Once saved, always saved?

[Kurieuo]

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)

Thanks for that, you've saved me some time trying to gather my own thoughts, as it seems to confirm what I was touching on near the beginning of this thread, and have come to believe :

throughout this discussion I'm beginning to think there is perhaps a three-fold understanding of the three based on tense (i.e., past, present, and future)... and I think your three-fold understanding of "saved" above also hints at this. In other words—and I am only developing my thoughts on this and offering them up as something to work with—it could be said I am saved, being saved and will be saved; I am justified, being justified and will be justified; I am sanctified, being sanctified and will be sanctified. I can see truth to each one, which suggests to me that though such is perplexing, it can't be illogical. Instead it must be a paradox (funny how in Christianity they come in 3's ), or a matter that requires more careful analysis and deeper reasoning.

I really think something like this is the true position. It's just a matter of working out the details of what is involved within each of the three aspects of sanctification, justification and salvation. I'd also suggest it needs to be worked out in such a way that aspects within one do not loose meaning by a later aspect. For example, with the first aspect of sanctification which happens when we come to Christ, it shouldn't be robbed of meaning of us being fully purified, even though sanctification is also onging. From my own prelinary thinking, I believe it is possible. However, if this concept of having three aspects to each is considered, it doesn't seem to be a matter of once justified always justified, or once saved always saved, or even once sanctified always sanctified... Rather it seems to be the case that a much deeper analysis required on the various three aspects within each. So it may be true by one aspect, that once one is saved they are always saved, but in another aspect of salvation it may not be true. I think this important to grasp, but I am wondering whether it is this coming across clearly?

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.

This sounds more aligned with what I'd consider correct, but I'm not sure how it impacts upon your OSAS position. For example, the result of sanctification is justification, and the result of justification is salvation. But if these results (justification and salvation) are dependant on our abiding in Christ and the Spirit vice-versa, then what of once saved always saved?

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'm not sure but it sounds like you've shifted somewhat now you are touching on the different aspects of sanctification. Felgar believed this passage in 2 Peter 2 did not refer to the saved person, and so I am somewhat taken back that you agree with me that it does (and you also made a stronger case by offering up the Hebrews passage). This means the point of divergence to maintain a OSAS position would be focusing upon what it means for the fallen Christian "to be worse off" having never known Christ. I do not consider it to be just a lack of reward (whatever "reward" may mean, which needs further espousing I think). I'd much prefer to have no reward and be in the direct presense of God, rather than have no reward and be left in outer darkness away from the source of all light (i.e., God).

Felgar and I also had additional exchanges after the part you responded to just now. Although I think the point I was arguing is mute with you, seeing as your accept the passage is referring to the saved.

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.

I got picky with OhHenry about this exact same thing at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?p=1430 . That is, its not faith that saves but grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Both are actually required. If no faith is involved in obtained God's grace as offered through Christ, then salvation would become universal so that even Satan is saved. However, you still hold onto salvation being ultimately applied through our faith (if you could, please read my words on faith the thread I just linked to, to understand more fully what I mean by this word). So it still stands to reason that as salvation is by grace through our faith, that a loss of continual faith breaks down the continual application of grace, which would lead to a loss of continual salvation. Yet, please note that I still strongly believe we can have assurance of salvation.

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.

But that wasn't being argued at all, at least not by me. What I challenged to think more deeply one was your OSAS theology in relation to certain passage. However, it seems that you've shifted a bit towards having a threefold aspect understanding to some extent. Perhaps we are no longer far apart? I'm not certain.

Kurieuo.

[Felgar]

So it still stands to reason that as salvation is by grace through our faith, that a loss of continual faith breaks down the continual application of grace, which would lead to a loss of continual salvation. Yet, please note that I still strongly believe we can have assurance of salvation.

