sins, and the strength of your faith determine where you will end up.

This isn't entirely consistent with calvinism, believe me I go to a college named after the man. Calvin's original teachings aren't as deterministic as most people think, though don't get me wrong they are deterministic. There are nuances here that most people don't see. Calvins argument is based on scripture, and the reasoning that God without predestination isn't the omnipotent, onipresent, omniscent God we confess to believe in.

In addition, because of original sin humans are totally unable to choose Jesus for themselves, They must be lead by the grace of the Holy Spirit to salvation. This is total depravity, and because God himself is involved in the conversion process, he is unable to fail. This is Irresistable grace, and it follows with perserverance of the saints. In other words, it is impossible for a Christian to loose his/her faith, because their faith comes directly from God, so that it is imossible to become an apostate, and those who seem to be "apostates" were never really Christians.

This is outlined with some of its scriptural support in the Canons of Dort

So to be on topic, you cannot loose your christian salvation, because you never truly had it. Or, you will come to realize that you had it all along during your time of doubt etc.

But, since what Judas did led to the crucifixtion, and thus to the supposed "dying for sins", wouldn't what Judas did be a necessary link in the chain of events that led to mankind's salvation?

This is why I'm not a christian- to avoid the logical failings.

That doesn't matter, the point is that Judas' actions were still "evil." period. Necessity isn't a blanket approval for certain types of action, obviously. Even if Judas' personal goal was to infact bring about the death of Christ sooner rather than later, we should still frown upon what he did. This isn't a logical failing at all.

(P.S. Pallinda, your sig pic is freakin sweet)

[Gaidin]

the logical failings arent there, Turbo just looks in the wrong place for apostasy.

[Tom Paine]

the logical failings arent there, Turbo just looks in the wrong place for apostasy.

The logical failings are present in an internally inconsistent book... though we are agreed on the definition of apostasy of Turbo.

[Gaidin]

The Bible will always be inconsistent on plenty of its facts. That's a consequence of it being written in the fashion that it is. But it tends not to be inconsistent on its basic concepts that I've really seen. The big thing here is that Peter repented and asked forgiveness, where Judas didn't and hung himself in attempt to pay the price for what he did.

I'm willing to make a bet that if Judas had also gone the route of Peter, he'd have been a bigger apostle in the creation of the church than even Paul, much less any of the others.

[Pallida Mors]

I'm not so sure that Judas was so nessecary. In the temple where Jesus preached, there was a roman garrison attached. When Jesus distrupted (throwing tables) roman taxation of the jews in the temple I think that it was his death warrant and he knew it. He stayed in the temple for a couple days after for crowd protection. Rome couldnt just march in and take him, Pilot was on his second offense for being overly violent. I think that theres evidence to support that it was better strategy to wait when hoardes of people, who that week threw a ceasar mocking parade of palms, weren't around. Judas was more of a zelot than Jesus, and when he discovered that Jesus had no intentions of starting a war with Rome, he acted as an informer to mark Jesus for the troops who didn't know who he was.

The only other approach I'm aware of to Judas is even more radical. That its inline with the Gospel of Barnabas. That Judas and Jesus were similar in look. And when Rome came to get Jesus, they took Judas. And Jesus kissed Judas good bye. That makes sense if Jesus wasnt really God. That someone else take his place for his death. But I dont suscribe to that. THat would explain from a physical non-miracle perspective someone walking around after their death. Pure speculation, I do not actually think this.

I'm willing to make a bet that if Judas had also gone the route of Peter, he'd have been a bigger apostle in the creation of the church than even Paul, much less any of the others.

If thats the case then do you think you can lose your salvation and can get it back? Or that you can't lose it, but may have never been a believer in the first place? Just trying to see your perspective.

[vikingsiddhu]

That's like having your Nobel revoked. Only a wack would do that.

[shenmueguru]

http://forums.christianity.com/Salva..._985055/tm.htm

That should clear you up a bit

[Pallida Mors]

http://forums.christianity.com/Salva..._985055/tm.htm

That should clear you up a bit

This clarifies nothing and only goes on to state the differences which I was inquiring about. Not because I lack an opinion, but because I desire to converse with others on what theirs might be. That added nothing to this conversation. And you too failed to state what your view is.