Once saved, always saved?

[BavarianWheels]

Do you have the free will to fly like superman? Is your "free will" limited?

This...from a moderator.

Can we stick to what is logical?...however, if you want to continue this topic in sarcasm, you're playing with the wrong guy.
.
.

[Jac3510]

The intention isn't to be sarcastic, Bav. I didn't intend for it to be taken that way. I was responding during my five minute breaks at work, so the comments had to be short and make the point.

That said, the point I was trying to make is that "free will" doesn't mean "freedom that is not limited," as you were arguing:

Is free will limited?

If it is, then it is not free will.

Now, we both agree that free will must be limited in some senses. Can you demonstrate that the ability to walk away from God is a logical possibility, because I think I've shown repeatedly throughout this thread that it isn't. Add to this the fact that God says that no one would be able to snatch anyone from His hand (and I assume "no one" includes me and you), and you have a doubly strong case.

What you are talking about is the ultimate in Indian Giving, as we said in the fourth grade. Do you think it is really possible to take back from God what He has legally purchased? Can Walmart legally come to you and take back what you have bought? Paul said he was a bondslave to Christ. He willingly entered into the relationship, but are you aware that a bondslave could NEVER leave? He did not have that legal right. How does it logically follow to ask God to recondemn that which He has justified? Would that not necessitate God "changing His mind," and yet God is immutable, isn't He?

Here's the bottom line: justification is once for all. I don't believe you can logically unjustify yourself. If you think you can, the burden of proof is on you. I showed very thoroughly how OJ=AJ. You stated that it is possible for a justified person to land themselves in Hell, which means their name is NOT in the Book of Life, as per Revelation 20. You have to defend that position--not me. At bare minimal, you have to recognize (well, you don't HAVE to do anything) that it is not the "orthodox" position.

[BavarianWheels]

The intention isn't to be sarcastic, Bav. I didn't intend for it to be taken that way. I was responding during my five minute breaks at work, so the comments had to be short and make the point.

My apologies.

That said, the point I was trying to make is that "free will" doesn't mean "freedom that is not limited," as you were arguing:

Is free will limited?

If it is, then it is not free will.

Now, we both agree that free will must be limited in some senses. Can you demonstrate that the ability to walk away from God is a logical possibility, because I think I've shown repeatedly throughout this thread that it isn't. Add to this the fact that God says that no one would be able to snatch anyone from His hand (and I assume "no one" includes me and you), and you have a doubly strong case.

If you hold to Calvinistic Theology, then *you* would have an argument. But I don't think you do. It is we that make the choice for God given the choice. God reveals himself as this forum upholds. "The heavens declare the glory of God..." God also reveals himself through his Word. God also reveals himself through his followers better known as Christians.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

What is predestination based on according to this text? It is based on foreknowlege. God knows our choices and predestines those that choose God for justification...and ultimately glorification. If we choose God at any one moment...our justification is sealed...that much we agree on. However, just as easily as I choose God, I can choose to unchoose God. He is not someone that holds anyone unwillingly. What would you say about people that have grown up Christian...been baptized...believed...and one day decide..."This Bible stuff is a hoax." I know of at least two of these people personally. And a whole hoard of them online! They openly reject God after having accepted God. Will God force anyone that deny's Him against their present will? (Matthew 7:21, 22)

What you are talking about is the ultimate in Indian Giving, as we said in the fourth grade.

Did you watch Seinfeld last night?

Do you think it is really possible to take back from God what He has legally purchased? Can Walmart legally come to you and take back what you have bought?

No, but I certainly retain that right! It's called freewill. You seem to be confusing human freewill, with God's will. Does God's will over-ride ours in regard to salvation?

Don't we agree that Christ's death was sufficient for the whole of humanity? Of course we do! Yet...that which God has purchased is not all that He takes home! The receipt says all...yet the Bible says the path is narrow.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

It is God's will that the world be saved...yet will the whole of it be saved?

Paul said he was a bondslave to Christ. He willingly entered into the relationship, but are you aware that a bondslave could NEVER leave? He did not have that legal right. How does it logically follow to ask God to recondemn that which He has justified? Would that not necessitate God "changing His mind," and yet God is immutable, isn't He?