That is really the crux of it, isn't it? If OSAS does NOT hold, how could we ever have 'assurance of salvation?' Perhaps if you can convey your own thoughts on THAT particular concept, I'll further consider your position. At times every person on Earth (including Christians) will question God - indeed even the apostles did many times. Nowadays that can happen when someone loses a close family member, etc.

Tell me, would Peter have been saved had someone stabbed him in the back when he was denying Jesus? What about those times that they were all questioning Jesus? What if one of them tripped and accidently fell on his sword? The notion that you must die in some perfect sinnless state in order to be saved in ludicrous to me - because then in that case salvation would depend more on luck on whether I'm hit with a bus at the wrong time than in my Faith and heart after God.

Contrast that conclusion with the concept that just as Jesus' sacrifice was timeless (paying for Abraham's sin) through history, so too is it timeless through our lives. The single sacrifice attones for all one's sin - past, present, and future. It just has to be that way...

P.S. I guess I'll concede the 2 Peter passage, though I thought I might have been on to something with the Word breaking bondage for even those who aren't saved.

[BavarianWheels]

This sounds more aligned with what I'd consider correct, but I'm not sure how it impacts upon your OSAS position. For example, the result of sanctification is justification, and the result of justification is salvation. But if these results (justification and salvation) are dependant on our abiding in Christ and the Spirit vice-versa, then what of once saved always saved?

I'm a bit confused here.

The result of sanctification is justification?

I disagree. There is no change prior to justification other than realizing one is a sinner in need of a Savior.

Justification comes first. First we are declared perfect. Then the process of Sanctification begins. It is a process that works towards perfection...but perfection never ever comes during this lifetime...we don't even come close! Sanctification is finished at Christ's second coming when the saved put on immortality and are made new literally. That process is then called glorification.

We've been justified and are being sanctified to later be glorified...all by grace through faith.
*
*
*
I've noticed everyone has disregarded everything I've posted.

Am I some kind of step-child being ignored?
.
.

[RGeeB]

Justification comes first. First we are declared perfect. Then the process of Sanctification begins. It is a process that works towards perfection...but perfection never ever comes during this lifetime...we don't even come close! Sanctification is finished at Christ's second coming when the saved put on immortality and are made new literally. That process is then called glorification.

We've been justified and are being sanctified to later be glorified...all by grace through faith.

BW, your posts are the easiest to read . However, it appears that this subject has now evolved to only suit complicated arguments!

What do people interpret as 'overcome' in Jesus' letters in Revelation?

[Kurieuo]

The result of sanctification is justification?

What is one justified of, unless their sins have been taken away?

Justification comes first. First we are declared perfect. Then the process of Sanctification begins.

I don't think we're worlds apart here... but which one really comes first? You say first we are declared perfect, but how can this be so unless we were previously made perfect?

It is a process that works towards perfection...but perfection never ever comes during this lifetime...we don't even come close!

That is all very well, but then we're also taking into account 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. " These are all presented in past tense, and so need to be explained. Jac and I choose to take a path where there are different aspects to sanctification, and the process you talk of above could be said the be the second aspect to sanctification. Yet, I would disagree it is truely a process towards perfection (moral perfection), as I believe we have already been perfected through Christ (Hebrews 10:10). However, although we may have been sanctified before God, there is still a growing and maturing in Christ we can undergo. This is perhaps what I'd call the second aspect to sanctification—becoming more Christ-like. It is no longer something of works, as though we are still under law and they somehow amount to something towards our perfection or salvation; rather, we are under grace which annuls any works we do, and is instread replaced with something greater—a pure relationship between us and God, and our becoming more Christ-like is a natural outworking of this relationship.

There may be something further I've said you'd like to pick on , but this is what I have come to understand and believe based on where Scripture has lead me to.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

So it still stands to reason that as salvation is by grace through our faith, that a loss of continual faith breaks down the continual application of grace, which would lead to a loss of continual salvation. Yet, please note that I still strongly believe we can have assurance of salvation.

