How does one lose their salvation?

[erowe1]

Sure. But none of the alternate uses I gave = justified. In fact the way you are using it makes Paul sound like he's confused himself.

"And ye were justified and washed and justified."

On the contrary, the fact that Paul groups sanctified, washed, and justified together supports my point. He's using all three of these words as different aspects of the same event, an event that has already been completed in the past, resulting in his audience no longer belonging to the category of "unrighteous." This doesn't mean that he's using "sanctified" and "justified" as pure synonyms. But it does mean that he's using "sanctified" in this verse to refer to something that happened when the person was justified, and not an ongoing process.

 

[erowe1]

Again, you are confusing "the dead law of dead works, which is the Mosaic law that Paul is referring to as something we shouldn't do, vs "good works of faith" that Paul turns right around and tells you that you should do--as well as James and the entire NT.

No, I'm not. I'm just saying that the fact when Paul says believers should do good works, his reason is not to do them as a means of attaining salvation.

 

[TN_VOL]

Traditional Conservative I realize this teaching is a hard pill to swallow, especially in light of today's rampant divorce rates, but the actual context of what was going on during the time Jesus made this commandment was this. In Matthew 19:3 the Pharisees came to Jesus testing Him about divorce. “Can you get divorced for just any reason?” they asked. The Pharisees all agreed that divorce was permissible, but disagreed among themselves as to what was an acceptable reason for divorce. Two of the major schools, or groups, of Pharisees at that time were the school of Hillel, and the school of Shammai. Those of the school of Shammai taught that divorce was only permitted when there was unchastity, or adultery, involved. The school of Hillel was of the opinion that divorce was in order if, for any reason, the husband was dissatisfied with his wife, even if, for example, she burned his dinner one night. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to pick sides. Which school of the Pharisees was right? Jesus reply was plain. “Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” Matthew 19:4-6. This is exactly what we have read in Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7. But this rather took the Pharisees aback. They had assumed divorce was acceptable, and just wanted Jesus to specify the conditions (then no doubt they would have tried to tangle Jesus further with their devious arguments). However, Jesus stopped them in their tracks, those whom God binds are one flesh, and men are to stop separating! This was obviously not what the Pharisees expected to hear.

 

[Terry1]

No, I'm not. I'm just saying that the fact when Paul says believers should do good works, his reason is not to do them as a means of attaining salvation.

Without "works of faith" or "good works" faith can not live--it dies. Can dead faith justify and save you then? Although faith and good works may not be exactly the same--at the same time they are not mutually exclusive either. Can grace save without faith? Can faith save without grace?

All through the NT we are given examples of how the spiritual body of Christ functions having many members as compared to our physical bodies and how they function having many members as well. Can a heart survive in the body without the liver? Can a brain function without a head?

Just the same--although faith is not the same as good works--one without the other can not live or survive--they are both dead and can not exist and function as they were created and designed to by God.

Everything you do is a physical response to what you believe. Your thoughts are a physical response and good work to what you believe because you have to use your brain and the brain needs a head and the head needs a body to respond to what your brain is telling it to do.

When you respond physically in love, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, charity or compassion---you are physically doing a "good work of faith" in response to what you believe. Without these physical *reactions* and good works to what you believe--faith can not function as God designed it to--hence you are told it dies and how can dead faith save or justify anyone in such a case?

It's the same with our salvation. Salvation and good works are not exactly the same, but one without the other means that neither is of any effect--one can not exist without the other.

Every confession of the mouth in response to what you believe is a "good work" of faith because you're using your physical body, mind and mouth to respond to that same belief as a "good work" and labor of love to give evidence of what it is that you believe.

 

[erowe1]

Without "works of faith" or "good works" faith can not live--it dies.

But if faith is living faith in the first place, then it will result in those good works. And if it doesn't result in them, then that means that it was already dead. That's what James 2 says, isn't it?