Ahh...weren't slaves allowed to leave every 7 years?

Here's the bottom line: justification is once for all. I don't believe you can logically unjustify yourself. If you think you can, the burden of proof is on you. I showed very thoroughly how OJ=AJ. You stated that it is possible for a justified person to land themselves in Hell, which means their name is NOT in the Book of Life, as per Revelation 20. You have to defend that position--not me. At bare minimal, you have to recognize (well, you don't HAVE to do anything) that it is not the "orthodox" position.

I think I've showed that God's will is that all the world be saved, yet not all the world will be saved. Our will trumps His will when it comes to Love. He only wants those that truely love Him. Love does not force.

But from everlasting to everlasting
the LORD's love is with those who fear him,
and his righteousness with their children's children--

with those who keep his covenant
and remember to obey his precepts.

Interesting isn't it. "...those who fear him...who keep his covenant...and remember to obey his precepts.

Those are scriptures words...

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Apostles didn't have the "New Testament" as their "New Covenant."

But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.

See...God is a choice. When something is a choice, it remains a choice.

A Christian is OSAS or OJAJ only when the Christian perseveres in Christ. It is the Christian that perseveres as a Christian that is OSAS and OJAJ!

Why persevere if we don't need to? If when we choose God once, it is done regardless of our following life choices, then why must there be sanctification? Why isn't it that preachers are just out baptizing people telling them just to say ok to Christ...then live as they please?

I'll tell you why...because repenting is not the only thing required.

What did Jesus tell the prostitute? "Neither do I condemn you...Go and sin no more." (my paraphrase)

She chose God...but still must remain in Christ to prove her hearts desire.

James 2:14-26 tells us that faith without deeds is dead? Why?

If OSAS or OJAJ is true as you say, then there is no need for deeds!

I think I've made my point abundantly.
.
.

[Kurieuo]

I've just read this entire thread from the beginning, and have taken notes of a few points I wish to delve deeper into. Please note that I currently take a seemingly contradictory position (as second last post in this thread before this one reveals). At the same time I acknowledge my ignorance of knowing for sure what is correct. Even though I do not associate myself with either side—there are a few points Jac made that I wish to take up.

The lifelong process that you and Bav are talking about is sanctification. The word here (hagiasmos) comes from the root word hagio (actually, first, through hagiazo), which means "holy." Hagiasms is a verb, and, as such, is rendered, "The process of making one holy."
...
If you are referring to [salvation] as the completion of the sanctification process, then you can't "lose" it because you never "have" it. This, I gather, is how K and Bav are presenting it.

What do you make of the following verse?: 1 Cor 6:11 - And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

We are not only justified, but we are justified because we were sanctified (hagiazō). According to this verse, sanctification is as completed as justification.

OSAS is thoroughly supported biblically. Not only that, but, not surprisingly, no where does the Bible even hint that we can lose our salvation.

What of the passage I raised closer to the beginning of this thread: 'If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit..."' (2 Peter 2:20-22)

A dog feeling sick, will vomit its sickness up. The dog feels all better, and as often will happen they eventually return back to their vomit and eat it again. In the above passage we are dealing with someone who knew Christ, and someone who was cleansed of their sin. We were sick like a dog, but Christ made us better. Yet, then as a dog can return to their sickness, so can we. For those of us who return, we are worse off at the end than we would have been had we never known Christ. Let that sink in for a moment. We would actually be worse off than those who had never known Christ.

God created men so as to be in everlasting (your welcome, K ) relationship with them.

Actually I'm not so fussed about this... really. Eternal actually has two meanings, everlasting and "without beginning or end," So sometimes using eternal for everlasting can confuse things.

It is GRACE that saves THROUGH faith. But, faith in what? What kind of faith? It is a faith that works that saves. The best you can do here, Bav, is argue for a works based salvation out of this passage. It does NOT argue that one can LOSE his salvation. Are you going to tell me that you also believe in salvation by works?

I think that an obvious response here is being overlooked. If grace is attained by one's faith, then why if one abandons that faith must the abandonment be seen as works? One could reasonably turn against Christ without displaying "bad" works. Therefore as one is saved by faith, BW could argue one can also loose salvation by faith.