That is really the crux of it, isn't it? If OSAS does NOT hold, how could we ever have 'assurance of salvation?' Perhaps if you can convey your own thoughts on THAT particular concept, I'll further consider your position. At times every person on Earth (including Christians) will question God - indeed even the apostles did many times. Nowadays that can happen when someone loses a close family member, etc.

I agree this is an important issue.

Tell me, would Peter have been saved had someone stabbed him in the back when he was denying Jesus?

No, because his faith was clearly still in Christ. Even though he failed in the weakness of his flesh, his heart sank and his grieving revealed where his true faith lied. Our faith is not something that can be robbed in a moment, and our faith is all that is required to receive God's grace.

What about those times that they were all questioning Jesus? What if one of them tripped and accidently fell on his sword? The notion that you must die in some perfect sinnless state in order to be saved in ludicrous to me - because then in that case salvation would depend more on luck on whether I'm hit with a bus at the wrong time than in my Faith and heart after God.

It seems ludicrous to me also, and I outrightly reject that in moments of sin that we loose salvation. Rather, it is a total turning away from God, so that our faith becomes set against God, I believe we loose a continual supply of grace which is based on our faith. This faith could be eroded by persistent rebellion as in the case of the teachers in 2 Peter 2. Yet, this takes time and persistence on our part, until we eventually reach a state where we really don't care what God thinks anymore. Such people are worse off than those who never knew God.

Given this, we can really know if we are saved, because we know whether we care what God thinks—for example, whether we are pained in our soul whenever we fail God. Yet, if we persist in those actions regardless (and I believe we really have to fight against the Holy Spirit to do so), our faith will eventually become corrupt to the point we simply do not care anymore and/or we turn against God.

To provide an analogy, consider this. Imagine a moment in which you got angry at and fought with someone you're close to. Did you stop loving them in that moment you were angry? Words might get exchanged to the effect you hate each other, but even though we say such things we really know we don't mean them as a deeper relationship exists. Perhaps if there was a persistence in fighting, and continual breakdown in the relationship, things would eventually change. But we would really have to work at destroying the relationship, to the point we no longer care about someone we love. I believe it is no different with Christ. As long as we know we love Him, our faith is obviously in Him. This is how we can have assurance of salvation despite what we do, because we are saved by grace through faith, and we can know our faith directly because it is ours.

Kurieuo.

[Felgar]

Yet, this takes time and persistence on our part, until we eventually reach a state where we really don't care what God thinks anymore. Such people are worse off than those who never knew God.

Again though, the biggest problem I have here that it's nearly impossible to define the point at which that gradual process of losing Faith is complete. I do understand your point about each person knowing, but I'd sooner have Faith in Him than in myself... (if you see what I'm getting at there)

So you would argue then that at some point the Holy Spirit would actually leave a person? After all, the Holy Spirit plays a huge role in convicting of of our sin. So where we no longer have any conviction at all, and have not Faith (after some time of denying God) then it could be said that one has lost grace. Does that summarize your position?

[BavarianWheels]

The result of sanctification is justification?

What is one justified of, unless their sins have been taken away?

Fromt the curse of the law. (Gal. 3:13)

Justification comes first. First we are declared perfect. Then the process of Sanctification begins.

I don't think we're worlds apart here... but which one really comes first? You say first we are declared perfect, but how can this be so unless we were previously made perfect?

Are we literally "made" perfect or declared perfect?

John 17:19 alludes to a true sanctification.

It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

...and the "should be sanctified" then lists some areas of need for the believer.

It is a process that works towards perfection...but perfection never ever comes during this lifetime...we don't even come close!

That is all very well, but then we're also taking into account 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. " These are all presented in past tense, and so need to be explained. Jac and I choose to take a path where there are different aspects to sanctification, and the process you talk of above could be said the be the second aspect to sanctification. Yet, I would disagree it is truely a process towards perfection (moral perfection), as I believe we have already been perfected through Christ (Hebrews 10:10).