When you respond physically in love, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, charity or compassion---you are physically doing a "good work of faith" in response to what you believe. Without these physical *reactions* and good works to what you believe--faith can not function as God designed it to--hence you are told it dies and how can dead faith save or justify anyone in such a case?

Doesn't that mean that if you don't do those things, then you don't really believe?

 

[jmdrake]

On the contrary, the fact that Paul groups sanctified, washed, and justified together supports my point. He's using all three of these words as different aspects of the same event, an event that has already been completed in the past, resulting in his audience no longer belonging to the category of "unrighteous." This doesn't mean that he's using "sanctified" and "justified" as pure synonyms. But it does mean that he's using "sanctified" in this verse to refer to something that happened when the person was justified, and not an ongoing process.

You can keep saying 2 + 2 = 5 but that doesn't make it so. Justified != sanctified and especially not in this context.

Edit: And your point especially holds no water when you consider Paul said "some" of you were! So using your logic, Paul was saying only some of his intended audience was justified. Total bizarre reading of the text.

 

[Terry1]

But if faith is living faith in the first place, then it will result in those good works. And if it doesn't result in them, then that means that it was already dead. That's what James 2 says, isn't it?



Doesn't that mean that if you don't do those things, then you don't really believe?

Then can you explain to me how faith is alive before our brain and bodies respond to it? Faith is not born and can not exist in a vacuum. Faith must be connected to us physically.

 

[erowe1]

You can keep saying 2 + 2 = 5 but that doesn't make it so. Justified != sanctified and especially not in this context.

I don't keep saying either of those things.

You don't have to interpret sanctified as a synonym for justified here. But you do have to interpret it as a past event that happened along with it, and not an ongoing process in this context.

 

[erowe1]

Then can you explain to me how faith is alive before our brain and bodies respond to it?

I don't understand the question.

 

[jmdrake]

Hello. I was just wondering if you were going to address the fact that you were wrong about your claim that Herodius was divorced? Thanks.

Traditional Conservative I realize this teaching is a hard pill to swallow, especially in light of today's rampant divorce rates, but the actual context of what was going on during the time Jesus made this commandment was this. In Matthew 19:3 the Pharisees came to Jesus testing Him about divorce. “Can you get divorced for just any reason?” they asked. The Pharisees all agreed that divorce was permissible, but disagreed among themselves as to what was an acceptable reason for divorce. Two of the major schools, or groups, of Pharisees at that time were the school of Hillel, and the school of Shammai. Those of the school of Shammai taught that divorce was only permitted when there was unchastity, or adultery, involved. The school of Hillel was of the opinion that divorce was in order if, for any reason, the husband was dissatisfied with his wife, even if, for example, she burned his dinner one night. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to pick sides. Which school of the Pharisees was right? Jesus reply was plain. “Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” Matthew 19:4-6. This is exactly what we have read in Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7. But this rather took the Pharisees aback. They had assumed divorce was acceptable, and just wanted Jesus to specify the conditions (then no doubt they would have tried to tangle Jesus further with their devious arguments). However, Jesus stopped them in their tracks, those whom God binds are one flesh, and men are to stop separating! This was obviously not what the Pharisees expected to hear.

 

[Brett85]

@TN_VOL-Jesus said "what God has joined together, let man not separate." He didn't say, "What God has joined together is impossible for man to separate." He wasn't saying that a husband and wife are married in God's eyes even if they get a legal divorce in their country. You can look at the story of Jesus speaking to the woman who had been married and divorced a number of times. He told her "you have had five husbands, and the man you are living with now is not your husband." Notice he didn't say "you've had one husband, and the other four marriages you've been in have been invalid, adulterous marriages." It's clear from what Jesus said that he viewed every marriage she had been in as being a valid marriage. Thus why he said, "you have had five husbands." And he said that the one she was living with was not her husband, meaning that the other five men she was married to were her husband at one time.

John 4: 17-18

The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't keep saying either of those things.

You don't have to interpret sanctified as a synonym for justified here. But you do have to interpret it as a past event that happened along with it, and not an ongoing process in this context.