Kurieuo.

[BavarianWheels]

God created men so as to be in everlasting (your welcome, K ) relationship with them.

Actually I'm not so fussed about this... really. Eternal actually has two meanings, everlasting and "without beginning or end," So sometimes using eternal for everlasting can confuse things.

Jude 1:7 tells us that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered eternal fire as examples of what will happen in the end...yet we don't have a city still burning today. Eternal has three meanings...two if you tie everlasting and the third being eternal consequences as opposed to eternal "torment" as in pain without ceasing.

It is GRACE that saves THROUGH faith. But, faith in what? What kind of faith? It is a faith that works that saves. The best you can do here, Bav, is argue for a works based salvation out of this passage. It does NOT argue that one can LOSE his salvation. Are you going to tell me that you also believe in salvation by works?

I think that an obvious response here is being overlooked. If grace is attained by one's faith, then why if one abandons that faith must the abandonment be seen as works? One could reasonably turn against Christ without displaying "bad" works. Therefore as one is saved by faith, BW could argue one can also loose salvation by faith.

Further more...it is faith in Christ that saves...We are given grace, through faith...and not by works...I think we agree.

James goes further to tell us that faith is not only "faith" and nothing more, he tells us our faith is judged by our works...he says faith without deeds is dead! James 2:14-26.
.
.

[Kurieuo]

James goes further to tell us that faith is not only "faith" and nothing more, he tells us our faith is judged by our works...he says faith without deeds is dead! James 2:14-26.

I agree with this passage, but it is important to realise (which I think you do) that any actions we do are often built upon our faith (that is, our beliefs, convictions, desires). As such many actions we do are influenced by this faith of ours. Therefore it seems logically possible to have an honest faith in Christ, without any sort of good or bad actions whatsoever. At the same token, if one has their faith set against Christ, then they could logically also have an honest faith against God absent of any works. However, reality means we face decisions every day, and so we are always making choices and performing actions under various conditions and situations through which our faith has opportunity to shine through.

Thus, faith alone saves, while our choices and acts can "evidence" our faith, but cannot reveal our faith for certain. Our faith is evidenced by our actions, but not fully revealed with certainty by them. We begin with faith, and how we desire to act is a natural outworking of our faith, and this desire will no doubt produce many actions which verify our faith. At the same time we may have certain physical conditions, environmental, genetic or otherwise which play against our faith and spiritual desires. Paul summarises this struggle nicely in Romans 7:22-23: "For in my inner being I delight In God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind..." Thus, what we do does not "always" reflect our faith, however our faith should certainly shine through our actions when observed collectively given our conditions.

As such it can be sometime hard to determine someone elses faith, but this is something I prefer to leave up to God to judge anyway, who would know our hearts even better than we even do.

Kurieuo.

[BavarianWheels]

While I agree on the whole, I disagree in determining someone's faith. We are told that "by their fruit, you will know." Matt. 7:15-20...We can at least have an idea of where their faith or whom their faith is in.
.
.

[RGeeB]

Paul summarises this struggle nicely in Romans 7:22-23: "For in my inner being I delight In God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind..."

A question - Does giving into the flesh always constitute sin? I'll take a stab at the answer - Only if I'm convicted it is wrong. Is that what the Holy Spirit does in a Christian? Now, one of Satan's task with a Christian is to accuse. Make a person feel that their sin is beyond the Grace of God. How do I know if I'm being accused or convicted? Why would Satan do that? Is it for a person to lose their faith in the power of the blood of Christ? If a person loses that faith or denies that power, is he wilfully rejecting the process of salvation?

[Felgar]

For those of us who return, we are worse off at the end than we would have been had we never known Christ. Let that sink in for a moment. We would actually be worse off than those who had never known Christ.