Is it literal perfection or is it a declared statement of Christ [God] by grace through faith? If Christ were to return at this moment...then yes...it is past tense. Therein lies the crux...the believer need not worry about where in the process of sanctification Christ's return finds s/he in. In fact, just as the Thief on the Cross...we see there really was no 'real' time for sanctification. He believed and salvation was credited to him by his faith. But since we have very few of these examples even in scripture, we shouldn't put off our faith til tomorrow because tomorrow might not come. Today, if we hear His voice...

However, although we may have been sanctified before God, there is still a growing and maturing in Christ we can undergo. This is perhaps what I'd call the second aspect to sanctification—becoming more Christ-like. It is no longer something of works, as though we are still under law and they somehow amount to something towards our perfection or salvation; rather, we are under grace which annuls any works we do, and is instread replaced with something greater—a pure relationship between us and God, and our becoming more Christ-like is a natural outworking of this relationship.

**claps vigorously**

Yes this is it! However, no one has ever been "under law" that salvation might come through it. The works we do are not *FOR* salvation...they are...you said it..."a natural outworking of this relationship!!

There may be something further I've said you'd like to pick on , but this is what I have come to understand and believe based on where Scripture has lead me to.

No more on this post at least.

[Kurieuo]

Yet, this takes time and persistence on our part, until we eventually reach a state where we really don't care what God thinks anymore. Such people are worse off than those who never knew God.

Again though, the biggest problem I have here that it's nearly impossible to define the point at which that gradual process of losing Faith is complete. I do understand your point about each person knowing, but I'd sooner have Faith in Him than in myself... (if you see what I'm getting at there)

I would classify the Atheist Dan Barker as an example of someone who changed, and whose faith evidently turned against God. While it might be hard for a Christian who looses their faith to define the exact point it was lost; it is likewise often hard for someone who becomes a Christian to know the specific moment they began believing and became a Christian. However, just because it may be nearly impossible to define "the point" of change, it doesn't mean there isn't one or that change isn't possible. I'm also not sure whether the change should be necessarily defined at one specific point (though there may be one point that can stick out in a person's mind), but rather the process of change could perhaps be just that—a process.

As for having faith in Him rather than yourself, I'm actually not sure how this may have been read into something I said. But I would agree with you that one should have faith (that is, "trust") in God, and not themselves. But, what I attempted to convey is not that one should have faith in their own self, but rather that they can have assurance of their own "faith" (the deeper sense of faith I described elsewhere), that it is truely for God, because they directly know their own thoughts, and feelings, and so forth.

So you would argue then that at some point the Holy Spirit would actually leave a person?

I feel uncomfortable with how that is phrased. I see it as more we leave God, and actually have to battle against the Holy Spirit in order to break free. Yet, perhaps this continual persistence to turn against God, and then outrightly speaking evil against God, is what Christ refers to as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:31). Interestingly, Christ says blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the one sin that can't be forgiven us. And this would also be consistent with the passage Jac pointed out in Hebrews 6:4-6, which says: "4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." And so I would conclude therefore, that God simply hands such a person over to themselves, that the Holy Spirit stops trying to draw them in and allows them to go their way. I'd sincerely hate to be such a person.

After all, the Holy Spirit plays a huge role in convicting of of our sin. So where we no longer have any conviction at all, and have not Faith (after some time of denying God) then it could be said that one has lost grace. Does that summarize your position?

Yes, that is pretty much it. Loss of conviction would be a definate sign for a Christian that they have lost their faith. But then I think a loss of conviction to only be a sign. To the extent one stops caring about those convicted feelings, about what God would think, and even to the point of railing against God, then these are sure signs one's faith has fully turned against God. For someone to reach that point, it would be as evident to them, as it would be to Dan Barker who I'm certain would clearly know that he no longer accepts or cares about God. While he may have received God's grace if he truely placed his faith in Christ, God's continual grace would have stopped being provided once his faith turned against God. Therefore it may not be a matter of grace being lost, but simply a matter of grace no longer being poured out.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

BW,

I don't want you to feel ignored , so I'm just letting you know I think we've come to a general agreement about things. So I don't particularly feel the need to argue for the particular points you may disagree with by themselves, especially because I myself would mostly disagree with my own points if they were to be taken on their own without any further explanation. Yet it seems when taken collectively as a whole we would appear to be a lot in agreement, as your final remarks also indicate.