Uh-huh. And the fact that Paul said "And so were some of you" means.....? Using your interpretation Paul should have said "And so were all of you". Sorry but your interpretation doesn't hold water.

 

[Terry1]

I don't understand the question.

You made the statement that "faith is living faith in the first place". I was asking you to explain what you meant by that statement.

 

[erowe1]

You made the statement that "faith is living faith in the first place". I was asking you to explain what you meant by that statement.

According to James, someone with living faith should show their faith by their works. And someone whose works don't demonstrate their faith doesn't have living faith to begin with, but dead faith.

The works aren't something that keeps faith alive, they're something that shows that it is alive.

You seem to be saying that someone with real saving faith can then go on not to do good works, and for their faith then to die. But James is saying that someone with real saving faith (living faith) won't do that.

 

[erowe1]

Uh-huh. And the fact that Paul said "And so were some of you" means.....? Using your interpretation Paul should have said "And so were all of you". Sorry but your interpretation doesn't hold water.

Paul listed several categories of unrighteous people. He didn't give an exhaustive list. He surely could have gone on to list more kinds though that would eventually include everybody, and made the same point.

But as for those who were those things, they aren't any of those things at all any more. They are now seen by God as perfectly sinless. This is not because they will never commit any of those sins again, but because they were washed, sanctified, and justified.

 

[jmdrake]

Paul listed several categories of unrighteous people. He didn't give an exhaustive list. He surely could have gone on to list more kinds though that would eventually include everybody, and made the same point.

Now you are contradicting your earlier point. Earlier you said that the only way anyone could stop doing any one of those things would be to stop all sinning completely, implying that anyone who commits one sin is committing all. You backed up that point by saying that Paul was talking about unrighteousness in general. But now you are flipping your argument to say "Well it's a list of certain sins and some people weren't committing those sins". Ummm..okay. Can you think of any sin that doesn't start of with covetousness? That was part of the list after all. You can't steal something unless you first want it. You can't commit adultery unless you first covet sex with someone that is not your wife. Murder involves coveting someone else's life to the point where you want to take it from them.

But as for those who were those things, they aren't any of those things at all any more. They are now seen by God as perfectly sinless. This is not because they will never commit any of those sins again, but because they were washed, sanctified, and justified.

Again you are conflating justification with sanctification.

 

[erowe1]

Now you are contradicting your earlier point. Earlier you said that the only way anyone could stop doing any one of those things would be to stop all sinning completely, implying that anyone who commits one sin is committing all.

I wasn't implying that. One sin is one sin. But in order not to commit one sin, you have to be sinless.

Paul was talking about unrighteousness in general. He says so. He uses the word "unrighteous," and then he lists all those categories as instances of it. But the list he gives of specific kinds of unrighteous people is not an exhaustive list.

Is it possible that Paul meant to say that, while nobody in his audience still belonged to any of those specific categories of unrighteous people, they still did belong to other unmentioned categories? It's true that his words taken literally might allow for that. But it seems impossible to me that he wanted someone to draw that conclusion.

He's telling his audience that they are now counted in the category of "righteous," and not "unrighteous." There is no kind of unrighteous person that any of them are counted as any more. And this recategorization of them is not a result of their ceasing to sin, but a result of their having been washed, sanctified, and justified. Despite all the sins they ever have committed, and will still yet commit in the future, they are reckoned righteous, as much as Jesus Christ is.

Again you are conflating justification with sanctification.

Correct. But I'm not equating them. In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul's use of the word "sanctified" is in reference to something that was already completed in the past, along with being justified. Something happened to these people in which they were at once sanctified, justified, and washed. That conflation of those three aspects of salvation into one great work of God is made by Paul, and we are right to take him at his word. There's no need to argue with him and say, "But in some other passage you use the word 'sanctify' for something else." He's not writing in some magical Holy Ghost language where a word can only refer to one thing every time it's used.

 

[Terry1]

According to James, someone with living faith should show their faith by their works. And someone whose works don't demonstrate their faith doesn't have living faith to begin with, but dead faith.