A few points, one of which Jac already made about this passage:

1) At least the unsaved person still has a chance to be saved and receive the full blessing of one who lives in Christ. Yet the one who's known Christ and rejected him will be held accountable to his actions which he knew to be wrong. (though, the penalty will not be expulsion from heaven as is being argued)

2) Are you absolutely certain here, that when Jesus says "known the way of righteousness" he is only referring to someone who's been saved? Jesus has also condemned those who hear of Him but reject Him. Do we know for certain that the person who does not know the way of righteousness has definetly heard Jesus' message? It may very well be that Jesus is speaking of those who have never heard of Him - in remote regions, etc. There's biblical evidence that those people will be judged according the condition of their heart in relation to God rather than the refusal/acceptance of Jesus. So maybe those better off would be those people (who never even heard Jesus' message in the first place).

I think in general the problem is that no one likes either extreme of this argument. On the extreme of NOT OSAS, you have the ludicrous notion that anyone who sins just before dying or anyone who has any little doubt creep in (which Satan uses all the time) and then dies without reaffirming their Fatih has lost their salvation just due to bad circumstance more than anything else. Considering we all sin almost constantly (esspecially considering that even unrighteous inner thoughts is sin) then we're left with really NO ONE being saved. Also the Bible clearly does not supoprt this: Peter rejected Christ 3 times and still has a place as head of a tribe of Isreal (right?).

On the flip side, people who argue against OSAS don't like the notion that someone can profess their Faith, continue to live a completeley worldy life, reject their Faith, and yet still spend eternity with God.

The only Biblical support that comes to mind for some form of middle ground might entail denial of the Holy Spirit. But how can we define 'denial of the Holy Spirit?' Would that be a lifelong thing or something one could do in haste and lose the chance to be forgiven?

[Kurieuo]

For those of us who return, we are worse off at the end than we would have been had we never known Christ. Let that sink in for a moment. We would actually be worse off than those who had never known Christ.

A few points, one of which Jac already made about this passage:

You are correct. I thought Jac had dealt with a similar passage, but not this particular one. Yet, Jac only attempted to explain the first few verses cutting short the analogies and fuller context, and so I find his take unconvincing.

2) Are you absolutely certain here, that when Jesus says "known the way of righteousness" he is only referring to someone who's been saved?

I am aware of similar expositions, but when taken within the much fuller context I think one has to believe these are those who belonged to Christ. 2 Peter 2:17-19 talks of the unsaved correct? Verse 19 especially ends saying, "for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him." Then we are lead into verse 20, "If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ..." What corruption is meant here? The corruption of sinful human nature in verse 18. A corruption that makes us "slaves of depravity." But having escaped this corruption by Christ, the obvious implication is that we are slaves of Christ. Also the analogy of the dog throwing up a getting rid of the source of its sickness before eating it again. Or the anology that “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” I can not see what else these analogies mean other then being cleansed of sin by Christ, before returning to our original state.

I really don't have any real axe to grind here, but I think Jac's words are wrong when he says there is no support for loosing ones salvation, although such words appear to have great argumentative effect. Additionally, 1 Cor 6:11 seems to tear down Jac's belief of sanctification just being a process. According to this verse, we are sanctified and justified here on Earth. And it makes logical sense that we are ensured salvation because we are justified, and justified because we are sanctified. We aren't justified, and then santified which seems like a backward approach. I believe what we receive in the here and now, because of Christ, is much richer than Jac has perhaps allowed for.

I'd be interested to know Jac's thoughts on what I've presented here?

Kurieuo.

[Jac3510]

Hey--just a placemarker and note that I'll be getting to this hopefully tomorrow. I was going to do it tonight, but it's gotten later than I wanted and I have to be up really early.

I have too much to do, haha

I'll just edit this post in my reply rather than making a new one . . .

(copy/pasted from other post, obviously)

[Felgar]

I dunno Kurieuo, I still think there's a difference in knowledge of Christ and in Faith in Christ. Satan has great knowledge of Christ but no Faith - though I do concede that Satan is held to different standards than us, but nevertheless. Notice the Bible refers to any False Prophets as "antichrists'. These antichrists cannot twist the message without first knowing it... They in essense, have become exactly like Satan - distorting the Word of God to spin their web of deceit.