Kurieuo.

[Jac3510]

Wow... see, there is just TOO much to respond to, here. So, let me just hit the highlights (you'll notice a lack of Scripture references . . . if anyone wants any, I'll either make a new post with them or edit this one. Most of this is more doctrinal, and therefore, simple proof-texting is insufficient):

It's just a matter of working out the details of what is involved within each of the three aspects of sanctification, justification and salvation.

Well, since we've gotten this deep, let me just throw in a monkey wrench here

First, I am going to disagree that the "three phases" are 1) justification, 2) sanctification, and 3) salvation (in any order you please). The simple question to prove this is: "Three phases of what?" Answer: the three phases of salvation! If we want to be more literal, we should refer to 1) Justification, 2) Regeneration, 3) Sanctification, 4) Glorification (or Redemption). These are all absolutely essential for the complete process of salvation. We often ignore regeneration (to our detriment), but it has now come strongly to bear on this discussion, I think.

Now, to continue . . . I further disagree that there are three aspects of any of these except sanctification. That is, I do not believe we are "justified, being justified, and will be justified." Insert the words "regenerated" and "glorified" and you can equally state my positions there, as well.

Concerning justification, I actually define it this way: the judicial act of God whereby a sinner is declared righteous through faith in Jesus Christ.

Every single word of that definition has been carefully thought out and vitally to my understanding of the doctrine. If you (plural) disagree with any of it, you'll disagree with my entire understanding of salvation!

Concerning regeneration, as it has so far been ignored, this refers to the process Jesus spoke of in John 3 . . . that is, the regenerated man is the man who has been born again. All verses that speak of this and/or the creation of a new man/nature, etc. bear on this doctrine. In relationship to justification, it appears to happen in the same moment.

We then come to this idea of sanctification. Thinking for the moment of only positional sanctification, this, too, happens at the moment of justification and regeneration. This doctrine is described by all verses that discuss the baptism (not filling) of the Spirit. It is the act whereby God joins a person to the Body of Christ. The regenerate man is sanctified.

These three "phases" are not to be thought as progressional, but rather as interdependent. The sinner is justified, regenerated, and sanctified. It is VERY wrong to say that the sinner is justified, regenerated, then sanctified. It betrays, in my mind, a misunderstanding of the relationship between the first three aspects of this.

We can now see why the first two of these are one-time-only events. Justification is a single declaration, and regeneration is also a single act of God. Both have accomplished their purposes. This is also true of positional sanctification. But, we then come to all the verses where we are called to persevere--I love 2 Cor. 7:1. In that verse, we are told to cleanse ourselves so as to perfect holiness (same root as "sanctify"). That is, we are to work throughout life to be progressively sanctified--that is, to be made more and more into the likeness of Christ. NOTICE: the first three parts have been entirely the work of God! It is here, and only here, that we begin to work. But, even here, we work with His help. Our works are only possible in His grace, but we work out our salvation. It is this mutual relationship that results in progressive sanctification.

Therefore, we say that we WERE sanctified, positionaly. We are being sanctified, progressively. We will be sanctified, perfectly. If, in fact, you want to get VERY technical, we can totally reject the idea of "three aspects of sanctification" all the way around! Why? The reason is that positional, progressive, and perfective sanctification are all just as distinct doctrines as are regeneration, justification, and glorification.

To further provide evidence for this, it would be absurd to say that we "were glorified, are being glorified, and will be glorified." I thoroughly reject the idea that we have yet been or are being glorified! That will only happen in heaven (again, I refer to Lewis' The Weight of Glory for a good paper that completely agrees with my idea of glorification).