The works aren't something that keeps faith alive, they're something that shows that it is alive.

You seem to be saying that someone with real saving faith can then go on not to do good works, and for their faith then to die. But James is saying that someone with real saving faith (living faith) won't do that.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. You're saying that you believe that faith exists outside of our good works--is that right?

If James is saying that faith can not live without these works, then what leads you to the belief that faith exists apart from our good works?

What is Hebrews telling us here about "Faith".

Hebrews 11:1

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Faith is a substance--faith is also evidence of things not seen. A substance is a physical matter of kind. Evidence is something visual that gives proof to something else that can not be seen. What can not be seen is our belief--the only way we know what anyone believes is by the evidence that gives proof of it's existence.

Without faith having evidence through our good works--it can not exist because this is what our faith is--*evidence*. Evidence is visual and able to be seen by those around us through our good deeds/works and our behavior as well. This is our belief revealing itself through our faith.

We can not escape the physical in this life. Everything we say and do reflects what our physical brains are telling our bodies to do. This is why Paul says he fights to bring his body into subjection to the spirit, because the flesh wars with the spirit continually wanting to do opposite what the spirit wants. Paul here is fearing for himself understanding that this is the fight and the course he must endure till the end of his life also with the understanding that it's always possible to give into the flesh since we are free to choose at all times what and whom we will serve in this life and to the very end of it.


1 Corinthians 9:27

27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

 

[erowe1]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. You're saying that you believe that faith exists outside of our

No. And I don't see where you're getting that.

But the righteousness Paul says his audience has in 1 Corinthians 6 isn't a righteousness that comes from them not ever coveting any more. It's a righteousness that comes from their having been, already in the past, washed, justified, and sanctified. This doesn't mean that they won't do good works. But it doesn't depend on their good works.

Paul's rhetorical strategy again and again throughout his epistles is to appeal to this completed work of God as a motivation for his audience to live in ways that are appropriate for the category they now belong to. He doesn't tell them to become righteous, but to live as righteous people, because that's what they already are.

Also, I noticed that I didn't reply to this part of what you said earlier:

Can you think of any sin that doesn't start of with covetousness? That was part of the list after all. You can't steal something unless you first want it. You can't commit adultery unless you first covet sex with someone that is not your wife. Murder involves coveting someone else's life to the point where you want to take it from them.

I agree with you. I think that if Paul wanted to be a stickler, he really could have said, "such were all of you." There's no doubt that it would have been true. It looks like a litotes to me. But perhaps that's still because he knew that his list wasn't exhaustive, and he didn't want the technicality of your point about coveting to detract from what he was getting at.

What other interpretation of this passage is there?

Is Paul telling these people that they had stopped committing any of those sins?

If so, doesn't this mean that they had stopped sinning completely?

If not, then what's the alternative? That none of them were committing any of those specific sins any more, but that there were still other sins that they committed, but that those other sins were not of the sort that would keep someone from inheriting the kingdom of God?

 

[Terry1]

No. And I don't see where you're getting that.

But the righteousness Paul says his audience has in 1 Corinthians 6 isn't a righteousness that comes from them not ever coveting any more. It's a righteousness that comes from their having been, already in the past, washed, justified, and sanctified. This doesn't mean that they won't do good works. But it doesn't depend on their good works.

Paul's rhetorical strategy again and again throughout his epistles is to appeal to this completed work of God as a motivation for his audience to live in ways that are appropriate for the category they now belong to. He doesn't tell them to become righteous, but to live as righteous people, because that's what they already are.

You're still saying the same thing while implying that somehow faith can exist apart from our good works. You're attempting to say that our good works are nothing more than an option outside and apart from our faith. That's not what James is saying when he tells you that faith without works is dead being alone. There is no such thing as living saving faith alone and apart from our good works.

Just because our bodies exist doesn't mean that they can live without food. Faith is the same regarding good works. They will die without getting what they need to live and survive--one exists only because the other keeps it alive.