The whole passage in context is referring to FALSE teachers. Why would they be false if the Holy Spirit was in them? See, I think the Word of God (knowledge of Jesus Christ) can cut through the lies of the world even without Faith - the Word is a double-edged sword. I think that's the correct interpretation here. These people are free of their bondage to Satan, in that the Word has cut through his lies. These people are then completely free to make a choice completely unblinded by Satan, and they still reject it.

It's further support of when Jesus says "Woe to those who hear my message but reject it," and that he will not hold those who NEVER hear accountable. That is the worse off/better off comparison to be drawn. I don't think the people temporarily freed from Satan's bondage by the Word of God are indeed saved; for they have not received grace through Faith. Not grace, Faith, or believe are used in that passage - all of which are fundamental to the attaining of salvation.

PS... Sorry for the lack of verses to back my thoughts up - dinner's burning!!! Gotta run!

[Kurieuo]

I dunno Kurieuo, I still think there's a difference in knowledge of Christ and in Faith in Christ. Satan has great knowledge of Christ but no Faith - though I do concede that Satan is held to different standards than us, but nevertheless.

Sure, but I think there is much more implied here than a knowledge of Christ. Can Satan, who it could be said aided in corrupting our world, escape the corruption of the world through Christ? Can Satan be washed of his sins? There seems to be much more at work in 2 Peter 2 than an intellectual knowledge of Christ.

The whole passage in context is referring to FALSE teachers. Why would they be false if the Holy Spirit was in them? See, I think the Word of God (knowledge of Jesus Christ) can cut through the lies of the world even without Faith - the Word is a double-edged sword.

True, they are false teachers, and you've also provided many words to think on, but I'm still left unconvinced. We also read that "they have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness." Thus, they were once true, but then become false as they deliberately turned away from Christ. From the whole chapter, it seems more evident to me that such people once knew Christ in a personal way, that they were washed from their sins through Christ (as the analogies clearly reveal), but then as hard as I find it to believe, they willingly chose to turn away from Christ.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

I've just been reading a few commentaries on 2 Peter 2, and I thought I would post a bit more. Clark's commentary in relation to verse 22 says:

Here is a sad proof of the possibility of falling from grace, and from very high degrees of it too. These had escaped from the contagion that was in the world; they had had true repentance, and cast up “their soursweet morsel of sin;” they had been washed from all their filthiness, and this must have been through the blood of the Lamb; yet, after all, they went back, got entangled with their old sins, swallowed down their formerly rejected lusts, and rewallowed in the mire of corruption. It is no wonder that God should say, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning: reason and nature say it must be so; and Divine justice says it ought to be so; and the person himself must confess that it is right that it should be so. But how dreadful is this state! How dangerous when the person has abandoned himself to his old sins! Yet it is not said that it is impossible for him to return to his Maker; though his case be deplorable, it is not utterly hopeless; the leper may yet be made clean, and the dead may be raised. Reader, is thy backsliding a grief and burden to thee? Then thou art not far from the kingdom of God; believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved.

I also found other commentaries, such as Barnes', who disagrees that this reveals a "falling from grace." He writes:

This passage is often quoted to prove “the possibility of falling from grace, and from a very high degree of it too.” But it is one of the last passages in the Bible that should be adduced to prove that doctrine. The true point of this passage is to show that the persons referred to never “were changed;” that whatever external reformation might have occurred, their nature remained the same; and that when they apostatized from their outward profession, they merely acted out their nature, and showed that in fact there had been “no” real change.

Yet, I find Barne's refutation rather hollow for reasons previously mentioned. To summarise three major reasons 1) verse 15 outrightly says, "They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness." "They" could not have left the straight way, if they never were infact on the straight (i.e., changed); 2) verse 20, which says they had escaped the corruption of the world by Jesus Christ—they would never have escaped corruption if the only change was an external one, nor would an external change (i.e., pretense change) be by Christ; and 3) the analogies appear as obvious references to one actually having been cleansed from sin—not just an external appearance of having been cleansed.

Kurieuo.

[Jac3510]

I changed my mind about the edit

What do you make of the following verse?: 1 Cor 6:11 - And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

We are not only justified, but we are justified because we were sanctified (hagiazō). According to this verse, sanctification is as completed as justification.