So, hopefully I've continued to lay out my position a little more clearly, as well as "wor[k] out the details of what is involved" in this idea of salvation

For example, the result of sanctification is justification, and the result of justification is salvation. But if these results (justification and salvation) are dependant on our abiding in Christ and the Spirit vice-versa, then what of once saved always saved?

Hopefully, my above explanation will answer this question. I agree partially with Bav here that justification is not the result of sanctification . . .

You can see that in my view, salvation itself is brought about by justification, regeneration, and positional sanctification. These are all acts of God that cannot be undone. The loss of progressive sanctification does not change the fact that we are still justified, regenerated, and sanctified. If they did, it would render them not at all completed actions (as the perfect tense of the uses of all these words in the Greek tells us!), but rather as ongoing processes (which would have required an imperfect tense, which, interestingly enough, is used of none of these!!!).

I'd much prefer to have no reward and be in the direct presense of God

This keeps getting deeper. I'll have to pick on this word "reward" here. In my thinking, you cannot lose your "reward" (which is Christ Himself), but you CAN lose your inheritance (though I haven't been so hard on this throughout this post, but giving the level we are at now . . . ). The inheritance is completely based on your works, which, again, is directly linked to progressive sanctification . . .

In any case, I still think the fallen Christian is a far more pitiful specimen than an unregenerate sinner, and I think you could see how I could get that out of the text, given God's point of view.

However, it seems that you've shifted a bit towards having a threefold aspect understanding to some extent. Perhaps we are no longer far apart?

I've not shifted. I've clarified, I think . . . as to how far we are apart, I'll let you decide on that

So it still stands to reason that as salvation is by grace through our faith, that a loss of continual faith breaks down the continual application of grace, which would lead to a loss of continual salvation.

This, it seems to me, is the basic place we disagree. Salvation does not come from continual application of grace, but rather through a single application of it. These are one time legal actions, as defined above. The continual application of grace results in the progressional salvation and builds our rewards (inheritance) in heaven . . . this is a far cry from saying that continual grace results in salvation!

Justification comes first. First we are declared perfect. Then the process of Sanctification begins. It is a process that works towards perfection...but perfection never ever comes during this lifetime...we don't even come close! Sanctification is finished at Christ's second coming when the saved put on immortality and are made new literally. That process is then called glorification

See, this is part of the problem. The vocabulary is right, but if you read the first part of this particular reply, you'll see why I disagree with this statement, although it is sound on the surface. I don't agree with your linear approach to salvation, and this, it seems to me, is exactly why we disagree on OSAS. You see, in your view, there are "three steps" from sinner to resurrected saint. All three are required in completion. For example, if I want to go to my refrigerator, I have to take about twenty steps. I have to take all twenty steps, at that. I can't take fourteen and then expect to be able to open the door.

So, it seems to me that you view the process of salvation as something of a journey, with a start and finishing point. It has a beginning (justification), a life-path (sanctification), and a finish line (glorification). I HIGHLY disagree with that model. Hopefully, you can see why I would squarely place this into a "salvation by works" category.

I've noticed everyone has disregarded everything I've posted.

I think I've responded to every single point you've made throughout this point that was directed to me, no? Did I miss something? In the massive text we've had, I may have . . . if so, my apologies.

Now, the rest of this wasn't really directed at me, so I'll not further comment on those replies.

I will just again reiterate that my basic, original argument has yet to be attacked, much less refuted! It has so far been agreed that justification IS a permanent condition. It is a LEGAL declaration of God. Therefore, I argued then, and I maintain now, on the authority of the Word of God, that the Justified person is the Born Again person is the Regenerated person is the Redeemed person is the Saved person. NOTHING the person can do, not even the removal of faith, can change that. For the details on this argument, I simply refer back to my initial statements, as well as my basic question:

Can a justified person find himself in Hell?

I simply say "no."

[Felgar]

Quick note to Kurieuo that I will respond in depth when I get the chance. Expect me to explore the notion that while our own hearts and will may fail, God's never will. He will never leave us or forsake us. Just to give you a little forshadowing; like I said I'll respond in depth when I get some time.

Meanwhile, thanks again for the input Jac. Since we've gone this far (and you sort of skirted the issue) what do you believe is actually entailed in the 'inheritance' which I've been referring to as heavenly reward?

[BavarianWheels]

Justification comes first. First we are declared perfect. Then the process of Sanctification begins. It is a process that works towards perfection...but perfection never ever comes during this lifetime...we don't even come close! Sanctification is finished at Christ's second coming when the saved put on immortality and are made new literally. That process is then called glorification

See, this is part of the problem. The vocabulary is right, but if you read the first part of this particular reply, you'll see why I disagree with this statement, although it is sound on the surface. I don't agree with your linear approach to salvation, and this, it seems to me, is exactly why we disagree on OSAS. You see, in your view, there are "three steps" from sinner to resurrected saint. All three are required in completion. For example, if I want to go to my refrigerator, I have to take about twenty steps. I have to take all twenty steps, at that. I can't take fourteen and then expect to be able to open the door.

So, it seems to me that you view the process of salvation as something of a journey, with a start and finishing point. It has a beginning (justification), a life-path (sanctification), and a finish line (glorification). I HIGHLY disagree with that model. Hopefully, you can see why I would squarely place this into a "salvation by works" category.

I only have time to respond to this point right now.

It may be that you assume "my" process of salvation is a set course...one that all must follow. That is not so. As we have been given the example of the Thief of the Cross...Justification, Sanctification,...and salvation can occur all at once. It depends if the person is justified by coming to Christ and then dies or continues to live. (btw, I don't believe the theif was glorified literally that day...or yet.) If the person is like most...comes to the knowledge of Christ and gives his/her heart in faith, then the process of sanctification starts. They start to learn the ways of Christianity...certain things are left behind and others are picked up in their place more in accord with Christian living...some find need to quit smoking, or gambling, or live a more honest life, or be better stewards of their monies.

So in short, no...it is not a set path that everyone goes through. Everyone is different, but the basics are the same. One may experience a lifetime of sanctification, others may not be as "corrupt" as others and not have to learn some things.

Ultimately everyone is sanctified. Short-term or long-term...everyone goes through it. And it cannot start prior to justification. It cannot start prior to submitting to Christ and the life now lead by the Spirit.

BTW...where is regeneration mentioned in scripture and how does it differ from sanctification? They seem like one in the same to me.
.
.

[Anonymous]

I did not read all the posts in this thread. I read the first five or six and then the last, to see how far the talk had gone. Forgive me if this has already bin addressed but here is my view:
Yes once saved always saved.
There was sin before there was law but there was no penalty, then came knowledge (the law) and with the law came death.
Christ is the final death and blood for all sin past present and future. If I accept Christ as Lord within the very center of my being (heart) and confess with my mouth the same I am saved past present future. Now knowing we are released from the law and that all things are lawful we still conduct or selfs as examples of or Lord. A belief in Christ must include all of what He and the Word say he is: the full payment of sin and the fulfillment of the law. All of the law is good for instruction but it no longer is a "score card" of what we do. It is not for judgement because we are released from judgment by the final atonement of Christ. Do we eat drink and be merry without concern of right and wrong? No, we believe Christ is or Lord( leader, commander, owner) we do as or Lord desires, will we fail? surely. Will He forgive? surely. Anyone that says you can screw up your salvation makes salvation a thing you are in control of not Christ. Every one that accepts Christ will still sin, that is what we are, human so everyone that believes there is still punishment for sin says, in effect, "Christ was not enough for your salvation still depends on you holding up a perfect law with an imperfect body." We simply cant be perfect we were not made to be, only God is and it is by His grace (in Christ) that we can still have a relationship with Him in our sinful state. To say we can somehow become perfect by our own acts is to lump Christianity in with the other beliefs of self sanctification. Christianity places all the payment of sin on Christ.
All that being said I would like to add there is one sin that Christ said was not forgiven and that is blasphamy of the Holy Spirit. I am sure there will be lots of talk of this so... first I say the Holy Spirit is Gods actions in the earth, therefor, blasphemy of the act of God in the earth would be to say, "God does not act in the earth," or clearer,.."God has nothing to do with anything on earth today." If in your heart you truly believe that God has no action on earth than you deny Christ, for Christ said he leaves us with the Holy Spirit and to deny that is to deny Christ, deny Christ and all hope of salvation is gone. Can a Christian deny the Holy Spirit? No. I think the real question is do you truly believe in the very center of you life(heart) that Christ is your Lord?