I absolutely agree that in a sense, sanctification happens at the moment of justification. See Acts 20:32. In that verse, the word "sanctified" is used in the perfect sense--a completed action with lasting effects.

That said, the basic definition of "sanctified" is "to make holy." The day we are justified we are also sanctified. That is, we are set apart. To quote Ryrie:

• For the Christian, sanctification includes three aspects. The first is called positional or definitive sanctification, which relates to the position every believer enjoys by virtue of being set apart as a member of God's family through faith in Christ. This is true for all believers regardless of different degrees of spiritual growth . . . The second aspect of sanctification concerns the present experiential or progressive work of continuing to be set apart during the whole of our Christian lives. Every command and exhortation to holy living concerns progressive sanctification (1 Pet. 1:16). The third aspect is usually called ultimate sanctification, which we will attain in heaven when we shall be completely and eternally set apart to our God (Eph. 5:26-27; Jude 24-25). (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 442)

A further understanding of this concept requires a look into the role of the Holy Spirit. In pos. sanct., He seals us (2 Thess. 2:13). In prog. sanct., the Spirit works in our hearts and lives to conform us more in the image of Jesus (Rom. 8:13). The fruit of the Spirit is the goal and product of this part in the process.

This can even further be compared to our salvation in general. We are positional saved the day we accept Christ (the day we are born again). This is accomplished by the baptism of the Spirit. So far as our positions go, we are no longer enemies of God, but rather children. True, we may fall away. We would then be estranged children--even rebellious. We may make God our enemy, but He will never be ours. This stands in contrast to the filling of the Spirit. While His baptism is once, the filling is a repeated event. While the baptism cannot be lost, the filling can. While the baptism results in the indwelling of the Spirit, the filling results in the controlling by the Spirit.

I, then, hold to the idea that the act of sanctification is a perfect action with long lasting results. Those results, though, are dependent on our abiding in Christ, and thus, the Spirit's abiding with us.

What of the passage I raised closer to the beginning of this thread: 'If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit..."' (2 Peter 2:20-22)

I believe I mentioned this earlier. The passage absolutely refers to the one who has been saved. It's message is the same as that of Hebrews 6:4-6. The positional aspect of sanctification has not been lost, but rather, the work of progressive sanctification. This is truly a terrible state, because it is that process that results in our heavenly rewards. Not only that, but those in this state must suffer the discipline of God. On the flip side, the person who has never tasted righteousness is in a better position, because he still has the potential to come to a right relationship with God. It seems to me the post pathetic person in the world is the one who has lost his faith. I see him, and I am forced to agree that the atheist is better off, because God can still reach him.

I think that an obvious response here is being overlooked. If grace is attained by one's faith, then why if one abandons that faith must the abandonment be seen as works? One could reasonably turn against Christ without displaying "bad" works. Therefore as one is saved by faith, BW could argue one can also loose salvation by faith.

I don't think I'm arguing that that abandonment be seen as works, or even be demonstrated by it. Again, grace saves, not faith. That is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the Christian faith. Faith does not save. Faith in Jesus Christ does not save. Asking Christ to forgive you of your sins does not save. God saves. His grace saves. How does He apply it? Through our faith.

See, if you put faith in Christ, He then "credits" you with righteousness. That is, He justifies, sanctifies, and seals you. The Spirit then indwells you if that faith is genuine. Given this, works WILL come. It isn't a matter of if. It would be rather like planting an apple tree and being shocked when apples grew. It is just a part of the process. That is, apples are the product of a certain set of circumstances. In the same way, if the believer is truly saved, he will bear the fruit of the Spirit. His works are a product of his faith (Jesus attested to this as well).

The abandoning of our faith does not negate our place in Christ as legal sons. Rather, it cuts off our root system, if you will. We can no longer bear fruit. That, of course, does not mean that you will look "bad" on the outside, but surely you recognize that you WILL bear "bad" fruit, at least, on the inside. The sin of unbelief is a terrible one, and God will not be mocked.

So, I still hold to my position that a works based salvation does not save. It is a grace based salvation that saves, and that is achieved through faith, and it results in good works. Where there are no works, we may infer (though not conclude), that there is no grace, and thus, there is no faith.