[BavarianWheels]

I did not read all the posts in this thread. I read the first five or six and then the last, to see how far the talk had gone. Forgive me if this has already bin addressed but here is my view:
Yes once saved always saved.
There was sin before there was law but there was no penalty, then came knowledge (the law) and with the law came death.

If there was sin prior to law, why is it the scriptures tell us that the law points to sin? If sin is a transgression of law, how and why was Lucifer thrown from heaven and put on earth? If there was sin but no law...what was Eve's (and Adam's) sin? If sin was in the earth prior to law, what was God's "justice" in the flood?

Christ is the final death and blood for all sin past present and future. If I accept Christ as Lord within the very center of my being (heart) and confess with my mouth the same I am saved past present future.

If we do as the scriptures tell us to do. Keep faithfull, follow, persevere, grow in knowledge... One cannot be saved and return to their prior life without change.

Now knowing we are released from the law and that all things are lawful

Oh great...so again...if someone enters your house and steals all your belongings and rapes your women...they've committed no sin in your eyes. They are only guilty in our civil system of law. That's a good one!

...we still conduct or selfs as examples of or Lord. A belief in Christ must include all of what He and the Word say he is: the full payment of sin and the fulfillment of the law. All of the law is good for instruction but it no longer is a "score card" of what we do.

If it is good for instruction, it remains as it was meant from the beginning. It was never meant to be a "score card"...that score card thing was man's misrepresentation of the law. Notice the NT tells us Abraham was credited with righteousness just like we are...through faith...and as proof of his faith it was his works that were the evidence of true faith.

"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

It is not for judgement because we are released from judgment by the final atonement of Christ. Do we eat drink and be merry without concern of right and wrong? No,

If we believe as you say above...that the law is good for instruction, why is it only one point in the law we are ever against?

...we believe Christ is or Lord( leader, commander, owner) we do as or Lord desires, will we fail? surely. Will He forgive? surely. Anyone that says you can screw up your salvation makes salvation a thing you are in control of not Christ.

Then why does Christ "stand at the door and knock" if He is in control? What are we in control of if He knocks? Shouldn't or wouldn't the one in control just open the door? The truth is...it is we that are in control of our salvation. If we put trust in Christ...then it is sure. It is Christ that controls salvation, but is it we that put our trust in Him.

Every one that accepts Christ will still sin, that is what we are, human so everyone that believes there is still punishment for sin says, in effect, "Christ was not enough for your salvation still depends on you holding up a perfect law with an imperfect body."

If the law is good for instruction, there still remains sin...and the deceiver is still out there. Notice Christ warns us not to be deceived. How can we be deceived if Christ is in control?????

We simply cant be perfect we were not made to be

Oh really...explain Adam and Eve

...only God is and it is by His grace (in Christ) that we can still have a relationship with Him in our sinful state. To say we can somehow become perfect by our own acts is to lump Christianity in with the other beliefs of self sanctification. Christianity places all the payment of sin on Christ.

Well...you got these few words correct.
.
.